We have previously discussed attacks on both faculty and students for expressing opposing views of the current protests or their underlying causes, including a recent case at Georgetown where a student was censured by the student senate. Now, over 1000 students and faculty members have signed a letter to the Dartmouth Board of Trustees to disassociate the school from the conservative student newspaper, the Dartmouth Review. The letter accuses the newspaper of “hateful ideologies” and “racist” columns, including one cited column objecting to the careless use of the word “racist.” There were two striking aspects to this story. First, the Dartmouth Review (which counts such conservative figures as filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza and Fox anchor Laura Ingraham among its alumni) has always been an independent newspaper. Second, the reason stated by the organizers to move against the newspaper in part because of a recent controversy involving an alumni who resigned from Fox News.
The Review website states that it was was founded in 1980 to “question stale academic orthodoxy and to preserve Dartmouth College’s unique liberal arts character.”
The petition cites some columns that the Review has previously self-condemned for racist tropes or language. However, the organizers admit that they decided to move against the newspaper as a way to responding to the controversy surrounding the resignation of a Fox producer with Tucker Carlson. Blake Neff is a 2013 graduate of Dartmouth and Review alumni. He was found to have written a series of bigoted anonymous comments.
Diana Whitney ’95, says that attacking the newspaper was viewed as a way to respond to the Neff story. Laura Tyson Li ’85 came up with the idea of the letter to force the Board to prove its antiracism by attacking the newspaper, which had no role in Neff’s misconduct: “We thought, how can the senior leadership of Dartmouth, President Hanlon and the trustees write this letter to every member of the community, and then continue in silent complicity with a publication that since its inception has consistently been an incubator of racist hate and white supremacy?”
Whitney is an author who cites bylines in the New York Times and Washington Post. Yet, she is leading an effort to punish student authors.
What Whitney calls “silent complicity” is the Board not actively opposing the conservative newspaper. The failure actively target the newspaper is now viewed as de facto tolerance for racism even after the school issued a letter proclaiming its support for Black Lives Matter.
The student editors have objected that the cited articles in recent publications do not contain racist attacks but rather criticism of prevailing views on racism. The student editors note that one of “insidiously racist pieces of recent years” was a piece on the careless use of “racist” and “sexist” labels. It also cites the fact that the newspaper uses a logo containing the image of Dartmouth’s iconic weathervane, which the university removed earlier in 2020 as offensive to Native Americans.
The student editors address the criticism in an article, titled “An Overdue Response to the College Jacobins.” The editors wrote “Notably, the petitioners also botched the College’s mission statement, strategically editing ‘the vigorous and open debate of ideas within a community marked by mutual respect,’ to specifically exclude ‘vigorous and open debate,’ but this frankly isn’t markedly surprising.”
As a blog committed to free speech issues, the concern over this controversy is obvious. There are routinely over-heated rhetoric in college newspapers including many reckless statements from faculty and students on the left. We have defended many of those speakers and writers. However, the first response of many Dartmouth graduates to the Neff story was to seek to attack the leading conservative newspaper on campus in part for its prior association with Neff.
The effort to deny the use of “Dartmouth” is clearly meant to marginalize and exclude these conservative students. What is being lost in such moves is the diversity of thought on campus. These student editors contribute to a passionate dialogue on these issues. Graduates like Whitney can voice their own views and write their own columns. Instead, they are seeking to pressure the university to marginalize students who want to participate in these debates from a conservative viewpoint.
Adrienne Lotson ’82, is quoted as saying the newspaper should never have been allowed to use the name of the college where all of the writers and editors are students:
“Dartmouth lost an opportunity in the 1980s when the Review was founded to make a firm standing on not using the Dartmouth name. People are always talking about free speech issues, this isn’t a matter of shutting down the paper, this is a matter of not using the Dartmouth name.”
It is about free speech when you are seeking to marginalize or exclude students because you disagree with their views. This is a successful student newspaper with decades of columns and alumni. It is part of the diverse fabric of the university with more liberal publications and student groups. There is every reason why these students would identify with the college where they study and write. Moreover, the letter includes the demand that the university “hold student staffers accountable for their bigotry.” Lotson is accusing these students of being racist and demanding punishment for their writings. That is a free speech issue. The letter leaves such allegations on a highly generalized level while seeking potential expulsion for student writers.
Lotson is also demanding that the Board prove its commitment against racism by acting against this conservative newspaper: “What we are looking for is a bold, broad statement of the newspaper and the division it has sown at Dartmouth.”
The petition below is just five relatively short paragraphs (including one on Neff) that makes sweeping claims of racism, sexism, and other abuses without any discussion of specific language or the context for the writings. When you are calling for possible expulsion of college students, there should be an obligation to do more than labeling unspecified claims of racism and sexism. It links to four “insidiously racist pieces” but only two are from 2020.
