Hanover Review Inc. P.O. Box 343 Hanover NH, 03755
Volu m e 3 7 , Is su e 14
We d nes d ay, Febr u ar y 7 , 2 0 1 8
THE WINTER CARNIVAL ISSUE
BAKER-BERRY LIBRARY after a winter’s dusting
Image courtesy of Dartmouth News
F. Scott Fitzgerald Comes to ‘You’re Not Tripping’ Hanover Nicholas Desai
Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Editor’s Note: The following is a Review favorite from the archives. Former Editor-in-Chief Nicholas Desai drew this account of Fitzgerald’s visit to Hanover from Dartmouth Library’s Budd Schulburg. The story of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1939 trip to Dartmouth for Winter Carnival is legendary, even if the best known version has it simply that the novelist got very drunk in Hanover. Even this condensed form has appeal: the man of letters who does not uphold the supposed dignity of his profession is both comic and tragic. Yet an investigation of the Budd Schulberg papers reveals a tale that, when fleshed out, gains still more gravity and comic appeal.
It’s a yarn that Schulberg ‘36 related many times in publications, at conferences, and in fictional form in his 1951 novel The Disenchanted. Like any drinking story, it seems to alter with each telling to provide maximum entertainment, usually through emphasis but occasionally in presentation of facts.(Did Schulberg really take Fitzgerald to Psi U or simply feint in that direction?) But Schulberg, the acclaimed novelist of What Makes Sammy Run? and Academy Award-winning screenwriter of “On the Waterfront,” tells it well each time. What follows is the ‘39 bender according to Schulberg, which is drawn from several accounts and rendered using a combination of quotation and paraphrasing. His is the controlling view, since he stuck
by Fitzgerald more closely than anyone else during their brief excursion. Schulberg was something of a Hollywood prince, the son of a movie mogul who had known only Hollywood, Deerfield Academy, and Dartmouth by the time he had reached his twenty-fourth year. He had graduated from Dartmouth three years before and was working for David O. Selznick, a family friend and the legendary producer who made “Gone with the Wind.” This would have led to a career in production, like his father’s, but Schulberg aspired to write. After extricating himself from Selznick, he received a call from the producer Walter Wanger ‘15 who proposed making a picture about Dartmouth’s Winter Carnival. “I always thought of Hol-
lywood like a principality of its own,” Schulberg reelected years later, “It was like a sort of a Luxembourg, or something like that, or Liechtenstein. And the people who ran it really had that attitude. They weren’t only running a studio, they were running a whole little world... They could cover up murder... You could liter-ally have somebody killed, and it wouldn’t be in the papers. “It was not something on my own I would sit down and be fascinated by, the Winter Carnival movie,” Schulberg recalled, “But it was good money; it was 250 bucks a week, a lot of money—there’s no denying it. I’d been married young. Also it was about my own place, my own college.”
> FEATURES PAGE 10
Erik R. Jones Contributor
Within a day of its posting, the opinion piece titled “You’re Not Tripping” in The Dartmouth had ignited a campus-wide uproar. In this op-ed, Ryan Spector ‘19 detailed his disappointment with 2018 First-Year Trips directorate selection process. Each year, approximately nineteen upperclassmen applicants are selected for the directorate in order to help facilitate Trips, Dartmouth’s annual summer excursions for incoming freshmen. This year, out of forty-four total applicants, fifteen women were chosen, along with four men. After being rejected from the directorate himself, Spector accused the directors in charge of the selection process of having an
“obsession with diversity” that “verges on the inane,” in light of the extremely female heavy directorate. The director of Trips, Lucia Pierson ‘18, along with Dalia Rodriguez-Caspeta ‘18, the assistant director, emphasized in their original announcement that the 80% female 2018 Trips directorate was selected “purely based on merit”. Spector railed against this notion, calling it “nothing but an exercise in mental gymnastics”. He argued that their decision to only accept four male students indicated an “extreme application of a diversity policy” and claimed that the members of the new directorate would not adequately represent the Dartmouth student body.
> FEATURES PAGE 6
A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE
THE MARDI GRAS OF THE NORTH
AN ENOCH POWELL RETROSPECTIVE
Editor-in-Chief Jack Mourouzis calls for a vote of no confidence against President Hanlon
The Review looks at the historical revelry associated with the Winter Carnival weekend
The Review looks back at the life and accomplishments of the legendary British politician
> EDITORIAL PAGE 3
> FEATURES PAGE 9
> FEATURES PAGE 8
2 Wednesday – February 7, 2018
The Dartmouth Review
STUDENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
For thirty-five years, The Dartmouth Review has been the College’s only independent newspaper and the only student opinion journal that matters. It is the oldest and most renowned campus commentary publication in the nation and spawned a national movement at the likes of Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and countless others. Our staff members and alumni have won many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, and have been published in the Boston Globe, New York Times, National Review, American Spectator, Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, Village Voice, New Criterion, and many others. The Review aims to provide a voice for any student who enjoys challenging brittle and orthodox thinking. We stand for free speech, student rights, and the liberating arts. Whatever your political leanings, we invite you to come steep yourself in campus culture and politics, Dartmouth lore, keen witticisms, and the fun that comes with writing for an audience of thousands. We’re looking for writers, photographers, cartoonists, aspiring business managers, graphic designers, web maestros, and anyone else who wants to learn from Dartmouth’s unofficial school of journalism.
“Because every student deserves a safe space”
– Inge-Lise Ameer, Former Vice Provost for Student Affairs
Meetings held Mondays at 6:30 PM at our offices at 32 S. Main Street (next to Lou’s in the lower level office space)
INSIDE THE ISSUE
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD COME TO ONE OF OUR MEETINGS BEFORE MAKING LUDICROUS ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT US.
F. Scott Fitzgerald Comes to Hanover...............................Page 1 “You’re Not Tripping:” In Solidarity with Spector..........Page 1 Editorial: A Vote of No Confidence...................................Page 3 The Week in Review...............................................................Page 4 The Problems of Solidarity and Condemnation..............Page 7 In Memoriam: Enoch Powell...............................................Page 8 The Mardi Gras of the North...............................................Page 9
SUBSCRIBE The Dartmouth Review is produced bi-weekly by Dartmouth College undergraduates. It is published by the Hanover Review, Inc., a tax-deductible, non-profit organization. Please consider helping to support Dartmouth’s only independent newspaper, and perhaps the only voice of reason left here on campus. Yearly print subscriptions start at just $40, for which we will mail each issue directly to your door. Electronic subscriptions cost $25 per year, for which you receive a PDF of The Review in your inbox at press time. Contributions above $40 are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated. Please include your mailing address and make checks payable to:
Or subscribe online at:
The Dartmouth Review P.O. Box 343 Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4370 www.dartreview.com
NIGEL FARAGE READS THE REVIEW.
The Dartmouth Review
Wednesday – February 7, 2018
MASTHEAD & EDITORIAL EST. 1980 EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief Jack F. Mourouzis
Executive Editors Joshua D. Kotran Marcus J. Thompson
Managing Editors Devon M. Kurtz Daniel M. Bring
Associate Editors Rachel T. Gambee John S. Stahel
Senior Correspondent Michael J. Perkins
BUSINESS STAFF President
Robert Y. Sayegh
Vice Presidents Jason B. Ceto Noah J. Sofio
ADVISORY Founders Greg Fossedal, Gordon Haff, Benjamin Hart, Keeney Jones
Legal Counsel Mean-Spirited, Cruel, and Ugly
Board of Trustees Martin Anderson, Patrick Buchanan, Theodore Cooperstein, Dinesh D’Souza, Michael Ellis, Robert Flanigan, John Fund, Kevin Robbins, Gordon Haff, Jeffrey Hart, Laura Ingraham, Mildred Fay Jefferson, William Lind, Steven Menashi, James Panero, Hugo Restall, Roland Reynolds, William Rusher, Weston Sager, Emily Esfahani-Smith, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Sidney Zion
NOTES Special thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr. “Not a day goes by that I don’t wish I went to Princeton.” The Editors of The Dartmouth Review welcome correspondence from readers concerning any subject, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on material published previously in The Review. We reserve the right to edit all letters for clarity and length. Please submit letters to the editor by mail or email: email@example.com Or by mail at:
The Dartmouth Review P.O. Box 343 Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4370
Please direct all complaints to: firstname.lastname@example.org
“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win great triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to takerank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.” —Theodore Roosevelt
A Vote of No Confidence As Daniel Webster stated in the legendin the fall of 2015 and the controversy surary 1819 Supreme Court case of Dartmouth rounding the defacement of a National PoCollege vs. Wentworth, “It is, sir, as I have lice Week board in the Collis Center in the said, a small college. And yet there are those spring of 2016. Both incidents drew nationwho love it!” Since the College’s early days, al attention, resulting in condemnation of Webster’s words have defined the instituthe offending forces from all sides – except tion, resulting in its status as one of the most from the College’s administration. President tight-knit, effective, and reputable intuitions Hanlon’s emails – which have always been, of higher learning in the entire world. Howand continue to be, weak – neither mitigatever, nearly 250 years later, President Haned tensions nor heightened them. As such, lon stands to flout Webster’s words and tensions between the student body have only change the very core of the College for the increased since. The controversy over former worse. I have long held that Dartmouth is a professor Aimee Bahng’s tenure denial only failing institution. However, with the deci- served to cause even more dissatisfaction. sion to expand the size of the College and My junior year displayed this trend destroy its central mission of intieven further. Following the election mate undergraduate education, of President Trump in November Dartmouth will no longer be a of 2016, the administration’s refailing institution; it will be a sponse was both problematic failed institution. And that is and lackluster – while offering why I wholeheartedly believe emotional support to students that the faculty of Dartmouth who were upset at Donald College should launch a vote Trump’s victory, Hanlon’s adof no confidence against Presministration also failed to give ident Philip J. Hanlon. in to the demands of leftist President Hanlon’s failcalls for Dartmouth to beures began long before I macome a sanctuary campus. triculated at the College, but Though in this case, his the effects are still felt. He set response has been for the tone for his administrathe better, it still reveals tion – the tone being general a troubling fact: President Jack F. Mourouzis apathy towards undergraduHanlon does not, has not, ates – as early as the Parkhurst Freedom Budand never will care for the undergraduate get protests, where he neither gave in to the students of the College. In the spring of 2017, demands of the protestors, nor condemned he once again proved his inept nature with their misdeeds. His actions proved to be very the controversial appointment of Professor telling for the future of his administration and N. Bruce Duthu for the post of Dean of the the shape of things to come. Faculty. Duthu, who was widely seen as unIn my three and a half years at the Colqualified for the job, ultimately declined his lege, President Hanlon’s policies have done nomination, constituting yet another loss for nothing to effect any substantial change; the Hanlon administration. change which has occurred has, predomiNow, Hanlon’s plans to destroy College nantly, been negative. The majority of my Park in favor of new dorms, in addition to freshman year, the prevailing topic of the his plans to expand the size of the student times was the Greek system and the loombody, threaten to destroy the core of the ining Moving Dartmouth Forward initiative. stitution he has so ineptly led since 2013. These ideas are wildly unpopular and beneWhile it seems like ancient history today, in fit absolutely no one. Why, then, would these 2014, it was the talk of the town; in the fall of changes possibly be enacted? If there is an my freshman year, it seemed like the Greek system was all but gone. When the initiative answer, it might benefit the administration to spread the message. Or, perhaps, there made its recommendations in the winter of simply is no answer, and the reason is simply 2015 – based off spotty data and skewed perspectives – the effects were ultimately not so because President Hanlon is a poor leader. significant. The Greek system still survives, In his four and a half years as a member of the Wheelock Succession, President Hanthough in a state far inferior to what it used lon has accomplished nothing, and is now to be. Alas, we would never know; but anypoised to destroy the College we all know one would tell you that nobody rages anymore. And reports suggest that the sons and and love. At the same time, he has proved himself ineffective, incompetent, and inept; daughters of Dartmouth – freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior – still consume hard he is simply unfit to continue serving as the President of Dartmouth College. It is time alcohol on a regular basis. The major events of my sophomore year for the damage to end. It is time for a vote of included the now-infamous library protests no confidence.
