Silent Sam two months later: What did we learn?

A few weeks ago during a live program on Fox Business, Colonel Ralph Peters said President Obama was weak on terrorism, labeling him a “total pussy.” Following the incident, I heard many students arguing whether Colonel Peters’ comment was disrespectful to the president.

I didn’t, however, hear anybody talking about whether Peter’s comment was effective in making his point.

Over two months ago, UNC students who walked through McCorkle Place bore witness to a protest charged with anger, passion and for many, fear. Two groups faced off in a protest over the Confederate monument on campus, Silent Sam. The monument was built to honor former UNC students who died fighting in the Civil War, but some say the statue is a symbol of racism on campus.

My reaction to Colonel Peters’ comment about President Obama reminded me of how I reacted to the Silent Sam protests. A month later, I have the same thought: it is important we have opinions, but it is equally as important to communicate them effectively.

Prior to the protests, I was uncertain as to whether the statue should be taken down. I understood why students felt threatened and upset by the statue, but I also understood why others are troubled with the concept of “erasing” what they consider a historical monument.

I also understand these arguments are more complex than that. In an effort to educate myself and perhaps come to terms with my own feelings about such a heated topic on campus, I decided to attend the protests. It was my hope I would walk away more knowledgeable and possibly with an informed stance on the issue.

Unfortunately, I didn’t learn much at all. Instead, I watched for hours as the two groups screamed, cursed and even threatened each other. As the protests progressed, I found myself increasingly frustrated by both groups.

Photo credit: Sumner Park

To be clear, I am not judging the arguments in favor of or against keeping Silent Sam on campus. Rather, I am suggesting the tactics for communicating these were ineffective and can be drastically improved.

The two groups began their protests on opposite sides of the statue, but quickly merged to a common point where they started to argue. My first impression was of a man who spoke on behalf of the “pro-statue” group. He argued that keeping the statue had nothing to do with advocating for the Confederacy or for racism. Instead, he said, his group did not believe in “erasing history,” especially for a statue honoring fallen UNC students.

But I couldn’t understand why this man thought this message would be clearly communicated by waving one hundred plus Confederate flags in the face of the other group.

Likewise, I asked another “pro-statue” protester why his group thought it would be effective in communicating that his group was not promoting racism by so prominently displaying a symbol seen by the other group as racist. He said they didn’t care what the Confederate flag signified to other people, because to them, it signified history.

The problem with this logic is that the point of protest should not be to convince people who already agree with each other to agree with each other more. The objective is to effectuate some sort of change, which means tailoring your tactics – not your message – to most effectively engage antagonistic or neutral people.

Photo credit: Sumner Park

I found myself equally confused with protesters in the “anti-statue” group, many of whom refused to engage in dialogue at all. When members of the “pro-statue” group spoke, many “anti-statue” protesters would chant phrases over them like, “fuck you” or “go home you racist fuck.”

One man in the “anti-statue” group said: “We don’t want to hear what they have to say. We want them to go home.”

The problem with trying to drown out or eliminate speech you consider hateful is twofold. First, for bystanders like me, it takes away our chance to hear and challenge this speech, and possibly our chance to decide what we disagree with it.

Second, by refusing to let another group speak, it can appear as though you don’t have anything substantive to say. I am certain every member of the “anti-statue” group would disagree should someone suggest they don’t have valuable points. It is imperative they understand the message their protest is sending, which is not necessarily what it intends to convey.

One “anti-statue” protester was chanting and screaming, and demanded the “pro-statue” group “go home’ immediately. A clearly frustrated bystander explained to him that by refusing to engage in any dialogue, he couldn’t change the minds of the other group. The protester responded by saying it was impossible to change their minds, suggesting everyone protesting was already too entrenched in their beliefs to be persuaded.

And to an extent, I agree. Completely swaying any of the protesters that day to “the other side” was highly unlikely. There were, however, dozens if not hundreds of bystanders like me. Our minds can be changed. We are why communicating your ideas effectively matters.

The most beautiful thing about opinions is how emotionally charged they are, but if that emotion isn’t channeled properly, the intended message is lost. I also understand there are complex reasons these issues are so emotionally charged, and I’m not minimizing that.

Those reasons do not change the fact that profanity, swearing and a refusal to engage in dialogue might feel good, but they are almost always counterproductive if persuasion is the goal. Hopefully, the next on-campus protest will be full of the same passion and desire for change, but with less of the bombastic rhetoric.