“I don't want normal, and easy, and simple. I want…I want painful, difficult, devastating, life-changing, extraordinary love. Don't you want that too?”

Fans of the ABC political drama, Scandal, seemed to collectively swoon and re-quote on Twitter when lead character Olivia Pope (Kerry Washington) delivered that line, breaking up with her current boyfriend to continue her convoluted, adulterous affair with President Fitzgerald Grant III (Tony Goldwyn). I shook my head and thought, “I’m going to make a blog post out of this one day,” and here we are. So many people, including myself, to a degree, have fallen into that trap of believing that it isn’t “real love” unless it drives you nearly insane. People figure that if any one person can drive and control their feelings so easily or make them want to “risk it all,” they must be their soul-mate, but the passionate arguments and extreme emotional highs and lows (often accentuated by satisfying, lustful sex) are just a smoke screen that could damage your being and keep you from experiencing a healthier (and equally sexy) relationship.

There are many reasons why a toxic relationship is like a hard-to-kick habit for some, but a main cause is that the adrenaline that comes with it is addictive; it’s like romantic Red Bull. It is sheer energy, having intense love and hate for someone and having to fight every second for you and your love to survive. Like a burn or a bungee jump, it makes people feel and know they’re alive. The drama is stressful, but it keeps life from being monotonous, and for those struggling with emptiness, it can give a sense of purpose or something to focus on. No matter how strenuous or breaking, test after test and trauma after trauma are tolerated because it’s thrilling to see if you’ll come out on the other side; people get swept off of their feet at the idea of “overcoming all odds.” Chasing this is part of the reason why people take up with “bad boys,” “bad girls” or “wounded puppies;” they come with conflict or a challenge.

There are so many other psychological and emotional stimulants that keep people attached to their James Dean or Amy Winehouse. Some do it simply because they’re bored or like the rebellion of it all; they get off on doing something people advise against, find gossip-worthy or consider “unusual for them.” For others, it’s an (sometimes subconscious) exercise in stroking and rewarding their own ego. When you’re dating a troubled person, you feel needed, useful. You feel special because you get the impression that you’re the exception to their rule; you’re the only person that can “get through” to them and they’re different around you. You pat yourself on the back if they appear to be making “progress” or “cleaning up.” You love it when they (or others) tell you how “good” you are for them. You gradually build this savior complex and think that the universe, God, destiny or some omnipotent, powerful force put you in this person’s life and chose you to be the one to help patch them up. When A) the toxicity reaches all time high, B) the codependence gets to be too much, and/or C) wisdom kicks in and you realize you can’t fix anyone or make them whole (their wounds are bigger than you; their growth and healing starts from within), you decide you want to leave, but you don’t because you now have consequential savior guilt. You don’t want to be another person that left or abandoned them. Maybe you’re worried they won’t handle the breakup well and will delve further into the abyss. In the unhealthiest of dynamics, a person will guilt you for trying to leave or they will  go to extremes, like harming themselves or faking a pregnancy, to make you stay.

“Is this just a silly game…forces you to scream my name, then pretend that you can't stay…when I try to walk away, you'd hurt yourself to make me stay, this is crazy…this is crazy…”--Lauryn Hill (Ex-Factor)

If your savior complex goes uninterrupted by guilt, you’re likely suffering from “potential-itis.” So many people haven’t said “adios” because they’re concentrating on what could be instead of what is. Getting or staying with someone because of their potential is unwise because there are no guarantees you’ll get what you’re hoping for and get a return on your time and emotional and physical investment. It could end up going well, by why play Russian roulette with your heart and happiness instead of choosing someone with better odds?

“Potential-itis” is a sub-symptom of another condition I like to call “I’m Not Going” Syndrome. “And I Am Telling You, I’m Not Going” is a song from the Broadway play and film adaptation Dreamgirls, where the character Effie demands “you’re going to love me” to her already-gone boyfriend, Curtis, and insists they’re experiencing just a rough patch and not a conclusion. Curtis was far done with the relationship, but Effie was taking her precious time seeing it…alone. ING Syndrome tends to occur when a union has gone well for a period (even if it’s brief) and starts to go south. “Potential-itis” is high in this scenario because you’ve seen great days with your mate. It wasn’t always this way, so you’re convinced the turbulence is an isolated situation, but there were red flags you ignored or a pattern forming that you know in your gut isn’t going away soon. You’ve turned off of “Honeymoon Avenue” (good Ariana Grande song), down “Point of No Return” road. Like Effie, you think if your mate “would just act right,” or if you could cut out all the crap and external issues (like the craziness or instability going on in your lover’s life), your romance could be great, but the circumstances are now beyond your control. You only have power over yourself; you can’t make anyone think, feel, say or do anything and you can only manipulate your environment so much. If your partner isn’t actively making changes or cooperating with you to improve the atmosphere, *Mariah Carey voice* it’s probably a wrap. 

