As with all of your columns, this piece would have been much more relevant had you actually made the effort to speak with those for whom you make grand prescriptions. I’d recommend that you take advantage of the “Take a Professor to Lunch” program this spring and engage one of the AAAS professors who you’re attempting to advise here in a robust conversation and respectful exchange of ideas. Seriously, think about it.

For someone whose every column drips of feigned victimization because he is ultra conservative, Lott once again demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for the feelings of others. Why the D continues to publish his drivel is beyond me.

Thank you, Mr. Lott, for assuming that people of color are incompetent (we should avoid “lowering standards” for people of color) and lazy (overwhelmingly on welfare that discourages “self reliance”). Thanks for assuming you know about everyone else’s experiences with racism, and, having probably never experienced any meaningful discrimination yourself, cherry-picking your quotes from three people and assuming those were an acceptable stand-in for everyone else’s experiences with racism. Thanks for assuming that people of color don’t belong at Dartmouth because they are underqualified, without pointing to the many, many examples of people of color who are very good at what they do, but feel unwelcome here because of sentiments like yours. Thanks for trying to wipe out race by being “colorblind” while still holding all these assumptions.

You should research what you write about before you dig in! Neither MLK nor students at Dartmouth favor(ed) a color-blind environment. “Color-blind” is a derogatory term!! It implies a lack of cultural cognizance. Hahahahaha!!!

But as a minority, I don’t define myself according to a special “colored” status. That’s just as ambiguous as most people saying they’re “white,” but not going into detail as to where their roots are. I define myself as I have always known: I’m Squaxin, Turtle Mountain Ojibwe, and Cree.

I think your advocacy for color-blind policies greatly overlooks the fact that who we are as people shapes the interactions we have with others on a daily basis, as well as the interactions that other people have with us. What we say, do, how we act, and what people expect from us in terms of an interaction all shape how people view each other. In sum, the interaction of any two people depends to some extent on what notions those two people have about each other, be they preconceived or not (and of course how much people know each other in general!).

That being said, your policy of being color-blind is not feasible, nor does it acknowledge the fact that we are indeed unique as individuals, but from that have something to contribute to the greater community here, even if it’s a little cultural tidbit, or about our histories.

I’m not demanding any “special treatment,” whatever that means. You really need to elaborate! Honestly, your second to last paragraph is frightening. Lower standards? Exclusive racial events? The reason that groups blitz out is because they want to INCLUDE all of campus in their discussions and events! To see things in a new light, or to experience something new! NAD blitzes out about events such as First Nations Week and the Indigenous Film Festival because these events are OPEN TO CAMPUS. We WANT people to learn, to be INCLUDED. And what better way to do so than through some fine-quality cinema?

The way I see things is that you choose to make sweeping generalizations about people who aren’t you. I suggest that since you are still budding as a freshmen, go to something you haven’t experienced. Step outside of your bubble. Live a little!

I’m all for alternative viewpoints, but Lott’s column are almost willfully ignorant. Why does the Dartmouth continue to publish this drivel?

Angela, I think many of us on this campus have strong differences with Roger Lott, but there’s no need to moronically misrepresent this article as you have done. Bombastic and unproductive comments like your own only serve to undermine legitimate discussions on race, or any other issue. This is perhaps the first article Lott has written that is actually cogently argued and merits deliberation.

There is a fundamental fallacy in our attempt to be “enlightened” in our discussions about race in the modern era. On the one hand we decry racism, and anything that smacks of it. On the other hand, we all continue to act as if two people are fundamentally different humans simply because they are of a different race. Lott does a good job of explicating why these two attitudes are incompatible.

“There is a good deal of evidence that many of the issues faced by the black community today have less to do with racism than with a lack of educational opportunity in poor urban communities and the insidious impact of a welfare system that discourages self-reliance.”

INSTITUTIONAL RACISM. IT IS ENMESHED IN THE SOCIETAL STRUCTURES. MANY PEOPLE ARE TRYING OT FIX IT. EVEN YOU SEEM ON BOARD WITH IT BY ANOTHER NAME.