4 Wednesday – February 7, 2018
The Dartmouth Review
WEEK IN REVIEW WHAT’S UP WITH WHITE PEOPLE? With an audience seemingly large enough to warrant multiple fire safety violations, Professor Matt Wray commenced his presentation: “What’s Up with White People: A Field Guide for the Perplexed,” on February 2nd. This is not the first time Wray, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Temple University in Philadelphia, PA, has presented his work on the study of “whiteness.” Wray discussed two main concepts that have apparently become the “core problem in the post-civil rights era.” In his view, white privilege and colorblindness affect how “being white means different things to different white people.” Wray went even further, to what he calls his contribution to the field of the study of “whiteness” by shifting the factors mentioned above into political orientation and boundary orientation (how white people think about race). These two variables allow the formation of 4 different types of white people. While it is interesting that Wray realizes that socio-economic factors influence what it means to be ‘white,’ his theory on the four types of white people attracts well-warranted criticism. The four types are colorblind liberals (“identifiers”), colorblind conservatives (“deniers”), race-conscious liberals (“resisters”), and race-conscious conservatives (“resenters”). In a derogatory fashion, both types under conservative for political orientation are apparently antagonistic to progressive racial policies. As if ridiculously parodying his own ideology, he described the ‘icon’ of colorblind conservatives as ‘neocons’ and the icon of race-conscious conservatives as ‘rednecks.’ Unsurprisingly, his 2x2 chart categorizing white people ignores the diversity of thought and opinion among both liberals and conservatives in the United States. Wray doubled down on his description of the race-conscious conservatives and showed a picture of Richard Spencer as a key figure in the supposed movement. The fact that Spencer is not taken seriously, except by a very small yet vocal minority, was not mentioned. Wray brought up an interesting observation on colorblind liberals, the so-called identifiers. He mentions how supposed ‘liberals’ try to act sympathetic to racial minorities but end up causing more harm than good. However, Wray completely missed the point when he declared the race-conscious lib-
erals, the so-called resisters, as the model for future progress. He claimed that most ‘resisters’ voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, even as Sanders openly disregarded the plight of poor white people through comments like “when you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto.” Wray also made the bold and objectionable claim that “if you’re a white person, your cultural bank account is empty,” which received a positive reception from the audience. Nearly every group regardless of their identity has historically contributed to American culture. To say that whites have no culture is simply ignorant and bordering on racist. Wray asked a lot of interesting questions on race in America but ended up answering none. He contributed more to the dumpster fire that is identity politics, which continues to devolve into unintentional self-parody. We at The Review highly doubt that presentations titled “What’s Up with Black People,” “What’s Up with Asian People,” and “What’s Up with Hispanic People,” would receive similar acclaim. In fact, we are inclined to believe those presentations would be met with vitriolic outrage from many groups on campus.
COLLEGE RELEASES APPLICATION NUMBERS FOR CLASS OF 2022 The College recently announced its application numbers to the Class of 2022, as a total of 22,005 applications were received this year. With an increase in applications by 1,971, or 9.8 percent, the school’s acceptance rate is likely to see a significant dip, as it may even enter the single digits. The increase in applicant pool, along with last year’s record yield rate which produced the largest class in Dartmouth history, will likely be significant factors in this year’s admission cycle. With much rhetoric and discussion relating to President Hanlon’s plan to increase the size of the student body size, all eyes are on the Class of 2022. The new freshmen will provide insight into whether the College will continue to move towards larger classes, which may provide further problems with the seemingly endless housing crisis and class overpopulation. It is also worth noting that the College was very aggressive this year in recruiting a large number of applicants who are would be first generation college students and students from low income backgrounds
through programs such as QuestBridge. The College has also made great efforts to increase visibility and publicity for undergraduates, pointing out the College’s dedication to undergraduates, mission to recruit academics who love to teach, and the unique research opportunities afforded to undergraduates. As the infamous “Ivy Day” comes closer, many questions surround what the Class of 2022 will look like. Statistics categorizing the class members will likely follow pretty soon, but as discussions about the future of the College persist, this admissions cycle is shaping up to be very interesting in terms of the direction of Dartmouth. While some may argue that it’s important for the College to maintain its identity as the small liberal arts Ivy, one thing remains certain, the Class of 2022 will in many ways be a telltale sign of the direction in which the College is headed.
“IN SOLIDARITY” WITH RYAN SPECTOR AND THE DARTMOUTH On behalf of the more conservative members of the Dartmouth community, we would like to offer our support to both Ryan Spector and The Dartmouth in light of the recent publication of the op-ed entitled “You’re Not Tripping.” While Spector’s column is not without flaws, we would like to condemn the numerous personal attacks he has endured, in addition to the dangerous rhetoric coming from many of the condemning organizations. While it is difficult to substantiate that the decisions regarding Trips executives were based on identity rather than merit, the issues he raises in his article are important, and it is important that an open discussion of the topic is held. Spector’s closing statement – that trips is “no longer for trippees… It is for ideology, no matter how cruel the implications” – indeed paints a picture of a troubling, yet very real state of affairs. Furthermore, we find the notion that Spector’s column communicates any type of hate, racism, bigotry, or “toxic masculinity” to be wholly ridiculous. His words are not an attack on any population or any individual; they are simply raising awareness of a perceived problem. The many emails proclaiming solidarity for “victims” of his article have a warped perception of his ideas; nowhere does he convey the notion that “there is nothing meritable about a room
Stinson’s: Your Pong HQ Cups, Balls, Paddles, Accessories
(603) 643-6086 | www.stinsonsvillagestore.com email@example.com
The Dartmouth Review
Wednesday – February 7, 2018
Alexander Rauda full of women, WOC, or POC,” or that his article is an “attack on people of color, queer folk, gender non-conforming people, first generation, low-income students or women.” These perceptions are nothing but absurd. As such, any personal attacks directed back upon him – or anyone coming to his defense – are reprehensible. Finally, and most importantly, we wholly support the decision of The Dartmouth to publish this article in the first place. It is an important step in assuring that all ideas, unpopular or popular, conservative or liberal, right or left, are heard on a campus that is overwhelmingly liberal and that often ignores unpopular, conservative, or right-leaning notions. We always stand for open discourse, and we condemn all those who seek its destruction.
Vamsi Gadde Jake G. Philhower
“IN SOLIDARITY” WITH RYAN SPECTOR AND THE DARTMOUTH In response to the riots at Berkeley due to the guest speakers Milo Yiannopolous and Ann Coulter, the College Republicans and Young America’s Foundation contacted the Department of Justice. Appalled at the response to his potential arrival, these groups determined that the college had mistreated conservative speakers. In alignment with this claim, they say that the College has infringed upon their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. They reference UC Berkeley’s “High-Profile Speaker Policy” as the reason administrators could influence curfews, security costs and unwanted venues for those conservative speakers who arrive on campus. With this policy in mind, that College Republicans and YAF claim that they’re being faced with a double standard between Berkeley’s response to conservative and liberal speakers. YAF spokesperson said the following on the subject: “The school’s policy to bring in conservative speakers and any other event that’s conservative is much harder than it is for liberal students. The university was selectively enforcing these policies that made it much harder for conservatives to bring in speakers and express their ideas.” Campus spokesperson Roqua Montezhad said in response, “The allegations made by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are unfounded. Berkeley does not discriminate against speakers invited by student organizations based upon viewpoint.” The case had already been dismissed in October 2017 but has been re-filed since. And on January 25, the Department of Justice has backed them in their suit. Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand said in a statement, “This Department of Justice will not stand by idly while public universities violate students’ constitutional rights,” taking a strong stand against UC Berkeley in this case. So the DOJ has filed a Statement of Interest into a suit of discriminatory practices that curb free speech. If the lawsuit is successful, Brand hopes that this will prevent the college from continuing to discriminate against conservative speakers on campus.
