Lott: Break with Tradition
By Roger Lott, Contributing Columnist
Published on Tuesday, January 25, 2011
While listening to a ’62 reminisce over Christmas dinner about the spirited traditions and rustic lifestyle he had known at Dartmouth, I couldn’t help but share in some of his nostalgia. It was saddening to appreciate that while Dartmouth has made great strides, it has also thrown away much of what made it special.
In 1993, Dartmouth ended a more than century-old tradition in which graduating seniors would smash long clay pipes on the stump of the old pine tree in the BEMA. The custom, based on the smokers’ habit of breaking off part of the pipe’s stem after it had become befouled through use, symbolized students’ “clean break” from the College. However, Native American students complained that the tradition was disrespectful of Native American rituals involving sacred pipes, and in ’93 mugs were substituted, only to later be done away with after seniors incurred minor injuries from clay shards.
The demise of the pipe-breaking tradition is a reflection of a broader over-vigilance for anything potentially offensive to Native Americans, and the undebatable nature of Dartmouth’s Indian mascot propagates a false notion that all indigenous peoples are offended by it and similar symbols. In fact, nothing is further from the truth. A 2004 Annenberg Policy poll found that 91 percent of Native Americans believe the name of the Washington Redskins is acceptable. In 1984, The Dartmouth Review hired Gallup to conduct a nationwide survey and found that 125 Native American chiefs supported the Dartmouth Indian while only 11 opposed it. One Seneca chief said that while the Indian was sometimes used badly, “Those were exceptions ... I was sorry to see the universities do away with it.” An Oklahoma Indian leader explained, “The Indian symbol is a reminder of our existence and endurance.”
The Dartmouth Indian inspired far more enthusiasm than the politically correct “Big Green” ever has. George Potts ’60 recalls on his blog the “awe and pride” he felt when “the Dartmouth Indian, in full war paint and battle regalia, rode a pinto bareback onto Memorial Field.” However, many at Dartmouth seem to think “stereotyping” any human group is inherently denigrating to it. Tell that to Penn’s “Fighting” Quakers or the Florida Seminoles, who officially endorse a Florida State University Seminole mascot.
The College’s excessive concern about causing offense is also manifested in its 1964 decision to cover the five main stained glass windows in Rollins Chapel after some took issue with the portrayal of Christian figures. It is a reflection of misplaced sensibilities that Dartmouth should choose to cover up beautiful relics out of shame for the College’s religious origins. Today, cursing and ostentatious sexuality are not found problematic while visible religious displays are highly taboo. The College seems to practice a double standard, however — apparently there was no problem with the Orozco Murals’ very prominent depiction of Christ or the use of a motto taken directly from the Bible. In 2006, the College finally unboarded the windows, although they are still frequently covered on non-Christian religious events.
The College does not stop at banning traditions it deems offensive — it has also forbidden a number of supposedly dangerous traditions. Despite good intentions, the College acts like a micro-managing parent when it tells young adults they have to stay 50 feet from the bonfire or can’t swim in the Connecticut River. Touching a giant flame or attempting to jump over a line of kegs while wearing ice skates (the banned Keg Jump) is certainly not without danger, but if students are going to be treated as adults they must be allowed to independently assess risks as long as they aren’t putting others in harm’s way.
For the administration to inform students about dangers is fine, but it emasculates the campus culture when it prevents young adults from making their own choices. The most thrilling traditions tend to have at least an element of the risqué, but the college would rather just keep things safe and boring so it doesn’t have to worry about liability. It’s difficult to cultivate a dynamic school spirit with a draconian administration that’s constantly going after anything with the potential to be physically or mentally hurtful. A good balance has to be found, and when students can’t smash pipes without causing an uproar or go swimming in a river without getting in trouble for risking their lives, there’s good reason to suspect that the administration has gone too far to one extreme.
Roger has it right again. Those who have been running the College for the past 40 years have been running it away from everything that it was, when everything that it was is what gave the College it’s great reputation. No more. Quoth the Raven. And the pipes, and the stained glass windows and Hovey Grill Murals and swimming in the river and the Indian and the bonfire and kegs and rushing the field and stands and fraternities that weren’t required to do “Community Service.” A thousand or two of the permanent college admin. bloat needs to be retired and the money redirected to the education of the students.
