April 2005 Issue
Race In The Academy
EditorialRace is still a bitter issue in American politics. Candidates pander alternatively and expediently among the various racial groups, seeking victory at the margins. Entire races are then relegated to mere lobbying groups, denizens of a crass political machine.
We are sadly returning to a world of "separate but equal" treatment among the races, but this time its propagators are racial minorities themselves. Not only does the academy encourage it, but institutions like Dartmouth actively work to ensure this.
In the occasional "majority-minority" electoral district, Blacks and Latinos can win seats but remain outside the political mainstream elsewhere. Until 2004, there had been no elected black Senator until Barack Obama in Illinois—in a race where both parties' candidates were black. In many parts of the U.S., it is still considered highly unusual for a black, Asian, or Latino candidate to even be considered a legitimate contender.
So how do we effectively embrace minorities in politics and society? We can start right here in the academy. If race in politics is ever to become a non-issue, it must begin with us.
Race in the academy is a tricky topic. The Dartmouth and other college newspapers have carried countless op-eds and whatnot on blacks, whites, Hispanics, American Indians and their ensuing (often awkward) interactions. Tensions in discussions run high. Political correctness often stifles candid debate. And yet race is everywhere, utterly unavoidable.
Clearly, structures such as affinity housing cause only polarization and are far cries from the diversity and integration that Dartmouth allegedly seeks. The current system propagates discrimination and racism because it emphasizes the differences between the races, rather than building bridges between them. Affinity housing has helped redefine norms—as a result, when a group of Asians sit together in the dining hall, nary a student notices. But when a couple black people chat with a Latino and white guy, heads turn in a reflex of cognitive dissonance.
The Dartmouth website on black resource groups notes that the mission of the Cutter/Shabazz house is to "enhance the intellectual and cultural milieu of the Dartmouth College campus with particular regard to those issues which pertains [sic] to the historical and the contemporary experiences of people of African decent." So how does a racially self-segregated residence hall achieve this? Can't racial minorities enhance the milieu of the campus merely by their participation in Dartmouth life? With segregation, individuals in a minority racial group end up learning more about themselves and less about the world around them. Myopia abounds whilst understanding crumbles. And in the passage of an undergraduate's four years, Dartmouth fails to be enriched.
To exacerbate matters, the Dean of Pluralism and Leadership refused to comment on affinity housing to the College's own newspaper, calling it only a "complicated" issue (The Dartmouth, 2/4/05). Race is certainly a complex and important topic; let's explore it rather than hiding it behind an entanglement of bureaucracies in OPAL, LALACS, NAD, MEChA, DAO, AfriCaSo, etc.
Why not create a community whereby students genuinely contribute to the tapestry of culture at Dartmouth and of the world? Why marginalize valuable members of the Dartmouth community by conveniently tucking them away in race-segregated housing? It is vital that colleges be places where Latinos, Blacks, Europeans, and Asians actively contribute to the mosaic of our unique American culture. Affinity housing destroys such efforts.
The real world has no affinity housing; Dartmouth must not be remiss in failing to prepare its students for the realities of race outside the bubble. It is crucial not to ignore racial issues. Segregation, voluntary or otherwise, is no solution. If our idyllic College cannot overcome it, how can we expect to see progress in the world outside?
Bruce Gago '05
Editor-in-Chief