Last week, Student Life ran a piece titled “Open Letter from Wash. U. College Republicans to Provost Holden Thorp.” I found the letter tone-deaf, patronizing and misleading. To start, the College Republicans purport to be neutral, writing that they “do not and will not take a stance on the shooting [of Michael Brown] itself.” They then go on to advocate for a vocal supporter of officer Darren Wilson, former Florissant Police Department Director of Multicultural Affairs Robin Clearmountain, to participate in a panel discussion on campus.

Second, the group’s “deep concern” regarding the lack of “police perspective” in campus-wide discussions about Michael Brown and Ferguson is frankly misplaced. The panel to which the College Republicans allude in their letter, “Race, Place, Violence: A University-Wide Dialogue About Michael Brown,” focused on the social and geographical landscapes of racial inequality and systematic violence that communities of color—particularly black communities—face on a daily basis.

The panel featured scholars of African and African-American studies, public health, gender and sexuality studies, neuroscience, and even a former assistant U.S. attorney who is currently a professor of law at Wash. U. and the director of a non-profit that connects inner-city youth with mentors in the field of law. The formal discussion in question was a panel—not a debate—about racial inequality in the greater St. Louis community.

Having a police officer who is not affiliated with the University would not “balance” perspectives. Rather, his or her presence would confuse the entire point of the panel, which was to discuss racial inequality across a breadth of academic disciplines. While certain panelists discussed police brutality, the issue was framed as part of a broader context of social injustices that many black St. Louisans (and Americans) regularly experience.

The College Republicans have done a great disservice to themselves (regarding genuine concerns they may have had about balanced dialogue) by making police presence in discussions about racism a priority over featuring voices of people who understand the structural and psychological nature of racial inequality and/or face racism on a daily basis.

Third, the idea that failing to have the police perspective in campus discussions “will serve only to increase divisiveness and hostility” demonstrates great ignorance on the part of the College Republicans about how “hostility and divisiveness” regarding issues of race and police brutality truly arise. People are hostile because they believe that fellow citizens—many of whom are racial or other minorities—have had their civil rights violated or have had their lives unjustly taken by members of law enforcement, who are supposed to protect and serve us.

Additionally, people have already been divided about the role of the police in marginalized communities. People have already been hostile about police brutality, the militarization of local and state police forces, and racial profiling. It’s just now, after the events in Ferguson, that these “hostile” and “divisive” voices are being given a space on our campus.

A future panel on police accountability would greatly benefit from multiple “on-the-ground” perspectives, including those of police officers. There are a multitude of conversations that can and will happen about Brown and Ferguson, and I hope that people who feel like their voices and values are being suppressed on this campus will attend them and share their perspectives.