Page 1

Hanover Review Inc. P.O. Box 343 Hanover NH, 03755

Volu m e 3 6 , Is su e 3

Mond ay, May 9 , 2 0 1 6

35TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE

E

RT M

OUTH

W

DA

YEARS

IE

TH

35

OF

CEL E

S

35 YE G N I T AR A R B

V E R

THE DARTMOUTH REVIEW Celebrates thirty-five years of independant, conservative journalism at Dartmouth College

Finding an Education at Dartmouth Jeffrey P. Hart Founder

Editor’s Note: The following article originally appeared in The Review’s Dartmouth Guide, a collection of advice for incoming Dartmouth students. We hope you find it just as illuminating today. Who are you? If you are part of Western civilization, your cultural ancestors are a tiny monotheistic desert tribe of Israelites and a small city-state in what we now call Greece. Even if you are unaware of this dual heritage, it influences your life every day. The political philosopher Leo Strauss discussed Western civilization’s foundations in his important essay “Jerusalem and Athens” contained in his collection Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy. The tradition designated

“Athens” is associated with philosophy and with critical exercise of the mind. The tradition associated with “Jerusalem” is associated with monotheism. The two traditions interact, sometimes fuse, and there exists a dynamic tension between them. Many have argued that it is just this tension that has rendered Western civilization so dynamic down through the centuries. On the side of “Athens” you will want to learn something about Homer, who in many ways laid the basis of Greek philosophy, and you will need to meet Plato, Aristotle, the Greek dramatists, historians, architects and sculptors. Over in “Jerusalem” you will find the epic account of the career of monotheism as it worked its way out in history. The scriptures, like Homer’s works, have their epic heroes, and, like the Greek tradition in

some ways they refine and internalize the epic virtues. “Athens” and “Jerusalem” interact and much flows from the interaction. You will follow all of this down through the centuries, through Virgil and Augustine, and Dante, in Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Montaigne, Moliere, Voltaire, Goethe and on to modernity. “The best that has been thought and said,” as Matthew Arnold called it. The mind of Europe as T.S. Eliot put it, “from Homer to the present.” I had never heard of the Athens-Jerusalem paradigm in 1956 when I got out of the Navy and returned to Columbia for my PhD. I had graduated from Columbia College in 1952. I was wandering around in Hamilton Hall getting my course cards signed when Lionel Trilling emerged from his office and asked if I would like to teach freshman English. I said

yes, and soon had three sections of freshman composition and a section of Humanities 1-2, required of all freshmen, and consistently voted by Columbia alumni as the most valuable course they had taken at the College. But that fall, in 1956, I faced an emergency. I had transferred to Columbia in 1950 and had never taken Humanities 1-2. Even worse, the semester had already begun, and my section of Humanities I had begun without me (such was the disorganization of the English Department). I had never read the first book assigned, Homer’s Iliad. Thinking fast, I met the class, said hello, outlined Aristotle’s description of tragedy as set forth in his Poetics, and survived by discussing the nature and goals of tragedy and comedy, not acknowledging that this class right now was a perfect example of both.

Teaching the two-semester Humanities 1-2 from 1956 to 1963, when I accepted a position at Dartmouth, led to the publication of my Smiling Through the Cultural Catastrophe, a trip through the Columbia Humanities 1-2 syllabus, with analysis and commentary. This book about Western Civilization came soon after 9/11, so Osama bin Laden became my promoter, and he turned out to be a very good one in fact. Everyone wanted to talk about Western civilization, which was under attack, and I did on CNN’s “Book Notes,” from its TV studio in Washington, D.C. The title Smiling Through the Cultural Catastrophe means that we have all the necessary books, but also that they are not read. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has said, “A people that no longer remembers has lost its soul.”

The ORC, Dartmouth’s course book, has the necessary ingredients to avert such a crisis. In Smiling Through Cultural Catastrophe, I added “Faust in Great Neck,” or, The Great Gatsby, to the core books of the Western canon. James Gatz pushes towards American possibility, re-invents himself as Jay Gatsby, and tries to defeat the ultimate reality: time. The main job in getting a college education is to make sure the large essential parts are firmly in place, after which you can build upon them. The courses you need are right there in the ORC and are often surrounded by nonessentials and even outright garbage. Dartmouth will not tell you what the right courses are to get a college education, but then that doesn’t matter— because I have just done so.

THE DARTMOUTH REVIEW ENTERS A NEW ERA

LOOKING BACK: BILL COLE’S SONG AND DANCE

REMEMBERING THE DIMENSIONS DÉBÂCLE

Thoughts on the rolling out of new diversity and inclusivity recommandations and the thirty-fith anniversary of the paper

The infamous incident behind the ignominious lawsuit

A recap of the infamous 2013 protest, which may have scarred ’17s for life

> EDITORIAL PAGE 3

> FEATURES PAGE 8

> REVIEWS PAGE 10


2 Monday – May 9, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

GALA PROGRAM & TABLE OF CONTENTS

The 35 Anniversary Gala th

Saturday, the Fourteenth of May, 2016 Six o’clock in the evening Union League Club of New York New York, New York

Order of Events – Remarks – Christopher Long

– Cocktail Reception – – Seating for Dinner –

– Honoring Jeffrey Hart – James Panero

– Benediction – Fr. Gerald Murray

– Keynote Address – Laura Ingraham

– Dinner –

– Dancing –

– Student Remarks – Sandor Farkas Matthew R. Zubrow

– Farewell Remarks –

INSIDE THE ISSUE Finding an Enducation at Dartmouth ............................................ PAGE 1 Mission: Shanty Removal ........................................................................ PAGE 9 A New Era ............................................................................................................... PAGE 2 Nemo me Impune Lacessit .................................................................... PAGE 10 The Review in Review ........................................................................ PAGES 4 and 5 Groups Exonerate The Review ......................................................... PAGE 11 Tools of the Trade ............................................................................................. PAGE 6 The Real Racism ............................................................................................. PAGE 12 Remembering Ted Laskin and Frank Gilory ......................... PAGE 6 Inside the Dimensions Debacle .......................................................... PAGE 12 Steeling the Election ...................................................................................... PAGE 7 The Protest in Review ................................................................................ PAGE 13 Dunkirk for Ivy Liberalism ................................................................... PAGE 7 Dartmouth’s Review ................................................................................... PAGE 14 Bill Cole’s Song and Dance ..................................................................... PAGE 8 The Apology of The Dartmouth Review ...................................... PAGE 14 Dartmouth Review: 1, Prof. Cole: 0 ................................................ PAGE 8 Stonewalled ......................................................................................................... PAGE 15

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

PUTIN READS THE REVIEW. DO YOU?


The Dartmouth Review

Monday – May 9, 2016

3

MASTHEAD & EDITORIAL EST. 1980

“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

EDITORIAL BOARD

EDITORIAL

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

A New Era

SANDOR FARKAS

EXECUTIVE EDITORS BRIAN CHEN JOSHUA D. KOTRAN

MANAGING EDITORS MICHAEL J. PERKINS ASHWATH M. SRIKANTH JOHN S. STAHEL

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

JOSHUA L. KAUDERER JOHNATHON L. POSTIGLIONE MARCUS J. THOMPSON

BUSINESS STAFF PRESIDENT

MATHEW R.ZUBROW

VICE PRESIDENTS ROBERT Y. SAYEGH ASHWATH M. SRIKANTH

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 COOPER-STEIN, 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 ESFAHANISMITH, R. EMMETT TYRRELL, SIDNEY ZION

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF & PRESIDENT EMERITUS MENE O.UKUEBERUWA & BRANDON G. GILL

NOTES Special thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr. “Wah-Hoo-Wah!” 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: editor@dartreview.com Or by mail at:

The Dartmouth Review P.O. Box 343 Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4370

Please direct all complaints to: editor@thedartmouth.com

President Hanlon and Provost Den- taken it in different directions. Others have charged ver’s recent message to the community head-first into controversy. I propose that the inregarding diversity and inclusivity for- tellectual battle on campus has nothing to do with mally marks the beginning of a new era tactics. My objection to our many recent protests at Dartmouth, with its own unique set of transcends the disagreeable tactics used – I simply challenges. Over the last thirty-five years, disagree with the views that the protestors hold and The Dartmouth Review has witnessed the how they want to impose those views on others. I College pass through other ‘new eras’ and am sure that the protestors view The Review in a has taken a critical role in reporting on, similar way. advocating for, and, most notably, rallying There is no reason why we should limit our tacagainst these changes. tics, moderate ourselves, or strive needlessly for conOur paper has extended its influence far beyond troversy. The real purpose of our paper is to foster the grounds of this small college through its articles intellectual dialogue, independent of the restrictions and through its alumni, who have gone on to fight that now abound. When the situation is controverfor and preach conservative values in the premier sial, we must embrace it. When there is room for conservative strongholds and in the most remote cooperation with our erstwhile ideological oppoliberal deserts. Many of these distinguished alumni nents, we should work with them in whatever cacontinue to support The Review and will be in pacity we can. attendance at our Thirty-Fifth AnniverPresident Hanlon and Provost sary Gala. In honor of their early conDenver’s message will provide both tributions to the paper, which made of these types of opportunities. The ripples throughout the nation, Dartmouth Community Study this issue contains some of opens, “Dartmouth College affirms the most notable articles The that diversity and inclusion are crucial Review has published as well to the intellectual vitality of the campus as articles that chronicle some community.” As it continues to exof our more exciting moments. pound the virtues of diversity, it These articles do not necessarfails to provide a concrete defiily represent the views of the nition of the term itself. The Recurrent editors of The Dartview has always represented an Sandor Farkas mouth Review and we present example of true diversity at Dartthem solely as historical artifacts. mouth. We bring together a peculiar assortment of These articles and their contemporaries, al- people from many socioeconomic, religious, and though they range from one to thirty-five years old, ethnic backgrounds, all of whom contribute unique were prophetic. The Dartmouth Review has long ideological perspectives to the paper. Instead of cautioned its readers that higher education was abetting the separation of students into cliques, this headed down a dangerous path. The President and paper works to challenge students to push their inProvost’s message represents an impending institu- tellectual boundaries. tionalization of an unfortunate set of values. These The study continues, “It is through freedom of values have developed and mutated since long be- exchange over different ideas and viewpoints in fore the arrival of The Dartmouth Review. No mat- supportive environments that individuals develter how noble their predecessors were or how hon- op the critical thinking skills that will benefit them est intentions behind them, they constitute a threat throughout their lives.” The Dartmouth administo higher education, American culture, essential tration has repeatedly failed to live up to this ideal. Constitutional freedoms, and the Dartmouth Col- More than ever, The Review will have to fight for the lege that we have all called home. rights of students in an era of the institutionalization As it has in the past, The Review will continue to of political correctness, safe spaces, trigger warnplay an essential role defending the College against ings, and more. As the College Administration these destructive tendencies, advocating for mean- rapidly expands to meet the alleged needs of certain ingful administrative reform that deals with real students and the self-interest of its executives, The problems extant at Dartmouth, and promoting Review will have the opportunity to expose this unpositive moral values within the student body. We ethical trend in higher education. will work to hold administrators, faculty, and stuThe next five years will not be easy for dents responsible for their words and actions just as The Dartmouth Review or its staff. It will we have for thirty-five years. need all the help it can get from concerned There is a continuing debate over whether The students, faculty, and alumni to turn the Review should continue to provoke controversy by tide at Dartmouth. Fortunately, it has provbringing to light the negative actions of others and en on countless occasions that the courage providing critical commentary that is true to our of its convictions outweighs the treachery conservative values. Over thirty-five years, some of of those who seek to wreak havoc on this the paper’s leaders have toned down its rhetoric or college on a hill. For External Use Only In various clinical studies, a small portion of readers experienced the following symptoms after receiving The Dartmouth Review: itching, burning, sniffles, bloody noses, headaches, paranoia, rage, schizophrenia, and/or alcoholism. Please, Read Responsibly


4 Monday – May 9, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

THE REVIEW BEAUTY & THE BEAST JANUARY 25, 1982 A group of students will soon file an application with the Council on Student Organizations (COSO) requesting college recognition and funding for the Bestiality Society. The logic behind the proposal, according to Bestiality Society President Scott Lamb ’84, is that if the College is willing to recognize student groups solely on the basis of sexual affiliation, COSO cannot deny equal opportunity to students who eschew traditional inclinations. Lamb was referring to the Gay Student Organization, which is recognized by the College, but no longer receives COSO funding. Such funding was discontinued pursuant to an exposé of the organization in this news-paper. For COSO, the application of the Bestiality Society is a test, a test to determine whether the college is ad hoc and whimsical, and whether it is willing to pursue its logic to consistent limits. Students who would like to be on the B.S. mailing list should send their names to Theodore Crown ’84. All correspondence will be treated in the strictest confidence. Meow.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST MAY 31, 1982 Benjamin Hart, founder of this newspaper, was assaulted and bitten by a black administrator of the College in the Blunt Alumni Center last Friday. Hart was delivering issues of the newspaper (as he does each week), when Samuel Smith, associate director of the Alumni Fund, approached Hart and told him he could not distribute papers. When Hart ignored him, Smith attacked Hart from behind, hitting his face and back. Hart held Smith in a headlock to stave him off, at which point Smith bit Hart in the right side. Hart was treated for injuries at Mary Hitchcock Hospital and was given a tetanus shot. Smith was held back from his assault by Henry Eberhart, director of the Alumni Fund. Eberhart has been instructed by President McLaughlin to conduct an investigation of the incident. Smith pleaded “no contest” to charges of assault Tuesday in Hanover Court and was convicted. He was fined $250 ($150 suspended) and sentenced to three months of probation.

