Campus Blowhards Raise Cain, Excoriate Review for Quote

Friday, April 21, 2006

Compiled from Staff Reports

Originally Published October 17, 1990.

The powers that be at Dartmouth College have finally shown how hypocritical they really are. Last week, much of the campus gathered on the Green for what was advertised as a “Rally Against Hate.” The resulting product, however, was a hate rally against The Dartmouth Review. No sooner had the first speaker stepped up to the podium than the diatribes began, with each successive speaker increasing the degree of animosity towards the newspaper. As recently as minutes before the rally, Student Assembly representatives guaranteed that the purpose of the rally was to oppose hate and that the day would not degenerate into a massive offensive against the Review.

This sentiment soon dissolved, as participants were offered t-shirts emblazoned with a drawing by Jake Tapper, cartoonist for the Daily Dartmouth, reproducing an image he ran in that newspaper last spring depicting a lawn jockey that many have taken to be an allusion to the black editor-in-chief of The Dartmouth Review. On the t-shirts with this offending image was written, “I do not support the Review.” When the speaking began, the rally became a vehicle for many of the “special interest” groups at Dartmouth to polemicize about how much the Review (and Dartmouth as a whole) have hurt them not only in the past decade, but also in the history of the College. The end result was a competition of sorts, with each speaker trying to prove that he or she represented the most oppressed minority on the Dartmouth campus. What was advertised as “Dartmouth United Against Hate” was neither united nor against hate.

Student Assembly vice-president Tara McBennet opened the rally by announcing that the “immediate impetus for the event was the insertion of the quote from Adolf Hitler into the credo of the October 4 [sic ] issue of the Review and the Review’s subsequent apology.” A minute into the rally the mud-slinging began. It is absurd that an apology should spark outrage of any kind, let alone enough animosity to call for a rally. The very principle on which the rally was founded was abandoned in failing to accept the spirit, if not the exact wording, of the apology.

President Freedman followed with a speech accusing the Review of advocating exclusion of minorities from Dartmouth, further stating that, “Dartmouth is a commonwealth of liberal learning, united in celebrating the dignity of the individual . . . the organizing principal of this common- wealth is inclusion, not exclusion.” No one noticed much celebration of the dignity of Reviewers, nor the inclusion of Review members in the Dartmouth community. In fact, when one Review staffer went to visit his friend in the Choates dormitory, he was accosted by a student who asked, “Don’t you have to be a student to come in here?” The implication was that Dartmouth is for all—except Review staffers. President Freedman repeatedly asked, “What kind of people did they think we were?” Perhaps the Review mistakenly thought they were rational people, those who would not hold innocent staff members culpable for an act of sabotage, something that was not their fault.

In contrast, Freedman hardly seemed to notice this past spring the disgusting antics of the participants in the International Students Association rally for additional financial aid. When an “oppressed” minority group defaced Parkhurst Hall with hammers and sickles, anarchy symbols, and, yes, even swastikas, they received a slap on the wrist. When someone defaces the credo of the Review with a disgusting quote, the entire staff is impugned.

The President of the Dartmouth Alumni Council, William Montgomery ’52, was next in line to malign the Review. Montgomery also chose, as many members of the Dartmouth community have, to ignore the Review’s denial of having placed the quote in the credo or subscribing to its message. The mobocracy had brainwashed yet another responsible individual to abandon rational thought.

History Professor Bruce Nelson continued the program along its radical course, referring to Review staffers as “self-important harpies who have created this atmospheric pollution.” His speech promoted a liberal agenda for the College and an attack on the Review. He asserted that the Review is attempting to build a wall around Dartmouth which must be torn down and in turn be replaced by a wide pathway that says, “Welcome, to those whose gifts will help to create a diverse community in which many cultures and many angles of vision will enrich our quest for truth and understanding, and a more humane and just world.” Apparently, in Professor Nelson’s opinion, the Review’s “angle of vision” is too far off their “path” to be appropriately diverse. Who is preaching exclusion?

It is ironic that this is not the first time Professor Nelson has taken exception to something printed in the Review. It is ironic because one such article reported that the keynote speaker at a civil rights conference, Vincent Harding, had expressed anti-Semitic views and had subsequently intimidated Jewish students. Professor Nelson staunchly defended Harding, a notorious anti-Semite, even going so far as to verbally assault the Review editor who authored the article. Somehow, by Nelson’s twisted definition of justice, it is acceptable to hold the Review accountable as “bigots” and anti-Semites by ascribing to it a quote it has denounced. Nelson does not, however, deem it equally acceptable for Harding to be criticized for blatant, admitted anti-Semitism.

