All's Quiet on Campus, Too Quiet

by M. Ryan Clark

I’m frustrated. I’m burned out. I’m tired of having to deal with the constant specter of political correctness.

My frustration boiled over in the reaction to the most recent issues of this newspaper. In the March 12 issue, we ran an advertisement from David Horowitz of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture on the subject of why the drive for slavery reparations is a bad idea. Additionally, in our drink recipes section, we had a recipe for a drink we called the "Marion Barry."

The Horowitz ad lays out ten reasons why slavery reparations are a bad idea. While some of the language is overblown, and I disagree with some of the reasons, on the whole the reasons are solid and well thought out. The basic point—that most Americans have no connection to slavery and therefore should not be forced to pay reparations for the one hundred and fifty year old sins of others—is unassailable. How anyone can honestly believe that reparations are a good idea at this point in our history? As distinguished economist Thomas Sowell points out in his column in the Week in Review, "the only gainers from this campaign will be those race hustlers who thrive on publicity [and] liberal politicians who [benefit from] keeping as many blacks as possible resentful and dependent on them."

Given the reaction to the ad at other schools after it was published in other newspapers, we knew it would be controversial. However, I was surprised when on the day the paper went out, I received an email from someone who I had considered a friend denouncing the "overt and covert racism" of the paper. In particular, he was upset over the reparations ad and the Marion Barry drink. In a response to an email I sent him later in the day, he told me that the ideas presented in the ad were not significantly different than what he imagined would be in a KKK pamphlet.

It’s fine if anyone ideologically disagrees with the ad. If you do, point out why Horowitz’s reasons are wrong. Do not just call the ad racist out of hand and think that that qualifies as well considered debate. Calling it racist and ending your argument there only further debases an already debased word. Another tack one could take is to critique David Horowitz. Actually, I would agree that David Horowitz is someone who likes to stir the pot. However, does this mean that The Review should not have published his paid advertisement? Do his motivations invalidate his reasoning?

As for the Marion Barry drink recipe, I will admit that it is very low-brow political satire. However, it is still political satire of a person who has repeatedly shown himself to be a national disgrace. How would it be any different if we came up with a Ted Kennedy drink (which is anything with alcohol) or a drink for Bill Clinton (the blowjob, of course)? All three are political leaders who have brought shame upon themselves or their office. The only difference is that Marion Barry is black. As a result, he seemingly is beyond reproach and criticism. Any satirizing of him will be met instantaneously with the charge of racism. Racism is modern society’s scarlet letter. Worse, it is nearly impossible to remove.

Conversely, Al Franken can write a book called Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and be lauded in the press. This is not commented on since most of the media disagrees with Limbaugh’s politics, anyway.

Perhaps what bothered me most about the reaction to the paper was that the person who emailed me has known me for three years. Would he not have picked up on any racist tendencies I had by now? He ignored all our prior personal interaction before he made claims of "racism." Ironically, in the same issue I wrote a book review of Zadie Smith’s White Teeth, which is a look at modern, multicultural Britain. The thesis of my article was that we should move beyond race and not always judge people in terms of raceæhardly a racist proposition. My analysis was based on three points: many cultures are a fact of life and everyone is going to have to deal with that, on an everyday basis Americans tend to get along with one another, and that some leaders' careers depend on constantly invoking charges of racism.

Others, however, look forward into the past. The constant references to Selma emanating from Jesse Jackson over the past year are repugnant. Not only are they not based in reality (it's hard to argue that the US in 2001 is equivalent to the US in 1960), but they denigrate the achievements of the civil rights leaders of the 1950s and 1960s who overcame serious obstacles to get us to where we are today.

