To the Editor:
Though I know for a fact that Jonathan Flynn in his letter to the editor of March 5 ["Student Assembly Fails to Accurately Represent the Interests of the Student Body," The Dartmouth] intends no maliciousness, he nevertheless commits an error of logic that begs retort. He states: "In a continuing effort to make itself infinitely diverse, the Student Assembly has distanced itself from the core of the student population that it ought to be representing." Though I feel the sarcasm and cynicism of the phrase "infinitely diverse" reflect disapprovingly on the tenor of the letter, that phrase is peripheral to the crux of this issue.
Flynn here commits what is known as the "naturalistic fallacy": extrapolating "ought" from "is." In other words, because an informal poll might reflect an anti-diversity agenda different from the Assembly's, the Assembly must necessarily abandon that agenda. Frankly, this is a fallacy. To begin, I question whether Flynn's supposition that a majority of the student population opposes an agenda of diversity is rooted in fact. More importantly, though, Dartmouth College must be dedicated to cultivating the diversity that enriches it. We are no longer a hegemonic institution; the Assembly has an ethical obligation to make its population representative of the student body for which it advocates. We will not overcome the myopic perception outside Hanover of this College as a bastion of homogeneity if we perpetuate the misguided mythologies Flynn describes. There is not "a problem that exists within the student government" dedicated to diversity; rather, there is a problem that exists within segments of this community that fail to see its necessity.
