Verbum Post Mendacium: A Response to The Dartmouth

As was made abundantly clear in our response to The D’s erroneous attacks on AAG Harmeet Dhillon ‘89, The Review has never been, nor have we ever claimed to be, an impartial organization. Our aim since 1980 has been to provide a conservative, independent voice across Dartmouth’s campus, given that this voice has historically been absent at The Dartmouth.

The Review’s foundations are rooted in an exodus of Reagan-supporting staff, with the Editors of The D in 1980 refusing to allow their voices to be heard. The Review has since existed as the only opportunity for conservative students to voice their opinions unsilenced by a would-be monopoly over free speech.

Recently, The Review was yet again attacked by The D over allegedly inferior “journalistic standards,” low “editorial rigor,” and “performative” conservatism. It was the paper’s latest plea for a return of conservative students to its Editorial Board.

It is clear why this attack is being made. The Dartmouth is visibly desperate. It reflects poorly when the Editorial Board of the official student newspaper of the College is nearly completely ideologically liberal. The best way for The D to increase its conservative staff in this dire situation is to attack the only conservative publication on campus: The Review. The Dartmouth has attempted to villainize us as unintelligent and performative. Of course, every conservative is unintelligent, and anyone willing to defend such ignorance must be performative.

The reality is that The Dartmouth is concerned with saving its image. This is no surprise, and certainly the publication should be concerned. The Dartmouth’s ability to censor conservative speech (the reason why The Review was founded in the first place) makes it safe for the Editorial Board to plead for more token conservatives. This helps explain why The D chose to recently attack The Review with unsubstantiated insults. 

To begin, The D claims that The Review fails to live up to the “journalistic standards” of The D. This statement is questionable. Despite The Dartmouth Review’s scandalous faults -including occasionally a few typos -we have the capacity and due diligence to ensure that the articles we publish are not paid for by members of the College Administration. Furthermore, We have the wherewithal to fact-check articles without the need for constant, absurd amounts of retractions/apologies, as is apparent in the case of so many articles from The D.

The Dartmouth and The Dartmouth Review are both ideological newspapers; the only difference between the two papers is that The Review is open about its bias and direction, whereas The Dartmouth continues to masquerade as the impartial arbiter of truth. The Editorial Board of The D has framed its ideological conformity as an unfortunate, regrettable accident, as opposed to a concerted, intentional effort. 

Surely, a newspaper intent on opening up its space to heterodox opinions would welcome input from the only newspaper on campus where conservative students feel welcome. Alas, at least one Review staffer has been dismissed from The D solely for affilitation with our organization. The D’s contemporary actions are not unprecedented. One of the Review’s founders, Greg Fossedal, was fired from his position at The Dartmouth on account of authoring an editorial in support of conservative John Steel’s candidacy to become the President of Dartmouth. The continued blackballing of conservative students exemplifies The Review’s continued integral role at Dartmouth, empty statements from The D’s current editorial board, notwithstanding.

Regarding the claims about The Review’s supposed “performative” brand of conservatism, we fail to understand the monolithic grouping together of The Review’s staff. In our recruitment email, which we send a variation of anually to freshmen, we state that The Review’s aim is to combat academic hegemony and support freedom of speech. Given this, we have always amassed an eclectic group of staffers, many of whom disagree with one another on a plethora of issues. Until the ‘24s left, The Review enjoyed the contributions of at least one self-described anarcho-communist.

Despite the fact that the sentiment is not reciprocated, staffers of The D are always welcome to make their voices heard at The Review. The D speaks regretfully about the missing voice of one side of the political spectrum in the paper. On the surface, this is entirely correct. It is the unnecessary conclusion of jabs towards The Review that makes the piece ring hollow. If your goal is outreach to a cohort of students who thus far have not felt welcome at your institution, why, then, would you attack the only editorial institution on campus that thus far has represented their views? Both The Dartmouth and The Dartmouth Review claim to be dedicated to promoting “intellectually alive spaces on this campus.” This is the precise context by which The Review was founded and continues to exist. 

We call on The Dartmouth to live up to its own standards by acknowledging the importance of the only publication that keeps its own editorial bias in check: the one and only Dartmouth Review.