To the Editors of The Crimson:

Spring Break is over and with it, hopefully the last vestiges of pain caused by the great Dunster toaster-oven debate. I was very pleased to see members of my community involved with this issue overcome their strong feelings and genuine disagreements to address each other as individuals at a general meeting covered by The Crimson and in subsequent informal discussions.

Yet the calm resolution of what might have been a much more inflammatory issue has underscored an impression I have had on campus recently that this sort of discussion has become very rare.

Specifically, I am worried about what I see as a scary mirror image of racist or sexist stereotyping. It manifests itself when people are quick to view a challenging, confusing or hurtful speaker not as an individual, but as a representative of a more abstract evil like racism. This sometimes triggers a collective response from a group that objects to the assumed evil; it rarely fosters interpersonal discussion, healing or communal understanding.

More than in other years, I've witnessed this behavior disturbingly often. A teacher makes an argument in class that can be seen as insensitive with one very debatable analysis, and suddenly she IS insensitive. A student uses a phrase that a second student considers racist; the first student is de facto a racist.

Group A invites a speaker that some members of Group B consider offensive; people quickly assume Group A deliberately plans to offend Group B. And the individuals directly involved stop talking to each other and build psychological walls.

I understand that organized responses to racism are often appropriate, that people have the right to speak or respond to speech however they like and that political evil is not always resolvable by open-minded dialogue. I applaud the university for supporting diverse student and administrative organizations to help people contend with difficult and hurtful situations; I think it could do more still.

But the existence of so many institutional resources creates the risk that people who feel offended will make use of these resources without even considering engaging the other party in discussion, which requires patience and flexibility.

Rather than treat a person whose ideas make us uncomfortable or confused as an individual, it's easy to view him as subscribing to an offensive ideology that can be combatted through recourse to a group with in a stake in combatting it.

In voicing concern about this behavior, I am not defending the absolute sanctity of free speech. As important as free speech is, I think society must continue to think seriously about addressing the tangible injury to the dignity of individuals caused by the expression of racism and sexism. Nor am I making a veiled argument against "political correctness."

I believe that all communities, inevitably and not inappropriately, have certain established norms; for myself, I much prefer the liberal norms of my House to those of the broader American society. However much free speech is crucial to encourage people to express perspectives at odds with the majority, those whose ideas conflict with established norms will probably experience some discomfort as a minority. In fact, it's easy judgmental responses to this type of discomfort that bother me.

Whether speech is racist, sexist or otherwise inappropriate is a complex and contextual issue. But I think all members of our community should strive to respect another's sense of what treatment will make him feel equal and dignified, including exercising prudence about making potentially offensive statements.

Further, I believe that people should be willing to reconsider what they say in light of the effect it has on others, even if they mean no harm. Others do and should disagree with me about my standards.

But I have tremendous difficulty understanding what is gained by attaching very hurtful meanings or motives to provocative words in our community. Except in the most obvious, egregious cases, it seems unfair to read a speaker's statement in a suspicious light and then seek allies to respond to it without trying to initiate dialogue or make peace with the speaker.

While the goals and methods of combatting racism or sexism are open to debate, one major aim is surely to work for a society in which individuals are considered for their own unique merits, not as derivative or some group with which they have been dismissively lumped.