Many people on this campus have been greatly upset by recent examples of intolerance. A few people got more than upset, and turned to Radicalism. In the past few days, we have seen three examples of such Radicalism: the dumping of manure on the lawns of two fraternities, the distribution of a flyer which read "Frats Assault, Frats Rape, Frats Suck" and the distribution of a one page publication titled "The Shit You Don't Hear About ..."
The purpose of any radical act is to go so far on one side of things that the other side is forced to respond. The response garnered by a radical act is ineffective in the long term. While Radicalism often achieves its short term goal, its methodology is counterproductive to progress beyond the immediate response of anger. Beta will now respond to the poem with a great deal of anger and resentment for those who have forced them to respond.
How productive is this response born of anger? Will the perpetrators of the offensive incidents learn anything besides a new hatred for those who would force them to bow to the demands of a small part of the community?
I agree that people on this campus need to learn respect for others, however, I do not see how these recent acts go anywhere toward achieving this goal. Instead, they alienate the persons who should be involved from any productive dialogue. Would you step into a dialogue knowing that you would only be met with hatred?
Radicalism is acting out of anger, and it does little but create more anger in response. I agree that our community is in crisis, but the recent acts have done nothing but divide the community further and make the progress of a unified whole more difficult.
Let us look specifically at yesterday's flyer. Where is the journalistic integrity which makes any publication reliable? When did Jim Brennan become a renowned sex offender instead of an alleged one? Furthermore, printing a secondhand account of the Miranda Johnson story without the permission of Miranda Johnson herself is extremely dubious. Considering a large part of the piece regards her feelings, it would seem appropriate that she be in accord with what was printed.
As an AC, why have I also never seen the results of nor heard any reports of the acts of vandalism which allegedly took place in the Fayerweathers? Why have none of these incidents been reported to Safety and Security? They are encouraging others to take action through appropriate channels, but have done little to demonstrate their own willingness to do so. Regarding the word "unconscious" being crossed out of the segment titled, "Stop the Violence," could any of the persons writing the story have been at the incident and still question whether or not a very important fact was true?
This publication makes a lot of accusations and stirs a lot of strong emotions on both sides but it is also questionable in many ways. The authors' anonymity allows them to say what they think, but it also prevents them from having to answer the questions which should be asked and frees them from accountability for the truth of the facts which they report.
The publication is almost Review-like in its printing of little tidbits of fact surrounded by a whole lot of opinion and the occasional snide comment intended to convince the reader that the author's perspective is the only correct point of view. This publication should garner the general response of questioning and a desire to know more, rather than a simple acceptance.
Finally I would like to send a message to all persons involved in the three incidents. I know that you felt like you needed a response, and that these acts were your only option, but Dartmouth is far too intelligent a place for that to be true. Dialogue is possible and is the only real way to move the entire community forward. The message that was sent by your actions runs completely counter to any forward movement. You have now made it clear that there is no hope of anyone successfully responding to you regarding the incidents of intolerance in what you will consider to be a positive manner. This message is completely unproductive.
Why are you only talking about specific institutions and individual incidents rather than what is really at issue? What is it about Dartmouth which creates an environment which allows intolerance to continue unchecked? The main target of these incidents, the fraternities, are nothing more than organized groups of friends. If you take away the frat, you still have the groups of friends who would participate in the same behaviors. What is to stop a group of friends from saying, "hey, let's write a really offensive poem about some of the girls we hooked up with last week?" Perhaps there is something about the dynamic of a fraternity which allows intolerance to be slightly more prevalent than in the general, but we must attempt to change this dynamic. To get rid of the specific institutions would do nothing, for surely the dynamic would reappear among the groups which would still exist.
The hate overrides the specific institution involved in an incident. It is not frats that assault or frats that rape. It is individuals that assault and individuals that rape. We must stop accusing groups and counter-accusing other groups and look to the actual dynamic within our community which allows for the continued prevalence of intolerance and anger.
