Letters to the Editor

Monday, June 2, 2003

Sirs,

We are writing in response to The Dartmouth Review article, 'Preparing the Fall: Dartmouth's Library Crisis.'

We are offended at being characterized as 'miserable' as staff members of the Dartmouth Library.This article paints all staff people with one brush, and this simply isn't the case. We are not 'miserable.' Our tale is not 'heart-breaking.' Our morale is not 'flagging.'We are not 'afraid of,' nor do we 'loathe' the Library Administration. And no, the Administration did not ask us to write this letter.

We are lucky in this economy to have jobs with great benefits. We are lucky to work at an employer that surrounds us with art and education and a chance to interact with people from all parts of the world, who share with us their wide range of experiences. We are lucky to have the working facilities we do, whether they are underground (some of our offices are too, not just the Acquisitions department) or grey (does anyone else notice that Baker doesn't have a rainbow of color on its walls either?).

Perhaps other members of the Library staff don't realize that things are better here than other places they could be working. Other employers don't bother to schedule times for 'Town Meetings' to share information about important issues and ask for input (whether it feels welcomed or not).Other employers let people go without so much as trying to find them another opportunity or giving them months to find another job, unlike what happened when jobs have been rearranged or cut here at the Library.

We are not saying this is a utopian working environment or a perfect Library system. We are saying that we are happy Library staff members, ones who are glad to have jobs that gives [sic] us opportunities to learn and grow, ones who enjoy being members of a campus community. We are Library staff people who understand that change is a necessary part of life and while it is not always comfortable or easy to live with change, change is inevitable.

Rather than vilify and place blame on a single person or an administration, we challenge our Library to find ways to embrace change and make it positive for
the entire campus, including ourselves.

Perhaps if our faces and attitudes weren't contributing to the grey mood of Berry, we'd notice that there is a lot of life and color and learning happening in this building and throughout our Library system.

Debra Agnoli
Mary Guerin
Tara-jean Olcott
Melissa Young

Sirs,

i [sic] am a NAD '06 here at dartmouth [sic] and lately i [sic] have been flipping through the may [sic] 8th edition of the review [sic]. now [sic] i'm [sic] not going to come out and yell and try to scrap like a lot of us, including myself [sic], would like to and could do, BUT i [sic] dont [sic] think that istoo productive,agreed? i'm [sic] sure you are a good guy, so it would be uncalled for to do [sic] such a thing, despite its ease. so [sic] instead, i [sic] just have one question right now (i'm sure you've been bombarded with plenty of verbal assaults and questions so far). u [sic, sic] wrote about the failure of the moose in part of your article. 1st of all: i [sic] agree. the [sic] moose sucks. haha [sic]. but [sic] anyways [sic], the method you chose to write about the moose's failure was to examine its appearance at basketball games. you [sic] spoke of it being 'crudely fashioned' (the 1st one..) and then 'clumsy' and 'gangly'(the newer moose). you [sic] mentioned how it failed to stir crowds also...

OK: here, my friend, you have gone to a whole new ballfield. this [sic] is beyond just a stereotypical portrayal of an Indian from who knows WHAT tribe on the back of a jacket or on a t-shirt. now [sic], i [sic] want to know if you are implying that we should have an indian [sic] mascot out at basketball games, to 'draw' a crowd. is [sic] that what you want? do [sic] you want people to come to games to see a make-believe indian [sic] prancing around doing the 'rain dance' in moccassins [sic]...aka: hop around like you see indians [sic] do on tv? dressing [sic] somebody up as an indian [sic] to 'act' like an indian [sic] is beyond offensive, man. it [sic] is mockery, and it hurts. the [sic] mascot does not know it usually, but his imitational regalia and actions are not cool.

when [sic] will people realize that indians [sic] are living people? they [sic] are not 'red men' that all live on the plains as warriors praying to the great spirit. we [sic] are a living people, mostly in poverty but with prevailing strong connections to our culture and tribes. you [sic] are not homring [sic] us, either, so dont [sic] go there. the [sic] review [sic] constantly argues 'tradition!!'

