he green distribution stands are a familiar sight throughout campus. At no cost every student on campus can get a copy of the most recent issue of Dartmouth’s only daily newspaper. Indeed, The Dartmouth has been a familiar part of the College for over two hundred years. It uses Dartmouth’s name, enjoys substantial office space in Robinson Hall, and holds lucrative advertising contracts with the college’s departments and centers. However, over the past four months, a series of incidents has taken place that has tarnished the reputation of the publication students commonly refer to as “The D.” Allegations of manufacturing controversy for stories, printing false information, silencing views critical of the publication, and improperly changing published editorials have driven many members of minority communities on campus to question the fairness and integrity of The Dartmouth. What is going on inside America’s oldest college newspaper?

An Engineered Controversy?

The Dartmouth has a reputation for engaging in minor, but mostly harmless, breaches of accepted journalistic practices. Many students, faculty, and administrators have complained about having quotes improperly attributed to them, and rumor has it that within the walls of Parkhurst Hall there is a button circulated among administrators with “I Was Misquoted by The D” plastered on it. But the publication was more seriously questioned following its coverage of the college’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day keynote address on January 10.

The lecture was delivered by Dorothy Allison, a noted gay rights activist who is a Caucasian lesbian. In an article published the day of her lecture, entitled “MLK Speaker Choice Sparks Debate,” Dartmouth staff writer Stuart Reid ’08 alleged that “some Dartmouth community members [describe] her selection as a perversion of the holiday,” suggesting that the African-American community in particular was generally dissatisfied with the College’s choice of Allison to deliver the lecture. Three African-American students were interviewed in the piece and were described in the article as being “offended by the choice” and saying her selection led to having the civil rights struggle for African-Americans unfairly “conflated with gay rights issues.” Of the students interviewed, not one supported Allison’s selection, and the clear implication of the piece was that there was significant disdain for her lecture among African-Americans.

But closer examination of the piece suggests that the controversy was unfairly exaggerated. LaVon Morgan ‘07 was one of the students interviewed in the piece, in which she was quoted as saying, “In a world where racial inequality still exists, the College should not sweep that away to address issues which King himself did not,” referring to gay rights. Ms. Morgan, while a volunteer in the Office of Black Student Advising, has never held an executive office in any African-American student organization. When asked why Mr. Reid chose her to interview, she said, “I assume my being black came into play, as did my Christian views as expressed on my facebook page. It was kind of interesting to think perhaps what I, an avowed conservative Christian, would have to say about the MLK Day speaker.” Similarly, Chantee Parris ’06, who was also quoted in Mr. Reid’s article, publicly and vocally identifies herself as being an avid Christian. But while Mr. Reid apparently made significant efforts to ensure that the black Christian community was represented in his piece, he made no visible efforts to contact the students considered to be black student leaders.

“As the Concerned Black Students Chairperson in the Afro-American Society, I am surprised that I was not contacted for input in The Dartmouth’s article,” said Courtney Hinton ’05, a member of the Executive Board of the Afro-American Society. She notes that no leaders of the Afro-American Society, Africaso, or Black Greek organizations were contacted to contribute to the article. The Free Press spoke with four other current and former members of the executive boards of these organizations. All of them said that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their colleagues were asked to comment for the piece, and each one intimated that the attitudes expressed by black students in the article were not representative of the African-American community at large.

What motivated Mr. Reid’s selection of interviewees? Was he concerned that the piece might be biased? The Free Press was unable to secure answers to these questions, as Mr. Reid refused to comment, saying only, “The Dartmouth has a policy against reporters speaking to other media organizations about our stories.”

The Tip of the Iceberg

Mr. Reid’s piece sent up red flags of concern for members of the GLBTQ community, including Michael Amico ’07, a member of Dartmouth’s Gay-Straight Alliance. He wrote a letter to the editor of the Dartmouth criticizing Mr. Reid’s article; the newspaper’s editorial board refused to print it. But Mr. Amico’s would have other opportunities to confront the Dartmouth.

On January 24th, Jewelle Gomez, an award-winning writer and noted gay rights activist, delivered the fifth annual Stonewall Fund lecture in gay studies. Two days later, The Dartmouth published an article by Alex Lentz ’07 entitled “Leading Gay Rights Activist Bashes Men, Praises ’60s Rock.” The article claimed that Ms. Gomez “railed at men” in her lecture and mentioned her remarks in connection with Ms. Allison’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day lecture, which the article again referred to being thought of as “a perversion of the holiday.”

“The thing about bashing men was so far from anything I said,” Ms. Gomez told the Free Press in an interview. “When I read the piece that they wrote about my talk, I felt it was ridiculous, and I couldn’t tell if it was the reporter’s fault or the editors’.” Gomez, a graduate of the Columbia University School of Journalism and herself a former editor of a college publication, decided to take action in response.

“I wrote a letter to The Dartmouth and the only thing they did was e-mail me back and say it was too long and that they had already addressed the Dorothy Allison issue,” she said, adding that then-Opinion Editor Lindsay Barnes ’06 also made a “snippy comment” about the unfairness of “attacks” in her letter. Mr. Barnes did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The Dartmouth eventually published Ms. Gomez’s letter on its website, but almost a month after its submission.

Mr. Amico and Michael Guzman ’06, President of the Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA), and two other members of the GSA Executive Board met with Colin Barry ’06, President of The Dartmouth a week after Ms. Gomez’s lecture. According to Mr. Guzman, the GSA went into the meeting hoping for an explanation of why Mr. Amico’s letter to the editor was not published. They hoped that The Dartmouth would print retractions of Lentz’s more extreme claims.

“Colin was really nervous. He knew the claims had major implications,” said Mr. Guzman, who also said that despite being concerned, Mr. Barry did little to address GSA’s concerns. “The D wants to protect its writers and Colin said that Mike [Amico]’s op-ed was not printed because it attacked a writer.”

As for the issue of retractions, according to Mr. Guzman, Mr. Barry refused to consider printing a retraction of the claims that Ms. Gomez attacked men in her lecture. He instead stood behind Mr. Lentz, saying only, “We weren’t at the talk, those are the quotes.”

Mr. Amico says that when asked to print a retraction for use of the phrase “perversion of the holiday” to describe Ms. Allison’s lecture, Mr. Barry said, “I won’t run [a correction] on perversion because I don’t think that’s wrong.” Mr. Guzman further asked The Dartmouth to consider issuing a public apology for its coverage of the two events, to which Mr. Barry replied, “We don’t do that.”

Mr. Guzman took Mr. Barry’s response, as well as his attitude, to indicate that The Dartmouth has a policy of refusing to print retractions. Mr. Barry refused repeated attempts to clarify the policy or respond to Mr. Amico’s and Mr. Guzman’s comments, saying only on behalf of the publication, “It’s not unusual for people to accuse newspapers of having some sort of hidden agenda. We believe our coverage was fair, accurate and unbiased.”

Mr. Guzman said he felt the meeting was somewhat productive, but adds, “The meeting didn’t accomplish our goals and the community will be watching.”

Another Community, Another Controversy

Three days after Ms. Gomez’s lecture, another speaker visited the college. Daniel Pipes, a noted conservative columnist with controversial views including support for the mass internment of Muslim-Americans, delivered a lecture on January 27th. Many Muslim students were concerned by Dr. Pipes’s visit, and in response, Oosman Ansari ’03 submitted an editorial to The Dartmouth entitled “Intolerance Personified” on behalf of Al-Nur, Dartmouth’s Muslim student organization.

The Dartmouth published the editorial on January 27th but, without Mr. Ansari’s knowledge or consent, inserted the phrase, “And he is not welcome,” into the piece’s second paragraph. At no other point in the editorial did Mr. Ansari suggest that Dr. Pipes should not be allowed to speak, instead arguing only that his views should be questioned and discussed by the campus community. “This is my opinion and The D has no right to change it,” said Mr. Ansari. “They infringed on free speech.”

Dale Correa ’06, then-President of Al-Nur, was deeply concerned by the insertion and contacted Mr. Barry by e-mail, saying “Clearance from the author is more than necessary before making such a drastic change. I am disappointed with The Dartmouth for the way it handled the situation.”

In a response e-mail obtained by the Free Press, Mr. Barry admitted to the change, saying the following: “I appreciate your concern, although I believe it’s unfounded—I don’t think the change materially altered the substance of the op-ed.”

Mr. Ansari sharply disagrees with that sentiment. “Many students and alums have attacked me for being anti-free speech on the basis of that line,” he stated. “That line has taken away focus from the real issue.” Ansari repeatedly contacted Mr. Barry by e-mail to express his discontent, but the sole response he received only reiterated Barry’s belief that the change was minor.

Ms. Correa went to the offices of The Dartmouth to speak with Lindsay Barnes regarding her concerns. “He told me that it was an editorial change for meaning and that their policy is not to issue apologies or retractions,” she said of the visit.

To date, The Dartmouth has not publicly acknowledged making the change without consent and has offered neither a public retraction nor an apology to Mr. Ansari. As stated earlier, Mr. Barnes did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr. Barry also declined to discuss this matter.

Is There Accountability?

Tim Andreadis ’07 was one of the GSA members who joined Michael Guzman and Michael Amico in their meeting with Colin Barry and Lindsay Barnes; he was concerned by the events surrounding The Dartmouth’s coverage of the Allison and Gomez lectures as well as the changes made to Mr. Ansari’s editorial. During winter term, Mr. Andreadis was Vice Chairman of the Student Assembly Diversity Affairs Committee, and he drafted a resolution of concern about The Dartmouth.

“We wanted it to be a strong statement,” he said about the legislation. “I was fed up with [The Dartmouth]’s lack of a response.” The resolution, entitled “Statement of Concern Regarding Journalistic Integrity in The Dartmouth,” noted that “numerous complaints have been issued to The Dartmouth regarding their journalistic integrity” and that “The Dartmouth has failed to properly address these complaints.” The resolution called for greater transparency of the publication’s internal structure, the creation of an ombudsman to hear and address public concerns and encouraged the college to consider revoking The Dartmouth’s lease of office space in Robinson Hall.

The resolution was passed by the Diversity Affairs Committee and was taken up by the Student Assembly Executive Board, in what Mr. Andreadis describes as “one of the most contentious executive meetings I have ever seen.” After discussing the resolution, the Executive Board decided not to move forward with the resolution, believing it did not identify specific concerns and might damage Student Assembly’s relationship with The Dartmouth.

As part of a compromise measure, Mr. Andreadis helped the executive board to draft a private memorandum to Mr. Barry expressing similar concerns but removing the provision encouraging the college to remove The Dartmouth from its office space. Student Body President Julia Hildreth ’05 did not indicate whether or not the memorandum is still being actively considered or provide a timeline for potential action, but did offer that Student Assembly is engaged in a “running dialogue” with The Dartmouth, just as it would do with any other student group. Mr. Andreadis still has concerns: “The Dartmouth has become a public entity serving a public role—that requires a degree of integrity.”

And The Dartmouth certainly has a unique existence. The publication exists as a private entity and receives no funding from the college, but it is allowed to lease office space on campus—and is the only private organization permitted to do so. It is allowed the use of the name The Dartmouth without paying royalties to the college, can distribute at no cost throughout campus, and receives advertising contracts from numerous campus entities, including The Dickey Center and The Rockefeller Center.

As for its system of governance, a Board of Proprietors has limited oversight over the publication, according to the College’s Associate Vice President for Fiscal Affairs Julie Dolan, who manages The Dartmouth’s lease agreement for the college. Ms. Dolan notes that the board consists of current staffers, alumni who were former staffers, and one representative of the administration.

The administration itself has no oversight of the publication. Aside from its lease agreement, the only avenue the college can use to hold the publication accountable is its seat on the Board of Proprietors, where the college can do little more that cast a vote to ratify The Dartmouth’s budget. “The college has no expectation about The Dartmouth’s editorial stance,” says Ms. Dolan.

Is There a Problem?

It is difficult to tell whether or not these three incidents are isolated or whether they suggest a pattern of journalistic irresponsibility. With the internal workings of The Dartmouth largely hidden from public view, the publication’s policy prohibiting reporters from speaking about their stories, and the blanket refusal of leadership to respond to the charges brought against them, there are many unanswered questions about The Dartmouth’s actions and policies. The Dartmouth’s actions in the past few months—engineering controversy, changing public statements without permission, and refusing to print retractions—are at best questionable and at worst a violation of journalistic principles and the privileges it receives as Dartmouth College’s sole daily publication.

However, it is clear that The Dartmouth answers to no one but itself, limiting the possibilities for needed reform. If it hopes to maintain the public trust it now enjoys, it must open itself to scrutiny and acknowledge that “America’s Oldest College Newspaper” has sadly not behaved as America’s most responsible one.