Were the “In Solidarity” Emails Responding to the Trips Op-Ed and the “Take Back the Night” Initiative Meaningful Actions?

From the editors:

This winter, the Dartmouth published an op-ed entitled “You’re Not Tripping.” The author condemned the Trips Directors’ selection process for too heavily weighing factors, such as gender, in the selection process and openly questioned the merit of the new selections. In response, many student organizations sent emails with the subject “In Solidarity” expressing support for the Trips Directors and criticizing the article.

21.3% of Dartmouth students agreed with the author’s position, while 78.6% disagreed.

On April 6, a cohort of students asked all social spaces to close in honor of a “Night of Solidarity,” a night dedicated to seriously reflecting on the sexual violence committed on this campus and ways in which Dartmouth and its students can improve the safety of social spaces on campus. In response, many student organizations sent emails with the subject “In Solidarity” expressing their involvement with this initiative (which colloquially came to be known as “Take Back the Night,” after the non-profit organization which spearheads such rallies and protests against sexual violence, among other actions).

69.7% of Dartmouth students supported this initiative, while 24.8% opposed it.

All data sourced from College Pulse.

Were the “In Solidarity” Emails Responding to the Trips Op-Ed and the “Take Back the Night” Initiative Meaningful Actions?

From the editors:

21.3% of Dartmouth students agreed with the author’s position, while 78.6% disagreed.

69.7% of Dartmouth students supported this initiative, while 24.8% opposed it.

All data sourced from College Pulse.

Pro

The “In-Solidarity” emails offered insight into which Greek Houses and on-campus organizations genuinely cared about the issue of sexual assault.

Without names, it’s quite clear that certain groups on campus were proactive about the topic while others were far more reactive. It probably makes little sense to credit organizations and groups who felt they were pressured into acting – but it doesn’t hurt to note them. You might consideralso reconsider Fraternity XYZ’s “In-Solidarity” email (or lack thereof) before deciding to spend a Saturday night there.

Additionally, it seems entirely possible that this “Take Back the Night” phenomenon will continue next year. The email chain – which signifies the support of the majority of on-campus organizations, whether pressured into it or not – likely played an integral part in this shift.

For those who are passionate about sexual assault on our campus (perceived to be the vast majority), the “In-Solidarity” emails have given a snapshot of the present and possibility for future change.

Additionally, on a very basic level, I believe we all want this campus to be somewhere that people feel safe. If you can’t find meaning from an email chain that shows the safest places on campus, consider this: the “In-Solidarity” emails will likely be much more intentional next year. The executives elected for on-campus organizations and Greek Houses who write them will certainly be far more committed to their creation. This type of commitment is cyclical, going hand in hand with solidarity’s true definition of acting in response to a perceived need in one’s larger community. So to conclude: an expression of solidarity is better than nothing; it might also engender meaningful action from others. These “In-Solidarity” emails certainly qualify as an act of solidarity.

How was this an act of solidarity? The term solidarity derives from the French ‘solidarité’. This initial meaning was perceived as the “communion of interests and responsibilities, mutual responsibility” (c. 1829). Mutual responsibility and a consideration for a community’s larger “perceived need” are substantively indistinguishable. A more modern definition still maintains this connection – acting in solidarity is now seen as “unity (as of a group or class) that produces or is based on community of interests, objectives, and standards”.

Whether past or present, an act of solidarity is any action taken in response to a meaningful perceived need. We might qualify different actions for their quality – Jesse Owens holding his fist up at the Olympics probably ranks higher than a blitz chain – but any genuine attempt to address a meaningful problem for a broader group should qualify as acting in solidarity.

Furthermore, these acts of solidarity have led to substantive change across history. MADD led to safer roads. The March on Washington spurned Civil Rights legislation. Presently, NFLers kneeling forced NFL owners into revealing the league’s stance on patriotism versus bottom lines. #MeToo and the Women’s March likely contributed to a record number of 2018 female Congressional candidates — these acts each created insight into inequitable situations. Our response to them, hopefully, leads a safer and more equitable world.

– Anonymous

Con

The solidarity emails responding to Ryan Spector’s op-ed in The Dartmouth and the Take Back the Night Initiative were not meaningful actions. These expressions of goodwill for the Dartmouth community did more to artificially boost the virtuousness of those standing in solidarity than to lend any help to those in need. Without a doubt, there are merits to increasing awareness, but if the goal is to make a substantial difference, then there is more that can be done. A meaningful action goes beyond words and takes substantive steps towards correcting what is deemed wrong.

