Over the past few weeks, I have reached out to a large number of Abolish Greek Life activists seeking writers to argue their case in The Danforth Dispatch. I haven’t heard back from a single activist. I’ve decided to take the next step– going fully public with my request– to make it clear how important it is to me to run diverse perspectives in my paper.
I have received positive feedback on the articles The Danforth Dispatch has put out in support of Greek Life. These articles are some of the most viewed content since I took over the paper and removed its most inflammatory piece. If I was here to rack up views and stir the pot, I could simply run more content of this variety. However, as I said in my statement A Change In Management, “inflammatory clickbait… is no longer welcome”.
I’m not here to bring in clicks. I chose to take over The Danforth Dispatch to facilitate real, substantive dialogue on campus. Running content on just one side of a controversial issue does little to improve our community. Dialogue requires bringing together people who disagree. It can be a messy, challenging process, but we owe it to our community not to shy away from that. To have a conversation about Greek Life, I believe we need to hear from both those in support of Greek Life and those who seek its abolition, inside the same publication.
The value of diverse perspectives remains even for those who believe legitimate dialogue is a pipe dream. The Danforth Dispatch– the only paper on campus with a structural ban on censorship– has promoted free speech advocacy since its founding. I consider this free speech advocacy essential due to its creation of the marketplace of ideas: if everyone puts their ideas in the same place, the most compelling arguments will have a comparative advantage. (In an ideal free speech environment, the only people unwilling to present their ideas to the public sphere are those concerned their arguments are inadequate). I have spoken to several supporters of Greek Life who believe in such a situation, their arguments would win. I have heard from several opponents of Greek Life who believe in such a situation, their arguments would win. I have also spoken to several people who consider this dispute a false binary, considering the possibility of collaborating instead of fighting. Whoever you are and whatever you believe, if you consider your argument to be the most compelling, I want to publish your contribution.
In recent years, we have seen the problems that arise when people isolate themselves into bubbles of information and block out arguments, even evidence, which disagrees with those views. At best, this has created information disparities among different populations in our country. At worst, this has eroded our democratic stability, impeded our political system, and possibly even contributed to disparate death rates from the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether you think these informational bubbles are a minor problem or a national crisis, I intend to do everything I can to address this issue in our community. I am working to build a free marketplace of ideas where I hope to inspire dialogue, and should dialogue fail, where opposing views may compete and those with the strongest evidentiary support will change minds in the community.
Interested writers may reach out to Editor-In-Chief David Mathisson at d.mathisson@wustl.edu to contribute to The Danforth Dispatch.