Campus Response to CR Controversy

As the dust settles following the controversial email sent out by the College Republican’s titled “they’re bringing drugs,” the Dartmouth community and general public continues to receive many answers. From Charles Schneider’s (the CR’s interim president) open letter, we learned about the long ongoing power struggles inside the College Republican’s executive board. From Mr. Bring and Mr. Rauda’s (the two ex-leaders of the CR) apology, we learned how the two, self-admittedly, centralized power effectively creating an autocracy. Yet there is a fundamental factor surrounding the controversy which has been deeply overlooked: the campus response, and the role this played in the cancellation of the event.

The first thing which is striking about the community’s response is how fast it came. Just two minutes after the email was sent out, Daniel Cespedes 23’took on to twitter to express his frustration: “the college republicans can—and I cannot stress this enough — f*** off.” Daniel later commented that “[he] was hoping [the email] was a prank,” but once he realized the reality of the situation “[he] felt personally targeted” and believes the CR was targeting the immigrant community as a whole.

Cespedes was just the first of many who took to social media to express a range of reactions to the event. However, it is important to note that the social media response ranged from individuals expressing frustration to individuals debating policy. There was no significant presence—if any at all—in support of the College Republicans, even from members of the organization themselves.

Some expressed their dissent more adamantly. A student who wishes to remain unnamed tweeted: “I say [D]artmouth [T]witter should band together and jump the college republicans for that email/event. I’m sure none of them can fight.” This tweet has since been deleted and the student faced disciplinary actions from at least one of the campus organizations they are involved in.

The latter tweet is notable because it is the closest thing to a “threat” seen online. While Mr. Bring was originally intentionally vague as to whether security threats that led to the cancellation of the event were made online or in person, he later clarified in his apology that threats were made online. Void of evidence suggesting the contrary and given the Hanover Police Department has not pursued further investigation, we can assume the threats Mr. Bring referred to are not more severe than the afore mentioned tweets. In a statement to The Review, Chief Dennis of the Hanover Police commented that, to the best of his knowledge, there was only a meeting that occurred between either Mr. Bring or Mr. Rauda and a member of Safety & Security on February 17th and neither the Hanover Police Department nor Safety & Security were pursuing an investigation following that meeting.

With this in mind, Mr. Bring’s claim that the event had to be “indefinitely postponed” due to “credible threats” is called into question. If law enforcement authorities did not deem it necessary to open an investigation, then why would Mr. Bring think the threats were credible? At the very least, his claim seems extremely cowardly. In the worse case scenario, Mr. Bring seemed to scapegoat several Tweeters. Mr. Bring later clarified in an article in The Dartmouth titled “Bring and Rauda: An Apology” written by himself and Mr. Rauda that “Neither Collis nor Safety and Security had been involved in the decision to postpone the event,” further suggesting the decision had little to do with credible threats.

Yet the real pressure placed on Mr. Bring, Mr. Rauda, and the College Republicans came from other campus organizations. As social media filled with students expressing their dissent, affected communities utilized the platforms of their respective campus organizations to establish a formal opposition.

CoFIRED, a campus immigration activism group, was the first campus organization to publicly respond to the email, posting a formal condemnation of the event alongside a fact sheet on “Drugs & Immigration” with proper citations the same night the email was sent out.
The following morning, “Diaspora Stories for Compassion and Healing”, was announced. The event was co-sponsored by a multitude of organizations including Latinx and Caribbean Council, CoFIRED, and Divest Dartmouth. The event took place Tuesday at 4:30PM, the same time Mr. Messner’s talk was set to take place.

“Diaspora Stories for Compassion and Healing” was meant to serve as an alternative space for affected communities to “[share] and [hear] stories of affected communities.” The event also had the goal of “countering racialization of the border.” Despite the cancellation of Mr. Messner’s talk, the event still took place.

The final form of opposition to the event came in the form of a call to protest that was shared across social media. While it is unclear where this infographic originated, it called for students to come out with posters to protest Mr. Messner’s speech. Said infographic had no call or implication of violence nor did it express any intent to prevent the speech from taking place.

By Monday night, just 24 hours after the email was originally sent out, social media was filled with all three of the aforementioned organized opposition. Communities used their platforms, and students used their voices, to be heard and consequently pressure the CR. At 1:40 PM Tuesday, just 3 hours before the event was set to take place, Mr. Bring formally cancelled the event.

To better understand how this event, and particularly the rhetoric, affected immigrant communities I interviewed a student whose parents came to the US through the Mexican American border. This student claims “[he] was actually interested in the policy and [he] was thinking of going…the only issue [he] had with the email was the header.” When asked whether the speaker should be allowed in campus: “I think any speaker should be allowed to speak, but its also acceptable for groups to speak out against them.” He finally remarks,” the main issue with everything was the email. If the College Republicans issued a statement and sympathized with affected communities then this event would have gone a lot smoother and started a good discussion.”

This final sentiment is shared by most. While there is admittedly a small fraction of the Dartmouth community that wishes to silence opposing viewpoints, and I deeply resent this view, this was not the case here. Allow me to be perfectly clear, the College Republican’s email was not problematic because of its particular policy, it was problematic because it purposely used inflammatory rhetoric to illicit a response from a particular community. Yet once said response was given, the College Republicans proceeded to victimize themselves and scrambled for an excuse to cancel the event.

The speed, unity, and decisiveness in which affected communities acted to pressure College Republicans in less than 48 hours is one which should not go undocumented. Affected communities acted firmly, yet peacefully. I resent that the event had to be cancelled all together as I am opposed the silencing of views. Yet as we learn more about how this event came to be and the long ongoing power struggles inside the College Republicans, cancelling the event seems to have been the best alternative.

Upon being faced the choice to be forcibly removed by the current leadership of the College Republicans or resign, Mr. Bring and Mr. Rauda chose resignation. I am grateful that the College Republicans’ leadership was able to finally take some long overdue decisive action. I hope that in this time of change, the College Republicans can evolve into an organization that represents true conservative values, rather than a mere reflection of the populist demagogues of our current political climate.