‘Bowdoin bubble’ isolates the College from intolerance

Half-Assed: Now, GOP actually needs to govern

On Tuesday, November 2, the American electorate engaged in its ritual cleansing. They chased more than 60 Democrats from the House and another six from the Senate. Power changed hands yet again in this country's government. And once again, the incoming party is promising to set up a utopia and the outgoing party is cackling at what will be the inevitable failure of its adversaries. Do you feel clean?

Half-Assed: An argument against gun possession

Although I tend to doubt that anyone reads this column, I would imagine that if you are reading this article you probably have uttered an impetuous word or two in your life that you regret. You might even have taken a few actions that you would rescind if possible. My apologies for the inane rhetorical commentary, but my point is that human beings tend to get caught up. Sometimes, we lose control. In those instances, our emotions overwhelm our rational thinking.

Half-Assed

‘Bowdoin bubble’ isolates the College from intolerance

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

Judah Isseroff

Columnist

December 3, 2010

East Coast liberal arts colleges are often ridiculed for their disconnect from the opinions and experiences of mainstream American society. For the most part, this critique—which certainly contains Bowdoin College in its crosshairs—is a fair one that many students and faculty at the College should pay attention to.

Simply put, the quality of life that we enjoy at Bowdoin is unparalleled virtually anywhere else in the world. The consequences of this luxury are varied.

On the one hand, by virtue of the amenities that we enjoy, many of us are necessarily limited in our exposure to what could justly be termed a normal lifestyle. This fact stretches across the categories of the food we eat, the time we spend in class (12 hours per week for many of us), and the types of people we encounter on a daily basis. We are, to a large extent, a sheltered bunch. It is on this front that some of us might feel some discomfort, and even shame, in regards to our pronounced difference from broader American society.

As a consequence, more than half of all Bowdoin students go abroad, many of them to countries radically different in culture, custom and economic status from Bowdoin. Countless others are involved in one way or another with the greater Brunswick and surrounding Maine communities where they attempt to forge relationships outside of the constricting "Bowdoin bubble."

All such efforts are laudable, but probably insufficient. However, I am pretty convinced that our somewhat minimal exposure to broader American values is affecting the members of this College in another, potentially beneficial way.

The mainstream Bowdoin attitude toward issues of gay civil rights, specifically in the fight over the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, is considerably more intelligent than the attitudes of those involved in the political scrum.

During his candidacy for president, Barack Obama made the pledge to repeal the military policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in the United States. This policy, instituted by former President Bill Clinton, allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military so long as they do not reveal their sexual orientation. As a candidate, Obama decried the law as wrong-headed, assuring the American people that he would undo it and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly and honorably in this country's military.

After nearly two years and an ongoing Pentagon review, DADT is finally on the legislative chopping block. However, opposition from members of both parties may stall the undoing of what I see as a blatant disregard for the civil rights of many of this nation's greatest patriots. Moreover, the question of DADT has never really flourished as a civil rights issue. Instead, both supporters and opponents in Washington have cowered behind the language of national security. As a result, Obama and his allies have alienated many of their progressive constituents with their refusal to characterize DADT as a civil rights abuse. Likewise, both Republican and Democratic opponents to the law's repeal have escaped the label of homophobic by having successfully dictated the terms of the debate to center around military cohesion and national security.

Meanwhile, Bowdoin's dealing with the issues of sexuality reflects the complexity that such issues merit. Classes about queer theory span the English, religion and gay and lesbian studies departments. The College's athletic teams take a proactive stance in suffocating instances of homophobia and have opened their doors to queer athletes.

Unfortunately, the College's exemplary policy in dealing with issues related to sexuality can in no way be seen as representative of the broader American understanding or approach to sexuality. This nation's dealings with DADT have reeked of a denseness that contrasts with the impressive intelligence demonstrated by Bowdoin students, faculty and administration. Indeed, this country's most powerful leaders have been guilty of the offense of ignorance or cowardice, just as its ordinary citizens have committed it.

My point is only to say that we at Bowdoin should in no way apologize for certain consequences of our isolation. If our standing as a bastion of tolerance—and even more importantly as an intellectually curious institution—depends to some extent on our removal from society-at-large, then I would hesitate to disturb our seclusion.

At the same time, there are certainly negative or injurious consequences of the College's isolation. We do not know many of the practical challenges of life. We also live in an overwhelmingly secular bubble, and may make the mistake of wholly condemning instances of religion or tradition.

Ultimately, it is our charge to find the ideal Aristotelian mean between the College's secluded idealism and the world's harsher pragmatism. Along the way, however, we should be thankful that our treatment of sexuality is far more complex and intelligent than most of those in American politics and this nation as a whole.

Comments are permanently closed.