Page 1

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

Volu m e 3 6 , Is su e 2

We d nes d ay, Apr i l 2 7 , 2 0 1 6

THE EVER-EXPANDING BUREAUCRACY

HARVEY SILVERGLATE One of the co-founders of FIRE, Silverglate is an outspoken advocate of free speech on campus

Harvey Silverglate on FIRE Excess Admins

Courtesy Photo

courses created by administra- find answers. Now incidental- Alumni Weekly. It seems that Joshua D. Kotran Johnathon L. Postiglione tors, and taught by administra- ly, there are two obvious rea- they are having a turnaround. tors on the useless topics like sons: First, the administration They have a sane president, James R. Chartouni Staff Writers

Editor’s note: Harvey Silverglate is an attorney and one of the co-founders of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). The Dartmouth Review (TDR): Do you think faculty should have more say at Colleges? Harvey Silverglate (HS): I think that what has been happening is that faculty have been edged out in terms of setting the agenda in American higher education. This role, which has been traditionally performed by faculty, has now been taken over by bureaucrats. Five or six years ago I understand that statistically the number of admins surpassed faculty for the first time in history. This is evidence of the trend of administrative takeover. At Harvard there are

the adjustment to life. It would be a joke if it weren’t so serious. I wrote a piece recently about the Harvard Freshman Deans who put out a placemat that had written on it advice for freshman for when they went home on spring break and talked to their parents. Presumably, the parents would

is sensitive to the things that they are teaching. Sane normal people don’t buy into the program. Second, they have nothing really to do at their jobs. Producing the placemat gave them something to do for the week. Lord knows that they had to collaborate to put out this idiotic placemat. It is very

“ Five or six years ago I understand that statistically the number of admins surpassed faculty for the first time in history.” ask questions like “What have you been learning?” or “What is the school like?” It was recommending answers that the freshman could use to answer the parent’s questions on hot-button issues like “How they are dealing with some of the demands of BLM?” or the equity and inclusion insanity. Just in case the students didn’t know how to answer their parents, the Dean’s office was giving them an easy way to

intrusive, to have a bureaucrat answer questions about Harvard. This is to be the lowest level to which an administrator can fall to. TDR: Is there an end in sight to the recent trend of bloated bureaucracy and feckless administrators in higher education? HS: I was very happy to read this recent issue of Princeton

who actually spoke about the importance of academic freedom in a cover story in the alumni mag. This is new. It wouldn’t have happened under the previous president who was as politically correct as they come. I mentioned before that I had been interviewed by the Princeton Alumni Weekly. I was interviewed because I had sent a critical letter to the editor and they invited me to be interviewed. They sent a reporter to my house in Cambridge and I had a long interview and the piece came out and my criticism of American higher education was in there, my criticism of Harvard was in it, Yale was there, Princeton wasn’t in there! It had been edited out. I called the writer; she lived in Cambridge also. She had written about the criticism of Princeton, but it had been edited out!

> FEATURES PAGE 10

RESPECT VERSUS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE?

THE TUITION HIKE

Understanding the call for political correctness on college campuses and the persistance of antagonism between students.

Examining Dartmouth’s tuition increases and their impact on President Hanlon’s legacy.

> EDITORIAL PAGE 3

> FEATURES PAGE 7

needs without community

Joshua D. Kotran directors, diversity deans, Johnathon L. Postiglione sustainability officers, and inSenior Editors Dartmouth’s seven to one student to faculty ratio is impressively low, but that ratio pales in comparison to Dartmouth’s unreported student to staff ratio, which hovers around three to ten. Put differently, the number of staff at the college is equal to about sixty-six percent of the student body, including both graduate and undergraduate students. Some of Dartmouth’s 3,500 plus non-faculty staff is practical and necessary. A major university needs maintenance workers, financial officers, career counselors, and lawyers. Other positions, many of which offer lucrative salaries and comprehensive benefits, are not so essential to the College. The College could likely meet its students’

clusivity deans, or far fewer of them. (Yes, Diversity and Inclusivity are actually separate branches of the bureaucracy, but more on that later). Federal mandates (which the college has had no say in implementing), have also expanded the bureaucracy. Dartmouth must have a title IX coordinator, and a sexual assault counselor, for example. With all that said, even after our most liberal guesses, it’s hard to find a rationale for the existence of many offices and positions at Dartmouth. To the average Dartmouth student, the most visible evidence of the College’s bloated administration is the school’s nine “Community Directors” who each make a generous

> FEATURES PAGE 10 THE DERBY DEBACLE

After KDE’s “Derby” theme was changed, we must ask ourselves: when will incessant attacks on tradition end?

