To the editors:



To say that sports column “No Sense in Anti-Mascot Crusade” (Dec. 6) by Jonathan J. Lehman ’08 was hurtful and unacceptable would be an understatement. Not only were the actions of Dartmouth Athletic Director Josie Harper taken out of context, but an inappropriate comparison has been drawn between Harvard and Dartmouth, which the author wrongfully claims are “in...similar position[s]” regarding this issue. Further, the tone and wording of the article seem deliberately cruel to and ignorant of the native community on Harvard’s own campus.

In no way should Harper’s apology be construed to apply to or, frankly, to have anything to do with Harvard. The apology was addressed to the Dartmouth community and served to affirm the view of the Dartmouth Athletic Department that the mascots which the NCAA has deemed “hostile and offensive” are indeed so. Harper was speaking in the context of several recent events at Dartmouth—events of such magnitude that Dartmouth’s president has officially addressed them and, just last week, sparked a “Solidarity Against Hatred” rally attended by several hundred Dartmouth students, staff, and faculty.

While Native Americans at Harvard College (NAHC), the Harvard University Native American Program (HUNAP), and several individual native Harvard students have supported Dartmouth’s native community throughout this fall, neither NAHC nor HUNAP have asked for any such apology from Harvard’s athletic department. To suggest that we are being denied one is a misrepresentation of the campus climate and places Harvard’s native community in an unnecessarily polarizing position on campus. While it is the position of HUNAP and of NAHC that such mascots are offensive and wrong, it should also be noted that Harvard’s athletic department has adopted a policy of not scheduling games with schools on the list of offensive mascots released by the NCAA (save matches that were scheduled before the list was released). Thus, Harper’s apology is specific to “the Native American community and the Dartmouth community as a whole,” both native and non-native, in light of the climate and events on Dartmouth’s campus and the position that Dartmouth has adopted since the tournament was scheduled.

In addition, the tone, wording, and examples used within the column are personally abusive. Most glaringly, the article is unnecessarily concluded with, “I think the Crimson would have slaughtered the Indians.” It is no consolation that this was meant to refer to an athletic team, as the further dehumanization of the “Indian” moniker—no matter how tongue-in-cheek—only contributes to the politically correct debate that the author so sarcastically laments. Furthermore, the examples cited compare Native Americans to animals and, as is the case of the Trojan mascot, insinuate that real native peoples no longer exist, only their descendents. This type of characterization and generalization, in addition to the hostile tone in which the article is written, is hurtful and ignorant. It renders the article ineffective at instigating any type of real debate or discussion about the issue, which is also exemplified in the writer’s lack of communication with the Native American community or Harvard’s athletic department regarding this story. What results is not a useful catalyst for discussion, but an inflammatory diatribe that seeks only to provoke and polarize.

If any fair comparison can be drawn between Dartmouth and Harvard at this time, it is this: while Dartmouth’s athletic director, in light of campus events, felt the need to apologize to the Dartmouth community, so should The Crimson and Jonathan Lehman address the concerns of and apologize to Harvard’s native community for an article which was both misinformed and deliberately callous.



APRIL D. YOUPEE-ROLL ’08

Dec. 6, 2006



The writer is president of Native Americans at Harvard College.