I refuse to display the recently distributed "I Will Not Be Silent" flyer on my door. Contrary to Miranda Johnson's superficial explanations ["Why Aren't You Putting Those Flyers Up?", Feb. 1], my reasoning stems not from fear, apathy or lack of tape. The roots run deeper than that. Has it occurred to Johnson and her like-minded cohorts that there may be those on this campus who actually have the gall to disagree with such a humanitarian effort? Lest I be branded racist, sexist and homophobic (as happens all too often when swimming "against the current" of an emotional uprising), I must articulate my support for the theory behind the flyer, if not for its practical existence. Dartmouth and all her students are collectively shamed and degraded by acts of hate and intolerance. A manipulative, unsolicited flyer is the wrong way to address this quandary.
The best analogy I've heard links this piece of pink paper with the "Wear Jeans for Peace" days too many of us endured in high school. If I feel like wearing khakis or corduroys then I must be a bloodthirsty warmonger or, at the very least, an insensitive clout. For the flyer's authors to proclaim "Your silence supports this behavior" foists a self-righteous catch-22 on members of the Dartmouth community: either do it our way, or do it the wrong way. I refuse to follow their lead (as I feel it wanders over the edge of a cliff) but my way is not wrong.
Johnson wonders whether Dartmouth students are "so lazy that they can't put a flyer up." Posting the flyer may in fact be the route of apathy. She seems to equate putting the flyer on one's door with putting its message in one's actions. The converse is also erroneously assumed true: throwing away a piece of paper equals throwing away human rights. Many students, however, may well have discarded the paper because of their commitment to individual rights and freedoms.
Coercion and oppression are remarkably similar. I refuse to infringe on the rights of my peers (by making hate speech a crime on campus) either to support harmony or destroy it. The freedom to dissent, to disagree and to express disagreement, towers in my mind as a freedom worth fighting for. Sure, it may be abused, and that abuse is reprehensible, but I do not feel that this is an "if you're not with us, you're against us" issue. There exists a "golden road" of moderation which combines respect for others with healthy doses of tact and realism. The wording of this flyer, and the blind pressure to display it, is naive, thoughtless and of little substance.
Reflect on the battle cry that "This must and will stop now!" and it begins to sound hollow, somehow phony. Dartmouth is a microcosm of society; perhaps not an even slice in terms of intelligence and financial resources, but nearly every group enjoys representation. As such, the problems of society will be the problems of Dartmouth and, as any student of history knows, conflict is perhaps the defining link between the ages. At the risk of sounding pessimistic -- and please think long and hard about the distinction between pessimism and realism -- the human race will never live in perfect harmony. This would imply a uniformity diametrically opposed to the concept of diversity.
So, instead of empty phrases, redraw a flyer with concrete and definitive steps which we, as members of the same close-knit community, may undertake in an effort to embody all the principles at the heart of a Dartmouth education: truth, acceptance and understanding. In the meantime, I prefer to look upon leading by example not as hanging a half-cocked diatribe on the door to my room, but as fully interacting within the College and the world in a way that treats each person with respect and courtesy. That is our right, not only as classmates, but as human beings.
