In early March, a story made its way into the national media that could have come out of Monty Python’s Flying Circus or some other absurdist British comedy revue of the mid-20th century. A group of Bowdoin College students were invited to a “tequila party” on February 20. Someone handed out sombreros.
Two days later, in an email sent to all students under the heading “Investigation,” dean of student affairs Tim Foster wrote: “It has come to my attention that an act of ethnic stereotyping may have occurred at the College over the weekend.” Foster mentioned that he had been in contact with college president Clayton Rose, who in turn wrote that Bowdoin must be a place where “race, ethnicity and other aspects of identity are not mocked or stereotyped, but rather are understood and celebrated.”
On February 24 the Bowdoin students’ general assembly voted unanimously to condemn this act of “cultural appropriation” and to demand that administrators establish a “supportive space for students who have been or feel targeted.” The assembly made clear that it “adheres to the definition of cultural appropriation as the manifestation of racism where there exists a power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systemically oppressed by that dominant group, perpetuate racist stereotypes, and/or misrepresent a people’s culture.” In other words: They made fun of my hat.
One wants to split one’s sides laughing. Some news outlets did. The headline in London’s Independent was incredulous: “Students Offered Counselling over Small Sombrero Hats at Tequila-Themed Birthday Party.” Defenders of the college’s administration complained that this was a gross oversimplification. President Rose blamed the social-networking app Yik Yak for having provided a platform where
students could complain anonymously about the high-handedness of his administration. (“Once again, Yik Yak is a place for misinformation and for ignorant and hurtful comments that stereotype, marginalize and threaten.”)
Well, then, what did happen on the 20th?
Bowdoin has a storied history. In the 1820s Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and Franklin Pierce all attended at the same time! But this century it has acquired—and it has earned—a reputation as one of the country’s small colleges least tolerant of pluralism and free thought. (See the monumental 2013 report What Does Bowdoin Teach? authored by Peter Wood and Michael Toscano for the National Association of Scholars.)
College students sometimes act up, but The Scrapbook suspects nobody did at that tequila party. So vigilant and “proactive” is Bowdoin about fighting “intolerance,” if any demeaning, taunting, or harassing went on, we’d probably have heard about it.
But, since it is our country, forgive us if we don’t LOL as readily as our British colleagues. Bowdoin, a once-great American institution, is not being hypersensitive and ridiculous. It is being authoritarian in deadly earnest. Notice that the assembly’s complaints of cultural appropriation were followed by a summons to intolerance and retribution: “The Assembly furthermore asserts that such behavior as displayed on 20 February 2016 and the anonymous attacks in the aftermath are unacceptable and do not reflect inclusive values. Such behavior will not and should not be tolerated by the Bowdoin community.” The resolution recommended that the college “develop processes for punitive measures to be undertaken against those involved in such incidents.”
Punitive measures appear to have been carried out. An op-ed in the Bowdoin Orient alleged that “punishments were given without any opportunity for students to defend themselves. The girls who threw the party are being kicked out of their room and forced to move, as well as being placed on social probation.” Those who attended the party had been reprimanded, the correspondent alleged.
It is no wonder that further details are hard to come by, or that students who disagree with the political activists among them have resorted to anonymous posts on social media. The administration and the vigilantes of conformism it has empowered mean to stifle contrary views and have the disciplinary tools to do so. They are not whimpering and hypersensitive. They have got an imaginary grievance in their fevered heads and they are carrying it into the public square in hopes of finding people whose lives they can wreck. Certain Bowdoin parents must by now feel they are paying $60,000 a year in order to subject their children to persecution. Are they wrong?
