Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2003/04/25/the_false_principle.php
Friday, April 25, 2003
If Dean Martin Redman has his way, this column will soon be contraband. Well trained in the arts of Orwellian thuggery, Dartmouth's administrators are firing up their siege engines to attack our rights of free speech and self-expression. Soon, students' every action will be scrutinized and molded to fit Dartmouth's mental straitjacket: The Principle of Community.
Last Term, Mr. Redman sent the editorial staff of The Dartmouth Review an email threatening swift retribution for any further delivery of our issues. Students found delivering issues 'will be subject at a minimum to loss of door access to residence halls as per the door access policy,' snarled Dean Redman. I have heard all plausible reasons for such punishment. The lame: issues make janitorial work difficult. The bureaucratic: The Dartmouth Review receives no school funding. The overprotective: students should not see the issue at their doorstep. But let us cut through the nonsense: The Dartmouth Review's delivery is banned because our ideas fail to conform to the College's social agenda, embodied in the Principle of Community.
Whether the bullies of Residential Life intend to follow through with this threat matters little: If Redman punishes those delivering our paper, it only shows his, and Dartmouth's, intolerance. But if Dean Redman balks, it proves the College will go to any extent, including petty intimidation, to stifle dissenting opinions. Either way, Dartmouth's aggressive censorship campaign continues. With the debut of the door locking system, the campus saw the awakening of a new Big Brother, as the school granted itself carte blanche the ability to revoke delivery privileges of any publication with which it disagrees. The Dartmouth Review opposed the system, fearing future consequences. And they have arrived.
Dartmouth prides itself on being an institution of academic freedom and learning. A place where the leaders of tomorrow have their minds forged for greatness. Sadly, the Administration has decided that tomorrow's leaders are too fragile to be greeted on their doorstep bi-weekly with The Dartmouth Review. Heaven forbid one of the student automatons finds a Review article reasonable. Our issues may spark some debate, and not merely self-congratulatory dialogue-building gabfests so prized by our favorite progressive-minded friends. The school once merely instructed its incoming freshmen to avoid certain campus groups. Now they're trying to punish anyone interested.
But what does a school do when students don't follow the social agenda? Why not inaugurate a Principle of Community? And abuse it. If you can't punish students for their dissent, you can certainly shame them into compliance.
The Principle of Community starts innocuously enough, asking each student to commit himself to 'integrity, responsibility, and consideration.' The recent edition, though, demands students be 'appreciative of the diversity' on campus. No one doubts that students should choose to honor integrity and responsibility, but consideration and appreciation for diversity? Recently, the diversity clause has been obsessed with protecting delicate souls. If hurt feelings defined speech boundaries, no one would say anything of consequence. Has the school forgotten that every great movement started by offending someone? Abolitionists offended slave owners. Would their speech have been against the Principle of Community? As for diversity, how come honoring diversity extends only to speech that falls within the College's agenda? The censors in Residential Life have made sure that no one is 'appreciative of the diversity' of The Dartmouth Review's contributors or those who enjoy their articles.
Meanwhile, the Student Assembly recently initiated another debate on the Indian Symbol, focusing this time on whether Indian T-shirts are a violation of the Principle of Community. They decided unanimously to hold an Indian 'T-shirt trade-in,' where those members of the Dartmouth Community owning Indian paraphernalia can exchange it for 'non-offensive' Dartmouth merchandise. Lest anybody be confused by the Student Assembly's intentions, their resolution reminds us that 'the Assembly supports the right of every member of the Dartmouth community to exercise the right of free speech within the constructs of the Principles of Community.' Free speech within the Principle of Community is hardly free speech at all. Granted, the Student Assembly may act independently of the Administration, but Parkhurst will provide 2/3 of the funding for this event, tacitly condoning the the Assembly's attempt to limit student expression.
Owning an Indian T-shirt cannot yet land students in the Dean's office, since violators of the Principle of Community cannot be punished. But they can be shunned. The Assembly claims to pass no value judgment, but there is one implicit in their resolution and their deplorable definition of Free Speech. Each of these restrictions of free expression only serve to cheapen the value of a Dartmouth education.
Thanks to the Principle of Community and the delivery policy, a few individuals, far too delicate to view anything contrary to their own opinions, will be safe to traipse about campus, their mental development unimpeded by ideological challenges.