This past weekend, a group of students threw a party themed “Around the World.” From what I understood, the party attendees had to wear clothing items that represented different countries/cultures. One of the party attendees made the unfortunate choice of “dressing up” as Mexico by wearing a sombrero, a flannel shirt, and the caption “We swear we have our Green Cards #AroundTheWorld #Tequila #BrothersAndFriends #Taco #Chihuahua.” Another student was dressed like a “cholo,” which is a term used to describe Mexican or Hispanic gang members.

These pictures have been widely shared in social media, especially by students of Mexican descent, followed by messages expressing disgust and sadness at the ignorant choices of these students. If the reader does not understand why these pictures are problematic, here is why: they represent stereotypes of Mexican people that are propagated by mainstream media; illegal, criminal, drunks, etc.

But that is not the topic of this piece. Instead, I would like to talk about the meeting that occurred on Monday night.

The meeting was organized by students who wanted to discuss the events of the weekend. It was scheduled to happen at 8:30pm at Social Justice House (Sojo). I went to the meeting to listen in and to my surprise the house was packed. I was even more surprised when some of the students who were at the party, including the one from the “Green Card” picture, were there. We are indeed having a discussion, I thought. Boy, was I wrong.

Although the meeting started with an acknowledgment of the issues –the theme of the party, the student’s poor decisions, what was wrong with those choices it soon became a shouting festival. Since there wasn’t much of a moderator, people were asked to just shout what they had to say. Some people raised their hands, which worked for a while, but one’s best shot at participating in the “discussion” was to shout as soon as someone was done talking.

Another issue was the atmosphere at the meeting: it was not conducive for a healthy conversation. Part of the living room was so crowded that people coming in late had to stay at the doorway. All this body heat together adds one layer to the issue. Another layer were the subjects at discussion. Cultural appropriation. Racism. Oppression. These are subjects that some people don’t like to talk about because they are complex and cause discomfort. Other people don’t like talking about them, but still do, because that’s part of their daily experiences. When both groups clash, there’s tension: one side is speaking very passionately about the issue while the other is treading carefully lest they step on a landmine.

Certain comments were received with snaps – a common thing to do in slam poetry sessions, when one agrees or is moved by a line the poet recited. I don’t remember anyone snapping at any comments made by any white students – whether they were supporting “Green Card” or not. The “discussion” became an “Us vs. Them”  where one side was charging and the other defending. Reason overcome by passion leads to unfruitful dialogue.

There were two comments that gave me some hope for future discussions. A first year student gave an analogy of a stabbing. Someone –the Mexican students, but more broadly the minority community– was hurt. We acknowledge that and remove the dagger. But how do we heal the wound?

My suggestion is education and better conversations. It is unacceptable that in 2015 there are college seniors who still believe in outdated and hurtful stereotypes about minority populations, especially ones with which they come into contact on a daily basis. Landis House has a wide variety of resources. Student groups such as the African American Society and the Latin American and Caribbean Club hold meetings where they talk about a wide variety of issues that pertain to those communities, as well as holding cultural events that are open to everyone.

As for better conversations, I will repeat a suggestion I made on my last opinion piece and say there are already options on campus. Sustained Dialogue is an avenue where conversations are moderated by trained staff and rules to ensure fruitful dialogues are enforced. The Union Philosophical Society also speaks about important issues on a similar manner. Another suggestion could be a monthly meeting, held by Dickinson administrators and/or faculty, where student leaders –club presidents, leaders in Greek life, and athletes– get together to discuss important campus issues and make sure everyone is doing their part to make Dickinson a welcoming place for everyone.

The event on Monday night could have gone better. The party on the weekend, and particularly some of its attendees’ poor choices, should have never happened. These two things are reminders that we still have a long way to go in being a more unified, respectful community. Only by addressing difficult questions in a reasonable matter it is possible.