Emotional response inhibits rational consideration of controversial topics

JOEL RENDER

Staff Writer

Over the past couple of weeks, various opinions have been circulating regarding the recent opinion piece written by Mr. Hopkins. As a result of listening to some of those opinions, I must reveal that I was shocked and dismayed at some of the reactions that played out before me. I observed generally nice individuals calling for Mr. Hopkins’ head under the guillotine as soon as possible. Granted the rhetoric used by the students was occasionally more or less colorful, the message was still basically the same as far as I was concerned.

How could this be happening on the sweet, innocent campus that we all have come to know and love (to varying degrees of course)? I think it happened because many people reading the article did not stop to truly think about some of the issues that were posed. Rather, they simply chose to make a quick and easy emotional judgment that Mr. Hopkins was an evil individual that was trying to remove some heads in his own right. We all know that processing information thoroughly is hard work and quite frequently not necessary.

However, I think in this case it was necessary because it would have kept many people from reacting in an emotional and hateful manner. What is wrong with reacting in that manner though? First of all, although many of us may consider our comments and glib remarks about Mr. Hopkins to be meaningless, some people chose to act on those intentions in a rather hurtful way as was articulated in a story from last week’s paper.

Secondly, reacting emotionally does not allow the separation of ideas from people. In other words, attacks are made on Mr. Hopkins’ character rather than the message portrayed in his editorial piece. Not only does this injure his reputation, but it also leaves very little room for a meaningful discussion of the potential issues at hand whatever they may be. To put it simply, people may hold ideas, but ideas do not hold people.

At this point, you are probably forming your own conception about me. For example, you might conceive of me as an arrogant person that feels that he must tell everyone else how to live their lives. Perhaps, you think that I agree with the position articulated by Mr. Hopkins and would like to see me hanging on the highest yardarm next to him. If you have undertaken this account of me or any other particular disposition, then you have fallen into the same trap.

You may think of me as arrogant after reading this opinion article, but if you do not know me personally then how would you know whether I was or not? The point is that you would not know whether I actually held the characteristic that you projected onto me.

More importantly, if you did not know whether I actually held a particular characteristic, how could you condemn me for being that way? This is exactly what happened to Mr. Hopkins. People read his article, formed a conception of him based upon it, and then condemned him based upon that somewhat false impression.

Needless to say, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few issues that may still be lingering. First, in no way am I defending the viewpoint asserted by Mr. Hopkins in his article. In fact, I strongly disagree with both the ideas that he articulates and the means he uses to convey them. Second, I am not claiming that anyone is immune to falling into this trap, especially me. On many separate occasions, I have fallen prey to the ease of emotional reaction. In other words, I am just as vulnerable as the next person.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, not everyone that read the opinions fell into the trap. As illustrated in last week’s paper, many people countered by attacking Mr. Hopkins’ viewpoint rather than his character. This means that everyone has a chance to react in the way that they want, and in my opinion, a carefully considered reaction based on the issues raised in the article is far superior to a foolhardy emotional judgment based on incomplete information.

Top