When I read the recent column by Roger Lott '14, a reasonable call for modesty and respect in conversations about sex ("Explicit Signals," Oct. 28), I did not expect the campus to agree with him. Having written on this subject before, I am all too well aware of people's inability to see past their passionate preferences for over-sexualized campus culture. Attempts like those made by Lott to invite the campus to reflect a bit on its evangelical sexuality will inevitably fall on deaf ears.
No, it was not the rejection of Lott's ideas that I found surprising. It was instead the complete and total disregard for his dignity as an individual and the cruel ad hominem attacks made against him merely for having the temerity to express a view contrary to the campus zeitgeist.
Comments on Lott's article include, "Clearly, Roger Lott needs to get some," and "Mr. Lott, I pity your future wife or husband." These, furthermore, are representative only of comments posted on The Dartmouth's website; I had several friends in Greek organizations tell me that people were blitzing even worse comments to their houses about Lott.
Dartmouth prides itself on being an enlightened bastion of tolerance and free speech. But it should be obvious to anyone who bothers to look seriously at campus dialogue that Dartmouth students are anything but tolerant towards those whose views differ from the mainstream. What kind of campus dialogue can we expect to have when whenever somebody like Lott raises an alternative viewpoint and is browbeaten into silence?
One can't claim to be a proponent of free speech and respect and then not extend that respect to others. The very fact that someone who simply expressed his opinion is denigrated and ridiculed for doing so shows that this campus simply does not live up to the values it claims to hold so dear. It is, simply put, a disgrace.
Perhaps the most outrageous claim made about Lott's opinion is that his stance somehow fuels sexual abuse. Anyone who reflects for even a second on these issues would realize that it is not those calling for more sexual modesty who promote sexual abuse. On the contrary, it would probably be more reasonable to say that questionable sexual behavior springs from a view of sexuality that pushes the boundaries of acceptable behavior further and further until the line between right and wrong becomes blurred. The fact that anyone could construe a call for more traditional sexual mores on campus as encouraging people to have more sex (abusive or otherwise) shows how prejudiced people are towards these issues.
If talking a lot about sex and engaging in promiscuity were the solution to our sexual woes, why has our abuse problem not gone away? Sexual abuse proceeds from a lack of respect for sex and for the person, and increased respect for both of these was what Lott was advocating. It is not only uncharitable, but also irrational, to argue that Lott's position somehow creates or sustains the abuse problem.
Believe it or not, there are still people on this campus who hold to traditional sexual mores, and they believe furthermore that it is objectively better for their lives to do so. To alienate and marginalize such people not only by inundating them constantly with sexualized messages but also by attacking them viciously for daring to express their viewpoint runs contrary to the modern, liberal values Dartmouth students profess to hold. It impoverishes campus dialogue, and therefore makes us all poorer as well.
It is one thing to disagree with somebody, but another to respond to his or her opinions in such a vicious manner that he or she is effectively forced into silence. As John Stuart Mill, patron saint of liberal political theory said, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
We should heed his words.
