I have waited patiently on the sidelines the last week or two before deciding to enter the latest fracas to hit the College on the Hill. In fact, I had largely intended to remain outside the fray by virtue of the fact that the issue really does not affect me as a Dartmouth Alum. This debate, however, strikes close to home on many levels and merits a few reactions after some gentle yet slight persuasion.
For those of you not privy to the news, which honestly interests only a very small group of people (read the issue is petty at best), here is a quick recap:
Dartmouth Athletic Director Josie Harper apologized on Nov. 21st to the Native Americans at Dartmouth organization for inviting the University of North Dakota to play Dartmouth in a December Hockey tournament. Why? Because UND's mascot is the "Fighting Sioux" and members of the NAD group complained in a double-page advertisement in the campus newspaper on Nov. 20th that they found the team's invitation offensive (while also making complicit in racism every member of the Dartmouth community who condoned the Fighting Sioux’s invitation). In turn, Harper's response was ubiquitously over the top in politically correct platitudes and picked up by every major wire service, ESPN and the Boston Globe. Her comments drew the most heat for calling UND's defense of its mascot "offensive and wrong." In response, the Dartmouth Review devoted an entire issue to bemoaning the bemoanings of the Native Americans at Dartmouth for their hypersensitivity. Their response included the very mature cover photo of a Native American taking a scalp replete with the headline, "The Natives Are Getting Restless." Meanwhile, everyone from the Governor of North Dakota, to Dartmouth President Jimmy Wright has had their say. The feature op-ed in the Review's issue was disingenuously titled, "NADs on the War Path," while responses generated on the web have referred to the issue as everything from Dartmouth's Indian Wars to a call for Solidarity against Hatred.
So, in making sense of the madness, here are a few points of order:
Harper was way out of line. Given her capacity as AD and her assumed objective of protecting the NAD organization’s sensibilities, she would have done well to apologize for her own oversight in scheduling an offensive team. Even in politically correct-speak, however, her apology on behalf of UND for its mascot simply does not follow. After all, it is the UND which is fighting to keep its mascot and tradition alive so even if Harper does apologize, the UND does not. Thus, Harper misses the point. (And, really, with a football team that is 2-8, does not Ms. Harper have greater worries than states about which she knows nothing?)
Another fact to consider is the position from which Harper speaks: Josie Harper is an athletic director at an Ivy League College in rural NH. Her views on this subject are about as relevant to North Dakotans as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent letter is to the American people- to wit, long on verbiage and short on substance.
Regarding the actual use of the mascot, which was one of the many initial complaints levied against the student body by the NADs, this issue has always been a great mystery to me. As I have stated on the ramparts of this blog many times before, no team selects a mascot in order to demean it. Mascots are selected because they infuse school pride in students and because they are a symbol of strength. For this reason, there is no respectable team called the "Butterflies," or the "Ladybugs" (though there would surely be a gaggle of hypersensitive activists who would protest the use of these symbols as well).
In the end, eliminating the use of Native American mascots in major college athletics harms the very tribes whose sensibilities these fringe groups seek to protect. Decreasing the visibility of Native American mascots from athletic competition results in the decreased visibility of Native Americans from the public consciousness. It becomes much easier to forget that Native Americans were once a mighty people with a proud tradition when famous symbols of strength and power imbued within mascots are removed from big-time college athletics.
In answer to the question I posed in the title, my view is that absolutely nothing is wrong with the Indian mascot. Moreover, the proud history of Native Americans’ perseverance against overwhelming odds deserves to be recognized in the athletic achievements of America's Universities. If my home state can tacitly celebrate settlers who illegally staked their claims with the University of Oklahoma’s “Sooner” mascot, then surely there is room to celebrate the noble warriors of America’s Native peoples.
Another side of this argument, maintained quite convincingly, is that most Native Americans support indigenous mascots. This is said to be the case with the Standing Rock Sioux and the UND’s mascot; and it is most certainly the case with the Seminole Tribe’s support of Florida State University which uses the Seminole as its mascot.
But let us assume, however, that we want to be really politically correct in adjudicating mascot usage (though why we would do this is beyond me). Let us even assume the truth of the NAD organization’s claim that “the right to decide what offends us belongs to us and us alone.” Suppose this were the case, there is no Native American block group or organization which can possibly speak to what offends Native Americans en masse. There are roughly 500 sovereign, Indigenous Nations recognized by US Government. They are all different. They are all unique. Suffice it to say what offends one would not necessarily offend all- complicating the mascot issue tremendously. In light of this fact and following NAD logic, the best way to determine what is offensive is to leave it up to each tribe to approve of mascots within its vicinity and to disallow any single group for speaking on behalf of all Native Americans (including the Native Americans at Dartmouth).
My final assessment is that all of the debate on campus is more than a bit silly and overblown. Both sides suffer from a severe bout of artificiality. The Review’s Editor-in-Chief writes, “No logical person believes that it [the Dartmouth Indian] will ever return as part of the official or prominent iconography of the College.” If this is the case, then fighting with such vigor to defend a mascot which has already been scrapped by the College seems at best vapid assuming the point is not merely to raise the heckles of the NADs. Further, if the Review denies the claim that is run by a troupe of racists, then going over the top with the publication’s current photo and headline seems counter-productive to proving this point. The cover while not racist in form was clearly designed to illicit the sort of response the NADs were only too eager to provide. One would think there are more constructive ways to fight the P.C. left than creating issues fit for publication. (And just for the record, I utterly believe that the writers of TDR are far from racists).
For the NAD organization, the Review’s Editor-in-Chief underscored this very reasonable point which is eminently worthy of their consideration:
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.
Aside from issuing several complaints against students, the NAD organization has yet to outline what it would actually like to see happen with regards to campus conduct. Was today’s rally enough to quell NAD malcontent? Do they want the abolition of the Dartmouth Review (perhaps this goes without saying)? What are their claims? For all of the meetings, vigils, focus groups, and op-eds, this basic question remains unanswered.
You know, Dartmouth is increasingly big on dialogue as a response to problems- after all, talking about pressing issues is much more easily done than actually solving them. Perhaps the Review and the NADs should hold a joint vigil to discuss the issue? I hear Jimmy Carter and Jim Baker are available for peace brokerings...
The Conservative Blog Network