COLOR BLIND?

COLOR BLIND!? pfff, that is a concept rooted in a pool of privilege. dartmouth, like the world, should not be seeking a color blind environment. instead, we should aim to recognize histories (and the presence!) of oppression that have and do distinguish races.

“There is a good deal of evidence that many of the issues faced by the black community today have less to do with racism than with a lack of educational opportunity in poor urban communities and the insidious impact of a welfare system that discourages self-reliance.”

i don’t know ROGER, isn’t is possible that the education and class systems are gaaaaaasp RACIST?

logic like yours exhibits just how embedded racism is, not only in the structures of our society, but also in the mindsets of individuals at schools like dartmouth, where we are not forced, or even asked, to think outside the comforts of our ivory tower.

“Unfortunately, minorities at Dartmouth are often encouraged to define themselves according to a special, “colored” status. Recent Martin Luther King, Jr. celebrations included a showing of the film “For Colored Girls” and an “Alliance for Children of Color Playdate” whose accompanying picture on Dartmouth’s website shows an all-black group of parents and youngsters. Events like these hardly lead to the kind of positive interracial interactions the College talks about so much.” Obviously you dont read your blitz because Im pretty sure that everyone was invited to the candlelight march to The Hop. I for a fact know that there were not just black families with black children there. Most of the families were made up of Caucasian parents with African American children. These parents wanted to show their adopted children their history, to make sure that they didnt forget about the great work of Martin Luther King Jr. and others of the Civil Rights Movement. Also a side not the “Alliance for Children of Color Playdate” is an actual organization that meets every Monday not just randomly on ‘black holidays’. Maybe you should check your facts better, that would lead to more accurate information.

Angela, that’s not even close to what Lott actually said. There are plenty of awkward constructions and an uncomfortable reliance on tropes that could be fairly criticized, but in many cases you seem to have come away with the exact opposite meaning than that actually imparted by the words on the screen. That is, where you don’t just invent the meaning yourself.

Not bad, Lott. Not great, but not bad.

The emotional attacks on Roger Lott combined with the apparent need to distort what he wrote shows that he has yet another piece that has really hit home. The notion that Lott is assuming that “people of color are incompetent” is absurd. To anyone but the most biased, Lott’s point was that we all deserve to be honestly criticized based on our ability, not our race. Is it really that difficult to understand the quotes from Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, or Ward Connerly? If commentators can’t accurately read those quotes, their biases are preventing them from having an honest discussion on this important topic.

As to the other attacks that Lott is ignorant, the point being missed here is that Lott is letting his points being made through the quotes of others. Are his quotes of Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, and Ward Connerly out of context? Are they inaccurate? If so, point that out. But are the critics such as “Oh, Roger” saying that Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, or Ward Connerly should go to lunch with the professors?

Roger Lott is the Ann Coulter of Dartmoputh. There’s absolutely no way he believes all of this and is just trolling. Each op-ed is just adding to the evidence.

The most offensive part of this argument—and trust me, there are plenty of offensive parts—is the assumption that wanting more representation of minority profs on the faculty is only for the benefit of minority students. Yeah, Roger, because YOU clearly know everything you need to know about society already and the ins and outs of racism. I think you’re the one in need of “extra attention.” Someone needs to educate you before it’s too late.

You also make points that work against your argument. The quote from Morgan about blacks being asked for their black perspective in class is a problem that stems from a lack of minorities on the faculty who understand that you don’t have to immediately think that a black student’s perspective could be unique in any way OTHER than being “from a black student.” What you call preferential and special treatment is really just the same treatment that white students have been getting over minority students since the very beginning of this school. I’d love to see you write an article on the preferential treatment of kids from prep schools, or legacies, or kids with family members on the Board of Trustees. I dare you to.

Finally, no one is asking the college to hire unqualified minority profs, though you seem to take it for granted without saying it throughout this whole article that hiring minority profs is giving them special treatment that they do not deserve. Wow. You really need some colored folk in your life.