> FEATURES PAGE 8


2 Wednesday – April 27, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FRESHMEN WRITE

WORK

For thirty-five years, The Dartmouth Review has been the College’s only independent newspaper and the only student opinion journal that matters. It is the oldest and most renowned campus commentary publication in the nation and spawned a national movement at the likes of Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and countless others. Our staff members and alumni have won many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, and have been published in the Boston Globe, New York Times, National Review, American Spectator, Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, Village Voice, New Criterion, and many others. The Review aims to provide a voice for any student who enjoys challenging brittle and orthodox thinking. We stand for free speech, student rights, and the liberating arts. Whatever your political leanings, we invite you to come steep yourself in campus culture and politics, Dartmouth lore, keen witticisms, and the fun that comes with writing for an audience of thousands. We’re looking for writers, photographers, cartoonists, aspiring business managers, graphic designers, web maestros, and anyone else who wants to learn from Dartmouth’s unofficial school of journalism.

PONTIFICATE

CONSERVATIVE

SAFE space

“Because every student deserves a safe space”

– Inge-Lise Ameer, Vice Provost for Student Affairs

Meetings held Mondays at 6:30 PM at our offices at 32 S. Main Street (next to Lou’s in the lower level office space)

INSIDE THE ISSUE An Interview With Harvey Silverglate

The Tuition Hike

Excess Administrators

The Derby Debacle

The Fortnight in Review

An Interview With Regan Roberts ‘16

Free speech lawyer and founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education talks to The Review ......................................................................................................... PAGE 1

The Review examines the College’s ever-expanding bureaucracy, and wonders if the College is spending its budget wisely ......................................................................................... PAGE 6

Our round-up of recent events on campus and in the broader higher-education world, including the impending arrival of Jasbir Puar and SAE’s legal victory ........................................... PAGES 4 and 5

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

The Review examines Dartmouth’s recent tuition increase and its impact on President Hanlon’s legacy ................................................................................................................. PAGE 7

The Review examines KDE’s recent decision to chnage the theme of its annual party in the name of political correctness .......................................................................................... PAGE 8

The Review sits down with Regan Roberts ‘16, who is a member of KDE, to discuss her views on the issue and political correctness at Dartmouth ......................................... PAGE 9

PUTIN READS THE REVIEW. DO YOU?


The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – April 27, 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

Respect and Political Correctness

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. “Racketeering is my favorite ‘-teering.’” 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

