Dartmouth Review Delicately Enters Native American Debate
Pop quiz: You run a conservative campus publication. Tensions over Native American marginalization have been brewing for some time. Do you a) ignore the issue, b) address it as delicately as possible, or c) publish a 3,500-word philippic accusing the offended group of hypersensitivity and self-victimization inside an edition the cover of which depicts an Indian holding aloft a scalp?
If you picked (c), congratulations. We hope you enjoy your time on the Dartmouth Review editorial board.
Slow clap, fellas. Way to alienate everyone who might maybe have agreed with some of your points. Any reasonable points you may have made have been vaporized.
Members of Native Americans of Dartmouth (a student group with an unfortunate acronym) protested outside the Review offices at Dartmouth Hall yesterday. The AP quotes President James Wright telling the crowd:
"Like an open wound Dartmouth is hurting -- we have all been insulted. ... My Dartmouth, our shared Dartmouth, is one that condemns the deliberate mean-spiritedness that was demonstrated in the publication that was released yesterday."
What did Daniel Linsalata, the piece's author, have to say about the complaints by American Indian students, after such vivid condemnation across the board for his insensitivity? "They're out for blood, so to speak." Zing! Take that, Geronimo! Now go weave Dan some rugs.
42 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: Dartmouth, protests
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
November 30th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
PC sucks, the Review needs to stop publishing pictures from the early 1900’s and catch up with the times, whoever chose this cover was an idiot. A less blatant over with an Indian on it would’ve made the protesters look like fools for contesting a perfectly valid (and in my opinion, correct) point. The NADs also need to grow up and quit alleging racism for un-racist stuff (In reference to the ad in the D.) Whimps.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
This will date me, but I remember the “I hate hate” rally against the Revew after the Hitler quote imbroglio in 1990. Same shit, different year. Whenever the Review seems to be losing whatever relevance it had in the first place, it pulls some stunt to get the administration’s panties in a bunch. Why Parkhurst hasn’t figured this out in the last quarter century is beyond me.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
D94 nails it on the head: The Review loses its buzz and selects an incendiary image and Headline in order to attract attention. The article itself is pretty standard for the Review types. As a recent graduate, I can attest that fewer and fewer students read the Review every year…its pretty much six or seven people in a room, irregularly churning out mediocore book reviews and outdated screeds against the administration. This time around, they punctuated their usual banality by using a racist headline…just ignore the little bigots and they will resume their slow death.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Although the choice of cover was a bad one, the articles featured in the Review are actually worth reading. http://dartreview.com/
November 30th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
I agree with 2009hc. If anyone out there ‘might maybe’ want to read something worthwhile and well-written, look no further. http://dartreview.com/
November 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Not quite. Many of the Review’s arguments appear to be disingenuous. They are often guilty of what they accuse others to be: whiny, shrill, falsely outraged, ridiculous, and — if their campus reputations are correct — irregularly showered. If many of the Reviewers simply picked up a tube of Clearasil at the local pharmacy, a lot of their problems would probably disappear, and they might not find their brand of social-reject conservativism so appealing anymore. Let’s be serious, though: their main source of income is subscriptions purchased by cantankerous and bitter alumni. They’re a pretentiously-written tabloid.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
I’m not really sure how this silly rumor got started, but the Review, in my time at D, has rarely if ever been “worthwhile and well-written.” Just because our other campus publications also suck doesn’t mean the Review deserves any credit. Childish provocation and snide pretension are not signs of literary merit.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
nothing tickles me more than a group of privileged caucasians telling a group (which represents arguably one of the most exploited minorities in this country) that it is being “over-sensitive” or that being politically correct is tiring.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Read a book.
http://www.amazon.com/Dartmouth-Review-Pleads-Innocent-Controversial/dp/1932236937
November 30th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
“Nah” and “review this” obviously never read a copy of the Review. A publication doesn’t get a reputation for being unarguably the most well-written for nothing. Bitter liberals.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Rumor: There was a contentious meeting of the Dartmouth Review recently, the business side was pushing for an apology. The writers (alums from the 80s and 90s) refused.
Correction: The protest yesterday wasn’t outside the review offices. It was in front of Dartmouth Hall. It was organized by members of the Student Government and more.
— Forwarded bulletin from Class Council X —
>From: Class Council X
>Subject: TODAY!!
