I am not defending political correctness as we commonly see it. I have never met anyone who openly advocates that we should all be "politically correct." Rather, "political correctness" is a derogatory term used to cast doubt upon the idea that we should be sensitive about offending cultural minorities and other oppressed groups in our society.

How sensitive the larger community should be to minority concerns is and should be a matter of debate. But it is just that, a debate: a dialogue and not an ideology. We should be sensitive, not through enforcement of rigid rules, but through a spirit that allows us to approach issues in an even-handed and attentive manner.

"Political correctness" is not, nor need it be, about speech codes or enforceable rules. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to outline a set of clear rules that would lay out what speech is acceptable and what is not.

Precisely because it is not always known ahead of time what would offend a person or group (nor could it be known), definitive rules will either be too narrow or too broad. They would either attack only the most egregious racial slurs or they would consist of loose and vague definitions that would likely chill free speech.

Crying "free speech" is often the last refuge of scoundrels, and it can be no other way. Free speech exists to protect both the saints and the scoundrels. You may disagree with what people say, but establishing rules that restrict speech is very problematic. At the same time, however, as community members, we each have a responsibility to recognize when someone is acting in a manner that alienates other community members.

When racist and sexist comments are shouted from fraternity rooftops and porches at innocent people, they should be condemned. Just because certain speech is allowed does not mean it is acceptable. One may have a right to say something, in the sense that no government or college authority should be able to silence that speech, but this right does not mean that all speech is something we should applaud.

What conservatives like to label "political correctness" is, in reality, simply an attempt to foster respect between human beings from diverse backgrounds, including race, ethnicity and nationality.

At its base, this effort to create and encourage cultural sensitivity is very admirable. While it is true that these attempts are sometimes misguided, the motivation behind them is worthy of our praise, not our censure.

Free speech, something that liberals and conservatives alike claim to defend, is an unrelated issue in this context. Instead, cultural sensitivity makes communication between different social and racial groups easier, thus encouraging free speech and meaningful discourse.

A specific and controversial example of a lack of cultural sensitivity at Dartmouth is that of theme parties. Do fraternities and other social organizations have an absolute right to hold any type of party, no matter how offensive? Should a fraternity be allowed to hold a slavery party or a party in which everyone dresses in Ku Klux Klan garb?

Staunch civil libertarians would respond, yes, groups should be able to make any statement they want. If the theme was based on trivializing rape (such as a ‘lie back and enjoy it’ party), I suppose one could and might have to argue that free speech would protect these groups absolutely. But I suspect that most of us would blink before accepting that conclusion so easily.

In any case, one should certainly not see as utterly ridiculous those people who would say that the College should not associate itself with such organizations by continuing to recognize them. At the very least, I would hope that Dartmouth community members could agree that, whether or not these parties should be allowed to happen, they should not happen.

Yet offensive theme parties do happen at Dartmouth, and beyond the question of free speech, many students feel these parties are harmless in themselves. While actual parties such as the ghetto party and the Hawaiian party are not as patently offensive, as, say, a Holocaust party, does that mean they are not offensive?

Whatever conclusion is reached about these two parties, we have to admit that there are bounds of social acceptability to what types of speech we as a community condone.

In the case of the ghetto party, where people were encouraged to dress in gangsta style, the majority of the campus saw how people could be offended. Yet a sizeable group of people thought that not only did African Americans not have a right to be offended, but that they had no reason to be offended.

Whether or not one agrees with the justifications for saying that the ghetto party was offensive, reasons for its offensiveness were given. The fact that people did not immediately understand its offensiveness does not excuse the action.

There is a dominant discourse on campus, and minority voices often cannot be heard. I take for example the Hawaiian Luau party, where people were encouraged to dress in "Hawaiian" style and enjoy pina coladas and strawberry daiquiris. Is this insulting to Hawaiians?

The fact is, as a white male, I am not in the best position to evaluate whether something is offensive to Native Hawaiians. It is notable how many students simply assumed that there was no possible reason for Native Hawaiians to be offended. The continual demanding of reasons required that a very small group attempt to explain to a much larger campus why they saw the party as offensive.

Too often, conservatives conflate the argument that all speech should be protected with the argument that minority groups have no right to be offended.

I am not making an argument that the College should make the principle of community enforceable. However, sometimes a community needs to take a stand when its members are being attacked. Even if we do not ban something, that does not mean something is acceptable.

Of course, a minority group merely claiming offense cannot be enough. The claim has to be evaluated, but groups should be given a certain presumption that they are sincere in being offended and at least, at least, have their voice heard by the larger community.

It may not be that racism or sexism motivates offensive theme parties, but we can still recognize that minorities are offended by certain parties, and with justification.

People who complain that they have to watch every word they say lest they "offend" someone miss the point. Cultural sensitivity is not about regulating speech. It is about respecting other peoples’ feelings and listening to their concerns. Boorish conservatives often act as if they want to go back to good ol’ times of civility of mannersÓunless it means being polite to minorities.