The backlash of recent on-campus events, especially in light Martin Luther King Day, has brought to the forefront of discussion here at Dartmouth a much-hyped question that has simmered nationally for years: that of diversity and acceptance. I have noticed, as I know others have, that at Dartmouth those words often ring hollow. What do they mean and what are you talking about when you say you want to increase, advocate, promote, advance, stress or encourage them? The truth is that "diversity" is a political punchline, lacking both direction and suggestion for implementation, hinting at much and delivering on nothing.
I am attacking here neither the goodwill I know lies behind the concept nor the emphasis and energy that accompany its employ, but rather the lack of any sort of specificity with which those energies could do something. Left alone in any sort of mission statement or initiative, the sweeping generality of "diversity" serves as an umbrella of criticism for this institution and an easy-street solution to achieve political correctness without offending anyone. What we need are specific problems and specific solutions -- and by specific I mean specific to Dartmouth.
First and foremost, we need to face the facts. Dartmouth College is a private institution -- expensive, selective and small, founded for the advancement of academic excellence. Without altering dramatically the fundamental purpose and character of the College, achieving a demographic here that is actually representative of American culture at large will prove impossible. Students who fail to graduate from high school or get an equivalency degree, who fail to perform well on college-entrance tests or who are deemed unqualified by interviewers or admissions officials aren't going to come here. That's just the way it is; whether that's evil or not we can discuss till we're blue in the face, but Dartmouth is about exceptional people. Stop worrying right now about whether we have "everyone" here -- we don't. The ideals on which the college rests limit diversity by selecting for elitism.
Just the other day, there appeared in this paper an article written about an alleged lack of conservative professors in colleges (The Dartmouth, Jan. 29, 2002, "Horowitz: Polls prove colleges' left-wing bias"). Immediately, the poll's sponsors interpreted this fact as the bias of leftist officials against conservative educators. Not once was there the consideration offered that conservative professors might not apply for teaching positions as frequently, or that talking to a bunch of privileged, idealistic young adults may appeal to the fancies of some people and not others. I do not know for sure if any of my conjectures prove David Horowitz's study wrong, but my main point stands: a "lack of diversity" and some insidious plot were pounced upon as though these differences were unarguably and inherently evil.
I am largely ignorant of issues of racial and sexual tension and conflict here at Dartmouth. For better or worse those issues haven't received that much of my attention in my career here and I will not pretend I am well acquainted with them. However, I do feel that addressing these separate issues requires different strategies, terminologies and methods of understanding, even though the ultimate goals may be similar. When we make a vehement pledge about diversity and expect it to blanket all of the possible problems with human relations at Dartmouth, we're getting nowhere and diffusing our energy.
To illustrate what I'm talking about, imagine for instance a study that revealed professors of one sex made more than professors of another sex for the same subject and same hours of work. That's a specific problem with no legitimate explanation requiring a specific solution.
An act of bigotry, like the recent event with the swastika, represents a very different problem. In the case of different salaries for different sexes, we are dealing with institutional inequity. When an individual tries to intimidate another by invoking a symbol of oppression, that act is one person's sad and angering, if very frightening, statement of juvenile ignorance and hate.
The solutions to these kinds of problems are every bit as unique. In the former case, I feel the problem would need to be rectified immediately, the reasons for its existence examined, an official apology offered and perhaps a program established to ensure that the imbalance did not reappear. In the latter, the responsible party should be found and the reasons for their actions understood as best as possible. Then appropriate disciplinary action should be taken. Alerting the student body to the occurrence makes sense, but lengthy proclamations from deans and the Student Assembly about diversity and acceptance seem illogical and inflated to me.
I don't see the swastika as a campus-wide or institutional problem, thankfully. I'm sorry it occurred, for sure, and if the person is caught and their intentions were found to be aggressive, I think he or she should be expelled. But I can't believe I'm the only one who thought it was ironic that there were several letters written preaching "accept and diversify!" when essentially what they wanted to say was "the majority of people at Dartmouth think neo-Nazis should rot in hell."
When dealing with sensitive problems with no easy solutions, we need to be careful with our use of catch-phrases. The energy behind the word "diversity" is becoming ambiguous and broadly applied; it is losing its power like the word "love" when it's applied to ice cream.
