<p>ConLax, just because there is a conservative paper, doesn't mean that most of the campus isnt liberal. This is most definitely a very liberal campus. i doubt that youd find many conservatives OR liberals that would disagree with that statment. While I can't personally attest to it being exactly 85%, it is certainly a large, large majority.</p>
<p>I think it's important to understand that there are varying degrees of liberalism and conservatism at Dartmouth. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of campus is moderate to liberal, with a vocal, yet minority conservative presence.
However, I think that many of those students who identify as liberals also consider themselves conservative regarding campus issues. Athletes and Greek members tend to align more with the views expressed in the Dartmouth review and would like to preserve their valued activities at the College, rather than see it succumb to excessive political correctness and become a second-rate version of Harvard.</p>
<p>I consider myself a liberal in terms of national politics, yet I tend to agree with many of the views expressed by the Review concerning the Dartmouth campus and environment.</p>
<p>Frankly, this whole rally affair has made me sick to my stomach. It is ridiculous that such miniscule affairs have been taken to this extreme. People really need to calm down and act like adults. Moreover, the bureaucracy of the College really needs to be addressed.</p>
<p>I couldn't agree more.</p>
<p>Well-said, Ivyman. I have somewhat bemusedly witnessed this spectacle over the past few weeks, and have come to the conclusion that the very overreaction of the NAD and administration have made this issue of "racism" achieve the weight it has on this campus. </p>
<p>I consider myself a conservative-turned-moderate, and regularly read both the Review and DFP, as well as a few other campus publications. I'm also a member of a rather progressive Greek organization, and have several American Indian friends here. I fail to see how any of the incidences the NAD have brought to life were overtly racist. The Indian head cane? Probably a simple oversight on the part of the calendar organizers. The crashing of the drum circle? Simple idiotic drunkenness, though I do find this event a bit troubling. The Indian and Crusader t-shirt? No doubt inappropriate, but I'd see far more cause for concern were the positions reversed. The NAD seem to even be grasping at straws to find supposed incidents of racism: they immediately jumped on the news that a carload of individuals had heckled American Indians on campus (this turned out to be the actions of a few VT highschoolers who are now being disciplined).</p>
<p>The letter from the athletic director regarding the UND Fighting Sioux seemed almost laughable in the overdramatization of the impending hockey match. Read it from a neutral viewpoint, and you'll see what I mean. On the converse, the Review's cover was found inflammatory by many on campus. Of course it was--that's how the Review attracts attention to itself! Though I don't agree with everything written within, I (and many others on campus) would at least grudgingly admit that the Review contains the most cerebral and scholarly articles of any of the regular campus publications.</p>
<p>The rally, which I briefly passed by, definitely seemed to have a "two minutes' hate" quality to it, and was a creepy mirroring of Freedman's rally over the Nazi quote inserted into the Review's letterhead more than a decade ago. I lost a bit of my respect for President Wright after seeing and hearing about his role in the controversy. </p>
<p>Food for thought: why does the NAD concentrate its efforts on exacerbating these trivialities on campus when there are real issues to be solved? For example, most of the nation's poorest counties lie within Indian reservations (especially prevalent in South Dakota). Even partial solutions/improvements to issues like this--almost inevitable were the same time devoted to them as to this recent rally--would earn me far more respect for the American Indian contingent of our community here.</p>
<p>We here at Dartmouth have student from the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota Nations. They are offended by the mascot that ND uses. I do not believe that any of the Native Nations in ND support this mascot.</p>
<p>If you guys seriously doubt if the Indian Mascot is offensive I suggest you read the statement released by the APA. The largest group of psychologists in the United States has done SCIENTIFIC research into the use of Native Americans as mascots. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is offensive to Native Americans. It surprises me when people tell me and other Native Americans what should offend us and what should not. When we tell you that it offends us why do you question it?</p>
<p>I don't question that it offends you; as a matter of fact, I don't presume to know anything about anyone based on their race, history, sex, or any other characterisitc. But the fact that somethiing offends a group of people is NOT a reason to reject that thing or symbol, nor is a reason to censor. Do you have any non-partisan reasons (ie, other than "i don't like it") why censorship is warranted in this instance?</p>
<p>The mascot sure isn't offensive to me. If it's offensive to you, I suggest that you personally should not wear it or advocate it, but please stop short of telling me what I can and can't say, think, and advocate. Just like people shouldn't tell Native Americans what should and shouldn't offend them, the Native American community shouldn't be able to tell the whole college what is and isn't offensive.</p>
<p>who cares? like honestly....move on</p>
<p>The campus has not censored anything and even said that free speech will allow people to say hurtful things. No one has told you what to do they have just said that it is offensive.</p>
<p>The use of the Indian mascot is offensive and racist. The college has basically said that it does not support what has happened. I came to this college under a fallacy. I was sent so much literature on how welcoming and supporting the community was for Native American students. I come here and it is absolutely hostile. </p>