>Date: 29 Nov 2006 09:22:42 -0500
>Bulletin Topic:
>Expires: 30 Nov 2006 09:22:00 -0500
**********SOLIDARITY AGAINST HATRED**********
When: TODAY 2-3PM (Nov. 29)
Where: In front of DARTMOUTH HALL
WEAR DARTMOUTH GEAR and UMBRELLAS
********************************************************
This event will be attended by national press!!!
********************************************************
Come engage in a CIVIL DISCOURSE about issues that are threatening the solidarity of the Dartmouth community.
This is OUR home, OUR school, OUR community, so come and RALLY for a better Dartmouth!!!
Supported By: African American Society, College Democrats, Dartmouth Progressives, Dartmouth Free Press, Inter-Community Council, La Alianza Latina, MEChA, Native Americans at Dartmouth, The Tabard, The Tucker Foundation, Women of Color Collective
November 30th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Covers are meant to grab attention. This has obviously grabbed attention. Im sure more people have and will read the editorial because of the stir the cover has caused. I heard their website got 60,000 hits yesterday because of all this. If an ugly cover gets a well written (pretty accurate) editorial read by 10x as many people as normal, it has succeeded, no matter how many people it makes “feel bad.”
November 30th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Whether the Review is or is not well-written is actually somewhat immaterial. Whatever credibility the Review could have with average Dartmouth students and alumni — people who are neither radical, “bitter” liberals nor frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives — is undermined by its repeated use of incendiary and, frankly, juvenile pictures and headlines.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Actually, the website got 87,000 hits.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
d ‘09, you were wearing diapers when I was riding with training wheels. I’ve been at this school long enough to have read the Review dozens of times. Reviewers can use as many Kaplan SAT study guide words as they like; their vocabulary will not make up for their vacuousness. It may be hard for you to understand that one need not be a liberal to think that the Review is childish and that this is but the most recent example of their perennial and desperate cries for relevance and attention.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
It’s hard to claim the Review is ‘irrelevant’ compared to other campus publications. It spearheaded a successful attempt to kill the recent alumni constitution for starters. And when was the last time another Dartmouth publication found itself the subject of a campus-wide protest. The Review managed to do so twice in its relatively brief history.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Oh, come on, D, everybody claims to have spearheaded the successful attempt to kill the recent alumni constitution. The Review may be relevant in terms of the passions that flare up on campus every now and then, but in terms of any kind of intelligent discourse, it has long since lost any credibility.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Nah, if you think being well written means using Kaplan SAT words, you should not even be discussing the matter. And how can you tell me that Linsalata’s article wasnt “intelligent discourse”? It was certainly more articulate and convincing than anything else I have heard from the other side, and Im Native. Oh and PS folks, dont be tricked into thinking this little crying game of the NAD’s represents all the Natives at Dartmouth, because it doesnt. Some of us are pretty embarassed.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
D, I think you missed the point of my comment. I don’t think that that is what being well-written means, and yet I think that that is what the Review mostly has to offer. Linsalata’s editorial, like many Review articles and editorials, seemed to focus too much on small issues, like how NAD went about doing what it did. What is truly important is their overall point regarding the Dartmouth community. The Review rarely discusses issues based on their merits, and instead focuses on whoever is espousing them, or how they are espousing them. Clearly, if somebody is expressing herself in a way that actually inhibits discourse, then that needs to be addressed before any discussion can happen. I do not think that NAD went about things so horribly that they inhibited discourse, however. While they made some mistakes, they certainly did not hurt people in the same manner that the Review has done. The Review’s feigned outrage — I say “feigned,” because one really would have to be full of hot air to get so upset about something as silly and harmless as ineffective political correctness gone awry; and I say “outrage,” because the Review is often as guilty of the shrill foot-stamping of which they so often accuse others — has actually served to stifle discourse much more effectively than even the most idiotic political correctness could. They do it to sell papers; they don’t really care about the issues. It’s disingenuous. At the same time, it’s humorous to watch people such as yourself buy into their meticulously-crafted aura of the reasoned underdog fighting academic liberalism gone mad — as humorous as it is to watch dupes get riled up by their desperate cries for attention (and the renewed subscriptions of their hoary and crotchety alumni supporters).
November 30th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Wow, you are clearly retarded. The Review is making desperate cries for attention? The NADs actually *ARE* crying. Over what? Emotional blah. “That picture makes me feel bad.” Yeah well you arent a Mohawk, and you arent the person pictured in the 19c lithograph. If they take a picture of YOU, and put “fat, lazy, native american at Dartmouth” on the cover, then whine.
