We've been down this road before. The Duke identity groups are raging mad. They are pointing fingers and naming names and they want more. More of everything. More money, more attention, more retribution and control, more "rights," privileges, slush funds and entitlements. And they want it now!
First, a disclaimer: While at Duke, I was an active brother of the Sigma Chi Fraternity. During that time, I watched some brothers engage in, as Dr. Moneta so aptly phrased it, "stupid" activities. I also watched other Dukies engage in stupid activities--other students and student groups, Cameron Crazies, administrators, professors and athletes. I consider this stupidity a regrettable part of life, especially among young people.
So, when I learned of Sigma Chi's offensive and disappointing actions during the "Viva Mexico" party, I was admittedly ashamed, but I was also fairly certain that the party's intent was not to cause harm or offense. What's more, I am fairly certain that this incident has sparked a heated discussion within the fraternity about its values and mission and that the brothers will go to great lengths, both internally and externally, to rectify their mistake and to restore the fraternity's honor within the Duke community.
Sadly, the story does not end here--for in this case, the fraternity offended an entrenched special interest group at Duke (the interest being identity or "culture"). And when an interest group gains traction on an issue, it doesn't let go easily. It bulldozes a path down what I call Shakedown Street.
As on college campuses everywhere, Duke's diversity lobby, like any lobbying campaign, is rooted in self-interest. When interest groups speak of "rights," they are often speaking of a very specific set of rights--their own. They endorse neither human rights, nor societal rights that are universal. Rather, their arguments are, when the blinding shield of political correctness is pierced, about entitlement and spoils. They push for ever-more resources, often at the expense of the greater community, and will go to any length to enforce their interests, even so far as to suppress truth, defy reason and limit freedom.
Identity groups on campus have a profitable tool at their disposal--claims of subjugation, discrimination and entitlement. Any group that stands to gain from claims of institutional unfairness will assert those claims, whether true or not. But, mere pleading of inequity--no matter how loudly it is done--doesn't prove the matter.
Moreover, to suppress thought and stifle debate about their claims, the cultural lobby deftly employs fear and stigmatization. They do this through allegations and insinuations of racism, prejudice, sexism, classism, jingoism and other buzzwords of what the Duke NAACP called the "diverse community of multiculturalism." For many, the fear of being labeled as unfair or prejudiced is greater than the cost of acquiescing to what are often ridiculous demands. Notice, in the wake of "Viva Mexico," the virtual sprint to the finish line of supposed acceptance and tolerance. If the Freeman Center wants to host a Jew-B-Q, it hardly need apologize. And yet, it did. Why? Most likely because it fears the aspersions people so flippantly cast--not because it actually believes it did anything wrong. Reason and reality do not become any less reasonable or true just because, out of fear and indoctrination, people fail to defend them--but they do become less evident. Those who surrender to these tactics participate in and give credence to a sham and a shakedown--and they know it.
Before we accept Mi Gente's claims of institutional prejudice prima facie, let's step back and look at reality. What groups on campus are consistently the beneficiary of special initiatives, space reallocation, new construction and administrative pandering? Consider the following list: the new multi-cultural lounge in the Bryan Center, the relocation of the Mary Lou Williams Center to one of the most prime spaces on campus, the Women's Initiative, an entire section of the Duke Strategic Plan devoted to diversity, special recruitment weekends, a $100,000 cultural slush fund, several hiring initiatives, the John Hope Franklin Center, specific representation on every University committee, the only recognized holiday at the University, the relocation of the LGBT Center, the continuing preference given to minority students in admissions, the creation of academic pseudo-disciplines and courses centered solely around identity politics, the very existence of an Office of Institutional Equity, a residential life program centered around diversity concerns, the domination of cultural representation on the Inter-Community Council and other student committees and much more. More than any other subset of students, identity groups are the special, and often illogical, focus of institutional attention, support and dollars.
But nothing satiates an interest group so long as more resources are obtainable. And so, Mi Gente, recognizing that they have traction on this issue, that most of the campus is afraid of being labeled racist and that there is the possibility of gain, is now issuing the typical and tired demands that are the calling card of cultural lobbying groups and special interest pleaders everywhere. In its tactics and motives, Mi Gente echoes the evasiveness and illegitimacy of Duke's last shakedown success--the Duke Student Movement. Following precedent, those Latinos who believe that their identity grants them special privilege now demand more faculty, more "diversity" programs and pseudo-disciplines, more, more and more administrative paternalism. A speech code request cannot be far behind.
I hope Sigma Chi's regrettable actions lead the brothers to grow their principles and perspectives. But I shudder at the thought of another shakedown. I have seen many "stupid" things at Duke, and often the politics of special interest groups like Mi Gente are among the stupidest. Their tactics, aside from their divisiveness and illegitimacy, divert valuable administrative attention and resources from areas that so desperately need them. In confronting and answering the pleading and allegations, demand some proof and treat the allegations for what they are. Debating claims of racism is not, in itself, racist. A lobby's claims are just that--claims, not proven fact.
Jessie Panuccio, Trinity '03, was the former president of the Duke University Union. He attends Harvard Law School.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.