Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/1999/08/16/policing_thought_crimes_on_campus.php
Monday, August 16, 1999
Among the proposals to the Trustee Steering Committee are several that purport to enhance community and inclusiveness at Dartmouth. On closer examination, however, it is difficult to avoid seeing many of them as an ill-conceived limitation of freedom of speech and thought.
The two most notable proposals are those submitted by the Afro-American Society (AAm) and the Dean's Area Working Group.
Both proposals are extensions, at least in theory, of Dartmouth's Principle of Community. That principle reads, 'The life and work of a Dartmouth student should be based on integrity, responsibility and consideration. In all activities each student is expected to be respectful of the rights and interests of others and to be personally honest. He or she should be appreciative of the diversity of the community as providing an opportunity for learning and moral growth.'
The most radical of the suggestions, endorsed by the AAm, is to make the Principle of Community an enforceable College policy. Under such an arrangement, violation of the Principle of Community would be a punishable offense, possibly under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards (COS).
The AAm proposal is unclear on both the mechanism and the nature of punishments for this type of violation. It does rule out expulsion, but leaves possible almost any other sanction. Social probation for organizations (read: Greek societies) that violate the principle is specifically mentioned.
On its face, adherence to the Principle of Community seems like a reasonable request. Read between the lines of the principle itself, however, and you will find a broad mandate to regulate 'acceptable' speech and thought.
That students should be appreciative of diversity is a readily agreeable idea. Yet when the phrase is given practical, legalistic form, it means little more than that students must think what the majority thinks, or suffer the consequences.
The AAm's proposal is relatively specific in discussing what would constitute violations of the Principle of Community. 'Ignorant, prejudiced behavior' figures prominently in that discussion. Like the principle itself, though, ignorance and prejudice can be defined a number of ways. The way the AAm has it, 'ignorant, prejudiced behavior' is essentially anything the AAm doesn't like. Previous application of these terms to student opposition to racial preferences makes that quite clear.
I am not here defending racism, mind you. It is already a punishable offense at Dartmouth to address someone with a racial or ethnic slur. Clear-cut instances of prejudice are well-addressed by the College, and they are not the target of the recent proposals. The new proposals are geared towards the nebulous goal of making all students 'comfortable' at Dartmouth.
Thinly hidden behind the rhetoric of respect for students' rights is a desire to enforce one point of view on campus. Each student apparently has a 'right' to encounter nothing but expression they like in their four years here. Each student has a 'right' to never be offended, or even discomforted, by anything anyone does or says. These 'rights' are, of course, only to be applied to particular groups of students; we are unlikely to see students punished for offensive conduct toward Christian conservatives.
Nor should they be. The nature of liberal education is such that students will be made uncomfortable by new and different ideas. If students are punished for expressing unpopular, discomforting viewpoints, the educational enterprise will suffer. The academy ostensibly values open debate above all else, yet these proposals to the Trustees that would ensure that the only campus discourse on controversial issues is a lecture.
What's more, imposing the Principle of Community by force would violate students' rights to a far greater extent than unpopular expression ever could.
For their part, the Deans' Area Working Group doesn't feel the need to punish unpopular views. They prefer to eradicate them at the source. Their proposal calls for a mandatory 'Community at Dartmouth' course for freshmen along with 'continuing education' throughout the students' four years. The course would be taught by Dartmouth faculty, administrators, and graduate fellows, and would 'prepare first-year students for the challenges of living in a diverse community.'
In essence, the Deans want a course that will teach every student to be tolerant of people different from themselves. Dartmouth faculty and administrators teaching students how to tolerate people who think differently from themselves rightly strikes one as the blind leading the blind. Fortunately for them, different thoughts won't be encouraged in this course.
Students will be taught to think exactly alike about students who are different. Every student will learn exactly what to say to particular minority groups to avoid offending them.
When it's all over Dartmouth will have an entire freshman class without a single difference of opinion on racial, ethnic, and religious issues.
Generous students call the course idea misguided. Those who have dealt with Dartmouth's ideological regime in the past call it thought control.
Even if you could make people understanding and tolerant by forcing them to enroll in a class for a term, it wouldn't be educational. This class will not teach students about the rich cultural heritage of ethnic groups, or, if it did, it wouldn't accomplish that goal. The course will teach students not to mention Affirmative Action to their minority friends. It will teach them that no one can offer an opinion about poverty unless they've actually lived it. It will teach them that making a joke about your ethnic background makes you a racist.
I use these examples because they have each been the basis for claims that Dartmouth students are ignorant and prejudiced. What unites them is that they were never racist, never prejudiced, never even ignorant. They were free speech, and free thought, and hurt no one. But someone didn't like them, and once charges of racism emerged, the campus—especially the administration—rallied around the 'wounded' parties.
A 'Community at Dartmouth' course has no role other than to stifle unpopular ideas before they're expressed. That's just as wrong as stifling them afterwards.
A mandatory course won't eliminate prejudice. Real racists aren't going to be reformed by a college course. The only people who will be reformed are the ones who thought coming to Dartmouth meant they could speak their minds without worrying about being brought up on charges.
That's the real issue here. Is Dartmouth to become an Orwellian enclave, where everyone, under the threat of official sanction, must bow to regnant political orthodoxy? Or will it be a place where open debate is the only acceptable way to change a person's mind?