Sheoli Lele ‘26 is a prospective math and philosophy double major. She uses her free time to paint, take photos around campus and debate. Contact her at smlele@wm.edu.
The views expressed in the article are the author’s own.
“According to [insert tenured Ivy League professor], spending time with loved ones makes people happy,” says your favorite science podcast host. I just made that up, but chances are that it really exists somewhere in the world of what I call “pompous lifestyle pedagogy”: a highly-educated authority figure stating a commonsensical opinion. This media pattern always annoys me. Must I, too, put myself through twenty years of schooling (i.e. the entire time I’ve been on Earth) to have a well-received opinion about everyday thoughts? It was this irritation that sent me hurtling toward The Flat Hat opinions section, begging to write for them. Here, anyone can have an opinion. This principle is not just a fun feature of op-eds but instead the very foundation of public discourse, which drives progress and sustains our democracy. For our published thoughts to have these effects, however, our opinions must contain one key ingredient: controversy. In this article, I hope to convince you of your right and duty to voice your most provocative thoughts (within the bounds of reason and intuition) and why you would benefit from it. Even if you do not officially write for The Flat Hat, help us move toward producing more debate-inspiring, thought-provoking and indeed out-of-the-box articles!
Widely-accepted thoughts do little good in the department of motivating societal change, so we ought to write about topics that are more disputed. Why? To ignite a valuable debate, there must be at least two strong sides of an issue. With any controversial claim, those on either side are impassioned enough to express their reasons for holding the opinions they do. When I am debating someone with an opposite viewpoint to my own, I am forced to process the counter arguments they offer, which can either be overcome by my rebuttal or can weaken the basis of my original view. To publish a provocative op-ed is to flick the first domino in the domino chain of social change. Meanwhile, when we publish an opinion that everyone already holds, we provide little call-to-action, little room for debate and no incentive for people to reflect on the issue. No, I will not argue with a Flat Hat article that says that sweaters keep people warm or that racism is bad. I probably won’t even think about it again.
In reading op-eds, I find a unique entertainment that only reading fiction shares. When I compare this experience to reading the non-opinion sections of journalism, I find the latter does not deviate from objectivity. They shun bias—the inevitable accomplice of opinion—and access only facts. News reporting, for example, operates on the assumption that nobody is entitled to their own facts, so it is more than enough to publish an objective account of an event with little room for variation. Opinionists go a step further in their writing and give one of the infinite possible interpretations of objective facts. Because interpretation has more room for creativity than factual reporting, I easily find one much more fascinating than the other. Yes, I just called reading the news boring. Offended? Consider it a provocative opinion.
Writing an op-ed is mentally stimulating in itself, but writing tame op-eds pale in challenge next to their more provocative counterparts. As an op-ed author, I use more words to construct my writing plan than the final published piece. This is because, after writing a few pieces, I understand it as a deceptively difficult task; the prerequisite to writing an op-ed is to thoroughly understand my claim, why its supporting points differ from one another and how they collectively lead to the particular conclusion I would like readers to accept. The problem I often face is realizing that my reasons for holding certain beliefs are jumbled and do not logically flow. The intellectually challenging work of creating an outline leaves me no choice but to organize my thoughts. With provocative opinions comes more of this work. Because fewer people are likely to share my opinion, I must guide readers through clearer and more abundant reasons to accept my view. This activity alone has made me a better debater, conversationalist and listener.
I feel that there are two main reasons why we see a lack of provocative opinions published in The Flat Hat, both of which are grounded in fear. The first is the fear of backlash. Students (myself included) worry about what others will think of them after reading their writing. Especially in an age where friends lose one contact over politics, this fear is natural. The fear even applies to our controversial thoughts about topics unrelated to the future of the nation. One of the best ways to reverse this trend is to begin publishing the kind of work we would like to see written. If a few writers have the courage to catalyze our move toward more bold writing, others will witness the power in doing so, then follow suit. The implicit norm in Flat Hat Opinions — endorsing generally good things as good, and condemning generally bad things as bad — cannot be expected to change overnight.
The second reason is the fear of being offensive. I myself find this fear more difficult to address than the first. Flat Hat interns are firmly (and rightfully) told not to write articles maliciously attacking specific individuals or clubs on campus, but I think many mistakenly conflate attack and constructive criticism. For instance, op-eds are often considered “provocative” only because they express disapproval of an authority figure, and students (again, myself included) are nervous about voicing our thoughts. Especially because the very purpose of an Opinions section is to spread awareness about systemic flaws and suggest ways to rectify them, our fear of offending should not be the reason we keep these thoughts to ourselves.
The best way to help writers navigate this obstacle is to clearly show by example appropriate and inappropriate ways to respectfully express criticism and avoid insult. Let’s say I wanted to communicate my disapproval of Residence Life’s training methods. I would select the title “The importance of DEI training: suggestions for Residence Life” over “My baby sister could run better training than Residence Life” or “Residence Life? More like Residence get-a-life.” Of course, the tone of the article must reflect the respect and nuance in the title. Overall, students should have greater access to opportunities to be educated on the art of authoring a well-informed and productive critique for the Flat Hat. Despite the reservations you may feel, I encourage you to brave through your fears and use the Flat Hat as a platform for your opinion that deserves to be heard.
In hindsight, I have not practiced what I preach about the importance of provocative opinions. In my most recent article, I make the case against dwelling on past bad grades, but in which world is it considered helpful to cry about last semester’s results? After all, I simply argue that we should do more of a generally good thing. In writing it, I learned a lot about my own thought process and how to modify my work in a way that benefits both myself and my community. You should, too.
lovely <3