The most valuable skill students can learn at Dartmouth is critical thinking. What is frustrating, however, is that we, the Dartmouth community, disproportionately apply our critical thinking skills to only one side of discourse. In the context of campus progress, we too often use our critical thinking abilities solely to question the way dissent is enacted rather than its underlying motives. We need to be just as critical of the status quo as we are of any efforts to change it. We are quick to tear apart op-eds, emails, petitions, protests and sit-ins. But we are not as quick to tear apart our norms, culture, policies, social structure and traditions.
We should start by questioning our status quo. Then, and only then, can we generate solutions and draft proposals.
What does it look like to question our status quo? Various recent examples come to mind: five Panhellenic Council executives boycotted women’s rush, Katie Wheeler ’15 (“True Rush,” Jan. 14, 2014) spoke out against the rush process and the Greek system, Sarah Fernandez ’14 (“The Crowning of Kings,” Feb. 19, 2014) challenged fraternities’ power on campus, Jalil Bishop ’14 gave an impressive speech and led a protest, the “Freedom Budget” outlined many solutions and even alumni mobilized for progress by forming Dartmouth Change.
Regardless of your opinion, we can agree that these actions challenged the status quo. We must continue to do so. We cannot assume that our status quo is sound because our foundations were not built on our current principles and values. Dartmouth’s early years were far from our vision of equality, inclusion and justice. Without a solid defense of our status quo, the only logical step is to revise it.
Yet we hold dissent to an asymptotically high standard. And as Carla Yoon ’15 and Eliana Piper ’14 (“The Bigger Picture,” April 4, 2014) explained, “We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Polite dissent is not enough; our problems continue to resurface because the “solutions” aren’t deep enough to reach the core issues. Yet we dismiss dissenters loud enough to attract attention as rude.
Our unbalanced criticism undermines the legitimacy of the dissenters’ primary concerns. In effect, our silencing promotes the status quo. For some, protecting the status quo is the point. But for many, this is not the intention at all.
We are trapped in a cycle of inefficiency — mild dialogue, disruptive dissent, silencing, mild dialogue, et cetera. Removing the disruptive dissent would merely maintain the periods of mild dialogue. Instead, let’s remove the silencing and jump into a different pattern — mild dialogue, disruptive dissent, innovation, progress.
The silencing takes many forms. From “Then transfer” to “You’re so extreme, absurd and rude,” these criticisms ignore even the possibility of underlying problems. By suggesting that protesters transfer, critics leave no room for dissent and essentially reinforce the protesters’ point — that they are unwelcome.
In response to Dartmouth’s sit-in, the editorial board at The Chronicle, Duke University’s independent student newspaper, wrote that the sit-in participants “have every prerogative to imagine a better university. Whether their political tactics actually produce a better university is to be determined.” Yes, and determined by whom? By us — students, faculty, staff, alumni, administrators and the Board of Trustees. Will we only watch and comment on methodology? Will we only tear down proposals because we dislike the tone?
Of course, we should question every proposal, claim and policy put before us. But we first must question every habit, norm and tradition that we have inherited.
All schools have problems, but that does not mean that we cannot or should not address ours, regardless of how they are brought to our attention.
Damaris Altomerianos '13is a guest columnist.
