John F. Kennedy once said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
Peaceful revolution at Dartmouth College is dead. It died with the "Take Back the Night" march last week; the Colors rally last term; the Student Assembly resolution condemning vandalism and harassment against gay, lesbian and bisexual students Fall term; the objections raised to the sexist and racist attitudes against Native Americans of the "Beta poem" Summer term.
Peaceful revolution died because one of my first friends here was raped within a year of my knowing her. It died because two more women I knew well last year were victims of sexual assault and/or abuse before I knew them. Peaceful revolution died because qualified students were convinced they were admitted to this institution because they checked a box on their applications. It died because too many professors attempted to impose personal racial and cultural prejudices upon students while maintaining their power to impose final judgment on intellectual and academic abilities of the young minds they were trained to enlighten, not darken.
The few student voices that brought awareness to issues were buried alive by those who carried the suffocating earth they called "realism" or "pragmatism." After being labeled unrealistic, radical, militant or special interest-oriented enough times, any voice could be silenced. It is not that the voice would cease causing the air to shatter, but rather it would not be heard.
Everything exclaimed at rallies in Winter '95 and Fall '94 has already been forgotten. Was there anything frightening about attempting to protect financial aid packages received by 50 percent of Dartmouth's students? Was there any threat in trying to unite persons in opposition to legislation designed to scapegoat Latinos/as and Asian immigrants to the State of California? Apparently these two innocuous ideas were so dangerous nobody wished to see their direct application to Dartmouth.
Why were 400 people so angered and disturbed by the word "chink" being written on two doors they were willing to brave two hours of cold last term to listen to students, faculty and administrators speak out against racism? Were these incidents isolated and unrelated to problems faced by Asian-Americans in US society? I would say no, and argue that the same prejudices that drove Californians to vote for Proposition 187 are the ones that made writing "chink" on doors understandable. I would say no, but I am already one of the voices buried under mounds of earth. I would say no, but I fear no matter what I say, you will not respect my opinion.
Peaceful revolution is the victim of ignorance, hypocrisy and brutality. It is pathetic that a column Miranda Johnson '97 wrote on affinity housing will evoke a larger response from angry fraternity members than the events of Sexual Assault Awareness Week. Kirsten Doolittle '96 will receive more angry blitzes as a result of her advocacy of the dissolution of the "Greek system" than letters will be written to the COS and administration demanding that Dartmouth end its practice of rewarding convicted rapists with a degree.
Peaceful revolution signed its own death certificate when it rationalized compromise, conformity, assimilation and submission to the comfort of the greater "Dartmouth Community." There is a reason for segregation and self-segregation at Dartmouth and within US society. It is not that all black people like to eat meals together in Food Court. For most Dartmouth students that is an easy excuse, but it does nothing to address the actual roots of self-segregation. I have yet to see persons not of African descent apply to live in Cutter-Shabazz Hall or attend events sponsored by the Afro-American Society. Is this segregation the consequence of the above stereotype? Do persons of African descent have a responsibility for the sake of the greater "Dartmouth Community" to eat next to non-black persons? A majority of Dartmouth operates on irrational, illogical and ridiculous modes of thinking where "race relations" are concerned.
Peaceful revolution was born to die a martyr. Dartmouth preordained that it could only imagine its future in two ways: the "certain" future, defined by those who carry the suffocating earth they call "realism" or "pragmatism;" and the "ideal" future, defined by those who saw the unification of the CFS and affinity organizations as the solution to problems of "race relations" at Dartmouth.
In the "certain" future, little to nothing could be done to make Dartmouth change. In the "ideal" future, Dartmouth would be a utopian place free from distinctions in class, race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. Both futures leave much to be desired. The first tells us concerns of minority voices are futile and unrealizable. The second tells us who and what we are is unimportant. I disagree with both. The former future is a condemnation of peaceful revolution. The latter is a reinvention of it. Both futures are now null and void. Peaceful revolution is dead, there is nothing like it to condemn or reinvent.
