To the Editor,
As longtime subscribers and fans of The Swarthmorean, my wife Erum and I were stunned by the blog post of (now former) Associate Editor Satya Nelms. I had come to know two talented editors and three talented publishers improve the paper during their short tenure — what had happened?
I will not comment on the personal attacks launched on social media since then — other than to say that I am deeply disappointed to see so many neighbors reflexively take sides and accuse the publishers of sinister motives. I have known the publishers for years as profoundly decent community members who had stepped in to save our local paper. Deeply committed to social and racial justice.
What had happened? Editor Rachel Pastan and the publishers had met to discuss two competing visions for covering social and racial justice.
Should we tell the story of century-long racism and discrimination in a way that makes readers uncomfortable? Is that the best way to mobilize white people to fight for equity and change? I have often heard variations of this argument from progressive friends. In their view being uncomfortable is the path to awaken white America.
To those of you who agree, I pose two questions: 1. Do you believe that this is the most effective way to build the coalitions necessary to change our country? 2. Do you even think it is important to build coalitions for real change — or is the mere act of reading uncomfortable articles sufficient? Is introspective catharsis your real objective?
I consider this approach deeply flawed. Why? You lose too many readers. Too many readers who aren’t progressives will tune you out. People do not like to be uncomfortable. They will abandon your coalition.
The alternative vision is perfectly summarized in a comment one of the publishers made: we have to meet people where they are. When you engage readers in a way that is respectful of a variety of opinions, you open doors. You build coalitions. You generate the consensus necessary to change our society. This does not mean you sugarcoat or avoid difficult issues. To the contrary, you welcome such difficult issues — but you address them in an inclusive way that is respectful of differing viewpoints. Simply put, you do not try to make people uncomfortable — instead you try to make people comfortable. Comfortable with your vision for the future.
We have to meet people where they are. Our medical community has had great success with this approach in Covid vaccination campaigns. We are not dogmatic in our discussions about the vaccine — even though we know it saves lives, and choosing not to get vaccinated causes deaths. Why not? Because it doesn’t work. Instead, we listen and we educate. We allow our patients to get comfortable with the science while we do not waiver in our commitment towards 100% vaccination rates.
What if we used this approach in our discussions about structural racism?
We can debate these two competing visions passionately but we should do so respectfully. Publishers, (former) editors, and all of us want to see a better Swarthmore. A more inclusive, more tolerant, more just Swarthmore. It has been a traumatizing week, but I am glad to hear that The Swarthmorean will continue to be a tireless advocate for racial justice. I am excited to see more coverage of Chester, our neighboring community that needs Swarthmore to step up and be part of the coalition for change. I am confident that not just The Swarthmorean but all of us have learned important lessons that will serve us well for the important work ahead.
Helge Hartung
Swarthmore