“In another place or another time, we would’ve been beautiful, but we weren’t in another place or another time. In the here and now, we were disastrous for and to each other, even though we had a special and strong connection. I had to accept the writing on the wall. I didn’t have the power to make another place and time. There would be nothing left of me now if I continued to deny that truth.”--A friend of mine said of their experience with “crazy love” 

I have a theory that most people would have a healthier level of self-esteem and self-confidence if not for the remarks of others. Even the most secure people with the strongest sense of self can fall prey if it’s the right person speaking to them. After hanging out with a few pals (some single, some not), I noticed how antagonized, patronized and stigmatized single individuals are. They hear rude and intrusive comments on a regular basis.

In our society, especially if you’re of a certain age, it’s expected for you to either be in a relationship or actively seeking one. Emphasis on dating starts early; 1st graders are often asked “do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend?” That being said, forbid you’re completely single (or not sexually active) and maybe feel alright with that, it raises questions and eyebrows. It’s assumed that something is off with you-you’re socially awkward, a workaholic, afraid of commitment, jaded and have trust issues, promiscuous, purposely single or secretly gay. If you discuss relationships or someone’s relationship specifically and you say something seemingly unsupportive, you’re just jealous. For example, I have never been a fan of P.D.A. (public displays of affection). I think it’s inappropriate and a little impolite to suck face or fondle your mate in public. I don’t do it now, and I’m in a relationship. Nonetheless, when I was single and complained about a couple at a pool, I was told “Oh, you’re just mad because you don’t have someone to do that with.” I thought “Why do they think I’m jealous? Oh, yeah, I’m so jealous of all the frustration and crying fits you go through with your partner…” If not jealous, it’s presumed your quietly lonely, sad and want to be set-up. One friend told me people think they’re doing her a favor by constantly trying to set her up and don’t believe that she’s ok with her current single status.

I think all these stereotypes and attitudes cause a fear or insecurity of singlehood and/or sexual abstinence (I mention abstinence because single men are often expected to be at least sleeping around). That fear sometimes leads people into romantic desperation; picking up relationships with whoever meets a bare minimum requirement instead of a solid, healthy match. Some of my girlfriends talk about singlehood like it’s a disease and they’ll die if they don’t find someone. I tell them all the time that if they relax a little and take the time to try and enjoy being single, there’s a lot to gain. You’d be surprised at the amount of emotional and personal growth one can experience, and how much singlehood can strengthen identity. These elements can actually help with dating as the root of many break-ups is individual emotional issues. So, if you’re in a relationship, don’t accuse your single friends of being dysfunctional, gay, jealous or lonely and if you’re single, don’t let the stereotypes get to you or affect your dating choices.

As most likely know, highly decorated and revered military general and CIA director David Petraeus resigned in early November after his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, was exposed. Petraeus joins the lengthy list of American government officials caught in extramarital scandal, but this time, the response of the media and public was a little different. Usually angry, unforgiving, critical and demanding a resignation from a position of power, crowds seemed to feel sorry for the officer and wished he hadn’t stepped down. Does this mean our morality is deteriorating as a culture or have we become more benevolent and merciful? I think we’re just starting to better evaluate relevancy.

In the years after President Bill Clinton’s 2001 impeachment in which he lied under oath about the details of his own affair, many in media began to question whether the punishment fit the crime. Yes, he broke the law, but media and political analysts were looking at a bigger picture. Some made the argument that our cultural reactions to the transgressions of public figures is so harsh, that it could’ve pushed Clinton to lie to cover it up and we ended up losing a president who stabilized the economy over an issue that only affected his home life. Taking it a step further, imagine the reduction on smear campaigns if we only responded to scandals that correlate with the duty of public office. Politicians might have to actually rely on only politics to get ahead of their opponents, but that’s another issue for another day, I suppose.