Next, Professor Arthur Hertzberg of the Religion Department railed against the Review and its supporters, calling the Review “an ongoing and continuing act of hooliganism.” Hertzberg does not, however, object to the views of the Review staffers, allowing that “they are here to engage in the dialogue of our various views.” But then he departed from the realm of reason. He proceeded to barrage the eminent and well-respected individuals and organizations that support the paper in a financial or an advisory capacity, saying that they should be ashamed of themselves. Among these he mentioned the Olin Foundation and the Hopkins Foundation chairman, “John [sic] Champion, Class of 1920.” He continued his attack by targeting William F. Buckley Jr., referring to him as “a man who would like to be considered a respectable conservative and have dinner with decent people.”

Hertzberg found fit to bring into his discourse the opinions of a member of the Review advisory board. “Peter [sic] Buchanan.” Mr. Buchanan made a controversial comment about the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf on his CNN talk show, Crossfire. Had Professor Hertzberg read the September 26 issue of the Review, he would have found an editorial distancing the Review from Mr. Buchanan’s view of the situation—arguing against it, in fact. It would be a sad state of affairs if Dartmouth students, Review staffers or not, are not able to reach their own conclusions but instead are willingly spoon fed perspectives.

It is difficult to resolve the animosity Hertzberg displayed towards these prominent men with a rally against hate, although his comments regarding the Reviewers themselves kept with the purported objective of the Rally. Unfortunately, his denouncement of driving out members of the Review from the Dartmouth community was overshadowed by his venomous closing remarks aimed at, among others, a member of the Dartmouth community, English Professor Jeffrey Hart. Music Professor Jon Appleton took special pleasure in the condemnation, exclaiming “Wooooo!” with glee.

The first speech by a student was given by the president of the African-American Society, Trecia Canty ’91. In addition to finding fault with the Review, Canty upbraided students, professors, and administrators alike for not attending the various rallies held at Dartmouth in the past. Canty concluded by reminding the crowd that “we are not fighting for censorship or integration, nor are we fighting for separation.” While this comment was in keeping with the theme of the rally, Canty attributed the sentiment to Malcolm X, hardly a proponent of peaceful conflict resolution, or a prominent defender of Jewish rights.

Following Canty, Amanda Roth ’93 addressed the crowd as the president of the Dartmouth Hillel. On behalf of the Jewish community of Dartmouth, Roth advocated the uniting of all parts of the campus in a straightforward, concise statement regarding the detrimental effects of acts of hatred, without blatantly condemning the Review. This sort of rationality would have served the rest of the speakers well. Representing Native Americans at Dartmouth, the group’s president Jodi Archambault then spoke. She immediately condemned the Review, completely ignoring the Review’s denial of having inserted the quote in question and apologizing for it. Archambault charges the Review with having “sought to incite racial unrest . . . and . . . to hinder Native Americans and other groups from gaining the education which we have earned the right to.” Interestingly, she claimed that the Review has been the proponent of such actions since 1769. As the Review has only existed for ten years, it is doubtful that this journal could have been seeking these goals for more than two hundred years. In an effort to further her own personal agenda, Archambault used her time to attack the Indian symbol and equate its use to anti-Semitism.

Speaking as Dartmouth Area Gay and Lesbian Organization chairman, Allen Drexel succeeded in cheapening the proceedings even more. As emcee of the rally he had been giving it a game show atmosphere and now took the opportunity to reveal what the game was. The rally had become a contest of one-upsmanship in victimization. As Drexel rattled off his list of complaints regarding the Review’s stance on homosexuality, it must not have occurred to him to peruse an issue of In Your Face and consider the heterosexual bashing which regularly graces its pages. Said Drexel, “I am heartened by the sight of so great a mass of Dartmouth students standing tall and strong against hatred...I believe in you Dartmouth! Let’s come together!” Ahem. Recall that In Your Face’s slogan is, “Homo-A-Go-Go, Het-Het-A-No-No!” Does that promote unity?

In light of the fact that homosexuals are especially oppressed, the Dartmouth Gay and Lesbian Organization (DAGLO) felt that it deserved two speakers at the rally. So, following Drexel’s pitiful display, Elyse Wolland stepped up to the podium and reiterated the complaints of homosexuals. Again stressing the lack of unity, despite this being one of the underlying purposes of the rally, Wolland stated that she “cannot feel a part of such community,” because there hasn’t been as great a show of support solely for homosexuals as there was against hate as a whole. Wolland went on to remind the crowd of the non-Jews who died during the Holocaust, seeming to imply that the Review harbored hatred against these groups. In a stranger twist, members of the International Students Association spoke next. At rallies in the past, leaders of the ISA had used their speaking time to condemn the state of Israel and its right to exist. This time the speakers tried to mask their blatant anti-Semitism, proclaiming, “We would especially like to take this opportunity to clarify that the fight for anti-Arab discrimination and for Palestinian rights, which the ISA has consistently tried to highlight, is not anti-Jewish, as it is often portrayed by writers of the Review and others.” Well, if calling for the destruction of the state of Israel isn’t anti-Jewish, we don’t know what is.

