<p>I read in 2004 about 80% voted for Kerry in the D poll, in 200 it was 75% Gore. Given recent anti-conservative outcry I honestly think 85% democrat is accurate. I have 10 democrat voting friends for every republican friend.</p>
<p>Yeah, I've never heard (in person, or email) from anyone there saying that it's racist...</p>
<p>Just a reminder, some time back, they even celebrated a hindu festival "Diwali" in campus... is that racist?</p>
<p>I don’t know the context but that is a celebration for their culture correct? If so these are completely different events that were most likely created by Hindu students. The act of dressing up as Indians for a dance party is extremely offensive. It offends Native Americans and is perpetuating negative stereotypes of them. Many people think Native Americans are dead/dying out because of these stereotypes, when in reality they are not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
selling of shirts that depicted a Native American getting a blow job from a knight for homecoming... inside of Thayer
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't understand, how is this racist towards Native Americans?</p>
<p>yah.. really.. how can it be racist? I mean the dancing in indian costumes...</p>
<p>Its not just the Native Americans who have experienced racism in the past few weeks. African Americans students are also bearing the brunt of it. In fact, there are a group of frat guys who shout the n-word at any black person they see at all times of day. A number of black students have complained to the President of the college along with Native American students. A campus wide apology e-mail addressing the issues faced by the Native American community was passed by the President, but an apology for the black community has yet to be written.</p>
<p>There are racist individuals at Dartmouth, just like at any other college in the country. These are not systemic problems, and should not be considered such. Dartmouth has a reputation for being a "conservative" Ivy because we didn't hop onto the pot train with Harvard or the blow train with Yale; Dartmouth in general tends to attract people who see careers in the corporate world or government in their futures. It's more down to earth and less ivory tower than many of the other Ivies, and if having some kind of perspective on the real world makes an institution conservative, then yes, we are very proudly conservative.</p>
<p>I'm a minority student. My parents are from India, and I have dark brown skin. I also write for The Dartmouth Review. I think the itchy trigger finger of many at Dartmouth to be offended has a lot to do with being in college in general. There was a good article in the last issue of The Review that talks about how, if one actually attends some of the protests on campus, you pretty much see the same crowd there week after week. Was the Cowboys and Indians party the most sensitive party to have? Probably not. Did it warrant a school-wide apology from the president? Definitely not. There have been incidents lately that warrant apology, such as the incident with the drunken frat boys breaking up a cultural ceremony, but those apologies should come from individuals and not the institution. Dartmouth as an institution is not racist or exclusionary; it has nothing to apologize for. As for the racism of individuals, I don't think it's the job of the college to force them to change their mindset. The college, in my opinion, doesn't have a proactive obligation to end discrimination, but only a baseline responsibility not to actively perpetuate it.</p>
<p>Das, that's a bunch of s***. In my class many of the most popular students were African American and I never heard that even once. The place isn't racist at all. At worst it includes a minority of insensitive students (like any school) and a minority of review writers (like half-baked) who don;t think the administration should be interfering when the few isolated incidents occur. I respectfully disagree with the review crowd, as do a great majority of Dartmouth students I know. .</p>
<p>Why should the College, or any governing body for that matter, be forced to proactively end discrimination? Does free speech not also mean that those who choose to say unpleasant things and think distatseful thoughts can say and think those things?</p>
<p>Because I (and many like me) care much more about the right of people to live happily than the right of a-holes to express themselelves.</p>
<p>I oppose the Indian mascot. I'm not a diehard opposer, but I think that while the mascot was cool back in the day, it's outlived its welcome and needs to go. At the same time, I think that basic guarantees like the freedom of speech are MUCH more important than the feelings of individuals. </p>
<p>Living happily isn't something that can ever be guaranteed, and it's also an infinitely regressive concept. Today, living happily for a specific group of people means that we stifle the opinions and dissent of others. Where does that end? Do we keep purifying the discourse of individuals until we have a cohesive whole, a monolithic society in which we're all the same? Sounds like something straight out of one of Foucault's arguments about how power and discipline produce acceptable subjects.</p>