All of these events have us talking about fairness and when a personal indiscretion should cause you to lose your job, consider resignation or be denied a position (by the way, as of this time, it hasn’t been concluded that Petraeus’ affair lead to confidential information being compromised). It’s been widely reported that employers and college admission counselors are now taking advantage of social media and browsing what they can of candidate profiles before making a decision. This is absolute crap to me. I have so many issues with this practice. First, let me say I find a lot of things about the traditional interview process discriminatory and unfair (for example, the over-emphasis on appearance. Not everyone can afford nice dress-wear, but they might be able to do a job well). Assessing a candidate based on their Facebook or Twitter page opens all kinds of doors for discrimination, not to mention it’s an infringement of privacy (are they going to ask for personal diaries or talk to our priests next?). If job-seekers are regularly discriminated against in the traditional process with laws in place, imagine the rate of prejudice when social media is factored in. Who’s to say that an employer won’t disqualify a job-seeker simply because they have opposite political views or over something petty like being a fan of Britney Spears? It might be over an unsavory status or suggestive picture, but how do we formally and fairly define “unsavory” and “suggestive” and how it correlates to the job position? Formal background checks, job references, resumes and interviews should tell you all you need to know about a candidate’s ability to perform a task well. Whether they hit the gay bar last week has nothing to do with it. 

The reality of it is if everyone was denied a job for personal gaffes, no one would have work. My stance is that if one’s missteps or personal choices doesn’t harm anyone or literally damage an establishment or company, they should be able to get and keep a job. Thoughts?

According to statistics, most sexual assaults go unreported for a bevy of reasons (including feelings of shame, fear and intimidation). For victims who indeed report the crimes against them, many experience what is often described in media and research articles as “re-victimization” by their social world (ex. judgment, disrespect) and the legal system (ex. police mistreatment, perpetrators being given short sentences, defense lawyers using sexual history to imply consensual sex); as if the physical and emotional trauma of the event weren’t enough. Adding on to the offenses and failures of the legal system is the mishandling of “rape kits.” A routine part of assault investigation, a rape kit is an intrusive, but necessary, physical examination of the victim to collect DNA. One examination can take up to 6 hours to complete. Analyzation of the rape kit can help identify the perpetrator; identification is particularly easy if the assailant has other documented crimes. Across the country, however, many kits go untested. The city of Detroit made news for its high rate of backlogs when prosecutor Kym Worthy launched the 400 Project to help raise testing funds. Testing costs can range from $1200 to $1500; many crime labs and law enforcement entities purport that they don’t have the resources or access to advanced technology to run the tests in a timely, efficient manner. Some sociological studies imply that gender politics and a nonchalant attitude about sexual violence influence a passive response from law enforcement. 

There are complicated consequences when kits are neglected. If a kit is analyzed beyond the “statute of limitations” (the time frame in which you can prosecute someone for a crime) the assailant cannot be charged, regardless of the fact that the victim had nothing to do with the testing delay. In some cases, perpetrators go on to attack countless other victims undetected. According to EndTheBacklog.org, rape has the low arrest rate of just 24%. Visit EndTheBacklog.org to learn more about this issue and what you can do as a citizen to combat it. Also available on the site is resource information for victims. To read more about Detroit’s fight and other advocacy/fund programs, click here.

Or at least some of the reasons, anyway.

Pop-star Jordin Sparks (American Idol 6, “Sparkle”) made it public that she was taking a vow of chastity and waiting until marriage to have sex, but in an interview earlier this year, the singer seemed to have a change of heart, saying:  "I don't wear it [purity ring] exactly everyday anymore, but I always have something there. When I was 13, my mom spoke to me about purity and waiting for marriage…at the time I was like, 'Sure that's great,' but I can't say what's gonna happen a couple of months from now. People grow." It looks like Sparks may be joining the club of starlets (ex. Britney Spears) who took a pledge of abstinence in youth and later made a different choice. There are a number of different reasons why abstinence pledges are reneged on, but 2 factors are age and motivation for the pledge.

Across the country, religious (many faiths discourage pre-marital sex; it’s viewed as a sin) and some school-based organizations have abstinence programs in which pre-teens and teenagers take formal oaths to remain chaste until marriage and/or don a symbolic ‘purity ring.’ It’s my personal theory that teenagers, especially in this day and age, are too young and immature to take such a vow. 1st, teenagers, individuals who are completely supported by others and viewed as children by the law, should not be having sex either way, but that’s a different conversation. 2nd, you set a young person up for failure when you ask them to make a decision that’s going to affect their adult life. At 13, 14 or 15, you’re being asked to make a decision that will affect you when you’re 23, 24 or 25? That’s unreasonable.  That’s partially why so many college students have difficulty choosing or sticking with an academic major. At 18, you’re making a career decision for the REST OF YOUR LIFE? Considering that most high school students don’t have any in-depth preliminary help discovering what career fields might be of interest to them and what’s required to successfully attain employment, making that choice at 18 seems particularly ridiculous.  There’s nothing wrong with explaining the benefits of abstinence to young people or promoting the concept, but encouraging them to make a public declaration that they may be shamed internally or externally for breaking later may be the wrong approach.

