I consider myself a fairly reasonable person. I love women and hate sexism. Blitz me. However, I have to admit that I roll my eyes when Dartmouth Dining Services renames "Gingerbread Man" cookies "Gingerbread People." I also think that campus dialogue on gender equality shouldn't be mired in pointless debates over whether some '12 is a "freshman" or a "first-year."
But I'd like to leave the political correctness issue to another columnist. After all, political correctness is just a symptom of a larger disease. Colleges across the country, including our own, have failed to protect free speech and freedom of expression against the interests of "tasteful" censorship.
The history of the Hovey Murals in Thayer basement is a pertinent example. The murals were painted by Walter Humphrey, a member of the Class of 1914, in response to the controversial and newly installed Orozco Murals in Baker Library. They are a visual representation of Richard Hovey's "Eleazar Wheelock," a College song that comically recounts Eleazar Wheelock's introduction to the Indians with "500 gallons of New England rum."
Now fast forward a few decades. Dartmouth renewed its commitment to Native American education, and as more Native American students joined the community, outcry against the Indian mascot grew. The Hovey Murals were a casualty in the debate; they represented Native Americans in a rather fetishized and ignorant way in an attempt at crude comedy. President Kemeny and the administration deemed them "too offensive" and boarded them up, allowing them to be seen only on some special occasions.
I cringe when censorship of a work is justified by its "offensiveness." Art is, after all, a microcosm of culture. To censor "offensiveness" smacks of Stalinism, and it pains me to see it blithely accepted by the administration and students alike. Art challenges us -- sometimes with the abstract, and sometimes with the literal. I'm an unashamed artistic neophyte, and therefore will offer Kahlil Gibran's words: "Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed."
So, what's obvious about the history of the Hovey Murals? They reflect a darker time in Dartmouth's past. Despite what the administration may think, however, boarding them up fails to erase the past and doesn't fool anyone. It only stymies inquiry and discussion. The murals are a historical representation of the time in which they were created, both artistically and culturally. They have value -- if we choose to value them based on how they challenge and engage us. We enter dangerous waters when we protect ourselves from offense at the expense of free speech.
And to whose offense would we cater our censorship? The final panel of the Orozco murals displays Christ throwing his broken cross into a pile of guns and trash, suggesting it belongs with those other tools of oppression. If the Christian community became outraged at this "tasteless and depraved" art, would the College respond in kind by shuttering them up? I would hope not.
Dwight Eisenhower is with me on this one. When he addressed the College in his Commencement speech in 1953, he implored us: "Don't join the book burners. Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed." If Dartmouth still struggles with Native American relations and biases, this is all the more reason to uncover the murals.
If we content ourselves with stale campus dialogue, we will find ourselves unable to engage those pressing issues that are offensive by their very nature. Rather than censor these things, let us call them before critical eyes and expose them for the disgusting frauds that they are.
Free speech often isn't easy to grant, accept or hear. It excites us, challenges us and sometimes offends us, and I would have it no other way. To protect this dialogue, the College must expel censorship from our campus. Really, are we afraid of some ugly truth lurking behind the boards of Hovey Grill? If Dartmouth is afraid to confront itself, how can we expect our students to confront the world? An unflinching stand for the right to expression and free speech demands courage and a stomach for controversy. Students are capable of shouldering their responsibility of freedom and the search for truth. Is the administration?
