Should the Hovey Murals have been Removed?

From the editors:

The Hovey Murals are a set of paintings with racist depictions of indigenous peoples that purport to depict Dartmouth’s founding. They used adorned the walls of the basement of the Class of 1953 Commons dining hall, an exclusive dining space for Dartmouth professors and students to eat steak and smoke cigars, until the 1970s when the room was locked to the public

Now, the paintings reside in an off campus Hood Museum art storage facility after Hovey Murals Study Group decided to move them. The public does not have access to the murals, but students and faculty still do if faculty elect to include them in their course material.

Pro

The Hovey Murals painted in the late 1930s after Walter Humphrey’s request for a more “Dartmouth” mural than Orozco’s work have no place on our campus nor in today’s society. President Hanlon’s decision to put them in the Hood museum’s off campus storage is entirely inadequate. The murals depict Native Americans as uncivilized, drunk, and illiterate; Native women are reduced to serving one purpose to Dartmouth and society: sexual objects. This is not only a disgusting representation of Native Americans, but also severely historically inaccurate depiction of how Natives dressed and lived in the early 20th century. There is no plausible reason for keeping the paintings. The Hovey Murals only hold us back from what Dartmouth acts like it cares about.

How can we have discussions on sexual assault and gender equality while holding tight to these paintings and keeping them in the storage of an art museum? The “Moving Dartmouth Forward” initiative loses a lot of credibility when our college maintains disgusting images of our flawed and racist past. The argument that we should keep them as a teaching tool is strange, given they are already well documented and accompanied by a wonderful article by Professor Calloway in Rauner, among others. We need to make a statement that we care about Native Americans and inclusivity in general. We need to make a statement that we care about gender equality and do not stand for sexualized representations of women.

Keeping these murals in an art museum’s storage shows that we value them as works of art. Hanlon stated that the “derogatory images in the Hovey murals convey disturbing messages that are incompatible with Dartmouth’s mission and values.” That statement in no way aligns with his decision for the college to maintain ownership of the murals, implicitly valuing them as works of art deserving of museum storage. Interim provost David Kotz also affirmed that “As an institution of higher education, we recognize the murals’ value as a teaching tool… we also recognize that the murals are deeply insulting to Native Americans and many others in the Dartmouth community.”

What value are we getting in keeping the physical objects? We live in a time when photographic images are just as descriptive as viewing the paintings in person. It is frankly embarrassing that Dartmouth is so oddly attached to the physical objects. It is time that we follow up buzzwords with action and destroy these paintings. It is time we make a statement.

– Anonymous

Con

Do we perpetuate traditions for their own sake or for ours? When we consider phenomena such as the Dartmouth Indian, how do these traditions reflect upon our community and our shared social history? In reality, Dartmouth graduated fewer than two dozen Native students in the first 200 years of the College’s history. The Dartmouth Indian was the only Indian present on this campus for many years. This should silence the argument that it was a symbol or sign of respect for Native peoples, since there were no actual Dartmouth students on campus who could voice their opinions on this type of “respect.”

The Hovey Murals are one of the truest examples of historical feelings towards Native peoples on Dartmouth’s campus. Commissioned by the College in the late 1930s after outcry from alumni directed at the Orozco Murals, the Hovey Murals were called “real Dartmouth murals.”

Walter Beach Humphrey, the artist, based the murals off of an old Dartmouth drinking song depicting 500 gallons of New England rum, drunk Indian men, and sexualized Native women. Eleazar Wheelock stands center, surrounded by barrels of rum, Indian men, and nearly naked Indian women. Though they have been covered for at least a decade and closed off from public view, the murals represent more than a sore spot among the Native community at Dartmouth and many Native alums. Dartmouth’s refusal to take action has left the College in a moral limbo at the cost of Native pride, self-esteem, and self-worth. Dartmouth calls Native students to its campus by parading a strong indigenous community, an incredible NAP and NAS program, and its long Native history. However, when students arrive at the College they are greeted by countless obstacles telling them they do not belong here. Whether in the form of murals, Indian head tattoos, or affirmative action accusations, Native students are constantly reminded that the College which was literally built for them has never been theirs.

