April 23, 2006

Review 25th Anniversary Issue

Just caught this: underneath Linsalata's editorial runs the following:
This edition of The Dartmouth Review, coinciding with out Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Gala (the program for the even appears on the back page), memorializes the accomplishments, trials, and tribulations of the paper with a collection notable articles [sic] culled from our archives, with original publication dates noted for each. Most articles also appear in our newly-published anthology. Sensitive readers should be forewarned that the articles reproduced herein are presented solely for the sake of historical appreciation, and may not reflect the views of the current editorial staff.
Depending on your point of view, Mr. Linsalata is either much more circumspect than his predecessors, or gutless. I vote circumspect, but I nevertheless hope Ingraham, D'Douche-a, et al. feel a little betrayed by this slight dissent/pandering to "sensitive readers."

But Ellis has to win some sort of prize for this line: "It is with irony that we note that the same people who once attacked the Review for its supposed offensiveness now attack it for not being attacked by them enough." So we (people like Connor, Niral, and I) attack it because we don't attack it (enough)?

With new staffers like Mr. Ellis, you can bet the White House will be pulling out of its little funk very soon.


  1. Circumspect it is. And, having spoken to Ingraham about that very matter, she didn't feel betrayed.

    I think Ellis' point was that most claims of "irrelevancy" derive from the absense of the type of over-the-top stuff we've done previously, and, as such, have become the new criticism du jour.

  2. But it's not like we're pissed off that you're not pissing us off, which is essentially what Ellis wrote. We're glad you don't go about harassing professors or gay kids. We're just disappointed that the Review hasn't found a way to make its newer, friendlier projects as important to student life as was the evil of old.

  3. Anonymous11:24 AM

    For an example of liberals angry that the Review is not virulent enough, see The Nation, 2/17/03, by Emma Ruby-Sachs and former DFP editor Tim Waligore: