Justas the recent bombing in Oklahoma has led to wider publicity for and broad condemnation of the inflammatory rhetoric of para-military organizations and other fountains of hate-inspired venom, the publicity surrounding issues of sexual assault on this campus recently has also led to increased publicity and condemnation. While this issue is receiving much-needed attention, let us differentiate between that which is constructive and helpful, and that which is mean-spirited and luridly destructive.
As the picture becomes clearer, we are learning that the bombing in Oklahoma did not come out of nowhere; there was a prevailing atmosphere of hate and paranoia which impelled an individual or group of individuals forward to commit one of the most destructive, violent and life-shattering crimes this nation has ever seen. Likewise, there is a certain type of atmosphere, which although not usually explicitly encouraging of sexual assault, gives both implicit and explicit consent to such actions and refuses to admit anything wrong with such destructive and often violent acts; instead, we can rationalize and explain away.
Even we at Dartmouth are partially to blame for the growth and spread of such an atmosphere. The ways in which this happens are very subtle and often go unrecognized until we engage in serious and honest reflection concerning such causes that we as individuals can be responsible for. Ultimately, the answer to such a scourge is not to be found by changing social structures from the top-down or providing more programming money, but in affecting individual lives and evaluating our own attitudes toward the root of problems such as sexual assault.
There are many influences specifically focused on persons of our generation that tell us to express ourselves in whatever way we wish, with no negative consequences and best of all, no guilt. How telling it is that this new public focus on sexual assault corresponds with the arrival of Playboy magazine at Dartmouth for its "Girls of the Ivy League" photo shoot. The Playboy ethos of sexual expression and fulfillment without commitment or consequence fits right in with the prevailing norms on many campuses. What about Dartmouth?
It is a mistake to pin the blame, as many have done, on men alone. It is inappropriate to point to an alleged male-domination that produces sexual assault while failing to acknowledge the more pervasive influence of the self-expression myth influencing men and women alike. One need only take a look at an issue of Cosmopolitan or similar magazines aimed toward women to see obvious evidence of this.
Maybe we should also re-examine our attitudes towards sex education in our nation's schools. The idea of wider availability of "protection" does nothing but cover up the real problem which will always come back, and has already come back to haunt us.
In The Dartmouth's Weekend Gazette last Friday concerning sexual assault, one account out of the many powerful stories was particularly striking and revealing of a fundamental problem. Apparently, one particular rapist used "protection." This is a sick societal postscript to an already lamentable and horrible drama. A postscript which apparently could have been written by any one of the self-anointed prophets of protection, with flimsy latex answers to fundamental human problems.
We need to be more aware of the implications of the messages we are sending and the messages to which we give implicit consent. Sure, take back the night, but first, let's take back what is right.
And just plain wrong.