The Hovey Murals have been preserved for years under the argument that their preservation attests to Dartmouth’s complicated history with Native peoples. If we really had a dedication to Dartmouth’s Native history, shouldn’t that take the form of dedication to Dartmouth’s current Native students?

Nonetheless, the murals represent an important part of Dartmouth’s past, and ultimately the decision to remove and preserve them was the correct one. To leave them on campus would be to ignore the outcry among indigenous students that has been happening for decades. By removing them and preserving, the College takes an important step in recognizing the wishes of its Native students, those closest to the issue undoubtedly, while also acknowledging the important educational purpose the murals may serve in the future. Dartmouth must remember its past if it is ever to do right by its current students. The murals represent a possible first step in the dedication of Dartmouth to recognizing and reconciling with its Native history, to rededicating itself to its Native students after 50 years.

– Anonymous

February 4, 2020February 4, 2020

Were the “In Solidarity” Emails Responding to the Trips Op-Ed and the “Take Back the Night” Initiative Meaningful Actions?

From the editors:

This winter, the Dartmouth published an op-ed entitled “You’re Not Tripping.” The author condemned the Trips Directors’ selection process for too heavily weighing factors, such as gender, in the selection process and openly questioned the merit of the new selections. In response, many student organizations sent emails with the subject “In Solidarity” expressing support for the Trips Directors and criticizing the article.

21.3% of Dartmouth students agreed with the author’s position, while 78.6% disagreed.

On April 6, a cohort of students asked all social spaces to close in honor of a “Night of Solidarity,” a night dedicated to seriously reflecting on the sexual violence committed on this campus and ways in which Dartmouth and its students can improve the safety of social spaces on campus. In response, many student organizations sent emails with the subject “In Solidarity” expressing their involvement with this initiative (which colloquially came to be known as “Take Back the Night,” after the non-profit organization which spearheads such rallies and protests against sexual violence, among other actions).

69.7% of Dartmouth students supported this initiative, while 24.8% opposed it.

All data sourced from College Pulse.

Pro

The “In-Solidarity” emails offered insight into which Greek Houses and on-campus organizations genuinely cared about the issue of sexual assault.

Without names, it’s quite clear that certain groups on campus were proactive about the topic while others were far more reactive. It probably makes little sense to credit organizations and groups who felt they were pressured into acting – but it doesn’t hurt to note them. You might consideralso reconsider Fraternity XYZ’s “In-Solidarity” email (or lack thereof) before deciding to spend a Saturday night there.

Additionally, it seems entirely possible that this “Take Back the Night” phenomenon will continue next year. The email chain – which signifies the support of the majority of on-campus organizations, whether pressured into it or not – likely played an integral part in this shift.

For those who are passionate about sexual assault on our campus (perceived to be the vast majority), the “In-Solidarity” emails have given a snapshot of the present and possibility for future change.

Additionally, on a very basic level, I believe we all want this campus to be somewhere that people feel safe. If you can’t find meaning from an email chain that shows the safest places on campus, consider this: the “In-Solidarity” emails will likely be much more intentional next year. The executives elected for on-campus organizations and Greek Houses who write them will certainly be far more committed to their creation. This type of commitment is cyclical, going hand in hand with solidarity’s true definition of acting in response to a perceived need in one’s larger community. So to conclude: an expression of solidarity is better than nothing; it might also engender meaningful action from others. These “In-Solidarity” emails certainly qualify as an act of solidarity.

How was this an act of solidarity? The term solidarity derives from the French ‘solidarité’. This initial meaning was perceived as the “communion of interests and responsibilities, mutual responsibility” (c. 1829). Mutual responsibility and a consideration for a community’s larger “perceived need” are substantively indistinguishable. A more modern definition still maintains this connection – acting in solidarity is now seen as “unity (as of a group or class) that produces or is based on community of interests, objectives, and standards”.

