To the Editor:
The high-falutin words of one Ali Rashid ("A Legacy of Racism, Sexism," March 1, 2001) are to be admired. He writes about fighting the stubborn problems of racism and sexism at Dartmouth, and about the instances in which such problems reared their ugly heads. I praise his energy and conviction, but can I say that such motivation is enough to justify and sustain the remedies he so zealously proposes? Alas, I cannot, because when we look at his specific recommendations, we can only see prospective recipes for disaster.
First, he offers to "revise the honor principle to make hate crime punishable by suspension of individuals and de-recognition of organizations." Indeed, such a recommendation deserves submission, but not necessarily practice, until certain questions are resolved. The fundamental question relating to hate crimes: What is a hate crime? Does one's entrenched or feverish opposition to affirmative action constitute a hate crime (I can imagine some people thinking so ...)? Or are such crimes limited to the arena of violence? And where do we draw the line between these two polar opposites? Moreover, who determines hate crimes on-campus? I suspect such inquiries have not totally traversed the mind of Mr. Rashid.
Second, Mr. Rashid proposes to "adopt a new official mascot." Heck, I'm for a mascot, but his reasoning in supporting the adoption of one is, at best, strange. According to his logic, because the Indian constitutes the "unofficial" mascot, we should adopt a new one. I, for one, believe the Indian is a mascot only for a minority within the Dartmouth community, so I reject his implication that it is "unofficial" for most. Even assuming it's "unofficial," what does that have to do with having a new official mascot, especially since the Indian as a mascot is supported by private citizens? Even if we were to adopt a new mascot (I'm for the moose), students who promote the Indian mascot would do as they please. I mean, Dartmouth has not recognized the Indian as a mascot for years now, and yet, the Indian remains a mascot in the eyes of some people. Having a new mascot for the expressed purpose of rooting out the practice of using the Indian mascot may even embolden some to continue in their stubborn ways. Let's have a mascot, but let us have it for the right reasons, through consensus and the free exercise of Dartmouth students.
And lastly, Mr. Rashid proposes the establishment of a Latino Greek Council. Hmmm, I suppose we could have one. In that case, it might be sensible to have a Marching Band Greek Council (of which Sigma Nu fraternity would constitute the lone member), the Nice Guy Greek Council (of which Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity would comprise the sole member), and other Greek councils that would reflect the diversity of the community. I reject this notion unequivocally! Are we a Balkanized community destined to self-segregation and disregard for our fellow students, simply because of the color of our skin? As a recent alum, I write this piece because I would hate to see Dartmouth as a community transform into so many of the communities I've resided and volunteered at since graduation. Ridiculous is one word that comes to mind when I think about the possibility of numerous Greek councils, tending to their own interests and utterly neglecting the responsibilities inherent in community.
Does Mr. Rashid have anything to offer in the way of an extended olive branch? For that matter, does he offer any recommendation that requires of him some sacrifice or departure from his biases and beliefs? His underlying point reasons that, because things have happened in the past, they will happen again. And on that point, I concur. I agree with him that things will probably happen again, but not simply because of persistent racism or sexism. It is precisely because people are imperfect that such things will happen. As society progresses, Dartmouth too evolves, further abandoning vestiges of racism and sexism. The challenge involves the following question: how can we prevent or limit such things from occurring again? Certainly, prevention cannot be largely achieved by imperiously telling people what to do; rather, like the Good Samaritan, we must all offer the outstretched hand and build trust. Indeed, individual accountability accompanies consensus and dialogue. Only through the means of community can the problems of our community be resolved.