“What we shouldn’t be doing, however, is emphasizing minorities’ racial identities through exclusive racial events…” Hear, hear! We should all be the same, and anything that emphasizes our identities and distinguishes us from one another should be banned. You shouldn’t call someone “right handed” or “left handed,” we should all just be “handed!” That is the only way we are all equal!

Recent Martin Luther King, Jr. celebrations included a showing of the film “For Colored Girls"… Roger, why do you assume that the showing of “For Colored Girls” was only for black people? I’m pretty sure all of the black history events were open to all students. The real point here is that very FEW students of other ethnic groups (ie, whites) showed up simply because it was a movie labeled “colored”. If you had bothered to research the film, you would have discovered that it is much more a tale of womanhood than color. HERE IS A QUESTION FOR ROGER: If people like you want Dartmouth to be truly color blind, why didn’t you attend the movie showing or events at Cutter-Shabazz Why did you assume that they were only for black people?

Reverend King’s dream was not exclusively for a “color-blind” society, but for a JUST society. Closing our eyes to injustice does not make them disappear. This kind of facile reasoning wouldn’t stand up in a freshman writing seminar…

Roger is making the most fundamentally moral point that can be made, that all people deserve respect as individuals. No one who imagines themselves as enlightened and “progressive” can argue with the primary status of the individual person, but they do and they are doing it right here in Hanover. Color, race, sex, sexual preference, and creed are all a convenient side-show-avenue for people to demand things that they couldn’t acquire through their own efforts, to be bestowed upon them as part of a group. All those who disagree with Roger’s key point are aiding in continuing the immorality of ghetto-izing particular racial groups for their own selfish and racist reasons. Oh yes, and the continued unsupported attacks on Roger Lott show an attachment to an immoral bias that is unbecoming to any person. All of you who have attacked Roger or damned him with faint praise should be ashamed of yourselves, but you are too busy patting yourselves on the back and smugly believing that you occupy the high moral ground when just the opposite is true.

The last time administration didn’t give special attention to minorities in the college community the school was attended solely by white males, at that was 40 years ago. The reason why the administration, as also the national government, aims to give more representation to certain minorities is because they are underrepresented in the first place despite a large presence in the community, while other sectors of society have more power and privileges than they ought to only because of their economic resources. . Your article lacks any attempt to gain real insights in the problem and its possible solutions. Citing a number of cases in which people overly felt they were mistreated because of their races is not a valid argument. Moreover, the assumption underlying your article is that people in minorities identify themselves –and are identified by others- solely based on their skin colors. This also tells a lot about many people perceive the current Dartmouth community.

What is your short-term solution then? Closing OPAL, the AAAs and NAS department (if they hadn’t been given special attention a many years ago, when nobody had even thought they could be academic disciplines, they would have never existed), Cutter Shabazz, the NAD house, LALACS, and the International Residence? And maybe even kicking out from residence halls the ethnic Greek organizations that are granted housing in by the school because they don’t have millions of dollars to buy their own house?

Regarding your last paragraph, how do you think you can solve inner-city poverty if you don’t facilitate the access to colleges and universities for promising students with under-resourced educations? “Special attention” to such minority groups is the only means to resolve the underlying socio-economic problems that cause underrepresentation. Obviously, once such issues are solved, nobody should be given special attention, because there won’t be any need. But that won’t happen until we are all treated equally.

I do not attend Dartmouth, but by daughter does, and she is in her second year. Roger Lott’s father is an economist, but he does a lot a work in the area of gun rights. One of his latest books is “More Guns Less Crime”. Senior Lott runs a popular website at johnrlott.com. It is at this site that I find links to young Lott’s articles.

The current piece is well reasoned, and therefore, I find some of the responses unwarranted, but those are not as disturbing as the two I saw that seem to be advocating a silencing of junior Lott. That should not at all be surprising, since those on the Left take pride in shutting down speech with which they disagree, but yet, the same Left delights in its “tolerance” of all viewpoints.