NADs on the Warpath

By Daniel F. Linsalata | Tuesday, November 28, 2006

An elder of the tribe is talking with a young boy. He says to the boy “I am so very tired, because I have these two wolves inside of me and they are having a ferocious fight.” The child looks up at him with eyes that are wide with fright and curiosity. “What are they fighting about?” The elder says “One is full of rage, humiliation, envy, and violence because he feels he has been mistreated. The other wants justice, nurture, love, and prosperity.” The little boy is very concerned for his old friend. He asks, “Which wolf will win?” The elder man replies “Which ever one I feed.”
—Native American proverb

I’ll be one of the first people to admit that I thought the controversy over the Indian symbol at Dartmouth was all but dead. No logical person believes that it will ever return as part of the official or prominent iconography of the College. Yet in the absence of a suitable replacement for more than three decades now, the Indian remains a tangible symbol of Dartmouth for generations of students. It is the ingrained image of school spirit at Dartmouth, and an image which people are still eager to embrace. I am skeptical that the hundreds of students who buy and wear Dartmouth Indian apparel every year do so of out malicious intent. Likewise, should one believe that the dozens of football players and other athletes who get the Dartmouth Indian tattooed on their thigh every year are doing so precisely to offend a small minority? Wearing a logo because it looks cool (face it, it really does) and outwardly displays school spirit is a far cry from wearing it with the intention of offending everyone in sight.

And I had foolishly thought Dartmouth was frozen in this paradigm: the Indian remained an unofficial, but visible, token of school spirit, while Dartmouth’s Native American population would occasionally bemoan its use, but generally be content that the College no longer condoned it.

Something changed this fall, however. The sound of a single, irritable drum in the distance has given way to a full-on charge of the Native cavalry over the Hanover Plain, out to cut down everything in its path deemed offensive. It is as if a large, dust-covered quadrennial alarm clock in the Native American House suddenly sprung to life and alerted the Native Americans at Dartmouth (NADs), It’s time to start being angry again.

And angry they became. The climax of their anger was a two-page advertisement in the Daily D on November 20, paid for by the Native American Council (of which only two students are members), chronicling a “series of campus incidents that can only be described as racist.” The ad violently attacked not only the perpetrators of these events, but the entire campus, “complicit with racism,” and the administration, who failed to “respond swiftly and visibly by denouncing these acts.” The ad was wrought with factual inaccuracies—including matters as simple as dates—and conspicuously lacked any sort of demand for what ought to be done, or what the NADs ultimately hoped to achieve. Instead, they pulled no punches in attacking the entire community, freely bandying about buzzwords like “racism,” “offended,” “intolerance,” and “ignorance.”

Here I should pause to make a key distinction. Throughout this issue you will read many criticisms of the Native Americans at Dartmouth (NADs). Obviously, we are criticizing the students involved in the NADs’ juvenile ‘activism’ and not the wider body of College students with American Indian ancestry. Furthermore we do not accept the NAD organization’s implicit claim that it is the official mouthpiece of all Indian students at Dartmouth. The events of the past term have demonstrated that the NADs have sunk to the level of race-baiting frauds. They do not represent the interests of Indians at Dartmouth anymore than Al Sharpton represents American blacks.

Nevertheless, a number of administrators pandered to the charlatans by issuing missives apologizing to the Native community and promising them whatever further entitlements they felt necessary to rectify the situation. The low point came on November 21, when Athletic Director Josie Harper issued an apology for another school’s mascot.

That’s right: Dartmouth had to apologize for inviting the University of North Dakota, and its Fighting Sioux hockey team, to a tournament next month. Never mind that the tournament was booked two years ago, and the state of North Dakota has actively been fighting in court to keep its team name. Or that last year, the president of UND was made an honorary member of a Sioux tribe. Or that Dartmouth invited UND to the tournament because the school has one of the premier hockey programs in the country. None of that. Instead, Harper had to apologize for not foreseeing “the pain it will cause.” In an interview with the Manchester Union-Leader, a UND spokesman stated that he had never heard of another school apologizing for the Fighting Sioux team. And as numerous bloggers and reporters have pointed out, who is Dartmouth to criticize or dictate another’s school’s traditions and decisions?

I do not directly blame Harper for her embarrassing letter, however. It is merely a symptom of the environment the NADs have agitated to create, and the administration has actively accommodated.