TRIBAL CHIEFS: BRING BACK THE INDIAN OCTOBER 4, 1984 Who would have believed it? Indian chiefs across the country are overwhelmingly—repeats, overwhelmingly—in favor of a return of the Indian symbol to Dartmouth. Don’t wrinkle your brow. The chiefs were not misinformed about these situation. They were told about Dartmouth’s founding. They were told that the Indian was abolished because some Native Americans and others regarded it as racist and insensitive. Yet the criticisms of the Indian symbol hardly seemed to affect them. Some had heard the complaints before, and dismissed them as misguided and in some cases radical. But the majority of Indian chiefs found the criticism of the Indian symbol so absurd as to be incomprehensible. The Dartmouth Review has for some time had its suspicions about whether people purporting to speak of the vast majority of Indians nationwide were in fact doing so. We have several examples in our society of labor leaders who don’t speak for workers, “civil rights” leaders who misrepresent their minority constituencies, and politicians who don’t speak for the people. Now we must add another case to this list. Our procedure for conducting the following surgery was simple. We obtained a list of every single Indian tribe in the county. We decided to conduct in-depth interviews over the phone with some of the Indian chiefs, and sent a mailing (so we could have signed affidavits of their position) to the rest. The final tallies came in over a period of three months. They were unbelievable to us because, despite our suspicions, even we had begun to buy the Native American Studies professors’ claim to speak for the anger of all Indian peoples. Total Chiefs Favoring the Indian: 125 Total Chiefs Opposing the Indian: 11 Total Chiefs with No Opinion: 15 The chiefs with no option said, almost unanimously, that “it is more appropriate to act on the basis of reactions from eastern tribes rather than nationally,” as James Hena, the governor of New Mexico’s Tesuque Pueblo tribe, put it. Richard Alvarez of Californias Chemehuevi Indian Tribe said that “we must respect the wishes of the tribes in your area.” There were very few chiefs opposed to the Indian symbol, and some of them said they favored a “dignified” Indian symbol. But a handful were adamant.

Mike Prescott, president of the Lower Sioux Indian Community Council, argued that “It seems that all college teams in the country are named after either Indians or animals. That suggests that Indians are animals.” Lucy Taylor, secretary of the Prairie Island Community Council in Minnesota, said “we don’t need to be put on display like that. I agree with the people who don’t want the Indian symbol.” There were a couple of angry letters. Roger Jim, chairman of the Yakima Nation in West Virginia, suggested Dartmouth adopt as its symbol the “Honky” Joseph Russ of the Covelo Indian Council in California called the Indian in “the poorest taste” and noted, “If this is incomprehensible to you, there is nothing we can do to educate you in this matter.” But these comments were in the minority. And some of them were; confused reactions. Prescott of the Sioux tribe, for example, attacked the Indian symbol vigorously, and then said he would favor a dignified symbol if Dartmouth provided full scholarships to all Indians who were admitted to the College. Now that their strongest argument for banning the Indian has been overturned, what will the militants who oppose it fabricate next?

RONALD REAGAN AND THE REVIEW JUNE 13, 2004 When The Dartmouth Review distributed its first issue 24 years ago this week, it truly lived up to Dartmouth’s motto, vox clamantis in deserto – a voice crying out in the wilderness. In early June 1980, conservatives seemed a dying breed, their leaders discredited by scandals and their ideas drowned out in the morass of revisionist academia. The paper was the only student newspaper in the United States that then identified itself as conservative. By November, though, all that had changed. Ronald Reagan had been elected the nation’s 40th president and the conservative revolution hade begun in earnest. The Review proved not to be the last gasp of a dying philosophy but rather the advance guard if a far larger tendency in American politics. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 meant for the young Review, then having published only seven issues, that much of the nation – and indeed the campus – was on their side, that theirs was not a lonely battle. Professor Jeffrey Hart, in an issue published shortly after the 1980 election, hailed the Gipper’s election as the beginning of “a new establishment in this country” [See TDR 11/7/1980]. In that issue’s Week in Review, an article titled “On the Election,” read simply “Eeeeeeha!” The actor-turned-politician long maintained a special

ADVERTISEMENT

Stinson’s: Your Pong HQ Cups, Balls, Paddles, Accessories

(603) 643-6086 | www.stinsonsvillagestore.com stinsonsvillage@gmail.com


The Dartmouth Review

Monday – May 9, 2016

IN REVIEW relationship with the Review. The paper featured several interviews with top White House staff, and Reagan’s image graced the cover of the publication no less than three times during his stay in office. The Review enthusiastically endorsed the President on campus, polling students on his initiatives and examining the critiques of his opponents. The Reagan administration employed many Review staffers upon their graduation. Contributing Editor Peter Robinson ’79 and Editor in Chief E. William Cattan Jr. ’83 both served as speechwriters for the first term Reagan White House. Editor in Chief Dinesh D’Souza ’83 signed on as President Reagan’s Senior Domestic Policy Advisor in 1986. The rise of Reagan conservatism clearly played a major role in the success of the Review. During the 1980’s, the paper’s staff was so large, no doubt heartened by the optimism the President engendered and indeed the courage he gave them to proclaim themselves conservative. This support allowed the paper to thrive. By the time of his death last weekend at the age of 93, Ronald Reagan had become a near-mythical figure unremembered by most of our generation. He is, for most, the President between Carter and Bush. For most, it is enough to remember that he had in no small measure restored faith in the presidency, helped end the Cold War ,and revived America’s economy. To those of us at The Dartmouth Review, though, President Reagan remains a symbol of our struggle for what is right with Dartmouth and, more importantly, for what is right with America. May he rest in peace.

CEMETERY OF THE INNOCENTS UNDER ASSAULT APRIL 18, 2012 This morning, Vita Clamantis, Dartmouth’s pro-life group, set up a display of 546 American flags on the lawn in front of Hitchcock. These flags represent the 54.6 million abortions since 1973 and Roe v. Wade. The display is called “Cemetery of the Innocents.” It was to also serve as a means of advertising a moderated discussion hosted by Vita Clamantis in the Class of 1930 Room at 8 P.M. tonight. According to Vita Clamantis’s blog, “We put these flags out to ask every Dartmouth student a simple question: when your friend, your sister, your cousin, your neighbor, finds herself in this crisis, afraid and uncertain, feeling like the decision of her life weighs upon her, what will you do?“ This was the high point of the day. The display has been under assault ever since it went up. The signs put up around the edge of the event explaining its purpose were defaced, though Vita quickly replaced them. Some flags were stolen. Someone planted a sign (viewable in the slideshow at the top) that reads “May the child you save be GAY.” (emphasis in the original) Nothing, however, quite prepared the Cemetery of the Innocents for the assault that was to come at approximately 1:40, when a Toyota Camry, pictured below, allegedly drove through the flags before continuing down the street. The aftermath can be viewed in some pictures taken soon after attack, seen below. Click on any thumbnail to enlarge. The police were summoned. At one point there were three S&S vehicles and a Hanover PD cruiser on the scene. Because freedom of speech is all well and good until you offend somebody, I suppose?

The Staff of The Dartmouth Review, Past and Present

assault of a Dartmouth student by a Brown University Department of Safety officer at the Latinx Ivy League Conference. Despite the official purpose of the gathering, the well-attended event quickly shifted into discussion of the November 12 Black Lives Matter protest, and particularly The Dartmouth Review’s coverage of that event. Much of the meeting was spent discussing the backlash to the Black Lives Matter protest and justifying the protesters’ actions. Students reiterated how they felt unsafe on this campus how unsafe Dartmouth is for people of color in general. In particular, attendees noted and complained about offensive comments on Yik Yak. The recent effort to change the theme of Winter Carnival to “Snow Justice, Snow Peace” was also discussed. While much of the rhetoric at the meeting was unexceptional in comparison to the Black Lives Matter protest, it is notable that Vice Provost for Student Affairs Inge-Lise Ameer was in attendance. The two times she spoke throughout the hour-long meeting, she expressed unqualified support for the protesters, not only with respect to their safety and right to protest but also their demands and actions. “The protest was a wonderful, beautiful thing,” she said, explaining that the administration was telling the news media anyone that would listen that the protest had been justified. “There’s a whole conservative world out there that’s not very nice,” she added. Vice Provost Ameer went even further in support of the protesters. She offered to reread the Freedom Budget and revisit the feasibility of many of its proposals. “Our new Provost is very much in support of all this,”

Ameer said, specifically pointing to new faculty diversity initiatives. She requested regular meetings with the leaders of various minority groups as to help her better meet their requests. Then, she reiterated that she thought that the protest was a “wonderful, peaceful march” and asked the numerous “faculty and administrators in support” of the protesters present to raise their hands. Several of them did. The Review maintains that the protesters who singled out students for harassment, including physical shoving and pointed racial insults, should be held accountable for their actions. We are disappointed that senior administrators are expressing support for the Black Lives Matter protesters in the face of facts that contradict their narrative. In a conversation with The Dartmouth, campus NAACP President Jonathan Dikawana ’16 claimed that “comments such as ‘F*** your white privilege’ were not personal or racist attacks on individual white persons in the library,” despite the testimonies that the protesters isolated, physically touched, and trailed the students they were addressing. We don’t believe that Dikawana’s explanation provides sufficient grounds for our administrators to look the other way. Furthermore, we are disappointed that Vice Provost Ameer displayed an apparent bias against the many students who reported the protesters clear list of infractions. In doing so, the administration is undermining its own credibility and the credibility of the College.

CARTOON

CARTOON

VICE PROVOST AMEER BACKS PROTESTORS NOVEMBER 17, 2015 On Monday, November 16, Latino groups on campus organized an “emergency community meeting” in the Cutter Shabazz Mural Room, in response to the alleged

5

“Back in my day, this cartoon said something highly offensive.”


6 Monday – May 9, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Tools of the Trade Dinesh J. D’Souza

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus This letter from the Editor was originally published on September 21st, 1981. TO: Freshmen FROM: Dinesh D’Souza This feature is being penned with some reluctance, because despite the keen looks in your freshmen eyes, hungry for advice in can’t-get-enough magnitude, I continue to maintain that your freshmen year is something of a discovery, akin to a first naughty experience, in which the littlest things must come as a surprise. All that is spoiled when some pompous upperclassmen sets down to explain things, unravel the universe, simplify the collegiate paradigm, if you will. It is as though a married man stepped into your bedroom on wedding night and said, “I’ll show you how.” Nevertheless, this is my task—to inflict you with helpful advice, which will supposedly alleviate the first travails you suffer as a pea-green, and some would add idiotic, freshman at Dartmouth. Unfortunately, no amount of cajoling will mitigate some evils, for they are mandatory. Thayer Dining Hall, for examDinesh D’Souza was a member of the Class of 1983 and a former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.

ple, is Nuremberg for freshmen, although first impressions are positive. Purchase of a 14 meal contract would somewhat dull the pain, but that is unfortunately an economic felony, as prospective math majors will surely have figured out. If you choose to eat out, patronize the restaurants that advertise in this newspaper. As freshmen, some of you, no doubt, harbor pre-med ambitions, and I must warn you that these are dangerous notions, which will subject you to much social deprivation in the next many months, and there are several mean professors who take quite contemptuously freshmen zeal for future affluence (that being the product of the capitalist system, which we all hate). If you persist with the pre-med malaise, however, prepare for cloyed sympathy from students and professors, and psyche up for a torturous road ahead. Biology 5, a popular freshmen course until the second week of class, is the first hurdle in your road to overcharging old women and orphans for unnecessary appendectomies. For pre-meds and other studious specimens, I must offer recommendations for Places To Study, preferably someplace isolated from the rumble of things. These places can also be used to sprite your girlfriend to, which becomes necessary if you live in a double or triple, with nosey roommates.

Few find dorms to be acceptable tooling-sites, since blaring hall-mate stereos generate unpleasant synergy between your essays on Plato and Bruce Springsteen. Baker Library has several educable stations, although roller skating is forbidden in the stacks. In Baker, snuggle down in the levels, the famed Tower Room at the top, or the 1902 room on the main floor. In the Baker basement are the Orozco Murals, which have been known to frighten women and

something extremely boring, conjured up by deans as ideal outlets for pent-up student ergs. These alternatives, which include forums on numerous non-issues, can also sometimes be perverse, in which case you should only indulge if you happen to engage in that particular perversity. The most popular forms of recreation are Fraternities and sex, and the two are not mutually exclusive. Dartmouth has over 20 frats, and over one-half of the male undergraduates be-

“Don’t study in the Collis Center, unless you want to catch the Woody-Allen-Conversation of freakish leftists, lamenting the dissipation of the earth’s ozone layer.” children. Dartmouth has other assorted libraries, mostly infested with grad students and over-zealous undergraduates working on “special projects”. Lighted classrooms are a good place for heavy lucubration, vital if you don’t know the meaning of this word, although light reading can be performed in the deck-chairs at the Top of the Hop in the Hopkins Center. Don’t study in the Collis Center, unless you want to catch the Woody-Allen-conversation of freakish leftists, lamenting the dissipation of the earth’s ozone layer. Then you must soothe the frayed nerves, and hence the need for recreation. Beware of anything called a “Social Alternative”, because that is usually

long to one. Females may join a co-ed house or sorority, or simply avail themselves on the alcoholic and human resources of the male houses. Fraternities have been derided as “sexist” by feminists (who, by the way, find Baker Tower phallic) and “homosexual” by gays, but I think they foster, if not carried to excess, a healthy male camaraderie as well as engaging encounters with the opposite sex. Theta Delta Chi, Phi Delta Alpha, and Beta Theta Pi are the more riotous houses, which should be avoided by Gloria Steinhem fans and timorous men. Gays are directed to the rear of the row, although they may not dance there, unless they do it with someone of the opposite sex, which, I

presume, feels like you and I dancing with someone of the same sex. The Hopkins Center can be scintillating or soporific, depending on whether you like their mainly-classical menu of 12.30 Reps, obscure sculpture exhibitions, and nocturnal symphonies. A couple of Film Society movies, annual concerts, and well-acted plays provide more plebian fare for us non-aficionados of the higher culture. The Collis Center should be avoided except in emergencies, such as the need to use their bathrooms. There too, one encounters sights like men hugging each other, and I sue the john in Robinson Hall, below The Daily Dartmouth, from which, presumably, our local newspaper gets most of its inspiration. Collis is also where our Undergraduate Council meets, and in case you are thinking about running for office, my advice is, don’t. The UGC is most the ineffective, pompous student organization at Dartmouth, and the laughing stock of the students. There are other forms of recreation at Dartmouth, and it is up to you to find your niche. Try Sports, the Dartmouth Outing club, student journalism, jogging, road trips to Smith and Holyoke (fast food at Colby Sawyer), or dances and movies at Webster Hall. Dorm parties can be fun, depending on which dorm you live in.

