As this election season has progressed with not only messages of "Hope" but also slander campaigns and outright untruths, I have begun to wonder where it all stops. I have heard Obama say many times now (which was also a sentiment by McCain - to be fair) that the parties needed to work together because we live in such a divide now that nothing will get done unless it is done in the interest of the people - and all the people. With the past 8 years plagued with policies that I do not agree with (nor pretend to agree with), I have to begin thinking realistically about this whole scenario. Eight years ago, our country wanted "change" and elected Republicans across the board - Congress, Senate, and President. The pendulum swung to a deep red that began to really enforce party loyalty amongst everyone. The pendulum began swinging back toward the middle 4 years ago when we elected a majority Blue Senate and a Red President. (Compromise...somewhat). However, with the president's rating being at an all time low and actually falling lower than Nixon's approval rating during the Watergate scandal, I have to wonder what are our expectations out of these next 4 years? Are we expecting a president who can pick up the pieces of what he has been given and also break racial, partisan, and ideology barriers to bring the US into a new era? What happens if it is only a "pick up the pieces" 4 years? Will we be disappointed and expect another change in party? Do we not think that having all the levels of the government the same color is a problem, no matter what the side? All blue can be just as detrimental as all red and vice versa. Our political system was based on checks and balances and I hope we are able to see the beauty of why the system was created that way - no matter what the party affiliation.

One of my disparity classes dove into this subject a bit today as an open discussion on politics as well as racial, SES, equality, and breaking the glass ceiling. We began talking about whether Obama had broken the glass ceiling for African Americans in general or just for one specific family. We discussed combating the idea of "Group Think"and how Obama looked as though he was trying to cover different perspectives as he chose his cabinet and politicians to surround him. I must say on this level I was impressed because I think too often we just identify with our own party and refuse to look at the views of the other party. I was actually taken aback by a comment by one of our professors when she said, "Well, we have to be careful there because one party is trying to give rights while the other is trying to take them away."

Back up the bus. You may not agree with one side of the issue but that doesn't make the other side "wrong". It makes the other side "different". Now, you may not agree with that perspective but more than likely - they probably don't agree with yours either. We have created this atmosphere in the country that is so one side or the other, black and white - that we rarely try and understand the other side or move toward a compromise of views. We polarize ourselves and put ourselves into a comfortable box. The only problem with that box is that we limit ourselves to our own biased opinion without outside input or any reality checks. We all do it yet we expect the other side to change, not us. We talked about all the "boxing in" that Republicans do with their platform - but come on! Let's be honest with ourselves and take a step back. How many times have we done exactly the same thing just on the other side of the issue? If you answer is 'never' then you haven't taken a good hard look at your own viewpoints, soapboxes, and rants or your own party. Both parties fall casualty to lobbying. Those with the most dollars win. We both fall casualty to pushing ourselves to our most extreme opinion when someone else presents their extreme opinion on an opposite or differing side. Just think about it.

It also took me to another one of my classes here at the School of Public Health at UNC the other day. In our nutrition class, we watched a video called "The Future of Foods" based on the practice of GMO food crops. Now, having seen this, I can tell you without a doubt, this was purely one sided. (I won't say I completely disagreed with the arguments presented - HOWEVER, when someone presents me a view that is so tilted to one side, I begin my research on the other side and usually find myself somewhere in the middle). The question was raised from the professor "What are your thoughts as a class on showing this video next semester as a SPH event?". I answered - just not what our professor wanted (I do believe)! I expressed that while I found a lot of facts appauling in this movie regarding certain practices regarding patents on seeds and the lawsuits that ensued, I did not think it provided a fair discussion of the topic of GMO foods AT ALL. We have a responsibility at an institute of higher learning to present the facts (or at least differing viewpoints) and allow people to make up their own mind instead of making it up for them. When I expressed this concern, I was immediately shot down by my professor who happens to be the Associate Dean for Global Health! Not only is she a professor, but she's in a real position to influence how issues are presented! Her rebuttal was this, "I am not sure I agree totally that in any particular seminar, symposium, or panel we must present alternative views -- there is an important place for that but it is not a pre-requisite."

I'm sorry, I must respectfully disagree. This is one of the problems that I often find with this school as I did with the exact other side at my undergraduate institution. Very few people try and look at the compromise or collaboration that can be achieved through understanding (even if not agreeing with) the other viewpoint. They just point fingers at what is wrong and who is to blame and only present one side of an issue. In this case, an argument for GMOs is also just as powerful as the one presented in the video. Don't get me wrong - people are definitely entitled to their viewpoints - their soapboxes - that they get enraged about, boycott, and even try and persuade legislation against. I am no different in regards to WalMart and Starbucks. I boycott them in every way I can and refuse to give them any business unless practices change. My problem lies when this opinion directly affects what occurs or is presented in a classroom. This is an institute of higher learning - let's learn and be allowed to develop our own thoughts instead of just spitting out what someone else tells us. I don't like the extreme on either side - I want "just the facts ma'am, just the facts." I have a mind that is quite capable of making my own decisions. We must be very careful of how we use our authority to make a difference.

Let's break free of the "Group Think" ideology and try to understand the other side. It is only by understanding other viewpoints that we truly can see why people think the way they do and work toward a solution (no matter what the problem) that works for the people. After all, our President doesn't represent one community, one state, or one viewpoint. He represents us all - race, creed, socio-economic status. Let's break this black and white cycle and try and look toward compromise. I expect this in my professors and I expect this in political leaders. I think it's the least we can demand.