February 5th, 2020: “On Moral Currency”
January 22, 2020: “Bridging the Gap: Affirmative Action”
May 8th, 2017: “The Problems of Affirmative Action”
November 7th, 2016: “In Defense of Milo Yiannopoulos”
The first article by Ethan Y. Cai is written by a minority student who explores what he considers to be reckless use of racism labels and discusses his own encounters with race-based insults:
“I hesitate to call what I experienced “racism.” Not that many of my negative experiences weren’t largely based on my race—they certainly were. I hesitate to call it “racism” because what I went through wasn’t all that bad. Every specific label for a problem implies a certain response. When we call something “racist” we expect people to rise up and fix the problem. In a perfect world, everything even slightly “racist” would be fixed. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world, we live in a real world—one defined by limited supply and unlimited demand.”
The second 2020 article is by another minority student, Zachary Z. Wang, who explores what the logic of affirmative action and the author’s disagreement with it:
The liberal point of view uses the principle of regression towards the mean to explain how affirmative action will swiftly correct for racial inequality. Regression towards the mean states that under the circumstance of many trials, the average of those trials will eventually approach the mean (the actual true value).
Since many minorities have been displaced to the lower end of opportunity due to systematic oppression, liberal logic states that by using affirmative action to continually place them above the mean—giving them easier access to more competitive schools—eventually the average academic performance of these minorities will approach the actual average academic performance in society. When these two means of academic performance are equivalent, then affirmative action is no longer needed. This is logically sound reasoning, and everyone should be in favor of equal opportunity for those of all demographics (this operates under the assumption that all races are equally capable of the same level of academic performance, which I believe to be the case).
None of the context or language is quoted, let alone addressed. Rather, the petition simply makes sweeping allegations of
“malicious and dishonest “conservatism” through vituperative ad hominem attacks, covert and overt racism, vicious taunting and race-baiting, and blatant homophobia and misogyny. BIPOC students, faculty, and staff have been harmed by this bastion of racism on campus, as have Jewish people, women, and members of the LGBTQ community.”
Those labels can ruin a student’s future. Yet, two students are cited as vehement racists without the slightest effort to address their viewpoints or claims of non-racist reasons for the columns. I am particularly surprised to see faculty sign such a letter attacking student authors. The signatories include Professors Mary Desjardins, Eng-Beng Lim, Mark Williams, Mary Coffey, Jodie Mack, Annabel Martín, Katie Hornstein, Kristin O’Rourke, Desiree Garcia, Melissa Zeiger, Christopher MacEvitt, Peter Hackett, and Leslie Sonder. Professors Mary Desjardins, Desiree Garcia, Mark Williams, and Jodie Mack teach media studies at Dartmouth and yet have no qualms in signing this petition, including a call for the disciplining of student authors presumably based on these two columns. .
The university itself has declined (thus far) to make any gratuitous moves against the newspaper — citing its commitment to both protecting free speech and opposing racism. College spokesperson Diana Lawrence noted that the newspaper is “not a recognized student organization and receives no funding or support from Dartmouth.” She added:
“All students, faculty, and staff enjoy the freedom to speak, write and listen, and are encouraged to challenge ideas, in pursuit of better learning and understanding. However, bias or discrimination in any form — including racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia — are contrary to Dartmouth values.”
Here is the petition: Dartmouth Petition
124 thoughts on ““Incubator of Racist Hate And White Supremacy”: Dartmouth Faculty and Students Demand Action Against Conservative Newspaper and Columnists”
Jonathan: Boy, you have been on a tear lately in not only defending but promoting “conservative” speech at university campuses. Now it’s the Dartmouth Review (DR). The DR states that its mission is to “question stale academic orthodoxy”. But it’s much more than that. DR’s real mission is to get rid of affirmative action programs at Dartmouth. In 1980, the year DR was founded, it commented: “Institutionalized racism does indeed exist–in the form of the practice called ‘affirmative action'”. DR has fought against Dartmouth’s inclusion policies–promoting the recruitment of black students and black faculty. DR would like to return to the original intent of Dartmouth’s founder, Eleazar Wheelock, who wanted the college to be for whites only. Dartmouth has a long history of discrimination. In 1945 Dartmouth admitted to a practice of using racial quotas to deny Jews entry into the college. Dartmouth didn’t start admitting women until 1972.
DR has created such a racist toxic environment at Dartmouth that one black faculty member resigned after continual harassment by DR and made it difficult for the college to recruit black students and black faculty members. That’s apparently fine with the DR writers and editors. DR is proud of its reputation as the backwater of extreme racist student views. In 1990 DR also attempted to stoke the toxic pot of anti-semitism. On the eve of Yom Kippur DR printed an excerpt from Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”: “,,by warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work”. The created such an uproar on campus that then DR editor-in-chief, Kevin Pritchell, had to apologize but claimed the Hitler quote was a act of “sabotage”. No one bought this excuse and it caused then Dartmouth president, James Freedman, a Jew, to remark: “Appalling bigotry of this kind has no place at a college in this country”. Even John McGovern, one of DR’s founders, condemned the incident as a “hateful, ignorant thing”.
