In his newest book, "The Vision of the Anointed, Self-Congratulation as a Basis For Social Policy," Thomas Sowell discusses American liberals and their beliefs, which he claims share a "moral exaltation of the anointed above others."
What struck me most about the book is how accurately it describes the reality at Dartmouth, where a small group of students who consider themselves more "educated," "sensitive" or "enlightened" than their peers attempt to control the campus with an arrogance and disregard for the truth that is despicable.
While the arrogance of Dartmouth's liberal elite is impossible to measure, some anecdotes will illustrate several incidents where the liberals' behavior clearly reflects a belief in their own moral superiority.
The first anecdote was relayed to me by an undergraduate advisor, who asked to remain anonymous. It seems that at UGA training last fall, AAm President John Barros '96 spoke to the trainees about racism. THe source said he spun a long tale, beginning with police brutality at home and continued racism at Dartmouth. Barros described how drivers lock their doors when he crosses the street and old ladies swing their purses away from him as he approaches. But the climax of the story came when he admitted to cheating on a final exam, handing in the same exam as a friend to "test" a professor who he suspected was a racist; a test the professor failed. The source said many in attendance were upset; Barros had just admitted to violating the honor code. He confessed the next morning to making up nearly the entire story. He explained that the racism he experiences is quite subtle, and he did not think the future UGAs would understand its seriousness.
What revolting behavior from a "campus leader!" Barros, the "anointed," determined that the UGAs, the "benighted" as Sowell writes, were unable to comprehend subtle racism, so he felt he had to lie. Remarkably,my UGA friend told me some in attendance, applauded Barros' confession! Apparently his behavior is so common as to no longer be contemptible.
Interestingly, when Barros spoke at the recent rally about racist events that were anything but subtle, all he could muster up was a loud scream, a slew of racial epithets, and a threat never to return to Dartmouth.
The reaction to these incidents of hatred on campus substantiates Sowell's ideas on how the "anointed" deal with problems.
Sowell's paradigm begins with "The Crisis;" and indeed the word crisis was used to describe the recent incidents numerous times. An "emergency" meeting was called, as if the campus was in imminent danger if an immediate solution were not found.
Once the "anointed" were assembled at Collis Common Ground, it was time for Stage 2, "The Solution." And true to Sowell's thesis, the solution was at hand in the form of a petition demanding mandatory, lengthy tolerance and diversity training for all Dartmouth students.
"One night of social issues night isn't going to do it, I'm demanding long term change," Alexis Sainz '96 declared.
The arrogance grew as the "anointed" began patting themselves on the back. The phrase "preaching to the converted" was heard more than once. The implications were clear. All those insensitive, apathetic, benighted students not present were in dire need of education and the elite were fighting to make sure they received it.
Of course no one felt the need to explain why acts of bigotry by a handful of jerks makes it imperative that 4,000 students be educated, or to demonstrate why this drastic proposal could reduce such incidents in the future. It seems no problem is immune to solution by some program of the anointed.
The final anecdote is the most disturbing because it demonstrates how this behavior has spread to the administration. It also demonstrates how the Dartmouth "anointed" are unable to accept that valid criticisms of their programs exist.
Recently I took part in a discussion of the Women in Science Program at Amarna. Despite my strong opposition to the program's existence, I was pleased by the diverse ideas presented and the caliber of the discussion. It was an intellectual exchange of ideas that would make even President Freedman proud.
I was dismayed to read a story about the discussion in the most recent WISP newsletter that claimed "the eloquence of [Director of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action] Mary Childer's remarks and the incoherence of the 'opposition's' arguments ... visibly suaded [sic] other of the attendees."
Incredible! I cannot fathom why the discussion went on so long if all the arguments presented against WISP were incoherent. And the second claim of the other attendees being visibly swayed is simply a lie.
Mary Childers agreed with me that the story was inaccurate, but when I complained to WISP director Mary Pavone, she defended it, saying "Communication is tricky when we want to speak our mind." It seems the "anointed" are not bound by truth when defending the cause. Apparently the newsletter recipients are not considered capable of weighing the arguments for themselves. So, the "anointed" must feed them a falsified version of the events to ensure they are not exposed to the ignorance and insensitivity of the benighted.
The student body must remain ever vigilant to ensure Thomas Sowell's description of American society does not continue to describe an institution that should pride itself on intellectual honesty and respect for the ideas and competence of every individual. The "anointed" have no place at Dartmouth.
