Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2006/11/28/_indigenous_peoples_cause_outrage.php
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
By now, most people have heard about the buck-shot event christened as either “Crew Formal” or “Cowboys and Indians” or “Cowboys, Farm Animals and Indigenous Cultures” or the “Green Monster” formal or…and perhaps other more pernicious names according to the whim of the student who, not being invited, did not attend.
Somewhere out of this Byzantine muddle of themes, behind the slings and arrows of discontent, a bevy of buzz-kill activists have been pulling teeth to find not only racism, but an existential crisis at my old school: even one of our very earnest deans has weighed in with, “I know exactly how Sisyphus may have felt [emphasis added]”.
As it is, self-righteousness has never been more modified or tortured than to compare the hijinks of the Crew shin-dig to pushing a rock up a mountain untill the end of time. Here, everyone and everything, real or imagined, is a victim who is likely pushing a boulder up some hill. Who made him do it? Who knows. Who cares?
How about some facts.
On Saturday November 4th, the Men’s Heavyweight, Men’s Lightweight, and Women’s Crew teams held their annual formal dance in Collis’ basement nightclub, FUEL, to celebrate the novices’ first race of the season, and the first home race on the Connecticut River (Editors’ note: a tributary still bearing the name the Mohawks gave it: quinnitukqut, that is “at the long tidal river.”) In addition to celebrating these athletic milestones, one purpose of the formal was to bring the freshmen and upper-classmen rowers together to socialize outside of the rigors of a rowing deckhand. Sounds sensitive to me.
The events that follow—what actually happened at the formal, who wore what, and who established which theme—are scented with the stench of disablement that will not be cleared any time soon because the event has been grossly sensationalized and distorted by those given to defecate where they eat, party or study. To boot, the public responses to the crew formal included: a college dean summoning S&S (Safety and Security) during the event, a public apology by crew captain Abe Clayman ‘07 printed in the Daily Dartmouth, condemnatory op-eds and something far less than unbiased reporting on The D’s behalf, a double-paged spread in The D sponsored by the Native American Council where the event is vilified as a bullet-point under “A Chronology of Racism” and a letter by acting Dean of the College Dan Nelson to the entire student body wherein the event is slandered for allegedly forcing Native Americans to feel as “second class citizens of this community” for whom “the Dartmouth experience” was “greatly diminished.”
Unfortunately, in the abovementioned stench-fest of publicity following the crew formal, the facts were routinely misrepresented and distorted. This was not unintentional.
According to published statements, publicly available registration records, and conversations with individuals who attended the event, the formal was registered with the Collis Center as the “Green Monster Dance” (seems clear enough). Indeed, according to several freshmen rowers, and contrary to The D’s reporting, there was no real plan for a “theme.” Some 90 or so rowers showed up to the formal dressed just as the name suggests: in formal attire. Men wore tuxes and suits, and women wore dresses. Apparently they didn’t get The D’s memo.”
It so happens that the controversy surrounding this rather benign event was caused by three upperclassmen on the team, who decided beforehand to dress up as Indians, while several others dressed as their cowboy consorts. While the costumes are considered by the nuevo-sensitive to be offensive and inappropriate, the supposed “theme” was neither officially established nor “sanctioned by the Dartmouth administration,” as a recent student editorial in The D indicated. The individuals gussied-up in the Western costumes made no mention of their plans to the leaders of the crew team, the Collis governing board, or to the Dartmouth College administration.
In fact, several first-hand accounts report no more than three individuals at the event wearing First-Nation costumes, and only a handful more were dressed as gun-slinging cowboys. Three—a mere handful (out of ninety rowers)—is hardly a racist trend, and not even an insensitive “themed party.” It’s clear, then, that those few individuals actually dressed as “Cowboys and Indians” were the exception to the obvious rule of those who attended the formal formal. It should be noted that most of the rowers interviewed for this article were not even aware that the Indian (and cowboy) costumes were worn at the formal formal until the day following the formal, while the buzz and publicity surrounding the event spread like a bad John Kerry joke.
This joke was first told by a member of Dartmouth’s Administration—which is a self-described neutral agent in all disciplinary and political matters—Associate Dean of Student Life and Advisor for Latino Students Alexander B. Hernandez-Siegel. As it happened, that night an attendee of Lambda Upsilon Lambda’s “Noche Dorada”—held at Collis Commonground the same night and at the same time as the crew formal—spotted an Indian costume, and smelt something like “institutionalized racism.”
This individual then made a bee-line to tattle-tale to the ever earnest Dean Siegel—no doubt correctly anticipating his heavy handed response. Dean Siegel then went downstairs, spoke to a few people at the door, and “poked his head inside” the party wherein he suspected he’d find either weapons of mass destruction or racists; he then made the call and declared war, worrying about proving the veracity of his claims only after proclaiming victory…or maybe never.
After “noticing several students who seemed to be intoxicated [emphasis added],” the Dean called S&S to report, according to one report, “offensive costumes and underage alcohol consumption.” Yikes! Keep in mind, this is a college dance party—it’s dark, crowded, and chaotic, and contrary to the wishes of moral busy-bodies and righteous do-gooders, nobody at this college is given to acting sober as they’re dancing on the dance-floor—some don’t even maintain this charade in class. Nonetheless, to the extent to which the Dean acted in the interest and well-being of the students, he was acting responsibly and well within his moral job description—that is, if he was acting for the sake of safety, and not simply trying to root-out unsportsmanlike behavior among the regenerate cowboy crew. Let’s hope so anyhow.