“So from now on, it looks like every class will have as many students as its year. It is literally a class of 2022.”
“At least there’s a snow sculpture this year...” “It’s the little things.”
“Remember when Cornell was the worst Ivy?”
6 Wednesday – February 7, 2018
The Dartmouth Review
FEATURES In Solidarity with Spector > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
Immediately after the article was posted, the backlash began in the comments section. One student called the op-ed a “whiny post-rejection [expression] of frustration”, and many offered up faux sympathy for him as a “white cis male” from Illinois. Some of the comments respectfully challenged his arguments, but most of them accused him of sexist and even racist undertones, emphasizing his status as a privileged white male. One day after the op-ed was posted, Link Up, a women’s student group, sent out a campus-wide email with the heading, “Statement in Solidarity”. The email defended Pierson and Rodriguez-Caspeta, and claimed that Spector’s article “attacks marginalized identities.” The email also celebrated the high percentage of female students in the new directorate as “correcting [for] years of underrepresentation and marginalization”. Throughout the weekend and into the next week, over 30 campus organizations followed their
posted in the opinion section. An email from Divest Dartmouth accused The D of “negligence,” stating that allowing Spector and others like him to express their opinions “endanger[s] the safety and wellbeing of marginalized students” and “only further perpetuates the culture of toxic, male, white supremacy.” About nine other student groups echoed these sentiments, either calling on The Dartmouth to publicly apologize for posting the op-ed, or to remove it from the website entirely. On Monday, a campus email from the Stonefence Review, a Dartmouth literary magazine, took a more personal turn. The letter first criticized Spector and called for The Dartmouth to rescind the op-ed, but then went on to publicly name the fraternity of which Spector is a member, demanding that the fraternity itself apologize for the “act of violence” that Spector committed. In bold font, the letter then calls on the fraternity to use their “place of power” with respect to Spector’s social life to “take a stand,” implying that the fra-
students’ literal safety is at risk. This not only weakens their credibility in calling out injustice, but also trivializes real instances of gender-based violence which are still a widespread global problem. These emails sent to the Dartmouth student body made Spector’s op-ed into something that it was not. Their unwarranted accusations have now irreparably damaged a student’s image. In his opinion piece, Spector criticized a diversity policy in the Trips application process that he thinks disadvantages males. Even though Spector makes little effort to conceal his exasperation, he nonetheless offers support for his claim. The original post about the new Trips directorate, also in The D, stated that they “consciously considered identity representations” in the selection process, and Spector was confused why they didn’t make an effort to admit more than four men. He was then alarmed when the Directorate’s original statement was edited to remove that line, that merit was the only factor guiding their decision process. Perhaps the female candi-
talking about more, regardless of which direction the racial/ gender disparity appears. In this case, the overwhelming superiority of the female Trips applicants outweighed the diversity benefits that would come with a more gender-balanced membership. Or, maybe Pierson and Rodriguez-Caspeta should have considered the benefits of having a slightly more balanced gender ratio, but they didn’t as it happened to be males that were underrepresented. Spector described an ideology that he doesn’t find consistent, suggesting that people have started to equate diversity with low male representation. Part of this, of course, reflects the recent changes in society (the past several decades) that have enabled more equal female representation in various areas of life. The movement to expand female membership in colleges and in various male-dominated professions has been great, but we cannot do so at the expense of our men, and their ability to have their voices heard. Disagreement with Spector’s article is allowed, but attacking his character so publicly with
fying people’s arguments to use as material in hit pieces, and stop intimidating people from voicing their opinions. Making sure people are too scared to speak out is a surefire way to never change their minds. And having that mentality does not foster the inclusive environment that we claim to have here at Dartmouth. We are in college, and we should be not only allowed, but encouraged, to make mistakes. We cannot truly learn if we have to fear that our name will be associated with words like “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and “white supremacy,” if we slip up once or challenge the wrong person. The sentiments expressed in these emails are not new, but the sheer volume of the emails denouncing Spector with all of these labels has done noticeable damage to the social climate at Dartmouth. Just a month ago, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) demoted Dartmouth from a “yellow light” to a “red light” free speech rating (it 2015 it dropped from “green” to “yellow”). Although it wasn’t the Dartmouth administration
ternity should take some sort of disciplinary action against him. This email, along with many of the others, has gone far beyond a mere expression of empathy with the Trips directors, and now seems more concerned with smearing the author’s reputation. The trend of the campus-wide emails sent throughout the weekend has taken us farther and farther away from the actual op-ed written by Spector, and has taken us closer to a full-blown libel campaign. Spector has now been slandered in front of the entire student body with unfounded accusations of violence, white supremacy, racism, sexism, and homophobia. Ryan Spector’s opinion article in The Dartmouth was inflammatory and written from a bitterness towards the board. His status as a white man, however, does not, by any means, warrant accusations of violence and hate speech. Just because Spector, a white man, criticized certain decisions made by Pierson and Rodriguez-Caspeta, two women, does not make his criticism inherently sexist. The writers of these “solidarity” letters pay more attention to the identities of the people being criticized than the reality of the situation. Using language like “violence,” “attack,” and “safety” conflates Spector’s bitter tone and message with real assault — implying that
dates were simply more qualified for these roles, but this does not make the gender disparity any less remarkable. Having only four out of nineteen members the directorate would represent the same lack of diversity that having just four out of nineteen females would. It is not sexist to ask whether or not the director and assistant director would have made the same decision had the roles been reversed, if the male applicant pool was more qualified than the female pool. Maybe they made the right choices, and maybe they didn’t, but we should be allowed to have a nuanced discussion as to whether the difference in merit justified the gender disparity. Many of the facts of the application process, like the gender breakdown of applicants, have not been released to the campus, and they probably won’t. But that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the competing factors that guided the selection process and discuss the values that we think should guide any application selection process for student leadership roles at Dartmouth. Almost all students at Dartmouth recognize the value both of diversity and of having qualified leaders on campus. Balancing these factors when they conflict with each other is an important conversation that we should be
accusations of racism and sexism should not be. We need to carefully consider the arguments made by Spector, but we also need to carefully consider the social structures in place here at Dartmouth that allowed this level of unjustified backlash to take place on such a public, and personal level. When the skin-tone and gender of the author is being used as material against him more so than his actual arguments, we have a problem. We need to think about the way that the Trips director and assistant director have been affected by Spector’s op-ed, but we also need to think about the way this male student is being affected by countless false claims of violence and bigotry in these emails. We can’t view empathy as something that only needs to be applied to those lower than us on the privilege hierarchy. We cannot condone the unrestricted bashing of a person’s character on one opinion he/she expressed. We need to consider the medium we are using to get our message across, what our message is, and what the future implications of our actions will be. These emails not only tainted a man’s image with so many vicious and untrue accusations, but they also sent a clear message to the rest of campus of what the penalty is for expressing an unpopular view. We need to stop oversimpli-
involved here, the social and personal implications of these emails are relevant to this downward trend. We have already seen some positive reactions in defense of the free exchange of ideas, notably from The Dartmouth and a letter from Dartmouth Open Campus Coalition (DOCC). Despite all of the demands for the op-ed to be removed, The D stuck with their principles and kept it online, and restated their commitment to allowing different viewpoints. And the DOCC sent out a letter to campus denouncing the “calls to silence voices” and supporting the “rights of all arguments to be expressed openly”. But these statements of support for free speech, including a letter from two professors posted in The D, are a rarity. If Dartmouth is going to be a place where open dialogue is encouraged, we need to drop the labels and welcome new ideas and opinions into our lives. We need to consciously work to avoid snap judgements and character smears. If we want to be able to have productive conversations about important issues, we all need to be respectful enough to hear everyone out, regardless of their gender, race, and identity. We need to reevaluate the current state of discourse at Dartmouth and work to combat efforts to silence certain viewpoints. We need to find better ways to disagree.
Ryan Spector’s opinion article in The Dartmouth was inflammatory and written from a bitterness towards the board. His status as a white man, however, does not, by any means, warrant accusations of violence and hate speech. Just because Spector, a white man, criticized certain decisions made by Pierson and Rodriguez-Caspeta, two women, does not make his criticism inherently sexist.
lead and sent out their own letters of “solidarity” with the Trips director and assistant director, further denouncing Spector’s op-ed as an “attack” on women and women of color. The wash of emails came from a wide range of student groups, including the Committee on Sexual Assault, several a capella groups, senior societies, sororities, one fraternity, and a variety of other minority and women’s groups. The emails varied in the severity of their accusations, but the allegations against Spector as a violent perpetrator of racism and sexism were common throughout. In one email, the senior society by the name of Phoenix called Spector’s article “blatantly based in patriarchal and white supremacist narratives” and labeled it an “attack” on marginalized people. The Asian American Students Association stated in their email that the article “invisibilizes people of color, women and trans folk, [and] queer women of color,” and mocked the op-ed as an example of “white male tears.” Many of these emails not only targeted Spector, but also denounced The Dartmouth’s decision to publish the article in the first place, even though it was Mr. Jones is a sophomore at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.
