The Ultimate BuzzKill

By Alston B. Ramsay | Saturday, February 7, 2004

A few days ago, a group of students approached the Review with what we thought was a dynamite story (See pages 6-7). They alleged that the Student Assembly (SA)—working with the BuzzFlood—had arranged a roundtable discussion with all seven Democratic presidential candidates on the same day as Dartmouth's Women's Issues candidate forum, which ended up drawing only three. According to these students, ambassadors of the College—no one seems to know who specifically—discovered the event and called the Kerry campaign; John Kerry then withdrew, Dean pulled the plug as well, and the SA event fell apart.

The kids claimed their roundtable discussion—titled "Healing America"—was a sure bet: Every candidate confirmed, everything was in place, and, if Dartmouth hadn't interfered, it would have been an unparalleled success, solidifying the BuzzFlood's cherished place as Dartmouth's de facto PR mouthpiece.

But once we started looking into the story, we found a dearth of evidence for the allegations—and a wealth of contradictions. In fact, everything on the student side emanated from the same bottleneck: Kabir Sehgal '05. He had a stranglehold on his cohort; any questions trying to nail down particulars, or confirm even the most basic facts, were sent back to him.

For those who don't them, Mr. Sehgal and Brent Reidy '05 are the founders of the BuzzFlood—formerly known as the BlabberForce (See TDR 9/30/03).

Messrs. Sehgal and Reidy are no strangers to the Review; last summer and this fall we ruthlessly attacked them for their idiocy. You see, the 'Flood, as their brainchild is more affectionately known, is devoted to increasing Dartmouth's "brand" by "celebrat[ing] all things Dartmouth." This is accomplished by "blabbering," though I think "bloviating" more aptly describes their rants.

Indeed, many of our criticisms were directed at their torturous prose. For example: "What some call 'cheap talk' has alchemized into golden action." Another: "We have excellent parts rooted deep in the Hanover soil, but rarely do we dig them up and learn about these excellent elements—and hardly ever do we celebrate them." But what was the end purpose of this celebration? Was it truly a desire to see the Dartmouth name bolstered? Or was it merely an avenue by which Messrs. Sehgal and Reidy could preen their own feathers?

Their rhetoric suggests this latter interpretation, and a brief review of their original screeds may put the current controversy into better perspective.

In an editorial last summer introducing the BuzzFlood, Reidy wrote that "A son or daughter of Dartmouth should be able to make waves like a man or woman of Harvard does with the name-drop." He felt "anger, humility, and frustration" when people didn't recognize Dartmouth for what it should be: a school that "shake[s] the walls of a room when [the name] is slipped into a conversation." For obvious reasons, we thought this was absurd, and we repeatedly told Jim Baehr '05—another key player in the 'Force—that effusive, pretentious rants would not accomplish the BuzzFlood's objectives. He seemed to take some of it to heart. The 'Flood shut their yaps momentarily and embarked on an ambitious program to do something: bring a debate to Dartmouth.

When I first heard about the ensuing debacle from Student Assembly Vice President Noah Riner, I was at once flabbergasted—at Dartmouth's supposed maneuvers—and impressed—that the BuzzFlood had actually done something. But just before embarking on my Road to Damascus, doubt set in: The Review's research didn't yield the crystal clear story I expected. I kept asking for the smoking gun tying Dartmouth to any campaign, but all I got was something along the lines of, "Kabir heard from someone in Max Cleland's office who heard it from someone in John Kerry's campaign who heard it from someone at Dartmouth." It wasn't nearly enough for me to support; afterall, if there are any errors or false allegations in these pages, it's my neck on the line—not Kabir's.

So I asked for more evidence. Specifically, could anyone even show us definitively that all the candidates had committed? Kabir quickly responded with six after-the-fact statements in which candidates wrote that they would have attended, had the event not been cancelled. Let me emphasize one point: after the fact. As of this printing, our sources have only been able to produce one e-mail confirmation pre-dating the roundtable, and Kabir keeps very detailed records.

There was another element of the statements that stuck out: the startlingly familiar rhetoric. John Kerry thanked everyone for "thinking big," and Al Sharpton for "dreaming big." Last summer, in one of the first BuzzFlood editorials, Kabir wrote that Dartmouth had to "think big in terms of public image." In his statement to the Review, he expanded on this idea: "But the lesson we've learned from this is simply: dream big. And making your dreams happen, being a dreamweaver, isn't rocket science." Reidy was right on message as well: "We dreamed big, and unfortunately some people at Rocky put a ceiling about our head." And in a co-authored editorial in the February 5th Daily Dartmouth, the two wrote, "We learned that dreaming big can bring you to the brink." I don't mean to imply that the candidate statements were fabricated, but the rhetoric, along with flowery praise of the BuzzFlood, suggested that Kabir had a very heavy-hand in crafting them—and the campaigns just gave the rubber stamp.

More digging yielded more puzzles. Senior Assistant to the President Sheila Culbert said that all along Kabir wanted to conduct the event by himself. He only went to Rocky for help because the President's office made him—else he couldn't get invitations sent to the candidates on Wright's letterhead. Sehgal told me something different: He had always wanted to bring the College in on it.
And then there's the Daily Dartmouth article. I imagine that publication received the same spiel we did: The BuzzFlood had a fantabulous event in the bag, and Dartmouth screwed them...hard. They were probably fed the same tenuous evidence that we were. But I wonder if Kabir and his pals tried to exert the same degree of influence on the D as they did on us? From our first interactions, Kabir was elusive and selective with evidence. Things he couldn't provide were conveniently in New York, or had been negotiated over the phone. Since everyone kowtowed to Kabir, no one else could confirm a shred of evidence. Then, Sehgal and the other sources repeatedly asked if they could read the article before it went to press. They even went so far as to send us an e-mail pointing out where we should focus and what they wanted from us. I have a distinct feeling this column is not what anyone had in mind.

There are lessons to be learned from this. Namely, Kabir and his ilk are only interested in total control, be it the debate itself, the facts, Dartmouth's image, or the media coverage. And it's control with a purpose: shameless self-promotion. Whether it's shaking walls with name drops or filling up Kabir's precious Rolodex, the BuzzFlood is certainly not about "hyping" Dartmouth. It's about hyping Kabir, Brent, and the rest of their playpals.

So, is this sordid tale really about control, hurt egos, crushed dreams, revenge—or some horrid synthesis of all four? I cannot answer for sure, and, barring more evidence, no one may ever know. On page six and seven, T. Henry Camp reveals all the unsavory details. Our readers can decide for themselves.

I do know one thing though: I've already made up my mind.

The Ultimate BuzzKill

Article Tools

Related Articles