Whether past or present, an act of solidarity is any action taken in response to a meaningful perceived need. We might qualify different actions for their quality – Jesse Owens holding his fist up at the Olympics probably ranks higher than a blitz chain – but any genuine attempt to address a meaningful problem for a broader group should qualify as acting in solidarity.

Furthermore, these acts of solidarity have led to substantive change across history. MADD led to safer roads. The March on Washington spurned Civil Rights legislation. Presently, NFLers kneeling forced NFL owners into revealing the league’s stance on patriotism versus bottom lines. #MeToo and the Women’s March likely contributed to a record number of 2018 female Congressional candidates — these acts each created insight into inequitable situations. Our response to them, hopefully, leads a safer and more equitable world.

– Anonymous

Con

The solidarity emails responding to Ryan Spector’s op-ed in The Dartmouth and the Take Back the Night Initiative were not meaningful actions. These expressions of goodwill for the Dartmouth community did more to artificially boost the virtuousness of those standing in solidarity than to lend any help to those in need. Without a doubt, there are merits to increasing awareness, but if the goal is to make a substantial difference, then there is more that can be done. A meaningful action goes beyond words and takes substantive steps towards correcting what is deemed wrong.

The issue with these two actions had nothing to do with the message they were promoting. After many campus organizations sent out their emails, it became clear that not sending one would be a statement in and of itself. Remaining silent would be a clear indication of an acceptance of bigotry on our campus, which it certainly is not. Putting other members of the College in this position is not only unfair, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Regardless of your position on the article or Take Back the Night, the emails were a coercive tactic to bully everyone into agreement. Imagine if this were to happen in a different context over a more contested issue. The value and legitimacy of the opposing argument would be silenced by the majority.

Sending an email across campus to indicate that you stand in solidarity with the individuals who may have been angered by a brief article is a cry for attention. Other than raising awareness, what good are you imparting on campus by telling everyone that you care deeply about issues we face?

The solidarity emails responding to the “Take Back the Night” initiative were equally unwarranted. It was similarly a way for people to express their caring nature rather than do anything to further their cause. Aside from spreading their message, which I see as something with which it is very difficult to disagree, they forced concurrence. Regardless of the veracity of their statement, its unhealthy to have a small group force the entire campus to shut down.

In the case of Ryan Spector’s op-ed, the concern shouldn’t have been with the hurt feelings of the community. In fact, the only meaningful action that should have been taken was an analysis of his argument. Take Back the Night had a great message, but it still attempted to distribute that message coercively. What Dartmouth students can do instead is focus on sexual assault as criminal behavior and prioritize the organizations that help combat this issue and provide outlets for survivors to tell their stories.

There are many, very real issues that we face today at Dartmouth. But material change requires two things: embodying the behavior we expect from the members of our community, and actively participating in a solution. Declarations of self-righteousness do not help.

– Anonymous

January 12, 2020February 4, 2020

Politics in the Classroom?

From the Editors:

In this post we consider whether or not professors should aim to remain neutral on potentially charged topics in the classroom. Is it okay for them to step beyond the objectives of their course? Can they talk politics, religion, ethics and their opinions on matters beyond their areas of expertise?

Pro

In its mission statement, Dartmouth says that it “fosters lasting bonds…which encourage…collegiality.” Dartmouth and other Universities have made it clear that their mission is not just to educate and publish research, but to create a supportive community, as well. Definitionally, communities have common issues and values that are important to them. Cohesiveness requires the entire community coming together to address these issues. Professors make up a large part of the Dartmouth population and share many common values with the student body. My engineering professors espouse Dartmouth’s liberal arts focus. I have heard them speak freely and deeply on history and literature. Faculty thereby value their role as a large and significant part of the campus community. They also have the most visibility on campus during lectures. While faculty members can speak with students in other places such as housing communities or discussion panels, these events are optional to students and have lower attendance than class time. Professors’ role in the Dartmouth community would be significantly diminished if it were compartmentalized to optional events. Their use of class time to speak on issues of politics, ethics, etc. that affect campus life may be the most effective way to facilitate Professors’ participation in the college community.