man [sic], i [sic] hate to break it to you, but our school's history is not good. it [sic] started out as a school to educate indians [sic]...or, strip their identity and assimilate them into whtie [sic] society. why [sic]? indians [sic] were a barrier to american [sic] expansionalism [sic]. they [sic] were blocking the path. assimilation [sic] meant solving the 'indian [sic] problem.' adn [sic] u [sic] dotn [sic] think dartmouth's [sic] founding fathers had that in mind? well [sic] then, why did they not teach indians [sic] valuable skills? why [sic] did they concentrate SO hard on teaching english [sic] and forbidding practices of culture. to [sic] help them? no [sic], that is thinking as a colonialist. the [sic] indian [sic] was killed off on the inside throughout the country as time passed on [sic]. now [sic], here at dartmouth [sic], the indian [sic] faded from the picture until the late 1800's and early 1900's when they started admitting them again (which was practically nothing. i [sic] would guess less than 5 over the years, maybe just one being charles [sic] eastman [sic]). not [sic] until the 60's and 70's would dartmouth [sic] recommit itself to indian [sic] education, but in a more productive manner. this [sic] is when the mascot was banned. now [sic] u [sic] see, the banning is a symbol of change here at dartmouth [sic]. we [sic] are off in a better direction. slowly [sic] the college [sic] has become integrated into [sic] all races and gender [sic]. the [sic]old dartmouth [sic] is not necessarily something to be 'proud' of [sic]. it [sic] is the past, but we need to move on, seriously. enough [sic] of this arguing over the mascot. i [sic] truly believe this is only still an issuebecause natives are such a minority here. white [sic] students have an upperhand to keep the issue alive, but really, there are more important things you could be doing/writing about [sic]. if [sic] there wasnt [sic] this issue, i [sic] bet the review [sic] would have nothing worthwhile to bitch about. but [sic] it's cool. do [sic] your thing, maybe you'll succeed. but [sic] why indians[sic]? is [sic] it really just tradition?? what [sic] if a black college turned integrated [sic], then slowly merged to white majority...well, HEY, since it started out as a black college, would it be wrong to call it the blacks, or the negroes, or the niggers, or etc....yes. it [sic] would be. for [sic] a mascot you would have a Big [sic] tall black man walking around with a big smile and big lips, etc....do you know that the black 'mascot' once existed and was banned in america [sic]? well [sic], he was a cartoon character named Jimbo i think...it might have been jimbo [sic]. i [sic] forget. well [sic], he was banned in i [sic] think the 50's. are [sic] people arguing about him? 'Bring him back!!!' naw [sic], nobody is. but [sic] wait, jimbo [sic] has been around forever and humorous to whites since the time of slavery!! it's history, tradition! but [sic] no. he's [sic] gone and white people have moved on. so [sic] why is the indian [sic] still an issue? i [sic] really do not know..

i [sic] am sorry to write you a 20 page paper, man, but i [sic] just hope i [sic] shed some light on you. u [sic] might have heard it all before, but really, u [sic] need to ask yourself when comes the time when tradition is not everything? when [sic] comes the time when the majority recognizes minority thoughts and listens without arrogance? also [sic] ask yourself this: what is an indian [sic]? what [sic] pops into your head? and [sic] what does he look like? does [sic] he have a mohawk? or [sic] is he clad in dress clothes writing an alphabet like my cherokee [sic] ancestors? doe [sic] he(and why not she??) have a tomahawk? or [sic] does he only carry bow and arrow? not [sic] all indians [sic] are the same, joe [sic]. each [sic] of us are separate sovereign nations, with our own traditions, history, and culture. we [sic] are not that indian [sic] on the t-shirt. he [sic] is a product of the whitee [sic] man perspective that says 'all indians [sic] are the same[sic].' that's [sic] why i [sic] referred to him as a'stereotypical' image. he [sic] is not real, which implies indians [sic] are not 'real.' man [sic], we have feelings, too.
anyways [sic], have a nice night. sorry [sic] to bother with sucha [sic] long blitz.

i [sic] hope to hear back from you,
j [sic] sixkiller [sic]

Letters to the Editor

Article Tools

Related Articles