racism and sexual assault at Duke

In case you have not been following this, read these two articles about a woman who was sexually assaulted a Duke here and here. In brief, a black student from nearby North Carolina Central University was sexually assaulted and called racist epithets by three white athletes at a house party in Durham.

The District Attorney has launched an investigation, and Duke has suspended the season for the Lacrosse team, which hosted the party. According to the first article, there have been a number of protests by students, faculty and community members targeted at the team's silence about the crime and who committed it. It's those protests that give me hope -- sexual assault is a crime which, because of the sphere of privacy in which it takes place, is often suffered in isolation. When a community comes together to denounce the crime, the racism that informs it, and the protection of its perpetrators, it seems to me that there's a lot of hope for moving forward.

gender, race and achievement

from the new york times (who has yet to publish any the 2,600 letters to the editor written response to the Sudan ads):

A collection of letters to the editor take up the rejection of qualified women by elite schools. One admissions officer admits that without gender-norming, which unquestionably privleges white males, "nearly all of the elite, historically male colleges would be more than 80 percent female." Why do they do it? Fundraising purposes.

if the female population soars above 60 percent, the character of the college radically changes, most notably in terms of intercollegiate sports, which are a critical tool in fund-raising.

Alumni pocketbooks and nostalgia for the good old days trump our principles, as per usual. Or maybe I'm letting my cynicism show too clearly. Another writer takes up the problem of how affirmative action can be so wrong here (where it privileges white males) and so right when it comes to race -- and she makes a distinction I hope we don't lose track of:

Affirmative action's strongest argument is that it helps level the effects of past (and present) discrimination. I have a hard time believing that men can make a straight-faced argument of historical systemic discrimination.

Past and present discrimination, on the other hand, is what Harvard professor Orland Patterson forgets in his op-ed on why black young men persist in showing low socio-economic and academic achievement. He blames culture - theirs, to be specific. They are too enamored, he reports, of "cool-pose culture" (a term coined by sociologists).

For these young men, it was almost like a drug, hanging out on the street after school, shopping and dressing sharply, sexual conquests, party drugs, hip-hop music and culture, the fact that almost all the superstar athletes and a great many of the nation's best entertainers were black.

Nevermind that the last clause is somewhat nonsensical -- don't you appreciate his equating a culture to a drug? He does try to distinguish between blaming a culture and blaming the victims, which is a nice cover for an assimilationist demand. It strikes me as odd that he advocates a cultural approach, but discusses only the minority culture, and not the white culture that controls the "economic mainstream" he claims the black male demographic is uninterested in. How can he think it's appropriate to try to explain explain racial disparities in achievement without discussing racism?

APPALLING.

The New York Times recently accepted a contract worth nearly $1 million to publish advertisements for the Sudanese government. The ads went into an 8 page insert in New York area papers, and according to an email I received from SaveDarfur, "consisted of pretty words about Sudan's 'peaceful, prosperous and democratic future.'"

In accepting this contract, they have betrayed Nicholas Kristof and their excellent record of reporting on Darfur and sharply criticizing the government. To accept money from a government that sponsors genocide is disgusting, but to accept to publish its propaganda is to be complicit in the genocide.

SaveDarfur is soliciting letters to the (NY Times) editor. If you want to write one, you can do so here.

also - apologies

it was finals, now it's spring break.

i'm still on campus, but i'm trying to finish a full draft of my thesis before the beginning of classes next term.

so please be patient with us. we'll be back march 28th.

UCs divest from Sudan

This one is big. the UC Regents voted last week to divest from 9 companies active in the oil and energy sector in Sudan. According to the LA times article UC will only allow its funds to be reinvested in those companies "after they no longer contribute 'to the suffering in the Darfur region.'"

For a review of the arguments for divestment, read the op-ed published by UC student divestment movement leaders Jason Miller, Adam Sterling, and Adam Rosenthal in the LA Times a few days before the vote.

Other good news on Darfur is that the House has finally voted to allocate $50 million to support the African Union peackeeping mission -- something Congress should have done months ago. Though they've been effective where deployed (according to a report last year by the International Crisis Group), the force has been severely limited by a lack of funds, finding itself unable to increase the number of troops, supply them with the necessary communications and transportation equipment, or respond effectively to a rapidly evolving crisis. But they're not enough, and the lack of international support has crippled them. According to ICG's most recent report

The international strategy for dealing with the Darfur crisis primarily through the small (7,000 troops) African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is at a dead end. AMIS credibility is at an all-time low, with the ceasefire it could never monitor properly in tatters.

