I believe that contributors to The Dartmouth's opinion section generally seek to express their arguments respectfully and ground their claims in fact. I was therefore quite disappointed by Roger Lott's most recent column titled "Learning to Live Together" (Oct. 10).
Lott has managed to generate controversy with his columns, but there is nothing controversial (or new) about ignorance. Faulty logic, invalid generalizations and an apparent desire for attention compromise most of his arguments.
He opposes the creation of an LGBTQA affinity program because, he reasons, too small a fraction of our population would benefit. But he bases this conclusion on a miserably insufficient understanding of the differences between biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
Although most environments at Dartmouth encourage the gender binary, there are a few (though not enough) gender-neutral spaces on campus. The College provides gender-neutral housing when requested, and a Gender Neutral Program Floor offers a learning experience for residents (both LGBTQ and allied) to explore different aspects of gender and identity.
Lott claims to support an environment in which we can all learn to "live together," yet he also seems uninterested, if not threatened, by the prospect of changing our current environment. "If some LGBT activists had their way," he claims, "there would be major upheavals in our gender-based social structures." To Lott, it seems "impossible to make gay and transgender students feel perfectly comfortable in mainstream campus culture."
So which is it, Mr. Lott? Do we create an environment that is inclusive to all, or do we leave our campus culture intact and abandon our supposedly futile efforts to promote the safety, comfort and well-being of our fellow students? "Learning to live together" is indeed quite difficult when ignorance and obduracy collaborate so seamlessly.