So it is certainly true that the DR is an “incubator of racist hate and white supremacy”–and why 1000 faculty and students have called for the college to disassociate itself from DR. Frankly, I think the best way to deal with DR’s continued racist, sexist and homophobic diatribes is to ignore them. DR thrives on creating controversy, creating chaos that generates revenue and keeps them at the center of campus controversies. To ignore them would drive the student writers and editors at DR absolutely crazy! But in the current environment this is probably not possible.
And your entry in the controversy at Dartmouth has added to the “overheated rhetoric”. By defending the “conservative” student writers at DR you are actually promoting their racist views. If, as you say, they are making a contribution “to a passionate dialogue on these issues” then Hitler was also simply expressing his own “passionate” views about the Jews. We know how that ended!
So, defending free speech, is now considered defending conservative speech?
Then you just had to bring Hitler into it, with a nonsensical comparison.
And Leftist wonder why so many rational thinkers hate them.
“I am particularly surprised to see faculty sign such a letter attacking student authors.”
You are? Remember Duke University’s infamous Gang of 88 (and countless other such episodes)? Deriding students who dissent is de rigueur for those Stalinist faculty. They see themselves not as educators, but as propagandists. Their goal is not to develop intellectual virtues, but to mold blind followers.
The position of the liberal parties are the result and conclusion of anti-discrimination policies and rules. If someone is injured by acts of discrimination they have the right to seek after a remedy based on these rules. I believe, however, that anti-discrimination laws are intellectually wrong and that discrimination is necessary for the survival of responsible in-group performance traits, a sort of soft imperialism for each and every group trait, and that such differences can be tolerated, with one exception. As it is the liberal viewpoint that is intolerant, i would invite them to prove damages and seek compensation, and not cause harm to people who may or may not believe in the standards of anti-discrimination.
How soon after their first student payment will they understand that education requires thought.
What a wonderful surprise.
Classic example of children should be not seen and never heard. Apparently it appies to their ersatz social promotioned teaching staff as well.
“In March of 1921, I witnessed the clash of a three-person machine-gun squad with a demonstration march comprised of as many as 5,000 participants.—
A minute after the order to fire was given, the demonstrators vanished from the scene even though not one single person had been
injured. The sight of this event had something magical about it; it evoked that deep sense of delight which takes hold of one when an
ignoble demon is unmasked.”
— Ernst Junger, “On Pain”
Junger wrote ‘Storm of Steel’ too. It’s a wonderful book.
Junger wrote ‘Storm of Seel’ too. A wonderful book.
These modern liberal snowflakes make me think of the nuns I had too put up with in Catholic grammar school. God said so and I’m enforcing his rules. There aren’t too many women going into the convent these days. I think I know where they are going now.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
What the Professor (and I) object to is not, by any reasonable “Liberalism.” It is in fact, very illiberal Leftism.
Should have read: “What the Professor (and I) object to is not, by any reasonable DEFINITION OF THE WORD “Liberalism.” It is in fact, very illiberal Leftism.”
The US “Red Guard” faction continues to demand a Maoist-style tyranny. This disgusting, un-American behavior will spark a very nasty backlash. Then there will be tears; but sorry, not much sympathy from the rest of the USA.
Stockton University in New Jersey is seeking punishment of a student for having a Trump image in the background of a Zoom session.
The student was charged “with disruptive behavior, discrimination, harassment, creating a “hostile environment,” causing “harm” and cyberbullying. His violation? Using Trump’s image as his Zoom background during an online class July 1.” The College Fix has more:
The schools do not deserve to have students unless, perhaps, they are training the next generation of janitors. Come to think of it, they probably are doing that already.
Comment. Vomit. No yak at all
Where is my comment that I wrote to y’all?
Turley helped enable Trump to shut down free speech so the omnipotent Trump could hold up a bible. Turley says nothing when the impeached POTUS calls every media outlet fake news but FOX NEWS and OAnon. Turley seems to be bothered by students who want a say in what their colleges and universities say, do and what they invest in. The far right is antagonistic to anything that is not in their agenda, lies, malice, and delusional tax schemes, and the American people for the most part are aware that they have been lied to and taken for alternative facts joy ride. Students want more than just old stale ideas from the very same people that has gotten this country in the mess it is in.
Don’t get the facts right.
Rioting and arson are not free speach.
It was in 1776
It wasn’t and it wasn’t regarded as such. The politicians of the day were erudite men steeped in the classics, and they made it a point to justify and armed rebellion.
Hey Fish, yeah, 1776
We can resolve this conflict with organized violence too. Let’s find out who is stronger, I fully welcome this widespread criminal activity gelling into an open insurrection so it can be brutally crushed. or if somehow against all odds the soyboys and baggy pantsers can actually form into an insurgency, which i seriously doubt, so much the better, so that they can be wiped out and an even deeper settlement of all business may occur
I am past wringing my hands over the BLM riots, and have come to relish the prospect of them continuing until they receive the necessary attention they deserve
There were no US laws or constitution in 1776.
Um, ya, ok, LOL, cite any evidence you have, we will happily wait.
Comments are closed.