Karie Fay
Commentary Editor

   Prejudice.  It's really nothing new.  It's all around us, and we recognize it when we see it.  Right?

   What is prejudice, then?  Is it solely in discriminating against a person based on skin color?  Perhaps we should include assumptions based on ethnicity, then, or culture.  Let's add religion - we surely all recognize that some people experience prejudice because of their choice of God.

   We must add bias based on sexual orientation; any reasonable person would have to agree that people are ridiculed and abused for their sexuality.  But haven't we covered all the bases?  Race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation.  Aren't these the only things we think about or act against with unfair, irrational "logic?"

   No, in all fairness, we must add  political persuasion.

   It wasn't always so.  Political parties were supposed to guide and inform, not to create controversy. 

   In America's youth, people lived in very rural areas.  They did not have access to education, and the flow of information was much slower.  This meant people may not have the ability to know the platform of any individual candidate.  Political parties provided this.

   Today, it's different.  Candidates' opinions vary even in the same party, and candidates switch parties commonly.  Now it seems like the only purpose they have is giving us a reason to fight.

   And we do.  Here in America, we obviously attack those who do not believe exactly as we believe.

   For instance, we make generalizations that focus on our differences, ignoring our common ground.  Instead of working together, recognizing we may come from different theoretical stances but we all want the best America possible, we point fingers, shout accusations and stomp our feet.  It's counterproductive and immature.  Inane, really.

   Nowhere is this as evident as in the rivalry of the Republicans versus the Democrats.  While most, I would venture, do not involve themselves so heavily in politics as to personally attack others, there are notable exceptions.  Of course, those few who shout will always overpower the many who only whisper.

   I get angry when I hear broad generalizations that are illogical, slanted or hypocritical.  It surrounds us constantly, bombarding us with lies.  "Democrats just want to take money from the rich," whines the Republican.  "Republicans only care about the rich!" cries the Democrat.  Enough already!'

   Such mischaracterizations were recently published in a Voice commentary.  "A Conservative Responds to Liberal Speakers" perpetuates this ignorance that threatens our country.  Various instances of conservative speakers subjected to immature personal attacks were mentioned.  And yes, they happened.

   But that's not the whole story.  Liberal speakers, too, are attacked every day by conservatives.  Yes, Republicans accuse the Democrats of doing exactly what they are doing themselves.  One had only to witness the verbal attack that Colt Roan, Thomas Carpenter and Nathan Nall committed on Seymour Hersh when he was gracious enough to speak at UAM.  When Hersh attempted to respond to their comments, he was shouted at and abused.  Even Hersh's attempts to ask them to move on proved fruitless.  They persisted in telling him he was wrong and they were right.  Their "logic" was clearly only argument based on personal emotion.

   Emotion is okay, but attacking another's beliefs because you don't see it that way and it makes you mad is wrong.

   Perhaps the biggest difference between the attacks on Ann Coulter and the others mentioned in "A Conservative," and the attack on Hersh, for instance, is that he never screamed it was like being attacked by terrorists, or some other such dramatic nonsense.  Of course, he didn't get hit with a pie, either.  (Coulter did.  She dodged creams pies thrown at her by two immature students.  But then, maybe it was because of the prejudiced, ignorant comments she made, such as advocating racial profiling and forcing other countries to be Christian.  Luckily, they only hit her in the shoulder.) 

   I do believe that a conservative speaker would be an excellent choice to speak at a Rockefeller Lecture.  However, a radical individual of either party would prove a poor choice.  Most people are moderates, as were the previous two speakers, Hersh and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  The fact of the matter is, most people just don't want to hear the extreme views of either Democrats or Republicans, and those are the individuals that receive the controversy.

   But whether Democrat or Republican, let's speak out about the issues that really matter.  Let us recognize that a college campus is exactly the place to talk about homosexuality, prejudice, wars, economic policies - and if you don't agree with the replies and opinions you receive, tough.  But don't stoop to personal attacks or say that because someone doesn't like President Bush, they are wrong.  Heck, more and more Republicans don't like him either. 

   Indeed, healthy debate can be stimulating.  Where it becomes destructive is when either side believes that only they have "the truth."  When you think that, chances are, you live in ignorance.

   And college should be about learning, and exposure to various beliefs, an end to ignorance and judgment.  We are here to provide the future of America; so we should be open to learning from "liberals" or "conservatives."  When the student is ready, the teacher will appear, as the saying goes.  UAM may indeed be "liberal," but why would you attend and learn from such, if you didn't believe it so? (For an informative article on Civic Indifference that touches on some of these points, click here.)

   So let's stop with the name calling.  Don't pretend that the other side has no logic or class.  It just might be you that's being referred to.

   It's a sad commentary in a country, built on the notion of every voice being heard, that we turn on each other and attack each other for our beliefs.  In a country so divided with troubles and strife, we work against each other, instead of counting ourselves richer for our diversity.  Indeed, we all have something to gain from each other - regardless of our opinions.  If only we all would stop throwing food at each other - literally and figuratively.