The offending advertisement merits both explanation and analysis. However, because the NADs failed to reply to requests for an interview on this matter, my own analysis must suffice.

The ad begins with a list offensive events that have occurred through the course of fall term. At the head of the list is a protest, dated September 12 (the actual date was September 23—students weren’t even on campus September 12), at the offices of The Dartmouth Review. At the time, the Review was hosting its freshman open house, and giving away Dartmouth Indian t-shirts. The ad falsely categorized the event as “selling” the shirts—a surprising error, since the protestors themselves repeatedly entered the office to obtain the apparel which they summarily proceeded to deface. The factual errors in this item, whether intentional or merely careless, are nonetheless remarkably misleading and favorable to the NADs’ cause; I will let them speak for themselves.

Another item in the ad discusses a Gamma Delta Chi fraternity member selling t-shirts over homecoming, emblazoned with the phrase “Holy Cross Sucks,” and a line-drawn image of a Crusader fellating an Indian. The NADs found the shirts offensive not because of the lewd and sophomoric message, but because it portrayed an Indian. The Indian, in this case, was merely a proxy for Dartmouth as a whole, in the absence of another symbol which could evoke comparable school and athletic pride. Somehow, a Crusader on his knees in front of a large, amorphous blob of green lacks the same punch.

The final “racist” incident, classified as “ongoing,” is the presence of the Humphries murals in the Hovey Grill, which depicts, in parody, the lyrics of the old Dartmouth drinking song, Eleazar Wheelock (for a further analysis of the murals, see page eight). The ad bemoans the possibility that the College might actually preserve the offending artworks when Thayer Dining Hall is razed in the near future. The not-so-subtly implied question is, “We don’t like them, so why haven’t they been destroyed yet?” By comparison, the Orozco murals in the Reserve Corridor of Baker Library are explicitly anti-Protestant, yet the College makes a point of glorifying them on every tour and publicity event.

The three aforementioned “racist” events share a striking common denominator: they are nothing new. The Review gives away Indian shirts as part of the recruiting drive every year, just as the football team prints shirts for the Homecoming game to stir up school spirit and attendance that is so often lacking. So why the great to-do about them now? No explanation has been offered. All signs point to the NADs’ renewed thirst for anger and consequent taking aim at all aspects of the College that they can plausibly deem “offensive.”

Another grave point of indignation is a fund-raising calendar mailed out by the Development Office, one page of which depicts “a member of the Class of ’56 proudly displaying an Indian head cane to an ’06 at Commencement.” The Development Office’s official response was that they had not noticed the Indian head in the photo while assembling the calendar. Indeed, an inspection becomes much like a “Where’s Waldo?” children’s game: can you find the Indian? Not without a bit of searching. In fact, the ’56 was raising his cane to the ’06 as she simultaneously raised her Cobra Senior Society cane. The photo serves as no more than a poignant reminder that graduation canes connect sons and daughters of Dartmouth even fifty years apart. The ’56 undoubtedly keeps his cane because he identifies it with Dartmouth. (At the same time, it is unlikely that he is a hateful racist.) Dartmouth is an ever-changing place; she is never the same for everyone, and no two people will identify with her in the same way. Just because you do not agree with the way in which one person identifies with and remembers Dartmouth is not a valid reason to become hostile; indeed, it is quite a petty and immature reason.

The advertisement also cited the crew team’s formal, discussed at length on page nine of this issue, as another instance of intolerance and racism. While I will not repeat the details, the logic used in decrying the formal can easily be extended to children playing “Cowboys and Indians” or dressing up as Indians for Halloween, Western movies, and, perhaps, destroying every image of an American Indian that has ever been produced. Where does one draw the line? Which of these outcomes will finally sate the NADs?

The sixth offending incident dealt with drunken fraternity pledges disrupting a NADs drumming circle during a vigil on Columbus Day. If this event really happened as the advertisement reports then the NADs may have a legitimate reason to feel offended and disrespected. But was the event racist? Hardly. Would it have been “racist” if the same pledges had disrupted a Christian prayer circle or a candlelight vigil on the Green? The likelihood of these events seems equally high, and are equally obnoxious, disrespectful, and unacceptable. But are also decidedly not racially motivated.

