Dartmouth students need to learn how to argue — we only know how to shock, alienate and polarize. The time for shock value has passed. Now is the time for neutral, unifying language to spur collective action. We need a more inclusive rhetoric to truly grow. Change is made by arguments that resonate with most people. However, I’ve only seen arguments that force us into boxes that only fit a few and deter productive conversation.
The “Freedom Budget” merely adds to the list of poorly conceived ideas that aim to fix real, serious problems. The rhetoric it uses allows people to make a laughingstock out of what should be sincere discussion about real campus issues. Using anti-male rhetoric derails effective discussion regarding sexual violence on campus and turns it into the same pathetic, useless stalemate comparable to the “crazy liberals” versus “crazy conservatives” battle that our government is stuck in. The way we frame our arguments and refuse to play to our audience leaves good points and genuine problems unheard.
People latch on to ridiculous sound bites to justify dismissing an entire argument and react with snickering or vitriol. The “Freedom Budget” and recent opinion columns have undermined real arguments, creating a culture where some vehemently agree and are ready to overhaul the entire system and others declare the debate ridiculous and disengage altogether. In this climate, people stop actively caring about issues of discrimination and sexual violence because the associated movements are deemed laughable — people make fun of RealTalk instead of discussing feasible solutions to the valid concerns they raise.
To make this campus a truly safe, inclusive place, we need to change how we discuss issues like civil rights and gender-based violence. Replace resistance workshops with discussion workshops and swap “Dartmouth has a problem” for “Improve Dartmouth.”
I am not in any way trying to demean the experiences of students. I also am not saying that this trend does not go both ways — submissions like the letter to the editor by Christian Kiely ’09 (“Intolerant Radicals,” Feb. 20, 2014) are equally unreasonable, unproductive and harmful to these causes. In framing our arguments, we should consider that not everyone is as far from the center of the spectrum as we may be. This would lead to fewer eye-rolls and better results.
Take, for example, how the “Freedom Budget” demands revising our student body’s racial composition. If you’re going to ask for a qualified student body that differs from the demographics of the U.S. — rather than asking for the student body to represent U.S. demographics — then you need to explain why that makes sense and how that is feasible, especially since it is the document’s first listed goal. Not including white students of low socioeconomic status and failing to address the demands’ financial feasibility also weaken the plan’s credibility.
But I believe its biggest weakness is how it pits “Asian, Black, Latin@, Native, Undocumented, Queer and Differently-Abled students” against “the white male patriarchy.” Straight students, white students and rich students are arbitrarily placed on the other side as if a mutually beneficial solution is impossible and that the student body has to fight within itself for opportunities. The plan prioritizes divisiveness over unification, rendering it ineffective.
Dartmouth as a whole may not be ready to use the word “womyn,” say goodbye to the Greek system or dismantle the patriarchy. Opinions differ on whether that is good or bad. However, acknowledging and cooperating with various perspectives appeals to more of the student body.
Rather than fighting against potential allies, we need to work with the Dartmouth community. I’m sure there are plenty like me who agree that women, students of color, low-income students, differently-abled students and students who identify with genders or sexualities outside cis-normative and heteronormative constructs have a harder time at Dartmouth than they should. But you lose us with charged, poorly framed arguments that preach to the choir rather than to the whole campus.
Meghan Hassett '15 is a guest columnist.
