Affinity and Self-Segregation

Today, the D's editorial board pens a letter addressing the painfully obvious fact that Dartmouth students tend to self-segregate. The problem they see is that groups organized around an affinity—race, common interest, sports, major, whatever—are too strong.

[M]any groups stand as virtually isolated entities pursuing their own agendas outside the whole. Perhaps one way this trend could shift is if selective organizations simply advertised their existence and character to freshmen instead of actively recruiting during the first few weeks. [...] A reduced emphasis on early recruitment would provide freshmen with an opportunity to discover Dartmouth in their own way

However, is this really necessary? The D recognizes that "[m]any students cite their participation in such organizations as one of the highlights of their Dartmouth experience." Why not find a way to work with the current arrangement and still make it possible for Dartmouth's diversity to be an active one instead of a creation mostly of the college mailings? Why do we need to in essence make these affinity groups weaker to make Dartmouth more diverse? I think we can best make Dartmouth more truly diverse—and interesting—by strengthening them.

How would this work? Simply this: If a group is stronger on a campus our size, its direction will tend to be outward, rather than inward. At a state school, this probably isn't true, but I think stronger groups tend to be more active groups, and more active groups means more interaction between and among groups. If you have both an acid and a base, and if you increase the strength of both, you will get more product, while if you dilute both, both will remain for the most part inactive. Inactivity, apathy, and indifference are the greatest dangers toward forming a dull, self-segregating, and static campus. Activity, energy, and the cultivation of difference in interesting ways—that's what we should aim for.