Racism at Dartmouth

Colleges and Universities A-Z Dartmouth College
41

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, see, I actually think you failed to manage to understand my point, namely that I stopped reading your post after the first two lines or whatever of what you wrote. I'm getting housed in this issue? Last I checked, I haven't even been involved in this discussion, so I don't know what you are talking about. I am merely responding to idiocy with funny idiocy (or at least I find it funny).</p>

<p>And concerning ad homs, given the sweeping generalization in your post, I wouldn't be throwing stones in the glass house of respectful, non-confrontational arguments, or for that matter, "maturity," if I were you.</p>

<p>Let me put this in terms that even you, I hope, can understand. When this</p>

<p>
[quote]
<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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>is the first sentence of your argument, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. End of discussion.</p>

42

<p>Congratulations, you've once again made my point. I, a conservative, and many of the Reviewers I know, will give thorough consideration to any arguments fowarded by the other side. We then look through them for any points of merit, and make counter-argument accordingly. The collegiate left, in many cases, tends to resort to knee-jerk reactionism, name calling, and un-intellectual retorts in the face of sound argumentation. I congratulate you on your ability to stop reading my posts within the first couple of lines; I also congratulate you and your kind in your ability to pick up stacks of the Review and simply throw them away instead of reading the paper and actually answering the arguments made in it. I'm sure that both of these tasks were feats of immense intellectual ability that really tested the boundaries of your mind.</p>

<p>My arguments may well be idiotic, but you'd never know it based on the enormous number of arguments you've made in response or the gaping logical holes you've been able to poke through my logic so far. So tell me, why exactly are my arguments stupid? I've tried to bait you to make a response time and again and you've seem somewhat reluctant. Is it because you're having trouble coming up with a response? Is it because my arguments are so compelling that they're just true? Or is it because you don't have the capacity to even understand my arguments, let alone come up with something in response?</p>

<p>I'm still waiting for you to say something substantive. I would direct you to look over my posts again so that you can find the parts you disagree with, but I think you were right to stop reading after just two lines. The rest would have just confused you anyway, and if your brilliance in this thread is any demonstration, additional confusion is something you could do without.</p>

<p>Edit: and by "you" in my previous post, I didn't mean anyone specifically. I was referring generally to the crowd that thinks that the College has an obligation to encourage and advance a specific political agenda.</p>

43

<p>"-review giving out Indian head shirts to '10s... using blitz to advertise
-selling of shirts that depicted a Native American getting a blow job from a knight for homecoming... inside of Thayer
-during a celebration for Columbus Day on the green while singing our songs and drums our ceremony was crashed by some drunken frat members
-The college released the alumni calendar with an image of an Indian head cane
-last week a party in Collis was hosted and the theme was "cowboys, farm animals and indigenous people" so a few people showed up dressed as Native Americans."</p>

<p>how are any of those racist..</p>

<p>the knight giving the indian the blowjob.. i guess that shirt is also racist against white people because it has a knight on it.. rofl</p>

<p>youre really looking too much into things to just to find racism where it doesn't exist.
i doubt they crashed your parade just becuase they hated indian people.. maybe it's because they were drunk</p>

<p>now showing a picture of an indian head cane sculpture makes one believe that a certain race is inferior.. rofl. i guess if they showed a picture of mummies it would be racist against egyptians. time to go burn my history book for being racist..</p>

<p>it was a party.. and native americans are indigenous people. to the americas. i guess dressing as cowboys at that party was racist also since white people are cowboys. rofl.</p>

44

<p>Breaking News: there's a protest on campus today to cut off the Review's funding and/or get the college to ban its distribution on campus. What was I saying about a minority group hijacking the sphere for intellectual discussion and ending free speech again? This sure feelx like majoritarian tyranny to me. Keep watching folks, because soon we'll have the college issuing official disciplinary actions for people think - not even say - things that aren't PC.</p>

45

<p>That's not at all what the protest was about. The review just so happened to put something controversial out today, but that's not the purpose of the protest. Besides that, the Review isn't funded by Dartmouth. They're completely independent.</p>

46

<p>Really, the protest wasn't about the Review? Perhaps that's the official line, but I distinctly remember this protest being planned an organized in the immediate wake of the latest Review. Also, most of the people who actually attended (myself one of them - I wanted to watch a circus without having to pay for a ticket) were there because of the issue of the Review.</p>

<p>Oh, and does anyone know where I can find a hard copy of the Review? Or did you "tolerant" and "open minded" activists throw them all away, to make sure that no one could read what was inside?</p>

47

<p>I didn't go to the protest per se, but I walked past it several times - sort of purposefully to see the "circus". I think the review might have been part of the reason why it was held, but I dont think that it was the only reason. The reason was the collective racist acts (or rather, perhaps more accurately, the collective <em>perceived</em> racist acts) that have happened on campus this fall. Some of these "acts" have been legitimate, like people driving by in cars shouting racial slurs. Certainly no one would argue that these are acceptable, but on that note most of these "legitimate acts" are (according to the letter from President Wright) from non-Dartmouth students. i haven't seen a hard copy of the review. I don't think I got one. I'm not sure what happened with that - i just saw it online. I could go on and on about how over the top the rally today was, but suffice it to say that Dartmouth is not a racist institution and it is unfortunate that a handful of vocal activists are trying to paint Dartmouth as a college of bigots.</p>

