Promoting diversity has not resulted in tolerance of differences
As one who considers himself socially progressive and tolerant of differences, I find the message delivered by the crops house students to be incompatible with my personal beliefs (if it was not a joke). This holding true, I find the reactions of both the student body and the administration to be even more reprehensible.
The civil rights movement of the mid 20th century secured more rights for ethnic minorities and women than perhaps any other comparable period in modern history. Has it succeeded only in turning the tide against a new minority? Will the suppression of ethnic minorities be replaced by the unconstitutional persecution of misogynist whites? However distasteful and even harmful their opinions may be, these individuals are protected by the same laws that prevent their prejudices from becoming public policy, and rightly so. It seems even a progressive college campus peddling diversity can only tolerate differences appearing politically correct, polite, or held by those seen as “oppressed.”
It is known through behavioral studies on issues such as cohesion and groupthink that identifying and maintaining a common external enemy strengthens individual and group adherence to internal and common values. It would do one well to remember that the enemy in this situation is racism, not misguided, foolish, or ill-humored students. All humans may be victims of racism, including racists.
It appears we have a long way to go before reaching true equality and acceptance of diversity.
Jeremy Gledhill
business senior
Don’t punish yourself
Concerning the crops house incident, the overwhelming support of the majority of the campus community to move the administration to punish the students involved is both illogical and foolish. As Americans, we are taught that we all possess certain inalienable civil rights and liberties. Further, these rights are guaranteed regardless of how misguided or perverse a particular viewpoint might be.
If these fundamental rights were to be reserved for only those who held the majority opinion, then the fundamental system that guarantees us our “freedom” would be wholly jeopardized. In other words, once we cross that line and begin restricting the rights of a few, it becomes infinitely easier for the powers that be to mercilessly suppress all minority viewpoints – however well founded they might be. Protect yourself by protecting the fundamental civil rights and liberties of others.
Censuring students involved in non-criminal, racist incidents may appease the sentiments of the masses, but otherwise does nothing to remedy the complex issues of racism and discrimination. Rather, moving to forcibly restrain a conflicting viewpoint merely serves to drive that viewpoint into a dark realm where purposeful confrontation becomes utterly impossible. How are ideologies expected to evolve if intellectual conflict is suppressed?
The easiest method for dealing with a difficult situation (avoidance) is seldom the best. I am surprised that a majority of the administration/faculty, with their vast accumulation of degrees, has failed to realize this. One would think they would strive to create and maintain – rather than subvert – an atmosphere conducive to intellectual growth.
Jake Collins
business senior