Remembering Ted Laskin and Frank Gilroy Kenneth Roman Contributor

The notice in the ’51 Class Notes of the death of Ted Laskin, my predecessor as Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth, got my attention. Not just that he had appointed me to succeed him, but also because his predecessor Frank Gilroy ’50 also died within the year. They were different guys. Frank was better known, winning the Tony Award, New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award, Outer Critics Circle Award, New York Theatre Club Award and Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1965 for his play The Subject Was Roses. Ted was a political activist, going back to his days on the newspaper. In today’s lingo, he was a Progressive – Bernie Sanders would have loved him. Kenneth Roman is a member of the Class of 1952 and a former Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Dartmouth.

Ted wrote editorials taking on Senator Joe McCarthy, General Douglas MacArthur and the McCarren Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, and subscribed to every leftish cause of the day. The Dartmouth had a long history of liberal politics, going back to 1936

and ran the paper brilliantly … with memorable critiques of our work. If there were too many headlines using the word “reveal,” he’d mark the paper in red grease pencil: “Only God Reveals.” His real love was theatre. His senior year, all three finalists in

Editor-in-Chief Budd Schulberg’s championing the strike of marble workers in Vermont – against its prominent alumnus owner. Ted was firmly in that liberal tradition. After Dartmouth, he became a civil rights lawyer in California, publishing pieces such as From the Depths of the Mines Came the Law: A History of the Bench and Bar of Calaveras Country. Politics were not Frank Gilroy’s priority. He was a newspaper guy,

the fraternity one-act play competition were written by him – while he was running The Dartmouth, in those days published six days a week. Robinson Hall was home to all of us, but Frank took that to another level between the newspaper and Warner Bentley’s theatre group. He graduated magna cum laude, typifying the driven returning veteran, eager to make up lost time, having served two and a half years in the Army. After Dartmouth, he wrote in

“Ted was a political activist going back to his days on the newspaper. In today’s lingo, he was a Progressive – Bernie Sanders would have loved him.”

what has been called the Golden Age of Television – “Playhouse 90,” “Westinghouse Studio One,” “The United States Steel Hour,” “Kraft Television Theatre,” and “Lux Video Theatre.” His first play, in 1962, Who’ll Save the Plowboy,” won the Off-Broadway Obie Award. He wrote plays, screenplays, and fiction, and in 1966, received an Honorary Doctor of Letters Award from Dartmouth. At his memorial service, appropriately at the Friars Club, everyone was given a plastic-mounted bookmark that captured much about Frank. Inscribed on my workroom wall, where I write seven days a week, is the “Workman’s Prayer, to which I wholly subscribe: LORD GRANT ME LABOR UNTIL MY LIFE IS ENDED AND LIFE UNTIL MY LABOR IS DONE Frank D. Gilroy

On the reverse side was a photo of a smiling Frank at the race track, holding binoculars. Frank was at the 1999 Bicentennial celebration of The Oldest College Newspaper in America, a convocation of former editors that included Schulberg, by then a celebrated novelist and Academy Award winning screenwriter of On The Waterfront. Schulberg’s novel The Disenchanted, about a young screenwriter (Schulberg) collaborating with a fading, alcoholic writer (Scott Fitzgerald) on an ill-fated movie about Winter Carnival, was published the year before I became Editor-in-Chief. The dust jacket on my copy disintegrated over time, but I recall clearly what the author said about himself. “At Dartmouth, I was the Editor of the newspaper. It was the most important thing I have ever done.”


The Dartmouth Review

Monday – May 9, 2016

7

FEATURES

Steeling the Election Gregory Fossedal

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus

This article was origionally published on June 7, 1980 (Volume 1, Issue 1). Last month, twelve thousand ballots flowed into the office of Michael McGeehan, secretary of the College, in the second trustee election in Dartmouth history. Seven thousand of those ballots were cast for petition candidate Dr. John Steel. Assuming Steel is rubber-stamped by the board when they meet this weekend, Steel is the next trustee of Dartmouth College. Throughout the balloting in this race against Raymond Rasenberger, the official Alumni Council candidate, Dr. Steel, a California surgeon, attracted wide attention. His controversial official statement drew immediate fire from the administration, and from students who feared a vote for Steel was a vote against minorities, women, tolerance, and, indeed, progress. The Review contacted Steel at his home in La Jolla, California for comment: THE DARTMOUTH REVIEW: What does the Steel victory mean for alumni? JOHN STEEL: The trustees should make a reappraisal of Mr. Fossedal is a member of the Class of 1981 and a former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.

how things are going. This is the first clear-cut sample of the alumni both in vote form and in message form.

resents strength and leadership; those of us who admire the Indian symbol have never meant to offend anybody.

TDR: What specific areas of the College’s operation would you like them to re-evaluate?

TDR: But you have offended people by supporting the symbol.

JS: The most important consideration facing the trustees is obvious to everyone, and that is in the selection of the next president and chief administrator of the College.

JS: Freedom of expression is very important in this business of the symbol. I don’t think that anyone should have their feeling suppressed, nor should one be told that they should or should not sing songs, nor should artwork be covered up. I am also a very loyal son of Dartmouth College, and certainly I am going to protect her traditions and try to maintain Dartmouth’s position among the outstanding educational institutions of this country. These historic concepts of this college should be preserved; these are legacies from those who have been to Hanover before us. So I think that before we abandon significant traditions, we should take a good look at them and see what they really mean.

TDR: And what sort of qualities would that person have? JS: I think that certainly it should be someone who has lived and has felt the Dartmouth experience in Hanover. From my standpoint and that of many of the alumni, that would mean a Dartmouth man—somebody who has that feeling of having been through Dartmouth and therefore has an understanding and a respect for the traditions of the College, its place in history, and, most importantly, where that might be taking us in the future. TDR: You’ve placed quite a bit of emphasis on the Indian, the Dartmouth symbol banned by outgoing president John Kemeny in 1974. That emphasis has alienated some people who might well be with you in other areas. What do you see in the symbol that makes it so important?

TDR: Are you merely saying that you oppose administrative attempts to suppress expression in favor of the symbol, or are you arguing further that the trustees should vote to establish it as an official College symbol?

JS: The Indian symbol rep-

JS: If the symbol were to return, the students would have to return it themselves. They themselves should be the ones

is yet to follow. A couple of days after Smith’s assault, the faculty of Dartmouth College held a meeting, and passed overwhelmingly a vote of censure against...The Dartmouth Review. Not a word was breathed critical of Mr. Smith’s acts of violence. The assumption seemed to be that The Dartmouth Review had somehow unhinged the administrator to the point where he went berserk. Of course, that is ridiculous, but I think something important is going on here, something worth pondering. The Dartmouth Review is a feisty, often irreverent paper, and it has won national awards both for its cartoons and for its reporting. In its two years of publication it has printed around 1,100 articles, of which perhaps five or six have been cited by some people as offensive. I myself wrote one of these offending articles a month or so ago, a satire written in black slang and directed at a number of targets: reverse discrimination, separatist arrogance, cultural impoverishment. A lot of people thought it was funny, a lot didn’t, but—after all—the thing was in-

tended as humor, as a lampoon. I was astonished to find that some people were referring to it in terms more suitable to an official statement by Heinrich Himmler. the Boston Globe—no doubt to the surprise of its readers—addressed itself to the article in a major editorial; and for the past week the Dartmouth campus has been crawling with reporters and television crews. It seems to me that The Dartmouth Review has come under attack for two main reasons. One, it was the pioneer nationally of the independent conservative campus newspaper. It was the first. Others have sprung up at Princeton, Columbia, Yale, UCalSan Diego, and I have learned that perhaps a hundred are in the planning stages for next fall. To attack the Review is a way of attacking the whole phenomenon. Second, though George McGovern was buried in 1972 and bounced in 1980, his spirit lives on among many college faculty members—see the faculty vote mentioned above. Furthermore, the spirit of the 1960s lives on as well. For example, out in the real

that demonstrate their right to freedom of expression and their affection for the symbol. That is the one way for the symbol to be returned. I certainly wouldn’t want it returned and then demand that everybody wear an Indian. It requires freedom, and if you want it, fine; if you don’t want it, fine. This is one of the vital areas that the College needs to re-examine, in terms of not only the symbol but freedom of expression. TDR: You have a son and a daughter here. What do they tell you about what’s going on at the College? JS: My daughter and her classmates received a letter from an administrator saying that it would be in bad taste to have any clothes with Indian markings on it, or any jewelry with the same. That’s treading off onto personal freedoms. I’m in favor of saying that people are free and responsible for their freedom, and that they should conduct their lives as such. They don’t need an administrator to suggest what kind of jewelry they should have on. My son has told me of the threat to fraternities if they don’t comply and get rid of their Indian jackets. I’m not against change, certainly, but I think that if one looks back over the years, we haven’t turned out all that bad. There must be something good about what happened there.

Editor Emeritus This article was originally Published on June 14, 1982. Have you bitten anyone lately? No. Well, neither have I. Still, it does seem to happen. About a week ago, a Dartmouth senior was making his rounds delivering copies of The Dartmouth Review to various locations on the campus. All of a sudden, in Blunt Alumni Center, he was set upon by an Alumni Fund official, a fifty-three-year-old black gentleman named Samuel Smith. Mr. Smith hit the student from behind, tried to push him through a plate glass door, broke his glasses, and, finally, bit him on the chest. The student filed complaints with the deans and with the local police. In due course, Smith was found guilty, fined, and given ninety days probation. The student received tetanus shots. The most interesting part of the story

Mr. Jones is a member of the Class of 1983 and a founder and former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.

JS: The fraternities that I have seen have not only done some good things in the community and on campus, but have done a lot for the social patterns at the College. I’m sure there are abuses and there always have been. I don’t think that one can eliminate an occasional abuse. I’ve been impressed with what I’ve seen of the fraternities; I’ve seen news recently about the rushes and the renewed interest in belonging to a fraternity. TDR: How do you think the average student sees the average alumnus? JS: When I was an undergraduate, I felt very close to the alumni, very involved, and felt that they were pillars of strength for the College. I have the feeling now, though, that that’s no longer true, that many of the undergraduates are in a vacuum in terms of the alumni. We should be closer. TDR: What would help bring that closeness about?

TDR: You were in Alpha Delta.

JS: I hope that we could get some of the undergraduate news media to the alumni. Most of these alumni get only the bulletins or the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine or the letters that come out from the administrator’s office. It would be nice if some of the undergraduate publications could get into more alumni hands.

world we don’t hear much anymore about black separatism. The Panthers and the Muslims and all the rest of it are a distant memory. In the real world, blacks hold elective office, occupy executive posts, and have no desire to be isolated. Most Ivy League colleges, however, created segregated black facilities during the 1960s, and these still exist as entrenched campus interests. Ditto the militant feminist institutions. If you attack these stale legacies from the 1960s, you are immediately called a racist or a

sexist—language which, among some intellectuals, takes the place of thought. Well, the Review is alive and well, and it cannot be intimidated. If College administrators feel that it threatens their mental stability, perhaps they should be required to wear muzzles. We try to provide food—for thought, that is. We want to be in good taste, but not literally eaten. And though the Dartmouth faculty could not bring itself to condemn violence, we eschew it—no pun intended.

Dunkirk for Ivy Liberalism

Keeney Jones

What’s your sense of the state of the fraternity system?

SAMUEL SMITH (LEFT) heavily sedated after his rabies vacination


8 Monday – May 9, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Bill Cole’s Song and Dance

Laura A. Ingraham

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus This article was originally Published on October 24, 1984 revealing the gross negligence occurring in Professor Bill Cole’s music class. Class was supposed to begin at 2 p.m. Nearly 150 students crowded in the seats and aisles of 54 Hopkins Center. They awaited the master. But the master was in no hurry. Nothing worries Bill Cole. Not students, not regulations, not teaching. Nothing. Of course, Professor Cole was late to class. He is Chairman of the Music Department, and tenured; no one keeps his timetable. Cole sauntered down to center stage. “Lotta people in this class, man,” he surmised. “A lot of athletes, aren’t there?” People laughed. Welcome to Music 2, renowned to be the most outrageous gut course on campus, home of the thicknecks. Professor Cole knows why they signed up, but it is hard to tell if he cares. He is a lean, scruffy fellow, “looks like a used Brillo pad,” in the words of one student. Cole began by trying to write the name of the course, “American Music in an Oral Tradition,” on the blackboard. But he forgot the title, and had to consult the book of Officers, Regulations, and Courses (ORC). Out of the blue, Cole said, Laura Ingraham is a member of the Class of 1985 and a former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.

“Hey, I know a lot of you are racist or sexist or out to lunch. But that’s your problem, not mine.” And he began to pace around the room. During class time, Cole intermittently leaves the classroom. Sometimes he occupies the students by playing a record. As many as ten minutes may pass before Cole returns to class. A goodly number of Cole’s students are black. Some allege that these are “affirmative action” kids looking for a course they can handle. The main reason seems to be that

lines long. The requirements are: attendance, handing in a journal twice during the term, and a final “listening exam.” The Music 2 journal need not be about music at all. It could be about horseback riding. Or a trip to Malaca. The main object, Cole stresses, is to “think deeply for twenty minutes before writing.” The final listening exam is an exam involving twenty-four pieces of music. Students must memorize them, and be able to identify both the piece and musician.