One’s motive for chastity is a strong predictor of whether or not that person succeeds in keeping their pants on. Growing up in a fairly conservative Christian environment, I noticed the people who had additional reasons besides religion for waiting until marriage to have sex were the most successful in abstaining. In anything, most people need a strong interest or personal motivation to succeed. Motives affect effort and focus. Not doing something simply because an authority (in this case, God) told you not to is simply not good enough, principally when it doesn’t appear that there’s immediate consequences for disobeying the authority. For me, I don’t like the idea of multiple people being able to say they’ve had sex with me and they know what it looks like, smells like and tastes like. You can’t get any more intimate with a person than sex; I’m sharing and revealing a very personal side of myself. It isn’t just a way to a great orgasm; it’s a spiritual bonding act. Therefore, I’m keeping my cookies in the cookie jar until I get married. If you’re not good enough to marry, you’re not good enough to have my body. God could send me a burning bush (a reference from the story of Moses in the old testament of the bible) saying I could have pre-marital sex tomorrow and I would still wait. That’s just me.

While I’m on the subject of youth, Christianity and chastity, in some communities of faith, teens are almost taught to not even think about or discuss sex until marriage. You can’t effectively curb or control your sexual desires if you don’t understand what your triggers and weaknesses are. If one is sexually suppressed, they’ll likely struggle to handle being confronted with sex or a tempting situation. There are healthy, productive and safe ways to explore, discuss and learn about your sexual energy WITHOUT having sex. Youth ministers need to create an atmosphere for honest and open dialogue if they expect their horny teen parishioners to keep their “V-cards.”

As for Jordin Sparks…it’s always disappointing when a public figure decides (or in this case, contemplates) to renounce a chastity vow because I feel it feeds the notion and stereotype that abstinence promises are ones to be broken or are impossible to keep. When she mentioned her initial reaction to chastity at 13 and compared it to now with “people grow,” it implied that abstinence is like Trix cereal: it’s for kids and when you mature and “grow,” you don’t do it. This is going to sound harsh, but let’s be real- unless you have a new set of religious views or found your reasons for choosing abstinence shallow, deciding to have sex in your 20’s after being ‘pro-purity’ for 10 years (so pro-purity she brought attention to herself by saying on national television at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards: “It's not bad to wear a promise ring…because not everybody –guy or girl– wants to be a slut.") is not the result of “growth” or a philosophical epiphany, it’s because you want to have sex. Assuming Sparks’ new “revelation” comes as she’s been dating singer Jason Derulo since late last year, I shake my head at the thought that all it took was for her to be sprung on a guy to dump a long-held belief.

“Dear John…don’t you think nineteen’s too young to be played by your dark, twisted games when I loved you so, I should've known.”-Taylor Swift (Dear John)

Country star Taylor Swift reportedly wrote these lyrics in reference to her failed relationship with singer John Mayer, who is 12 years her senior. Yes, Taylor, 19 is too young; at least in my opinion anyhow. I’ve never thought it was a good idea that young people (particularly those with “teen” at the end of their age) date others who are significantly older. At 18 or 19, most are still developing an identity as they reconcile the familiar and what they’ve been taught with the vastly different world outside of their parental and cultural bubble and draw new conclusions. The lessons that come out of this important period of new independence, growth and self-nurturing can be stunted when dating a much older person as the youth is debatably going from one set of parental figures to another. Instead of their new worldview being shaped by individual experience, it’s shaped by this older adult who doubles as a partner and role model. The younger person eagerly soaks up their older mate’s ideals and life theories with infatuation and intrigue. Profoundly impacting the development of the younger person (purposely or not), the older mate has almost designed the perfect partner for themselves. If the younger person fails to assimilate to the older mate’s liking or starts to deviate, the relationship will likely end. For this reason or any other bevy of causes (ex. the age difference becoming more apparent, the younger person feeling smothered), if the relationship dissolves, the younger person is the one usually most affected and damaged.