In the aftermath of the Do Better Dart- respectful and what is not is a far more apmouth campaign, I wrote that it was not a propriate debate to have than what is offencollege’s job to protect its students. This past sive. week, a panel of learned men debated and To be fair, the desire for political correctdiscussed tuition increases, and this same ness likely developed in reaction to individissue arose. They wondered aloud what, ex- ual bigots. Bigotry itself is not something we actly, the purpose of higher education is, or can eliminate from society: hate is a natural more precisely, what it should be. The con- phenomenon, just as the desire to shield onesensus seemed to be that the purpose of high- self from it is a natural reaction. That does er education should be to educate students, not mean that either of these is justified. Naalthough the nature of this education proved ture does not justify action: natural does not more contentious. There was also a general equate to moral. In no way is it acceptable to agreement that this was not the current goal spout hatred against others for any reason. I held by the majority of college trustees, can understand why it is tempting, presidents, and administrators. The but resisting that urge should be true goal of these three parties, seen as a virtuous. In the same it seems, is financial gain. They vein, resisting the urge to shut achieve this profit in part by out the world (or shut down othcreating a bloated bureauers) in response to bigotry is also cracy of administrators a virtue. and superfluous student There is another problem with services. the way in which politically corI am not an economist, rect culture has developed. but I know that there has The definition of bigotry has to be demand for such expanded to include opinexpansion in order for it ions proscribed by certain Sandor Farkas to exist. It logically follows groups. Many people now that students themselves, or at least a signif- see challenges to their beliefs as attacks on icant number of them, actually want these their core identity. I have repeatedly heard superfluous administrators. In order to un- heart-felt testimony from individuals who derstand why students, particularly those feel threatened in their daily life at Dartwho struggle to pay tuition, want to increase mouth. I do not seek to deny that these indithe amount they pay, we must look at one of viduals feel this way: I fully believe that when the principle causes of expansion: protect- they tell me they are afraid and uncomforting students. While there are many ways in able, they are telling the truth. That is their which college administrations waste money natural impulse, and I cannot fault them for supplanting civil authorities in the protec- letting it win out. tion of students, none are as heinous as the What I can do is urge them to reflect on givpush to censor opinions and create exclusive ing in to that impulse. We all feel unsettled by “safe-spaces.” Delineating between groups life, regardless of who we are. Part of survival that get safe spaces and and success is processing those that do not is “People now see chal- our negative emotions in nothing more than bla- lenges to their beliefs a productive way. I could tant discrimination. share the ways in which To be perfectly clear, as attacks on their core I have struggled with my society, especially stuplace at Dartmouth, but identity.” dent society, has absothe fact is that this would lutely no need for censorship, safe-spaces, not help others who have their own, unique and the entirety of politically correct culture. difficulties and questions. Only we can conWhat we do need is a culture of respect. No trol what we feel: not even the most hatful of student – no person – has a right to comfort bigots can force us to fear him. I challenge all or freedom from offense. Everyone, on the of those who feel marginalized at Dartmouth other hand, has an obligation to respect the to turn that fear and hate into compassion for humanity of even their worst enemies, act others and hope. I urge those at the root of with civility in their most trying moments, this problem, those who lack the self-control and refrain from self-indulgent cruelty. The to be kind to their fellow humans, to recondebate over exactly where the line of what is sider why they act the way they do. 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 Wednesday – April 27, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FORTNIGHT IN REVIEW SAE WINS APPEAL TO HANOVER ZONING BOARD On April 18, the Hanover Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) ruled in favor of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. In a 5-0 decision, the ZBA determined that SAE could continue using their house as a student residence. SAE based its appeal on an argument using the “grandfather” provision of the zoning ordinance. The fraternity’s house predates the current ordinance, adopted on March 2, 1976, and the fraternity ensured that it presented sufficient evidence of its previously existing non-conforming use. Section 211 of the Hanover Zoning Ordinance states, “Any legal non-conforming use existing on the effective date of this ordinance may be continued indefinitely to the extent set forth in Article VIII of this ordinance.” This “grandfathering” of previously existing non-conforming uses is standard in zoning ordinances across the United States. Apparently, the ZBA found this argument convincing and decided to grant SAE’s appeal. Alpha Delta fraternity presented a similar argument in its appeal last year, but it lost in a 3-2 decision. In any case, The Dartmouth Review is pleased that the ZBA has come to its senses with respect to SAE; with this decision, both students and Hanover residents will benefit, ensuring that student activities are not pushed off campus while the brothers of SAE retain their longtime residence.

TULANE’S KAPPA ALPHA CHAPTER UNDER FIRE FOR PROTRUMP WALL On Thursday, April 7, the brothers of Kappa Alpha Order chapter, at Tulane University, erected a nearly 5-foot-tall sandbag wall in front of their house. Various Donald Trump slogans including, “Make America Great Again,” were scrawled in black spray paint across the wall, causing local, and ultimately national outrage over the supposed allusion to Trump’s Mexican wall proposal. In truth, the annual building of a sandbag wall in the spring is a Kappa Alpha Order tradition, with the wall functioning as a base in a big game of capture-the-flag. In what

the fraternity claims to be perennially sardonic in intention, the wall tends to be painted with the slogans of political candidates. Efforts to vilify the fraternity’s wall climaxed over the subsequent weekend, spearheaded by various Tulane student-driven social media campaigns. The vilification of the fraternity has only been exacerbated by various claims linking the fraternity to pro-Confederacy sentiment, e.g. the fraternity’s website cites a Robert E. Lee memorandum on gentlemanly conduct and ethos, officially establishing Lee as its “Spiritual Founder.” Thus, the wall stood tall and proud till Tuesday, April 12th, when it was ultimately dismantled by the fraternity.