But given his objections to the Indian costumes stated in his op-ed (November 9, The Dartmouth), it seems clear that the real motive behind his peeping into the formal and calling on S&S was the Indian costumes, which ended his otherwise “joyous mood quickly,” as he says, that seedy night. To question the Dean’s character however, is not the point, since he is an honest man—or at least he takes pains to portray himself as one to his charges: “I am not a member of the Native American community, but I am one of their most dedicated allies.”
In this moment of cultural hue and cry and insensitivity I ask: where are the “allies” of the Cowboys? To wit: Where have all the Cowboys gone? Yippee yie, yippee aye.
In any case, the statement written by Dean Siegel reveals his motivations for his stealth call to S&S the night of the crew formal as not the reputed safety of the rowers, but the potential hurt “feelings” of Native Americans not actually attending the formal. He writes on, “A promise of a Dartmouth education may bring a number of riches, but what message are we sending if we bring Native students to a campus thousands of miles from their homes to an environment where they constantly have to be struggling to battle such negative acts? In many ways we can compete with our larger peer institutions by stating that we offer an environment where the individual matters and where the student will be validated more as an undergraduate at the College. Validation is the key word here.”
The purpose of this article is not to refute the Dean’s hand-wringing rhetoric as he emotes away as is his wont, but rather to call-out a politically and ideologically driven agenda being championed by sensitivity groups on our campus; and moreover to take aim at the agenda as it is being sanctioned and driven by the administration in such a way as to leave other campus groups—like the crew team—at an emotional disadvantage. This is about emotions and protecting them, right? Everybody needs a trophy of reaffirmation: nothing like the real world. Here, some malcontents prefer something more like little-league sports where one can expect to be celebrated for even poor play and bad form.
That Dean Siegel had a misguided opinion of the cocktail situation at the formal is substantiated by the fact that S&S left FUEL shortly after they arrived, seeing no alcohol-related problem that warranted ending the party. That is, the Crew Formal continued uninterrupted, as opposed to what was implied by The D in an article entitled “Interrupted Crew Formal Generates Apology”—unless by “interrupting” they meant the momentary snooping of the Dean. Director of S&S and College Proctor Harry Kinne clarifies the incident as it truly happened: “In reality, we were responding to a concern that was relayed to our department, and responded as we normally would have. During our brief visit to the event, the social activities continued and I do not feel that the event was interrupted.”
The reactions to the sensationalization of the crew formal has led to an op-ed printed in The D on Friday November 10 by Shaun Stewart ’10, and a campus-wide letter sent by Dean Nelson. What is remarkable about both of these written statements is their moralizing tone and the degree to which 20-some year olds are treated as fragile toddlers with self-esteem issues.
In the editorial entitled “Racism Remains at Dartmouth,” by the freshmen writer Stewart, Dartmouth students are given a peculiar sermon, full of faith, morality, caring, and hugs: “However, I love Dartmouth, and I have faith in the majority of my fellow students. I have faith that they are truly good people who care about those around them, and that they will be willing to join us in trying to eliminate the Indian stereotypes on this campus.” You only need faith for that which is not self-evident, rookie. No faith required here.
Dean Nelson’s letter is more problematic as he should no longer be forgiven for such freshmen mistakes… give ‘em another year and they’ll merely be sophomoric mistakes. In his wisdom and historical acumen, Dean Nelson, referencing the crew formal, reminds students that the Indian symbol was “disavowed decades ago [by the College] because Native American students and others have found it to be demeaning, disrespectful, and even harmful… although I am deeply committed to the protection of freedom of speech and expression, I am equally committed to the notion that we have a moral obligation to be thoughtful and responsible about the choices we make in what we say and do.”
Clearly, the Dean is a bit lit on his own moralizing. Freedom of speech is a prescription, a right relied upon by all for what should be obvious reasons. But the “choices we make” are part of the liberties guaranteed by that very principal he claims allegiance to: freedom of speech and expression. That is, we would not need such a freedom—as a right—if everyone agreed on the proper “choices we make.” In the Dean’s perfect world, it seems, we would all be likeable lemmings.
The true question that needs to be addressed is this: if a student makes a sub-standard moral judgment that “hurts the feelings” of another student, should the full weight of the College be brought to bear on that wayward student? In terms of being disciplined by the College’s authority, is there a difference between breaking standard civil rules—like drinking underage or cheating on an exam or plagiarizing—and unintentionally sparking the anger or outrage of variously sensitive groups on campus?
Dean Siegel seems to be of the opinion that a difference does not exist between these two types of choices and in his letter, Dean Nelson conflates this distinction as well.
Nelson presumably speaks for all members of the administration, including Siegel, when he writes that it is his and the administration’s “first and foremost [goal] to support student learning, inside and outside the classroom.” It’s not clear where promoting a political agenda, even a good political agenda as fashions go, fits into the picture of promoting the education of a Dartmouth student. As the administration stands in as the muscle for NADs and Lambda Upsilon Lambda, one point becomes increasingly clear:
It’s a confidence game and we’re all the victims.