ICG's recommendations include immediate increased financial and technical support for the AU, the deployment of a supplemental force by a single nation - France? - the bridge the gap, and the deployment of a UN force as soon as possible.

storm of problematic rhetoric around sexual assault continues

For those of you that haven't been reading the D, I've put together a quick summary of the recent discussion of sexual assault. I think you'll agree it's all pretty problematic.

Today

Matthew Carigan '06 describes Catalano's op-ed as "vitriolic feminist rhetoric," and argues that "men have been disenfranchised from the system with respect to sexual violence" because women are never criticized for groping men on the dance floor. If there's unwelcome groping happening on the dance floor, I agree it's a problem no matter the gender of the person groping - but please do not trivialize the very real experience of sexual assault that many women live through involving much more serious violations of their bodies.

John Leyba '01 argues for a novel (and unrealistic) solution to the sexual assault problem -- students should refrain from sex. And it's not that he's wrong about the lack of maturity or the objectification that accompanies our sexual culture, or about the potentially traumatizing nature of casual sex. But it's self-righteous and narrow to argue unless you can do sex the way he thinks it should be done, you shouldn't do it. Given his perspective on casual sex, it's not surprising that he criticizes women for getting anywhere near it:

"Contrary to the assertions of one writer, women not wanting to engage in sexual activity do, in fact, bear a responsibility to avoid what my eighth grade sex-ed teacher called "sex-possible-situations." This is hardly blaming the victim -- it is simply common sense."

There are so many problems with this statement I don't even know where to start.

Last Week

Thursday, Rowan Carlsen '08 wrote a dismissive letter to the editor calling for "less whining, more partying." His inability to think critically about the social world in which he lives is depressing to me. If his piece is representative of the perspectives of other men in Dartmouth's frat basements, then the need to direct some attention to educating them is even more urgent than I had thought.

Also Thursday, Dean Larimore wrote a letter to the editor defending his position on sexual assault. It's too bad that he doesn't recognize the problematic nature of the (accurate) quote used in the op-ed on the Culture of Protection. In that quote, he essentially told sororrity sisters that they should be protecting first year women, who are not affiliated with their organizations and who may not have any connections with older women at Dartmouth. Think how those sorority sisters must feel -- not only do they have to deal with the fact that they can't always protect themselves or their close friends from sexual assualt, but they should feel responsible for hundreds of women they don't even know. It's a quintessential example of the culture of protection. I'm glad that he recognizes that men need confront sexual assault too, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the quote Catalano used was a telling one.

you can deal with gender problems on this campus, or you can ignore them. i recommend the first.

Ana Catalano wrote an excellent op-ed in the D today criticizing the "culture of protection" that has arisen in campus discourse on sexual assault. According to the piece,

"The culture of protection is based on the idea that women need to be taught how to protect themselves and other women from sexual assault rather than the idea that men, who commit the vast majority of sexual violence, need to be taught not to perpetrate or normalize these crimes."

The whole piece is excellent, and courageous. She even (*gasp*) criticizes the frats and the uncritical attitude with which we accept their presence and their problems on this campus. Read the whole thing -- it's thought provoking, and provides a perspective this campus is in desperate need of.

Less courageous is the explanation of Frat Free Friday by Shannon Troutman (president of pan-hellenic council). It confirms Alex DiBranco's critique of the event as timid: Troutman admits that the event was not more broadly publicized because they were unwilling to risk "retaliation" by the frats. Here's her take on the point of the event:

"The idea to hold a fraternity-free weekend was in no way an attack on fraternities, and had nothing to do with men in general. While many students on this campus appreciate and value the social scene that the Greek system provides, the point was to encourage alternative, female-oriented social settings.

First and foremost, however, the goal was to foster relationships among women."

I am personally disappointed by the lack of vision demonstrated by her explanation; when I originally received the blitz, I had read the event as a signal that even those women who normally participate in the frat scene are aware of the problematic gender relations in frat basements, and willing to make a public statement in favor of change. And I think many of the women who participated in Frat Free Friday are aware of the problems with the frat system (I'm not sure if I count, because I've been practicing Frat Free Fridays ever since I showed up freshman year), but pan-hel apparently doesn't want to make those problems a public issue.

My take: the way masculinity is constructed and privileged is a problem on this campus, as it is in society at large. The more problematic elements of its construction are supported and even reinforced by the hyper-masculine culture of the fraternities. We privilege that dominating type of masculinity when we refuse to discuss why men assault women and how their actions stem from broader cultural patterns, and we privilege it again every time we refuse to criticize the frats for their contribution to the problem.

For those of you who are on campus, I encourage you to go to tonight's SPEAK OUT on sexual assaut (8pm Collis Commonground). We, as a campus, have a lot of progress to make in how we think and talk about sexual assault, not to mention in how we try to prevent it.