The Dartmouth Review
Wednesday – February 7, 2018
The Problems of Solidarity Scotch M. Cara
In the wake of an article published in The Dartmouth by Ryan Spector ’19 on February 2, 2018 titled “You’re Not Tripping,” many organizations have come out with letters and statements of solidarity that condemn Spector and The Dartmouth and support the DOC’s Freshman Trips Directorate. In his article, Spector claims that the Trips Directors used affirmative action style policies to determine the members of the Trips Directorate and, as a result of those policies, that only 4 out of the 19 members of the Directorate are men. Spector’s position is that he was denied a position on the Directorate not on the basis of merit, but rather because of his gender. Throughout the article, Spector makes provocative comments such as “Credentials matter not, but skin tone, womanhood and claims of marginalized status do,” and “Perhaps female applicants simply wrote superior applications — but no self-respecting person could believe that one gender, on principle, is four times more likely to write a
inundate the campus listserv with letters, the statements of solidarity became less about solidarity and more about calls to action. The Inter-Community Council was the first organization to condemn The Dartmouth. In expressing their “disappointment,” they called for “The Dartmouth to retract the article and issue an apology to those whom the article has harmed” and stated that any response piece would “only
mouth College— even the unpopular ones. Abstracting from the current discussion of Spector’s article for a moment, it is important to acknowledge that a lack of strength in numbers has no bearing on the validity of an argument. More importantly, it has no bearing on the right of the minority views to speak up on behalf of the side of an argument that they personally believe in. To address the article spe-
While it is easy to condemn words that you disagree with, it is significantly harder to do what the editors at The Dartmouth chose to do and retain their journalistic integrity. validate the author and imply that his opinions are credible and worthy of debate.” Phoenix—a secret society— condemned The Dartmouth’s actions as a “failure to uphold its own editorial policy of disregarding hate speech.” Epsilon Kappa Theta—a local sorority— too declared The Dartmouth as “complicit in the [article’s] reckless inflammatory rhetoric.” The Rockapellas—an all-female acapella group— and the Asian-American Students for
cifically— Spector’s article lacks data and, at points, a coherent argument. However, it’s an opinion editorial about his personal experience. While a better forum for this piece may have been Spector’s personal journal, The Dartmouth has no ground to deny publishing something on the basis of it being emotional. In publishing editorials, The Dartmouth claims no responsibility for the arguments that its contributors make. They only
letter writers allow Spector to shirk responsibility for his comments— the opposite of what a reasonable person standing in thoughtful solidarity would want to do. Second, the issue of group agency is an important one to consider in situations like this. Group agency is the term used to discuss the problems associated with attributing a single, coherent sense of agency and responsibility to a community of different individuals acting as a group. It asks questions about the extent to which individual members are responsible for decisions that the group makes on their behalf. It attempts to shed light on how, descriptively, groups act to represent their membership while simultaneously questioning whether groups ought to even have the right to this form of representation. In this situation, the group agency dilemma at hand is whether these campus organizations have the right to exploit the tyranny of the majority and speak on behalf of its members who may have personal views that disagree with portions of the content of these letters. Do these organizations have the
of solidarity, the executive members of the organization write the letter for pragmatic reasons associated with the benefits of clear leadership structures. However, there is something unsettling about only the leaders of the organization speaking on behalf of its membership when the organization itself is not devoted to the specific cause on which the leaders are speaking on. In regard to The Dartmouth— the college newspaper is one of the largest organizations on campus, and most definitely has members who disagree with Spector’s article. To condemn the paper in its entirety is unfair to those members. The solution to both the group agency dilemma and the problem of free speech in this situation is clear. Instead of signing letters as only the organization, the members of each organization who support the letter ought to put their name on it. This would offer an incentive for members of the organization to hold an open forum for discourse that more fully represents the views of all of its membership, rather than just those in a position of power. If at least a supermajority of
Do these organizations have the right to ignore the minority of voices in their organization who may disagree with the published letters? It’s not an easy question to answer. winning application than the other.” Regardless of one’s personal opinions on the validity and desirability or lack thereof of diversity policies, these statements ooze of bitterness and bias. Accordingly, the letters of solidarity contain statements condemning Spector’s language. Link Up—an organization on campus that helps to connect Dartmouth women on campus—was the first organization to send out a message of solidarity, declaring that Spector “attacks marginalized identities and questions the idea that marginalized people in positions of power could deserve those positions based on merit.” Dartmouth Spectra—an organization supporting LGBTQ+ members on campus— stated that the “op-ed endangers both the safety and the future job prospects of the women it bashes.” The Student and Presidential Committee on Sexual Assault reiterated that they were “confident that each member of the First-Year Trips directorate is objectively qualified for their role.” However, as organizations continued to Ms. Cara is a student at the College and a fan of Scottish single malts.
Action both called for The Dartmouth to rescind at least portions of the article and issue apologies. There are two main issues at hand with these letters of solidarity. First and foremost—calls of action against The Dartmouth and condemnations of its decisions to support freedom of speech are problematic and, more directly relevant to this situation, not statements made in solidarity of the Trips Directorate. Second, these broad statements of solidarity erase the nuanced voices of members of these organizations. First, in condemning The Dartmouth for being “complicit” in this situation by their choice to publish an opinion piece and support free expression, these organizations put themselves in a difficult situation. While it is easy to condemn words that you disagree with, it is significantly harder to do what the editors at The Dartmouth chose to do and retain their journalistic integrity. The newspaper is not the Dartmouth Outing Club. It is not the Trips Directorate. It is not a club voicing concerns about diversity. Its primary purpose is to represent the views, opinions, and happenings of the members of Dart-
preserve the right of students in the Dartmouth community to have their voices heard. By condemning The Dartmouth for performing its editorial duty, these on campus organizations advocate for a system that preferences only the majority viewpoint— a dangerous precedent that denies freedom in lieu of supporting the voice of the strongest. While I broadly agree with the letter writers’ support of the Trips Directors and believe strongly that the
right to ignore the minority of voices in their organization who may disagree with the published letters? It’s not an easy question to answer. In some regards, by consenting to be a part of an organization, the individual consents to being in part publicly represented by that organization. Another answer to this question might be that while the individual consents to membership, he or she does not consent to having his or her agency tak-
The solution to both the group agency dilemma and the problem of free speech in this situation is clear. Instead of signing letters as only the organization, the members of each organization who support the letter ought to put their name on it. women chose the most qualified people for the job (after all, Trips are sacred at Dartmouth and nobody who is unqualified applies to organize them), it is an utter mistake to blame The Dartmouth for this debacle as Spector is unaffiliated with the organization. Spector’s absurd commentary and blatant whining is not that of The Dartmouth’s. By scapegoating The Dartmouth, these
en away by the organization. For clubs and organizations that value diversity and individuality, the latter opinion may be preferable. As these are largely the types of organizations that have released letters of solidarity, there is a worry about whether the loudest voices are over representing the opinions of the group at the expense of denying the quieter ones their voices. In most cases of letters
members must sign a letter for it to be sent out, then letter-writers have an incentive to make their words representative of the organization. Those in the minority retain the power to abstain from the specific elements of the letter they disagree with, maintaining their status as individual with agency inside of the organization. Procedurally and structurally, all individuals were given an incentive and a structure to maintain and voice their discrete opinions. If you aren’t willing to claim your words, then you aren’t standing in solidarity. Freedom of speech requires robust protection to allow for people to maintain their individuality and feel comfortable using their voices in the way they wish. There will always be elements of speech that individuals condemn and disagree with. Silencing voices does not make them go away— it only breeds animosity and denies crucial discourse. Neither “You’re Not Tripping” nor the letters of solidarity are in any way special instances of dialogue-gone-wrong. But it is one that we can all learn from to both improve a respect of free speech and our desire to ardently recognize and defend it.
Wednesday – february 7, 2018
The Dartmouth Review
In Memoriam: Enoch Powell
ENOCH POWELL in 1987 by M. Allan Warren
Daniel M. Bring Managing Editor
This Thursday, February 8th, 2018, will mark the twentieth anniversary of the death of Enoch Powell, a prominent British statesman, scholar, and poet. He passed away in 1998 at the age of 85, after a long and storied career in politics, military service, and academia. His later years were embroiled in controversy as he emerged as one of the most strident antiimmigration politicians of his day. To this day, he remains a deeply divisive figure, seen by some as the ideological forefather of the contemporary Brexit movement and as virulent racist by others. Nevertheless, the significance of his life and ideas to today’s debates in the United Kingdom, America, and Europe is unquestionable. By all accounts of his early life, the young Powell demonstrated rare academic and intellectual prowess. He was born the only child of a middle-class family in Birmingham, England in 1912, and was an avid reader from a very early age. He studied the Classics in secondary school and earned a place at Trinity College, Cambridge. He excelled in his further study of Latin and Greek at Cambridge and simultaneously took a course in Urdu at another university. Powell had aspired from an early age to serve as the Viceroy of British India, and correspondingly believed that he required a mastery of Indian languages to do so. Powell graduated from Mr. Bring is a freshman at the College and managing editor of The Dartmouth Review.