Dartmouth’s mission statement also says that it “encourages independence of thought within a culture of collaboration.” When professors speak about subjective topics beyond their curriculum, students should weigh this as an individual’s opinion instead of as dogma, according to a mission statement that encourages freedom of thought. A Professor’s voicing of political opinion could motivate students to research politics and form their own thoughts, instead of blindly looking up to faculty as their superiors and adopt their thinking. Particularly in STEM subjects, where there is little scope for subjective discussion, hearing a professor’s opinions on extracurricular topics is a great way for students to learn how faculty think. When a professor respectfully voices opinion on subjects outside their expertise, their human and personable side is more visible. Professors who speak relatively freely in class may seem more accessible and trustworthy. Trust between students and faculty strengthens the campus community. Trust also facilitates conversation, bolstering and supplement curricular learning.

If professors were not allowed to use class time to speak on areas outside their expertise, an issue arises when defining areas of expertise. Many professors and courses at Dartmouth are inherently multidisciplinary. During my classics course, my professor openly lamented Trump’s election. Classics is a far cry from American Politics. However, classical ethics provides a framework for judging political discourse. The professor’s digression interestingly tied into our class’ study of Aristotle. Analogously, the rigors of engineering appear extremely distinct from the subjectivity of ethics. However, structural and environmental engineering courses weigh the human impact of innovation. Thorough understanding of engineering principles such as risk mitigation and safety standards not only involves but requires ethics. Discussions of contentious current events could bolster an understanding of these topics. In a range of fields, seemingly off-topic discourse can actually provide useful and refreshingly illustrative perspectives.

Con

The question of whether professors should be allowed to talk about politics, religion, and ethics in the classroom can only be answered by looking at the core role of education in a student’s life. A proper education should give students the tools that they need to view the world around them critically, as well as give students rational problem-solving skills. In short, education helps students be individualist thinkers rather than conformists. By extension, the best teachers are those who strive to nurture creative thinkers who question the world around them and to guide students as they form personal value systems and moralities. Rather than being forced to accept the truth as it is told by others, students should be allowed to be intrinsically curious about what they learn and seek the truth for themselves. Thus, a teacher’s role is not to teach students what to think; it is to teach them how to think and to prepare them to go off into the world ready to think for themselves.

Professors, then, need to remain impartial in the classroom. This doesn’t mean that professors cannot speak about politics, religion, or ethics if it pertains to their subjects. Rather, they should present the facts about the topic at hand and allow students to make their own opinions. In order to truly help students understand topics and questions being presented to them, professors need to be able to play “devil’s advocate” and argue for both sides of the topic. However, this is impossible to do convincingly if the students already know what their professor believes.

For example, suppose a left-leaning professor is presenting a lecture on healthcare in America. Democrats and Republicans would certainly have differing ideas on the subject. If the professor remained neutral, students would be given the opportunity to debate amongst themselves. Democrats and Republicans discussing the topic would both be forced to make arguments based on their fundamental understanding of the ideas being presented to them and to challenge the other’s arguments using ethics and logic. This both forces students to truly understand the material the professor is trying to teach and helps students build critical debate skills, as well. However, if the professor had opened the discussion by telling the students that she agreed with the Democratic Party, then Democrats in the class would simply agree with the professor and move on, while Republicans wouldn’t speak up for fear of receiving poor grades from the professor or starting a debate. The students would lose the opportunity to deepen their understanding of the topic and wouldn’t be able to have important conversations that helped them become better thinkers and debaters.

Professors who are able to effectively give their students the tools to debate and think creatively do not need to give students their opinions on political, religious, or ethical matters at hand because it is counterintuitive; it keeps their students from growing intellectually. Instead of simply giving students dogmatic answers to complex questions with no true right or wrong, they should steer students onto a path of curiosity and learning, making their students true citizens of the world who are as informed as they can possibly be, and who are equipped to handle an increasingly divided world.