ANTI-SEMITE JASBIR PUAR COMING TO DARTMOUTH On April 30, the Gender Research Institute at Dartmouth (GRI) will be hosting a conference titled “Gender Matters: Feminist Ecologies and Materialisms.” The conference’s goal is to look at gender through the lens of “feminist, anti-racist, and social justice approaches,” and to discover how “FirstWorld privilege” and the “hierarchies of life” impact the conversation about gender. The GRI has brought several speakers to the College for this event, and The Review noticed that Jasbir Puar, an Associate Professor of Women’s & Gender Studies at Rutgers, would be speaking on a panel. On February 3, 2016, Ms. Puar spoke at Vassar College at an event titled “Inhumanist Biopolitics: How Palestine Matters,” to discuss her views on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. According to attendees, Ms. Puar said that Israel’s goal is the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and it “maims” and “stunts” Palestinians to accomplish this goal. Perhaps Ms. Puar’s most gruesome claims were that Israel harvests the organs of dead Palestinians, conducts “field assassinations” on Palestinian youth, and starves Palestinians for scientific experiments. These accusations, while inflammatory, are unsubstantiated. Moreover, in her speech Ms. Puar did not attempt to provide any evidence for them. As a professor and member of the academic community, Ms. Puar ought to be held to – at least – the same evidentiary standards as a college freshman: do not make a claim you cannot support. However, The Review does not seek to prevent Ms. Puar from speaking at Dartmouth. Rather, we welcome the opportunity to engage with such hateful rhetoric and simply ask that students be well-informed

about Ms. Puar’s baseless, radical claims.

SANDERS’ EDUCATION REFORM BENEFITS UPPER-CLASSSES Vermont Senator and presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders continues to rival Hillary Clinton in the democratic polls. Recently, Sanders policy on education has become a controversial issue. Stated succinctly by Sanders: “My proposal is to put a speculation tax on wall street, raise very substantial sums of money, not only make public colleges and universities tuition-free, but also substantially lower interest rates on student debt.” While the plan may be well intentioned, analysts running the numbers emphasize the disproportionate benefits that members of upper-class will receive. While the grassroots candidate has capitalized on the popularity of his platform’s commitment to shifting tax benefits to help lower earners, his intention to make public school free undermines these efforts. Students from high income families tend to attend more expensive schools; the elimination of tuition costs would heap $16.8 billion on the top half of U.S. earners, leaving only $13.5 billion for the bottom half. This analysis, conducted by Matthew Chingos, further emphasizes that the poorer section of families must still pay nearly $17 billion out of pocket for textbooks, room and board, and other expenses not included in tuition. While Chingos’ interpretation of the data suggests that Sanders’ plan is far from progressive, he declines to attempt any calculation at the shift in demographic enrollment produced by the elimination of tuition. Without worry about the cost of schooling, lower-income families are more likely to send their student to a historically expensive institution. Shifting the college admission process away from plutocracy toward a meritocracy behooves all learners, but Sanders needs to consider the magnitude and speed with which this demographic shift will occur.

DARTMOUTH ENTERS THE BOND MARKET Dartmouth College is now chasing the bond market

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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


The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – April 27, 2016

5

Joshua L. Kauderer Michael J. Perkins Johnathan L. Postiglione Samuel W. Lawhon Brian Chen Ashwath M. Srikanth in order to increase funding. Dartmouth has issued a bond totally a quarter of a billion dollars and received an AA1 rating from Moody’s, rather humiliating considering half of our peer institutions are given perfect scores. Our imperfect rating is a legacy of the Wright administration, whose excessive spending earned Dartmouth a downgrade. Columbia University, which has a lower endowment to student ratio, has a perfect score, indicating that the AA1 rating is not symptomatic of Dartmouth’s smaller size, merely inadequate management and poor decision-making at Parkhurst. While an AA1 rating still reflects confidence, the College needs to pay a higher interest rate. On a $250 million bond, the interest Dartmouth will pay will amount to $375,000, which could fund a few professors, or for President Hanlon, cover the cost of a brand new Vice-Provost of Intersectional Multicultural Diversity. The College’s debt has been steadily rising over the past decade. Considering revenue generated from this bond will help pay off debt, we can only expect this number to increase. While we cannot know for sure how the money is being spent, President Hanlon’s housing system is most likely to blame. Excessive borrowing, four percent increase in tuition, and terminating need-blind admissions for international students raise concerns about Dartmouth’s financial management and bloated administration. Perhaps most unfortunate is the fact that much of this money is being spent on unwanted and cosmetic initiatives such as the housing system. Geared toward public relations rather than genuine improvement, our administration is taking on more and more debt to fund Moving Dartmouth Forward and the new housing system, against the will of many alumni and students. It would be overly optimistic to expect serious cuts to be made in the College’s administration, but perhaps debt and an AA1 rating will stimulate smarter financial management and a slowing down of the bloated College bureaucracy.