“Cole devotes at least half his lecture ot the ‘race question,’ even though this is mostly irrelevant to the course.” Cole makes an extra effort to amuse black students. In doing this, he has the whole class rolling on the floor. Cole devotes at least half his lecture to the “race question,” even though this is mostly irrelevant to the course. In his second class he told about competing for a “token” position as a bank teller. When he got the job, the vice president threw a note pad at him with a dark ink spot in the center. Cole said, “That’s a little black spot.” And the VP said, “And that’s how inconspicuous you better be around here.” Music 2 is about Afro-American, Native American, and Anglo-American music handed down orally over the generations. It is rich, folksong music: Jayne Cortez, Blind Willie Johnson, Sara Cleveland, and so on. The syllabus for Music 2 is three

Last year, Cole employed a unique testing system for the final exam. Cole played a song and identified it. Students who felt he identified it correctly were told to stand up. Those who were right left the room and signed out: they got an A. The rest of the class listened to the second selection, competing for an A minus. And so on. Professor Cole has some illuminating advice for students in his course. On the first day he handed out “Standard rules for the student” of Music 2. These include: “Read little, think deeply—and much. Avoid acquiring the grasshopper mind... Avoid mental indigestion at all costs. It is not to be cured merely by going to the Drug Store... If you must lie, lie to others; they will find you out and know you for the fool that you are.

case.” Thus, The Dartmouth Review has now won round one in what has become commonly known as “The Cole Case.” Yet the suit against The Hanover Review, Inc. remains. From the suit’s outset, The Dartmouth Review’s lawyer, Miss Blair Soyster of the New York law firm Rogers and Wells, drew a distinction between the suit against the corporation and the suits against the three students. Her contention was that the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, which is where Cole and his law-

half of the $2.4 million suit is for punitive damages—New Hampshire law forbids suing for punitive damages. On August 16, 1984, the federal magistrate, Jerome J. Niedermeier “recommend[ed] that defendants Ingraham, Cattan, and D’Souza motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction be granted.” According to Vermont law, either party may object to a magistrate’s report within ten days after service by filing a written objection with the clerk of the court. Cole’s lawyer, John Long, made no objection

. . . Remember at all times: Nothing belongs to you except your mind has had a hand in its formulation. The moral is obvious: Ensure by every means at your disposal, that your mind is actively functioning on oiled wheels, and that it functions as your servant and not your enslaver.” This pop philosophy is supplemented by Cole’s classroom rantings. Often students find this befuddling; some just laugh it off. For example, on the first day of class, Cole elaborately praised the man who threatened to blow up the Washington Monument. “He had a lot of guts,” Cole said. “And look what they did to him: They blew his head off.” “Only one newsman—Bill Moyers—said anything positive about the cat. He was questioning all the stuff that the Congressmen feed you” about nuclear war, Cole said. On the second day of class, Cole told students his own life story. A Pittsburgh native, he suffered the discrimination prevalent before the civil rights movement. The neighborhood swimming pool let no blacks in. College aid was scarce in general, but nonexistent for black students. Cole attended the University of Pittsburgh. After a month, he says, he realized he was “totally, I mean totally, unprepared.” He failed Chemistry, Biology, and other courses, and was put on academic probation. It took him ten years to graduate. It was Cole’s tremendous interest in music that sustained him.

“Music saved me,” he admitted to the class. He got As and Bs in Music courses, and today he plays numerous instruments and shares with the class songs from the early 1900s that his mother sang to him. Cole also performs professionally, playing the musette for a lively group called “Wind and Thunder.” The group has played at the Collis Center. Bill Cole is not, by a long shot, your typical Ivy League professor or department head. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that; in fact, it can jazz things up quite a bit. But Cole should be careful about making gratuitous racial allusions in class. He should also cultivate a more serious attitude toward reading and scholarship. That would make Music 2 more than amusing—it would make it a course.

of the court may be asserted over a non-resident due to a single, allegedly defamatory, telephone conversation. Yet it is crucial that the party on the receiving end of the defendant’s remarks (the interviewers) be in the court’s own state, in this case Vermont. Cole and his lawyer not only submitted no evidence that the interviewing reporters were in Vermont at the time of the conversations, but one of the memorandums that were filed with the clerk contained a statement that the interviews were given in Hanover. According to Miss Soyster, Cole and his lawyer are relying on a case just recently decided by the Supreme Court, Calder v. Jones, in which the court held that a state may have personal jurisdiction over a writer and editor if “the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered” is in the forum state of Vermont. Yet both Dartmouth and the places of residence and work of the three editors are in New Hampshire; ergo, the Calder decision cited by Cole and his lawyer was not controlling. Vermont’s longarm statute authorizes a personal jurisdiction over a non-resident only “if it appears that the con-

tact with the state by the party . . . is sufficient to support a personal judgment against him.” Reaction to the ruling was predictably exuberant. Said former Editor-in-Chief Cattan, “Of course I’m very pleased. I think Cole’s lawsuit was purely and simply an attempt to harass students who publish The Dartmouth Review and to discourage them from exercising their First Amendment rights of criticism and comment. . . . [The case] is flimsy and based on sheer malice.” Laura Ingraham said the decision was a “victory not only for the individual litigants, but also for The Dartmouth Review.” As for the one final suit against The Hanover Review, Inc., Miss Soyster does not characterize it as part of a “threedown-one-to-go” case, as the suit against the Review “turns on issues which were not addressed with the successful motion to dismiss the action against the students.” Summarizing his feelings, Cattan asserted, “I still stand by the facts in the story [and] the right of a student newspaper to criticize questionable professors. I would do it again.” Commented Ingraham, “Half the fight is over. Now it’s time to take the gloves off.”

BILL COLE and his band.

Dartmouth Review: 1, Prof. Cole: 0

Peter Arnold

Editor Emeritus This article was originally published in October 24, 1984 in wake of Professor Bill Cole’s lawsuit against The Dartmouth Review and a handful of the paper’s contributors. In March 1983, Chairman of the Music Department William Cole lodged a $2.4 million libel suit against the Hanover Review, Inc., which publishes The Dartmouth Review, and three student editors. Cole charged that an assessment of his classroom behavior published in the Review and written by Laura Ingraham caused him mental, emotional, physical, and financial distress, yet he specified not a single inaccuracy in the story. Eighteen months later, in what is the first major development of the case, District Judge of Vermont Franklin S. Billings, Jr. accepted the advice of a federal magistrate and “ordered” that individual defendants Laura Ingraham, E. William Cattan, Jr., and Dinesh D’Souza [be] dismissed from the Mr. Arnold is a member of the Class of 1986 and a former editor of The Dartmouth Review.

“Thus, The Dartmouth Review has now won round one in what has become commonly known as ‘The Cole Case.’ Yet the suit against The Hanover Review, Inc. remains.” yer initiated the suit, lacked in personal jurisdiction over the three individuals since they all lived, studied, and worked in the state of New Hampshire. The reasoning behind Cole and his lawyer’s decision to litigate in Vermont, as opposed to New Hampshire where every event in question transpired, may seem perplexing. It is easily understood, however, when one considers that

and refused to discuss the matter with the Review: “I can’t talk to you. You’ll have to talk to your lawyer.” One rather humorous—and telling—part of the Magistrate’s report deals with Cole’s contention that certain statements made by Cattan and D’Souza to Vermont newspapers were slanderous. There is general agreement in the courts that personal jurisdiction


The Dartmouth Review

Monday – May 9, 2016

9

FEATURES

Mission: Shanty Removal

THE GREEN “We are merely picking up trash off the Green.”

Jeff Rosenthal

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus This article was originally Published on January 29, 1986. At approximately 2:45 on the morning of Tuesday, January 21, members of the Dartmouth Committee to Beautify the Green Before Winter Carnival (DCBGBWC) struck the first blows towards the dismantlement of the wooden structures which have defaced the historically charming Green since last autumn. Twelve members of the DCBGBWC, Dartmouth students representing every class presently enrolled at the College and including some staff members of The Dartmouth Review, gathered at shortly after midnight on Monday to discuss their course of Mr. Rosenthal is a member of the Class of 1989 and a former Contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

action. Over the next two hours, students made several surveillance trips to the Green to determine whether anyone was sleeping in the shanties, and also to survey the relative strengths of the four huts. The DCBGBWC learned that two girls were sleeping in the shanty known as Blackburn Hall. Of prime concern to the DCBGBWC was the safety of both the students sleeping in the largest shanty and the students participating in the campus clean-up effort. The committee members set out to reduce the disgraceful huts to pieces of wood suitable for transport and donation to more worthy charitable causes in the Hanover region. On the street corner between South Fayerweather and Topliff dormitories, a large flatbed truck picked up the twelve well-prepared students. The vehicle rounded the bend towards Webster Hall while the DCBGBWC

THE GREEN These were likely more habitable than the Choates members crouched in the back. After the truck stopped next to the Green where the information booth usually stands, emergency lights flashing, the twelve Dartmouth undergraduates walked toward the darkened shanty town. For less than five minutes the students attempted to purge the Green of these unsightly yet surprisingly sturdy shacks. The dismantlement of the shanties was organized and safely executed as three students hammered inside the structures. One DCBGBWC member noticed the two girls inside the fourth shanty attempting to light a lantern. He warned them to be careful not to start a fire, and asked if they intended to leave. They said that they were not leaving, so the DCBGBWC member gently closed the door to the shanty. Within minutes the campus and Hanover police appeared at the scene and ordered the students to

cease with the destruction of the shanties. All DCBGBWC members complied and then rode together in the truck, escorted by a Hanover police car, to the campus police office, where they freely gave their names, classes, and ID numbers. After the appearance of the College Proctor, the students returned to their dormitories. At noon on Tuesday, the Dartmouth Committee on Divestment staged a rally on the Green in response to the attempted shanty removal. The rally was attended by approximately 200 students, faculty, administrators, and townspeople, who listened to emotional speeches by members of the DCD which branded the DCBGBWC members “racists.” They also witnessed the beginning of construction of a fifth shanty christened M. L. King Jr. Memorial Hall. Later that afternoon, when DCBGBWC members Deborah Stone and Robert Flanigan appeared on

the Green to speak with representatives of the press, they were subjected to a barrage of obscenities and insults from DCD members and other equally eloquent protestors. The next day at approximately 8:00 a.m., some DCD members and their supporters entered Parkhurst Hall and staged a sit-in protest in the office of President McLaughlin. They presented the administration with the list of demands, and declared that they would not move until their demands were met. The number of faculty and student protestors fluctuated throughout the day between fifty and 250 people. At 6:00 p.m. of the same day, the daily hour at which Parkhurst Hall is closed for the night, a group of students were locked inside until morning. The Faculty Executive Committee also met in the morning, and called a moratorium on Friday classes.

A Letter to McLaughlin

Editor’s Note: The following letter was published by a “committee” of concerned students, announcing to then-President David McLaughlin their intention of addressing the wooden shanties which had polluted the Green for more than a year, in protest of apartheid in South Africa. January 29, 1986 Dear President McLaughlin, The Dartmouth Committee to Beautify the Green Before Winter Carnival (DCBGBWC) was formed on Friday, January 17, 1986. Its main purpose is to remove four unsightly “shanties” from the Green before Winter Carnival. The DCBGBWC was not formed to address the conflict in South Africa, or College policies on investment. Further, the DCBGBWC firmly believes in everyone’s right to free speech; it does not believe, however, that the structures on the Green constitute an allowable protest. Indeed, Dean Shanahan himself said that he did not think there should be “any kind of construction on the Green.” The “shanties” weaken the College in more ways than just being an eyesore to the entire campus: they exacerbate the bad national press Dartmouth is already receiving, they confuse the student body, they create skepticism among devoted alumni, and they discourage prospectives when they visit the College. Shanty removal will commence at 3 o’clock in the morning on Tuesday, January 21, 1986. The wood will be donated to Upper Valley charities to help provide fuel for heating stoves. Again, the members of the DCBGBWC are not trying to stifle debate on campus. We are merely picking trash up off the Green, and restoring pride and sparkle to the College we love so much. Teresa Polenz ‘87 Frank Reichel ‘86 Deborah Stone ‘87


10 Monday – May 9, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit Harmeet Dhillon Editor-in-Chief Emerita This article was originally published on November 9, 1988 On October 19, 1988, The Dartmouth Review published a column by James Garrett entitled “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Freedmann.” The column drew an analogy between Piresident James Freedman and Adolf Hitler, and compared his administration to the Third Reich. The column, written in the tradition of “shock” journalism started by Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, was hyperbolic. Given the intentionally strong, admittedly excessive nature of the comparison, the Editors of The Dartmouth Review can understand how members of the Jewish faith might be offended by the column. What we cannot understand, however, is the professed outrage over the column by several prominent members of the Dartmouth community. The Dartmouth Review has, several times in its history, gone too far in its criticism of College policies so that other people will feel compelled far enough. But to characterize young student journalists attempting to provoke debate and intellectual discussion on this campus as “pre-fascist thugs” and “anti-Semites” (as several top faculty members and administrators have, in their public letters), is nothing short of an attempt to crush dissent and stigmatize critics of the College with a pernicious label. This episode of public breast-beating is yet another example of the liberal hypocrisy that has been practiced and institutionalized at Dartmouth over the past generation. Unfortunately for them, however Dartmouth’s soi-disant arbiters of public sensitivity have chosen the wrong issue upon which to challenge The Dartmouth Review, because the charge that the Review is anti-Semitic is patently absurd. I will not give credence to the allegations of these hate-mongers by naming the dozens of Jews who have written for and occupied top positions in The Dartmouth Review over the years. No publication on this campus can claim to be a stronger supporter of Israel’s right to exist than The Dartmouth Review. In fact, James Garrett, the columnist who is being currently excoriated, wrote a column published in the Review on February 10 abhorring the College’s recognition and funding of a pro-PLO student organization, the “Committee for PalestinMs. Dhillon is a member of the Class of 1989 and a former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.

ian Rights.” Referring to recent acts of terrorism against Jews, he commented, “The actions perpetrated in the name of Palestinian rights should fill every civilized man and woman with bottomless revulsion and disgust. The sanctioning of those terroristic acts by an organ of the Dartmouth administration should shock all of us no less deeply. Let us examine Dartmouth College’s record of support for Jews and Israel over the past few years. The College has recognized and funded the abovementioned “Committee For Palestinian Rights” since 1987. Last year, when the world Affairs Council invited an ambassador of Israel to speak at the College, members of the CPR heckled the speaker and disrupted the event; their disorderly conduct was ignored by the College. Dartmouth has, for several years, funded and granted office space

printed in the Alumni Magazine, to criticize Professor Jeffrey Hart, a conservative whose feelings are apparently not protected by the blanket sensitivity insurance the College promises to others? Where were Dartmouth’s outraged historians when Professor Thomas Roos called on Review action “brownshirt bullying on the order of Kristallnacht”? Where were the defenders of “fair play” when Professor Deborah King, in front of over a thousand Dartmouth students, faculty, and administrators, called Review staffers “on par with the Ku Klux Klan”? Growing up in North Carolina, my family and I have been the victims of explicit and implicit harassment by the Ku Klux Klan; several other minority staffers have faced similar bigotry and hatred; yet Freedman and his cronies have encouraged an atmosphere where Dartmouth