“I don't need somebody to complete me; I complete myself, nobody's got to belong to somebody else…my heart is my possession, I'll be my own reflection…I'm one not half of two”- Jessica Simpson (I Belong to Me). Simpson released this song after divorcing fellow pop-star Nick Lachey, who was 7 years her senior. She began dating Lachey at age 19.

Having been so emotionally enmeshed, the younger person may feel lost or like they’ve lost their sense of self after a split, asking “who am I now that I’m not their boyfriend/girlfriend?” Not having had the proper time and space for self-growth, they now have to begin this process later and a little bit broken. 

The loss of an older partner can be multi-layered, complicated grief as there’s a loss of both a pseudo-mentor/parental figure and lover. It can bring on deep, emotional stress that could’ve been avoided. Considering all of this, it makes you question the behavior or motives of those who date considerably younger. Do they purposely seek out young blood to have someone to mold or influence? Do they have maturity issues? One especially has to wonder when their younger love interest appears to be already fragile. My eyebrows were raised when it surfaced that actor Wilmer Valderrama, then 31, and Disney darling Demi Lovato, 19, were dating shortly after her release from rehab (Lovato struggles with an eating disorder, self-injury and bipolar disorder). I thought “What on earth? As if she needs anything else that would require emotional energy or commitment.” Valderrama also dated a teen Lindsay Lohan; the pair was 6 years apart. DJ Samantha Ronson dated Lohan despite her being 9 years younger and troubled. I definitely questioned Valderrama and Ronson’s rationales (their respective relationships with Lovato and Lohan both ended).

Recently circulated on the net was a letter that actress Phylicia Rashad purportedly wrote to her 21 year old self. Rashad wrote: “Romantic involvement distracts you and can blind you to what’s really in front of you…you don’t even know yourself yet…put yourself, and your growth and development first. There are long-term repercussions to what you’re doing now.” To think, that’s the perspective Rashad wishes she had at 21, much less at 18 or 19. Will all younglings who date older men and women be in for the stifling fate I’ve just described? No; there are always exceptions to the rule. However, they’re considered ‘exceptions’ for a reason: their rarity in occurrence.  

Everyone complains about their dating life and their lack of viable options, but the people that have it the hardest, I believe, are bisexual men. Some gay men turn them down because of the stereotype that bisexual people cannot be monogamous. Heterosexual women reject them for a bevy a reasons that all go back to sexual orientation bias and gender paradigms. It angers me how prejudiced people are towards these men, especially considering the root of their conceptions. Here are the most common reasons I’ve read (and heard) from straight women as to why they won’t date a bisexual man.

"The fact that the man has been with another man at any point is gross." 
This statement clearly points to sexual orientation bias. The usual precursor to this sentence is “I don’t have a problem with gay people but…” or “That’s fine for them, but for me…” Why else would you find it “gross” if you honestly don’t have a problem with homosexuality?  What’s “gross” about same-sex interaction? Is it the anal sex aspect? For those women who say "yes," I highly doubt they ask every man they date if he has ever had anal sex with another woman. The cooties they’re so afraid of double for the men who have anal and vaginal intercourse with a female partner, which many have. Some come out of one cave, go in another, and back again. I find the “gross” argument especially irritating if it’s coming from a woman who’s engaged in casual sex, has had multiple sexual partners, or dates a man who’s had multiple sexual partners. It’s not gross that the man you’re dating has stuck his gun in multiple holsters, or that you’ve been stuck a couple of thousand times yourself, but a bisexual man is gross simply because he’s been with another man? Oh, ok. That’s not contradictory at all.

"I like a ‘manly man.’ A guy is a less of a man to me if he’s been with another dude."
Cue traditional gender ideals and more orientation bias. It’s been a long held-belief that all gay and bisexual men are effeminate (which isn’t true) and that same-sex interaction is somehow less masculine. Gender ideals come into play as masculinity is partially defined by a commanding presence and sexual prowess/domination. In heterosexual relationships, the man is expected to have a dominant role, while the woman is subordinate. In heterosexual sex, women are automatically in a submissive position as they biologically cannot penetrate and can only be penetrated. Considering those factors, if a man is ever penetrated or allows himself to be, the attitude is that he has taken on a submissive, lesser position and is more like a woman. This attitude is part of the reason why male sexual abuse victims rarely report incidents, particularly if the perpetrator is also male. These victims are made to feel that they are now weak, less-than and automatically homosexual, which is undesirable. Orientation bias is in play as a man’s value is reduced just because of same-sex relations.

