Two events in recent days will likely spark a renewed debate among the campus community.
The first was the announcement that the laborious and highly criticized process of selecting a replacement for UNC-system President Tom Ross had come to an end with the selection of former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Spellings was heavily involved in the No Child Left Behind Act.
The second took place on Sunday, when Alamance County Taking Back Alamance County rallied in support of Silent Sam, opposed by a simultaneous counter-protest against the statue. Though the protests were peaceful, it appeared to prompt more defensiveness than discussion.
In regards to both events, however, it is imperative to remember the role of our university in facilitating constructive criticism whenever possible through honest, open and respectful dialogue. In an academic setting, we take for granted the very notion that we have the freedom to question and to criticize.
Under aggressively authoritarian regimes, voices of dissent and criticism play an absolutely vital role in constructing even a space for opposition. Even in a relatively democratic society like the United States, those who offer an opposing view and who challenge people to think more deeply about the society or community in which they live make even the freest societies more democratic.
In English, especially in academic writing, we tend to distinguish between generic “criticism” and something that is a “critique,” directly borrowing the French word to emphasize the philosophical or systematic nature of the examination of a particular subject. It’s an interesting phenomenon and one that is difficult to explain concretely as there is ostensibly no denotative difference between “critiquing” and “criticizing.”
So how can we bridge this difference in connotation? For starters, we can continue to bring “critique” out of the academic setting where it is traditionally located and use it in the public discourse. In the case of the events described above, students, faculty and other members of the UNC community have admirably advanced this notion, time and again demanding space to frankly speak about the University as an institution and about the legacy of racism.
While the connotation of a “critique” indicates some deeper or more profound meaning, I would also argue it indicates a greater personal conviction on behalf of the dissenting voice. Voices in our community arguing for greater institutional transparency, better leadership and accountability to a racist past do so (I hope) out of a greater love for this university. It is therefore to the benefit of us all that traditionally marginalized voices be allowed to speak equally and share in the building of a better future for UNC.
When events challenge our perspective, we should not shy away from the inevitable debate, internal or external, that follows. Fundamentally, to critique is not to convince but to construct the space in which all can benefit from greater understanding.