“I will not give credence to the allegations of these hate-mongers by naming the dozens of Jews who have written for and occupied top positions in The Dartmouth Review over the years.” and privileges to Stet, a leftist journal that regularly supports the PLO in its pages. In fact, Stet’s latest issue is entirely devoted to the condemnation of Israel and the denial of Israel’s very right to exist. Just a few weeks ago, Dartmouth paid an honorarium estimated at $10,000 to Angela Davis, Communist and emerita of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Criminals list (she was wanted for the murder of a judge.) When a Jewish student stood up after her keynote address and challenged her to condemn the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan, she actually laughed at him and said that Farrakhan’s beliefs were laudable compared to those of “fascist” George H. W. Bush. Ironically, among those who stood and cheered after Davis’s meandering diatribe against men, whites, Jews, and anyone else she could think of were Deans Richard Sheldon, Gregory Prince, Maryssa Navarro, and Dwight Lahr, all of whom have publicly expressed their “outrage at The Dartmouth Review’s “incredible insensitivity” for printing Garrett’s column. Where were these deeply caring individuals when black Review staffers were threatened with physical violence by members of the Afro-American Society in full view of many witnesses? They and faculty members who have signed similar letters to the community “deplore” the language used by the Review to criticize President Freedman, but where were they when similar language was used, in letters

faculty and students feel free to make casual comparisons between the Review and a group that lynched a black man as recently as 1981. It is shocking that charges of racism and anti-Semitism are thrown around so freely by mature “intellectuals” whose only information about intolerance comes from books, movies, and their own self-righteous fantasies. As if this hypocrisy weren’t nauseating enough, the fact that the entire “groundswell of outrage” is a public relations ploy for the College should make every self-respecting son and daughter of Dartmouth sick. That’s right, this entire ugly escalation of name-calling has been engineered by the College’s PR puppeteers for the express purpose of discrediting the Review in the weeks before its lawsuit against the College for the reinstatement of students in the Cole case (The State of New Hampshire Superior Court, Grafton County, SS; The Dartmouth Review, et al v. Dartmouth College). Consider the facts: The College, with a losing case, has over $30 million at stack as well as its credibility as an intellectually tolerant institution; it simply can’t afford to lose, even if winning means spreading vile lies about its opponents. The “outrage” over the allegedly inexcusable column took nearly three weeks to materialize. The College’s propaganda officer, Alex Huppe, contacted The Review for addresses of members of our Advisory Board two

days before the first “letter to the community” ever appeared in the Daily Dartmouth; this, despite the fact that the faculty and administration writing the letters claim to be acting independently, out of their own moral indignation. The so-called “personal letters of indignation were in the hands of top reporters at the Boston Globe and The New York Times days before they were sent to their addressees. November 4’s article in the Times is its third in two weeks to criticize The Dartmouth Review and praise President Freedman – surely no one will claim that such adoring overage of Dartmouth’s position is a coincidence. The times is even planning to write an editorial on the issue – unprecedented attention to the contents of a student publication. Dartmouth’s Chairman of the Board of Trustees, George Munroe, is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the New York Times Corporation, and can be expected to use his influence at the Times, considering the fact that he is one of the defendants in the Review’s lawsuit. If the editors of the Daily Dartmouth expect anyone in this community to believe that it took them three weeks to convert their “visceral repulsion” at Garrett’s column into an editorial they are only kidding themselves. Professor Arthur Hertzberg, a member of Dartmouth’s current cabal of moralists, called the Review’s editor a “re-fascist thug … [a] dog” in virtually the same breath with which he deplored Garrett’s comparison of Freedman to Hitler. If he expects us to believe that he has been reining in his seething outrage for three weeks, then he, too, insults the intelligence of this community. Other professors and administrators who signed on to this ill-conceived hate campaign have already shown us that their intellectual integrity is nonexistent. The significance of the three-week lapse between column and reaction is exactly this: three weeks is how long it takes to get Dart-

mouth’s College’s various farflung resources assembled organized, choreographed, and set into motion. No other explanation can account for the remarkable escalation of this incident into a crisis. If the stakes weren’t so high and the charges so serious, this transparent effort by Dartmouth’s masters of distortion might almost be comical. But the lowball tactics of the administration force the Review to treat the accusation of anti-Semitism, racism, and any other –ism the press office chooses to try (what will they think of next?) with the utmost gravity. In fact, this entire episode has served to point out the frightening accuracy of the Review’s warnings to the Dartmouth community about President Freedman and his cohorts. Which intellectual community in this, the freest nation on earth, would seek to bludgeon to death the only independent, provocative, and nationally significant journal on this campus? Does any other college have a small army of lawyers, administrators, and public relations officers who trip over one another in their bumbling attempts to eradicate an independent group of twenty-year-olds? Over the past two decades, several ominous events have come to pass at Dartmouth. A vigorous effort to erase Dartmouth’s history has been largely successful. Songs have been banned. Historical artwork has been plastered over. Religious icons have been boarded up. Students who sport certain symbols have been punished. Those daring to espouse certain beliefs have been exiled. President Freedman’s personal contribution to Dartmouth College has been the elevation of the population community ethos above the personal rights of the individual; he has legitimized this dictum by making it the preeminent judicial principle of Dartmouth. Webster’s Dictionary defines as a fascist a person who rules a community based on the above principles. You be the judge.

ANGELA DAVIS The face of the ‘New Dartmouth.’


The Dartmouth Review

Monday – May 9, 2016 11

FEATURES

Groups Exonerate The Review Kenneth Weisman Senior Editors This article was originally published on January 16, 1991. Two independent reports issued in the past week have served to vindicate The Dartmouth Review against reckless attacks by the administration of Dartmouth President James Oliver Freedman. Barry J. Palmer, Chairman of the New Hampshire Human Rights Commission, studied two years of the Review, and “didn’t find any hint of bigotry or prejudice,” a statement which blatantly contradicts numerous statements of Freedman’s. In a separate study, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith confirmed that The Dartmouth Review is not anti-Semitic and that the anti-Semitic quote inserted into the Review’s masthead was neither perpetrated nor approved by the editors of the Review. This statement directly contradicts statements made by both Freedman and Dartmouth College spokesman Alex Huppe, who said The Dartmouth Review “should look in the mirror” to find the party guilty of inserting the quote. In Palmer’s study, released December 31, Palmer says he read the issues of the Review written over the past two years and found no evidence of bigotry or prejudice in the publication. After concluding his research, Palmer, in a strong blow to the credibility of Freedman, “began wondering what all the fuss was about” concerning Freedman’s notoriously wild attacks on the Review. Palmer’s interest in The Dartmouth Review stems from the Freedman administration’s attacks on the Review during the Professor Cole incident. Said Palmer, “[The Dartmouth administration] was charging racism, discrimination, and that sort of thing. Since that’s within the domain of the Human Rights Commission, I felt it necessary to take a look at the publication and see if these charges were justified. We’re the first ones to blow the whistle on that sort of thing.” In the winter of 1988, the Review printed a transcript of one of Cole’s classes, revealing Cole’s repeated use of obscenity and street talk. The Review was charged with being racist for its report on Cole, who is black. When Palmer requested evidence of the Review’s discrimination from Freedman, he was told to obtain copies of the paper, which he did. In two full years’ worth of the publication, Palmer “read every single thing they wrote about teachers. I reviewed editorials and editorial cartoons. And I didn’t find any hint of bigotry or prejudice.” Freedman has made a career out of recklessly attacking the Review, which often exposes the severe inadequacies of his policies. Yet never Mr. Weissman is a member of the Class of 1993 and a former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.

has Freedman attempted to substantiate his claims of the Review’s so-called bigotry and hatred. Now, the Chairman of New Hampshire’s Human Rights Commission has come in and planted Freedman’s feet firmly in his mouth. Since he took over Dartmouth’s presidency in 1987, Freedman has consistently accused the Review of racism, sexism, and many other politically incorrect “isms.” For Freedman, attacking the Review, and thereby attempting to destroy its credibility, has been his only defense against the Review’s questioning of his competence. In his latest display of public verbal recklessness, at the so-called “Rally Against Hate” in October, Freedman accused the Review of “attacking blacks because they are black, women because they are women, homosexuals because they are homosexuals, and Jews because they are Jews.” Not so, according to the Human Rights Commission. Palmer said that the Review, in questioning the actions of people who happened to be minorities, displayed no prejudice. “It’s all right to criticize people who are black or female or Jewish, providing that the criticism is levelled at their performance. Those have always been the guidelines.” Palmer called the roots of numerous anti-Review tirades by Freedman part of an “ideological debate” between the two. When Palmer was asked about the lynch-mob atmosphere that Freedman’s rhetoric encouraged, he said, “I would think that a college president should be able to accept criticism, and argue with his opponents logically.” It would seem that if any independent organization is qualified to judge fairly Freedman’s statements, it would be the New Hampshire Human Rights Commission. In the words of Palmer, who was unfamiliar with the Review before he initiated his study, “The Human Rights Commission is sensitive to anything which takes away from a human being’s self-worth and is always seeking evidence of such bias, whether in print or verbal form.” As of yet, Mr. Palmer had received no response from Freedman concerning the study. Freedman also could not be reached for comment by the Review. But that is not to say that Mr. Palmer has not gotten any reaction to his study. The usual suspects have been up in arms, claiming that the findings of Palmer, who is a copy editor of the Union Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire, are not valid, since Palmer’s position at the Union Leader supposedly constitutes a conflict of interest. The Union Leader has in the past supported the Review against Freedman’s vicious attacks, but this is irrelevant, says Mr. Palmer, who has never edited any of the stories run in the Union Leader concerning the Review. “I was quite surprised at the amount of reaction this study got. I guess I was a little naive in that respect.” Roland Adams, of the College

News Service, was quick to point out that the administration “obviously” disagrees with Palmer’s conclusion. Then, in an attempt to discredit Palmer’s study, Adams continued, “There was no proper study conducted here. Unfortunately, a lot of the news that has come out about this has presented this as being a study by the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights. That’s not the case. [Palmer] conducted this study in his private capacity.” But when Palmer was asked about this, his answer was quite clear and quite the reverse of what Mr. Adams said. “I am the Chairman of the New Hampshire Human Rights Commission, and this study was done in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission.” On October 7, approximately one week after an issue of the Review appeared with a quote from Hitler inserted in its masthead, Dinesh D’Souza, a trustee of the Review, wrote to the ADL to ask them to help find the saboteur. The ADL sent six investigators to Dartmouth on a fact-finding mission. The group conducted interviews with, amongst others, Review editors, Dartmouth administrators, and various Jewish students on campus. While the ADL did not focus its attention on trying to find who inserted the anti-Semitic quote, the findings of the group strike another sharp blow against the Dartmouth administration’s anti-Review propaganda campaign. In response to the ADL’s report, which was released January 9, the Review issued the following statement: The Dartmouth Review asked the ADL to come in and help us with our investigation of this obviously anti-Semitic incident. At our request, investigators came to Hanover to look into the insertion of the Hitler quote.

The ADL’s primary concern was not to find a perpetrator of the insertion, but to look at the situation at Dartmouth and The Dartmouth Review. We are grateful to the Anti-Defamation League for investing time and effort into compiling its report. While we regret that the ADL investigation did not lead to the apprehension of the culprit responsible for inserting an unauthorized anti-Semetic slur into The Review’s masthead, we note that, pursuant to its investigation, the Hanover Police have arrested a disgruntled former staffer, Pang-Chung Chen, and charged him with harassing Dartmouth Professor Jeffrey Hart in the wake of Hart’s efforts to uncover the saboteur. The police also administered polygraph tests to top editors, and the police found no evidence to link them to the sabotage. The Hanover Police Investigation has uncovered important items of information that the Review intends to report in the near future. The ADL “does not believe the students of the Review are intent on a campaign of unrelenting malevolence.” The ADL confirmed that The Dartmouth Review is not anti-Semitic. Though the ADL points to past incidents (such as the article “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Freedmann”) that were “insensitive,” the ADL did not report any anti-Semitism that might have been perpetrated by the Review during the past ten years. Prominent Jews, including David Brudnoy, David Horowitz, Sidney Zion, and Dennis Praeger have also said as much—that the Review might be insensitive on some occasions or sometimes runs items that are in poor taste, but it is not anti-Semitic. Quite the contrary, the Review has been a consistent supporter of Israel and Judaism, and condemns anti-Semitism. The ADL confirmed that the

anti-Semitic quote inserted into the Review’s masthead was neither perpetrated nor approved by the editors of The Dartmouth Review. This is in direct contradiction to the statements made by Dartmouth College spokesman Alex Huppe, who contended that if The Dartmouth Review wanted to find the perpetrator of the insertion, the paper “should look in the mirror.” The ADL makes the important point—a point aimed at the College and meant to castigate the Dartmouth College administration—that free speech is inherent in the American way of thinking. “Any society that ensures freedom of speech and of the press must be prepared to live with the occasionally frustrating consequences of its guarantees,” said the ADL. The College has, since the Review’s founding, tried to inhibit the Review’s right of free speech, by suspending its top editors, blocking donations to the Review, lawsuits, and other intimidations. The Dartmouth Review’s primary regret is that the ADL chose to highlight a few items published in the newspaper as far back as 1982, when the current editors were in elementary school. Some of these items have nothing to do with anti-Semitism or Jewish issues. The ADL gives no importance to the Dartmouth administration’s recognition and subsidy of Stet, which has published blatantly anti-Semitic material, nor does the ADL address Dartmouth’s speaking invitations to avowed anti-Semites like Vincent Harding. The ADL report serves to cause Dartmouth President James Oliver Freedman a great deal of embarrassment, as Freedman has contended through this past “Hitler Quote Controversy” that the Review is “anti-Semitic.” After this ADL report, Freedman is going to have to answer for his falsehoods.