Unfortunately, instead of just trying to get along with one another, many increasingly focus solely on race. Consider the reaction to Tiger Woods. I have followed Tiger’s progression as a golfer since he was 14; I am amazed by his skills. Sick and tiring, though, are constant needs of commentators to focus on the fact that he is African-American—even though Tiger himself has noted that this is not an accurate categorization. For each of his accomplishments, we are bombarded with the statement that he is the first African-American to accomplish that thing. I’m waiting for the day when a golf commentator waxes poetically over the fact that "it’s an important day because Tiger Woods has just become the first African-American to win the Quad Cities Classic."

Why can’t we just focus on the fact that he is an awesome golfer, that he could very well break Jack Nicklaus’s record for majors? When I am watching a tournament where Tiger is two down with three to play, I think more about how he will probably stiff a couple of approach shots and come back to win. I’m not even considering his race.

The problem with this constant need to invoke the race of individuals is that it clouds the accomplishments and failures of all individuals. In the past month, Michigan fired its basketball coach, Brian Ellerbe. After four years at the school, Ellerbe compiled a 62-60 record. For a school that had been to three championship games in the nine years prior to Ellerbe’s tenure, that is pathetic. However, the rumors of his firing caused the NAACP and UM's African American Alumni Council to say that he was fired unfairly because of his race. No, he was fired because he did not perform well at his job. Anyone who cannot see that is either delusional or simply using race for political advantage. I suspect that it is the latter.

To see this on a local level, take a look at the recent history of so-called racist incidents at Dartmouth: The Psi U incident, in which the College has punished an entire organization for the speech of two; the ill-fated luau party; and the so-called "Cuban Party."

What is perhaps most frustrating about these incidents is that few seem willing to voice the notion that maybe these are not incidents of hate, those that do (i.e., this newspaper) are called bigots and racists. You simply cannot challenge the dominant orthodoxy without having some epithet lobbed at you. The underlying facts and merits of each individual case are ignored.

Similarly, the pro-life viewpoint in the abortion debate is similarly silenced, the domain of right-wing nuts and ideologues. This despite the fact that in reality the country is almost evenly divided over this issue.

In the April 2001 edition of The Atlantic Monthly, David Brooks writes on modern college life, and his impressions seem awfully familiar. When visiting Princeton, Brooks found students who are unwilling to challenge the dominant ideologies on campus. He sees the reason behind this lack of confrontation as the fact that students today are intensely focused on postgraduate careers. While these goals are largely laudable, the fact that students are so willing to let others define the agenda is disturbing.

He notices "a verbal tic…in model young people these days: if someone is about to disagree with someone else in a group, he or she will apologize beforehand, and will couch the disagreement in the most civil, non-confrontational terms available." Does this sound familiar? While I certainly agree that we should not be offensive, bullying, or mean-spirited in our arguments, we should be willing to defend our beliefs, even if they are unpopular, in a confident manner.

What has been wrought by this unwillingness to challenge or confront each other? Well, how about the fact that myths become truths, and no one is willing to acknowledge the transformation. The best example of this is the "Cuban Party," planned to celebrate the warm weather of Miami during a cold New Hampshire winter. The event was not even concerned with race, let alone racist. Yet the popular perception is that it was another in a long line of racist Greek events. This false notion has been repeated in letters and columns in the Daily Dartmouth through to last term.

This idea was only reinforced by the total capitulation of the Greek leadership on the issue. Coupled with the failure to challenge ideas, we are failing to create leaders. What results is a Student Assembly unwilling to take a stand on anything while accomplishing very little, students who are willing to just accept any policies imposed by the administration without debate, and an impotent student leadership.

It should not surprise anyone that students who are unwilling to stand up for their beliefs on major issues such as race and political correctness are so unwilling to defend their freedom of speech and assembly. When unpopular ideas are slandered so brutally, can we be surprised that many students—and a large segment of this campus does hold beliefs that are at least partially at odds with the dominant ideology—are unwilling to state their beliefs. In an environment in which ideas are supposed to flourish, deviant ideas are instead struck down forcefully. What emerges is a culture of extreme conformity, fear, and apathy.

It kind of makes me happy to be graduating in two months.