university with a double first, which for those unfamiliar with the Cambridge system of degree classification is quite a rare achievement. He stayed at Trinity College as a fellow for some time but was soon appointed Professor of Greek at the University of Sydney. He was 25 at the time, narrowly missing his target of 24, the age at which his hero Friedrich Nietzsche became a professor. While teaching in Australia in the late 1930s, he was astonished by the inaction of the British government towards the expansionism of Nazi Germany. When the Second World War broke out in September 1939, he immediately returned home to enlist in the armed services. Powell’s ascent through the ranks of the British military during over the course of the war was nothing short of meteoric. He was one of two soldiers in the whole of the war to rise from private to brigadier. Though to his great disappointment, he never saw combat, he served the British war effort in several capacities, primarily in military intelligence. As distinguished as his military service was, his record is not without its blemishes. He was once arrested as a suspected German spy for singing the Nazi anthem “HorstWessel-Lied.” Powell was not particularly well-liked by his fellow officers; the famed British commando Orde Wingate once threatened to “beat [Powell’s] brains in.” Still, Powell had a marked positive impact on Allied military intelligence by the end of the war. He was one of the youngest brigadiers in the British service and was offered several
Image Courtesy of Wikipedia critical postwar offices, which he declined. Shortly after the end of his military career, he entered politics after the imminence of Indian independence made his dream of becoming Viceroy of India impossible. He was elected to the House of Commons as a Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Wolverhampton South West in the 1950 United Kingdom general election. He would serve this constituency as a Conservative until 1974. Powell entered the Prime Minister’s cabinet as Minister of Health in 1960 and served in this capacity until 1963. Before that, he had served dutifully as Junior Housing Minister and Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Major policy decisions did not define his time as Minister of Health. He stood in the first Conservative Party leadership election in 1965 but came in third place, with future Prime Minister Edward Heath emerging victorious. Powell was appointed by Heath to be Shadow Secretary of State for Defense, as the Conservatives were opposition at this time. It would not be long, however, before Powell rose to lasting national prominence. Powell’s life and legacy came to be defined by his remarks at a Conservative Party gathering in Birmingham on April 20th, 1968. His speech, known after that as the “Rivers of Blood speech,” strongly condemned mass immigration, especially from the British Commonwealth. He infamously proclaimed, “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”
He was fiercely denounced by figures from the British left and right, as many of his fellow leading Conservatives turned against him. Though he had only warned against the dangers posed by the unchecked influx of immigrants, his opponents labeled him a racist. Some of his Conservative allies stood by him, and others thought it would only worsen the matter to dismiss Powell from his role in the Shadow Cabinet. Regardless, Heath sacked Powell as Shadow Secretary of State for Defense the day after his speech. Powell’s dismissal and the whole affair were massively controversial. Opinion polling done at the time revealed that the majority of the British population supported the sentiments expressed in the “Rivers of Blood” speech. Powell developed a large public following who rallied behind him and protested against his treatment by Heath and the Conservative Party leadership. In fact, many historians attribute the surprising Conservative victory in the 1970 general election to Powell’s wild popularity. His continued alienation from the heart of the Conservative Party politics after the 1970 election troubled Powell. Just five days before the February 1974 general election, he publicly left the Conservatives and resigned from Parliament. The Conservatives lost their majority and Heath’s premiership was over. Powell returned to Commons just a few months later following the October 1974 general election. He was now an MP of the Ulster Unionist Party, representing the constituency of South Down in Northern Ireland. He supported the Labour Party position in opposition to British membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), the European Union’s immediate predecessor, and campaigned for the “No” vote in the 1975 EEC membership referendum. The “Yes” vote triumphed soundly and the United Kingdom joined the EEC despite Powell’s vocal opposition. Powell’s last years in politics were spent on the fringes of public discourse, remaining well known but not very well regarded. He lost his seat in the 1987 general election, ending his nearly 47-year tenure in Parliament. Out of office, Powell advocated for British self-determination and independence from Europe, mainly through his support for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher had come out against European integration in the last years of her historic premiership and earned the support of possibly Britain’s most controversial elder statesman. He was not able to make a difference in the 1990 Conservative leadership election by throwing his weight
behind Thatcher, who did not win the contest outright and was persuaded to resign. In 1992, he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease but remained active in media and on the periphery of politics in his final years. He died in the hospital after a series of falls complicated by his condition. Upon his death, then Prime Minister Tony Blair of the Labour Party said, “However controversial his views, he was one of the great figures of 20thcentury British politics, gifted with a brilliant mind. However much we disagreed with many of his views, there was no doubting the strength of his convictions or their sincerity, or his tenacity in pursuing them, regardless of his political self-interest.” In many ways, Enoch Powell was a tragic figure. Though a man of exceptional intellect and a courageous spirit, he was never able to attain real power in the British government of his day. Powell showed remarkable prescience, accurately warning the United Kingdom of the danger of both European integration and uncontrolled immigration. He identified the cultural shift occurring in the United Kingdom due to the migrant influx and the risks it inherently poses to western civilization. Due to his political alienation, he was unable to effect change to thwart the threats he perceived to the United Kingdom. Powell was undoubtedly a complicated and polarizing figure. Popular interpretations of his remarks and actions have left him with a monstrous legacy amongst many circles in the United Kingdom to this day. His political ideology termed Powellism and rooted in traditionalist conservatism and libertarianism, lives on through contemporary supporters. He remains an oft-invoked figure of racist villainy or defiant British nationalism for the Left and the Right respectively. It is true that many of his words were intended to be inflammatory, dramatic, and provocative. He was an agitator, spurring his supporters and the general British population to come out against open door immigration. However, the significance of what he recognized and believed cannot be overlooked and neither can his years of committed service to his constituents and the United Kingdom as a whole. At present, there is debate over whether a commemorative blue plaque for Enoch Powell should or should not be installed in Wolverhampton, his first constituency. A wide majority of the 14,000 respondents in an Express & Star poll believe that it should. When considering Powell’s accomplishments and foresight, it is not difficult to agree with the majority opinion.
9 Wednesday – February 7, 2018
The Dartmouth Review
WINTER CARNIVAL (left) Suzanne Horney 1960 Queen of the Snows (right) A microagression in action.
Rauner Special Collections
The Mardi Gras of the North Emily Esfahani-Smith Editor-in-Chief Emerita
Editor’s Note: The following story was first published in The Review’s 2009 Winter Carnival Issue Ninety-nine years ago, Dartmouth Outing Club president Fred Harris ‘11 devised a celebration of winter sports, and invited students from nearby colleges to compete against the unbeatable Dartmouth skiers. Officially named Winter Carnival the following year, the annual event evolved into a legendary festival once dubbed “the Mardi Gras of the North” by National Geographic magazine. Before long, Winter Carnival became a favorite social weekend for college students from other schools. Today, the athletic dimension of the Carnival remains, as well as the shadow of campus parties. In the Beginning In 1910, skiing had not yet emerged as a common form of winter recreation. At Dartmouth, Fred Harris ’11 and his friend A.T. Cobb ’12 were among the few students who participated in the sport. Harris, as president of the newly-formed Dartmouth Outing Club, had an interest in promoting skiing and winter sports, so he undertook the organization of a weekend devoted to those activities. Harris wrote a letter to the Daily Dartmouth outlining his proposal to Dartmouth’s community. Shortly thereafter, the newspaper published an editorial calling for an event that could act as the “culmination of the season.” The weekend, read the editorial, “would undoubtedly be a feature of College activity which from its novelty alone, if for no other reason, would prove attractive. It is not impossible that Dartmouth, in initiating this movement, is setting an example that will later find Ms. Smith is a graduate of the class of 2009 and Editor-in-Chief Emerita of The Dartmouth Review.
devotees among other New England and northern colleges.” The initial “field day” proved to be a huge success, popular with students, faculty, and local townspeople. The events of the first weekend included ski races, ski jumping and snowshoe races. Harris was a hands-down favorite to sweep the events, but a knee injury sustained during practice— coupled with the distraction of a fire in South Fayerweather Hall, Harris’ dormitory—detracted from his performance. Cobb emerged victorious in every skiing event. Encouraged by the popularity of the winter sports weekend, students began to lay out plans for the first Winter Carnival in 1911. Such an event, they reasoned, would benefit from a female presence. Said the Daily Dartmouth: “It is up to every man with a purse or a heart, or with a bit of enthusiasm for a good time when it heaves in sight, to make haste to procure that most necessary item.” Dartmouth students heeded the advice, and the first band of Winter Carnival dates consisted of fifty visitors from Smith, Mount Holyoke, Wellesley, and other nearby colleges. A 1939 Winter Carnival article blasted, “Hanover is set back on its collective heels as girls, girls, girls pour in.” The new social aspect of the weekend, which consisted of a dance and some theater, was welcomed by all involved ,but athletics remained paramount in the celebration. Once again, Harris and Cobb dominated the events, with the latter retaining most of the crowns won the previous year. The ski jump was the biggest thrill for many spectators, who had never seen or experienced such a thing. The Outing Club Ball, which followed the sporting events, signaled that the weekend was more than a field day. For Dartmouth students, Winter Carnival became an instant tradition. “The Winter Carnival of the Outing Club won a deserved success, and will undoubtedly remain a permanent feature of Hanover winter life,” wrote
the Daily D , “This is how it should be. Winter is the characteristic Hanover season, winter weather is Hanover’s finest weather, and winter sports should be, and are coming to be, the characteristic sports of the Dartmouth undergraduate.” The Legend Grows
Before long, the Dartmouth Winter Carnival developed into the most celebrated college weekend in the nation. In 1919, National Geographic devoted a feature article to the “Mardi Gras of the North.” The number of activities increased, as did the number of visitors to Hanover. Dances held by Dartmouth fraternities became a highlight of the weekend—which, of course, required a significant number of female guests. Trains would make their way north from New York and Boston, making stops at Northampton, Springfield, Holyoke, and Greenfield to pick up female passengers on their way to White River Junction, where expectant Dartmouth men would greet them with cheers of jubilee. The scenario is singularly detailed in the film Winter Carnival, a fictional account of the 1939 celebration. The storyline follows the somewhat corny romance between a Dartmouth professor and his old flame, a divorced duchess who had held the crown of Winter Carnival Queen in her younger days. Among the amusing subplots is a situation at the campus daily, where the incoming editor decides to change the paper to a tabloid called the Dartmouth Graphic. Its headline: “Smooth Babes Invade Campus.” An entertaining look at Winter Carnivals of old, the movie shows not only students meeting their dates at the train station, but also footage of athletic events and black-tie dances at fraternities. Winter Carnival’s producer, Walter Wanger ’15, enlisted Budd Schulberg ’36 and author F. Scott Fitzgerald to write the screenplay. When the duo journeyed to Hanover to prepare the story,
Fitzgerald drank so much at the fraternities that he had to withdraw from the project. Despite Fitzgerald’s absence, the story perhaps shows a bit of his influence; at the blacktie fraternity dance, the dejected college professor drowns his sorrows in double scotches. Winter Carnival was named “one of the five objectionable pictures of 1939” by the Catholic Legion of Decency—a distinction shared by Gone With the Wind and Of Human Bondage; it’s a must-see for every Dartmouth student. All Hail the Queen One tradition that emerged fairly early in Carnival history is the crowning of the Winter Carnival Queen. The tradition, possibly, was inevitable, since a highlight of Winter Carnival was the presence of women on the normally all-male campus. Said one former president of the Dartmouth Outing Club, “Dartmouth likes lots of company over Carnival weekend, especially if it is cute and wears skirts.” The tradition of the Winter Carnival Queen began in 1923, when the young Mary Warren was honored and adorned in garb from the Russian Royal Court. The criteria for Carnival Queen were changed in 1928 so that the Queen would be selected in line with the Carnival’s outdoor theme. The editors of the Daily Dartmouth encouraged the choice of “the most charming girl in winter sports costume for the Queen of Snows.” The competition for the title of Winter Carnival Queen continued for forty-nine years until, in 1973, the Carnival Committee decided to eliminate the tradition. Said George Ritcheske, the committee chairman, “Prevailing attitudes indicate that contests which stress beauty as their primary or only criterion no longer have the widespread popularity they once enjoyed.” Changing Traditions In 1939 a 37-foot snow statue of
Eleazar Wheelock “toasted visitors with a fifteen gallon mug.” Visitors to Dartmouth will appear again this year for Winter Carnival, but they won’t be regarded as the saviors of the social scene, as they once were. Dormitories, surely, are no longer vacated to make room for trainloads of female guests. Nor is the Hanover Inn cleared out and turned into a women’s residence. Today, because of increased College oversight of the fraternities and sororities, much of Dartmouth’s past hospitality is no longer possible, and visitors are regularly turned away. In 1998, Carnival turned ugly. In the wake of President Wright’s and the Trustees’ first salvo against the Greek system with the announcement of the Student Life Initiative, the Co-ed, Fraternity, and Sorority Council cancelled all Carnival celebrations. “I haven’t been invited to many fraternity parties this weekend,” President Wright announced at the opening ceremonies, “but I still plan on having a good time.” Students booed Wright and the next day held a rally at Psi Upsilon fraternity. “President Wright’s announcement on Wednesday embodies how not to run a ollege,” said Psi U president Teddy Rice. “This cannot be over. And if it is, then I’m going to go down fighting.” Recent years’ debates over Dartmouth’s community life have found less proactive, and more litigious, expression. Traditions like the Psi U keg jump have been shut down and their return seems unlikely as the middling regulations that govern student life grow stricter every year. “There was nothing like it almost anywhere,” Budd Schulberg told the New York Times two years ago. “There was a sexual revolution going on. And for the girls—as we called them then—it was a big honor to be invited. There was enormous excitement in the air. It was romantic, really, in an oldfashioned sense. It’s still what you’d call a party, but it’s nothing like it was back then.” Several years ago, Dartmouth suffered the clumsiness of a Carnival Committee that, after choosing Calvin and Hobbes as the Carnival’s mascots, insisted that an alternative theme be chosen—despite the comic’s author insistence use of “Calvin and Hobbes” was okay. The committee eventually settled upon some hybrid that left the student body scratching its collective head. Then came the snow sculpture, both sad and small in comparison to its ancestors, and a fate that seems to be upon us once more in 2009. Though no one can be held responsible for the lack of snow that has led to smaller sculptures constructed out of imported and purchased snow, it nonetheless leaves a gaping hole in the Dartmouth experience for those current generations of Dartmouth students who have yet to witness the spectacular works that once marked this holiday. Though Carnival is not what it once was—and what is these days?— students this year will again reclaim College traditions and hark back to the days of old. Carnival remains a celebration of the outdoors, of life, and of Dartmouth.
10 Wednesday – February 7, 2018
The Dartmouth Review
F. Scott Fitzgerald Visits Hanover > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Schulberg later described the Carnival as “jumping off point in time for the ski craze that was eventually to sweep America from Maine to California. But somehow in the 20’s, it had gotten all mixed up with the election of a Carnival Queen. And by the time I was an undergraduate, I mean a Dartmouth man, the Carnival had developed into a hyped-up beauty contest, winter fashion show and fancy dress ball, complete with an ‘Outdoor Evening’ ski-and-ice extravaganza that would have made Busby Berkeley green with envy. “In 1929 the Carnival Queen was a fledgling movie star, Florence Rice, daughter of the illustrious Grantland... In 1937, the Dartmouth band led five thousand to Occom Pond in a torchlight parade to cheer the coronation of a gorgeous blonde with full red lips. The Dartmouth ski team swooped down from the hills with flaming torches in tribute to their Queen of the Snow. Champion skaters twirled on the ice in front of her throne and sky rockets lit the winter night. It had begun to look more like a snowbound Hollywood super-colossal starring Sonja Henie and a chorus of Goldwyn Girls than the homespun college event Fred Harris had fathered a quarter of a century before. One could hardly blame a movie tycoon-alumnus like Walter Wanger for wanting to bring it to the screen. “Wanger was a very dapper man; he prided himself on being dapper in a Hollywood setting among gauche Holly-wood producers. Walter was Ivy League, and he played that role of the Ivy League producer. He had the right threads on for the Ivy League: he was Brooks Brothers. And he had books—real books!—in the bookcase behind him. The only thing that bothered me—well, a number of things bothered me about Walter—but the only detail that bothered me was that he had a large photo of Mussolini framed there on the wall, inscribed ‘To Walter, with the best wishes of his friend, Benito.’ By the end of the year that disappeared into the bathroom.” Wanger told Schulberg that the script he’d written solo was “lousy,” (“I didn’t see War and Peace in Winter Carnival,” quipped Schulberg), and that he would need to bring in another writer. Schulberg said later that no matter how famous or accomplished a writer was in those days, he could be hired for a few days before being summarily fired. So he felt lucky merely to have hung on to the job and asked who his collaborator would be. “It’s F. Scott Fitzgerald,” said Wanger. “I looked at him; I honestly Mr. Desai is a member of the Class of 2008 and a former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.
thought he was pulling my leg.” Schulberg had seen Fitzgerald some years back downtown at the Biltmore Theatre as he came out of a play with Dorothy Parker and looking “ghostly white and frail and pail.” But that was some years back, and when Wanger said, ‘F. Scott Fitzgerald,’ I said, ‘Scott Fitzgerald—isn’t he dead?’ And Wanger made some crack like, ‘Well, I doubt that your script is that bad.’ He perhaps said, ‘Maybe bored him to death,’ or something like that. But Wanger said, ‘No, he’s in the next room, and he’s reading your script now.’” Schulberg went to meet him. “My God, he’s so old,” he thought then. “His complexion,” he said later, “was manuscript white and, though there was still a light brown tint to his hair, the first impression he made on me was of a ghost— the ghost of the Great Novelist Past who had sprung to early fame with This Side of Paradise, capped his early promise at age 29 with what many critics hailed as the great American novel, The Great Gatsby, and then had taken nine years to write and publish the book most of the same critics condemned as ‘disappointing,’ Tender is the Night.” Fitzgerald finished reading the forty-eight-odd pages of the “Winter Carnival” script and said, “Well, it’s not very good,” to which Schulberg replied, “Oh, I know, I know, I know it’s not good.” They went to lunch at the Brown Derby. Schulberg and Fitzgerald soon discovered that they knew “everybody in common; it was a small town... We talked about so many writers. We talked about the dilemma of the Eastern writer coming West and writing movies for a living, always with the dream of that one more chance, one more chance to go back and write that novel, write that play that wouldre-establish him—mostly him, a few hers—once again.” Schulberg told him how much he admired Gatsby, and how much it meant to him, along with the short stories and Tender is the Night. “I’m really amazed that you know anything about me,” said Fitzgerald, “I’ve had the feeling that nobody in your generation would read me anymore. “I have a lot of friends that do.” (“That was only partly true,” he said later, “Most of my radical, communist-oriented peers looked on him as a relic.”) “Last year my royalties were $13,” said Fitzgerald. They discussed politics, literature, and gossip. “Scott was tuned into everything we talked about— everything except “Winter Carnival.” Everything. We went through those things, I think, all afternoon. We decided to meet the next day at the studio at ten, and we did but we got talking about everything but “Winter Carnival”... and we tried we really tried. But “Winter Carnival” was the kind of movie that is very hard to get your mind on, es-
pecially when you have the excitement of so many other things that are really more interesting.” It was, in other words, a pleasant time, though they were not doing the work for which they were being paid. “After about four or five days, it reminded me of sitting around a campus dormitory room in one of those bull sessions, talking about all the things we both shared and enjoyed.” An additional danger loomed: though they drew salaries, they had not signed contracts and could be fired at any time. After a week, Wanger called them into his office to check on their progress. Having done hardly any work, they nevertheless man-
cracked the second bottle of champagne. We went on merrily talking and drinking. Every once in a while we would say, ‘You know, by the time we get to Manhattan we’d better have some kind of a line on this Winter Carnival.’ And we tried all kinds of things; we really did try. “In Manhattan, they stayed at the Warwick Hotel, where they worked for a bit on the story, to no real end. “Scott,” he said, “You’ve written a hundred short stories, and I’ve written a few: I mean between the two of us we should be able to knock out a damn outline for this story.” “Yes, we will, we will. Don’t worry, pal. We will, we will,” said
