Nothing explodes the opinion pages of The Dartmouth like issues of race, whether it is affirmative action, Native American mascots, or illegal immigration. Nothing gets Dartmouth students as passionate as these debates that span the political and social realms of equality, freedom, discrimination and tolerance. Why issues of race are so salient, especially at an ostensibly color-blind institution such as Dartmouth, is difficult to address with more than speculation, but is interesting to look at nonetheless.
The response to the recent article of Nathan Bruschi '10 on affirmative action illuminates our fixation on race ("Affirmative Action Too Skin Deep?," Feb. 13). Far from considering the merits of his argument -- problems inherent in attention to race including deceiving appearance, mixed race individuals, or post-race identification -- the collective response was largely knee-jerk political correctness. Denigrating Bruschi's upbringing and denouncing his views as supporting superior theories of race exhibited a fixation on racial issues far outside the purview of his actual argument.
This is by no means the first or most explosive racial debate to hit Dartmouth. This past fall saw tensions over the Indian mascot turn quickly, even immediately, to allegations of racism. Proponents of the erstwhile mascot, clearly significant in number, were all stigmatized as hateful, racist and so on. There was little to no consideration of logical argument, the very mention of racial dynamics sufficient to establish sides in the debate.
Last spring the debate over illegal immigration showed a similar regression to name-calling as the manifestation of the fixation on race. Anyone who spoke, however logically or empathetically, in opposition to illegal immigration was castigated as a racist. It seems as though racial tensions are simmering below the surface and the mere mention of anything black or white is enough to bring them to the fore.
Even a cursory examination of race on other college campuses makes it clear that Dartmouth is not alone in its interest in issues racial. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is currently embroiled in a spat with a black professor over denial of tenure. The professor was so convinced he was being discriminated against when his tenure was denied that he went on a hunger strike.
When this issue was raised to me, I initially thought that perhaps being a poor professor contributed to the denial of tenure, rather than race. And indeed this is what MIT, including the reports of three independent commissions on faculty hiring and this denial in particular concluded: The denial of tenure was based on being a bad professor.
Why did this professor protest so dramatically? Why does racial discrimination seem to trump that of gender, religion, class or even looks or weight? Why is our first inclination to look to race as the first explanation?
One of the reasons race hits so hard at Dartmouth is that there is so much at stake. The fate of an application, admission or denial, seems to hinge on the balance between rewarding merit and providing opportunity. But once students are at a school like Dartmouth, the fixation inexplicably continues. Since there is no race-based competition, the focus on skin color seems more about the "narcissism of small differences," than anything truly significant. Most students here are eminently smart and talented in their respective fields. With all these commonalities we look for little things to set people apart.
But maybe accepting the kind of unity that would follow from recognition that race is especially unimportant in academics would be too consistent and relaxed for all of our Type A personalities. Instead we see a climate in which when anything goes wrong or becomes contentious, race and racism is immediately cited. While it is difficult to definitively pin down the reasons for our fixation with skin color, it is clear that even issues of race are far from black and white.
