The College
The policy of this magazine is to publish all letters-to-the-editor and all advertisements that do not violate a general sense of accuracy and good taste. The issue comes up because of a recent question concerning our selection procedure for letters and sharply divided opinion on two advertisements - one that appeared here and one that was withdrawn by request of the advertiser himself.
Our view of the letters column is that it should provide readers - alumni, faculty, students, and others - with an opportunity to comment on matters of Dartmouth and matters of the heart, and that everyone should have his say. There is no attempt on the part of the Magazine to encourage or stifle such comment, either complimentary or critical. Not surprisingly, letters of praise and damnation tend to balance out, as in the case of the first four that appear in this issue. In the last three years the Magazine has declined to print two letters - one assailed a current Dartmouth teacher, the other condemned an alumnus - and in each case some pains were taken to urge the writers to redraft their views in less vitriolic terms. All other letters received have been published.
Freedom of expression also extends to freedom to advertise. Like letter writers, advertisers have the right to be heard. And like letters-to-the-editor, the appearance of an advertisement in these pages obviously does not imply endorsement of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. This fall an ad appeared here that caused the ire of several readers. It promoted the sale of "elephant ear wallets," and the timing couldn't have been worse because simultaneously an article appeared in The New York Times warning of approaching extinction of African elephants. Our personal taste does not run to elephant ear wallets, but there seemed to be no valid reason to reject the ad. For one thing, it seemed doubtful that these particular items were causing the downfall of the species. Also, the prospective consumer has two potent weapons at his command: to refuse to buy a product and, as several of our readers recommended, to urge others to act similarly.
The advertisement that did not appear here had to do with the sale of "Wah Hoo Wah buttons." Although our personal taste does not run to Wah Hoo Wah buttons, we were prepared to publish the ad because, while obviously repugnant to a segment of the community, it represented a point of view sincerely held by others. Here, the principle of freedom of expression comes sharply into focus, and it applies equally to the advertising columns and the news columns of this magazine. Last fall and again last month the Trustees declared that the Indian symbol is "inconsistent with the present institutional and academic objectives of the College in advancing Native American education." While discouraging use of the symbol, the Trustees, in our mind, did not attempt to shut off debate on the subject or attempt to smother opposing points of view. For all of these reasons the advertisement would have appeared.
As it turned out, the advertiser voluntarily withdrew his message for reasons of his own, thereby rendering the immediate issue academic. However, it is mentioned here so that readers will understand our policies now and in the future.
