Similarly, the Review's advocacy of the Indian symbol symbolizes the problems with the newspaper in general. Its concern over the symbol seems to override it, concern for Indians at Dartmouth. The Review's support of the Indian as college symbol would perhaps be less offensive to the Indians if it were not coupled with apparent racism; as it is, the Review's position is intolerable and divisive, a hindrance to its own cause. Further, the Review is, in the name of restoring a sense of community to Dartmouth, dividing that same community, one whose strong traditions of community spirit Harvard could do well to emulate.

President Kemeny's policies, then, provide the backdrop against which The Dartmouth Review was formed, Incidentally, not even he was exempt from personal attacks by the Review: the paper ran an advertisement in which it supposedly sponsored a "Take a Homosexual to Lunch" program, featuring a picture of former President Kemeny eating lunch with a Dartmouth student.

Much of the bigotry that appears in the pages of the Review can be attributed to an inappropriate use of satiric form. Occasionally the satiric style is inappropriate because outsiders to the College, among whom must be numbered the alumni (at least in relation to many college trends) are not sure whether an article is to be taken seriously (the article about the sukkah is an example of this). More often though, satire is inappropriate because it could not be made to work well in a particular instance. The Review claims "We believe in the horselaugh as a weapon against pipsqueaks in power," and it acts on this belief with satires ranging from the amateurish and low to the amusing. The problem, obviously, is the former, and even to give the paper the benefit of the doubt by conceding that its more offensive satires were inspired not by racism but by misapplied zeal does not excuse the Review. Irresponsible journalistic techniques cannot be condoned, especially on the part of conservatives who publish because of what they see as liberal biases in other media.

The article concerning affirmative action has received the most national attention, primarily because of the ferocity of its satire. Given the fact that few who read the piece interpreted it wholly as satire, the Review in effect left its readers with the opinion that Blacks have lower GPAs, don't read the classics, and complain about discrimination in the College dining facility. Written from the supposed perspective of a Black student at Dartmouth and complete with "footnotes" on certain words of the "jive," the article's flavor is illustrated by the following quotations:

"'Fyu be expectin' us to tink, you best be giving us fus dibs on du food line."

"We be culturally 'lightened too. We be tukin' hard courses in many subjects, like Afro-Am Studies, Women's Studies, and Policy Studies. And who be mouthin' 'bout us not bein' good read? I be practicly knowin' Roots cova to cova.,

An' I be watchin' the Jeffersons on TV til I be blue in da face.

"Citations for Blacks wit Cs would be bucoanice."

One's first reaction on reading the article is a simple disbelief that such an article could be written and published at this time at all. The article insults the entire Dartmouth community by the very fact that such a shameful production could be associated with Dartmouth College. Further, the article misrepresents itself, for according to Dartmouth sources and The New Republic, the article was not written by Keeney Jones, the purported author, but by two students still at Dartmouth when the article was published.

By its apparent racism and its looseness in journalistic principles, this article betrays conservatism. The Burke who expounded conservatism so eloquently also spoke for the rights of American colonists, the Irish, and Indians against the excess of colonial administration. His enlightened conservatism contained a respect for human rights as an integral part; a paper which claims to defend "retention of valuable traditions a la Burke" has no right to such an appelation after the publication of such an article.

In short, The Dartmouth Review does not define conservatism at American colleges. Can't the Review editors see that such pieces divide the community? Can't they see (and here I address myself to the editors of the Review) that such attitudes hurt the cause of conservatism at American colleges and destroy their own reputation and credibility?

Throughout most of its history, the Review has found itself in the position, unusual for conservatives, of actively opposing the College administration. The problem, to the Review, is not primarily that students want too much change, but that the administration does. And it is undoubtedly this position of having to oppose the administration on many matters of policy--women's studies, affirmative action, and the like--that causes so much of the antagonism present at Dartmouth over the Review. The problem was particularly acute during Kemeny's administration, for it was he after all who had initiated many of the changes the Review so dislikes. The situation shows some sign of improving relations between paper and administration, especially since David McLaughlin took office last year. The Review printed a picture of McLaughlin (a Dartmouth alumnus, as Kemeny is not) helping to carve an ice sculpture for the Winter Carnival; so one has reason to hope that the Review might not oppose the administration as much in the future. Unreasonable and poorly stated opposition provoked the controversies of the past; calm deliberation can quiet them in the future.

One cannot deny, after all, that the Review has had some effect at Dartmouth. Walking across the campus, one can see people sporting jackets and sweatshirts with the old Indian motif; the Review is surprisingly well-read, both at Dartmouth and outside of the College; and even the Dartmouth plan is coming under review (though this can probably be attributed to President McLaughlin, but after all, which section of campus opinion kept it an issue?). Although the Review should continue to oppose intelligently those aspects of policy with which a disagrees, a continued polarization of campus opinion might eventually lead, in effect, to a condition in which there were two sets of people connected with the College with two fundamentally different visions for its future. That is certainly not the course a Burkean conservative newspaper, as The Dartmouth Review styles itself, would want to pursue.

Basically, however, the idea behind the Review has worked. There is an alternative voice at Dartmouth, read by most students and many alumni. The Dartmouth (an exceptionally fine student newspaper, by the way) is the oldest college newspaper in America, yet after only two years of publication, many people associate instead the Review with Dartmouth. This year the Review is being copied--some proof of its success--by a liberal paper called The Harbinger (the title is taken from Milton's line. "The bright morning star day's harbinger"). It addresses primarily those issues on which it feels its positions threatened by The Dartmouth Review--affirmative action, for instance. (A recent article on the subject was described by the Harbinger as being about "Freshman Clones.")

I sincerely hope this article has come too late. By this I do not mean, of course that the Review should cease publication, for it has done some good for Dartmouth simply by expanding the spectrum of political debate. In addition, as the first conservative college newspaper in the country, it deserves some recognition for helping start a movement that has since spread to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Williams, and many other colleges. Indeed it is because the Review, as the first of its kind, has failed so often, that I as a conservative feel so strongly about it.