To the Editor:
I don't like writing. Especially in the D. But I'm concerned about some recent coverage. The details of this letter concern the Student Assembly, but the themes can be applied to much more.
In a Student Assembly meeting a few weeks back, a resolution petitioning the administration to add more inter-cultural ethnic studies courses to the curriculum came to the floor. Its idea was to enhance understanding of intercultural relations (Asian American/African American, Korean/Latino, etc.). In the meeting, an Asian American student conceded that she felt that current Ethnic Studies classes were primarily attended by people of the very ethnicity the class covered. I concurred by stating, "IF only colored people are attending colored classes, we are preaching to the choir in terms of fostering cross-cultural understanding. A better idea for the purpose would be to request these classes are included in the core requirements of a Dartmouth degree."
I was responding to a comment that referred to "people of color," and in trying to convey a point, which I believe is valid, I mixed up my words and said something inappropriate. It was a mistake, not my intention, and, as soon as individuals let me know that they were offended, I promptly apologized to the entire assembly. However, my mistake was not grounds for impeachment and is not what some people tried to impeach me for.
At the following meeting, the Ethnic Studies Resolution finally passed. Having been tabled the previous week for fine tuning, consensus had materialized for its support. I voted for it. If nothing else, it was well intentioned.
After passing, Unai Montes-Irueste asked the Assembly to endorse and append a letter he had written to the resolution. I argued against it for several reasons. The two-page letter was not printed out, he had not notified anyone in advance of the meeting for consideration, and I felt the resolution we had passed spoke well enough for itself.
As Montes-Irueste waxed into the second page of his letter, I requested a time limit on his speech. To say the least, I considered it a little . . . verbose. I was a bit irritated by this unexpected (and unnecessary) extension to the meeting. The Assembly brought the letter up for discussion and voted to not append it to the Ethnic Studies Resolution. None of my actions in that meeting were grounds for removal from the SA either, and that's not what people tried to impeach me for.
What people tried me for was what I wouldn't apologize for. Before this last meeting, I had consumed alcohol. People knew so because I told them. However, it's unfortunate that such a small amount of RESPONSIBLE drinking (and responsible behavior after drinking) goes on at this campus that many people forget about its occurrence altogether. The question regarding my trial was "Is it acceptable to consume alcohol before a meeting given the fact that actions at the meeting are not grounds for removal?" I maintained that it was.
What bothers me most about the events of the last few weeks is that people were not considering the true issue of my trial. Some people have worked to turn it into a racial issue. I have been assailed for not being "appreciative of the diversity of the community." Gimme a break. Anyone that knows me personally knows that I'm not a racist. Some other people have used the last few weeks to engage in a power play to remove me with their own "professional" interpretations of our constitution, laden with personal bias. Unfortunately, people could not keep the true issue at the forefront. Fortunately, I was acquitted nonetheless.
Some people choose to drink and that's their prerogative. We're all adults, and we can act responsibly. Thanks for reading.
