Unmasking masculinity

Editorial: Out of focus

The students who hosted the “tequila” party received a harsh punishment from the administration. While some of the disciplinary measures seem productive—they will participate in an educational program facilitated by a faculty member, attend Active Bystander training and write a letter or paper on these experiences—other aspects of their punishment seem arbitrary. They were forced to move out of their room in Stowe Hall and relocate to doubles in Chamberlain Hall and they are banned from Ivies and Spring Gala. What’s more, Bowdoin Student Government (BSG) is moving forward with impeachment proceedings against two of its members who attended the party. While we have concerns about the impeachment proceedings and believe that aspects of the current punishments miss the mark, the details of the disciplinary actions are not the most important parts of this conversation.
It is concerning that the disagreement over punitive measures seems to be overshadowing the larger-scale problems and tensions on campus, both related and tangential to the “tequila” party and its predecessors. It is troubling, too, that many seem to focus on rumors about the exact details of who wore what to the “tequila” party. This diversion is crowding out the opportunity to think critically about why some Latinx students (and other students of color) feel disrespected and hurt by this incident in the first place. Last week, we wrote that regardless of what one thinks of the rules or the ways they are enforced, the focus in the wake of an event like this should be on listening and creating an environment that is welcoming to students who have historically felt unwanted and disrespected here.
Free speech is a right, but it does not excuse us from from being held accountable for the things we say and do by others who are exercising the same right. Free speech is necessary and important. However, if you want to be taken seriously, you must be as willing to hear others’ opinions as you are to dole out your own.
Despite the conversations we’ve already had, it’s clear there is still no solid consensus on campus about what defines hurtful ethnic stereotyping. That said, the onus should not be placed only on students of color to repeatedly educate others about systemic oppression and racism. Every Bowdoin student should have the opportunity to grow and succeed in this institution without having to bear the additional burden of repeatedly explaining to others why they deserve the respect of their peers.
It is reasonable to be conflicted about some of the issues raised by the “tequila” party. There may be more questions than answers and we are unlikely to reach a campus-wide consensus. Students of color—who do not have a choice about whether or not to care about race at a white majority college—have repeatedly expressed that this conversation is inherently painful, uncomfortable and unavoidable. This discomfort is a choice that white students have the responsibility to lean into.
This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Julian Andrews, John Branch, Jono Gruber, Matthew Gutschenritter, Emma Peters, Meg Robbins, Nicole Wetsman and Emily Weyrauch.

Editorial: A house divided

Whether you can put a name to it or not, every college house has a personality. Are you going on the Katahdin trip tomorrow? Sean is leading it, you know, the one in Reed. Were you at Baxter at all last night? The basement was lit post 1 a.m. See you at Ladd after the hockey game? I wish I could go to swing dancing at Howell, but I have an essay due. Year after year, the college houses embody somewhat similar characteristics, and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but the College seems committed to convincing students that the houses are interchangeable.
Over the last several years, Residential Life (ResLife) has made many adjustments to the college house system in an apparent attempt to homogenize the culture between houses. Three years ago, first years’ house affiliations were changed from dorm-based to floor-based. Two years ago, the application was modified to encourage more upperclassmen to submit their names to the mostly-sophomore applicant pool. Last year, the application became binding so that students could not decline acceptance to a house even if they were not placed in a house they specifically applied to. Even more restrictive, first years can only apply to the houses that members of their block are affiliated with, or relinquish their right to list preferences.
We question the efficacy of ResLife’s social engineering attempts to shift the college house culture by adjusting house application requirements and questions. If the College really wants to address exclusivity within the College house system—as demonstrated by the “Why Do College Houses Feel So White?” panel—shifting around blocks and mandating that students apply to houses that they are affiliated with seems superficial.
In each of these tweaks to the college house system, ResLife has attempted to counteract the personas each house has developed over time. But the houses’ personalities are often among the most celebrated, important and positive aspects of the college house system. College houses can have unique identities and have a close-knit group of residents without inheriting the negative characteristics of fraternities. Though the College House system was designed to be a healthier space on campus than fraternities were, it is still a necessarily exclusive system—not every student can live in a house, and not everyone wants to, either.
Because there are eight houses on campus, each with a slightly different atmosphere, most students are likely to identify with at least one house, though it is inevitable that no student will connect with all of them. Bowdoin can work on making the houses more inclusive and open to all members of campus without sacrificing the character of the individual houses. It is absolutely important that every student feel safe in every house, but for students lucky enough find a house they connect with, ResLife’s rules should encourage, not prohibit that.
This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Julian Andrews, Jono Gruber, Matthew Gutschenritter, Meg Robbins, Nicole Wetsman and Emily Weyrauch.

Editorial

This piece represents the opinion of The Bowdoin Orient editorial board.

April 1, 2016

Recently, discussions about the potential dangers of masculinity have been coming out of the woodwork on campus. On Wednesday, the Bowdoin Men’s Group, partnering with the Women’s Resource Center and the Center for Gender Violence Prevention and Education, hosted a screening of “The Mask You Live In.” The film explores the limiting ways in which masculinity is socially constructed and taught to boys from an early age. Many of the ideas it addressed are not foreign to our campus. For instance, in her article for this week’s opinion section, Skye Aresty ’16 calls attention to what she sees as an unhealthy and unequal hookup culture at Bowdoin fueled by men exerting a sense of entitlement over women.

As Professor Judith Casselberry pointed out in the discussion following the screening of “The Mask You Live In,” autonomous spaces, that is, spaces where people can talk with people like them, can be incredibly valuable. This is not to downplay either the importance of incorporating diverse experiences into conversations, or the necessity of recognizing that many of the people hurt by toxic displays of masculinity are not men. The Men’s Group is a good effort by a small group of students to recognize that issues of masculinity—including sex, fatherhood, emotional expression and mental illness—often go undiscussed, and to facilitate healthy conversations in spaces specifically designated for this purpose.

We are in a moment at Bowdoin where people have a lot to say and are talking to each other about tough and often emotional themes—including looking at taken-for-granted concepts and assumptions and deconstructing them. Issues of masculinity are relatively new in campus discussion, so we have a unique opportunity to shape the way in which we talk about them.

The next two events in the Men’s Group’s current series “We Need To Talk” are focused on the always-relevant issues of sexual assault and supporting survivors, topics that are typically tackled by groups of women and individual women. These events show that the Men’s Group is internally grappling with the complexities of a masculine identity while using that male privilege to work toward educating others. Although we recognize that the discussions and programs of the Men’s Group are a step in the right direction, it is also important to acknowledge that its efforts are not yet widespread and build on discussions opened up by feminists on campus.

Last night, Tim Wise, a white anti-racism activist and writer, spoke to a packed crowd in Kresge about racism, using the power that comes with his white privilege to speak to a group of students who might not have gotten the same message from countless other sources. We think it is of utmost importance for those who consider themselves allies—whether of people of color, the LGBTQIA community, feminists, or any other group—to use the dominance and respect that they inevitably carry with them to educate others. In our last editorial, we wrote that the onus should not be on those marginalized to educate others about their oppression. This week, we see tangible examples on campus of folks who are in the process of critically examining their own privilege and bringing these issues to light to new audiences in different ways. This work will continue to be critical on this campus, as students from all walks of life struggle with new ideas, experiences and relationships, together.

This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Julian Andrews, Jono Gruber, Matthew Gutschenritter, Meg Robbins, Nicole Wetsman and Emily Weyrauch.

Comments are permanently closed.