F r o n t   L i n e Fishing for Dialogue by Katie Dirks At a candidates' debate prior to the Student Council election in February, an audience member asked the competitors to explain the student body's lack of concern for social issues at the University of Virginia ... without using the word "apathy." Such a request not only addresses student disinterest but also call attention to the proliferation of "apathy" in our daily rhetoric. Apathy has indeed become a serious problem at the university, but it often disguises the deeper and more serious problem of political concerns left unaddressed by much of the community. A group of university students has recently raised concerns not only about race and gender issues but also the apathy of the student body toward cultural and social awareness. Hoping to alter the trend of detachment at U.Va., long-standing CIOs and newly formed organizations alike have begun to take more substantive action to address these concerns. One such example of efforts to fight apathy is "Fishbowl Conversations," a product of concerns and dialogue among last year's First Year Council (FYC). Fishbowl Conversations is a three-night forum in March designed to address issues of race, sexual orientation, and gender. Each night focuses on one of the three topics by combining various university students into discussion panels. The purpose of the discussion, according to its organizers, is to create an informal setting with casual dialogue, thereby encouraging complete honesty among the panelists. Scheduled for March 23, 24, and 25, Fishbowl Conversations will take place during Multicultural Week. With three panels every night, each panel allotted 20 to 30 minutes, the program should not exceed two hours. FYC has designed each night's discussion to consist of three approaches to the topic: two panels of opposing viewpoints, followed by a third group of panelists from both groups. The organizers hope that the conversations, through intense yet casual interaction, will reflect the issues raised by the week's events and speakers. The forum, which was created only last year, is facilitated by the committee on Minority and Women's Affairs of First Year Council. This year's Committee Chair, Deva Woodly, is one of the program's two moderators. In addition to moderating, Woodly is responsible for publicity and communication to the university community about Fishbowl. Sonia Chang, her predecessor, will serve as Woodly's counterpart as moderator. Chang wants to provide a framework in which the less vocal community members may express themselves. Both Woodly and Chang agree that when looking for panelists, they avoid the most visible students at the university who might be more accustomed to diplomatic, hence less direct, rhetoric. Woodly's ideal panel would consist of U.Va. students of diverse opinions and backgrounds who are willing to be open and communicative, but not hesitant to voice their true opinions. According to Woodly, "If someone's used to making politically correct, watered-down comments, you lose honesty in a discussion." Another concern among the organizers is the recognition of social concerns without a willingness to act upon them. "People here are intent on glossing over racial issues, for example. We like to talk, but we don't like to act," says Woodly. This desire for action inspired the creation of Fishbowl Conversations over one year ago. Its conception began with Sonia Chang's involvement in the Minority and Women's Affairs Committee. As Chair, Chang attended regular meetings at the Women's Center and there learned about the "fishbowl" format of discussion, one which allowed open and diverse dialogue about sensitive issues. Intrigued by the idea, Chang went to FYC with a proposal to recreate the format to address race, gender, and sexual orientation. Through the group's contacts and word-of-mouth communication, FYC gathered panelists for the three-night forum. Although last year's event was more limited in scope, Chang was deeply moved by the experience and its effect on participants: "The discussion on race was especially refreshing. People were honest and direct, and did say some inflammatory things, but panelists were open-minded enough not to react too emotionally." Most of all, Chang believes that the program fostered "community building." Panelists and audience members alike came away with new-found insight: relief that there are people with similar feelings and thoughts, and a greater understanding of other opinions. At the end of the conversation, panelists saw each other more as individuals than as types. Dave Lim, one of last year's panelists and a former FYC member, was excited to see the newly generated enthusiasm continue beyond the panel discussion. Lim served on one of the mixed panel, consisting of both whites and minorities, which was the most emotionally charged of the three. "The frankness of the conversation carried over to the waiting room, and from the waiting room to our lives at the university," says Lim. He describes a period after Fishbowl when panelists would regularly meet for dinner at Newcomb, taking advantage of the opportunity to talk honestly with a diverse group without concerns about political correctness. Continuing improving discussion is one of this year's major goals. Noting that last year the discussion was restricted by time and could have continued past the scheduled conclusion, Woodly hopes that a reception following the panel discussion will allow people to continue talking. Woodly says, "I don't want everyone just to go home and forget about it." Lim thinks that Fishbowl Conversations should become a more frequent event, perhaps occurring every month. Another goal is to expand the program to reach a broader segment of the university population. Included in this year's sponsorship, for example, is Student Council and Students Versus Apathy. Students Versus Apathy (SVA), a CIO formed only last year, consisting of four members of Chang's Minority and Women's Affairs Committee. SVA apparently emerged as a result of the dialogue raised by Fishbowl Conversations with the hopes of converting the accomplishment of the discussions into a year-long phenomenon. Along with FYC, Student Council and SVA share responsibilities of publicity and preparation. Chang, a member of both these groups, hopes that a combination of larger and more diverse organizations will extend the exposure of Fishbowl to the student body. Fishbowl Conversations has become a part of the university's current talk on race, sexual orientation, and gender. But will it move beyond just that -- talking? Woodly defends the importance of verbal communication as a prerequisite for additional progress: "Beyond discussion, there must be action, but discussion comes first." Truly effective dialogue, however, must be judged on its capacity to incite action among others. Without such a result, Fishbowl faces the danger of losing its initial vitality. But, if it functions as a precursor to actual change, Fishbowl Conversations will fulfill its mission to change the face of the university.

back to Decweb main