The first speaker noted: “We are, however, disappointed, although not particularly surprised, that attempts were made to exclude the Dartmouth Gay and Lesbian Organization, the Native Americans at Dartmouth, and the International Students . . . maybe they thought that we would not toe the party line.” In a refreshing display of rationality, this speaker pointed out, “It is much easier for all of us to isolate the Review and blame it for all the hate attacks on campus. Maybe this is the time to point out that even without the Review, some members of the Jewish community and some members of other so-called minority religious groups do not feel a part of the Dartmouth community. Even without the Review, some women do not feel a part of the Dartmouth community. Even without the Review, some African-Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color do not feel a part of the Dartmouth community. That even without the Review, some members of the gay and lesbian community and international students do not feel a part of the Dartmouth community. Maybe this is the time to point out that if Dartmouth is to be really united, it must be united at all times, or risk the total alienation of these so-called minority groups.” So-called minority groups? Are they not minority groups? Do they not seek to be recognized as such? She continued, “If seven years ago the Dartmouth community had come out with similar anger and disgust at the Review’s constant and unjustifiable harassment of Professor Cole, then maybe he might still be teaching at Dartmouth today.” Perish the thought!

The other ISA speaker read a statement from the Dartmouth Alliance Against Racism. Although the preceding speaker questioned the authenticity of minority status of “so-called minority groups,” this speaker repeated one of the former’s gripes while referring to minorities: “The very organization of today’s rally bears testimony to the subjugation of minority voices. Originally, the International Students Association, the Dartmouth Gay and Lesbian Organization, the Native Americans at Dartmouth, Milan, the Dartmouth Asian Organization, Al-Nur, La Alianza Latina, and the African-Caribbean Students Organization were not invited to speak at this rally. These are precisely the groups most trodden over not only by the Review but by the campus at large.” Is it feasible to have a representative from every organization on campus participate in a rally and expect to maintain a crowd on the Green for the entire time?

The next speaker, Nicole Hager ’91, participated because she was in no way a politically active student and thus represents those who have remained silent during their time at Dartmouth. Hager couldn’t seem to decide whether or not she is a victim. She first asserted that she had been hurt by alleged “sexist remarks and oppressive attitudes.” Then she went on to say that she has been “outside the issue” for her first three years at Dartmouth by choice, because she had “bought into the fallacy that only those who have been the target of social and moral ignorance are the ones being victimized . . . racism is not only an issue for people of color. Sexism is not only an issue for women.” Now, is she a woman and if so, according to her logic, isn’t sexism an issue for her? But, then, how does it come to be that she remained silent as one who had not been “victimized”? Whatever.

Jake Tapper had the audacity to speak out “against hate.” That’s quite hypocritical for someone who calls a fellow member of the Jewish and Dartmouth communities “a f*ck*ng disgrace,” and who drew numerous anti- Review cartoons, before this issue even arose.

As painful as reminders of the Holocaust are for Jews, reminders of slavery and discrimination are for blacks, Tapper must find a way of differentiating the two, however, since he not only saw fit to portray what appears to be the black editor of the Review, Kevin Pritchett, as a lawn jockey but also referred to the same editor as an “Uncle Tom.” The t-shirts displaying his character weren’t precisely promoting unity on campus. Tapper’s lack of judgment and good taste, as well as his fostering of racial enmity, made him a poor choice as a speaker, considering the tone that was supposed to have been set for the day.

The final speaker was Brian Ellner ’92, president of the Student Assembly. Calling for “a new Dartmouth,” Ellner defines this as being “a place where persons can dare to be themselves and proceed without any threat of persecution” and “celebrate our differences and learn from one another.” Of course, this freedom from persecution depends on whether or not one’s differences are sufficiently diverse to be socially acceptable to the powers that be.

A member of the Board of Trustees of the Review and Dartmouth ’83, Dinesh D’Souza, had asked to speak at the rally, but he was denied permission to do so. Denied, despite the fact that it was a rally to unite Dartmouth against hate and despite the possibility that allowing D’Souza to talk to the campus might dissipate some of the ill-will toward the Review, which had escalated during the rally.

Although some of the speaker’s remarks were not particularly unifying, the crowd at the Dartmouth United Against Hate Rally was for the most part unified—in hate for the Review. Any guesses as to the true purpose of the rally? Perhaps some people can vindicate retaliating against the members of the Review by intentionally directing hateful barbs at them for an act they did not commit. But perhaps it would be prudent to think twice about giving a forum for that type of demagoguery under the guise of speaking out against hate.

Campus Blowhards Raise Cain, Excoriate Review for Quote

Article Tools

Related Articles