This summer, the actions of a former Review contributor, Blake Neff ’13, triggered a cascade of condemnations from professors and alumni. The Review denounced Neff’s comments as what they were—vile. We also stated other truths of the situation: Neff graduated before any current staffer even entered high school and has never had any contact with, much less exerted any influence over, our current members. These facts did little to forestall an avalanche of discontent, culminating in a petition calling upon Dartmouth to “to decisively and publicly dissociate itself from The Dartmouth Review and to hold student staffers accountable for their bigotry.”
The criticism of Neff’s actions was well deserved. Criticism of The Review, while underserved in this instance, was expected. We are no strangers to criticism. When fair, we attempt to use it to improve our organization. When false, we attempt to rebut it. This was the latter.
Our critics’ logic was as follows: The Review is an intrinsically hateful origination—racist, sexist, homophobic and classist—and thus undeserving of an affiliation with the College, or more generally, the right to exist. The Title of one D editorial put it simply— “The Dartmouth Review Must Go.”
I penned this response when the petition first began to circulate:
“The Dartmouth Review is an independently-owned and operated student publication. We do not claim, nor do we desire, any affiliation with the Dartmouth College administration. Many of the demands made in this petition have already been adjudicated between The Review and the College. We have no intent to change our present operational practices, nor will we be intimidated by those who seek to criticize our organization with only a superficial understanding of it. This letter condemns The Review for its history. Student groups are ever-changing, but we cannot change our history. We can only commit to learning from our mistakes. We are proud of our present organization—one which the supporters of this petition appear to have no knowledge of.”
To restate it, the petition’s goal quite simply cannot be realized. You cannot disassociate two things which have never been associated. Anyone who knew the first thing about The Dartmouth Review would know this as our entire purpose and mission is to be a fully independent paper capable of holding the Administration accountable to the students.
The petition’s goal quite simply cannot be realized. You cannot disassociate two things which have never been associated. Anyone who knew the first thing about The Dartmouth Review would know that.
Nevertheless, over the past months I have become displeased with this initial rebuttal—it is correct, yet somehow feels incomplete. For the sake of argument, allow me to pose the questions and concerns that this petition failed to: Even though you cannot get rid of The Review, should you try to as a matter of principle? It is true that some pieces run in The Review’s distant past were discriminatory and even hateful, but do today’s members espouse these beliefs? Or do these past mistakes make The Review a poison tree?
Let me begin with the current Review staff and their “ideologies.” It seems redundant almost to the point of stupidity for me, the female leader of this supposed band of misogynists, to even say this, but now that everything is stupid here you go—The Review is not a bunch of women-hating bigots. If they were, I would not have stayed and I certainly could not have risen to be the Editor-in Chief. But no need to take my word for it. If you think Review is where, as the aforementioned D editorial asserts, “white wealthy boys in boat shoes go to deploy conservative talking points and practice for the lives of bigotry they will lead after college,” I would encourage you to stop by one of our meetings. They are open to the public and not at all secretive. You might be surprised by what you find.
We may not advertise ourselves based on our immutable characteristics with the heavy-handedness Admissions brochures employ, but have no doubt—all people are welcome at The Review.
You should prepare to see an incredibly diverse staff. I hesitate to even use the word “diverse” because it has been so cheapened by the College and our culture. However, Reviewers are diverse in every sense of the word—including the superficial ones. We have women, people of color, and members of the LGBT community in the highest levels of leadership. In fact, majority of our upper-level staffers are either women, POC, or LGBTQ. Additionally, many Reviewers are members of FYSEP and FGLI. Some are the first people in their family to go to college, and some are the first people in their family to be born Americans. Many more are international students, from countries including China, Turkey, South Africa, Venezuela, and Brazil to name a few.
Outside members of campus are often shocked to see the diversity at this paper, but we have never attempted to hide it. Our names are always printed and parts of our bios are frequently included in our articles. We may not advertise ourselves based on our immutable characteristics with the heavy-handedness Admissions brochures employ, but have no doubt—all people are welcome at The Review.
Moreover, though I am not usually compelled by the logic of identity politics, it does seem a bit strange that The Review—a group primarily composed of, people of color, women, members of the LGBT community, and first generation college students—is insidiously racist, sexist, homophobic, and classist. If so, we must be more interesting than we give ourselves credit for. Once again I would urge you to stop by—if only to see such a paradoxical spectacle for yourself.
It is true that over our forty-year history The Review has run some truly objectionable articles. It is also true that the vast majority of these articles were run in the early 1980s. For some of our younger members that means that these pieces were published before their parents started elementary school.
Now allow me to address the second argument against The Review, our status as a poison tree. It is true that over our forty-year history The Review has run some truly objectionable articles. It is also important to note that the vast majority of these articles were run in the early 1980s. For some of our younger members that means that these pieces were published before their parents started elementary school. It is ridiculous on its face to claim that our staff today is responsible for articles written four decades ago. Nevertheless that was what the authors of this petition posited.
For these Jacobin zealots, allow me to offer some other organizations you might put on the guillotine next to us: Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party. PP was founded with the express goal of lowering the birth rate in the African American community which their founder, Margaret Sanger, saw as an “undesirable demographic.” The Democratic Party propped up the institution of slavery, prompting a bloody civil war over the issue.
How, if national institutions and political parties, famous for their stagnation, are allowed to reform themselves, can a college newspaper, which gets an entirely new staff every four years, be so sclerotic in our hate that we must be ripped from the fabric of Dartmouth root and stem?
I don’t bring up these points to parrot GOP talking heads or to inflate the importance of The Dartmouth Review. I do not believe that Planned Parenthood or the Democratic Party should be dismantled due to unsavory parts of their history, especially when they have clearly reformed. I only make this point to underscore the fallacy of our critics’ arguments. How, if national institutions and political parties, famous for their stagnation, are allowed to reform themselves, can a college newspaper, which gets an entirely new staff every four years, be so sclerotic in our hate that we must be ripped from the fabric of Dartmouth root and stem?
The Dartmouth Review is here to stay, but if you are resolved to wish us gone, you should at least do so for sound reasons. Undoubtedly the best way to find them is to meet us for yourselves. The invitation is always open.
Excellent!