I’m going to be as straight forward as possible with my opinion on this one. I did not like the commons day event. Don’t get me wrong, my issue isn’t with the author, her presentation, or her message. I found the speech she gave to be uplifting and kind without sounding condescending or preachy, which isn’t easy. I wasn’t a huge fan of her novel, but even that wasn’t the problem I had with the event. My dispute was the fact that it was mandatory, and if you bear with me, I have some arguments as to why that is a poor idea.

First off, I will admit my personal bias before I even embark. I hate being forced to do things. It’s probably part of my personality, but I think a lot of it is due to the forced assemblies I remember from high school. Work doesn’t bother me, writing a report on what I saw like this doesn’t bother me. These are my normal, regular duties, and I signed up for them, and things similar to them, out of my own accord. So this is mandatory too, but not in the same way. My issue is when you start mixing forced attendance/participation with the proliferation of an idea.

I don’t have an issue with her ideals. If anything, I think that they should be more widespread, and I’m pleased with how prevalent they are here at Stony Brook. But in my opinion, when you force people to go to an event like this, when you hold their other interests in education and career progression hostage, even only a tiny bit hostage, you devalue your message. If you hear something that you’re forced to hear, it often has less meaning to you, and it makes you question if that ideal or value is right, or if you simply believe it due to having heard it so many times.

Perhaps I am alone in this sentiment, but there’s a chance I’m not. You won’t change people’s minds by making them listen to speakers or go to assemblies about tolerance or acceptance. If anything, forcing people to hear conflicting ideals just makes them more hostile against them. It creates an internal them against I kind of feeling that leads to a rejection of the values presented by others. I know the other reason this was mandatory was so that the author would come out to a large audience.

Forcing an audience for the sake of having one doesn’t really have much to do with the message, but it personally strikes me as a bit dishonest. There are plenty of Seawolves who would have gladly come to this event on their own impetus, had it been open to everyone and not just that part of the Class of 2020. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about attentiveness or audience participation, because everyone there would have wanted to be there.

I really do like what what she had to say, and I think it never hurts to be reminded that other people have beautiful, rich, and unique lives. But by cattle prodding hundreds of disinterested people into a stadium and making them listen, you do your cause more harm than good. It evokes memories of high school, where speakers were brought in on behalf of administration and almost always ignored. Good speakers with meaningful messages shouldn’t be ignored, and a captive audience almost guarantees that result.

I hope that future events take this into consideration a bit more, and remember that the best ideals are spread by kindness and example, through living a life that other people can look upon with admiration. Those every day actions will change minds, not an endless stream of disappointed card swiping students.