Evergreen the
december 16, 2015
Everything Greenhill
volume 51, issue 3
Penetrating the Bubble An investigation of how political correctness affects communication at Greenhill A
t the beginning of the school year, two students that will remain anonymous to protect their identities, had a falling out. They were sitting in a classroom during a free period, chatting among their separate groups of friends. The two students have known each other for 12 years and were best friends for several of them. John, as we’ll call him throughout the story, started talking to a friend and jumping topics. Randomly, the idea of having a daughter came up. “I was saying to the other guy, you have a daughter, would you prefer her to be a lesbian then […] the idea of my daughter getting penetrated like sexually. To me penetration is like a power thing. Do I want another guy to do that with my daughter? Eh, no not really, but if she’s a lesbian you don’t really have that fear,” John said. Jane, as we will call her throughout the story, was within earshot of the conversation and felt that the comment was sexist. Any woman, even John’s future daughter, should be allowed to have sex with whomever she chooses, Jane said. His comments made her “pissed and frustrated”. So she confronted him and told him as much. She raised her voice, and, in the heat of the moment, called him a sexist. According to administrators, at Greenhill calling someone sexist is a fighting word. The conversation quickly escalated. John, who hadn’t purposely meant anything sexist by his comments, then took offense to Jane’s attack. He tried to explain himself, he said. Jane felt like he was “shutting her down”, she said. “He was still trying to correct me and tell me why I was wrong.”
John disagreed. He felt like she continued with an attack. “It was just really accusatory, really nasty stuff. [Jane] took one thing that I was saying and […] then made all these assumptions. She got really bitter and angry and started accusing me of other things,” said John. This type of argument is happening all the time – and not just at Greenhill. At high schools and colleges across the United States, students and teachers clash over the fine line between respectful speech and free speech. Diversity enriches education, but stifling conversation in an effort to respect this diversity can also endanger the academic progress, experts say. Unlike many schools that have shied away from debating the difference between free and offensive speech, Greenhill administrators have confronted this conversation by speaking at all school assemblies and in classes, trying to encourage students to air their differences. Nevertheless, administrators say that students are still learning how to communicate. This learning process is bound to be fraught with struggles. The trouble is the students naturally disagree about topics. Instead of talking through them, it often turns into “a debate,” says Director of Equity and Inclusion Dr. Karen Bradberry. “The difference between dialogue and debate is that debate has a winner. There’s a right and wrong, whereas a dialogue is the opposite. With dialogue, everyone is a winner. We all walk away knowing things that we didn’t know previously.” As a result, students do not feel safe expressing their views and they overcompensate by not talking or censoring speech. Dr.
Bradberry, believes that institutionalizing “political correctness” can cause an environment where people become hesitant to speak their mind in fear of offending someone. “I think political correctness at Greenhill, a better term for it would be a culture of niceness or perceived safety,” she said. Last year, in an attempt to combat this perceived culture of “niceness”, Greenhill ran a special series that encouraged students to openly speak about microaggressions. This campaign even received local media attention. The goal, according to Dr. Bradberry and Laura Ross, Head of Upper School, was to teach Greenhill students to respectfully disagree with each other and at the same time be aware of the consequences to what they say. “I think it’s hard to voice an opinion that’s thoughtful because it’s hard to get it out there thoughtfully,” Mrs. Ross said. Mrs. Ross said Greenhill is unique, because although it might have been challenging to have such conversations, some other schools aren’t even allowed to talk about each other’s differences the way that Greenhill does, she says. “I don’t want to be a school that’s afraid to talk about hard issues,” she said. Nevertheless, Greenhill can
strive to be b e t t e r, s a i d s ophomore Sloan Touchet. “ I ’ m uncomfortable with the fact that Greenhill as a community is content with being better than other schools. We should be striving to be the best Greenhill we can be, and I don’t think this is the best we can be.” Senior, President of Students Advocating Informed Decisions (SAID) club Meha Elhence said she feels that political correctness has some benefits. “I think at Greenhill, people are really afraid of the idea of political correctness sometimes because they feel like that will get them in trouble somehow, but I think that sometimes people forget to look at the reasons behind why political correctness exists,” Meha said. Other students want their peers to speak out more often. Junior Julia Halm said she has mixed opinions on the benefits of being politically correct. “I definitely think sometimes if you’re trying to be too politically correct you can’t really say anything or identify anyone.” Julia said. Students often look to their teachers for answers. But teachers are also trying hard to understand the nuances. In November and early December, Upper School English teacher Joel Garza was having discussions with students about
Views
News
Feat.
Arts
Greenhill’s oldest and weirdest clubs p.3
Eighth grade students create Humans of Greenhill bulletin board p. 4
Serving Greenhill since 1966
Staff members meet Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton p. 10
Editor Megan Wiora teaches how to make holiday sweaters p. 6
4141 Spring Valley Road, Addison, TX 75001
slavery and gender roles in Toni Morrison’s Beloved. Frequently, to preface his analysis, he would apologize for mentioning how a character embodied a certain stereotype. He says his frequent pauses came from a place of teaching and that he wanted to make sure no one thought that his generalizations about the story were true, and that in fact, they were just opinions. “If an author is trafficking in a stereotype, I want to be sure the student knows that the author knows,” Mr. Garza said. He wanted students to know that stereotypes were intentionally made by the author. So by prefacing the lesson, he says he tries to further the students’ understanding of the novel. As Greenhill students and faculty continue to learn how to engage in civil discourse, Dr. Bradberry cautions that words can hurt, and students should question rather than attack. Like the students that clashed over the word “sexist”, she says words cause lasting damage, and they can cause rifts among people who have been friends for years. “The reality is this: as a human being I have the right to do whatever I want to do, say whatever I want to say, believe whatever I want to believe. My right to make these decisions is not the issue,” Dr. Bradberry says. “The issue resides in my willingness to accept and live with the inevitable consequences of my decisions. To me the dissonance begins here when people do not want to accept the responsibility for the consequences of their words, actions, etc. This is the problem that needs to be addressed.” story by Madison Goodrich and Catherine Leffert graphic by Anurag Kurapati
Sports
Four freshman girls start on varsity basketball p. 12
evergreengreenhill.wordpress.com