Some recent Bowdoin occurrences prompted me to do a good deal of thinking about the word "tolerance." I have always found tolerance to be a curious notion. Bowdoin, along with many other liberal arts institutions, attempts to achieve a goal of acceptance amongst its diverse community of students. "Tolerance" has become a buzzword, which I believe we use with little thought of its meaning. We often perceive of an idyllic tolerant environment that is fair and permissive to others' opinions and views that are different from our own. If this definition is the correct understanding of the word, I have come to find that achieving a tolerant environment is inherently impossible.
Bowdoin is a learning community where we are exposed to a conglomerate of viewpoints, worldviews, and opinions. We are taught to be tolerant of one another's opinions. Ideally, such a place would be utopian. However, the fact remains that there will be disagreement on a variety of issues.
Our society has constructed, more or less, a bipartisan political system where we tend to conform to one side or the other. In doing so, we become, to some extent, intolerant of the other side's opinions. We think they are wrong, we are right, and we should do everything we can to change their minds. When polemic disputes occur, rarely do we observe the tolerant ideal.
Consider an institution that wishes to create an entirely tolerant community dedicated to every kind of diversity. Upon hearing this news, a group of Nazis wishes to attend, excited for the opportunity to express their views in an all-accepting environment. However, by the very nature of the group, we encounter our first dilemma. If the institution is to be tolerant to every kind of diversity, the Nazis should be granted a forum where their opinions can be expressed. However, the Nazi believes that their views are superior to those of everyone else. Such a mentality is antithetical to the ideals of the institution. Seem far-fetched?
How about Bowdoin? If we are to be an entirely tolerant place where every kind of diversity is accepted, we are going to run into these problems. Last week, an openly gay Bowdoin student was verbally assaulted by individuals in a passing vehicle. If we are to be tolerant of everyone, should the individuals in the truck be allowed to express such a viewpoint? The College responded unsympathetically toward the homophobic attitudes. Bowdoin authorities asserted that such behavior would not be tolerated.
After realizing the impossibility of an all-tolerant community, I have come to find that intolerance is not a bad thing. Our use of the buzzword has pinned a negative connotation on any attitude deemed less than permissive and accepting.
However, we are very intolerant people. We refuse to put up with murder, abuse, rape, theft, and a myriad of other things. Bowdoin is committed to being intolerant of any injustice or "discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, creed, ancestry, national and ethnic origin, or physical or mental handicap." Such intolerance is a good thing. The word "tolerance" has lost its meaning. In a thesaurus, one can find "stupid" as a synonym for intolerant. Is Bowdoin stupid for upholding an intolerant attitude toward discrimination?
For the most part, we have already taken stands on what we believe is right. These views are then somehow deemed "tolerant" simply because we believe they are right and it sounds good. Rather than putting on a façade of permissiveness and acceptance toward every opinion and idea brought to the table, we should acknowledge the ideas for which we stand and those we reject. Such action would curtail the use of meaningless buzzwords we eagerly throw around in an effort to support a point.