The intensity and emotionality of these past few weeks has been palpable. I for one have spent much time, discussing the trial and protests, and as the media (I expose myself to) is saturated with updates on each, there must be few who have not at least heard of what is going on. My recent jury duty summon has provided me a unique opportunity to witness these events through a fresh lens, and I’d like to share my humble perspective.
The week I was called to jury duty was the same week of the announcement of the jury’s deliberation on the trial of Andre and Bryson. I was at the court house when the jury came out, unable to reach an agreement, when the judge urged them to continue deliberating. I’ve heard a lot of conflicting accounts of what the actual results are, but to my understanding, they have been convicted of the minor charges and a mistrial was declared for the major allegations against them. The following week, protest began at the Evergreen State College over the remarks of a professor, which many believe to be racist, and have developed into a platform for persons of color and other minorities to present a list of demands they want the school to acknowledge and adopt.
Although my experience in jury duty consisted mostly of waiting and listening to the proceedings and processes of our judicial system, and I was ultimately dismissed because the defendant pleaded guilty, having a taste of the jury duty process helped me realize how challenging it must be for a small group of people to come together to decide the fate of human life. There is so much pressure there, with very little explanation, preparation or training. One is simply told not to seek outside information, or communicate with anyone about the trail, and to remain unbiased throughout it all.
What must it have been like to sit on the jury for Andre and Bryson, to debate for days with strangers about the facts of the case, attempting to remain unbiased and uninfluenced by personal and public matters. Then to reach a stalemate, unable to achieve a consensus, and present that message to the eagerly awaiting public only to be sent back in to deliberate some more. The pressure was on, a decision had to be made. I am not saying they made the right or wrong choice, simply that the gravity and weight of the responsibility they held must have been overwhelming, and ultimately having to compromise on your stance, one way or another, downright conflicting.
From what I understand, when the protests arose at the Evergreen State College, community meetings and justice circles were held to try and resolve the conflict. There in, arose further conflict still— voices being silenced, people being shamed, and relationships fractured. I know, at least I hope, the people present went into these meetings with the ultimate desire to make peace, unfortunately some violent verbal interactions ensued in that process. It seems to me that the injustice felt by those involved with or following the proceedings of the trial, of which many were students at Evergreen, fueled the protests, as the two are connected under the national dialog of racial injustice. Both the trial and the protest have been highly emotionally charged, and for good reason. It is not the emotional involvement I wish to speak to, but how these emotions have influenced the dialog and actions of our community.
In my reading and discussion of Nonviolent Communication, I have learned to search for peoples feelings and needs in their words. It is clear that people feel mistreated and fearful of their safety and security, and need to be heard, acknowledged and for some form of change to occur. Whether or not the faculty’s language was racist or anything he has done since has been justified, and no matter the actions and policies of Evergreen administration and campus police, I believe the way in which the messages of the protestors (and perhaps more people, in each party involved) were presented, is as significant as what the messages contain, and the successful outcome that is desired is dependent on how they present themselves and their messages.
Many people believe that the louder you yell the more active and effective you are being. One thing I have learned from my Italian American family’s communication style is that just because you’re speaking the loudest, doesn’t mean anyone is truly listening. I include this because I think the American social norm of communication style, the style I was raised to normalize, tends to be quite combative and defensive. We try to win debates and prove ourselves to be the most right, etc. I believe the dialog of many activists today is still deeply imbedded in this form of communication.
And so, as I stated above, regardless of the actions and words of other, I think that approaching a conversation being open and willing to hear the feelings, needs and perspectives of others, and express our own without attacking or tearing down anyone will lead to more peaceable and steadfast outcomes. Telling another they are wrong, they are racist, they are guilty and to blame for anything, is not going to be well received by that person or group of people. Without respecting the other person (even if they don’t show respect in return) and their beliefs, values and opinions, a perpetuation of the same oppressive behavior results.
We’ve all heard these lessons before I presume: Two wrongs don’t make a right, treat others the way you want to be treated, be the change you want to see in the world, and there are alternatives to fighting. If one desires a certain outcome, it cannot be forced into existence—just the opposite I believe to be true. One must be flexible, receptive and adaptive, to be an example of what you’re striving for. If you want respect, you must be respectful- first and foremost.
There are absolutely times to get loud and make oneself heard, so long as it does not attack or shame others, and try and force them to change. Change in the behavior or beliefs of others can only be invited and encouraged, never made to be. We can change ourselves, work on our inner worlds, find firm grounding in our values, morals and beliefs and find ways to express them respectfully, to exude the behaviors we so desire in return.
One important lesson I’ve taken away from my experiences at GRuB is that disagreements and conflict are a welcomed thing, as they allow us the opportunity for growth and change, to connect deeper and understand one another more wholly. So long as they are approached with mutual respect and an openness to hear things we may not be comfortable with, they don’t have to be violent or harmful. A willingness to hear and try to understand the perspective of another, provides a unique opportunity for progressive growth.
I invite anyone reading this to reflect on your own experience with these same events (or others), to note how you’ve felt and reacted, how you’ve spoken up (if you did), and how your experience of political activism compares to what I’ve presented. Have your needs been met in the political or personal arena by means of violent communication? Have you ever responded to being personally shamed or attacked by immediately conceding and undergoing rapid change? Do you fight fire with fire? I know I have.
I am not proclaiming this to be the ultimate or perfect solution, not in the least. This is what I have observed, how I’ve interpreted and digested these matters, and my attempt to present an alternative dialog. I hope my position can be heard and respected, as I hope I have been respectful of each party and individual involved in these events.
Be First to Comment