Observer Participates in Race Relations Panel

The Student Programs Office hosted the panel “Can I, As a Caucasian, Be a Part of Your Group?” in the Murray Room of Yawkey Center. The panel was a direct result of a controversial Observer article dealing with race relations at Boston College.

Michael Reer, Editor-in-Chief of The Observer at Boston College, stressed the mission of the newspaper in his defense of the article – as an initiator of campus dialogue and education on important issues and concerns. The Observer is a non-profit publication that functions to promote Catholic ethics, values and concerns, and personal responsibility. As such, its intention is never to alienate or polarize specific groups, but rather to bring those groups together in campus conversation.

Reer argued that “As being a responsible member of campus media, we need to follow up on these issues…attending these panels and listening to the students gives us the opportunity to do just that, so a lot of tonight is going to be me listening to all of you [the students].”

Jennifer Liao, President of the Asian Caucus, said, “The first thing that I saw was people just getting angry, almost as if their own mothers had been insulted, or as if the core of their own being had been greatly damaged by these comments.” Liao contrasted this with her own, much milder response to the issue at hand: “We should be quick to listen and slow to anger.” The panelists and everyone else in attendance nodded in agreement with her statement.

Furthermore, Reer stressed the difficulties inherent in managing a newspaper, but not as an excuse so much as an opportunity to harbor an understanding. For example, when he is faced with the task of scrutinizing his section heads concerning possibly offensive articles, Reer said, “I have to ask myself if the decisions were made in a prudent fashion and with the best interests of the Boston College community at heart.”

Sometimes, these decisions do result in controversial articles, but does that mean these articles should not be published in the first place? If the article had not been published, there would have been no panel to discuss the issue.

Reer presented the issue from the newspaper’s perspective, arguing that “we have to struggle in order to find a delicate balance between establishing a newspaper that will sustain a large readership among Boston College students and promote our Catholic heritage, ethics, and values. Our hands are tied between attempting to initiate and sustain a meaningful conversation on campus and still remain appealing to the student body and community at large…in this case, we believe that Boston College students want to read pieces that help begin this campus dialogue.”

Dean Karl Bell, who was moderating this panel discussion, said that “as offensive as this article was (in its language), it did spark an engaging dialogue and had truth in it.” Bell continued, “Everyone does like to stick together in their own little ethnic enclaves and that has to change.”

Bell sincerely urged those in attendance to educate themselves on this issue, to “read up on their literature and their facts so that they will be able to engage in meaningful conversation.” The other panelists concurred with this, especially Ines Maturana Sendoyna, who is the Director of the Office of Student Programs.

Sendoyna reflected that, “people do tend to gravitate to those individuals of their own ethnicity and cultural background…we must improve integration and become more culturally competent and conscious.” She divided this “cultural competence” into three parts: cultural sensitivity, knowledge, and empathy.

In his concluding remarks, Reer said, “So much good has come from that article with regards to initiating dialogue…it creates a spark, no matter what the source. To have the courage to stand by the article and begin dialogue on this important issue is something that I, and hopefully a lot of other people, can learn from.”

During the question and answer session afterwards, one teacher asked the panelists to elaborate on what the audience should take away from all this. The consensus among them was to educate ourselves, initiate dialogue, and reach out to others who are different from us.

Working off this point, one student described his own reaction to the controversial article: “I wasn’t angry about the article itself, just curious. We have to come to understand and appreciate someone and their background before we rush to judgment. And in order to do this, we must be willing to step out of our comfort zone.”

Often these days, people are unwilling to do just that: to step out of their comfort zone and engage with others who are different from ourselves. Reer concluded that it is The Observer’s hope that some good might come from this controversial article, and that it might be able to act as a unifying, rather than a dividing, factor.

Related Articles: