Dartmouth undone, Part Two

As Scott discusses below, Dartmouth has declared that it will not punish the BlackLivesMatter-supporting students who rampaged through Dartmouth’s Baker Library, cursing at and intimidating students as they tried to study for exams. Dartmouth’s decision is disgraceful.

If the concept of a “safe space” has any meaning, it applies to Baker Library. But if you’re angry and Black, you can disrupt that space by insulting students as they go about the business of learning.

Why did Dartmouth take no disciplinary action against the rampaging, threatening students? Meg Ramsden, Assistant Director, Alumni Leadership wrote:

After concluding its investigation with respect to the complaints and studying what was seen in the video in Baker-Berry Library, it was determined that there were no specific violations of the Standards of Conduct. In essence, no rules for which there are recorded and communicated sanctions were broken.

But Standard II of the Dartmouth Community Standards of Conduct prohibits Disorderly Conduct, defined as “any disruption of the orderly processes of the College.” Standard II also states:

The College requires orderly conduct of all students while in Hanover and its environs, as well as at any College-related function or activity, whether in Hanover or elsewhere. . . .

Studying in a college library is obviously an “orderly process of the College.” The BlackLivesMatter protesters disrupted it through disorderly behavior.

Thus, Rumsden’s claim that no specific violation occurred fails. It cannot be the real reason why Dartmouth let off every student who participated in the Baker Library rampage, even those who threatened students and screamed racist abuse (e.g., “Stand the f*** up!” “You filthy racist white piece of s***!”) at them.

What is the real reason? Either president Phil Hanlon is afraid to stand up to Dartmouth’s radical black students or he believes that their conduct is excusable. Either way, it’s clear that Hanlon is not competent to lead Dartmouth.

In her letter to alums, Ramsden states:

Students were counseled in serious conversations about judgment, the pledge of citizenship and behavior appropriate within a civil community.

But the students didn’t take the “serious conversations” seriously. Recently, Dartmouth’s BlackLivesMatter movement tore down a pro-police display that College Republicans erected to commemorate National Police Week. The College Republicans had received approval from Dartmouth to erect the display.

Why wouldn’t the BlackLivesMatter folks tear down the display? They know the administration won’t take action against them.

In her letter explaining why Dartmouth didn’t punish the Baker Library protesters, Rumsden invoked the First Amendment. She said that in an academic setting, “freedom of speech is mission crucial.” She concluded, inelegantly, that “the standards of the First Amendment are what are used to guide this process.”

But the destruction of the pro-police display makes a mockery of this claim. Freedom of speech includes the right to display pro-police material. Yet black students were able to deprive other students of this right, apparently with impunity.

At Dartmouth, free speech is a one way street. It protects the right of left-wing Black students to racially insult and threaten white students, but does not protect the right of conservative students to articulate their ideas. How warped!

Is such a College still worthy of alumni support?