The main thrust of the NADs’ advertisement was their declaration to fight racism with several invented, tenuous, “fundamental truths.” The first of these “truths” arrogates to Native Americans the right to decide what is offensive to them, and anybody who questions these determinations is arrogant. As a member of the Class of 1980 wrote to the website Dartblog.com, one can use the same logic that only the plaintiff in a personal injury suit can decide if he has been injured, with opposing reservations prohibited. Non-Natives must accept the claim of offense at face value and immediately repent.

The other “fundamental truths” condemn as racist any objectification of a race or the failure to stop such objectification. Which begs the question: what, exactly, is racism? The Indians made much of each of these acts being racist “by definition.” They must be using a different dictionary than the rest of us. From Merriam-Webster:

Racism, n: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

By this definition, the aforementioned events hardly qualify as “racist.” Certainly one could make the case that they were disrespectful and insensitive, but these descriptors are not synonymous with racism. None of the events occurred under the belief that Native Americans are of an inferior race, nor did they discriminate by means of overt exclusion or marginalization. Indeed, some could have happened to any group on campus, and others in fact served as rallying points for school spirit. One must then question the culpability of those who “choose to say and do nothing in the face of [racist] acts,” since those acts only appear to be racially-motivated to a select few. And because the advertisement never explicitly stated how the events are racist, and only stated that they are racist, the Native American Council has effectively condemned and patronized the entire campus under a set of rules known only to them.

The thornier issue, and one entirely absent in the NADs advertisement, is the matter of what the Natives actually want to achieve, and the grounds on which they would like to achieve it. Words like “tolerance,” “understanding,” and “social justice,” are vacant without contextual definitions to support them and steps for achieving them. The problem seems to be that the Native Americans themselves do not know what they want. A copy of the minutes from a NADs meeting on 9/28/06, discussed the protest at the Review offices. The executives decided not to report the incident to the Daily D because, “it would prob [sic] be an ongoing thing that people would respond and we would respond back.” Apparently, issuing a counter-response was problematic because, “we need to decide our stance on these issues (Hovey Murals and Indian Head T-shirts etc).”

You read that correctly: The Native Americans at Dartmouth organization does not even have an official stance on the issues that it have complained about so vocally the entire term. Subsequent emails have shown that no ‘official stance’ has since been established. Absent a position, protesting is not protesting: it is merely complaining.

Events at the “protest” itself empirically revealed the NADs’ shortcoming in this department. A Native American member of the Class of 2010 confided to TDR staffers that he had never given much thought to the issue of Indian mascots and logos, was unaware of both the controversy about it at Dartmouth and the existence of such professional organizations as the Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks, and Washington Redskins, but that now, after four days at Dartmouth, reckoned that he ought to be incensed by the matter. If nothing else, give credit to the NADs for quickly and efficiently brainwashing freshmen to mimic their dogmatic anger.

Resolution to this problem remains difficult, since, for as much as the NADs insist upon a so-called dialogue, the have shown no evidence of actually desiring one with the greater community; indeed, many have taken quite the opposite approach. In an October 13 email concerning the football t-shirts, one member of the NADs reminded his colleagues, “If there is any physical confrontation around this (or any other) issue, BOTH parties involved in any physical fighting are disciplined - regardless of who may have started it.” My word, it’s just a t-shirt. The fact that physical violence even enters the realm of possible reactions belies the reality that we are not dealing with a reasonable group of people here. Anecdotal evidence supports the same: every term, I hear stories of students who have been verbally abused and physically threatened simply because they were wearing Dartmouth Indian apparel. Tolerance on these issues is a two way street, and it is a street that the NADs aren’t walking.

For its part, the administration has done nothing to facilitate a resolution to these tensions. To the contrary, they have issued a series of letters which simply validate the complaints and objections of the NADs.

On November 10, a week and a half before the patronizing advertisement appeared in the Daily D, Acting Dean of the College Dan Nelson sent a four-page letter to all students on campus, nominally to transmit updates on policy issues and general goals of the administration. Following a brief discussion of the Committee on Standards and Student Event Management Procedures (SEMP) reforms—which amounted to little more than, “I’m just the Acting Dean, so I won’t deal with this”—Nelson delved into a criticism of the Dartmouth community as a whole, against the background of the offenses perceived by the Native Americans.

