Over the course of this semester at Brown, we have seen a breadth of issues put at the forefront of both discussion and controversy. From questions of environmental awareness to new University policies, there seems to be clear division among different groups of students. These differences often seem irreconcilable, just like the disagreements we see between elected officials in Washington. In some of these conflicts, the right answer is clear — for instance, Keeney Quadrangle vandals need to be punished, as do thieves of Brown furniture. But in many others, I believe it is possible to find common ground between two conflicting positions.
Take the recent outcry by students over the University’s investments in coal companies. The underlying message of environmental consciousness is not one unique to Brown — President Obama pushed forth new regulation for power plants in the coal industry just this year. Opponents of the Brown Divest Coal campaign and of Obama’s green energy policies as a whole tend to be those who do not see the efficacy of focusing on climate issues and who would prefer to limit regulation on companies for economic reasons. Nevertheless, these two positions are not irresoluble.
If this debate expanded to include fiscal reforms, supporters of environmental issues could draw more supporters than they might expect. Carbon emissions caps with tradable permits would limit economic distortion, as the right to pollute would now be allocated freely in a competitive market. Similarly, a carbon tax could be pitched as a way to reduce the deficit through environmental action, a more palatable way of raising revenue than altering income or corporate taxes. The key here is recognizing that these issues are complex and multi-faceted, rather than simply shouting down the opposition.
Another example of this is the housing lottery. When the University announced that the process might move online, there were responses of relief met with angry reactions of those who wanted to preserve tradition (“Housing lottery potentially to move online,” Sep. 4). Again, positions on this do not have to be a binary. Would it really be difficult for Brown to make physical attendance optional and allow those who did not want to show up at Sayles Hall to make their selections online? This seems like a common sense approach to rolling out new reform to a long-standing Brown tradition, but it wasn’t one definitively pushed forth by students or the University.
At the national level, the lack of substantive discussion between those who disagree has become a serious issue. It appears one either has to be for lower taxes and lower government spending or higher taxes and higher government spending. But when you truly delve into these issues, things are not so black and white. A mixed position that worked from policy up instead of ideology down could gain support across party lines and from the American people. Why are there not more mixed proposals? Why not reform entitlement programs like Social Security, preserve food stamps — which have high multiplier effects on gross domestic product — and bring corporate and territorial taxes in line with those in the rest of the developed world? I am not saying I support all of these things, but I, like many others, would appreciate a more reasoned debate of these policy areas.
When a measured approach isn’t taken, the results can be disastrous. The Affordable Care Act is a prime example. Passed with no Republican votes and vehemently opposed by the right throughout the election cycle and after, President Obama’s health care reform is the antithesis of bipartisan agreement. Even with the possibility of a government shutdown looming, Congress couldn’t reach a compromise on a delay or medical device tax repeal. So, with a sluggish online rollout and enrollment numbers below White House projections, the conversation has become a matter of finger-pointing rather than problem solving. Maybe a more centrist shutdown solution that appeased some Republican wishes but retained the core of the Affordable Care Act would have spurned synergy instead of blame. Should Congress have delayed the individual mandate by a year? Whether you believe the answer is yes or no, there is room for debate.
Independent of what the issue or discussion is, I do not think we see enough centrist policy at Brown or in Washington. Anyone — protesters on campus or the leaders of our country — who claims to have the absolute legislative or executive prescription to the complex issues we face should not be trusted. Especially at Brown, a place where ideas and discussion serve as a driving force of the Open Curriculum, I hope we can increase thoughtful propositions and phase out absolutist convictions.
Jay Upadhyay ’15 would appreciate policies borne from critical thought rather than ideology.
ADVERTISEMENT
