An open meeting about the College's position on athletic competition against schools that use Native American symbols drew students, faculty, administrators and alumni into a heated debate about potential new policies on Thursday.
The meeting was hosted by the College committee that will draft recommendations on how to handle scheduling athletic competitions against teams with Indian mascots.
While most of those who spoke agreed that visiting teams' Indian mascots were offensive to Native American students, some attendees believed that refusing to play such teams would politicize Dartmouth's athletics. Some questioned how to allow athletes to compete while still respecting offended students. A number of those who spoke believed that while the College should not invite teams with Indian mascots to campus, Dartmouth teams should be allowed to compete against those schools in other venues.
Despite the subject of the evening's dialogue, Nanabah Allison-Brewer, assistant coach to the women's volleyball team, was the only speaker to identify herself as Native American. Most speakers were athletes and coaches.
The task force, known as the Stam committee, was convened by College President James Wright at the beginning of this term following the public apology of Athletic Director Josie Harper for inviting the University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux to play in a December 2006 men's hockey tournament.
The group has met twice so far. The Thursday discussion came one day after the University of Illinois' Chief Illiniwek made his final appearance at a game. The school decided last week to drop its American Indian mascot, which effectively ended an NCAA sanction on its athletic teams.
Government professor Allan Stam, who chairs the committee, emphasized that his group was there to receive input from attendees. He said that it is worthwhile to consider a range of potential policies regarding athletic competitions as opposed to limiting the discussion to the issue of hosting teams.
Many who oppose allowing teams with Indian mascots to compete at Dartmouth argued that doing so would send a message that the College tolerates racist symbols, and would engender an uncomfortable environment for some students.
"This isn't about asking other schools to change their mascot," Soralee Ayvar '07 said. "We're talking about whether they should be able to come to our school and affect our students with that imagery and name."
Assistant Dean John Pfister said that he would support a policy that ensures that prospective Dartmouth students feel welcome.
Still others believe that refusing to host teams with Indian mascots will set a positive example for other schools and will be a source of pride for Dartmouth student-athletes.
Allison-Brewer referred to Dartmouth as an elite institution and said that in the long run, refusing to host teams with Indian mascots would reflect the College's educational goals.
One student called upon the publicity generated in December 2006 by Harper's public apology and the responses to it as evidence of the positive impact enacting such a policy could have.
Some student-athletes explained that making a symbolic statement about what they believe is a moral issue would be worth missing a few games with teams who have Indian mascots.
Others, however, felt that the College should continue to host teams with Indian mascots, as doing otherwise would impose an undue burden on teams to make political statements for the College, deviating from the purpose of athletic competition.
Barry Harwick, the men's track and field coach, said that if Dartmouth starts scheduling athletics based on social goals, it will be difficult to determine a point at which to stop.
Several people said that a policy against playing teams with Indian mascots would negatively affect student athletes.
Wendy Levash, the women's crew coach, said that while she empathized with minority students, she opposed changing Dartmouth's current policy on the issue, as she feels that doing so would impose certain political views on the entire college.
"In making a single widespread policy we're not giving people the ability to choose based on their own belief," she said.
Joe Malchow '08 argued that the logic of prohibiting offensive mascots would also call for the foreclosure of offensive speech, such as that made by academic lecturers.
Students suggested that if Dartmouth refuses to compete with such schools, then by the same logic it should also consider refusing to accept visiting professors from schools with such mascots.
Professors, like student student-athletes, may not necessarily endorse their teams' Indian images.
The next step for the committee is to evaluate the options presented. The group plans to meet twice more before presenting final recommendations to Wright.
"The logic of why we adopt a policy will be as important as the policy itself," he said. "It is more so a highly symbolic policy and why one adopts one symbol over another is as important as the symbol itself."
