Bigotry on Campus

 

Dartmouth has always had a well-deserved reputation as a bastion of white supremacy — but the latest public attacks by the College Republicans on black students, and the way president Phil Hanlon has “handled” the on-campus bigotry and acts of hatred (that is, continual belittlement and censure of black students while turning a blind eye to the perpetrators) leaves me utterly disgusted.

In case you missed it, the College Republicans decided to celebrate “National Police Week” a week early — to deliberately coincide with the day of both 1) a distinguished African American guest lecturer’s visit, and of course 2) George Zimmerman’s auctioning of the gun he used to murder unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin — with the proceeds of the auction going to fight Black Lives Matter groups.

Words do not exist to explain how phenomenally revolting and horrifying it is that a human being could even imagine taking it upon themselves to create a massive “Blue Lives Matter” billboard inside Collis (one of the most popular eateries and official/unofficial meeting places on campus) on this specific day in history. To deliberately provoke an already traumatized and grieving minority population — on this day of all days.

And what for? For yet another generation of Dartmouth College Republicans to earn their stripes among national conservative leadership, by harassing Dartmouth minorities into legitimate protest and releasing blatantly fraudulent stories to the national conservative press — about how “persecuted” rich white male conservatives are at the modern university. In a just world, this “hate crime for career advancement” strategy would get these soulless bigots not only an expulsion but prison time. You don’t have to understand the inflammatory dog-whistle white supremacy of the phrase “Blue Lives Matter” to observe the College Republicans’ display boards contain zero messages honoring law enforcement during the real National Police Week.

Hanlon has proven himself incapable of running a diverse and egalitarian institution like Dartmouth College. He has fanned the flames of racism and hatred and done his best to silence the voices of black students. He needs to issue a profound apology and remove himself from the presidency, immediately. 

Jennifer Taylor

Norwich

More Facts About the War

 

Regarding “Facts About the War Against Japan” (Forum, May 23) from Joe Barry, there are many “facts” to be had. It matters greatly what facts are available, and the perspective from which one approaches them. Herewith I offer a few that Mr. Barry apparently did not consider, or may not have been aware of.

One set of facts relates to the (then) Soviet Union. To ensure against having to wage a two-front war, Stalin signed with Japan the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact, on April 25, 1941. At Yalta, in February 1945, Stalin agreed with Churchill and Roosevelt to enter the war against Japan four months after the surrender of Germany. On Aug. 15, Soviet armies invaded Manchuria, taking about three weeks to crush Japan’s largest army, stationed there.

Another set of facts relates  to Japan’s actual war-making capacity as 1945 advanced. For one thing, there was the primarily submarine-based blockade that was strangling Japan’s home islands. After the taking of Saipan in July 1944, the home islands also came within range of aerial assault. An intensifying campaign against Japan’s cities climaxed during raids, on March 9-10, on Tokyo, which resulted in about 100,000, mostly civilian, deaths. By August, that campaign was essentially complete. Entirely apart from the two atomic bombs, the results were devastating. Somewhere, after the war, Gen. Eisenhower said, and here I mostly paraphrase: it really wasn’t necessary  to use “that thing.”

Most people were not aware of such a broader picture in 1945, and perhaps are not aware to this day. The invasion of Japan was scheduled to begin Nov. 1. Some military believed that a surrender of Japan was likely by that time.

Boris G. von York

Springfield, Vt.