Live Free or Die?

So here at Dartmouth, living in New Hampshire, most of us have at some point in time learned the state's motto: Live Free or Die.

I've never encountered a NH resident who didn't know and love the state's motto. It's a great rallying cry for just about any side of the political spectrum, depending on how you use it. To literarily or historically inclined ears, it's deeply resonant. How many of us NH transplants know the mottos of our home states? I mean, California's got it pretty good (Eureka!), but when was the last time anyone cared about Florida's state motto (it happens to be the same as that of the United States - In God We Trust - apparently they couldn't think of anything better)? New Hampshire has one fantastic state motto.

OK. I'm a liberal and I just said that. Apparently, according to Power Line via Dartblog, "liberals hate 'Live Free or Die.'"

Bullshit.

I suspect that most NH residents and politicians, of whatever political (or apolitical) stripes, like the state motto. Like I said, it's the kind of phrase you can rally with for either side of the political spectrum, and it gets used (and abused) as such by both sides.

The current fuss over the state motto vs. a horrendous marketing slogan ("You're Going to Love it Here") is not some kind of liberal-conservative tug-of-war. Really. It would be a particularly poor idea to replace the state motto, and if there was any evidence that the state's liberals had hatched some plan to do so, I'd criticize them for it. But they haven't. I've not found a news article yet that says just whose idea it was to hire a marketing firm to think of a new state 'slogan', nor have any of the articles clarified whether this slogan would be a permanent replacement to "Live Free or Die" or merely a particularly invasive and insipid tourism marketing campaign.

Brown Divests from Sudan

man, the good news is just pouring in on the divest sudan movement. Brown has joined the list. In a letter announcing the news Brown President Ruth Simmons says

"This is a critically important and strong statement by the University community regarding our abhorrence of the genocidal actions being supported and undertaken by the Sudanese government. We thus declare our solidarity with the peoples of the Darfur region of Sudan whose struggle to live in peace, freedom, and security is an issue of pressing global concern.."

Reusing snow and planting trees

Folks on campus this week might have noticed the snow sculpture slowly coming down with the help of some heavy machinery. What they might not have known is that a good bit of the snow from this year's snow sculpture is being reused over at Tuck for their own smaller snow sculpture. I'm not sure if it really deserves the term 'sustainable', but here's an idea for the other seasonal large object on the Green:

Why not plant trees annually to replace those harvested for the annual Homecoming bonfire?

It's relatively easy to calculate the environmental costs associated with chopping down a tree; the same goes for calculating the benefits associated with planting one. Planting young trees is inexpensive, easy, and pays huge environmental dividends. Apparently it's been done before here at Dartmouth, sometime in the early 90's - why not do it again?

I love the bonfire and I never miss Homecoming festivities. But burning that much wood in one night for a completely impractical - if fun - tradition could be made into something even longer-lasting if students were to plant trees over Homecoming weekend to replace those burned. I'm not sure from where Dartmouth purchases its Homecoming logs - but new trees could be planted anywhere - on campus, at the Organic Farm, in the Grant. In fact, you could vary the location annually - there are organizations that plant trees all over the world, and tree-planting could be tied into service trips, ASBs, international FSPs, anything.

Planting trees to repay the environmental costs of harvesting wood for Dartmouth's bonfire is admittedly a small action; compared to Dartmouth's annual energy consumption, the bonfire is a small speck, but the power of the action is in the message it sends - a commitment to preserving natural resources for the future and a recognition that sustainability can be a part of Dartmouth's best-loved traditions.

Elite Schools and Inequality

For all that academic institutions like Dartmouth are predicated on the importance of critical thinking and interrogation of power structures, it seems to me that students, professors and administrators alike neglect to turn that critical eye on the institutions that house us. What is the role of elite schools in our society?

I don't think any honest or satisfactory answer to this question can be given without a serious consideration of our relationship to economic inequalities in our world. We depend upon and reproduce the economic elite. And the alums we produce seem pretty content, on the whole, to use their privilege to further enrich and empower themselves.

We should be ashamed.

At least part of any effort to make our relationship to economic inequality more constructive should involve aggressively recruiting (and fully supporting) students from lower economic brackets. Gauranteeing that we'll meet 100% of financial need is not enough to overcome the structures of disempowerment that get in the way of students applying to and gaining acceptance to colleges like our own. On models for how to do this, see what Tony Marx is doing at Amherst. In brief, his programs amount to an affirmative action program for the economically disadvantaged. Maybe we could take a cue from him; I think it's about time we got serious about this at Dartmouth.