I read with interest a recent article about a Thanksgiving costume party held by Bowdoin College students at a private residence in Brunswick. Dean of Students Timothy Foster commented, “I think it’s safe to say that people have been dressing up for decades in costumes, not only at Bowdoin, but all kinds of places, and in more recent times, people have become aware that it’s not an appropriate thing to do.”

As a Bowdoin alumna, I am curious about what Dean Foster meant. Is the college going to ban its mascot – the polar bear – from events? Is it going to ban costumes altogether?

I know Bowdoin has punished 14 students who dressed as American Indians at the party. Would it have punished non-white or non- Protestant students who dressed as pilgrims? I doubt it. My impression is that only students perceived as members of the majority will be punished for “ cultural appropriation” and that minority students may freely “appropriate” the majority culture.

Because I live in a middle class neighborhood, not the ivory tower, I am mystified by the term “ cultural appropriation.” I had never encountered it until I read an article entitled “Teachin on Native American appropriation brings oftignored campus issues to light” in The Bowdoin Orient dated May 2 After reading it, the civil libertarian in me was absolutely dumbfounded that anyone would consider punishing students for expression — however tasteless — that neither harasses nor intimidates others. From my viewpoint, we should not protect ourselves from bruised feelings if the cost is elimination of free discourse.

I believe the correct term is cultural diffusion, and without such diffusion, many of us might still be nomadic hunter-gatherers without the benefit of the wheel or a written language. We certainly would not be speaking English, driving Japanese automobiles, burning Middle East oil, using laptops built in China, drinking Ethiopian coffee, eating Italian food, and listening to British music.

Not only has Bowdoin punished students who dressed as American Indians, it has threatened to punish students who express opposition to its actions. This sounds more like the policy of a political extremist than that of a liberal arts college.

In the most recent edition of The Orient, a student commentator — a senior government major no less — wrote, “Bowdoin, as both a buyer and seller in that marketplace [of ideas], has no obligation to use its resources to further arguments that are contrary to its pluralistic worldview. If you are losing in the marketplace of ideas, you should perhaps re-evaluate your position.”

That student fails to understand the marketplace of ideas works only if it is open to all comers. If it is closed to some groups, then political ideas can become stagnant. Had the U.S. Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights, male property owners might still be the only citizens permitted to vote, African- Americans might still be sitting in the back of the bus, and socalled sodomy laws might still be on the books.

In the 1950s, university professors were forced to sign loyalty oaths or lose their jobs. Now, the pendulum has swung to the left. Faculty and students at private colleges are prohibited from expressing themselves in any manner that might offend others. Under the heading of conduct which is unbecoming of a Bowdoin student, the college now groups dressing as an American Indian at an offcampus party with lewd behavior, physical or verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, harassment, and coercion.

However, punishing students into “ correct” thought is counterproductive. As Peter Suber of Earlham College has written, “ We are in danger of cramping our public discourse with the fearful evasion of taboo subjects, and saying only in private what we should say in public.”

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wisely wrote, “The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” That advice is as good today as it was in 1927. Rather than imposing and enforcing a speech code, Bowdoin should let controversies over expression resolve themselves in the marketplace of ideas — through boycotts, course assignments and discussions, films, lectures, newspaper commentaries, protests, and student forums — over time. Hearts and minds simply cannot be won by suppressing speech.

Michelle A. Small
Brunswick