Though Schulberg had told himself he would keep an eye on Fitzgerald’s drinking, the man had nevertheless managed to procure a pint of gin, which he kept in his overcoat pocket. aged not to let on that they had been ignoring the script. Wanger said that they’d better create a central storyline soon, since the entire crew was traveling to Hanover to shoot “backgrounds.” (“In those days, they would shoot the backgrounds based on what the scenes were and then in the studio have the actors behaving as if they were at the ski-lift, on the porch of the Inn, and so forth.”) As to whether they should accompany the crew, Fitzgerald was resistant. “Well, Walter, I hadn’t planned to go to Dartmouth. I’ve seen enough college parties, I think, to write a college movie without having to go to the Winter Carnival.” His resistance was perhaps more understandable if you understand that flying in those days required a goodly chunk of time. “People today don’t realize what flying was. It was just one step away from the Santa Fe Chief. You got on, and you stopped for refueling several times, and it took about sixteen hours.” To stay employed, Fitzgerald gave in. “While I felt sorry for Scott, I have to admit that I was looking for-ward to going back to Dartmouth with Scott Fitzgerald.” Schulberg regarded his father, the head of Para-mount, as one of the more literary producers in town, and this trait made him proud that his son was working with such a figure as Fitzgerald. Therefore, the elder Schulberg brought them two bottles of champagne for the trip. “As we got on the plane, we were still talking,” Schulberg recalled, “We were talking about Edmund Wilson, we were talking about communism, we were talking about the people we knew in common, like Upton Sinclair and Lincoln Steffens. All of this was going on and on. And it would have been great fun if we didn’t have this enormous monkey—more like a gorilla—of “Winter Carnival” on our backs. We got to sipping champagne through the next hour or so; it was very congenial. It was really fun, I thought, and then we
Fitzgerald. A few college friends called Schulberg, and it turned out they were staying only a few blocks away. “So I told Scott that I would go and see them; I’d be back in one hour. That was one of my mistakes.” When he returned to the room, he found an unpunctuated note that read, from Schulberg’s memory, “Pal you shouldn’t have left me pal because I got lonely pal and I went down to the bar pal and I came up and looked for you pal and now I’m back down at the bar and I’ll be waiting for you pal.” Schulberg found Fitzgerald in a hotel bar a few blocks away and saw that he was in bad shape, not having eaten anything. Nevertheless, they continued to drink and work on the script back in their room in preparation for the nine a.m. meeting with Wanger at the Waldorf Astoria in the morning. Despite the drink, the lack of sleep, and the fact that they had no story, they successfully evaded Wanger’s detection and were encouraged to keep working. As they got up, Wanger asked in passing, “Oh, by the way, did you meet anybody on the plane?” Schulberg mentioned that they had seen Sheilah Graham, a movie columnist. “And Walter’s face darkened, and he looked at Scott and said, ‘Scott, you son of a bitch.’” It turned out that Fitzgerald had secretly arranged to have his girlfriend accompany him on the trip, though it might be more correct to say that she was the one who insisted on it. Fitzgerald, in addition to his alcoholism, simply had very poor health. But, in Schulberg’s presence, Fitzgerald and Graham pretended to have met by chance on the plane. Schulberg apologized to Fitzgerald for mentioning it in the Waldorf. “Well, Budd, it’s my fault. I should have told you.” Despite this delay, they managed to make the Carnival Special, the train conveying crowds of females to Dartmouth for the weekend. “They were really like a thousand Scott Fitzgerald heroines, they were...The entire train given
over to Winter Carnival.” In 1974, Schulberg revisited Dartmouth and wrote an open letter to Fitzgerald, reminiscing about their little bender. The Carnival Special was apparently the most noticeable absence from the1970s version. “Can you hear me right, Scott? No more Carnival Special! No more train loads of breathless dates, doll-faced blondes and saucy brunettes, the prettiest and flashiest from Vassar, Wellesley, and Smith. Plus the hometown knockouts in form-fitting ski suits, dressed to their sparkling white teeth for what we used to call ‘The Mardi Gras of the North.’ Of course there were some plain faces among them, homespun true loves, as befits any female invasion.” Though Schulberg had told himself he would keep an eye on Fitzgerald’s drinking, the man had nevertheless managed to procure a pint of gin, which he kept in his overcoat pocket. “One thing that [writers are] able to do, they are like magicians in their ability to hide and then suddenly produce bottles.” Wanger took Schulberg aside and asked him if Fitzgerald had been drinking, to which he answered no, in a sort of writers’ solidarity against producers. “Another thing I should mention in passing is that Scott may have looked as if he was falling down drunk but his mind never stopped,” Schulberg recalled. When they arrived, the extremely enthusiastic second unit director, Otto Lovering, better known as Lovey, met them on the platform, bright and eager. “Just tell use where to go, boys, “he said to them, “We’re ready, we got the crew... we’re ready to go!” They stalled and asked to go to the Hanover Inn, where they supposed they might think up a story within an hour or so. When they got to the Hanover Inn, the entire film crew was already there, “twenty people— more, two dozen—everybody had a room at the Inn.” Sir, we don’t seem to have a reservation for you,” said the desk clerk to Fitzgerald, and as a result Schulberg and Fitzgerald ended up in the attic of the Inn. “It was not really a room meant for people to live in,” remembered Schulberg, “It was sort of an auxiliary room where things were stored.” The room contained a single two-level wire bed, a table, and no chair. “Gee, I’m sorry, Scott, but its hard to believe they’ve forgotten to get a room for us,” said Schulberg. When they got to the Hanover Inn, the entire film crew was already there, “twenty people— more, two dozen—everybody had a room at the Inn.” Sir, we don’t seem to have a reservation for you,” said the desk clerk to Fitzgerald, and as a result Schulberg and Fitzgerald ended up in the attic of the Inn. “It was not really a room meant for people to live in,” remembered Schulberg, “It was sort of an auxiliary room where things
The Dartmouth Review
Wednesday – February 7, 2018
A Winter Carnival Epic were stored.” The room contained a single two-level wire bed, a table, and no chair. “Gee, I’m sorry, Scott, but its hard to believe they’ve forgotten to get a room for us,” said Schulberg. “Well,” Fitzgerald quipped, “I guess that really does say something about where the film writer stands in the Hollywood society.” (“And he seemed to see it completely in symbols,” Schulberg remembered later.)They stayed in their attic room the entire day, drinking and trying to write. “Scott stretched out on his back in the lower [bunk], and I in the upper, according to our rank, and we tried to ad-lib a story…But the prospect of still another college musical was hardly inspiring, and soon we were comparing the Princeton of his generation with the Dartmouth of mine.” “Well, maybe this is good,” thought Schulberg, “The booze will sort of run out. We’re up in the attic; there’s no phone; there’s nothing. And maybe if Scott takes a nap, and we take a deep breath, we’ll just start all over again.” Periodically, Lovey popped his eager-beaver headinto the room. “Where do we go? What’s the first set-up?” Schulberg and Fitzgerald simply pulled locations out of thin air with no relation to any extant plot. They told him on a whim to shoot at the Outing Club: “Well, we have a scene of the two of them as they come down the steps and they look at the frozen pond, and we’ll play that scene there.” They didn’t, in fact, have a scene. Lovey enthusiastically dispatched these fool’s errands: ‘”Great, you’ve done it awfully well.” And just when it seemed that they’d drunk all the alcohol, the “ruddy-faced, ex-athlete “Professor Red Merrill came into their attic chamber, bearing a bottle of whiskey. Schulberg had been introduced to Fitzgerald’s work in Merrill’s class “Sociology and the American Novel,” and Merrill was a rare Fitzgerald fan. The three of them proceeded to kill this bottle in a few hours while discussing literature. After Merrill left, Lovey ducked in and asked for an-other set-up, which he received. Fitzgerald was then sup- posed to attend a reception with the dean (there was at that time only one dean, according to Schulberg) and several other literature-minded faculty members. The idea was that Wanger would present him and Fitzgerald would describe the plot of the film they were shooting. “It was a disaster since it was pretty obvious that not only was Scott drunk, but when I tried to fill in for him, anyone could see that we had no story.” “One Professor Macdonald (I remember him well; he was a very dapper man, very well-dressed, very feisty) made me feel bad because I thought he was enjoying Scott’s appearance and Scott’s defeat. He said, ‘He’s really a total wreck, isn’t he? He’s a total wreck.’
But he didn’t say it in a nice way to me. At the same time Scott looked as if he was absolutely non compus, but his mind was going fast and well, and he made observations about these people that were much sharper, I think, than anything that Professor MacDonald or anybody else could say. “Then Schulberg realized why Wanger had insisted so strongly on Fitzgerald’s coming to Dartmouth. He had hoped that the college might confer Wanger an honorary degree if he paraded around a writer. “He thought that showing off Scott Fitzgerald, even a faded Scott Fitzgerald, would help him along that road. And now he’d been embarrassed and, in a way, humiliated.” In The Daily Dartmouth’s February 11, 1939 issue, John D. Hess wrote up an interview with Wanger and Fitzgerald: “The public personality of Walter Wanger ‘15 is a disturbing blend of abruptness and charm. At this particular interview, he sat quietly in a chair exuding power and authority in easy breaths, seemingly indifferent to anything I said, but quickly, suddenly, sharply catching a phrase, questioning it, commenting upon it, grinding it into me, smiling, and then apparently forgetting all about me again. “In a chair directly across from Mr. Wanger was Mr. F. Scott Fitzgerald, who looked and talked as if he had long since become tired of being known as the spokes-man of that unfortunate lost generation of the 1920’s.Mr. Fitzgerald is working on the script of Mr. Wanger’s picture, ‘Winter Carnival.’” We now know, of course, that Fitzgerald was not tired, but three sheets to the wind. Having more or less survived the faculty ordeal, the pair proceeded back to the Inn, where Schulberg encouraged Fitzgerald to take an invigorating nap.
the room. I said, ‘O.K., Scott, here we are,’ and he realized what I was doing and got very mad at me. We had sort of a tussle and we fell down in the snow, kind of rolled in the snow.” After this was resolved, they decided to visit a coffee shop. “[At the coffee shop] it was humorous in a way because there were all those kids enjoying Winter Carnival, and everybody was so up, and we were so bedraggled, so down, worried, in despair.” Suddenly, Fitzgerald went into his element, and told “this marvelous detailed, romantic story of a girl in an open touring car (he described how she was dressed). Over the top of the hill is this skier coming down, and she stops theca and looks at him. Scott described it immaculately well.” Having finished the coffee, they proceeded back to the Hanover Inn, on whose steps loomed—“as in a bad movie—or maybe in the movie we were trying to write” — none other than Walter Wanger, dressed in a white tie and top hat “like Fred Astaire... He was not a tall man, but standing a step or two above us and with a top hat, he really looked like a Hollywood god staring down at us.” “I don’t know what the next train out of here is,” Wanger intoned, “but you two are going to be on it.” “They put us on the train about one o’clock in the morning with no luggage,” Schulberg remembers,” They just threw us on the train.” At dawn they pulled into New York, and Schulberg with the porter had to rouse Fitzgerald and drag him into a cab. They returned to the Warwick they had just left, and apparently experiencing a motif, were greeted with the news that there was no room. Perhaps, Schulberg thought later, their appearance and lack of luggage dissuaded the staff.