<p>I seriously believe that the rally and statement by the president was to make aware the issues that have been facing the Native American community. So few people even knew what we were facing before the statement by the president.</p>
<p>edit: i truly hope you are not a Dartmouth student fendey516, comments like that is what causes a major problem. Atleast half_baked has an argument you are just trying to cause a fight.</p>
<p>The reason that it should not be used by colleges and discouraged from these institutions is because of scientific research conducted by the APA</p>
<p>Here is a few select quotes from them. A group which is non-partisan.</p>
<p>"The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 150,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 53 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare. "</p>
<p>"WHEREAS the continued use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities establishes an unwelcome and often times hostile learning environment for American Indian students that affirms negative mages/stereotypes that are promoted in mainstream society"</p>
<p>"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association supports and recommends the immediate retirement of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams, and organizations."</p>
<p>The research conducted by the APA is compelling, and only further reenforces my opposition to the Indian mascot; however, this doesn't change the core argument that the college and students of the college have a RIGHT to advocate and use the Indian mascot. It also doesn't change the fact that the tactics employed at the rally were not only wrong but tyrannical.</p>
<p>There were at least two speakers at the rally who called for the college to enforce the Principles of Community and take disciplinary action against those who broke it, particularly the staff of the Review. The notion that people can be penalized for what they think, say, and express is not only absurd but is a direct encroachment on the pillars of the Western liberal democratic tradition; I refuse to stand by and allow our society to be eroded and attacked.</p>
<p>What really upsets me about what you said is the fact that you believe a college should have the right to advocate the use of a mascot that is offensive. It has been proven that this mascot effects the performance of Native Students and lowers their self-esteem. These mascots have created a hostile environment that many students cant even stand. You believe that an institution of higher learning should be able to discriminate a group of people. This to me is against what a college stands for. It should create an environment that is open and welcoming to all students from all backgrounds. We come here for an education, not to have our people and beliefs mocked.</p>
<p>The only problem that I had with the last issue of the review was the extremely offensive and hateful picture on the front of the newspaper with the headline "The Natives are getting restless". Why would you put something that hateful on your cover. You had to of known it would offend members of this community. I got sick to my stomach after looking at it and really questioned whether my decision to enroll at Dartmouth was the correct thing to do. The rally really helped me affirm my decision to come here. I am glad that people came together to say that the image was totally uncalled for. One of the reviews advisors even said that it was uncalled for.</p>
<p>Also adding a quick note. Did you hear about the incident at Johns Hopkins University about the Halloween in the Hood party? About how this party was considered racist and immediate action was both taken by the college and frat that hosted it. How do you feel about that issue? I feel as though the incidents at Dartmouth have been just as bad if not worse. Are you saying it was wrong for JHU to condemn that party? For them to investigate the acts of racism? Or are you just saying that Native Americans are such a small minority that their voices should not count as much as African Americans? How do you think that we felt when these incidents occurred and nothing came out of it. For a truly inclusive environment the college had to denounce these actions. If they did not this campus would not be welcoming to Native American students.</p>
<p>To be honest, I'll admit that I wasn't a huge fan of the cover either. I mean, I think it's a good joke and political cartoon of recent events, and that it wasn't wrong or inethical per se, but still, I don't think I would have used it given the chance.</p>
<p>As far as the JHU party goes, I don't think the college should have investigated it. I don't get what you're accusing me of. I don't think that institutions like government or colleges should decide what is and isn't acceptable speech. It doesn't matter what the race of the party in question is.</p>
<p>Half-baked: continue the fight to assert the importance of free speech.</p>
<p>John: Dartmouth has done so much for Native Americans already. Examples: Native American house, affirmative action (without which many if not most Native Americans would not be here), special programs, etc. Dartmouth has done so much for you, and I feel Native Americans should appreciate what Dartmouth has already done. Instead, all I hear are overreactions to a Cowboy and Indian Party, dubious claims of "racist" policies like the Indian cane picture, and bitterness.</p>
<p>half-baked...i disagree with you on one point...you have to preserve the safety of your students...you cannot let hate get to the point where students do not see any support from the administration and thus take matters into their own hands...which may have disastrous consequences</p>