By Mats Wilander on Jan 25 | 3:06 am
lol roger lott trolling hard once again.
By Anonymous on Jan 25 | 3:49 am
Mats has served an ace with his comment. After a while, you have to think that there are administrators who look for things to forbid solely in order to justify the existence of their otherwise superfluous positions.
By Common Sense on Jan 25 | 7:07 am
Sigh. Here we go again.
1) Again, Mr. Lott decides he is the spokesperson for all people Native American. It doesn’t really matter if a Native American in Oklahoma says it’s okay. The point is – the Native Americans here, at this College, DID NOT think the breaking pipe tradition was okay, just as the Abenaki and other Native American students at Dartmouth vehemently opposed Mr. Lott’s proposal to “honor” the Abenaki by using them as a mascot (see the comments section of “Mascots without Malice”). This hinges entirely on Mr. Lott’s ability to homogenize all Native Americans as one uniform group. Has Mr. Lott surveyed the Native Americans on this campus about this issue? I have yet to see evidence of that.
2) “Acting like a micro-managing parent”? People have been seriously injured in the past by touching even the ashes of the bonfire. I won’t really get into the River issue, but people have made a case in the past for swimming in the River drunk (“Safety and Superiority”, by Tom Mandel, August 18, 2009), which anybody with medical training would know is incredibly dangerous. In both cases, alcohol has figured prominently, and drunk people tend to have their judgment impaired.
3) Informing students about danger is “emasculating”? Really now?
By Angela Zhang on Jan 25 | 9:43 am
Roger must be running out of ideas. he rehashed at least 3 of his previous articles in this one.
By wow on Jan 25 | 9:46 am
“Dartmouth” did not end the tradition, the members of the Class of 1993 did. It was not an example of hypervigilance. It was the result of a vote. Stop trying to pin it on Dartmouth.
Not only Native students complained, lots of students complained because they were offended or wanted no part in a tasteless fake Indian ceremony. This is something conservatives don’t understand. For example, non-Jews are capable of being offended by anti-Semitism. When gentiles abandon some anti-Semitic tradition it is not because they are kowtowing, it is because they are offended. So what if you can find a few Jews who think it’s fine?
The tradition of smashing the pipes was probably not 100 years old. The stump of the Old Pine is not in the Bema. The custom was not based on “the smokers’ habit of breaking off part of the pipe’s stem after it had become befouled through use.” That is a fabrication. “The Big Green” is not “politically correct,” it is a historic nickname for the College’s sports teams.
By Anonymous on Jan 25 | 10:31 am
I am pretty sure that the College has enough work to do keeping students from dying any given Monday, Wednesday, Friday, or Saturday night without having to deal with all this as well.
Also: you do not understand the Ozorco murals (didn’t we learn this in a previous article?), which are not there to promote Christianity, and are not in the multi-faith center of this college.
By anonymous on Jan 25 | 11:09 am
I find it interesting that Lott believes a poll (which in and of itself sounds extraordinarily questionable) of Native people, in general, somehow ought to dictate policy at Dartmouth. The majority of the United States is Christian. Ought Dartmouth, then, to change the College’s curriculum to reflect the desires and preferences of Christians? Perhaps we should run a poll of students in America and see if the majority of them believe church attendance should be required of college students. Of course we wouldn’t use that information, because the DARTMOUTH student body is not reflective of that preference, and such a necessity would be offensive and hurtful to the Dartmouth student body as a whole. Similarly, it is simply a fact, and not an imagined worry of the Dartmouth administration, that the Indian head mascot IS distinctly hurtful to most Native students at Dartmouth. Lott perhaps should have considered the reliability and applicability of his data set before drawing a conclusion.
By Grace D’Arcy on Jan 25 | 11:10 am
Apparently Angela doesn’t want to read, at least not for comprehension. She also recognizes the things written that threaten her position the most and responds to those. That is disappointing as well as a waste of space on the page and disqualifies her comment entirely. She has a bias against what Roger says but nothing with which to refute what he says. All that’s left then is misrepresentation. A sorry state of affairs.
By FDR on Jan 25 | 11:44 am
Glad to know that your opinions matter more than the largest group of psychologist in the United States.
