Monday, April 21, 2008

Breaking: Dartmouth Hates Minorities

Today's Daily Dartmouth features a thought-provoking polemic by Bryan Joseph Lee '07. In the piece, Lee discusses how the recent "Hip Hop in the Hood (Museum of Art)" debacle is part of a greater trend of hatred towards minorities at Dartmouth. A choice excerpt:

Minority students at Dartmouth have begun to see a pattern — false or true, they see it — of exclusion, condescension, othering and misrepresentation year after year. Some might claim the whole thing is a misunderstanding. They’re right. It seems as if Dartmouth doesn’t understand its diverse communities on the most basic level, and when it tries to learn, it is unable to see past its own hegemonic gaze.


It seems that Mr. Lee has not only decreed that his accusations are exempted from any sort of burden of proof, but has also appointed himself spokesman of the entire minority population at Dartmouth. Nevertheless, these ambitious claims to authority are backed by an impeccable resume: Lee is a fifth-year senior concentrating in Latino and Caribbean Studies and Theatre, so you would be hard-pressed to find someone who knows more about "hegemonic gazes." So trust him, the gaze is indeed there.

P.S. We often dole out more ridicule than praise, so it's important to point out good Op-Ed's in the Daily D when they do come along. In that vein, go read Spenser Mestel '11's piece today. —A.S.

8 comments:

Old Alum said...

Off topic: when will Joe Malchow grow up? The child is pretending to engage in journalism while writing about an organization (the Alumni Association) that has employed him; he manipulates the words of a judge to say something the judge never said; he presents his misinterpretation of the law as fact.

An example:

"the Trustees’ arguments, supported by the administration but by virtually no one else, are indeed an offense against 'the obligation of good faith and fair dealing implicit in any contract.'"

He's quoting from Judge Vaughan's opinion. But of course Judge Vaughan never said the Trustees' arguments are an offense against the obligation of good faith. Does anyone still trust Joe Malchow?

Truth Be Told said...

Old Alum, Do you plan to remain on topic and not drift into ad hominem attacks?

As for Malchow, he is as fine a product of Dartmouth as most of us have seen in years.

jamiehunt said...

Mind the antecedents, OA. JM is concurring with the AoA letter when he writes "offense against," not ascribing that sentiment to Judge Vaughn.

As for Joe: he's lucid and ne'er dyspeptic, which cannot be said for the visionary Mr. Lee, who apparently is at Dartmouth but not of it, and therefore is able to perceive the College's e-e-e-e-vil "hegemonic gaze" without being guilty of it hisself.

Just to be clear: Mr. Lee did not refer to the College's "hegemonic gaze" as e-e-e-vil. That was me.

Old Alum said...

Joe's writing is a textbook example of turgidity, not lucidity.

How can he be a fine product of Dartmouth if he supports vindictive legislation whose only purpose is to harm Dartmouth? Sounds more like a traitor to me.

It's not an ad hominem attack to say that Joe Malchow was being paid by the Association of Alumni at the same time he was blogging about it and its law suit. It is the truth, and Joe has not fessed up.

Anonymous said...

Judge Vaughn certainly did say that the trustees arguments, being their claim that the Association had no capacity to make an agreement, "offends the obligation of good faith and fair dealing." Read it on page 13 of the Court’s ruling.

And where or where is there any evidence that Malchow was being "paid by the Association"?

Old Alum is both off topic, and wrong.

jamie hunt said...

Old Alum wrote:
How can [Joe Malchow] be a fine product of Dartmouth if he supports vindictive legislation whose only purpose is to harm Dartmouth? Sounds more like a traitor to me.

You mean litigation, no? At any rate, Joe's not yet a product of, he's still a student at. And, turgid, lucid, or what-evah, he prefers to argue rather than assert. The latter, sir, is what you've done. What you haven't done is explain why having alumni continue to elect half the board will be the undoing of Dartmouth undying. Perhaps taking this responsibility away will at long last dim the College's "hegemonic gaze" to appease B. Lee '07 and those he represents. Who knows? No argument has been made at all; just assertions and, herein, slander.

Such as this "traitor" business: merde! If the men and women of Dartmouth can't stand the free exchange of ideas well argued, then the College has become just another expensive finishing school for overachievers.

Old Alum said...

Judge Vaughn did not "say that the trustees arguments, being their claim that the Association had no capacity to make an agreement, 'offends the obligation of good faith and fair dealing.'"

He said that if the Association really did lack the capacity to contract, and if the claims of the alumni are true and there was a contract anyway, then the Board should not be allowed to point out that the Association lacked the capacity to contract.

Where is there any evidence that Malchow was being "paid by the Association"? Try the Minutes of the Executive Committee for Jan. 29 ; Feb. 28.

Jamie: the word "legislation" is correct. Joe Malchow testified in favor of a bill that had no purpose but to harm Dartmouth by adding a layer of unwanted government oversight. It would not have undone the board's decision or prevented a similar decision in the future.

Joe neither argues nor asserts. He spins.

"What you haven't done is explain why having alumni continue to elect half the board will be the undoing of Dartmouth."

Letting alumni elect half the board would be a terrible idea and one the board would probably decline to adopt regardless.

"just assertions and, herein, slander." You are Jacob Baron, aren't you? That kid can't tell the difference between libel and slander either.

jamie hunt said...

Old Alum wrote:

Letting alumni elect half the board would be a terrible idea and one the board would probably decline to adopt regardless.

"just assertions and, herein, slander." You are Jacob Baron, aren't you? That kid can't tell the difference between libel and slander either.


+++++++++++++

Right you are, old chap: should've written "libel," as "libel" is, of course, written.

Now, don't insult young Baron by calling him me ... why would he use a pseudonym as silly as that?

Ah, anyway, don't suppose you'll ever deign to explain why retaining parity is a bad idea? Or, conversely, why getting rid of it after a one hundred some years is a good idea.

I'm not an alum and thus have no dog in this; it's just difficult to find any solid argument for change. Divisiveness? Feh. Was there some golden age of unified opinion at Dartmouth?

Didn't think so.