were undocumented students.” Frankly, this is ridiculous to say. First of all, the presence of illegal aliens at a state university is a wrong in and of itself, and second, if the students are allowed to take pictures and videos to ward off “police harassment,” then law enforcement should absolutely be able to take videos just in case protests get out of hand (which these kind of things often do). “Research shows that interactions with immigration enforcement, deportation, and detention have powerful and immediate negative effects on mental health,” Clark-Ibáñez continues, adding, “The visceral fear and trauma of seeing Border Patrol on our campus by our students cannot be underestimated.” Let us be realistic here. There were no arrests and no seizures, just a group of well-meaning law officers who wanted to try to put their career path out there to the students. Obviously, the recruitment effort was not targeted at students whose political beliefs conflict with the law, in fact, the officers probably didn’t even have the immigration status of students on their mind at the event. What ended up happening was that a group of social justice warriors simply ruined that part of the career fair for students that would have been genuinely interested in pursuing the very respectable career of Border Patrol Officer. The statements from Clark-Ibáñez concluded with yet more nonsense as the students were praised for their protest. “Yesterday was a compelling example of students’ critical thinking and a social justice response to inequality. However, non-campus

entities seemingly tried to intimidate students as they exercised their voice,” Clark-Ibáñez said. “Unfortunately, there seemed to be a lack of CSUSM administrative leadership at the event to advocate directly on behalf of our students to the guests who were engaged in the intimidation.” The only things that could have made this whole series of events more perfect would have been a celebration of justice, and perhaps participation trophies for everyone involved.

CARTOON

BORDER PATROL RECRUITS ON CAMPUS At the San Marcos branch of the California State University (CSUSM), activists staged a demonstration last Thursday protesting the presence of Border Patrol recruiters at the school’s job fair. Much of what we know comes from a picture Sociology professor Marisol Clark-Ibáñez tweeted that evening showing students holding signs with messages such as “Stop tearing us apart” and “CSUSM: A Safe Space?” a subsequent interview with the professor, and a cell phone recording taken by an officer present. It all started when the professor noticed that there was a Border Patrol car and three police cars parked outside the student center. “My heart froze because I immediately became concerned for our students’ safety and wellbeing,” Professor Clark-Ibáñez recalls. “When I parked in the parking garage, I texted Julio [who is the president of a social justice activist group on campus] to let him know what I saw, ask where he was, and ask if he and others were okay.” After doing some detective work and discovering that the law enforcement was only there for the career fair, Julio “gathered students to assemble an impromptu protest to let Border Patrol know their practices in our community were unjust and detrimental.” “As a professor, I believe the students have a right to voice their opinion and to do so in the relative safety of their own university,” Clark-Ibáñez states. “However, the Border Patrol officer’s response of taking photographs of protesters was quite an intimidating tactic, given some of those protesting

“So, Anya, what do you think about legalizing genetically modified marijuana?”

CARTOON

“I didn’t know intersectional feminism intersected with anti-Semitism....”


