The Ingraham Anger: Politics, Protests, and Pamphlets

The Review’s own Edi­tor Emerita Laura Ingra­ham ’85 returned to cam­pus recently for a DPU speaking event and Q&A. Shockingly enough, there managed to be no disrup­tions during the event it­self. This is not to suggest there were not protests, but they were much fee­bler than I was anticipat­ing. I think the weak turn­out to protest even made Ms. Ingraham feel a bit disappointed. And while the protesters who gath­ered up the stairs of Filene Auditorium were few, you would be surprised just how annoying so few cries could be, even from with­in the event downstairs.

The most impressive feat by the protesters was hijacking the Green’s igloo with flags and banners. They even managed to get it demolished by DoSS. Ms. Ingraham mocked their “cultural appropri­ation” of Native Alaskan dwellings, but what she didn’t realize was that they were also appropriating the community’s igloo for private political interests. The most resourceful of all the protesting, how­ever, were the pamphlets that were handed out as people entered the build­ing to attend the speaking event. The purpose of the pamphlet was to dismiss Ms. Ingraham as a hateful “FASCIST,” challenging the legitimacy of her place in speaking on campus. It was titled: “DEBATE? DIALOGUE? OR JUST DEHUMANIZATION?” They also posted similar flyers across campus to encourage students to join their protest. While the protesters were not willing to have a conversation with Ms. Ingraham and chose rather to promote misconceptions and out-of-context quotes, The Dartmouth Review owes these protesters a right to know how misguided they truly are.

The first of the pamphlet’s complaints against Ms. Ingra­ham is regarding her supposed “Hatred of the Queer Com­munity.” There are three is­sues raised within this general theme of hatred. The first of three quotes provided seeks to dismiss her take on same-sex marriage. It is claimed she said same-sex marriage is “the same as polygamy or incest.” How­ever, this first out-of-context quote is referring to the impli­cations of loosening the legal definition of marriage; it is not calling to outlaw private homo­sexual relations but to contest the redefining of the legal defi­nition of marriage. Even if Ms. Ingraham believes it is a moral­ly superior way of life to marry and have children if God is so willing, this quote brings up an interesting viewpoint to which the pamphlet does not properly respond.

After all, the definition of marriage used to be the union of a man and a woman under God, with a duty to procreate and provide a stable household for children, sex existing as a sacred act within this mar­riage. Nowadays, however, it is not very clear what marriage is as an institution. It seems we attempt to understand it as a union between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives to­gether. This seems like it could work as a definition until you realize that – once the defini­tion changed from the tradi­tional understanding shared almost everywhere for all of hu­man history – the definition has now become arbitrary. Some might believe limiting marriage to men and women is an arbi­trary restriction, but rather it is the opposite. If marriage is now just a dedication of love with no higher purpose, the institution itself implodes.

The issue of polygamy Ms. Ingraham raised is certainly relevant. With our new under­standing of marriage, why can a Mormon or Muslim man not marry multiple wives? After all, his love for all his wives can­not be challenged (not to men­tion it is his religious freedom). In fact, what if there are three people in love with each other? Why can they not all three be married in a sort of love trian­gle? What about four people? If you are a progressive and are consistent with your reasoning, you should agree that we ought to expand the current definition of marriage. After all, limiting marriage to only two people is arbitrary when love and sexual impulses know no bounds.

The second instance of Ms. Ingraham’s supposed hatred to­ward the queer community is in her opposition to “drag queen story hour.” This matter of con­tention is in the queer commu­nity’s attempt to enforce their moral unorthodoxy on others, and in this case, on children. She highlights the “[indoctrination of] our children.” She even sug­gests the motives of the move­ment might be geared toward “lowering the age of consent.” While the latter quote might ini­tially seem ridiculous, it is not unfair to point out. Drag queen story hour is blatant perversion. This is not inherently a matter of “queerness;” stripper story hour would be just as immoral. This is one of the many ways in which modern progressivism seeks to sexualize children. As the pam­phlet points out, Ms. Ingraham has commented on the nature of these “groomers” and, yes, even “pedophiles.” This would remain the same whether it was a stripper or a drag queen pro­moting sexually degradation to children. Even if we don’t con­sider drag queens or strippers to be morally deprived, no talk of sexual activities belongs in con­versation amongst children.

Keep in mind, this controver­sial opinion has nothing to do with grown adults making de­cisions for themselves, whether electing for sex-change surgeries or having homosexual relations, etc. It always has to do with pushing back against the LGBT community’s attempt to impose their morality on others. It is the duty of parents to create and raise moral human beings. It is not the duty of teachers, drag queens, or strippers to impose their moral viewpoints on chil­dren.

The third of Ms. Ingraham’s supposedly hateful quotes con­cerns trans people using “bath­rooms aligning with their gen­der identity.” She made a joke – as a conservative media pundit might make – about “adult dia­pers, diapers for everyone, [as] no one’s going to be going to the bathroom [anymore].” It is true that this quote did not take place in a formal academic set­ting; this quote remains a joke. The pamphlet, however, is likely concerned with the premise of the joke – which is that (at least) biological men should only be allowed in the bathrooms that pertain to their biological sex. We must address this.

Once again, an individual’s freedom to identify as he/she wishes, or cross-dress, or even pursue a sex-change surgery is not at risk. But the transgen­der community believes it has a “right” to impose its beliefs and personalities onto others. Apparently, women must be forced to put up with men who “identify” as women and wish to use their bathrooms. This was supposed to be about individ­ual freedom, but the reality is that it never has been. It has al­ways been about imposing new, immoral ideas onto others and destroying Western institutions – including the most basic idea that men are born men and re­main that way, vice versa. 

