Dartmouth's commitment to diversity is beyond question. This past week alone witnessed many positive events: the Alumni Council recognized the Latino Alumni Group, Dr. Rev. James Forbes delivered a spirited lecture on the scope of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream and the College celebrated King's memory and legacy extensively. Despite all this, a complex but important question still lingers: how well does Dartmouth realize its noble vision of integrated multiculturalism beyond the pages of its glossy brochures and well-advertised lectures?
This question leads to a discussion on the complex dynamics of self-segregation. On the one hand, self-segregation is inevitable in a community of over 4,000 people. In any group this size, individuals with similar interests and backgrounds will come together to forge strong group identities. Many students cite their participation in such organizations as one of the highlights of their Dartmouth experience. On the other hand, self-segregation is clearly detrimental to the Dartmouth community if the insular nature of these groups divides the campus instead of unites it. The list of potentially insular campus organizations is by no means limited to groups centered around shared race or culture, and includes sports teams, CFS houses and other campus organizations of a discerning nature. In each, there exists a healthy degree of selective affinity, which allows for the formation of a strong group identity. Too often, however, the multiple degrees of social separation among groups can build walls over which group members cannot see and through which they cannot break to reach other segments of the campus.
While we realize that self-segregation is a complex issue to address, we believe that the College can do more to encourage interaction among various selective campus organizations. To this end, we commend the College's decision to condense all freshmen into fewer residential clusters next year. This move will allow the greatest number of interpersonal connections to be made across group boundaries in those all-important first weeks of school. However, we find the degree to which Dartmouth indirectly fosters the divisions within the student body highly problematic. Whatever the College's rhetoric, in reality many groups stand as virtually isolated entities pursuing their own agendas outside the whole. Perhaps one way this trend could shift is if selective organizations simply advertised their existence and character to freshmen instead of actively recruiting during the first few weeks. Some affinity houses begin recruiting soon after the acceptance letter has been sent, which is unwarranted. Aggressive recruitment processes for highly-selective organizations and affinity houses can limit options for freshmen. A reduced emphasis on early recruitment would provide freshmen with an opportunity to discover Dartmouth in their own way.
