As I was driving my bi-racial child to a “play date” at the home where a bi-racial, same-sex couple reside, it suddenly dawned on me that 10 years ago, definitely 20, this was something that would give many “pause” and likely this couple would be “closeted” because, well, “I don’t want my child exposed to people like that.“
I started to think further about how “mainstream” society shunned, silenced and shamed those who weren’t “mainstream” (which essentially meant white and straight) or worse, exiled them, if not literally then definitely figuratively. I thought about how “normal” that seemed when I was growing up, but then realized the irony that that is exactly what people calling for Dan Maroney’s resignation were doing and probably don’t even realize it.
Some say society is becoming more polarized, but in my moment of contemplation I realized it’s always been that way really. Those who feel they possess the “majority” point of view have always sought to silence those who possessed or expressed views, or actions, that weren’t aligned with “the majority” with various justifications for doing so. Rather than discuss or even debate the merits of the different viewpoints, the majority tends to use its majority position to trivialize the sentiments, or characterize/vilify the motives of people expressing dissent. As a black man who will be 54 next week, I’ve experienced the frustration of having my expression of dissent or disagreement ignored and reduced to “angry black man” or “radical liberal” depending on the topic.
Ideally, even if not in reality, people with different points of views, different ideas, different lifestyles, sexual orientations or religious/political views would be entitled to hold those differences so long as they are not imposing them on others.
Which brings me to the current “Dan Maroney” controversy, which began with one village trustee seeking to silence his attempt to express views — not because he was trying to impose his views on her or the village but rather because he was white and male and therefore couldn’t have a valid point of view, no matter what it was.
Really?
Now I don’t write to defend Dan Maroney the man, someone I do happen to have known for the past five years. And let me be clear, I do not write to defend him or his views, wherever they’ve been expressed. I write to defend the right of “Dan Maroney,” be it the actual man himself or any other village trustee, to express and discuss, in a calm, civil, responsible and rational manner, views on issues they were elected to discuss and then vote their conscience. It’s really curious to me, since we’re talking about Oak Park, that there are so many who feel otherwise?
Discussing race is difficult. I appreciate, though I may not completely agree with, Dan Maroney’s point of view on the Diversity Statement. I likewise appreciate, though I may not completely agree with, Susan Buchanan’s sentiments. A person who is not, and has never been oppressed, solely because of factors they don’t control (how they were born, etc.) is challenged to “understand” how that feels. But however true that may be, it is also true that such views should be heard, debated if disagreed with, but not silenced because we don’t like them.
See it’s possible for people with different points of view, even those that may be polar opposite, to discuss those differences and try to find common ground or at least compromise. But it can only successfully happen if the participants approach those discussions with the sense of responsibility demanded by the difficulty of the topic and are courageous enough not to just express their own views but to considerately listen to, and show respect for, another’s.
Thomas Coates is a 22-year Oak Parker.