<p>One other note - it seems that the administration is taking sides with the allegedly offended group of individuals and declaring them right and the rest of the campus wrong. Perhaps a more meaningful and lasting solution would arise if they instead were to foster discussion between the two "sides" instead of immediately feeling pressure to jump the bandwagon. Of course racism is wrong, and the College cannot condone it (no one should condone it) but is that really what this whole issue is about?</p>

48

<p>I agree with bigdogbull. Half_baked does not represent the views of the overall Dartmouth population, if anything its a vocal but very small minority of students. </p>

<p>Dartmouth is not racist at all.</p>

49

<p>Half_baked, you wrote: "Or did you "tolerant" and "open minded" activists throw them all away, to make sure that no one could read what was inside?"</p>

<p>Actually, hard copies of the Review were being handed out at the rally by the rally organizers.</p>

50

<p>"half-baked" (I won't call you your real name) is absolutely right.</p>

51

<p>Slipper - </p>

<p>Do you have any idea what you're agreeing to? I could be wrong, but I'm almost certain that bulldogbull was agreeing with me, not you. S/he talks about how the rally was over the top and how Dartmouth is not at all a racist organization (both of which I agree with), and goes on to argue that a "vocal minority" have tried to paint it so. The post goes on to say that it was wrong of the college to take sides in this dispute, something which I have commented on and critiqued at length. Also, I'm pretty sure the "vocal minority" being referred to who "are trying to paint Dartmouth as a college of bigots" refers to the protestors who are making a huge deal out of what is really not that big of a deal. I really don't think bulldogbull was referring to the Review, nice try though.</p>

<p>I must have missed the hard copies being handed out at the rally, possibly because I was transfixed by the hate mongering going on in the front, but this is both a) irrelevant and b) proves my point. First, it doesn't matter that the protesters perserved a few copies of the Review so they could have their orgiastic Two Minutes' Hate-esque catharsis with it. When the Review was put out in public places, such as Novak and Thayer, for the reading pleasure of the general, non-Lefist-activist population, it was promptly thrown away. In some cases, it was thrown away even after being retrieved from the trash can. Second, the argument was made earlier in this thread that the point of the rally wasn't that the protesters wanted to, through various strategies, eliminate The Dartmouth Review and protest its excersize of free speech. Rather, they claimed, the purpose of the rally was to stand in solidarity against hate, racism, and all other forms of modern collegiate psuedo-intellectual bogeymen. However, the passing out of the Review as the lightning rod of criticism clearly indicates that this was a rally against the Review.</p>

<p>What does this mean? Well, this means all my arguments, which by the way are still uncontested, about majoritarian tyranny, disciplinary power, the crushing of dissent, oppression, and the conversion of a free society into a Stalinist or fascist regime which were brushed aside earlier now become relevant again. There's a quote I really like by a source I don't know which I can never get quite right. Here's the gist of it: The great tragedy of the past century is that intellectuals tried to get people to fit their ideas rather than having ideas that fit people. This is applicable to our current situation. Instead of allowing all points of view, including the politically incorrect ones, to be presented in an apolitical search for Truth, the liberal regime at our college insists on imposing a particular political ideology, despite the obvious and apparent failures of that ideology in numerous instances. The tendency of intelligent people to refuse to acknowledge what is because they are blinded by the vision of should be is the most disappointing feature of college to me so far.</p>

<p>There's much more I could say which is somewhat applicable, but I want to see how other people respond to this. At any rate, I'd like to let all of you supporters of the rally today know that it failed. It contradicted its purpose of bringing people together and rallying around the Indian cause. In fact, it only further polarized the campus and caused a backlash. The Review is not racist; we simply try to cut through the **** and see the truth. However, we have been accused of racism, among other things, by the Left. Has anyone taken a look at <a href="http://www.boredatbaker.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.boredatbaker.com&lt;/a> lately? Under the guise of anonymity, there's been an enormous outpouring of explicit, hateful, real racism against the NAD community. It disgusts me, and makes me abhor the choice of tactics employed by the NAD community even more, for provoking this kind of behavior. Also, many bleeding-heart, follow-the-leader kind of moderates have become more liberal as a result of this incident; however, many of the more intelligent, independant-minded moderates on campus have actually become more conservative and have come to identify more with the Review as a result of the childish, ineffective bullying tactics employed by the protesters. Also, the Review website has gotten more than three times as many hits in the past few days than it ever has. So, in that regard, I'd like to tip my hat to both the protesters and the generally shortsighted and blundering liberal community both for the support and the publicity.</p>

52

<p>To be fair, I was mostly agreeing with half baked in my earlier post. And also just in case I didn't make this point clear earlier on, I certainly don't think that the Review is racist.</p>

