I propose Hamlet as Dartmouth's new mascot. He is certainly indecisive enough.
That was a bad joke, but it was not without reason. The mascot war has persisted at Dartmouth for at least the past 30 years, constantly simmering, occasionally boiling over.
The recent controversy has centered on Dartmouth's lack of an "official" mascot. Around the beginning of the most recent eruption, Nathan Bruschi '10 wrote, "What we need is an official, relevant mascot who can embody Dartmouth and be our ambassador to the rest of the Ivy League" ("Dartmouth's Mascot Void," Nov. 13).
Why must the mascot be official? Come to think of it, I'm not sure what "official" means with respect to university mascots. If it means that a university's administration or board of trustees formally endorses the mascots, then I am puzzled as to why so many Dartmouth students care about officialism at all. My impression is that most Dartmouth students give very little thought to the administration's formal decrees. Ironically, some of the loudest campaigners for an official mascot, those who support the Indian, seem to disparage the administration at every chance they get.
Even so, perhaps there is something to be gained from a single, ubiquitously accepted mascot, official or not. But I doubt it. Do we really need an ambassador to represent us to our peer institutions, as Bruschi claims? Last I checked, there have been no Crimsons, Quakers or Tigers acting as "ambassadors" in Hanover. Do we really need some fuzzy entity representing Dartmouth on other campuses? No, the purpose of a mascot is to galvanize support for the home team and to bring them good luck at home.
But in all likelihood at Dartmouth a mascot would not even do that. Turnout might spike for a couple of games immediately after the rise of a new mascot, but attendance would return to normal soon after. The novelty of the new fuzzy entity would wear off quickly, and the focus of sporting events would shift back to the athletics, where it should be.
Then there is the widely held idea that we need a mascot because otherwise, as Bruschi puts it, we will have "no idea exactly who we are cheering." That is patently ridiculous. When I go to Dartmouth sporting events, I do know exactly whom I cheer. I cheer for Dartmouth. And if we had a mascot, I would still know exactly whom I would cheer. I would not cheer the mascot. I would cheer the Dartmouth team.
It seems to me that any mascot we might chose to adopt should have some significant connection to Dartmouth's culture and history. Of the many contenders, only the Indian satisfies this criterion. Nonetheless, proposing new and exciting ideas for a mascot, with varying degrees of seriousness, seems to have come into vogue at Dartmouth. Keggy the Keg has met with a worrisomely high level of student enthusiasm. The Dartmoose has the support of a Facebook group with over 1,000 members. There also exist Facebook groups purporting to support the Rock-eaters, the Zebras, and the Jihadists. The Jew, the Old Rich White Man, and others in that vein have occasionally been proposed on this page for political reasons. And I add Hamlet to the list.
The whole mascot debate seems farcical. Take whatever mascot you choose, cheer whatever silly fetish you wish. The small part of me that cares will be content with the Big Green. It's big. It's green. It's fierce. It's financial. It's Dartmouth.