The issue with these two actions had nothing to do with the message they were promoting. After many campus organizations sent out their emails, it became clear that not sending one would be a statement in and of itself. Remaining silent would be a clear indication of an acceptance of bigotry on our campus, which it certainly is not. Putting other members of the College in this position is not only unfair, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Regardless of your position on the article or Take Back the Night, the emails were a coercive tactic to bully everyone into agreement. Imagine if this were to happen in a different context over a more contested issue. The value and legitimacy of the opposing argument would be silenced by the majority.

Sending an email across campus to indicate that you stand in solidarity with the individuals who may have been angered by a brief article is a cry for attention. Other than raising awareness, what good are you imparting on campus by telling everyone that you care deeply about issues we face?

The solidarity emails responding to the “Take Back the Night” initiative were equally unwarranted. It was similarly a way for people to express their caring nature rather than do anything to further their cause. Aside from spreading their message, which I see as something with which it is very difficult to disagree, they forced concurrence. Regardless of the veracity of their statement, its unhealthy to have a small group force the entire campus to shut down.

In the case of Ryan Spector’s op-ed, the concern shouldn’t have been with the hurt feelings of the community. In fact, the only meaningful action that should have been taken was an analysis of his argument. Take Back the Night had a great message, but it still attempted to distribute that message coercively. What Dartmouth students can do instead is focus on sexual assault as criminal behavior and prioritize the organizations that help combat this issue and provide outlets for survivors to tell their stories.

There are many, very real issues that we face today at Dartmouth. But material change requires two things: embodying the behavior we expect from the members of our community, and actively participating in a solution. Declarations of self-righteousness do not help.

– Anonymous

June 29, 2018February 4, 2020

Cube Thoughts

By: Shannon Rubin

I like House Center B. I like the fluorescent lights and the comforting, expensive-Manhattan-kindergarten-style seating options. During week 8, I like being surrounded by black boards chalked in with optimistic remnants of first-week-of-term events. I like knowing that I can get Kombucha or any of the snacks I haven’t eaten since Trips at 2am on any given night.

Recently, I stumbled into House Center B (also known by the more palatable name, “The Cube”) with an assortment of student, looking to get a snack on a Monday night after Late Night had closed. The scene was grim. My friends blissfully ignored glares of students hunched over books and computers. A group staring at a number-plastered whiteboard looked tired. Someone juuled into his shirtsleeve. The only sign of life from the outside were Foco-to-go containers scattered amongst grease-stained pizza bagel trays.

I really do love the Cube, but man, is it difficult to see such a sight and not consider it to be a huge campaign flop on the part of the administration.
I am a card-carrying citizen of School House— for those unfortunate enough to frequent West, North Park, East Wheelock, or (god-forbid) South, House Center B is essentially two big rooms stacked on top of one another for students in School and Allen Houses to frequent. In practice, it serves as nothing more than a study and late-night-snack destination. That’s a bit of a departure from what one would think it is based on a cursory examination of the school’s website, where House Centers are described as “living room space” for “House members to hang out, study, meet, or to use for House gatherings.” House Center B was going to be a space for at least four different activities, three of which were not studying. House Center B was going to move Dartmouth forward. House Center B was going to provide social space for and be the heart of the happy, wholesome friendships engendered by the housing system. House Center B was going to be the beginning of the end for the Greek system! The administration made it their mission to achieve these goals by spamming all members of School House via a weekly series of emails to remind them of Wednesday tea.

The subject line passionately exclaimed “Sushi & Donuts!! School House Weekly Tea – Today – 3:00pm House Center B.” Ah, of course: The classic teatime pairing of sushi and donuts. For what it’s worth, later iterations of this subject line included references to “The Cube,” so kudos to the savvy administrator who caught on to what the kids are saying these days.

Sushi seems pretentious, and I almost feel as though that was the whole point. It, as with most aspects of the housing system, feels like an inauthentic marketing ploy to attract the world’s top high school seniors looking for the Ivy League Experience™. If the teaching, student body, academic resources, network, and advising does not do the trick, perhaps knowing that Dartmouth will feed you free sushi at weekly tea will. I checked with friends at UConn— they do not have such privileges.

The emails all went on to promise “a great chance to connect with old friends in School House or meet someone new.” In all honesty, I appreciate the College’s initiative to encourage space for socializing and friendship— Microbrew Monday in One Wheelock provides a great alternative space for meeting new people outside of the Greek system. BarHop, before it was axed, did the same. But those are relatively hands-off nighttime events with monitored drinking. A planned snack time on Wednesday afternoons is unlikely to provide an alternative means of socialization at Dartmouth. You might socialize, and you might enjoy it, but it will not keep you from going to a Greek house later that night.

