Determining an appropriate campus response to the recent bias incidents considering the nature of the offenses is difficult; it is hard to imagine a reaction that would please everyone. I hope therefore, that you will take these thoughts in the spirit that they are meant—as an attempt to work through a difficult issue that offers no easy solutions, and to consider how we can address the question of how to make Bowdoin feel safe and supportive to every student.
Every student here should know how seriously the College takes such incidents. However, I understand students who feel confused about the precise aim of the Bowdoin Student Government’s (BSG) recently recognized “No-Hate November,” or who don’t understand why these incidents warrant such a response, while incidents perpetrated by a non-anonymous individual and dealt with by the Judicial Board (J-Board), seem to be punished and then swept away.
Obviously, there are confidentiality issues at play, but J-Board incidents are seen as part of a norm—to be dealt with only on an individual level—while anonymous bias incidents elicit a campus-wide response. There must be some way for the administration to preserve confidentiality while also publicizing J-Board statements at the time of the incidents and inviting an appropriate campus reaction.
As many have noted, we also need to take a more proactive role in shaping wider campus culture. The fact that No-Hate November will be a yearly event is a step in the right direction, although working year-round to think about these issues through a series of scheduled events might be more effective in making these efforts feel truly progressive and integrative. Furthermore, some of the BSG responses read as general initiatives rebranded to combat intolerance.
For example, a talent show is a rather abstract attempt to combat prejudice. I understand the instinct to make it seem as if the student government is reacting strongly to these incidents, but effort for its own sake can trivialize the problem. What changes people’s perspectives are stories—particularly from people they know—or noticing something deeply unfair, or learning that people they respect feel strongly about an issue. To this end, bystander training is an important and proactive offering.
I have heard more about the “Hate Stops With Us” exhibit than about the actual bias incidents. In an editorial a few weeks ago (Snappy Response, November 1), members of the Orient editorial board discussed the potentially coercive nature of the project. Feeling social pressure to resist prejudice is not always a problem, and I saw enough students decline to be photographed that I believe those who participated did so in good faith.
The criticism that I’ve heard more often is that this effort makes a one-off attempt at dealing with a pervasive issue, and then stops. I believe the organizers hoped that the exhibition would serve as a conversation starter; I participated in the exhibition because if there are students who feel better knowing almost a third of Bowdoin students participated in this project, I do not want to take away their sense of comfort.
How many students though, look at this exhibition and wonder about the other two thirds of campus? Furthermore, many students feel unclear about what it means to “stand with the victims of bias.” To sympathize? To sympathize publicly? To say, “It wasn’t me; I would never do something like that?” The bias incidents happened, and while we must make sure that anyone who feels victimized knows that they have support, too often events meant to start a discussion end up becoming the entire conversation.
I am sure that many similar incidents go unreported every year, just as the number of reported cases of assault pales in comparison to anecdotal evidence. There are a lot of reasons for someone not to report an incident—belief the institution will try to help the perpetrator, fear of social repercussions, convincing yourself that you are overreacting.
We need to create a culture in which such incidents are unacceptable, and we need people to feel comfortable speaking up. We only get four years here. We can make an enormous impact on campus culture, but these issues also need to be dealt with more strongly and transparently from an administrative perspective if meaningful change is to take place.
Every effort by students, no matter how imperfect, is a positive step. Still, the most lasting changes come from taking responsibility at the personal level. Especially when alcohol is involved, too often a culture of permissiveness prevents us from taking true responsibility for our actions, or confronting our friends despite our discomfort. According to the yearly reports online, a considerable percentage of the incidents that the Bias Incident Group and the J-Board investigate involve alcohol, so it is worth taking a minute to say this: People can’t always control themselves when they are drunk.
But they can control whether or not they are in control. If someone gets in a fight or makes derogatory comments under the influence, his friends should not laugh this off, or tell him how funny he was last night. If he made anyone uncomfortable, he should know, and make the decision not to drink so much in the future, because there is no reason anyone should be unable to have fun without impinging on the rights of others.
Often, the most challenging part of starting a dialogue is simply getting participants who do not all feel the same way together in a room. I hope that in the coming months, perhaps on the pages of the Orient, perhaps in other public spheres, and most of all in our day-to-day lives, we find ways to work proactively towards creating an environment in which such responses are unnecessary.
Monica Das is a member of the Class of 2014.