“Adopted by the APA Council of Representatives on August 21, 2005
APA Resolution Recommending the Immediate Retirement of American Indian Mascots, Symbols, Images, and Personalities by Schools, Colleges, Universities, Athletic Teams, and Organizations…
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association recognizes the potential negative impact the use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities have on the mental health and psychological behavior of American Indian people; … THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association supports and recommends the immediate retirement of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams, and organizations.
By JProper on Jan 25 | 12:37 pm
I think Angela was spot on FDR. As was Grace.
This country is diverse and the opinions of “Native American Chiefs” nation-wide does not in any way reflect the sentiments of the diverse group of Native American students on campus, today. As has been demonstrated by the response this piece, the earlier piece this last Fall regarding the mascot issue and many other op-eds, it is offensive to many people, Native and non-Native alike. People are not mascots…the Indian Head does not represent all of the over 564 Native American tribes in America and perpetuates this superficial understanding of what it looks like and what it means to be Native. You can not brand what it is to be an ethnicity. Can you brand what it is to be Black? Latina? Jewish? Irish? What if we put a picture up of a red-headed Irish Man with a bad sunburn and Guiness in his hand and said “Rally behind this Dartmouth – we’re the Dartmouth Irishmen!?” How would you feel if you were Irish? Neither does a brown Indian with war paint on in feathers. How about a black man with large lips a flat nose and a gold chain around his neck? If you were Black at Dartmouth would this make you feel comfortable? I hope these images rub you the wrong way – I hope they make your squirm so that you can understand what I think the Mascot does to some of us – as I can’t speak for any other Native American at Dartmouth but I do know a lot of us take big offense to the Indian Head as a mascot.
I cannot be encapsulated by a brown Indian man wearing a head dress with war paint on.
Something else often overlooked – certain things we wear as Native people, eat as Native people, say as Native people are sacred. A head dress or in my community a mask, is not just something you put on. It signifies something in your place in society, who you are and how you relate to others in that specific situation. What is sacred in our communities is so because we reserve the rights to those “clothes,” that food, that dance for special purposes. A head dress is not something that is lightly or loosely worn, neither is war paint or a face tattoo where I come from. It is not something used decoratively and flippantly to celebrate a football game.
Disrespect in many Native communities is not just a matter of offense. “Native American students complained that the tradition was disrespectful of Native American rituals.” Rituals serve a purpose, head dresses, serve a purpose, war paint serves a purpose. And it’s not for dress up. Our clothing, our food, our rituals make us who we are. Mainstream American society often does not put such emphasis or understanding on clothing, food or what is akin to American ritual so I can understand the backlash from people that think we are just whining or complaining. But we are not – we are protecting what it is that makes us Native Americans. Please understand that.
Also – why was did the DR hire Gallup to poll the rest of country when its a Dartmouth Student newspaper read by Dartmouth students? Next time, polling us would be much appreciated and frankly more relevant.
By Susan Aaluk Edwardson on Jan 25 | 1:43 pm
FDR, do you realize how little sense you’re making? Because she chooses which segments of Lott’s article to respond to, this somehow disqualifies her entire critique? And she does directly refute much of his argument (for example, when she explains that taking a national poll of Indian chiefs does not matter if people at Dartmouth specifically take offense.
Lott, your article is absurd. Love the double standard on how the college start censoring groups that have a sexual purpose (health, advice, etc.) but when they censor issues of safety…that’s totally out of line.
And actually the college has a great reason for the safety measures. It’s called law suits.
By Anonymous on Jan 25 | 2:26 pm
@Ms. Zhang, since when does a few anonymous comments on an opinion article constitute as citable evidence for a community’s “vehement opposition” towards a policy? @Ms. D'Arcy, I’d like to know where you’re getting your “facts” from. As far as I know there’s no survey out there citing the Indian mascot as “distinctly hurtful” to native american students.
I’m half-Irish. Does this mean I should rail against Notre Dame’s mascot because some people might think that they are using the Fighting Irish to portray Irishmen as…I don’t know…say, violent drunkards? No, especially not when we realize the actual reason why the school has that mascot. In that same spirit, we should recognize Native Americans as a proud people and as the keepers of ancient traditions. Two characteristics that the Dartmouth community should strive to aspire to. And of course we all know how integral a part Native Americans played in the early days of the college. Having recognized those two items as facts (which we should), it makes absolutely no sense to rule out the Indian as a potential mascot.