Maybe the Onion gets it right. South House deserves a win.

June 29, 2018January 13, 2020

Does Anonymous Writing Promote Constructive Discourse?

From the editors:

Obviously, the author of the Con piece would have preferred to be named, but we have rules.

Pro

I should not have to fear publishing a calm, reasoned argument free of hate speech and edited by peers. I should be excited to share my opinions and join the conversation because improvement requires engagement. But I am not. I am worried that if I published an article in existing campus publications, it would be misread and potentially become the defining aspect of my character for the remainder of my time at Dartmouth.

I am scared to submit an Op Ed to The Dartmouth, or any other campus publication, because attaching my name to a piece can be dangerous. Though I’m confident in my opinions, more than happy to talk with someone about them – especially if they disagree – and am open to changing them, much of this campus is not willing to have a conversation. I am worried that people will read what I say and jump quickly to conclusions about not only the strength and intent of my argument but the integrity of my character. Students I have never met will smear my name and, even worse, friends will distance themselves as a result of social pressures.

As you are undoubtedly aware, Ryan Spector published an article in The D earlier this year. It would be an understatement to say he was attacked. I am not saying he wrote a good article, but most people judge him without having met him. No one should pass judgment on someone’s character based off of one poorly written article. We all deserve to be engaged with before we are condemned.

Anonymous writing abolishes this fear. Suddenly I am able to express my opinions without worrying about personal attacks and you are forced to engage with my argument. My background and experience can help determine biases and alternative motivations, but are we not at one of the top institutions in the world? Are we not able to look for signs of bias and keep in the back of our head a reminder that the person writing might have other motives?

There are views on this campus free of malice that are not welcomed. You may struggle to think of them, but that is because they are suppressed. It is hard to determine what the acceptable differences of opinions are when differing from the opinion of the majority comes with a fear of condemnation.

I spoke my mind, I did so civilly, and because this piece is anonymous, I can contribute to the conversation without fear of attack on my character. Hopefully, an anonymous forum will help students recognize that there are plenty of members of our community who think differently and are just too scared to share. We can entertain new and old opinions that have been suppressed out of fear of being ostracized. We can begin to debate and talk with each other. Maybe, down the road, I’ll feel safe writing under my name and you will talk with me before you write about me.

– Anonymous

Con

Individuals should always seek truth. Central to this end is dialogue and discussion between people. Truth can only come from discourse if people are willing to be confronted with other ways of thinking; without honestly and openly exchanging ideas, even the wisest or most intelligent people cannot confirm their perceived reality. This kind of dialogic reevaluation is commonly referred to as constructive dialogue. In order to ensure that people do communicate their beliefs to others, some might suggest creating spaces for anonymous discussion to eliminate fears of personal judgment. Unfortunately, this is not the case—anonymous writing is a detriment to productive dialogue. Written opinions should be associated with actual names so that constructive personal exchanges can happen. Ideas can only be seriously considered when associated with people.

Initially, one might think that anonymity would embolden otherwise reserved voices to speak. Unfortunately, investigation into the matter shows otherwise. There is a considerable body of research that shows negative aspects of anonymity. Anonymity can carry unintended consequences such as discouraging disagreement and does not reduce the risks of harassment or personal attacks. Instinctive feelings about anonymity do not hold up to reality; removing the names of authors from their writing does not always improve the quality of discussion. In fact, when people know where an opinion comes from, they are more likely to listen.

Consider recent articles by Dartmouth students on sexual assault. Experiences with sexual assault can be really hard to hear, but are incredibly important for victims to share. Just as these stories need to be told notwithstanding the difficulty, all written opinions should be shared non-anonymously. When readers know the author of a piece, they are inclined to take it more seriously and respond more thoughtfully.

Sure, perhaps knowing an author’s name is only relevant to those who would recognize the author. Maybe it is sufficient to know that the author of a particular idea is speaking authentically. But as long as some anonymity is preserved, ideas will exist separately from their original context. An anonymous piece on living in poverty will make little impact unless people in proximity with the author can validate some aspects of his/her narrative. Only a real face and name can resolve the impersonality of anonymous exchange; the closer someone can get to the source of an idea, the greater the chance of understanding.

A move toward anonymity in writing is understandable. Historically, people have been hurt or killed for holding unpopular beliefs. In the face of this precedent, simple solutions might appear promising. Nevertheless, people should be able to speak openly, especially in a country with a constitutional commitment to free speech. If people are at risk of harm, the proper response is not to bend to the collective will, but to convince disputants that violence is unnecessary. In this way, anonymity is not only a facile solution, but an obstacle to real discussion.

– Anonymous