And intelligent discourse? The second you start talking about nothing but emotion and feelings and “hurtfulness” you are removing the thing from the realm of intelligent conversation. No, I cant argue with the NADs about how they “feel,” no one can answer that, people cry over millions of things every day. Who is to say what is and isnt worth crying over? What I can tell them is that if they dont think it represents them, then it isnt worth their time, and warn them that this kind of thing will *not* fly in the real world, work place, etc. Employers dont have time for emotional distractions. Not from bitchy fat white women, not from gays who “arent understood”, not from NADs who hate that someone in the office supports the Cleveland Indian.
And yes, whining about North Dakota coming to a tournament is essentially the same thing as whining that your boss loves Cleveland. Both are their right, and neither have anything to do with you.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:22 am
D, if the only way you can respond is by saying “wow, you’re a retard,” then all I can do is sit back and laugh. You’re bringing in all kinds of crazy stuff to this argument that really has nothing to do with the matter. Only the socially-inept think that emotions, feelings, and the like have nothing to do with intelligent conversation. See: Reviewers. See: Haven’t been laid in 18-22 years. And now the intelligent discourse ends.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:29 am
And Intelligent Conversation/Response = Yeah well they havent had sex in like, forever? Not a very powerful argument there, Nah
December 1st, 2006 at 12:05 pm
It was a joke, and wasn’t meant to be an argument. But the notion that emotions and feelings never enter into, are never relevant to, are never the subject of, or are never the sole concern of any kind of intelligent discourse is preposterous. D07’s argument goes all over the place and doesn’t make much sense, employing straw men, red herrings, and circular appeals to the “real world.” I didn’t really see the point in continuing it.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:08 pm
oh give me a break. “Employers dont have time for emotional distractions. Not from bitchy fat white women, not from gays who “arent understood”, not from NADs who hate that someone in the office supports the Cleveland “Indian.”
and i really don’t have time to hear white men bitch about the reason why they did not get a job or to their college of choice is because affirmative action- how its reverse racism and that basically any woman or minority does not have the technical skills (even though they do not know that)
and this is just an example of your argument regarding discourse of emotion and feelings because of course, white men in this country are marginalized due to affirmative action and i’ve heard enough ‘emotional’ whining of working extremely hard and just not getting the job and being discriminated against.
and to comment on:
“And intelligent discourse? The second you start talking about nothing but emotion and feelings and “hurtfulness” you are removing the thing from the realm of intelligent conversation.”
it’s not emotion and feelings and hurtfulness. as an 07, i think you missed what exactly happened this term. there were INCIDENTS in which native americans were marginalized. as a consequence, they were emotionally hurt. meaning that when you use native american imagery on t-shirts depicting a lewd act and you interrupt what was supposed to be a solemn ceremony, it is not the emotional upheaval we should talk about – it’s the fact that these incidents HAPPENED.
get it? you may say that NAD community is using the word racism too much and in the wrong ways. you may also say that it is out of dartmouth’s jurisdiction to regulate what other colleges might use as their mascot. i too am of the opinion that there are some points and issues that can be argued reasonably.
however, we should look at the source of “emotional whining” rather than focus on the emtional whining itself.
coming full circle, you can make the argument that the poor white male who lacks the resources and means to get a reasonable education is being discriminated against versus a minority with a wealthy background that may have went to a rich private school that had better resources and networking opportunities. point is – look at the source of the emotional whining, the incidents that occurred, versus calling it emotional whining and saying that this doesn’t fly in the real world.
with a lawsuit happy country like the US, you better believe it that if the incidents that occurred at darmouth happened in the workplace, you’ll be seeing it in the media. so these employers do have time for those “emotional distractions”.
if you don’t think so, please go call one of your co-workers a fat, ugly, white bitch; a faggot; and a nigger and see how fast this “emotional distraction” occurs.
just in case anyone without a brain tries to do this, i’m being sarcastic.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:31 pm
The most liberal person I know just read the Review article that’s being deemed “racist.” His response? “For once I completely agree, the NADs need to grow up and stop acting like pussies.”