And as for pipe ceremony. It sounds like it would’ve been a cool tradition, and if it is truly a “fake Indian tradition” then there’s absolutely no reason against it. Make it a Dartmouth tradition. And even if it was an actual Indian tradition, IT’S STILL NOT A REASON NOT TO DO IT! I mean, seriously, what is wrong with our society today? It would be like me getting offended over non-christians celebrating Christmas.
By Brian Giunta on Jan 25 | 2:54 pm
Sounds good, Roger Lott harshers. How about nothing that is objectionable to any Dartmouth student be done? How about a poll of one? That is the logical end to the argument that if there are some who object then it is divisive, disrespectful and wrong. I can go along with that, but people who think that their group whatever it is, is entitled to whatever it wants since they lobbied for it and they will cry and go home if they don’t get it, is wrong. This kind of administration begs for anyone and everyone to demand their piece of the action. All who are predictably knee-jerk attacking Roger are in favor of theirs and others special activities that the College engages in for them and for their benefit, that conform with their politically correct positions but can’t deal with the wishes of others that they don’t apporove of. Who died and made you kings and queens? Can some of you explain what it is that College fraternities are eternally guilty of which makes it necessary for them to engage in mandatory community service? Are the LGBTQA people required to do community service? Who has to do community service? Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen and Dartmouth fraternities?
By FDR on Jan 25 | 3:12 pm
Roger Lott is spot-on again! Traditions are definitely more important than offending people or personal safety. But why did you stop your argument before getting to the biggest change to our personal traditions at all, Mr. Lott?! We should revert to our old ways and disallow women from attending this dear old college, as we used to do years ago!
By Old Crochety Alumnus on Jan 25 | 3:20 pm
@ FDR – didn’t want to say anything about the Orozco murals because Professor Coffrey has talked about the Orozco murals far more eloquently than I ever can (“A Mural Imperative”, Nov. 11, 2010)
@ Brian Giunta – Anonymity doesn’t mean unimportant. Many people who identified as Abenaki or Native Americans have expressed their offense. Also, just because you might not take offense at practices that caricature your ethnic background or appropriating your religious holiday doesn’t mean that other groups similarly are not allowed to take offense. I don’t know if there was an official survey asking if the Indian mascot was hurtful, but the Native American students (and many others) have stated again and again that it is hurtful and would be deeply offended by it. If that’s not official enough, I don’t know what is.
By Angela Zhang on Jan 25 | 3:58 pm
** Sorry, that should have been Professor Coffey.
By Angela Zhang on Jan 25 | 4:07 pm
Orozco Murals. Why not. Communist murals, Nazi murals, socialist murals, how about Jihadist murals, Hugo Chavez murals anyone? There isn’t anything that should be censored and everyone should be allowed space at the College for whatever they like, that is unless certain people don’t want it. Who has pull at the College? Who uses their pull at the College? How do you get clout and keep it? How does the College decide to provide transportation to the LGBTQA National Convention at Columbia University? Is the College providing a DDS sack lunch and cookies for the trip? And I want the fraternities to have to do double community service. They are guilty of something, I’m sure of it. I know, they are guilty of being holdovers from when Dartmouth wasn’t a dedicated Social Justice Zone. Community service for them, send ‘em straight to jail as soon as they make noises about rushing and pledgingand after they’ve served their time, then double secret community service, put 'em in their place. Sororities are not guilty, they are full of people who are by definition victims and therefore not guilty.
By Wild-Eyed Nut Student on Jan 25 | 4:48 pm
As a Dartmouth student, it is quite frankly embarrassing to me that “The Dartmouth” continues to allow Roger Lott to use the school’s newspaper as a platform for his thinly veiled racism. Publishing articles which promote antiquated ideas about “what is right” for Native Americans only makes Dartmouth seem an intolerant and racist place to attend school (hello, prospective students!). I’m certainly in favor of a wide variety of opinions being represented in “The Dartmouth”, however this article merely rehashes ignorant and offensive ideas which Lott has previously expressed.
By Claire J. Hunter on Jan 25 | 6:26 pm
What does “emasculates the campus culture” mean?
By Anonymous on Jan 25 | 8:52 pm