PRESIDENT FREEDMAN never stopped looking forward to a day where he could be President of Harvard or a Harvard-lite institution. He never got his wish. In order to compensate, he had ugly portraits of himself made, like this one.


12 Monday – May 9, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

The Real Racism David Pan

Contributer Emeritus

This article was originally published on May 28, 1997. One of the first friends I made at Dartmouth was “John.” We had been on the same DOC trip section and soon became good friends. Both of us were Asian, but he had brown up in California, where most of his good friends were Asian as well. I had gone to school in suburban New Jersey, where most of my friends were white. It was in a conversation during Freshman Orientation that I learned how different we really were. “Dave, man, I hate it here at Dartmouth. I wish I was [sic] going to Stanford or UCLA or something. There are no Asian people here. White people are okay, but I just don’t want to talk with them, you know?” I was shocked. “Well, it really doesn’t bother me all that much.” “Yeah, but you went to prep school in Jersey. You didn’t have any Asians in your school anyhow,” pointed out John. “That’s true, but I didn’t spend that much time with the kids in the Asian community at home. We definitely had ‘AP’ there.” (For those not familiar with Asian separatist vernacular, “AP” stands for “Asian Power” or “Asian David Pan is a member of the Class of 2000 and a former contributer to The Dartmouth Review.

Posse.” “KP” stands for “Korean Power” or “Korean Posse.”) “Why didn’t you?” “Well, the kids that were big on AP wanted everyone to be all or nothing. If you were Asian, you couldn’t occasionally hang out with Asians and spend the rest of your time with white people. You had to spend all of it with Asians. It’s as if you’re a member of a club that dictates who your friends are.” “Yeah, but that’s not so bad. At least you would’ve been friends with Asians. It’s not like we should talk to other people all that much. You were making connections with your own people, which is what you should be doing – I can’t believe you weren’t big into AP.” I was stunned. “Did you hang out with anyone except for other Asian people in high school?” “No. Things don’t work like that back in L.A. You have the ‘Twinkies,’ or sellouts, and you have pure Asian. Pure Asian believes in ‘AP4’: Asian Power, Asian Posse, Asian Property, and Asian P****. You’re lucky you aren’t form L.A. You probably wouldn’t get along with people there if you didn’t hang out with Asians.” “Wait, what are ‘Twinkies’”? “You know, man. Yellow on the outside, white on the inside. Just like you.” He laughed. Before I arrived in Hanover, I envisioned a blue-blazered sea of Anglo-Saxon prep-school boys. Even

though I had spent high school at a largely white prep-school, my experiences there had done little to mitigate my fears. After my first year here, I’ve learned that it’s not Dartmouth’s white population that’s racist or reactionary, but rather, it’s the organized minority groups themselves. At the beginning of this year, I was given a Big Brother by the Dartmouth Asian Organization (DAO) to help me get settled, was put on the Asian Christian Fellowship (ACF) mailing list, and was invited to numerous exclusively Asian functions. In the abstract, these seem to be ideal ways to help freshmen adjust to a new school. In reality, however, such practices have quite a different effect. I met with my Big Brother once. I quickly got to know my trip-mates and hall-mates, so I ignored the DAO, the ACF, and all the other Asian organizations that had tried to enlist me. I didn’t want to associate myself with any group yet – I wanted to make friends on my own terms. The last thing I wanted was to be force-fed friends because they had similar skin pigment. I soon discovered that I had effectively blacklisted myself from Dartmouth’s Asian community by ignoring these groups. One evening, I decided to stop by a predominantly Asian fraternity on campus to visit a friend there. Arriving at the door, I was greeted by a drunken brother. “What’s your name?” he asked.

“Dave Pan. I’m supposed to meet someone here.” “Oh, you’re Dave Pan. Sorry, dude, we don’t allow sellouts in the house.” “What do you mean, ‘sellout’? I just want to talk to my friend for a few seconds. “You’re Asian. You’re supposed to hang out with Asians. From what I understand, you don’t like Asians. You embarrassed of your race? Look, you’re either with us or against us, and it seems you’re not with us.” Distraught, confused, and upset by my rejection, I walked away to the slurs of “whitebread” and “sellout.” I wandered home in a daze, my mind full of questions. What does it mean to me to be Asian? I was born in Taiwan, keep in good contact with my relatives back there, and visit every few years. I am fluent in Mandarin, possess a thorough knowledge of Chinese history, observe my ancestors’ traditions, celebrate Chinese holidays, and love my heritage. But am I somehow relegated to being a “Twinkie” because I’m not an Asian groupie? You aren’t an Asian because you hang out with other Asians. Such illogical, superficial segregation has split the United States, and, indeed, Dartmouth as well, into a turbulent sea of minority groups all clamoring for their own self-defined rights. Earlier this year, the Daily Dartmouth published a cartoon poking fun at the stereotypical nerdy Asian study-nut. DAO and the Korean-American Student Associa-

tion (KASA) immediately demanded retribution for the racist attack. Their clamor soon escalated into a call for an Asian American dean. I wonder what an Asian-American dean would do. The College already provides an extensive selection of Asian Studies courses and supports the DAO and the KASA. Are there special Asian academic or social needs that I didn’t know about that a special Asian-American dean could provide? DAO and KASA claimed that fulltime dean would lend credibility to being “Asian.” DAO, together with many other minority groups, perpetuates a segregated campus. No longer is there a society of whites that attempts to excludes minorities, but it is the minorities themselves that are divorcing themselves form society. In twenty or thirty years, these will be the same people that complain that people don’t accept them. How is society supposed to absorb people that refuse to even associate with anyone outside their own narrowly defined cliques? To those who say that assimilation into society means abandoning your cultural identity, you’ve got it all wrong. Assimilation is not conformity. Rather, it is accepting others as the people they are, rather than basing friendships on skin color. No more hyphenated-Americans. No more deans for individual ethnic groups. No exclusion. No barriers between the races.

Commons in the middle of the Dimensions show. Not only did the students enter the event uninvited, they did so under false pretenses. Most had the green wristbands on that designated prospies as prospies. Nevertheless, a group of upperclassmen attempted to physically stop the group coming in from the main foyer. The upperclassmen were soon overpowered, and the group entered the main hall. The group moved in in the middle of a skit. Nevertheless, they immediately began chanting that they had a “public service announcement” for the assembled prospies. They proceeded to rattle off a list of grievances, including but not limited to sexual assault, racism, and the appropriation of a Native American as the Dartmouth mascot. Throughout the time they were on stage – one source said three to four minutes, another thought it was closer to ten – they kept returning to one central theme: “Dartmouth has a problem.” According to a source sitting amongst the “Seventeens,” in the crowd, there was a general aura of confusion. The intrusion took place not long after the “fake prospies” had shocked the crowd by revealing that they were freshmen, and, as such, the real prospies were not sure what to believe. There was an awful lot of mumbling in the crowd: for a while, nobody was sure as to whether or not the interruption was part of the show. Another source, one of the “fake prospies,” noted a different mindset. Although the Dimensions team react-

ed quickly to try and force the group out, their constant, belligerent yelling forced the team to let them be. After that attempt failed, an aura of resignation and anger began to pervade. As the source noted, the group had practiced most days in the past month, often for hours on end. The group, in their eyes, had rudely interrupted something that the freshmen had worked so hard on over the last few weeks. Some reportedly cried behind the curtain. As multiple sources, prospies and students alike, have stated, the demonstrators were forced off in a particularly inspiring manner. A prospy – not a student, not someone in the skit – started a “We Love Dartmouth” chant. Within seconds, the entire crowd caught on, chanting until the protesters skulked off the stage. After the group exited, Ashton Slatev, the head of the show, made a quick speech about how Dartmouth isn’t perfect, but that there are an awful lot of people that nevertheless love the school. And the show went on. The show generally went on without a hitch from thereon in. Prospies and students alike characterized the protest as a “speed bump” in the general tenor of the show. If anything, some students were thoroughly bored by the demonstration, making them await the latter part of the show even more. Many saw the intrusion as absurd. For most, the protest seems to have had little impact. Although some Seventeens may have brushed off the incident, this

demonstration is, unfortunately, important. The College will likely suffer yet another negative blow to its reputation. First and foremost, the regional or national press is likely to pick up this episode sooner than later. And second, this is because, despite the general apathy displayed by the prospies, some students have undoubtedly been affected by the presentation. For people on the fence about Dartmouth – especially minorities and women – this very well could be the force that compels them to choose another school. This leads into the great irony of this demonstration. The protesters, good intentions aside, ostensibly attempted to bring attention to issues on campus dearly important to them. But by highlighting the level of racism, sexual assault, and homophobia (accurate or not) at Dartmouth, the group will end up scaring away the very people that would have otherwise agreed with them. In short, this protest may very well make the Class of 2017 less diverse, of ethnicity, sexual orientation, and belief alike. It may reverse many of the gains the admissions office has painstakingly made in attempting to recruit a wide-ranging student body. This cannot be what the group set out to accomplish when it set foot in Class of 1953 Commons. Not only did the group likely scare off certain Seventeens, it delegitimized the opinions of those who share its viewpoints. There are of course people who believe that the levels of racism, sexual assault, and homophobia at Dartmouth are unacceptably high;

there are of course people that agree on the same solutions to those perceived problems. But because this group decided to interrupt the Dimensions show in such a boorish manner, it creates the unfair perception that all that espouse its views are similarly coarse. Whatever movement this group is a part of, they’ve set it back immeasurably. Out of every possible platform, the protesters decided to choose the near-sacred Dimensions show, pulling off the unenviable double feat of scaring Seventeens off from Dartmouth and deeply insulting the students that had worked so hard to put on this show. The extremely PR-conscious administration, presumably a friend to the protesters’ underlying ideals, cannot have been pleased with their display. There are likely few segments at Dartmouth that are not angry with the demonstrators right now. Nobody won tonight. Performers saw their work marred. Prospies were given a false taste of Dartmouth that they may very well find unpalatable. The administration and admissions office saw their meticulous efforts go up in smoke. And the demonstrators’ future protests are likely to fall on deaf ears. The one, great positive of the night is the inspiring manner in which the show continued. Again, a “We Love Dartmouth” chant silenced the protesters: and that chant came not from a student, but from a prospy. Despite the efforts of the demonstrators, it seems that the spirit of Dartmouth truly did get through to the Seventeens.

Inside the Dimensions Debacle Nicholas S. Duva

Former Editor This article was originally published on April 20 2013. Earlier tonight, as has already been reported, a group of Dartmouth students interrupted the Dimensions show, which was at Class of 1953 Commons. An attempt to differentiate our accepted students’ weekend from the bland affairs at other colleges, the show features a quirky set of songand-dance routines. Most memorably, freshmen traditionally pretend to be “prospies” and then burst from the stunned crowd. Beloved by current students, the show was saved from an administrative attempt to end it by a vociferous student response. Throughout the past two days, representatives from an as of yet unknown group had been stepping in on events all over campus, raising awareness over issues on campus like sexism, homophobia, and racism. Chalk writings were commonplace, saying much the same thing. Much like “Occupy Dartmouth” last year, students handed out flyers, reporting sexual assault statistics and incidents of discrimination on campus. This year, though, this group took their effort a step further than Occupy Dartmouth had. As noted, members of the group burst into Class of 1953 Mr. Duva is a member of the Class of 2016 and a former editor at The Dartmouth Review.


The Dartmouth Review

Monday – May 9, 2016 13

FEATURES

The Protest in Review The Dartmouth Review Staff

This article was originally published on April 9, 2014. Narrative of the Events of April 1st On the evening of March 31, at ten minutes before 5:00 PM, a picture of a hand-drawn note was posted on the anonymous, Dartmouth-specific message board Bored@Baker. The note, titled “Draft of Plan for Slumber Party,” detailed a series of steps that seemed to culminate in the occupation of President Phil Hanlon 77’s office at the end of his weekly Tuesday afternoon office hours, which are open to the campus at large. According to the note, there was a preliminary meeting in the Cutter-Shabazz affinity house on March 30th at 8:00 and another on March 31st at the same time. The post did not go unnoticed on the website – it quickly received dozens of “agrees” and “newsworthies” (part of Bored@ Baker’s “voting system”), ensuring that the post would be highly visible for anyone logging onto the site. At some point yesterday, the picture was emailed to President Hanlon’s office; whether or not he read or considered the contents of the email is unknown. Casual student consideration of the note was generally tinged with skepticism, largely because the protest was planned for April 1, popularly known as “April Fool’s Day.” There was little further indication of an impending protest until the onset of President Hanlon’s office hours at 4:00 PM, when approximately 40 people entered his study. Some amongst the group unfurled banners, while others immediately began questioning the nonplussed President about his response to the Freedom Budget. Many of the protesters subsequently set up camp across the room, including on top of President Hanlon’s desk. At 4:27, the protesters sent an email to the campus listserv via The Dartmouth Radical’s account, titled “Sit-in at President Hanlon’s Office.” The email criticized the administration for failing to respond in full to the February 24 “Freedom Budget,” citing a March 6 op-ed written by President Hanlon and Interim Provost Martin Wybourne. It then stated that the protesters were “staging a sit-in of President Hanlon’s office until he provides a point-by-point response to the items in the Budget.” The blitz also included a link to a Livestream channel, which showed a live feed from the President’s office, and a Twitter account under the handle @gossipgangstah. President Hanlon duly left his office at 5:00, when his office hours were scheduled to end. The tenor of the room itself

during the half-hour before his departure was characterized by alternating streams of diatribe and de-escalation. For his part, the President generally defaulted to his position that any potential decision or response would be made in concert with his staff, emphasizing that he was in no position to make policy unilaterally or spontaneously. Hanlon did, as a “starting point, commit to do a climate survey of campus,” then adding that “you have to agree that you will – we will get to the names of the responsible people for each of these actions that you’re asking for – you have to agree to sit down with those people.” Speaking over President Hanlon’s objections, a protester then responded by asking “why is it so hard? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that we are asking you to just give us your personal opinion [on the Freedom Budget]?” President Hanlon then said “because you need to work with the people on the senior team whose area and responsibility these [issues] fall under, and if I started making the decisions from my seat, that’s not respecting them.” Another protester then asked, “maybe you could email them and ask them if it’s okay if you just tell us your opinion?” The President tersely replied that “once I start saying an opinion, that puts them in a box. They can’t do their work.” Immediately afterwards, Scott Mitchell, a student at the dual-degree engineering program between Bowdoin and Dartmouth, stated that “[change] needs to come from the inside… you [protestors are] sitting here and you’re ridiculing President Hanlon to his face. This is not how you make the change happen.” In the exchange that ensued, a protester questioned Mitchell about the motives for his comments, remarking that it was “problematic” that he as a white man “came to the rescue of an older man, [who] was the head of a historically, prestigiously… exclusively white institution.” Another protester suggested that because President Hanlon was not democratically elected and was instead “brought into this office through structures that oppress the rest of the people in this room,… it’s a little bit necessary to cut him off sometimes.” Following President Hanlon’s departure, Dean Johnson was at the focal point of much of the discussion. She expressed optimism about the positive steps made during the sit-in, but voiced concern about the “significant opportunity costs” of a prolonged demonstration and its negative impacts on student academic life. Rather than continue occupying Parkhurst, she encouraged the protesters to work with the Administration and identify a “solid way forward

