On January 12, 1999, the Student Assembly voted on a resolution to support an "Identity, Race, Ethnicity" (IRE) distributive requirement at Dartmouth. The purpose of the IRE is to require students to take a course "dealing with race in a comparative context." The resolution passed--by intellectual default. Only one or two people (besides myself) challenged the principle behind the resolution. The rest argued over parliamentary procedures, issues of implementation, and voter representation. Such tactics prolonged the meeting, diluted the issue, and ultimately did nothing to stop the resolution. Whoever starts by saying, "This is a noble idea, but..."--might just as well stop there. If one wishes to defeat (rather than simply delay) a policy, one must challenge the principles upon which it rests. Policies are like weeds. If one wishes to be rid of them, one must remove their philosophical roots. One must demonstrate that a policy is wrong, not only in practice, but in principle as well. What is the underlying principle of the IRE requirement? It is NOT "intellectual discourse and communication" (as the resolution suggests). First of all, there already exist several forums for sharing one's "identity" with others. These are essentially "bull sessions," and they require only a group of students and someone to facilitate discussion. A teacher is not a facilitator, and a Student Assembly meeting is not the proper model for a class. A teacher's primary purpose--the one he's paid for, anyway--is to impart HIS knowledge to the students. Students may ask questions and raise related issues, but the primary focus is on what the teacher is teaching--not the students' opinions about this or that issue. Moreover, a classroom is one of the worst possible places to discuss politically or socially controversial issues! In the social sciences especially, many professors have their own agendas, which it does not take long for students to pick up on. There is often the (legitimate!) fear that one will be penalized for one's opinions. Add to this the sensitivity of an issue like race, and your "intellectual discourse" will amount to abject conformity and an exchange of politically correct slogans. Jorge Miranda, the resolution's sponsor, is correct in noting that "there are tools and skills that can only be obtained in a classroom setting"--but those tools and skills do not, in this context, include independent thought and intellectual integrity. Another of the IRE's alleged ideals is "to prepare individuals to live in and contribute to an increasingly diverse nation and interdependent world." How will the study of a few races and ethnicities accomplish this? What if one comes across a race one has not studied? More importantly, what CAN one study about races and ethnicities that would be useful in making any kind of judgment or decision? In what context would--or should--one take race or ethnicity into account? Why should one care? But this is the underlying principle of the IRE: that one should pay attention to race and ethnicity. What for? The most common response is: "to understand ethnic differences." But why are the unchosen differences between unchosen groups so worthy of study? It is an individual's choices that determine his character--and it is by the "content of their character, and not the color of their skin" that individual's ought to be measured. Anyone who realizes this will also realize that the IRE is not, as its advocates claim, a "step in the right direction"--not if "social harmony" is one's goal. It will not only fail to bring about such harmony, but will undermine whatever harmony still remains. Observe the last few decades: it is no coincidence that, as multicultural programs and efforts have increased, so have racial and ethnic tensions. Anyone who wishes to erradicate racism must realize that racism is, at its root, the policy of judging individuals (and oneself) on the basis of race. The only way to fight racism is to snip it at the roots: to show that an individual's race and culture (nature and nurture) have little or nothing to do with his character. The way to bridge unchosen differences is NOT to "understand" or emphasize (!) them, but to IGNORE them as irrelevant to an individual's worth. THIS--individualism--was the principle that should have been used to combat the resolution. Why wasn't it? The answer lies in the nature of principles and morality. Moral judgments are difficult to make. One must first HAVE a morality (i.e., a set of principles), and also practice it. In a political setting, moral judgments are even tougher. Since they are personal judgments, the question often comes up: should one follow one's conscience or one's constituents? After all, a representative's job is to represent people--but does that mean he should reduce himself to a hypocrite or an amoral puppet? The conscience-constituency dichotomy need not exist--provided one is elected on the basis of one's principles. It is almost unavoidable, however, for those are elected on the "I'll do whatever you say" platform. They may agree with the electorate on many issues, but at some point, they will have to choose between betraying the voters and betraying their beliefs. The former means political suicide, the latter, moral paralysis. Both could have been avoided by being honest with the voters (and themselves) to begin with. Would the IRE have passed if more Student Assembly members had been elected for their principles? Yes--in fact, it probably would have passed by an even greater margin. But this is because the majority of the student body has either accepted the principles that make the IRE possible, or has found no rational alternative. When people have not yet found their own principles, they are more likely to vote those who have. It is time to offer students a rational alternative. Students need to be taught that individuals ARE capable of forming their own character--and are NOT the pre-determined puppets of gods, genes, or society.
|