""It’s bad enough to have to watch other women; I don’t want to have to watch men too. There’s too much competition when dating a bisexual man."
Your competition rate is the same. Logically, you’re thinking if you date a straight man, you only have to watch half the room, but imagine if most of the room was female. It’s just like if your man worked at an office with mostly women. Whether your man is straight or bisexual, anyone at anytime can vie for him. It doesn’t matter how many men or women are attracted to him. What matters is if he gives into them or not. If he wants to cheat, he’s going to cheat, no matter who you think you’re watching. The likelihood of someone being unfaithful does not increase or decrease based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, you shouldn’t have to “compete” to keep your man’s loyalty in general.

"I’m afraid I’ll get HIV or AIDS."
No matter who you have sex with, you need to be using protection and getting tested regularly. You can contract HIV, AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease (STD) from ANYONE. Bisexual men are NOT more likely to carry the illness than heterosexual men. That is a MYTH.

"I’m afraid I won’t be able to satisfy a bisexual man in the bedroom."
Bisexual men enjoy sex with women; that’s why they’re bisexual. No need to worry about those who prefer sex with men, because they’re not going to date you. If you’re concerned about his itch for dick, there’s always dildos, strap-ons and other sexual toys. There’s also dating bisexual men who primarily prefer women sexually. In any case, it’s important to have an open and honest conversation with your partner about desires and concerns. You might find that you won’t have any problems at all. On another, semi-related note, it seems that straight men are a lot less concerned about satisfying their bisexual female mates, than women are about bisexual male mates. That’s likely because of gender politics too. Women are born and raised in a culture that fosters insecurity and low confidence, but that’s a different topic for another day.

The PLUSES of dating a bisexual man.
Believe it or not, there are some.

Sexual flexibility.
For the women who like a balance of control in the bedroom or little adventure, a bisexual man might be up their alley. Because of their varied sexual preference with gender, bisexual men have an easier time sharing control and are more open to trying to new things.
Equality.
Due to the amount of gender politics and issues that affect a bisexual man’s dating life, these men are sometimes more sensitive to and understanding of the plight of women and gender-based double standards. Those who seek out a more egalitarian dating or home life might benefit from having a bisexual man as a partner.

Think twice before you turn down a man who offers everything you’re looking for just because he’s bisexual. Analyze why you are reluctant to date a bisexual man. Are those reasons inherently and unfairly prejudiced? The mistreatment and dismissal of bisexual men has led some to conceal their orientation from female partners. Not to condone the dishonesty, because I don’t, but I understand why they would consider it.

By C.G. Seymore, Co-contributor

A large qualm I have about higher education as of late (or at the very least at my university UC Berkeley) is the lack of diversity on campus. Universities attempt to artificially create diversity by accepting different raced people to create a façade that masks the real problem: a lack of diverse ideology. Besides the blind hypocrisy of initiating justice through injustice, the concentration on racial diversity, is the not diversity issue we should be dealing with.
A true utopian school is a school where young adults are able to discuss a diverse surplus of different ideologies and are encouraged to stray from the norm. Schools where the professors don’t have a reputation for being “liberal” or “ultra-conservative”. We go to universities for an abundance of reasons, but one of those reasons comes to the idea of entertaining and exploring the mind, probably more than we ever will for the rest of our lives. So what happens when all we hear is biased political rhetoric without any real or encouraged conversation? We get a bunch of young adults that are well versed in professor dialect and terminology.

Schools that pride themselves on set political stances should be embarrassed. They take the very thing that universities are supposed to supply and wall it off. This creates a polarization effect, in which students know these reputations and will polarize to their most comfortable political and ideological destination. This is where students know they will be patted on the back for re-edifying their own beliefs, and rarely does it encourage them to test the status quo. Students become complaisant and rarely challenge the status quo; this is wrong, this is not what our youth needs to be absorbing and making a habit of. When we students (or our parents) borrow or fork out $100-200,000 for education, nothing seems more problematic than getting an education that only reinforces current ideals and fails to challenge the mind.
This is a plea for schools to take into consideration the idea that maybe their emphasis on diversity has been skewed. It is a plea for students to stop being complacent and demand that their schools challenge their current ideology and encourage diversified political and ideological identities; not perpetuate the ones they already have. If there is a concentration on diversity of the mind, then the problem of diversification of universities between race and other various qualities will level itself out, since there are no innate differences between different races and people.

Cheers