[that involves] people in the faculty and administration who care about these issues and want to see progress.” She suggested that a meeting on Friday with a broader group of administrators would be a good second step and committed to conducting an external audit of the campus culture. Around 6:15, Head of Safety and Security Harry Kinne told the assembled protesters that “you’ve made some inroads today. The Administration is more receptive to people who abide by processes.” Nevertheless, said Kinne, “it is your individual decision [to remain in the office or leave], but we are asking you to go downstairs, so that the Hanover Police do not need to be called. We will allow you to stay in the building.” A protester then cried out, “you’re telling me that I can’t eat!” Dean Johnson, standing a few feet away from Kinne, told the crowd that “he’s asking you in a very polite way to move out of this office and occupy a public space. He’s following the process and making an exception to allow you to stay in the building after normal business hours. You can order food so that people can eat.” Most protesters filed out of the office around 6:30, though about eight opted to stay behind. Members of the press filed out an hour later, after they were also told to leave the room under threat of College disciplinary action; along with the bulk of the protesters, they moved to the foyer, which served as an open forum for the night. For the next few hours, nobody was allowed into Parkhurst as Safety and Security secured the perimeter around the hall; the only exception was a bemused delivery man from Hanover’s Ramunto’s Pizzeria, who was escorted in and out by an officer. Students were permitted to leave, however, and the number of remaining protesters dropped as the night wore on. As the local internet connection grew spotty, rumors grew that Safety and Security had cut off water and wifi services. Such rumors were unsubstantiated; indeed, officers supplied power strips so that remaining students could plug in their laptops and complete homework assignments. The protesters then, using imported armfuls of pillows and blankets, designed themselves makeshift beds. As of 9:00 PM, there were approximately eight protesters in President Hanlon’s office and a further six or seven in the atrium of Parkhurst Hall. Day 2 of the Occupation At 3:00 PM, protesters supporting the Freedom Budget gathered in front of Parkhurst Hall as the occupation of President Hanlon’s office entered Day

2. The protestors, claiming to be denied entry to Parkhurst by the Department of Safety and Security, decided to organize a public rally and march instead. Before the protest, various student organizations such as The Dartmouth Radical, La Alianza Latina, and Dartmouth CoFIRED sent campus-wide listserv emails publicizing the protest. Assistant Professor of History Russell Rickford also encouraged students in his course to attend the event. At the start of the rally, demonstrators, one of which held a megaphone, chanted “What do we want? Hanlon’s response! When do we want it? Now!” They also held signs demanding a “point by point” response. Various students involved in the creation of the Freedom Budget subsequently delivered speeches to the protestors and onlookers and led a march around the Green and Baker-Berry Library. When the march was completed, protesters joined in song and then dispersed around 4:30 PM. During the protest, a DOSS investigator and DOSS Chief, Harry Kinne, stood in front of the entrance to Parkhurst at various points. Occupiers remaining in President Hanlon’s office also chanted in solidarity with protesters outside. When asked why they were in attendance today, one anonymous bystander said, “I wanted to know how many people would show up.” Another said, “I wanted to show my support. I have mixed feelings about the way the group is going about it, but I do support their end goal. A lot of it is spot on, but there are some places where it is just not feasible.” These sentiments and others were widely echoed among the majority of students in attendance. The protestors were often praised for their commitment, but criticized for their methods, which some thought to be overly harsh. Odon Orzsik, ’17 echoed this, saying, “I admire that some people are sticking up for a cause, even though I don’t quite understand [it] – I haven’t personally experienced white male patriarchy.” Mr. Orzsik, an international student, went on to say, “I don’t think [the protest] is a productive way to further their goals.” These words seemed to resonate with Maieda Janjua, another international student from the class of ’17. “I thought they were rude to President Hanlon. They could have been more respectful,” she said in an interview with The Review. She then addressed what some would call the prevalent issue of the Freedom Budget, the use of race as a criterion for the hiring of professors and admissions: “I think race is the wrong criteria to bring in professors. It undermines academic value.” Mr. Orzsik argeed with Miss.

Janjua, further stating, “We want to ensure race and sexual orientation do not keep you out, but they shouldn’t get you in, either.” Professors repeatedly though politely refused to comment on their views, while administration officials were not willing to go on the record with any further information. Supporters of the Freedom Budget took pride in the turnout, though one anonymous sympathizer said, “I am concerned that this movement alienates a lot of white students who may be sympathetic to their views.” An End to the Sit-In Just after 4:00 PM on Thursday afternoon, the Freedom Budget’s occupation of President Hanlon’s office came to an end. Following a meeting with Dean of the College Charlotte Johnson, nineteen protestors (eight of whom had remained since the sit-in began on Tuesday evening and eleven of whom had joined on Wednesday afternoon) emerged from the President’s suite on the second floor of Parkhurst and departed the building after a 48-hour sitin. Early reports suggest that in the meeting that afternoon, students affiliated with the Freedom Budget presented Dean Johnson with a document outlining the terms of their departure. It stipulated, among other things, that the 19 students who had remained in the building after the end of Tuesday’s office hours would not face disciplinary action and would be provided with protection around campus. It also requested assurance that there would be “no COS [Committee on Standards] process, no financial aid or scholarship revocation, or any other impediments of our educational and social experiences.” The document went on to confirm that the College would conduct the external culture review it had previously agreed to and demanded that President Hanlon send them “a list of decision-makers who have jurisdiction over each budget item” by Monday, April 7th. College spokesperson Justin Anderson confirmed that Dean Johnson had agreed to their terms and signed the document before the group left President Hanlon’s office. In an interview with The Daily Dartmouth, he stated that “we’re [the administration] pleased that the students decided to leave, and we look forward to working constructively with them in the future.” Shortly after their departure, the protestors posted a celebratory photo to their Twitter account @gossipgangstah. The caption read: “And the rest of the struggle can begin!” Time will tell just how productive the struggle ahead will ultimately be.


14 Monday – May 9, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Dartmouth’s Review Nicholas P. Desatnick

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus

This article was originally published on March 2, 2015. In a 2004 interview with The Duke Chronicle, Professor Robert Brandon responded to a question about faculty hiring policies by noting, “If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.” His remarks touched off a firestorm within the media and led more than one right-wing blogger to conclude that American universities were “fundamentally hostile” to perspectives outside of “a narrow range of explicitly progressive political views.” Although over ten years removed from the debates of today, assertions like these have long rung true in the minds of many young conservatives. To them, it is a basic fact that the college campus is not the most hospitable environment for the right-of-mind. Ever since the tumult of the 1960s and the rise of the youth “counter-culture,” the academy has stood as basMr. Desatnick Mr. is a member of the Class of 2015 and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of The Dartmouth Review.

tion of American liberalism and a “no-fly zone” for those who lean to the right of center. Such an orientation has produced a wealth of political controversies and has made conservatives feel as intellectually unwelcome in the Ivy League as Socrates was in Thessaly. Why is this the case? Is it - as SUNY-Albany’s Ron McClamrock reasoned – that “lefties are overrepresented in academia because on average, [they’re] just f-ing smarter?” Or is it – as Washington Post’s Chris Mooney contends – that Republicans can’t “distinguish between legitimate research and ideologically driven pseudoscience?” Somehow, neither of those explanations seems to cut it. Beyond the fact that both are devoid of the very rigor that McClamrock and Mooney insist conservatives are incapable of, they are missing a key piece of the puzzle: the psychology behind liberalism’s popularity among the young. Ever since the Summer of Love and Janis Joplin made “sticking it to the man” look cool, college kids have been drawn toward progressive politics like moths toward an open flame. Peer pressure is a big piece of this appeal, as is the intense nostalgia for the days when there was actually a

nation-wide draft to protest. But the most important factor by far is a sense of youthful optimism that American liberalism channels so effectively. Millennials today want nothing more than to feel like they are making a difference in the world and - just like their parents and grandparents before them – aspire to be ambassadors of the future. For this reason, rather than following Ronald Reagan’s lead in selling their bonds, they get fired up to go catch Joseph Kony and join what they believe is the progressive zeitgeist. Slogans like “Hope” and “Change” appeal to this spirit with aplomb. “Drill baby drill” and a “return to normalcy,” by contrast, look old, static, and oppositional, and serve only to cast conservative principles as an obstacle to be overcome rather than as the solution to our problems. This dichotomy has put the political Right on the defensive on campuses across the country. At Dartmouth, it has even led some to dismiss it as the ideology of “old dead white men and even deader ideas.” But is this characterization really fair? We at The Dartmouth Review think not. As the College’s only independent publication and one that has a long history of redefining

the focus of student debate, The Review encourages a different type of conservatism, one that is as intelligent as it is innovative. New staffers are often surprised to learn that our meetings bring together writers from all sides of the ideological spectrum to discuss politics over beer and pizza. They don’t come because it reminds them of their grandfather’s Republican party or their drunk uncle’s rants about the NRA. Instead, they come because they find a group of peers primed and ready for debate about the key issues that Dartmouth faces today. It is this intellectual tension that is at the core of The Review’s conservatism. Rather than a watering hole for political contrarians and progressive spoilers, the paper aspires to be a source of critical thought and reflection on a campus that sorely needs it. We aim to cultivate a healthy respect for tradition and apply our regard for individualism, free speech, and the life of the mind to the pursuit of contemporary solutions. In so doing, our goal is to make the principles of conservatism relevant to student interests by, as the corruption of Lu Xun’s line goes, distilling its old wine and putting it in Keystone Light cans. As The Dartmouth Review’s

enters its thirty-fifth year of publication, we would like to renew our pledge to these principles. Contrary to the views of the Professor Robert Brandon’s of the world, the paper aspires to be far more than just a doormat put out by a bunch of angry partisans; instead, it hopes that the debates it has internally can inspire similarly critical conversations within the student body as a whole. After all, the same John Stuart Mill who derided conservatives for their stupidity also noted that “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race... of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth…” The same is true for The Review’s mission. It exists to ensure that a healthy clash of ideas continues to take place among students on campus and that the Dartmouth’s pursuit of truth is all the better for them. In the end, Dartmouth is indeed a small college and now more than ever it needs the help of those who love it. With that end in mind, Dartmouth’s Review looks forward to its continued contributions to campus and eagerly awaits any and all opportunities for the exchange of error and truth in the year ah ead.

agree that The Review expresses an “angry reactionary disposition,” but I won’t begrudge the point because Goldstein’s not too far off the mark. Our general take on the administration could be better described as “adversarial.” This isn’t because we’re antagonistic—we often give President Hanlon credit where it’s due, like in our recent take on his experiential learning plans (“Creative Learning Bearing Fruit,” January 17). Our steady suspicion of Parkhurst is because there’s a permanent tension between students’ and administrators’ interests. Picture the dynamic between wageworkers and management at a big company. They share the same overall goal, but they’re opposed on almost every detail. At Dartmouth students want a rich social life, while our administrators want good publicity and are often willing to steamroll student life to get it. In this metaphor, The Review does its best to play the labor union. It’s our job to “stick it to the man” when our distant overseers make changes that dampen the student experience. On top of our tone, Goldstein criticized our limited scope saying that national and global events demand more attention than the campus events we tend

to cover. Obviously we agree that students should be attuned to politics and culture beyond the campus’s edge. But there’s no dearth of professional papers covering those topics much better than we could. Campus papers like The Harvard Crimson set their writer’s loose to pontificate about oil prices, and although the writing’s often great, it’s always a second-hand repackaging of professionals’ thoughts. What’s more, I’d say Goldstein is underrating the value of campus coverage. He may be right to say many students will go on to become “global citizens,” but that shouldn’t diminish our commitment to being great citizens of Dartmouth while we’re here, gaining a grasp of the issues that shape our student life. One purpose of a college is to expose students to complex subjects in the classroom, but another is to be a microcosm in which we invest in our little community as if it’s the real deal, and take that practical experience into adult life. In his address to the Class of 2004, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt ’78 confessed to having been a middling student, but said that his year as president of Phi Delt shaped him up for his career. At The Review, we hope that our analysis of campus goings-on

will help inspire students to step into the Dartmouth arena and get to know the College in a way that will ripple out into a lifetime of capable citizenship. Mr. Beechert followed up on Goldstein’s thoughts with “Time for a Change” on January 27. His piece takes a milder tone than Goldstein, but he agrees that The Review’s conservative image holds it back. Beechert zeroed in on the Indian symbol as an unnecessary barrier between our paper and students’ values. It’s obvious that supporting the symbol puts us at odds with the prevailing opinion on campus, but we believe that the tension we create on that issue is one example of the kind of critical, intellectually honest approach that Beechert praised us for. Most students presume that any depiction of minorities or their culture by outsiders automatically crosses an ethical line. But critics of the Indian symbol never point out anything inherently mocking or “appropriative” about it. The topic is certainly worth discussing at length, but we can only flesh out honest thinking on the subject if we shed the reflexive suspicion that there’s racism hiding behind every old tradition. The same could be said about the “old boy” attitude that Beechert claims permeates our

pages. He’s right to imply that older generations of Dartmouth students certainly had their excesses, but for all the progress we’ve made, we’ve lost some of their intellectual seriousness and jovial spirit. If The Review harkens back to the olden days, it’s because we acknowledge that some good bits of Dartmouth’s spirit have been shed over the decades along with the bad. We may never revive that spirit, but embracing it surely gets us part the way there. The unifying theme connecting both columns was a lament of the fact that neither The D nor The Review seems to impact the world around it. There are definitely issues and even weeks during which we find ourselves repeating the same old themes, and wonder what purpose our writing might serve. But at the end of the day, The Review is not an activist outfit. We write to communicate our thoughts and values to the Dartmouth community. In some cases like the protest, our writing has had a clear influence on the administration’s actions and thinking. But in general, for news to be called news rather than naked activism, our mission should always to illuminate and not to spur action. We’re looking forward to continuing that mission, and we wish The D well as they work to do the same.

