The Tunnel of Oppression has been a campus fixture for years. Now, Cornell has added a new structure to the collegiate architecture of tolerance: diversity arches.

Five years ago, Cornell published a statement on diversity and inclusiveness that it regards as a watershed moment in the university's movement toward a utopian state of free expression, open inquiry, and multicultural awareness. To celebrate five years of "Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds," Cornell has planted a series of red metal arches on its campus. Each arch bears the "Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds" slogan, and each arch is a challenge to all who pass: Walk through the arch (which is apparently a metonymy for a door) and display your open heart and open mind, or walk past it and declare your closed mind and shrunken heart.

Officially inspired by Christo and Jean-Claude's Central Park installation "The Gates" (and unofficially reminiscent of McDonald's trademark Golden Arches, with their all-inclusive announcements of billions served), Cornell's diversity arches have sparked some striking commentary. Some see the arches as an attempt to whitewash the fact that racism and intolerance still exist at Cornell; others see the arches as a callow and infinitely mockable stunt that cheapens its own message. As the associate editor of the Cornell Sun put it:

I am here to attest to the campus that the red arches contain a transformative power that could only be described as religious. The students who deliberately bypass these arches, refusing to pass underneath them, have no idea how slammed-shut their hearts, minds and doors really are. Just this week, I passed through the threshold of the arch in front of Uris. I can say that I have seen the light, and it is good.

Initially I was timid, more afraid of what wouldn't happen than what would. What if I passed over to the other side of this arch, this arch that I had looked to with such faith and trust, and found that there was nothing there?

Well, I was not to be disappointed. As soon as my body moved into the liminal region between the arch's front and rear, the change was immediate and graceful. Benevolent rays of open-mindedness wrapped me in swaths of healing energy, and my very spirit was filled with warmth and nourishment, as if I had been submerged into the amniotic fluids of the womb of political correctness. A glorious vision came to me in that moment. Descending like angels, Hunter Rawlings, Susan Murphy, Peter Meinig, Tommy Bruce and Kent Hubbell came to me, clad in white with bright aureoles around their heads, and sang to me, "Zachary, open your doors, open your heart and open your mind." And I did.

My heart exploded with compassion for all living and non-living things. My doors didn't just open, they flew open. All of my openings opened. I mean, I was open. I can say that I've never felt so open in my life as I did at that moment, and I hadn't felt so happy since the time somebody spiked my mojito with ecstasy! And I can speak with such open openness about my openness because I am now so openly open.

And now that my mind has been opened, I've realized what a horrible, callous person I was before. All of my former contempt has been erased and replaced with an unquestioning love for all. I no longer light spiders on fire simply because they are ugly. I now answer my brother's calls and do not tell him that he is a failure. I take every quarter card I am offered on Ho Plaza with a smile. The daily chimes concert, which I used to think sounded as pleasant as a hand grenade exploding in an aluminum trash can, now sounds as delicate as Bach.

In fact, I feel that as an opened individual, I can no longer write this column. Having an opinion inevitably denounces another viewpoint, and that it is not a very open way to think. Adieu, unopened newspaper. Adieu.

Thanks to Maurice Black for the tip.

Everyone is forced through the same opening in the name of DIVERSITY?! Even on the symbolic level that's screwed up.

That was probably one of the funnier parodies of diversity feelgoodishness I've seen in a long time! The idea of people bypassing the arch for one reason or another reminds me of Penn State's gay pride week where if you didn't wear jeans or sneakers on a given day you were making a conscious decision to look "straight" (as those were the days where if you wore jeans or sneakers you were expressing your gay pride). That those of us who were straight or even gay, but wanted to remain in the constant and consistent state of the superfantasticness every day, were homophobes for a day was to us ridiculous and ironic -- Because on that day, only the “straight” looked truly fabulous.

I suggest someone apply to the school for an "art" project where they dismantle the arches with a 6" grinder, thus releasing the "diversity" into the whole world, magically fixing every problem Cornell has ever had.

On the plus side, no stupid arches, and cool showers of sparks and loud noises.

On the minus side ... nothing.

(And, Jesus, those things are ugly, too. Does diversity always make for eye-watering ugliness?)

The Middle Ages had Notre Dame; we have ugly arches.

Progress.

I was struck by how aesthetically "challenged" the arch is. I immediately thought of Playskool blocks when I viewed it. Maybe there is a message in that.

An "arch" in the shape of a cookie cutter (gingerbread person) might be a more honest symbolic "gateway" for those that want to publically concede that they have been processed by the "thought police."

If you walk through the arches backwards, do you become less tolerant?

That is such b.s. One thing I really, really hate is how some groups want to force everyone into a public "declaration" of something, and if they choose not to make a "declaration" they are somehow "declaring" the opposite.

What about folks who want to keep their feelings on WHATEVER private? I mean, just because I'm in favor of some aspects of tolerance 'n' diversity doesn't mean I buy the concept wholesale, and will walk through some cattle-gate to show it - and by the same token, if I think the idea of walking through a cattle-gate is stupid, and don't do so, that doesn't mean people should have free rein to call me a racist or whatever.

I am so FECKIN' fed up with people who would make every personal private act into a political gesture - even on the part of those who are unwilling participants.

(They used to have "blue jeans day" at my undergrad campus - a particular day when you were supposed to wear blue jeans if you supported "gay rights." The problem was, there was no graded scale - if you wanted to say, for example, that you supported the right of gays to exist and to walk across campus without being beaten to a bloody pulp, you also had to proclaim that you supported unlimited partner benefits for gay couples, and all-inclusive language, and a couple other policies that I personally found distasteful even though I would say I support SOME gay rights.

It was always a hard decision. I usually wound up wearing a denim skirt on that day, figuring people could read into it what they wanted to. But I hated having to contemplate such a thing.)

and what about people who are severely claustrophobic or gate-phobic? Doesn't seem very fair to them (/tongueincheek)

It is hard to find a good satirist, especially in college papers.

Good satirists know how to use language and irony to get their point across.

Great ones know how to go into full-bore sarcasm and mocking.