I agree that all forms of discrimination and instances of sexual assault at Dartmouth are unacceptable. I disagree with some specifics of the “Freedom Budget” and with the actions of some protestors. These two opinions are not mutually exclusive. However, those who disagree with aspects of the “Freedom Budget” or with the actions of its supporters have been accused of ignoring the bigger picture and supporting the status quo. This false dilemma serves to silence debate around an issue while simultaneously forwarding an agenda without resistance.
In the days following the release of the “Freedom Budget,” student response was understandably mixed. The students involved in drafting the document called for reforms that were large in scale and scope, which was difficult for the rest of campus to digest. To be fair, I am sure there were students who dismissed the reforms out of hand. However, many students expressed disapproval to specific aspects of the “Freedom Budget” while affirming their support of the bigger issues and even backing some of its proposals.
Yet in the first column addressing the response to the “Freedom Budget,” Becca Rothfeld ’14 (“Downright Denial,” Feb. 28, 2014) wrote “mainstream Dartmouth has showcased its immaturity in harping on the specific details of a document that represents, above all, an important call to change.” While there may be some for whom this accusation is correct, claiming that the response represented mainstream Dartmouth is far from the truth. Campus conversations, discussions and opinion pieces have agreed on the call to change, but the specifics matter. Furthermore, the “Freedom Budget” itself demanded a line-by-line response from the administration, so it is perfectly fair to expect students to respond in the same detail.
The student body is right to do so, as many aspects of the “Freedom Budget” are problematic. For example, one of the demands reads “eradicate internal judicial processes for students who break laws, those laws will be reported directly to police.” There are many problems with this one demand, the most glaring being that it would violate the College’s requirements under Title IX. In cases of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment or sexual violence, the College must complete an internal investigation even if there is a corresponding police investigation. This illustrates a shockingly poor understanding of the law, as some of the same people involved in initiating the Title IX investigation against the College are now asking the College to violate Title IX.
For space, I cannot address the other, lesser issues in the “Freedom Budget,” but I would like to acknowledge that there are some points with which I agree. I agree with items such as recruiting and retaining minority professors, expanding Dartmouth’s language program, eliminating the student contribution for students on financial aid and other proposals. Those who care about these issues should discuss the specifics. They should be educated on what they entail and willing to attempt to discern the proper course of action.
During the protest at Parkhurst, the same accusations were levied against those who called into question the protestors’ tactics. In their column (“The Bigger Picture,” April 4, 2014), Carla Yoon ’15 and Eliana Piper ’14 claim that the responses to the protest were “quick to criticize and miss the bigger picture.” Those who accuse individuals who speak out against the protest and its methods as trying to silence the protesters are plainly incorrect. Criticizing the demonstrators’ tactics does not constitute silencing.
Trying to tie responses to the document’s demands (or the protest itself) to the approval or disapproval of greater issues is ludicrous. Yoon and Piper go on to write “[w]e may not agree with the specifics, but many can agree that Dartmouth has underlying issues,” and I agree. I have met many wonderful and caring people who are involved with the “Freedom Budget.” However, neither their demands nor their tactics are above criticism, and these issues are too important to be met with tacit acceptance.