<p>Agamben talks about how "genocide is the dream of modern power." This is a direct corollary of Foucault's arguments about marginalization and otherization being tools of power structures to eliminate groups of people. The argument is that power structures justify their further existence in the context of protection. Thus, they're always finding groups of people to deem enemies and to protect their populaces from. The end result of this argument, according to both Foucault and Agamben, is that genocides, wars, and mass murders are not only possible, but inevitable.</p>
<p>Let's contextualize this. In terms of the liberal ideology espoused by the administration and certain student groups on campus, there is a "perfect" citizen of Dartmouth. What does this idea of perfection entail? I'm not sure, but I know what it doesn't entail - you can't be a Reviewer, a jock, hold politically incorrect beliefs, or in certain cases, be a wealthy, white, heterosexual male. The fact that the ideal of perfection is exclusionary by definition and has no intrinsic meaning is no mistake; it's left ambiguous on purpose so that further cleansing and purification of the whole is always possible. The idea that we should favor people over basic, inalienable rights creates a rupture in the fabric of law and civil society and creates what Agamben terms a "state of exception" in which we suspend otherwise ironclad guarantees for the sake of "preservation" or "protection" of society. The state of exception creates the possibility for infinite abuses of power and excersizes of authority over the segments of the populace deemed to be out of order. It also creates the potential for groups to seize upon the power vacuum and take on enormously disproportional amounts of power.</p>
<p>Where does it stop? Today, the Dartmouth establishment wages an intellectual war against those who hold beliefs that are not in tune with the College's ideology of liberalism. Tomorrow, perhaps the Establishment and its proponents will wage a similar war against those who hold what are today considered very moderate beliefs. Don't believe me? Look at history. Who would have thought that, back in the day, when the student body decided to take the decision to participate in ROTC programs out of the hands of individuals, that eventually the purification of thought would reach a climax in which individuals were required to be gender sensitive, socially responsible, adherents of "fair trade," and hold other very specific beliefs?</p>
<p>This might seem a little extreme, and as I stated above, I'm sure the disciplinary power being excersized by the establishment won't result in genocide. But the fact remains that the capacity for dissent and the rule of law, as opposed to exception, is essential for the survival of any civil society, and excersizes of disciplinary power should be opposed at every turn. This both means that things like banning homosexual expression and marriage should be opposed; at the same time, there has to be a social space for the demostrations and discourse of those who hate gay marriage and gay rights. The Dartmouth students who are trying to create an environment in which everyone believes in their agenda and follows their way of thinking are the sans-culottes of our day; be assured that their way of implementing their agenda is just a more sophisticated Jacobin terror.</p>
<p>So that was essentially a long way of saying: you're wrong. Freedom of expression as a baseline guarantee that's extened to everyone, regardless of political beliefs, is much, MUCH more important than the feelings of a few students. The Cowboys and Indians dance by the crew team was totally legitimate. It is true that it offended certain people, and perhaps it warranted an apology from the crew team. The fact that Presidnt Wright issued a campus-wide apology is shocking to me. Issues of offensiveness and apologies should be consigned to the private sector, and official power structures, such as the college, should not intervene and pass normative judgements. The college should have deferred to the standard of free speech and expression and let the individual groups involved sort the situation out. The fact that the college would take an official stand on disputes between individuals regarding differing opinions is apalling and terrifying to me. And anyone who has any kind of understanding of what liberty means and what seperates a free society from a Stalinist or fascist state should find it terrifying as well.</p>
<p>How can you say that the college owes no apology to the Native American students when the crew party was held in a college owned building above a diversity dinner, when the homecoming shirts were sold on college property, and when they sent out an official calender with the Indian as a mascot?</p>
<p>And here is the Dartmouth Principles of Community:</p>
<p>The life and work of a Dartmouth student should be based on integrity, responsibility and consideration. In all activities each student is expected to be sensitive to and respectful of the rights and interests of others and to be personally honest. He or she should be appreciative of the diversity of the community as providing an opportunity for learning and moral growth.</p>
