Since the SJI's inception last semester they have tackled diversity and multicultural issues at Hamilton with loud voices and steadfast perseverance.  Nothing changed with their proposal for a Cultural Education Center to top the Hill, except perhaps the number of people willing to listen to their message and demonstrate support for their initiative, whether or not they agree with the proposal, simply by accepting the challenge to engage in discourse about the proposal and the issues of which it is a result.
    The two months since the proposal first surfaced have seen a plethora of back and forths and point-by-point debates about the CEC among the student body.  Ironically enough, however, no one has argued against or even questioned the existence of the issues the CEC would seek to address.  So does the bickering over the CEC proposal demonstrate a commitment to address the issues at the heart of the CEC or a tendency to avoid those issues in favor of debate over a more impersonal solution?
    Some of you may be wondering what I mean by the question above.  Let me share a bit of personal experience with you about diversity, multiculturalism and thriving among peers that are different from you in ways that you have not yet encountered.  Now before you scoff at taking diversity advice from a white guy, I implore you to read a bit further.  In the process of writing the article on the CEC proposal that appears on the previous page, I learned that I shared more than I knew with Robert Moses '56, the man whose name the proposal asks that the CEC bear.  Both Mr. Moses and I have had the very great pleasure of being Hamilton students and both Mr. Moses and I graduated from Stuyvesant High School in NYC, one of NYC's top three specialized public high schools, prior to attending Hamilton.  Although by racial classification he was a minority on the Hill during his time here and I am not, we both shared that reality in high school.  During Mr. Moses' tenure at Stuyvesant he was one of only a few non-white not-Jewish students.  Although the demographics changed drastically in the 51 years between his high school career and mine, when I walked into Stuyvesant for my first day of high school I too was a minority. Of the other 3,200 students alongside whom I entered school that day over 60 percent were Asian, roughly 5 percent were African American, about 5 percent were Hispanic, and also present were a countless number of other students hailing from a countless number of other cultural and racial heritages.  And I was just a white Irish guy from Brooklyn.  Hell, I couldn't even speak two languages.  So what did I do?  I started making friends.  As frightened and nervous as I was, I bit my lip and started introducing myself… and it worked.  By the end of the first day I counted many new faces among my friends, though only a few of those faces were white.
    So what does this have to do with Hamilton (and why have I still not explained the question that I promised to address in the last paragraph)?  It is clear to both proponents and opponents of the CEC that the issues it seeks to address are very real and very evident in our daily lives here at Hamilton.  One of the most commonly cited reasons for the construction of the CEC is to provide a "safe zone" for students of minority races and cultures that will also help foster integration and understanding across the whole of campus.  Now lets examine another minority group: the disabled.  Times have changed since 1976 when a Kirkland student paralyzed in an automobile accident was told she could not return to school because she could not be accommodated.  Now it is firmly believed to be necessary to provide for the needs of all students on the Hill.  So did Hamilton build a separate building for the disabled with the necessary facilities to accommodate them, or did it build ramps on all the buildings to ensure that no place was closed off to a student because of a disability?  The latter of course! (Well maybe not on all the buildings, but definitely the important ones).
    In a similar vein, do we ensure that students of every culture and ethnicity are welcome at Hamilton by constructing a building in which they feel welcome, or by building a "ramp" to every building on campus?  Let me be clear: I am not saying that the CEC would not be a worthwhile undertaking.  With proper programming and resources, it could very well be just the base Hamilton needs from which to promote integration and appreciation for those who are different from you.  I am, however, saying that this cannot be accomplished solely through the construction of a CEC.  We must build "ramps" as well.  Unfortunately there is no tangible "ramp" that can be built on every building to solve this problem.  The "ramp" can only exist in the actions and outlooks of the individuals who occupy a given building.
    Now to return to the question posed above: does the bickering over the CEC proposal demonstrate a commitment to address the issues at the heart of the CEC or a tendency to avoid those issues in favor of debate over a more impersonal solution?
    The answer is both.  It is clear that every member of the Hamilton community who has taken an active role in the discussion of the CEC cares deeply about the issues at hand, and their resolution.  It is also clear that a building alone cannot possibly solve these problems.  It could certainly help, but only if the community endows it with the proper resources and only if the individuals in this community utilize those resources.
    But the heart of the issue that the CEC would attempt to address lies in the interactions of the individuals on this campus.  This campus will only truly be whole once the individuals in this community make the effort to know and appreciate the other individuals here.  This is more than a minority/diversity/multicultural issue.  This is an issue of human interaction on a fundamental level.  I guarantee you that no student on this campus feels perfectly at ease when entering Commons and finding themselves surrounded simply by faces and not friends.  Until a human can match a face with the person behind it, they will not perceive that face as a wealth of human experience and knowledge from which much can be learned and to which much can be added.  Furthermore the responsibility of taking this interpersonal initiative should lie evenly on every individual in this community, not simply those who are most aware of the problem.
    I will maintain firmly that resolution of these issues relies on the actions of the individuals here.  I do not, however, believe that this effort should not be a concerted one.  It should.  Strong leadership is required.  The efforts that the SJI has made over the past year are more than admirable.  They cannot, however, be fully responsible for leading the march.  A coordinated effort to effect change in the Hamilton community must be aided by every sector of the community.
    Though the administration has been receptive to the SJI's proposal, and has even gone so far as to arrange a meeting between those students who proposed the CEC and Hamilton trustees, they have fallen far short of what is necessary.  Fear that decisive action in one direction or another may be deemed insensitive has the left the administration, the one sector of this community truly endowed with the resources and means to change Hamilton, in poor form as far as leadership goes.  I think it is respectable that members of the administration have the good sense to know that they can never truly understand the issues that students of minority culture or ethnicity face on the Hill, but this is not an excuse for offering poor leadership and no solutions.  Nor are ambigious words a proper subsitute for good ideas.  You don't need to be starving to fight world hunger, nor do you need to be a minority to lead the fight against segregation.
    But how do you ensure that every individual here remembers daily the true purpose of Hamilton's diverse student body: the opportunity to learn from, share experiences with, and better understand your fellow human beings (and hopefully yourself as well)?  I think everyone here must contribute to that in his or her own way.  Most likely nothing direct will ever come of the proposal.  Eventually it will count only as one more shove in the right direction, one more reason for the administration and trustees, or anyone else who plays a hand in the governance of this institution, to consider integration and diversity more carefully in executing their duties.  That is why our community cannot become too far ensnared in the discussion of a CEC to let tangible progress elude us.  Whether you remember to talk to someone on the Hill you have never spoken to and truly give yourself a chance to see who they are, or you help run the organizations that facilitate such outreach, its up to you.  Whoever you may be, it starts with you.
   
    by Marty Connor '09