How often it is proved that the magnitude of a situation only masks its similarities to smaller ones.

Earlier this semester, my roommate and I had a discussion. It wasn’t about the weather or about the Bears’ defense, but it was about a problem that had to be solved. Both of us had conflicting viewpoints—or so we thought.

The “argument” or rather the dilemma we faced was—like all roommate disputes—petty. It dealt with the cleanliness of our abode. Personally, I was getting disgusted with picking through pizza boxes, notes, folders and records just to find a place to sit down. Because most of the debris was not mine, I became increasingly agitated at my roommate.

I knew the man from our residence hall days, and his room was never in the running for a good housekeeping award. Consequently, I assumed he was a lazy slob, content to live in messy squalor.

When it comes to the problem of peacefully coexisting, relations between the U.S. and the USSR rank as number one. There is undeniably no issue of this type with more complexities and more at stake.

In December, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev is scheduled to visit this country. As part of that visit, it was proposed to allow Gorbachev the opportunity to address a joint session of Congress. Almost immediately, the cry went up that Gorbachev was the head of the “evil empire” and had no business in “the temple of freedom.”

easons presented for not allowing the speech hold about as much water as a torn sponge. They range from Sen. Robert Dole’s, R-Kan., meek “I’m afraid it could be a rather ugly scene,” to Rep. Robert Dornan, R-Cal., who said, “no communist dictator is coming into this house (of Representatives).”

These reasons reflect a selective double standard. Apparently, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Haile Selassie of Ethiopia and Sukarno of Indonesia weren’t dictatorial enough to warrant denial to enter the “temple.”

Opposition to Gorbachev’s speech can only indicate stereotypical labeling on the part of the GOP (the Democrats have prudently avoided entering this political foot-in-mouth thus far). The image of the “mad Russian” reviewing a tank parade in Red Square must be fresh in many minds.

Unfortunately, that image is standing in the way of communication. Lack of communication is impeding understanding; lack of understanding is making relations between the U.S. and the USSR stale at best. Americans should no longer be content to hear “those Russians are bad,” and let it go at that.

Congress has never been too keen on accepting Gorbachev’s proposals for improved superpower relations. It would only seem appropriate for our elected representatives to hear first-hand what the Soviet leader has to say and then decide whether they think his proposals are for real.

As for me and my roommate, we got together, talked and realized our desires were the same. We both wanted to make the most out of sharing our apartment. The trouble was we didn’t really know how the other felt about things. We solved our little problem.

Naturally, superpower relations are not so simple. Forty years of Cold War cannot be wiped away by a get-together and/or a speech. However, there can be no hope of improving relations if we sit around and stew over how we disagree with one another.

There are some who would argue that President Reagan should be allowed to speak to the Soviets. It would be nice, but it should not be a condition in order for Gorbachev to make his address. Maybe Reagan would be offered the chance anyway. Maybe not. In any event, at least one side would have a better idea of where the other is coming from.

Gorbachev should be allowed to speak, and everybody should be given the chance to listen. His speech may or may not change people’s opinion of the Soviet Union. But hearing what he has to say sure beats wondering what he might be up to.