I am ashamed to be a student at Dartmouth.
There will probably be few moments in my life when I will ever feel this way; indeed, this is the first time I've ever been ashamed of my school. But I could only be embarrassed by the disgraceful way in which Dartmouth students and others conducted themselves at the Yvette Schneider lecture last Tuesday.
What was Schneider trying to say, anyway? She was not trying to convert gays. If the protesters came seeking a harangue, they were sorely disappointed. Scheider's speech was calm, sincere, and above all, polite. All Scheider sought to do was explain her life story. She made a point of separating this from current issues, legislation, or the policies of her institution. Yet for this she was castigated -- and castigated in a terribly demeaning and insulting way. One Dartmouth student claimed that she was "benign," yet went on to opine that her views were "dangerous." One visitor, after a lengthy and tangental exhortation about her gay son, condescendingly asked, "What have you ever done for anyone else?" A third, vitriolic audience member shouted "I spit on you," while the crowd grew increasingly agitated.
Protesters claimed they wanted to have a dialogue, yet what they really wanted was to demonize, and they monopolized discussion so much that Schneider was not allowed to respond to the spurious accusations being made against her. Although Ezekiel Webber claimed in a letter in this paper that Voces Clamantium "ended the dialogue," the truth is that the barbarous behavior of the audience, and not Schneider's departure, was the cause.
Because they disagreed, they refused to listen. I imagine that, if the Rainbow Alliance were to bring a gay speaker to discuss his or her travails and triumphs in dealing with homosexuality, that speaker would be whole-heartedly praised for his or her "courage." When Scheider describes her travails and triumphs, however, she is called "cowardly." There's a word for this, ladies and gentlemen -- hypocrisy.
Many in the audience and at the protests came in with their indictment in hand, itching for the opportunity to serve it. Even worse, the attitude of the audience clearly implied that Schneider's feelings and personal experiences are inherently wrong. How is this even conceivable? How is it defensible? Can Dartmouth's gay community honestly tell Schneider that her experiences and her abandonment of homosexuality are somehow illegitimate and impossible, when her being here proves that they are not?
Gays often make the argument that it is not easy to be gay, and that homosexuals are much more likely to commit suicide than are heterosexuals. No one could disagree with this; I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like, but it certainly cannot be easy. Yet if it is hard to be homosexual, then there must be some who seek to abandon homosexuality. Such a suggestion, however, is taboo, as we saw on Tuesday night. Those gays who truly, truly do not want to be gay must not only deal with the hardships of trying to change, but must in addition face the wrath of other homosexuals. Again, we are faced with hypocrisy.
I am reminded of a quote I once heard: "Thirty years ago, a tolerant person was someone who held strong beliefs yet acknowledged another's right to disagree. Nowadays, anyone who has strong beliefs is instantly branded intolerant." This unfortunate situation was validated by the fiasco Tuesday night. Universities in particular are riddled with this perverted idea that beliefs are bad. Yet only when beliefs differ is open discourse fruitful. What is the point of discussion if everyone agrees or if everyone holds tepid beliefs that do not differ significantly?
Those seeking to bemoan the death of liberty on American campuses will now have the Schneider debacle to add to their growing list of assaults on free speech. Every Dartmouth student should ask himself or herself -- who was intolerant last Tuesday? Yvette Schneider, or the audience? I think the answer is clear.