The transgender community is just like the vegan communi­ty. In principle, they are harm­less and ought to be free to do what they want with their own lives. But in practice, they al­ways end up attempting to im­pose their viewpoints and life choices on others (as we see with all those foolish “veganism is a moral urgency” posters across campus). Women’s privacy and women’s safety should not be at risk because of the “rights” of a man who claims to be a woman. He has the right to identify as a woman if he chooses, but wom­en have a right not to have men who identify as women in their bathrooms.

Not only is Ms. Ingraham supposedly against “queer rights,” it turns out she also op­poses women’s rights. This is ironic given that one cannot ful­ly support trans “rights” without infringing upon women’s rights. However, there are three quotes that highlight Ms. Ingraham’s hatred of her own kind. The first thing she claims is that “The most powerful thing a woman can do is give birth. That is it.” Just as she hates women’s rights, I hate men’s rights. Just as she is an extremist, I would go so far as to say that the most powerful thing a man can do is to partic­ipate in the creation of a new human soul with his wife. What feminism has taught women is that fulfillment does not come through marriage, children, or familial obligation, but rather through sexual “liberation” and prioritizing their careers. Ca­reer before family, sex before marriage, and abortion before children are the new mottos of feminism. And no, women are not happier.

Apparently, questioning the legitimacy of Planned Parent­hood is also an act of hatred (ac­cording to the protesters’ pam­phlet). In response to Planned Parenthood suing the govern­ment to reinstate funding after it was discovered they were selling the body parts of fetuses, Ms. In­graham referred to unspecified members of the organization as “Heinous Hitlerian Freaks.” Given the context of the quote, this is not a ridiculous thing to say. However, the protesters feel anyone who questions abortion or the act of selling unborn ba­bies’ body parts should not be welcome on Dartmouth’s lov­ing campus. Lastly – as it relates to women’s rights – it appears Ms. Ingraham referred to the Violence Against Women Act (1994) as “pork with a tear-jerk­er title.” Finding this quote is not very accessible; however, I would not be surprised if there was, in fact, more within the bill than can be considered strictly related to countering domestic abuse.

Perhaps the best of all the quotes used to portray Ms. In­graham as a hateful extremist regards illegal immigration. The protesters claim that the DPU’s choice to bring Ms. Ingraham to campus is “A SPECTACLE OF RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, XE­NOPHOBIC BIGOTRY.” They go on to show “LAURA INGRA­HAM’S HATE-SPEACH [sic] TOWARD IMMIGRANTS.” Unfortunately for the protest­ers, their integrity is even more questionable than their ability to spell. Ms. Ingraham is then quoted, saying “WHY DON’T WE SHIP THEM BACK HOME AND SAY YOU COME AGAIN AND YOU’LL BE SHOT.” This seems rather brutal, and the pamphlet certainly achieves its objective in framing Ms. Ingra­ham as overtly cruel. However, the full quote paints a rather different picture: “[California Governor] Brown is releasing all these criminals, because they’re spending too much money in the jails. By the way, the jails are what, 27 percent illegal immi­grants? Why don’t we ship them back home and say you come again, and you’ll be shot cross­ing the border? Why don’t we ship them out of this country, why are we paying for these hor­rific individuals?” These poor immigrants!

Ms. Ingraham is also rather controversial at Dartmouth due to an article she approved in which The Review is accused of doxxing students who attended a meeting for the school’s Gay Student Alliance (GSA) in 1984. As the pamphlet points out, she has been accused of “bullying” and “[terrorizing]” her peers – particularly due to the reporting on the GSA meeting, but also for using rhetoric that includes referring to members of the or­ganization as “cheerleaders for latent campus sodomites.” How­ever, as Ms. Ingraham made clear when asked about the in­cident at her talk with the DPU, the controversial GSA meeting was open and advertised to the public, and the only names pub­lished in the article were public­ly listed officers. All oth­er students were anonymous, listed as “GS #1,” “GS #2,” etc. The reality is that “bullying” and “[terrorizing]” might be a bit of a reach. 

However, while the protest­ers have sought to primarily lie and deceive – as well as dismiss any perspective that challenges their own views on abortion, open borders, etc. – they seem to have a genuine concern for Ms. Ingraham’s moral view on homosexuality. And here would have been the grounds for a legitimate con­versation to be had. Ms. Ingra­ham was not asked to directly clarify her views on the matter, but she made clear at her talk that she believes every human – regardless of their life choic­es – possesses an inherent dignity that comes with their soul. Even if she holds a mor­al disapproval of a particular lifestyle choice, the reality is that moral debates must not be feared or avoided. In fact, the most illuminating discussions take place when you attempt to uncover the moral bedrock of a person’s character and per­spective. 

Ms. Ingraham did not come to the DPU talk at Dartmouth to platform her personal be­liefs on homosexuality (as she may have done at The Review in college). If she held a per­sonal belief on the issue of homosexuality fundamentally different from that of the pro­testers, then they should have inquired into what it is that makes her believe her appar­ently troubling perspective. They should have forced Ms. Ingraham to explain her con­victions, and if she failed to do so sufficiently, they would have demonstrated a weakness in her reasoning. 

The central question the protesters asked was “where does Dartmouth draw the line” in inviting “hateful” and “fas­cist” speakers to campus. A better question to ask would be: “where do these militant, leftist protesters not draw the line?” It is certainly easier for them to dismiss an opponent by labelling him/her as “hate­ful” or “fascist” than to have to burden themselves with argu­ing an actual position. Ironi­cally, these same protesters are some of the most hate-filled and insufferable students on this campus. Even with their hateful hearts, I would see no need to dismiss them if they ever sought dialogue or debate (although it is doubtful they ever will). After all, the only thing more powerful than hate is love. However, if love simply can’t do the job, facts and logic will.