6 Wednesday – April 27, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

THE DARTMOUTH ADMINISTRATION The belly of the beast

Courtesy Photo

Administrative Bloat > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

salary and receive housing accommodations from the College. What exactly does a community director do? It depends on whom you ask. The Office of Residential Life’s (ORL) website claims that Community Directors “are responsible for hall programs and student staff selection, training, and evaluation. We provide counseling, advising, and mediation & referral resources for all students in residence. We conduct diversity, education, and outreach initiatives.” The first item that jumps out in this job description is the training for UGAs, Dartmouth’s term for residential advisors, or RAs. The Review has previously written about the absurdity of UGA training, a fluffy, baseless program that amounts to the administration’s attempt to indoctrinate its students. But more importantly, with the exception of those who live on Freshman floors, UGAs do hardly anything at all. Most community directors are currently in clusters with few freshman or none at all, making a major facet of their job almost entirely unnecessary. Moving down the list, the notion that students seek out Community Directors for counseling, advising, and “meditation” (whatever that means) is ludicrous. If anything, students go to their UGA for advice. Although some students may seek out their Community Directors for advice, the authors of this article were unable to find any. Students we spoke to indicated that they only go to see their CD’s when they have to. This brings us to the most substantive part of the job of community director, the adjudication of minor dorm-related infractions. If you cover your lights, hammer a pin into your wall, break a window screen, or unplug your smoke detector, you will probably be called in to meet with your CD. AlMr. Kotran is a sophomore at the College and an Executive Editor for The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Postiglione is a freshman and an Associate News Editor for The Dartmouth Review.

though some of these infractions may pose some minor safety issues, it seems that a CD’s primary role is to further the college’s mission to extract as much money as possible from its students through fines. It stands to reason that these infractions could be handled by the college’s Judicial Affairs Office or by other employees in the Office of Residential Life, and that these positons are therefore largely unnecessary. With the college’s switch to the new housing system, one would think the days of the community director at Dartmouth are coming to a close. This is not so, reports Dartblog’s Joe Asch. The College actually plans to hire four additional community directors, meaning that there will be two for each housing community. Slightly less visible to the average Dartmouth student, a number of additional administrative offices exist at the College with vague office and job descriptions and minimal accountability that represent misuses of Dartmouth tuition money and donations. The most pertinent examples of this would be the Office of Pluralism and Leadership (OPAL) and the Office of Institutional Diversity and Equity. OPAL, which has eleven full-time employees, “provides academic and sociocultural advising, designs and facilitates educational programs, and serves as advocates for all students and communities,” as it states on its website. Of the eleven positions, one is for the program’s leader, five are for “Assistant Deans and Advisors” to students of various genders and races (Black students, Pan-Asian students, Latino students, etc.), and three are program coordinators. Dartmouth has a Program Coordinator for Gender & Sexuality Diversity and Multicultural Education (CGSE). No one on The Review’s staff has met Sebastian Muñoz-Medina, the man who holds this title. He may be a very nice man, he may be very intelligent, and he even might be very good at his job. But considering his title and the fact that we were unable to find evidence of any specific program that he has put into place, it is hard to imagine

that this position is worthy of its place in the College’s budget. The expendability of OPAL becomes even clearer when juxtaposed with the College’s Office of Institutional Diversity and Equity (IDE). One distinction between the two departments is clear: IDE places much of its focus on affirmative action for both students and faculty. But beyond debate over whether affirmative action is a policy the College should pursue, it is unclear why the Office of Admissions and Financial Aid isn’t sufficient to vouch for the admission of students of various backgrounds. For example, for the class of 2020, touted as the most diverse in Dartmouth’s history, the Admissions Office admitted 51.6 percent students of color, 14.7 percent first generation

ethical standards and The Technology Transfer Office, which takes technology developed through research or engineering on campus and brings it to the private sector. Dartmouth has not always had these kinds of offices. As the ethical standards of research became tighter in the second half of the twentieth century, The Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects became a necessary addition to the College. As Dartmouth’s sciences advanced to the point of putting out cutting edge technology, someone was needed to bring that to the public. Other administrative departments are wholly necessary entities at the college but have alarmingly large staffs. One such example would be the Office of the Controller, for which The Review counted fifty-nine full time employees. Given Dartmouth’s 4.6 billion dollar endowment and roughly 3,500 non-faculty employees in addition to nearly 1,100 members of the faculty, there is quite a bit to be done when it comes to the College’s finances, but whether fifty-nine full time people are necessary to allow this office to function remains a question. More unnecessary administrators means that the College needs more accountants, benefits specialists (actually in the HR department) and payroll specialists. The six full time employees of student financial services seem to exist mainly to extract as much money as possible from students (many of whom already pay more than 60,000 dollars for tuition) in the form of fines and fees. Yes, Dartmouth parents, part of your tuition money provides for people whose primary purpose is to take more money out of your pockets. However, while the college does need to collect tuition in order to survive whether or not these employees pay for themselves in imposed fines, it is not clear just how many of these employees are required