The Apology of The Dartmouth Review Mene O. Ukueberuwa

Editor-In Chief Emeritus This article was originally published on January 31, 2015. Over the past two weeks, The Dartmouth has published two op-ed pieces that critiqued the quality of news on our campus. Columnists Matthew Goldstein and Michael Beechert challenged their own paper and The Dartmouth Review to do a better job driving the type of discourse that leaves students enriched. Their timing couldn’t have been better. As The Review starts a new chapter with our redesigned print layout, I’m glad to have the chance to discuss the merits of our substance as well. Goldstein’s and Beechert’s comments call for a bit of TDR apologetics, and of course some thoughts on the news business at Dartmouth in general. The first of the two essays came from Mr. Goldstein. On January 19 In “The Dearth of News,” Goldstein suggests that both The D and The Review are somewhat unserious, in terms of their tone and their lack of national and global coverage. As far as our tone, I don’t quite Mr. Ukueberuwa is a member of the Class of 2016 and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of The Dartmouth Review.


The Dartmouth Review

Monday – May 9, 2016 15

FEATURES

Stonewalled Charles C.W. Jang

Executive Editor Emeritus

This article was originally published on April 9, 2014. Keen-eyed observers (as well as not-so-keen-eyed ones) will note that the last issue of The Review, entitled (ironically in hindsight) “Life Goes On,” lacks any mention of the Alpha Delta derecognition.   This was due to the fact that at the time of publication, the decision had not been passed down, but also largely due to the fact that such a rushed decision was unexpected. It is unfortunate that the Administration chooses, these days, to bypass input and make decisions on student life by decree.   This is exacerbated by the fact that Parkhurst has chosen to be secretive and hide behind a fog of opacity.  This is an account of our many unsuccessful attempts to pierce that haze. In that last issue, I worked on a piece on how the Greek system undergoes processes of judicial affairs.   My co-author Jack Mourouzis and I searched the Office of Judicial Affairs’ website for details on how proceedings were and would be held — how charges would be brought up; how the judicial body would reach a verdict in terms of evidentiary standards; and what punishments would be available, focusing in particular on past derecognitions (Beta, Phi Delt, and Zete).   Our quest turned up dubious results; the website offered vague adumbrations of the whole ordeal, failing even to provide a definition of the oft-bandied terms “suspension” and “probation” that come up whenever disciplinary action is in the air.   Attempts to straighten these labyrinthine convolutions met a snarl as Office of Judicial Affairs Director Leigh Remy, Assistant Director Alexandra Waltemeyer, and Sentencing Officer Katharine Strong simply Mr. Jang is a member of the Class of 2016 and Executive Editor Emeritus of The Dartmouth Review.

chose not to reply to our repeated email requests for an interview. A call to the Judicial Affairs office led to a response from Diana Lawrence, Director of Media Relations of the Office of Public Affairs pointing us to the very online resources that had proved unfruitful in the first place. Diana Lawrence proved previously to be a foil for Jack, as attempts to contact Provost Carolyn Dever about the Religion 65 “Clickergate” scandal and Executive Vice President Rick Mills about construction projects led to redirections to Lawrence, who gave vague platitudinous press-releasestyle answers to the former and none to the latter.  She also provided the news to my colleague Ashwath Srikanth that Provost Dever and Vice Provost Denise Anthony would refuse to comment on the dismissal of Hood Director Michael Taylor, though in fairness this reticence was shared towards other news outlets. Similarly, a piece on alcohol policy that Joshua Kotran and I wrote at the close of Winter term was outraced by events.   Our piece’s main thrust was that the College’s hard alcohol policy was still in flux.   A multitude of sources, including Phi Delt house advisor George Faux ’84 and a February 26Dartmouth Now  indicated that the ban, announced by President Hanlon in late January, was still being fleshed out by the inchoate Hard Alcohol Committee; this was used by Safety and Security Chief Harry Kinne as a reason to turn down our interview request.  One can imagine our surprise less than a week later when Interim Dean of the College Inge-Lise Ameer announced the consequences for possessing or providing hard alcohol, indicating that the Administration cobbled together harsh new regulations without even the pretense of receiving student feedback. Another member of  The Review’s staff had similar difficulty in arranging an interview about hard alcohol: “I wanted an interview

with Samuel Waltemeyer, Assistant Director of GLOS. Following the recommended procedure from the GLOS website, I attempted to reach out to him through Ruth Kett, who I believe is basically the GLOS administrative assistant. She initially told me that Mr. Waltemeyer was travelling and that she would forward my interview request on to him. When I hadn’t heard anything from either of them for a couple of days, I blitzed her again to which she responded and told me to reach out to college spokesman Justin Anderson for comment. Mr. Anderson did not respond to multiple emails requesting an interview. Additionally, Editor-in-Chief Mene Ukueberuwa had suggested that I reach out to Mr. Waltemeyer’s wife, who is also involved with GLOS and who he had worked with in the past through SigEp. I emailed her and also received no reply.” This behavior is not new, nor is it limited to the Office of Judicial Affairs. In the fall of 2014, there was a controversy over a student who wished to concealed carry a firearm to ward off an aggressive stalker.  Safety and Security denied this request.   The Review  wished to write an article on the subject; the author of the proposed piece, Sandor Farkas, recalls, “When I attempted to write an article on the College policies regarding firearms, no one would speak to me. I tried contacting Safety and Security — just to get an official policy — but they declined to comment. When I contacted Public Affairs, they took a long time to get back, pushing my article back a few issues, and eventually denied me any type of interview whatsoever. After some back-and-forth, they seemed more favorable to at least giving me an official policy, but by that time it was the end of the term. While individual administrators have been kind and receptive, I have always struggled with finding someone willing to say even the most banal things on record.”  On the subject, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Nicholas Desatnick wrote, “Our intent was

to assemble a variety of sources so that we could adequately “explore the policies and opinions regarding the use of personal defense items by both [Safety & Security] and students” on Dartmouth’s campus. … Over the course of the last four weeks, our eleven separate emails to six different employees yielded only variations on the same response: ‘Thanks for the opportunity, but we are going to decline.’ Without an official statement, our attempt to clarify College policy on this issue and explore its motives and logic was for naught.” The level of success (or lack thereof) in getting meaningful interview requests extends to the top levels, both of our newspaper and of Parkhurst. Editor-in-Chief Mene Ukueberuwa attempted to contact President Phil Hanlon to discuss his pet project, “experiential learning.”  While he did manage to secure an interview, it was over the phone with pre-screened questions; President Hanlon chose to use this opportunity to essentially lecture for twenty minutes on experiential learning.  While this effort proved somewhat productive, it was disappointing that President Hanlon chose to duck an opportunity for the dialogue that he had advocated in his earlier rhetoric. An inauspicious harbinger of diktats to come, these refusals to speak clearly to an outlet of the studentry mark an unfortunate tendency of the Administration to obfuscate its goal of making capricious changes in policy regulating the actions of adults. Adults who presumably possess the eyes, hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, and passions that administrators do, have the ability to rationally debate the effects of a hard alcohol ban or the ramifications of Moving Dartmouth Forward.   The latter’s effects may be more hard-felt than anticipated. And particularly in the light of the well-publicized decline and fall of Alpha Delta; the Steering Committee’s proposals contain more than the recommendation for cracking

down on hard alcohol. They also contain a set of ideas that propose to make aggressive encroachments on the Greek system, about which we were unable to inquire.   Some were relatively benign (moving rush to sophomore winter), while others are less so: the Steering Committee suggests that the College “not fund construction or renovation of any residential structure that is not integral to the House system” (I assume this refers more to Greek houses than the rotted hulk of the Choates or the remote isle of the River); that all derecognitions be permanent (presumably preventing resurrections along the lines of Beta’s, Phi Delt’s, or Zete’s); that the College prohibit “rushing, pledging, perpetrating, or initiating activities with unrecognized fraternities or sororities”; that, insidiously, the College report derecognized houses to the Town of Hanover and “acquire their facilities and repurpose them for the College’s residential, social, and academic purposes.” While the Steering Committee’s proposals are not necessarily to be taken as holy writ by the Administration, this proves to be of little comfort in the light of the fact that Parkhurst is moving so aggressively against the Greek system. The derecognition of AD took place over what appears to have been a voluntary action on the part of some (not all) members in a decision that appears to have little in the way of due process, or, as recent news would have it, hope for an appeal to Dean Ameer.  One can hope that the Administration will choose to become more transparent and make the right decisions for students (after all, they will have to live under these new rules) with their input.  As Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”   Despite the lengthening spring days, however, there appears to be no sign of Louis Brandeis’s disinfecting sunlight breaching the windows of dusty old Parkhur st.


16 Monday – May 9, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

THE LAST WORD GORDON HAFF’S

COMPILED BY MARCUS J. THOMPSON

“I think The Review has seen itself not just as a conservative journal of opinion but a student newspaper that could beat the Daily Dartmouth at its own game.” –James Panero “For me, The Dartmouth Review embodied the Dartmouth spirit: A hard-working and highly intellectually stimulating atmosphere that nonetheless always found time for barbecues, cocktails, and croquet..” –Thomas “Harry” Camp

“There’s a whole conservative world out there that’s not being very nice.” –Inge-Lise Ameer “People make themselves violently angry. I don’t think the paper makes them violently angry. The only hate on this campus is that directed at The Dartmouth Review.” –Oron Strauss “[The Dartmouth Review contains] some of the best writing on campus.” –Jim Kim

“The Review made me who I am.” –Laura Ingrham “You c*cks*ck*rs f*ck with everybody. You have f*ck*d with the last person. I’m telling you right now. And just the audacity you m*th*rf*ck*rs have calling me up with this b*llsh*t.” –Bill Cole “Irresponsible, mean-spirited, cruel and ugly. [The Review] is dangerously affecting—indeed poisoning—the intellectual environment of our campus.” –Jim Wright

“You’re the reason people don’t believe in the freedom of speech.” –A Dartmouth ‘18 “They are scum. It’s as simple as that.” –Carla Freccero “Dartmouth is no longer a place where the liberal sheep can graze unmolested.” –Jeffery Hart

“[The Dartmouth Review] serves as a place where students can speak their mind unhindered by the constraints of the College administration’s pressure.” –A.J. Momaco

“Our Greatest success was undoubtedly the Cole incident.” –Dinesh D’Souza

“he campus has an ambivalent attitude to the paper.”

“For fear of the newspapers politicians are dull, and at last they are too dull even for the newspapers.”

BARRETT’S MIXOLOGY

“I must say, it’s an impressive paper.” –Ronald Reagan “All you guys are honkies.” –Bill Cole “We are the anti-establishment now.” –Harmeet Dillon “Complaining about the Review is about as futile as wringing one’s hands in the Low Countries in 1940 about you-know-what and you-know-who. The difference is, however, that the Dutch had their problem removed in five years. Our prospects are less hopeful. ” –Charles Stinson “Who knows what other outrages the administration might have perpetrated had The Review not been around.” –Dinesh D’Souza “We never wanted to hurt Dartmouth. We want to save it from this sad decline. If anything we love this place too goddamn much to sit here and watch it slide into the mud. But we are not a public relations organ. When we see something egregiously wrong we speak up.” –Kevin Prichett “He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal

ADVERTISEMENT

The Quinetiket River Brewe Ingredients

• A drop of brandy, to keep up the spirits • A goodly glass of cider, dark • A seaman’s tot of dark Caribbean rum • A shot of Muskovi bread wine, not for the drink, just to keep yerself alive

I gazed across the barren plains of Siberia as I buried my frostbitten fists in the main of my shabby horse. I turned around in my saddle to see the Ural Mountains behind me, the setting sun illuminating the peaks like facets of a crown. Taking a shot of bread wine, Vodka as they call it now, I yearned for the camp ahead. My thoughts began to wander, and I fell into a deep nightmarish sleep. The sea jolted me awake and the Marine Sergeant threw me out of my hammock. As I stood for watch, I grabbed my oilcloth sack. On the deck of the HMS Discovery, I looked out over the Pacific, sometimes so pristine, but now wrought with spray and ablaze with St. Elmo’s Fire. We were bound for a Northwest Passage…. Now that I think back on it, why in G-d’s name were we in the South Pacific if we were settin’ for New Found Land? Well, the Corporal brought round my tot of rum, and I was about to drink it. I then thought of my satchel, and wrested from it the measly contents: about a glass of cider from the orchard back home, still in its green glass onion. I poured my rum into it and drunk the mixture, and all grew quiet. Soon I was back on the Quinetiket River, bound for the farm of my father’s father. In my canoe, I downed the last drops of brandy in my flask, my heart pounding with joy at the beauty that surrounded me. I looked at the glistening water, and I recalled my recent stint at Dartmouth College. Now that I have lived – I mean really lived – I think I can say that those first months at Dartmouth were the best of my life. Swimming on the banks of that Great River, the glint of liquor in my youthful eye, I really had it. As I awoke once more on that wind-swept Siberia plain, I just had one wish: that years, maybe hundreds of years after I am gone from this Earth, drunk Dartmouth students will swim naked from docks named in my honor and then sprint across a bridge similarly named.

— John Ledyard

35th Anniversary Issue (5.9.16)  
35th Anniversary Issue (5.9.16)  
Advertisement