The communiqué read like a children’s book designed to help youngsters differentiate right from wrong. After bloviating on “our moral obligation to be thoughtful and responsible about the choices we make in what we say and do,” he provides some real-life examples, much as one would find in a Berenstain Bears book. What should I do when my group does X? How should I react when my friend says Y? And so forth. You’ve heard it all before, probably during your years of primary education. While Nelson clearly wishes not to ruffle any feathers during his brief tenure, one must question whether moralizing as one would to grade-schoolers is the best way to leave Dartmouth better than he found it.

On November 21, President James Wright weighed in with his own thoughts—though he was quite clearly forced to do so following a meeting with a number of Native American students. He devoted much of the letter to an ad hoc history of Indians at Dartmouth, and specifically the Indian symbol. (This section contained a handful of inaccuracies, though none so glaring as to bemoan.) He ambles on to state, in so many words, that Dartmouth students ought not to harm the feelings of one another, whether by intention or by accident. But to cover all bases, he also asserts that free speech does, in fact, exist at Dartmouth, and that somehow the College intends to defend this right.

“Free speech,” however, is simply the realm of bullies and the malintentioned, Wright says. In his words, “Those who know of the hurt and disrespect [they cause] and persist nonetheless are simply bullies. ‘Free speech’ rights are regularly asserted by [these students].”

And “free speech” is also the domain of those who cannot defend their own indignation. When I engaged Student Assembly president Timmy Andreadis in a surprisingly cordial conversation outside our offices during the September “protest,” he said there was nothing I could do about the gathered masses because it was, after all, “free speech.” While I could not disagree, the grin on his face betrayed other motives, most likely to irk the Review. I laughed and turned away.

Wright’s coup de grace completely obliterates the notions of self-help and resilience, replacing them with validation of the ‘race card’ maneuver and a precedent for community-wide appeasement of the lowest common denominator: self-victimization (presently the Indians, but it could apply to any group):

Let me exercise my right of free speech: I take it as a matter of principle that when people say they have been offended, they have been offended. We may apologize and explain, we may seek to assure that offense was not intended, but it is condescending to insist that they shouldn’t be offended, that it is somehow their fault, and that they are humorless since they can’t appreciate that what was perceived as offensive is merely a “joke.” And it is the worst form of arrogance for anyone to insist that they will continue to offend on the basis of a “right” to do so.

It seems as if the granite of New Hampshire has left the muscles and brains of students and administrators in quite a hurry. Fighting your own fights and standing up for your principles is old school; taking offense where you like and folding at the slightest sign of discontent is new school.

In this light, then, Josie Harper’s appalling letter was really an inevitability—the end game of the politics of victimhood. Students are embarrassed, alumni are embarrassed, and the NADs have made Dartmouth embarrass herself. Dartmouth-style ‘political correctness’—apologizing for another school’s mascot—became the overnight laughingstock of all of academia. But at least we recognized the error of our ways, right?

Clearly, the NADs’ and administration’s strategies for handling disrespect and intolerance (racism, “by definition,” is not at issue here) have not worked. May I suggest another way? Let us return for a moment to the proverb at the head of this column.

All term, the NADs and the administration have been eagerly feeding the former wolf, the one full of rage and violence because it feels as if it has been mistreated. Their words and actions thus far have been unproductive, divisive, and condescending; they make no progress towards mollifying the conflict and feeding the latter wolf, which yearns for justice and harmony. Until the NADs can clearly articulate how and why they feel so insulted, and the administration ceases to fold as soon as one person or group utters “I’m offended,” the situation will perpetuate itself, to the detriment of the entire Dartmouth community.

While the onus may fall partly on the student body to facilitate an environment more hospitable to Indians, nothing can be done until the Indians themselves lay out measurable goals and steps for how this harmony can be achieved. Patronizing advertisements and excessive use of the race card are antithetical to this goal. These tactics render the NADs as ignorant and intolerant as they claim everyone else to be. The administration’s kowtowing to an angry minority and admonishing the whole makes them, at best, equally culpable of perpetually feeding the first wolf, and, at worst, thoroughly incapable of handling the situation in a reasonable manner. The administration and the campus as a whole owe the NADs no sort of olive branch until the NADs prove themselves willing to engage in a reasonable, productive dialogue. Up to this point, they have not demonstrated that they are capable of, or willing to do so.

NADs on the Warpath

Article Tools

Related Articles