A reporter’s take on the intellectual standards of Dartmouth’s immigration rally
Monday’s national immigration rallies transformed Dartmouth’s campus into a hub of activism. I, in turn, transformed into a reporter to cover it – a role that left me with a sore back, a red neck, and some troubling questions.
While the day’s details have been covered by other campus publications and by the ever-spinning blitz rumor mills, a look at some of the more distressing moments of a very tense day—and what they did to undermine many of the day’s goals—is still lacking. After hours of interviews and firsthand observation of the day’s events, I have concluded that the rallies did not intend to create the “dialogue” for which they so publicly called, but rather included heavy smears of xenophobia themselves, and displayed an embarrassing lack of intellectualism.
Throughout the town march, many of the protestors championed the day’s efforts as a vehicle for raising dialogue and awareness. Katie Greenwood ’04, Richard Schlossberg, Stuart Lord, and coordinator Elizabeth Mendoza ’08 all listed campus discussion as their principal interest, yet this goal took a back seat at the actual symposium itself (billed as a “U.S. Immigration Policy Discussion”) when the protestors were faced with their perceived chief opponents, the College Republicans. Anger simmered just below the surface of the standing-room-only crowd in Dartmouth 105, and when some CRs announced their presence, seeking to defend themselves from serious attacks, the crowd burst like a whitehead. Rahul Sangwan ’07, president to the CRs, should have been aware of the challenge posed merely by showing up, but I doubt he predicted the crowd’s Salem-esque tones. The very people calling for the College’s sleeping conscience to awaken in order to debate the US immigration policy problem quickly became the ones preventing a true dialogue.
When Mendoza realized people wished to discuss the CRs’ posters (they read “Remember when illegal meant illegal?” and pictured a road sign warning of border-crossers) rather than the actual issue of immigration policy, she astutely turned the night into a “debate,” and assigned Professors Richard Wright and Lourdes Najera with the task of moderating. But Wright, anything but neutral (and, to be fair, also not expecting to moderate the evening, but asked to conduct an educational “teach-in.”), called on a disproportionate number of protestors, allowing Sangwan to defend his organization only after every third or fourth attack. When Sangwan was allowed to address certain points, he found himself shouted down, rudely interrupted, and mocked. Some crowd members took the opportunity to stand, physically hovering over Sangwan – who remained seated throughout – in childish attempts at intimidation. Even if Sangwan had legitimate arguments, it was obvious they would not be heard. The evening would have become nothing more than a misguided witch hunt, but thankfully a few keen students and the professors moved the discussion back to the matter at hand – the current immigration crisis. This occurred, however, only after an hour of accosting the CRs. In the end, the protestors were less concerned with creating a constructive dialogue than they were with hearing their viewpoints reaffirmed by a group of like-minded individuals.
Throughout the day, the lopsided usage of terms such as “ethnocentric,” “xenophobic,” and “racist” caused me to reflect on the events of the day critically. While certain legislative measures and public statements against immigrants in the past months have been undeniably motivated by these themes, ignorance has flowed both ways. Nationally, this is painfully obvious. Latinos around the country rallied behind Mexican flags (changed when public relations consultants suggested they move to the less-polarizing American flag), translated the National Anthem into Spanish, and unofficially labeled the Monday protests as “Anti-Gringo Day.”
Further examples of ethnocentrism are almost too obvious to be seen – many legal immigrants support illegal (“undocumented,” in PC terminology) immigrants for no other reason than a shared racial background. In no way is this unity shocking, but it should be seen for what it is – a strictly ethnocentric stand taken against the “Gringos.” Nor was the College immune to such rhetoric. I talked with at least two individuals who characterized the rally as a strike against “white corporate America,” an interesting contrast to the myriad signs telling Hanover to “Say No to Xenophobia” and “Smash Racism.” Kwabena Safo-Agyekum ’06 was “not surprised” to see a lack of white students on the Green in the rally, stating that many white Dartmouth students “aren’t comfortable talking about race because they don’t want to say they’re racist.”
His statement may very well contain valid points for Dartmouth’s campus, but it also reflects one aspect of the racial overtones in campus discourse. For instance, one young woman at the “teach-in” felt it necessary to stand over Sangwan and obnoxiously remind him he was “brown,” causing raucous applause by the largely non-white crowd. Barely concealed in such a statement is an accusation of Sangwan being the “house-Negro” of a largely white political party. (Thankfully, Shermaine Jones ’06, a consistent voice of reason, quickly dismissed the personal attack as “racializing” and “perpetuating the cycle” of xenophobia among both camps.) Perhaps the most disturbing comments passed casually into the day’s running conversation were two direct comparisons of white corporate America to Nazi Germany. Both comments met zero opposition despite being incredibly inflammatory, insulting, and pathetically off-base. These were but some of the extreme examples of the equally xenophobic, intolerant background created by the protestors. And while the narrow-minded statements made against immigrants cannot be justified, it is imperative we view both sides’ disturbing talking points without bias.
Finally, the protests and “teach-in” demonstrated an overall lack of intellectual rigor. Perhaps the motives were there, but they were eventually overshadowed by immaturity and a trend of uncritical social acceptance. With the term “immaturity,” I have in mind the deplorable way in which Monday evening’s “teach-in” was conducted. As stated above, the congregated students not only pushed an educational meeting towards impromptu pseudo-debate, they exhibited so little self-control that soon the protestors themselves called for the meeting to get back on track. It is a small miracle Sangwan kept composure throughout the vicious personal attacks and laughable debate techniques of shouting, pointing, and physical intimidation. These egregious violations of the debate’s spirit aside, most of the protestors’ arguments hinged solely on anecdotal evidence and rumors. Thiago M. Oliveira ’06 was one of few exceptions: he argued with a voice – citing facts and legitimized trends – as eloquently as he did in his mass blitzes. Not only was he able to form cohesive, tight arguments, but he also did not allow his emotional investment in the issue to color them. Sadly, however, many others could not transcend their intense personal ties to the immigration issue, and attacked the CRs like a Puritan mob tying witches to the stake.
Similarly upsetting was the laid-back acceptance of extremist statements during the rally and the “teach-in.” The protestors’ collective un-conscience placed references to Nazi Germany on par with respectable dissent. Thoughtless applause supported over-simplified statements like Mendoza’s “Don’t eat, America, don’t eat!” and the aforementioned reminder of Sangwan’s “brown” complexion. In fact, the same audience hooting and applauding after the “brown” comment clapped when Jones rejected the statement 30 seconds later. Indeed, this incongruent support cannot go unaddressed. It suggests a broad void of thought behind the protest, a very unsettling reality on a campus respected for its “intellectualism.”
Ultimately, I must commend the organizers, participants, and sympathetic parties for a successful exercise in civil disobedience on May 1st. However, the protestors failed to create a constructive campus dialogue, communicated scary xenophobic and extremist characteristics, and lacked the intellectual sensitivity which an issue of such import deserves. Dartmouth is fertile for a successful debate – a real debate – between opposition parties, and students should jump at this opportunity. When choosing individuals to represent them in the future, I hope the protestors select effective, rational, and articulate students like Oliveira rather than rabble-rousers suitable only for holding a bullhorn.
