Our Founder’s Steadfast Mission

For many of us at The Review Professor Hart’s passing put our organization into historical perspective. With growing political tension on campus — especially among the conservatives — I looked to Hart’s writings and asked, “What is The Review’s purpose today?” Since I will be continuing on as editor-in-chief for another year, this is a particularly pressing question to answer in order to best guide the organization.

Over the years, Hart affectionately referred to The Review as Dartmouth’s unofficial school of journalism. He often cited our impressive alumni the field, such as the Pulitzer-Prize-winning Joe Rago ’05, as testimony to support his ambitious claim. Indeed, the book The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent is full of examples of this newspaper’s journalistic escapades, some more defensible than others. Many of The Review’s best works were conservative in nature and rigorous in methodology and philosophy. These past successes are indicative of what The Review can achieve when it is at its best — when it balances ideology with integrity. These need not be in tension, but they often have been, especially as of late.

Dartmouth, unlike some of our Ivy League counterparts, might not be wholly saturated in leftist ideas, but progressive political activism is undeniably popular among its students, faculty, and administrators. This trend is nothing new, as The Review was itself founded in response to that trend. The critical difference between then and now, however, is that now there is a growing student population fed up with both “sides” of national discourse. On campus, many students are frustrated by the obstreperous, and often irascible, liberal hegemons. But at the same time, many of those same students are disgusted with the conservative activists who use their organizations on campus to bludgeon campus with fringe ideology. Regarding the former group, rancorous protests that employ sapphic intercourse as a disruptive tactic are not winning the campus left credibility or support. But the latter group’s affinity for “trolling the libs” is viewed as just as worthy of admonishment for its equally immature nature. These more moderate students— students who want to be supporters of The Review and what it stands for — do not view these impertinent actions as mere foibles; rather, conservative “trolling” actually, and justifiably, prevents them from associating with an otherwise palatable group of like-minded people. In the past few years, The Review arguably had a hand in cultivating a culture among conservatives that preferred those kinds of activities over discussion, writing, or investigation — whether journalistic or intellectual. So much work was put into crafting ploys that were arrantly banal in nature, all for some transient “victory” that ended up harming our reputation more than it gained us any support among less outspoken conservatives “hidden” around campus. Perhaps we let ideology and integrity fall out of balance. It has cost us.

Thus, in order to keep with Professor Hart’s characterization of The Review as Dartmouth’s “J School,” we must re-establish that integrity upon which so much of this organization was built. We must interact, and not turn away from, the incredulous who have lost faith in us to bring sober journalism to a campus that so needs it. Over time, we can rebuild that trust with campus.

This is not to say that The Review should be unobtrusive or ideologically quiescent. Rather, I believe that honesty, rigor, and propriety are verities that are essential to the continued success of The Dartmouth Review. Hart seemed to think so too.