“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” -Oscar Wilde college and 47.7 percent students who qualify for need based financial aid, with 14.4 percent of those admitted qualifying for Pell grants. In regards to faculty affirmative action, there are already a number of groups, including a strong cohort of faculty members and students, pushing for the hiring of more professors of color, that should be adequate to the task. And if that is incorrect, and it is truly necessary to have a separate, paid voice for affirmative action outside of the administration and admissions department, Evelynn Ellis’ role as Vice President of Institutional Diversity and Equity might be justified, but we certainly don’t need two more employees, a Director and Assistant Director for Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Through our examination of the college’s thickly-layered bureaucracy, we stumbled upon some little known administrative offices that appear to serve the college’s mission and justify the money spent on them. Examples include The Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects, which oversees institutional research projects involving human subjects and maintains

to serve that mission. The college’s bloated administration also feeds into itself, more unnecessary administrators mean that the college needs more accountants, benefits specialists in the HR department and payroll specialists. One thing that often accompanies a bloated bureaucracy is a lack of results. When offices have a lack of transparency, many staff members, and no clear missions for those staff members, things tend not to get done. The perfect example of a necessary part of the College with rampant bureaucratic inefficiency is the Office of Sponsored Projects. This office obtains funds for research and provides guidance for projects supported by the College. Clearly this part of the institution is needed, but since Dartmouth has just been downgraded from its R1 research rating, it makes you wonder what the thirty-two staff members of the office (for reference, there are only twenty-seven faculty members in the entire biology department) have been doing. There are eight grant managers and accountants, six sponsored research managers, and six assistant directors. We believe that more trans-

parency throughout the administration would be beneficial to everyone. More transparency would ideally lead to a check on these departments, force the bureaucracy into becoming more efficient, and give the students, parents, and donors some comfort that their money is being put to good use. Another department of seemingly dubious value is the Office of the Chief of Staff for Administration & Advancement. Its stated mission statement is “The Office of the Chief of Staff for Administration & Advancement (OCS) works on behalf of the Dean of the Faculty and associate deans to articulate the needs and priorities of the Arts and Sciences faculty both on and off campus.” This again begs the question, why can’t the faculty articulate their own needs and priorities? The members of our faculty are not children; they can vouch for themselves. Second of all, how much can an administrator side with faculty against another administrator on matters like benefit expansion or pay grading that would pit the two sides against each other? This proposition seems somewhat nonsensical, but the authors of this article have not been able to get any faculty statements or experiences on the matter. Much of what has been outlined in this article as wasteful cannot be supported with hard data. That is because it is so difficult to peek behind the College’s administrative curtain. With so little administrative transparency and accountability, there may be no better way to expose Dartmouth’s outrageously sized and dubiously effective bureaucracy. While it is true that many Dartmouth students come from well-off families, the financial burden on full-tuition paying families can be tremendous, especially when that tuition may well reach $70,000 when accounting for both direct and indirect costs. If tuition needs to be that high, it should be spent on paying higher salaries to professors, upgrading the College’s equipment and physical spaces, or financial aid. If people truly believe that diversity officers are necessary to achieve student and faculty diversity, they should at least be non-redundant and accountable. Dartmouth is hardly the only school guilty of an expansive administrative bureaucracy, but it is among the worst. Getting rid of administrative glut would be a crucial step in allowing Dartmouth to regain what it has lost in terms of public perception, affordability, and educational quality over the past few years. Unfortunately, it looks like the College is heading down the opposite path, cementing Hanlon’s administration among the most destructive in Dartmouth’s history. The administration has historically been much smaller than it is now, at one time having only one all-encompassing Dean of Students. Although colleges now need many employees to function, college presidents also need to allocate their budgets more responsibly. Dartmouth needs someone at its helm who is qualified to run an institution with a one billion dollar annual budget, who can manage that money efficiently, serve its students and faculty, and who will not bleed dry families whose tuition dollars are being wasted.


