Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/1996/06/12/letters_to_the_editor.php
Wednesday, June 12, 1996
Indigenistic Thought
Editor's note: The following letter was sent to Arthur J. Monaco, Executive Editor of The Dartmouth Review.
To the Executive Editor:
While I certainly have appreciated (in some limited degree) your contribution to the quasi-intellectual discourse on this campus throughout this year, I must comment on your most recent attempt to apply your limited knowledge of legal precedent to dear ol' Dartmouth's efforts to seek out "diversity."
The article you and Andy wrote is full of the usual misinformation and hegemonic bias that characterizes the majority of the articles that bear your name (either as the sole author, or as a contributor of the irrational discourse of the week). However, as a child of the wonderful state of California I know all too well the actual realities of the system you attempt to hold up as the model argument against affirmative action.
Without getting into the "nitty gritty" of my personal conclusions, thoughts and opinions about "affirmative action" in the UC system, I merely wish to point out that the anti-race-as-a-factor-in-admissions model of the UC system is in fact a completely inapplicable model with respect to Dartmouth's policy on "diversity" in the student body.
The current "dilemma" of the UC system is based not on classifications of "race," but rather the multiple subdivisions of "ethnicity" that have been used in admissions. The problem, in short, is not that more "blacks" and "Latinos" have been accepted percentage-wise than "whites" and "Asians." Problems have arisen as of late, because more "Pacific" Asians (Japanese) and "Southeast" Asians (Vietnamese) and other "Asian" groups such as Filipinos have been accepted (as they are underrepresented) than larger east Asian populations (such as Koreans and Chinese/Taiwanese), when in contrast consistently large numbers of Chicanos/Mexican Americans (the majority of the "Latino" population in California) have been accepted and smaller (but significant) groups such as Salvadorans and Guatemalans have not been "sought out" by the UC system.
In short, the problem is not one of race, or even ethnic group solidarity, but in fact of how the system, theoretically designed to increase underrepresented group presence in the UC system, is applied.
It is persons completely outside of that system, such as Governor Wilson and yourself that have attempted to make the issue of the UC system one of "reverse discrimination."
Certainly you can imagine the various criticisms I have about your diatribe concerning the debate between "intellectualism" and "diversity" (which to be perfectly honest I never knew was a debate before matriculating at this fine institution). I will reserve all of them save one. The class of 2000 is approximately 53% male and over 82% "white." What is the relevance of your article? Clearly the college has not only accepted but attracted a population of would-be first year students who are just like you (categorically speaking, of course). Is the frightening total population of Latinos, African-Americans and Native Americans in the class of 2000 (less than 10% of that class — I exclude "Asians" as you have drawn solidarity with them in your article — at least as far as "reverse discrimination" is concerned) too much to bear?
There is a certain political and cultural sociology that is implicit in the Class of 2000. It is one which in no way poses a threat to a "white male conservative" such as yourself, unless one takes into account the ego factor.
An overwhelming plurality of "white males" is an overwhelming plurality of potential Review writers, some of which might usurp your right to the throne of demagoguery (currently held by Jimmy Panero) which you undoubtedly feel you deserve. It is indeed sad when a "white male conservative" attempts to stand alone at the pinnacle of an institution "white male conservatism." By taking a stand against the fantastic attempts of Dartmouth's admissions bureaucracy to attract students of "diverse" backgrounds you are in fact taking a stand against an office which has given us a less than 18% "minority" population for the class of 2000.
Is it just me or are you ridiculous? I thought that I was an egomaniac. But AJ you win the pseudo-erudite, "hot air"/Narcissus contest hands down.
Sincerely,
The product of Indigenistic
and Anti-Imperialistic thought.
Unai Montes-Irueste '98
Hanover, NH
Excellence
To The Editor:
Without a deep and abiding commitment to excellence, Dartmouth College would cease to be an elite and superior institution. Excellence should be standard for every aspect of College policy and endeavor.
In recent years the College's commitment to excellence has declined. This is due in part to a misinterpretation of the meaning of "diversity" and in part to the influence of current intellectual fads. Standards have been lowered in recruitment of both faculty and students. There is no strength in diversity alone. This has detracted from the quality of a Dartmouth education. A matter of concern is the loss of excellence in the College curriculum. Four years is a short time for the student to experience the great ideas of Western civilization. That encounter has been the focus of the Dartmouth education for generations. In recent years a number of novel programs and courses have been initiated that substitute current academic fads for exposure to the great and lasting ideas. Known as "studies," these programs risk diverting the student's limited time at Dartmouth to relatively trivial and transitory courses. Excellence demands more focus upon the truly important ideas and subjects which can stand the test of time and change.
James Donovan '39
Atlanta, GA
Time for a New Accolade
To the Editor:
I trust you will keep "Mean-Spirited, Cruel & Ugly" as one unintended accolade on your Masthead, but add to it a second (courtesy of Prof. Mirollo): "Beware: Our paradigms are historically dubious and intellectually sterile!"
And keep up the good fight for traditionalism, conservatism, and the superiority of Western civilization.
Yours very truly,
Robert D. Bullock '36
Sonoma, CA
A Salute
To the Editor:
A friend gave me the May 22 issue of The Dartmouth Review. I was delighted to read that you ask your readers to look to Virgil and Dante. What is more you have a splendid illustration of the two poets in hell, but you make no mention of the artist, Gustave Doré.
Obviously you do not seem to grasp that here you have the work of one of the great artists of the Western world. Permit me to cite a passage from Pierce Rice's Man as Hero: The Human Figure in Western Art (published in The Classical American Series in Art and Architecture) which conveys something of the worth of this artist:
"More extravagantly praised by his contemporaries than Daumier, while at the same time held up to the scorn precisely because he made so bold as to challenge the painters in their own fields, Gustave Doré possessed a superhuman command of the pencil. Imbued almost from babyhood with the ingredients of Western style, everything he undertook, from a tiny tail-piece for a page to a canvas thirty feet high, was larger, and more volcanic in movement, than life itself... In the light of the most fundamental deficiencies of what constitutes art of the West, nineteenth-century painting fails to qualify. But Tenniel (illustrator of Alice in Wonderland and Punch cartoonist), Daumier and Dore filled the specifications. Nor was this mere literal compliance with convention. Their individual powers were such that only the most brilliant names of the previous centuries are to be compared with theirs."
So... how about a salute to Doré?
Yours truly,
Henry Hope Reed
President, Classical America