As I sat in Filene Auditorium listening to Laura Ingraham ’85, I could hear loud shouts of protest. “DPU, shame on you,” students and community members shouted, in response to the FOX News host’s presence on campus — a former editor of The Dartmouth Review turned Trump advocate.
The protests had begun early in the day: A small group of students sat inside an igloo on the Green, with a Palestinian flag hanging over the side. These were all valid forms of activism. But what I found far more powerful was the more subtle protest by those in attendance.
To be clear, I feel obligated to state that I fall on the complete opposite end of the political spectrum of Laura Ingraham and I find her ideology and rhetoric to be reprehensible.
Even so, I think that many people and organizations on campus protested her visit in ways that were less productive than others. I believe that anyone has the right to protest however they want. But I do think that some ways are more effective than others.
Inside the lecture hall, no one was jeering, no one was booing and no one was interrupting. But there also wasn’t much applause. I felt that there was laughter at her, not with her. The atmosphere did not seem to suggest that anyone was taking her very seriously. To me, the questions students asked represented a form of activism far more powerful than what was going on upstairs.
The first question was about Ingraham’s decision as editor-in-chief of The Dartmouth Review to send a reporter to a Gay Students Association meeting and subsequently publish a transcript of the meeting, which outed multiple students. The student asked if Ingraham regretted it. She said that she did not. In a snippy tone, Ingraham told the student who had asked the question that she had gotten many of her facts wrong, claiming that the release of the transcript did not expose any students who were not already publicly out. Ingraham’s answer was refuted earlier this week by members of the Dartmouth LGBTQIA+ Alumni Association. By asking her in person, the student publicly put pressure on Ingraham and forced her to confront a decision that affected many of her peers’ lives in front of an audience. That type of live confrontation was a more effective form of activism as it both challenged Ingraham directly and highlighted her rewriting of history.
Similarly, another student challenged Ingraham about how much she supposedly values free speech. He referenced the fact that after LeBron James and Kevin Durant spoke out against President Donald Trump she told them to “shut up and dribble,” but she said that anyone who criticized Drew Brees’s “God-given right” to voice his opposition to kneeling for the national anthem was “Stalinist.” Ingraham responded by saying that she didn’t remember saying that. The audience burst out laughing. She said “I don’t know why that’s funny.” Many laughed even harder. Ingraham condescendingly asked the young man if he had even seen the videos of these quotes. He said he had.
This type of public pressure is a form of activism that we often cast aside in favor of louder and more confrontational protest. But I think that it presents a real mechanism for change and education as it synthesizes activism, free exchange and open discourse.
Admittedly, I was slightly hesitant to attend the event. I am a strongly left-leaning student and active participant in liberal campus spaces. I worried that I would get “cancelled” for attending and “platforming” her. But the truth is, I did not invite her to campus — the DPU did. I would rather hear what she says directly from her mouth than the screened and butchered version I would have picked up from conversation around campus. And most importantly, I am more secure and more educated on my views about Ingraham because I went to the event. I don’t say this to imply that I am taking her hateful speech and fabricated versions of the events during her time at The Dartmouth Review as fact — quite the opposite. Rather, listening to her speak and to her interactions with audience members, I now see and understand how deep she has fallen into the MAGA rabbit hole.
Protest and free speech are the foundation of our democracy, cemented into the First Amendment. But just as we have seen throughout history how violent and non-violent protests differ in their effectiveness depending on their timing and usage, so do the different levels of each of them. The chanting and sign-holding protest that took place upstairs in Moore represents a branch of non-violent protest that is weary of open discourse that potentially platforms those with heinous beliefs and actions. I understand this. But I think the only way forward in our polarized time is to continue questioning, especially those we disagree with.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
