Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Male Dartmouth Student’s Op-Ed Alleging Gender Bias Called ‘Violence’

Male Dartmouth Student’s Op-Ed Alleging Gender Bias Called ‘Violence’

“privileged white male”

Words magically transform into ‘violence’ when they challenge leftist orthodoxy.

Campus Reform reports:

Dartmouth student accused of ‘violence’ for op-ed on diversity

A Dartmouth College student’s op-ed alleging gender bias on a trip-planning committee has resulted in an outpouring of criticism from liberal classmates.

Within a day of its posting, the opinion piece titled “You’re Not Tripping” in The Dartmouth had ignited a campus-wide uproar. In this op-ed, Ryan Spector ‘19 detailed his disappointment with 2018 First-Year Trips directorate selection process. Each year, approximately 19 upperclassmen applicants are selected for the directorate in order to help facilitate Trips, Dartmouth’s annual summer excursions for incoming freshmen.

This year, out of 44 total applicants, 15 women were chosen, along with four men. After being rejected from the directorate himself, Spector accused the directors in charge of the selection process of having an “obsession with diversity” that “verges on the inane,” in light of its extremely female-heavy composition.

The director of Trips, Lucia Pierson ‘18, along with Dalia Rodriguez-Caspeta ‘18, the assistant director, emphasized in their original announcement that the 2018 Trips directorate, which is 80 percent female, was selected “purely based on merit.” Spector railed against this notion, calling it “nothing but an exercise in mental gymnastics,” alleging that their decision to only accept four male students indicated an “extreme application of a diversity policy” and claiming that the members of the new directorate would not adequately represent the Dartmouth student body.

Immediately after the article was posted, the backlash began in the comments section. One student called the op-ed a “whiny post-rejection [expression] of frustration,” while others offered up faux sympathy for him as a “white cis male” from Illinois. Some of the comments respectfully challenged his arguments, but most of them accused him of sexist and even racist undertones, emphasizing his status as a privileged white male.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I did not read his op-ed, and I don’t plan to, but if all he did was complain that there were “too many females” he’s going nowhere.
The committee claims that the selection was made based on merit, which, if true, is the right way to do it. Diversity quotas are wrong no matter which side they benefit.
His only avenue would be to challenge or question whether the selected applicants are really the most qualified.
If he really wants to be selected he better man up, put on his big boy pants and prove that he has more merit.

(Of course, given the current state of affairs I would not be surprised if they count being “oppressed” as a +100 in their “merit system”.)

So an op-ed challenging “diversity” is now “violence”.

I can see the prison conversation now:

Inmate: Dude, what you in for?
Op-ed writer: Aggravated assault.
Inmate: Oh, man. What’d you do? Stab or shoot someone?
Op-ed writer: Worse. I wrote an opinion paper claiming a college program that hires 80% women is probably showing some gender bias against men.
Inmate: Ah, you a bad mo-fo.

In a school with a 50-50 gender mix (, is it not reasonable to expect that at least 9 males would be selected to this “directorate”?

    Milhouse in reply to joe.butin. | February 12, 2018 at 2:35 pm

    No, it is not, any more than it’s reasonable to expect at least 9 females. Which is kind of the point. On its face, at least, it would seem that the selectors are not pursuing diversity at all, and the student is the one with the “obsession with diversity”.

    Not necessarily. What would you say, in the absence of actual information and so we’ll just make an assumption of equal merit, if you found out that of the 44 applicants 40 were female and just 4 applicants were males? This would mean that maybe the females might have cause to complain that 100% of males were accepted and only 38% of women were accepted. What if 15 of the 44 applicants were female (100% accepted) and 29 were males (14% accepted)?

    The composition of those 44 applicants is really important, regardless of whether one of those factors of ‘merit’ was a matching XX and not a mismatched XY sex-chromosones.

“The Asian American Students Association stated in their email that the article “invisibilizes people of color, women and trans folk, [and] queer women of color,” and mocked the op-ed as an example of “white male tears.”” from the Campus Reform article

Don’t go to Dartmouth. Go to a school that’ interested in education, instead (if you can find one).

DINORightMarie | February 17, 2018 at 9:37 am

When free speech is equated to violence, then it is possible to criminalize it.

That is what criminalizing “hate speech” does, because the nebulous term can be defined to mean anything. That opened the Pandora’s box to allow speech to be equated to physical actions, and thus creating a climate of stifling free speech with the threat of punishment.

Why do I start more and more to feel Prof. Jacobson’s “dread”?