I have decided I pretty much hate demographics. Granted, they are very useful for many reasons. But if you use them in a way that someone doesn’t agree with – or neglect to use them in said fashion – you are apparently a bigot.

Most recently, it astonishes me when individuals (dubbing themselves spokespersons for “underrepresented” demographics) maintain that their education at the University is somehow handicapped via an “overwhelming paradigm of white men.”

This is the 21st century. We believe in facts and the search for truth. The premise that I inherently manipulate facts and studies because of my race or gender is (ironically) bigoted, to say nothing of offensive. And if professors are adept at their studies – by my experience most professors at BG are exemplary – then such an assertion is even more insulting.

I am a history major. The majority of my professors in history are accomplished scholars. One of those that I admire most focuses on Asia and World War II, and I challenge anyone to claim that his expertise is somehow compromised because he happens to be a white male.

I understand that most cultures have been highly sexist and racist throughout history, but to assume that the study of history is inherently biased by a direct insult to every scholar of history, regardless of their demographic niche.

I bring this subject up now because, with next year’s admissions just around the corner, every organization is swiftly trying to cover its Politically Correct tail; the various student governments and even the Honors Program are discussing new ways to appear more tolerant. In fact, the Honors Program is putting on a “Tunnel of Oppression” the day this column is set to publish.

Here’s my plea: Drop it. All of you.

I know putting an Ethnic Center in the Union and hosting events memorializing the horrible deeds we have committed and continue to commit, seems like a good way to prove your tolerance to all. But all that actually accomplishes is to refortify walls that we’re supposed to be tearing down.

There should not be a black-perspective history, a white-perspective history, an Asian-perspective history, etc. There is the study of history, and every good scholar – regardless of race, gender, orientation or handicap – will acknowledge as much. This goes for all subjects, be it political science or physics.

Having taken interrelated courses with male and female professors, white and Asian professors, and students from all over the globe, I assure you: The facts and theories remain the same.

I understand that people bring their own perspectives to their studies, but that does not change the nature of the scholasticism. If nothing else, the vicious debates within subjects – from whether the Soviet Union ever held a viable method for sustainability to whether “trickle-down” economics is feasible – should be proof that even homogenous groups do not lack for debate and inquiry.

Perhaps I missed something in the Civil Rights movement, but I could have sworn the idea was to be able to stand side by side indiscriminate of race. The introduction of an ethnic center in an institution of higher learning reeks of “separate but equal,” and what exactly is a Tunnel of Oppression meant to accomplish? I know that racism is horrible in the same way murder or theft is horrible – I don’t need to be shot or mugged to figure it out.

There is a reason that the prosecution in a trial is not also the party to render the verdict and sentence. When someone claims the status of victim they obviously cannot be objective as to the necessary means to rectify the situation. However, we, as a University, have taken the tack of adhering to whomever plays the “offended” card first and loudest.

Let me be one to say: No. I do not support any action or expense that further drives a barricade between what it means to be white or black, etc. The intention of equality is to stand on not just even footing, but on the same platform.

If blacks are disproportionately impoverished, work to end poverty, not simply black poverty. The same should go for education, crime, and drugs – we should be targeting the source, not the demographic.

At no point do I wish to argue that racism does not exist, nor to justify the individuals who commit any hate-inspired action against another person on account of race, sex or beliefs. Personally, I would be entirely comfortable putting such offenders in front of a firing squad.

Instead, I wish only to explain that when I stand next to someone, it is not myself, a white male, standing next to a black female. It is two humans, two Americans, standing side by side. I hope more people can begin to accept that paradigm.

– Respond to Brian at [email protected].