The time has come for me to join The Dartmouth Review debate. Why do the editors of The Review seem to think that it is fun to offend as many people as possible in order to prove their point that the First Amendment is unassailable?
What I find frustrating about The Review is that I often agree with them on Dartmouth issues. There are many Dartmouth students out there, like myself, who resist the "conservative" label, but nevertheless are saddened at the recent loss of many Dartmouth traditions.
However, I can't help but feel that the editors of The Review do not care about my opinion anyway, as I am a woman. Why else would they print such things as appeared in this week's version of Gordon Haff's "The Last Word?"
The following are a sample of the quotations about women which ran in the May 26 edition of The Review: "Even a rat likes to go in a different hole once in a while." "A gentleman is one who never strikes a woman without provocation." "A woman's place is in the bedroom and the kitchen, in that order."
It's all so ingenious. These quotations did not appear in the midst of an editorial calling for women to stay in the kitchen and serve as men's sexual slaves. Rather, they appear on the back page of The Review, without endorsement or rejection of these ideas.
That way, when accused of sexism, The Review's editors can say, "We don't espouse those sorts of ideas. Only the quoted individuals do." As if we, the Dartmouth community, are going to believe that.
So in the name of free speech The Review feels compelled to print as many disgusting things as possible just because they can. Okay, guys: you've got your free speech, and no one, not even Amiri Barksdale '96, can take it away from you. But is free speech supposed to be about hatred? Should the object of free speech be to make people feel as hurt, angry and disappointed as I am?
I have often thought that The Dartmouth Review could be a good paper if it would just clean up its act. The Review often presents interesting and valid arguments which other individuals might make, but are afraid to express.
As The Beacon has proven, conservative viewpoints can be expressed in a an unhurtful manner. It is distressing that The Review cannot seem to attain this level of maturity. I fail to see what is gained by using America's precious right of free speech in the ugliest and most degrading way.
