By Journalist Abigail Bowman (ORU)
In the opening days of the O.I.L. sessions, the author, a first-year participant, entered the legislative arena with anticipation, eager to unravel the intricacies that define this unique environment. As the first day concluded, reflections on the diverse group of individuals participating in this deliberative process became inevitable, prompting thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses each delegate brings to the table.
Within this diverse assembly, disagreements naturally surfaced, often overshadowing moments of consensus. The potential for heated debates, fueled by passion and occasionally marred by anger, loomed large. The reflex to assert one’s voice forcefully can be tempting, seemingly the path of least resistance in an arena where being heard is paramount. However, keen observations during this session underscore a distinct approach. Those who shine amidst the deliberative process engage in careful observation and execute their roles with a demeanor marked by respectful kindness. Whether presenting motions, posing questions, or suggesting amendments, these participants contribute to a more constructive and collegial environment.
Governor Shaw’s challenge to all delegates, urging them to embrace opportunities for personal and intellectual growth by engaging with bills they may not inherently agree with, resonates profoundly. Within this context, the author discerns a vital aspect of the competition – those who emerge as luminaries willingly accept the challenge of learning from their peers, fostering an environment where diverse perspectives contribute to collective growth. In the author’s perspective, true distinction in this competition is achieved by those who affirmatively respond to the challenge of learning from others, embracing the role of a servant leader. By saying ‘yes’ to the challenge of broadening one’s understanding and being receptive to the beliefs of others, participants not only enhance their capacities but also contribute significantly to the collaborative fabric of this legislative endeavor.
As the session progresses, the author envisions a landscape where respectful discourse precedes discord. The real strength lies in navigating differences gracefully and seeking common ground amid diverse perspectives. It is a call to rise above the temptation of loud voices and embrace the art of thoughtful observation, recognizing that authentic leadership emerges in being heard, listening, learning, and fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect. In this spirit, the O.I.L. sessions become not just a platform for legislative competition but a forum for personal and collective growth. As the author looks ahead, there is a hopeful anticipation that this environment will continue to foster a culture of thoughtful engagement, where every participant contributes to the more significant discourse, enriching the overall experience for everyone involved.