53

<p>James Wright made a terrible mistake in the e-mail he sent to all of us students saying that we all are responsible for being "racist" against Native Americans. Also, he made a mistake by saying that ONLY Native Americans can determine what is racist and what isn't. IN ADDITION, he NEVER points out the inaccuracies in the arguments of the Native Americans' complaints. He only agrees with them and just says we all need to be more respectful. </p>

<p>For example, one inaccuracy (of many) he could have pointed out was that this crew part held had 75!!!!! people who dressed formally and >8!!! people who dressed up as indians and cowboys. The Native Americans construed this into a "racist" party because of 8 people?!? Are you kidding me? James Wright needed to stand up for the rest of these 75 people and basically say "The Dartmouth community is NOT discriminatory towards Natives. We are very accepting. However, there is a small, small minority who may say some things wrong and that isnt acceptable". He didn't say that. James Wright let me, and the non-racist students of Dartmouth down by his polarizing, one-sided comments.</p>

<p>Overall, this entire "RALLY AGAINST HATE" was a "rally against the Dartmouth Review" and did nothing to solve anything. It just polarized the campus and completely illegitimized any of the arguments the Native Americans had. There was a much better way to do this rally/discussion w/e, and the administration and Student Assembly completely failed. </p>

<p>To all of you who are NOT on the Dartmouth campus and are substantiating your points of view by reading the Daily Dartmouth and other liberal, non-factual pieces, please do me a favor and find out actually what happened. Such as, there was NO indian/cowboy party. That was just a political nickname placed on the party. </p>

<p>Maybe if everyone would stop complaining so much and actually strove to try to reach conclusions and compromises, we could solve something.</p>

54

<p>Agreed. It's very hard to stand up in the face of tyranny when it comes from a very unlikely source. No one's denying that Native Americans, both at Dartmouth and in American society at large, have long faced hardship, discrimination, and prejudice. However, the fact that their history is one that is regrettable does not mean that we should bow to their every demand and allow them to dictate what is right and wrong, and what is true and untrue. President Wright, who I have a large amount of respect for, took the most craven position possible when he immediately bowed down to the demands of the NAD community and refused to take a more objective view of the complaints that were forwarded. Further, he failed in his duty as an administrator and made statements that can only be defined as partisan, tyrannical, and opportunistic. He persecuted a group of students for expressing their point of view (a move that is very uncharacteristic of him) in the face of enormous pressure, even tacit blackmail, from a vocal minority group. In his own style, I want to say that my Dartmouth - our Dartmouth - is a place where we stand true to our beliefs and courageously refuse to be complacent to lies, abuses of power, and attempts to erode our civil society. My Dartmouth - our Dartmouth - is a place that does not allow itself to shift with the political currents of the day. My Dartmouth - our Dartmouth - is a place that will endure because of its commitments to the ideals of freedom, individuality, and meritocracy, even when these ideals are attacked.</p>

55

<p>I agree with half_baked and College2006. The whole rally was ridiculous, nothing more than a "Two Minutes Hate" on the Review (and it was a rally against the Review, make no mistake) which lasted over an hour. What I found most disturbing were the frequent calls to make the Principle of Community actually enforceable by the COS. The day that happens is the day free speech dies on this campus.</p>

<p>Congrats to all involved for taking a situation that could have led to meaningful results and instead playing favorites and polarizing the campus even more.</p>

56

<p>Did any of you guys think that our Atheltic Director was completely out of bounds and utterly unprofessional in criticizing the University of South Dakota and apologizing to the Native Americans on behalf of them for any "emotional distress" their hockey team coming to Dartmouth would cause?</p>

<p>This news made the Boston Globe and Espn.com, and I just think Dartmouth College should be more responsible and professional before making comments about other schools. This Athletic Director, in my opinion, needs to apologize to the University of South Dakota and their Native American community.</p>

57

<p>Just to clarify some fact about the party that is being mentioned a lot here:</p>

<p>The theme of the party was not "cowboys, farm animals and indigenous peoples." It was a semi-formal party to celebrate the first crew race of the fall. Close to 90 people attended. One girl wore a Native American style shirt, 2 other people wore some feathers. That was it. 3 rogue people who had a stupid, insensitive idea. Furthermore, I have no idea where the "farm animals" part of the purported theme came from -- that is a total fabrication made after the fact.</p>

<p>The true theme of the party had nothing to do with Native Americans or cowboys. The party was registered to use the (college-owned) space under “The Green Monster [name of the season’s first race] Dance.” Thus, the intimation that a “cowboys and indians” theme party sanctioned by the college is wrong.</p>

58

<p>Some facts and fun:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2006/11/28/%09indigenous_peoples_cause_outrage.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2006/11/28/%09indigenous_peoples_cause_outrage.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

59

<p>Everyone is so f-ing sensitive its disgusting. I'm offended by Dartmouth apologizing for playing North Dakota in hockey because UND's mascot is the Fighting Sioux. This is not offensive. Is Fighting Irish? Hell no... There is no possible way that the Dartmouth Review would even be running if dartmouth were 85% Democrat lol. Its probably 50-50 with the administration being quite leftist.</p>

60

<p>What's this we're seeing here? A conservative revival and/or backlash perhaps? So this is the net result of the protest... it's always nice to see your predictions come true.</p>