We now know, of course, that Fitzgerald was not tired, but three sheets to the wind. Having more or less survived the faculty ordeal, the pair proceeded back to the Inn, where Schulberg encouraged Fitzgerald to take an invigorating nap. He lay down on the bottom bunk, and Schulberg, believing Fitzgerald asleep, snuck off to visit some fraternity chums. Sitting at the fraternity bar not long after this escape, Schulberg felt a tap on his shoulder. It was Fitzgerald. “I don’t know how he got there or found me, but he did. And he looked so totally out of place. He had on his fedora and his overcoat. He was not in any way prepared either in his clothing or his mind for this Winter Carnival weekend.” Supporting him by the arm, Schulberg walked Fitzgerald out of the house and down Wheelock Street. He seemed suddenly to regain his energy and suggested having a drink at Psi U. “And when we got to the Inn... I tried to fool Scott. I was trying to get him back in
“Somehow the days had run together and we hadn’t changed. We both looked like what you look like when you haven’t done some of the things that one needs to do to keep yourself together.” “Have you got a reservation?” the desk staff asked. “Well, we just left,” they responded, although, Schulberg recalled, “It seemed like a year, an eternity... As I look back we had no luggage, and the two of us looked like God knows what. I don’t think we’d changed our clothes from the time we’d left Hollywood. I’m sure we’d hardly gone to bed, maybe an hour or so, half-dressed, in the Warwick.” Several unreceptive hotels later, Fitzgerald said, “Budd, take me to the Doctors’ Hospital. They’ll take me in there at the Doctors’ Hospi-
tal.” This worked, and a week later Sheila Graham took Fitzgerald back west. He was of course Fred. Schulberg was fired and re-hired. “After Winter Carnival,” he was in major trouble,” remembers Schulberg, “You know what a small town it is. Everybody knows everybody else’s business, and Scott was extremely damaged.” Yet, touchingly for Schulberg, Fitzgerald continued to send him notes about the film. “He had great dreams about Hollywood,” Schulberg said, “It was not just the money. Most of the writers I knew— Faulkner and the others—just wanted to get the money and get out. Scott was different. He believed in the movies…. He went to films all the time and he kept a card file of the plots. He’d go back and write out the plot of every film he saw. “Still, the picture itself couldn’t have worked, he said, “For by the end of the 30’s, when we haunted the Carnival, it had become a show in itself. And backstage stories are notoriously resistant to quality.” Schulberg and Fitzgerald remained good friends afterwards, continuing to discuss what they’d always wished to discuss without the burden of Wanger or his film. Schulberg remained struck by Fitzgerald’s irrepressible, almost boyish enthusiasm for ideas. “One evening, in West Los Angeles,” Schulberg wrote, “I was dashing off, late for a dinner party, when Scott burst in. ‘I’ve just been rereading Spengler’s Decline of the West.’ That was for openers from the playboy of the western world. How did he maintain this incredible sophomoric enthusiasm that all the agonies could not down? I told him I just didn’t have time to go into Spengler now. I was notoriously late and had to run. Scott accepted this with his usual Minneapolis-cum-Princeton-cum-Southern good manners. ‘All right. But we have to talk about it. In the light of what Hitler is doing in Europe. Spengler saw it coming. I could feel it. But did nothing about it. Typical—of the decline of the west.’ “Maybe it was to make up for the years frittered away at Princeton, and in the playgrounds of the rich, but, drunk or sober (and except for the Dartmouth trip and one other occasion, I only saw him sober),he never stopped learning, never stopped inquiring.” Schulberg remembers the day he saw Fitzgerald for the last time. “I remember very well it was on the first day of December in 1940, and I was going East; I’d been working on my first novel), I went to say goodbye to Scott, and he was in bed. He lived in a sort of simple, fairly plain apartment right in pretty much the heart of old Hollywood off of Sunset Boulevard right around the corner from Schwab’s Drugstore, which was the hangout for everyone in the neighborhood. Scott had this desk built for him to rest around him in the bed, as he was pretty frail and feeling weak
and at the same time found he could write in bed for two-three hours every day.” He brought a copy of Tender is the Night, which he had Fitzgerald inscribe to his daughter Vicky. The inscription read, “Whose illustrious father pulled me out of snowdrifts and away from avalanches.” (Dartmouth has this inscribed copy in its special collections.)Schulberg asked how his novel, which turned out to be The Last Tycoon, was progressing. Though Schulberg didn’t know the novel’s exact subject matter, he guessed it was Hollywood since Fitzgerald had barraged him with questions about the film industry, and what it had been like growing up around it. Later, Schulberg was mildly disappointed to read in the first pages of The Last Tycoon an insight that he had given Fitzgerald during one off these interviews. It was the idea that Hollywood was an industry town like any other, except that it made movies instead of tires or steel. Yet, it did not sting too badly: “I’ve known writers (I was raised with them), and I’ve known them from one end of my life to the other. And he was one of the gentlest, kindest, most sympathetic and generous writers I’ve ever met. At the same time, of course, he couldn’t stop lifting something you said because that’s the profession he was in.” In late December 1940, Schulberg had a drink with a Dartmouth professor, Herb West, at the Hanover Inn. West “suddenly but terribly casually looked up from his glass and said, ‘Isn’t it too bad about Scott Fitzgerald?’” This was the first that Schulberg had heard of Fitzgerald’s death of a heart attack in Sheila Graham’s apartment. The obituaries portrayed Fitzgerald as a mere mascot of the Jazz Age, a man unfit for the age of political commitment. Disgusted, Schulberg, John O’Hara, and Edmund Wilson, inter alia, approached The New Republic in 1941 with the idea of a Fitzgerald memorial issue, which ran. Wanger went on to lead the Association of Alumni and the Motion Picture Academy, while continuing to produce movies. Schulberg testified voluntarily before the House Un-American Activities Committee, explaining that he broke with communism when they tried to interfere with his literary work. He won the Academy Award for the screenplay for “On the Waterfront” several years later. In 1951, Wanger shot his actress wife’s agent in the groin with a .38 pistol. “I shot him because he broke up my home,” he told the police. The incident was well-covered in the papers. He served four months in prison. Schulberg’s The Disenchanted, published in 1950, was widely seen as a roman-à-clef about Fitzgerald and became a bestseller. It renewed interest in Fitzgerald and his novels, which were reprinted. Today, his critical reputation is unassailable..
12 Wednesday – February 7, 2018
The Dartmouth Review
THE LAST WORD GORDON HAFF’S
COMPILED BY DANIEL M. BRING
“For the present you can just call me the Kingfish.” –Huey P. Long Jr. “As far as criticism is concerned, we don’t resent that unless it is absolutely biased, as it is in most cases.” –B.J. Vorster “I came here, where freedom is being defended, to serve it, and to live or die for it.” –Casimir Pulaski “Today the name of America has a magic meaning for the most distant communities of the world.” –Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.” –Thomas Paine “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” –Henry Kissinger “The older I grow the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom.” –H.L. Mencken
“I have not yet begun to fight.” “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.” –Patrick Henry “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.” –President Theodore Roosevelt “Democracy without morality is impossible.”
“War has rules, mud wrestling has rules - politics has no rules.” –Ross Perot “Free enterprise, individual opportunity, limited government. They made America great; only they can keep America strong.” –Reince Priebus “Thr truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it.” –Norman Schwarzkopf “The wind of change is blowing through the continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact.” –Harold Macmillan
The Harvey Wallbanger-Stein Ingredients • • • •
1.5 oz vodka .5 oz Gallano 25 oz Orange Juice Serve on the rocks in a beer stein
Here’s the deal— you remember how to make certain drinks with different mnemonic devices. Want to make a “Sex on the Beach”? Who has sex on the beach— very crazy old people. V-C-O-P— vodka, cranberry, OJ, peach schnapps. Someone orders an Alabama Slammer? All Southerners Sip OJ. Amaretto, SoCo, Sloe Gin, and OJ— don’t forget the flag on the top. The Harvey Wallbanger-stein— it’s disgusting. No idea why anyone would ever drink it. But here’s how you remember it: it’s a glorified screwdriver with Galliano in it. Ugh, Galliano. If it’s in a drink, the word “wall” will be somewhere in the title because the bottle’s so unnecessarily big, and the liqueur is so disgusting, that everyone just shoves it in the back of the bar against the wall and hopes that they never need to touch it. It’s supposed to taste like a subtle anise and vanilla, but if you put any of it into any drink ever it’ll overpower the rest of the ingredients. When it’s floated right on top, the entire drink just tastes like the top-half of a bottom-class stripper. When a guy walks in and orders a Harvey Wallbanger-stein, I feel sorry for him and me. God knows he’s a contemptibly obnoxious person who’s incapable of experiencing any genuine emotion besides undeserved love for himself. And he’s not going to tip worth a damn. To make a Harvey Wallbanger-stein, shove some ice in a beer stein, pour the vodka on the bottom, fill to almost the top with OJ, and float the galliano right on top. And yeah. This should really be served on the rocks in a highball. But the guy ordering this wants to feel big and special. So he wants it a big, ornate beer stein. Doesn’t bother me— I’m still going to do the world some good and short-change him on the liquor.
— Scotch M. Cara
–John Paul Jones
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.” –H.P. Lovecraft “We were succeeding. When you looked at specifics, this became a war of attrition. We were winning.” –William Westmoreland “As polarized as we have been, we Americans are locked in a cultural war for the soul of our country.” –Patrick Buchanan “Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand.” –Colin Powell “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” –President Gerald Ford “I will not surrender responsibility for my life and my actions.” –Enoch Powell “The time has come to stop telling the American people only what they want them to hear, and start talking frankly about the sacrifices we must all make.” –John B. Anderson