While recognizing the honorable intentions of Tiffany Battle '98 and Brandi Kenner '98 ["Responsibility in Leadership," The Dartmouth, May 20] in challenging any hateful and intolerant materials, I am dismayed that they chose to do so in a manner that so comprehensively undermines their commitment to the notion of a Dartmouth community.
There is no doubt that they are absolutely right in challenging racist and homophobic views wherever they appear. I wholeheartedly support their actions, and the actions of others in taking a stand against such despicable literature. What I do find objectionable is that in their account of what happened to materials that were sent, unsolicited to the President of the Student Assembly Jim Rich '96, they absolve themselves and others of any responsibility for action preferring instead that Rich act on their behalf.
Involved here is also a disturbing innuendo that smears Rich with the inference that by not acting he was in some way supporting the racist and homophobic content of the materials. These are tactics more suitable to the tabloid press than in a community based on rational and open communication.
There is a disturbing lack of common sense displayed by those who initially discovered the materials sent to Rich which were left in the Student Assembly office. Instead of simply asking Rich about these materials and discussing a suitable response, they acted through an intermediary. Is communication so difficult that this cumbersome approach has to be taken?
If those discovering the materials were so concerned about this offensive material being seen by others and seemingly so afraid that Dartmouth students would be indoctrinated by simply reading it, why did they not place it out of sight (I assume the Assembly office has a filing cabinet or office drawers)? They could have informed Rich that they had taken such action and discussed the matter with the material safely stowed away. The same could be said about the "rediscovery" three weeks later.
It seems clear that only a few people actually saw the material, it was not publicly displayed or in a place where large numbers of unthinking Dartmouth students would be contaminated by reading it. No attempts were made to spread this material beyond the confines of the envelope in which it was delivered.
What then, I ask myself, was the real problem here? Is this simply political opportunism of the worst kind in which one waits for the targeted individual to make a mistake at which point you exploit that opportunity to the fullest extent?
If Battle and Kenner and the other students mentioned in the article are looking for real battles to fight, I suggest they look beyond the trivia at the end of their noses and tackle the wide variety of offensive material out in the society at large. It's on the Internet so you do not have to leave the security of your campus location to do this work.
Please do not undo the positive contributions that Jim Rich has made to the life of this community by engaging in this kind of smear campaign. Bear in mind the effects on the individual and that you may have increased conflict and division within the community. Ask yourself in terms of this issue whether it might be better to settle this by simply talking directly to Rich himself.
I assume that holding the office of president of the Student Assembly is a difficult job at the best of times. I assume that the president receives a lot of mail, that he/she has to prioritize the day to day operations while balancing the academic responsibilities that every student has. I, for one, am not surprised that occasionally, mistakes will be made. Is it helpful to jump on every mistake when, as stated in the article the president has apologized and intends to take appropriate action to rectify the error? What is Rich guilty of here? Not being quite as efficient a bureaucrat as some would want and therefore leaving part of the president's incoming mail undealt with?
I respect the right of students to be critical of those they elect to office, this is part of life in a healthy democratic community. However this criticism should be placed in perspective by assessing the overall performance of the elected official. On balance what has been the contribution of Jim Rich to the students of Dartmouth? Hasn't he been quite clear and direct in stating his opposition to hate crimes on campus and active in seeking ways to educate the community about prejudicial thought and discriminatory action? If your answers to these questions are affirmative then I feel you must agree that to seek to pick a single, relatively trivial issue to use to undermine the positive work being done is detrimental to the notion of community and should be responded to in no uncertain terms.
