Despite Peninsula's claim our editorial was "littered with false statements," the facts show a history of very suspect tactics by those at the Review, including:
.A comparison of Jewish Dartmouth President James O. Freedman '57 with Adolf Hitler on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the day in 1938 when Nazis began their concerted campaign of murdering Jews.
.The destruction of shanties erected to protest apartheid with sledge hammers on the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday.
.The comparison as "equally tragic" the deaths of 1,400 Moslem pilgrims and 7,000 Australian pcnguins.
.The "moral endeavor" of the Review to "delegitimize the Gay Students Association" of Dartmouth by sneaking into a meeting, taping it and printing part of it in the paper. (Quotes are from Harmeet Singh, editor of the Review from 1988-89.)
.Holding a lobster-and-champagne dinner the same day as a campus-wide fast to raise awareness of hunger.
In light of this history, The Crimson called upon conservative sponsors to withdraw their multi-thousand dollar support of the Review. Peninsula responded that no "individual or foundation" has given extensive contributions to the Review.
That's just wrong. Peninsula reporters must have forgotten to call Olin Foundation spokesperson William E. Simon, who told the Boston Globe that his group had given $295,000 in the 1980s, or Dinesh D'Souza at the Institute for Educational Affairs, which has contributed $15,000.
DESPITE its professed mission to unravel the facts behind the issues, Peninsula has assiduously avoided the sad truth about the Review. The truth that caused Dartmouth's president and entire faculty to condemn it. The truth that caused 2,000 of Dartmouth's students to rally against it. The truth that I hope will lead to its demise.
Peninsula's non-statement reveals that even conservative journalists are wary of criticizing their own. But it also may reveal something more fundamental about Peninsula. A magazine that applies its rigorous critique to liberal thought, but not to conservative peers, cannot rise above petty ideology. It cannot earn the respect of students who disagree with its stance on the issues.
That's why Crimson staff editorials have attempted to present a thoughtful critique of contemporary liberalism, despite our editors' sympathy for many liberal causes.
What is especially sad is that a thoughtful critique of the Review by its peer Peninsula might persuade Review staffers to abandon their hateful antics. It might have pushed the Review towards the coherent, reasoned approach to conservatism that occasionally appears in Peninsula.
And yet Peninsula did not "take a position." It reminds me of the old saying I read somewhere, something like, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Joshua M. Sharfstein '91 is Editorial Chair of The Crimson.