KavaNAH or YAH?: Wesleyan’s Differing Reactions to Judge Kavanaugh
By Caroline Colbert ‘21
Last Saturday, I was in the midst of dirndls and lederhosen (coincidentally at an Oktoberfest-themed party) when I heard someone exclaim: “Yes! Kavanaugh’s nomination passed! I’m so happy!”
Stunned, I thought to myself, “How would someone like that go to Wesleyan?” But realistically, someone like “that” represents a large percentage of the United States. Upon further reflection, I realized that is something that Wesleyan lacks: political diversity. Or, at least, a space for open discussions about differing political views. Perhaps Wesleyan could bring more conservative speakers to campus, or the administration could hire faculty from different political demographics. In terms of creating a platform on which students could discuss their differing political views, Wesleyan could establish all-school forums or discussions about current political issues and events.
I have always felt fortunate to attend Wesleyan because of its political and social climate as a small liberal institution. In fact, the Argus published an article about Brett Kavanaugh shortly after he was accused of sexual assault, claiming, “This isn’t just some hearing on Brett Kavanaugh, nor is it simply a sexual assault allegation. This is a referendum on our values.”
However, I’m beginning to understand that, in situations like Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination and appointing, it can become a bad thing to agree too much with the people around you. I personally identify as a liberal and a feminist, so although the Senate’s decision to move forward with Kavanaugh’s nomination was heartbreaking to me, it should not have been surprising.
If I had not attended a school like Wesleyan, I may not have expected Kavanaugh to be found guilty. But that is because attending a school that only allows for one sided political discourse creates a liberal “bubble.” Here, only one opinion is valued, and it is the opinion of the majority. This campus characteristic is not unique to Wesleyan, according to this article by The Chronicle and the Wall Street Journal’s piece, which suggest that political demographics at college campuses do not reflect those in their respective states. Most Wesleyan students come from liberal backgrounds, like New England, New York City, and California. While some students are accustomed to conservative viewpoints from their hometowns, that is not a norm of most students, and many come from their own liberal “bubbles”.
This is important because college campuses represent small microcosms of American society, so it is an important place for students to expand their political horizons and craft more nuanced political views. American young adults are the country’s future leaders and citizens who will establish new rules and political systems, so it is important that they understand politics outside of the “Wesleyan bubble”.
Once students leave Wesleyan’s campus, they may be shocked to learn that political discussions at Wesleyan do not reflect the demographic of political beliefs across the rest of the country. A space for open discussions, in which members of Wesleyan’s community could share all political opinions, whether mainstream or unpopular, would alleviate the “us versus them” sentiments that erupt from our system of two-party politics. I’m not suggesting that bigotry should be tolerated, but open and honest discussions will help each side strengthen their arguments, or work together to improve issues within the United States. As long as people do not feel threatened or hurt, discussing political differences may benefit society as a whole. In fact, The Hill’s article even goes as far as to suggest that bipartisan politics are destroying American politics.
In the current situation of Brett Kavanaugh, people seem to be siding with their political affiliations and establishing opinions and values based on those of their party. Take Susan Collins, for example: a Republican Senator who betrayed women by supporting Kavanaugh, a conservative nominee. Similarly, this notion is promoted by President Donald Trump, whose regular tweets denounce Democrats’ actions. After the Kavanaugh hearings, Trump tweeted his blame of Democrats for the “despicable” treatment of Brett Kavanaugh.
It is important that every American’s views are represented in the government, but it is impossible to do that in a system where there are only two majorpolitical parties, and each party denounces the actions and opinions of the other. Constituents begin to vote based on the party rather than their own values and morals embodied by the law or person for whom they vote. If Americans, and students at Wesleyan, chose to discuss their political, economic, and social beliefs in an honest and non-judgmental way, they could come together to make the United States a better place. After all, the phrase “divide and conquer” does not necessarily work when both sides are trying to conquer the other.