<p>Josh_AK...i completely agree with you about the native american mascot being offensive, and thus i think the administration made the right decision in removing it...however, OTHER institutions (Florida St., for example) has connections with tribes, such as the Seminoles, who fully ENDORSE the college...why is this wrong?...why would this cause a Dartmouth student to feel emotional distress, as our Athletic Director claims...Wouldn't this cause Native Americans to be happy that tribes such as the Seminoles are widely appreciated by the school and its students...also Josh, I think all this "hate" has been way overblown by propaganda all throughout the college...yes, there are racists on campus, but MOST of our campus is NOT racist...and therein lies the mistake of the NADs...did you see their ad in the "D"?...FACTUALLY INCORRECT in many, many parts?...why aren't they held accountable for that?...there are two extremes to every debate, and in this case, both made mistakes and had their faults</p>
<p>The administration made the fault in taking sides with one of the extremes and alienating the rest of the non-racist campus.</p>
<p>And finally, I really hope you stay at Dartmouth Josh because >95% of the people are much, much better than you might think now. You'll get racists on any campus, but you'll never get as nice people as you'll encounter at Dartmouth.</p>
<p>The mascot issue is far more complex then that College2006, The Florida Seminoles support the mascot but the fraction of the tribe that was relocated to OK does not support it. Which side should we side with? </p>
<p>Also the ad that appeared in the D was not released by NAD. It was released by the Native American council which is composed of Native American faculty of the college. And what is incorrect in the ad that they posted?</p>
<p>While many of the factual issues are addressed in the Review articles, and there are numerous issues with the definition of "racism" in the ad, I'd instead focus on the interplay between the ad and President Wright's letter, which are obviously intended to be seen as intertwined.</p>
<p>The idea that all offense must be responded to, let alone requires an administrative response, is a very dangerous concept. If you demand it, other groups can just as easily demand it. Al-Nur could have prevented Daniel Pipes from speaking a few years ago; Dartmouth Coalition for Life could try to prevent the College from selling birth control or referring abortions; Hillel and Chabad could take offense that Dartmouth holds classes on Rosh Hashanah; Aquinas House could take offense that Dartmouth holds classes on Good Friday. Though some of these may sound innocuous, things could go even farther; once you create a basis for banning things or for administrative condemnation of things based on what a minority (religious, ethnic, campus group, etc.) deems offensive, you've opened up a monstrous can of worms.</p>
<p>What if Protestants want to destroy the Orozco murals--something which certainly portrays them in an offensive manner? This would be the same as what destroying the Hovey murals would be--a modern-day equivalent of book-burning. Or if atheists could demand the destruction of Rollins Chapel, on the grounds that it offends them that the College insists that there is a God? Claims of offense do not always merit action, and definitely not from the administration.</p>
<p>I very much agree. These are all concrete examples of the post-structuralist argument I presented in my previous posts. There's an elastic concept of political correctness that can be expanded or contracted at will to funnel power into the hands of the establishment, and can be used to crush dissent and maintain the status quo order. The result is the marginalization and elimination of groups outside the norm, the genocide of free thought - or, as Agamben would put it, "the dream of modern power."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or if atheists could demand the destruction of Rollins Chapel, on the grounds that it offends them that the College insists that there is a God? Claims of offense do not always merit action, and definitely not from the administration.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's much more likely that fundamentalists and evangelicals will insist on the burning of all atheists on the ground that they offend them. But I see your point.</p>
<p>I will grant you that the College is currently run by a pack of fascist *****.</p>
<p>I am generally a moderate conservative. That said, I am very open-minded, and I am certainly not a racist. I do not view other races and ethnicities as being inferior or even as being different. I also certainly do not want to divide our campus. I think most people will say the same thing. I think the problem here is that it is not clear why or how the Indian mascot is racist. It does not demean or belittle the rich and complex heritage. The matter here is certainly not the same as JHU's. The party there, from what I have seen, heard, and read, was somewhat derogatory and, even if not intentional, may have portrayed the African-American community in a negative way. The crew formal here was not like that at all, if that's what you are trying to compare it to. There was no malicious intent. Also, Josh, I would be interested to know your opinion on Notre Dame's Fighting Irish. Do you believe that is racist? Also, why do you believe that the Indian mascot is racist? Isn't there a difference between offensive and racist? I suppose I could understand if you were to simply say that it was offensive (not as though I would understand why, but thats besides the point, and certainly not even my issue) but you are taking it one step further and saying that it is racist. How do mascots belittle that which they represent? What about UPenn's mascot, the Quakers? Is that offensive? None of this is in vain. I fully respect Native Americans just as I do anyone else. I do not identify people by race, and I am not being racist when I say any of this. Oh, and just for the record, I fully believe that the Review's cover was offensive, and meant to be offensive, and that I do not really support. I think that was definitely a step too far. Aside from the cover though, the Review is full of good points. How do you respond to those?...just wondering.</p>