December 1st, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Yeah, he sounds like a real bleeding heart.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:02 pm
This isn’t a question of liberalism versus conservativism. I don’t consider myself a liberal or a conservative, and yet I found the Review’s actions to be incredibly stupid. I think that NAD made some mistakes in its attempt to bring a particularly important issue to the forefront of discussion, but they were entirely harmless (the actions of Josie Harper are her own to bear, on the other hand). The Review, on the other hand, consistently blows errors such as those made by NAD out of proportion in order to excite its paleo-conservative subscription demographic. Its white-haired readers love reading about how their political correctness gone rampant. They’re not presenting any sort of reality or intellectually confronting any issue; they’re causing hype and drama in order to sell subscriptions. They should be ignored by both the Left and the Right for their stupidity and intellectual irrelevance.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:23 pm
i’m just tired of listening to review members talk about how the liberals at dartmouth are trying to silence free speech in favor of political correctness. having been present at the meeting where we decided to stage a rally, as well as at the rally itself, the point was definitely not to get rid of the review. i think we all understand that the review is going to be around our campus regardless of what we do.
however, as stated in the rally, just because one has the right to print almost anything, it doesn’t always mean that it is the correct, moral, or respectful thing to do. we all have different opinions of what is correct, but i think that the deliberate disregard of other’s feelings on this campus is frightening.
the authors of these articles must have known how they would be personally offensive to members of their own community. free speech is important to protect, but i don’t think something must be so hurtful to people around us in order to protect this right.
review members may disagree with me, but i think that this issue crossed the line, and the responses of the people responsible are even worse. to stand there, deliberately hurting others around you, and to never apologize for your behavior and instead justify it under the guise of free speech?
unacceptable. and i feel that much of campus would agree with me on this.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:30 pm
There is a strong tradition political philosophy which contends that speech acts whose specific purpose is actually to stifle speech are not protected by any kind of right to free speech. The Review’s speech act actually undermined discourse by making discussion nearly impossible; the community has yet to get over the passions that they intentionally flared. The Review has no interest in dialogue or discussion. Pansies like Linsalata are just interested in furthering their own career prospects in the lowly world of political punditry, where we all know nothing resembling actual discourse exists.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Wow, Slampig, you’re an idiot. There are no “alums from the 80s/90s” who write for the review. Do you know what student-run means? Maybe alums from your school spend their free time penning articles for a student newspaper.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Actually, Shasha, the Review is run by a board of alumni and donors from the 90s, 80s, and earlier. It is far from independent. Students carry out the basic administration and write most the articles (nearly every issue contains a recycled article from the 80s or 90s). The actual direction of the paper, however, is determined not by students but by these alumni. In situations such as these, it is their final call, not the students’. Moreover, the students must choose content that panders to the interests of their subscribers, who are mostly aged alumni. So, what was this talk of independence?
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:31 pm
I am deeply offended by the agism of the last post. How much longer must we be the victims of such hatred?
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:16 pm
If conservatives could crack better jokes they might get laid more often. Then again, they wouldn’t be conservatives, then. Humorless and sexless: O, cruel life!
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:32 am
If Lefties were brighter, more intelligent, they would have better — i.e., more imaginative — comebacks. O, cruel life!
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Martin, that “I know you are, but what am I?!!” comeback hardly helped your argument.
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Once again, you prove my point: If Lefties were brighter, more intelligent, they would have better — i.e., more imaginative — comebacks.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Dg07’s argument above about the cover being fine because it was effective in making people look at something (supposedly) worthwhile that they were neglecting is, to the say the least, idiotic.
By that logic, Dg, I should rape your sister on a street corner while I intelligently expound on…oh, I don’t know, globalization or something. Hey, it’ll draw a crowd and that’s what matters, right?
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Sir, stomping your feet and repeating the same thing over and over again doesn’t make you not suck. Or sexed. Sorry.
ACM, you’re more or less correct.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Look all I’m sayin’ is that if Lefties were brighter, more intelligent, they would have better — i.e., more imaginative — comebacks.
Also, I must say, you seem a little unsure about your sexuality.
December 4th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
And equating an exercise of freedom of speech with violence is totally fallacious, as much as leftists might love that tactic.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:39 am
Is it really necessary to have such a hateful and accusatory discourse? Why not discuss these issues like civilized human beings and respect each other? Then again, that’s what the Review was lacking in their article…
April 25th, 2007 at 1:46 am
I applaud them for having the balls to tell that bunch of whiners to shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.