<p>This statement provides a basis for interaction between and among all members of the College, and each of us is expected to be mindful of it in pursuing our own interests as members of this community.</p>
<p><em>sigh</em>... i find this to be a good representation of the general intellectual climate on campus between liberals and conservatives. In a very analogous manner to how liberals throw away copies of The Review and Reviewers make it a habit to read both The D and The Free Press, you have, it seems, decided to completely ignore or throw away all of my arguments and simply insert a non-responsive cop out. If you had taken the time to actually read my arguments, you'd know that the principles of community, in the way you're leveraging them, are BAD and ARBITRARY. Anything that prescribes what people should be like in anything more than a very minimum, vague sense is very, very bad. The more specific the normative recommendation, the worse it is. </p>
<p>A few decades ago, most national fraternaties described the perfect man in their charter of what constituted a good brotherhood. In many of these cases, the charters excluded people of minority descent. The exclusion of minorities from the frat system was an attempt to silence and marginalize the voices of certain people without even considering what their voices had to say. The assumption was that just because someone wasn't white, they weren't capable of being a part of a Greek society and that their intellectual contributions were useless. The forced exclusion of and backlash to conservative voices is essentially exactly the same thing.</p>
<p>People shouldn't have to be sensitive, considerate, or follow any of the specific tenets of a particular political ideology to be a part of the Dartmouth community, any more than they have to be white to be part of a Greek society.</p>
<p>And it doesn't matter that the crew formal was in a college owned building. The cowboys and indians dance was not a politicized event; the NAD community made it so, and only because of their intervention did it become politicized. Besides, even if it was some kind of political statement, the college sanctions political statements all the time. If we can all accept that there is not absolute truth when it comes to issues of differing politics, then why does it matter what kind of political demonstration the college sanctions? The job of the college, or any institution, is not to pass those kinds of normative judgements. For instance, the college sanctioned a pro-immigration rally on the green, and I'm fine with that. But it could just as easily have been argued by a student, much like yourself, who has family members who lost their jobs as a result of illegal immigration. In your own words, the fact that these kinds of opinions are in the hyperminority doesn't mean they should be ignored.</p>
<p>Someone's always going to take offense to whatever happens, even if that even has only the mildest political undertones. There is no absolute "right" or "wrong." As private individuals, we can debate and decide what we think is best for society and try to persuade others to our point of view. I don't find the crew formal offensive at all; if I were part of the crew team myself, I would have attended and, presumably, had a great time. That you find it offensive is fine by me, but it's ridiculous that the college as a whole could take a position that it was offensive. Do you understand just how arbitrary that is? Giving the college the power to decide that a formal in which a few people dress up like cowboys and a few others dress up as indians allows the college to make any and all kinds of normative decisions on behalf of the student body. What prevents the college, now, from deciding tomorrow that sexual relationships are only to be condoned between two monogamous, heterosexual people? Its ability to excersize power directly onto the political body of the student population becomes infinite as we make these kinds of concessions to it.</p>
<p>I'm really sorry that the formal upset you, but I'm far more sorry that President Wright apoligized for it. The college community is a civil society in which there exist spheres of thought for discussion and debate about these issues; allowing a politically active group to hijack an official power structure and use it to encroach into the spaces for these kinds of discussions and force an opinion onto the population at large is so scary to me. The NAD population is pretty small; but then, I'd assume the white supremacist population of the college is pretty small too. Imagine a world in which the supremacist population was in a position to use the president of the college as its mouthpiece. There's really no difference between that example and what happened recently. I'm just substituting one political group for another to illustrate that what happened, for better or worse, sets a precedent and creates the potential for something much bigger, and much worse. I'm sure you probably agreed with the president's actions; but the institution that you're espousing and that's been created now could just as easily turn on you.</p>
