Welcome, friends. Last Wednesday, Connor Shepherd '07 criticized me for the views I expressed in my last column. I want to thank him for that for two reasons. The first is that his letter makes it clear that I did a poor job of communicating. Einstein said that his theories had little merit if he could not easily explain them to a child. My failure, therefore, is great indeed as my readers are college students.
When I stated that no one is linked to anyone else, I was using the term "linked" in its most literal sense. In other words, no one else's body is attached to mine nor, seemingly, is anyone controlling my mind. Two examples should suffice to prove this. If I am in a room, my ability to get up and leave that room is not predicated on anyone else making a similar decision. The same is true in writing an essay in that I am able to come up with new insights and conclusions. Therefore, since I neither control anyone else's body or mind, nor am controlled by anyone else, I am solely responsible for my actions and so are all of you.
I will not take time here to address the other aspects of Shepherd's criticism, since they were based on the mistaken assumption that I was discussing the dichotomy between individual rights and societal obligations. That he got that idea from my poor writing is without doubt, but nonetheless it has nothing to do with my article. In order to be clear, however, I will state that all societies -- East or West -- are made up of individuals who choose how much or little to abide by the ethics of those societies. One proof of this is that all societies produce criminals -- individuals who are antithetical to the wishes of society at large. Again, I see nothing to contradict my statement that all individuals are responsible for their actions.
There is, however, another reason that I welcome this criticism. That is because Mr. Shepherd acted as we all should. We are all constantly being told someone else's conclusions and insights about life -- in the classroom, in the media (such as my columns) and from our friends and relatives. I encourage all of you to question these statements and offer your own opinions and perspectives. It is only through this kind of inclusive and dynamic dialogue that, not only can we identify problems, but also formulate comprehensive solutions.
For instance, we are constantly being told that Thayer Dining Hall is a place of segregation. In the first place, that has not been my experience at all. My close observation, over the course of several weeks and meals, is that there are many multi-racial groups at every sitting. But what I, or any other single individual, say about this is not the point. You, who are reading this column, ask yourself: honestly, is your circle of friends multi- or uni-racial? Ask around: how many people do you know who confine their company to only people of the same skin color? Perhaps you will find it the norm that most people only have meals with others of the same race; perhaps not. But if you find the statements that whites only eat with whites, blacks with blacks, and so on is inconsistent with your experience, you should speak up. I have little doubt that the majority of students are not as prejudiced as some would portray them, but we will not know that until far more people let their voices be heard.
Other examples, as quoted by The D, are the comments made by Jewelle Gomez not long ago. In her Jan. 26 speech here at Dartmouth, she said, "Men are raised to believe that they deserve sex, especially if they are paying the rent." Really? How many of you men feel that is true for you? How many of you women have dated men who have espoused that thinking? I do not deny that some men feel that way, but my experience says those men are in the minority. Additionally, she said, "Women who represent independent breadwinners and decision makers are threatening to most men." How many of the women you recognize as thinkers and doers are single because men are threatened by them? Professors Angela Rosenthal and Ada Cohen, as well as Upperclass Dean Carolynne Krusi, for instance, have somehow managed to find men to marry. What about your mothers? How many of you have mothers that you consider to be strong females and are also married? My point is not that you should believe me and not Gomez, but that you should observe the world around you and decide for yourself. And once you decide, get involved with the conversation.
However, I would hope that, if and when you do engage in conversation, you will not follow Mr. Shepherd's stylistic example. The effort to create an inclusive society in which everyone feels safe to offer an opinion is retarded when people sink to using the kind of smarmy and sarcastic rhetoric that Shepherd chose to employ. I realize that this is de rigueur on shows such as "The O'Reilly Factor," but that does not mean we have to sink to that level. If we want society to improve, the best place to start is by making better individual choices.
