Having grown up in a college town that cast more votes for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader than for George Bush in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, I'm used to being something of a laughingstock for my conservative-leaning views. Nevertheless, it's been an eye-opener to see my columns for The Dartmouth garner accusations of racism, calls for censorship and even the occasional personal attack such as, "Mr. Lott, I pity your future wife or husband."
The upside of being a vocal conservative at Dartmouth is that being on the receiving end of intensive scrutiny inevitably improves your argumentation skills. The attacks made on my column criticizing the Orozco Murals ("Points in Perspective," Nov. 10) caused me to recognize that I had been too overtly provocative, and the experience proved valuable in teaching me the importance of objectivity and dispassion. Many of my critics, however, would also benefit from learning to refrain from hostile, emotional arguments that detract from intellectual discourse.
Out of my columns, "Truly Color Blind" (March 7), received perhaps the most disturbing reactions. Three commenters suggested silencing me, with one saying that publishing my "misguided stories is irresponsibility, period. Please stop." Others accused my columns of being "almost willfully ignorant" and said, "There's absolutely no way [Lott] believes all of this."
It's a sign of an ideological imbalance on campus if people are wondering if conservative voices are genuine. A 2002 survey by Luntz Research Companies found that only 6 percent of 151 Ivy League professors and administrators identified themselves as "somewhat conservative" and not a single individual claimed to be "conservative." By contrast, a 2010 Gallup poll showed that 42 percent of Americans describe themselves as "very conservative" or "conservative."
We don't get anywhere by questioning motives or making the juvenile assumption that conservative viewpoints are purposely inflammatory. Although conservatives do like everyone else sometimes go overboard when trying to make their points, it would be wrong to draw broad inferences from a few exceptional instances. While The Dartmouth Review was wrong to publish its infamous 2006 cover depicting a scalp-toting Native American, it's a shame that so many people refuse to give serious articles in The Review the consideration they deserve.
Former College President James Freedman exhibited the blinding effects of self-righteous indignation when he declared during his 1990 "Rally Against Hate" that "For 10 years, The Dartmouth Review has attacked blacks because they are blacks, women because they are women and Jews because they are Jews." Freedman apparently didn't notice that The Review's editor-in-chief at the time was black or that the paper had numerous Jewish staff members, one of whom found swastikas drawn on his dormitory door in the aftermath of the rally.
Some people justify their own close-mindedness through exaggerated conceptions of the other side's unwillingness to engage in productive dialogue. It was odd that my column on color-blindness which relied heavily on quotes from prominent blacks prompted the most calls for censorship. Bafflingly, one of the main criticisms was that the column failed to present the opinions of people with special insight. Apparently some readers only consider people to be knowledgeable if they share the same biases.
Distorting words or making unsubstantiated allegations of racism is the refuge of those who can't come up with substantive criticism. One article in the Dartmouth Free Press ("MLK Day," Jan. 21) was so desperate to draw the worst possible conclusions about my column "What About Washington?" (Jan. 10) that it suggested that my writing that Martin Luther King "had his dark sides" was an "interesting choice of words." Such silliness should have no place at one of the nation's premier institutions of higher education.
We all like to think of ourselves as open-minded and opposed to bigotry, but some people are so wary of "intolerance" or "insensitivity" that they mistakenly condemn the free expression of legitimate conservative viewpoints that, believe it or not, are widely held outside of our campus bubble. While the College prides itself on being accepting of intellectual diversity, there seem to be quite a few people who would like this paper to stop running my columns. Dartmouth may not have formalized "hate speech" laws like those found in Canada, but there is a culture of political correctness of this campus that is every bit as detrimental to constructive discourse.