<p>While I find Dartmouth to be a little too conservative for my taste, I wouldn't go labeling it racist. My time in dartmouth has been wonderful. I'm notw hite, but I've made a lot of friends. There are some racist people on campus, I won't lie,but there are racist ppl everywhere. I do not agree with the mascot, and I do think we need more diversity, but how are we ever going to change if yolu all dont apply. We need more ppl on campus taht are not WASPs. Lets shake things up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In a very analogous manner to how liberals throw away copies of The Review and Reviewers make it a habit to read both The D and The Free Press,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're absolutely right, they'll do that...then go chop down protest shacks on the Green and print quotes from Hitler on their masthead. Oh yeah, and break the policies on not distributing papers to people's doors.</p>
<p>Josh_AK,</p>
<p>What is your ethnicity, if I can ask?</p>
<p>Xanatos,</p>
<p>Ad homs are great, but you didn't manage to distract anyone from the fact that you were incapable of making even one cohesive argument. In fact, I don't even think you managed to understand the point I was making with the part of my post you quoted, because you went ahead and did exactly the kind of thing that I was criticizing. Given that, I don't think that I have much confidence in your ability to understand any other part of my post either.</p>
<p>Let's lay it on: at one point or another, The Review has been all the things that you hate so much. In fact, it's really your classic Emmanuel Goldstein figure. Let's even assume for a second that all the allegations, even the ridiculous ones, are 100% true. Are you happy now? Can we move past this stupid Review good/bad debate and actually discuss the issue at hand?</p>
<p>It's true that the Review had done and said some terrible things in the past, but so have many large entities. The US government is a great example. Does this mean that everyone who works for the federal government agrees with everything it did in the past? Of course not. But they see it as a valuable tool to move into the future and as a vehicle that's capable of positive change.</p>
<p>I mean, I don't mean to state the obvious, but it's clear to me that you're getting totally housed on this debate and have very little substantive to say about why the college should have a proactive role in interpersonal relationships. Just because you can't come up with anything smart to say doesn't mean you have an excuse to sling mud.</p>
<p>I think that Josh is Native American</p>
<p>Wright could have been trying to situate himself in a more Burkean tradition of liberty--however, he misstates it, and the position from which he comes makes his whole e-mail rather unconscionable.</p>
<p>Burke argued that for liberty and social order to coexist, self-restraint in the exercising of that liberty was needed--specifically, Burke appears to base this self-restraint in a version of public morality. This is the idea that Willmoore Kendall would later appropriate (though with changes) in his idea of the "public orthodoxy." In other words, freedom of speech is always absolute, but societal order (in the Burkean sense) is maintained through a sober citizen's self-policing.</p>
<p>It is into this intellectual context (in my mind) that Wright is trying to fit himself, and it would have been completely legitimate--had he not gone too far. First, by the virtue of his very position as college, he reinforces Kendall's ideas of public orthodoxy--that is, of elites attempting to impose restraints on the 'common man.' </p>
<p>Second, by saying that "when people say they have been offended, they have been offended" is a dangerous precedent to set, because it sets up a tyranny of the oppressed, under which those who claim themselves to be oppressed become the sole arbiters of what is 'acceptable speech,' thus undermining Burkean thought and indeed, most other classical liberal thought. For instance: in their recent ad in the Daily D, the NAC claimed that supporting the preservation of the Hovey Murals constitutes a racist act. They thus seized control of that discourse--bypassing entirely the consequences of that action, which would be a destruction of campus liberty. If the offended can control what messages are 'legitimate,' there is nothing to stop them from destroying freedom. Indeed, the destruction of the Hovey murals would be akin to Communist or Nazi book-burnings--destruction based on a desire for totalitarian control of discourse.</p>
<p>Finally, Wright's letter strikes at the very heart of liberal learning--the need for comparative discourse. No group should be given the exclusive power to control their own depiction in society. To do so creates a dangerous, uncritical monopoly on thought. Burke recognized this--indeed, his most famous work was a critical reflection on a culture that was not his own. In trying to make this point, Wright is appealing to emotion rather than reason--a bad point, as a college professor.</p>
<p>There's much more I could say, but I'll stop here. I have no desire to see the Indian mascot return, but President Wright's e-mail was unacceptable in its treatment of the issues.</p>