The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – April 27, 2016

7

FEATURES

Dissecting The Tuition Hike Austen C. Robinson

Staff Writer Last month the Board of Trustees approved a tuition hike of 3.8 percent in total, fixing the tuition in total at 66,174. This comes at a time when there is national concern over the price of of a college education. Additionally, in 2013, President Philip Hanlon, pledged to keep tuition growth in pace with the rate of inflation. For comparison, the national inflation rate in the previous calendar year was 1.4 percent.   The best way to conceptualize price hikes is change over time. Consider, for example, that from 2004 to 2012 the annual price of a Dartmouth education increased by roughly 70 percent – a staggering figure compared to virtually any other commodity. Imagine, if our GDP had increased by that amount: there would be more jobs waiting for college students than even a Bernie Sanders presidency promises to conjure up. A 70 percent price hike in a dozen years is perhaps to be expected by drug users if Trump ever end up building his wall (The Review is officially agnostic as to that question). But what are students getting in exchange for all of that money? Are classes 64 percent better than they were in 2004? Are the Choates 64 percent more comfortable than 2004? (The Review can confirm that this is definitely not the case). Food is 62 percent more expensive – but does it really taste 62 percent better? The Math majors among you rightly wonder how overall tuition has increased by 70 percent. There has been a 674 percent - you read that correctly - increase in fees since 2004. If in the next twelve years we continue to increase fees at this rate, it will cost roughly 111,000 dollars to send a student to Dartmouth and about ten percent of that will be “fees.” In response, the College touts lower growth rates in tuition compared to a decade ago. This is hardly a convincing response. For one, the general trend of spending growth in the US economy has also declined. And further, Dartmouth is more expensive compared to peer institutions in the Ivy League like Columbia or Harvard. But does anyone seriously believe that Hanover is as expensive as New York or Boston? Two are located in global cities, the third is situated in a quiet New England idyll. And further still, it is absurd for the College to pat itself on the back when the growth of a cost of Dartmouth has outpaced almost every other economic good. Admittedly, this article cannot include a complete criticism of our pervasive administrative bloat, simply for reasons of space - that is not to say, however, that Mr.Robinson is a freshmen at the College and a staff writer for The Dartmouth Review

we won’t try. Among the reasons behind the tumefied costs of attending Dartmouth are an increase in PR-oriented, cosmetic changes to the college, a locust-like plague of marginally productive staffers, governmental compliance costs, and an the fundamental nature of teaching. There has been a proliferation of cosmetic measures touted to remedy the problem without actually moving Dartmouth forward. Need Examples of such cosmetic expenses. Purchasing clean energy credits may make us feel better about our socially progressive and environmentally aware selves, but does such

discipline that the administration has applied to Dartmouth’s academics needs to be applied to the administration itself. The continual increase in budget hikes and marginally beneficial administrative bloat is symptomatic of an aversion to taking bold risks. The Dartmouth budget represents the priorities of the President and current leadership. Dartmouth needs to reflect upon its current array of expenses, and ultimately justify the continuation of programs and processes in their current state. Initiatives to have each department re-allocate 1.5 percent of current budgets are a positive first

“Bureaucrats are nothing if not self-perpetuating. and the inertial mass of a lumbering administration and internal politics makes nimble reforms an increasingly difficult task.” action really help educate undergraduates? Is it right to forego additional scholarship funds or some other form of aide in favor of pet projects and proverbial bridges to nowhere? The budget should not be used to make progressives feel better about themselves but to actually educate people. Unfortunately, however, the same people who decry rising tuition under Bernie Sanders placards one day will about-face and righteously demand money for an obscure, mopic and very limited focus such as the anime society. In an ideal world, this inconsistency would verge on the tolerable. But we don’t live in Bernieland and certainly don’t have an inexhaustible supply of cash to dispense on every obscure “mandatory” expenditure.   Another cause is staffing levels. The accumulation of new deans of various aspects of student and campus life is compounded by the proliferation of various vice, associate, and assistant positions underneath them. Amid the continued anguish screeching for diversity and inclusion, the creation of various administrators such as the Diversity and Inclusivity Office and The Office of Pluralism and Leadership (OPAL) seek to expand their control of student life. Despite the bevy of gender, race and sexuality programs, racial tensions and the continued balkanization of the ‘social’ Ivy continues to escalate. The more we spend, the worse it gets. The metastasis of new positions reflects an attempt to be seek greater and greater control of adult student life, without actually producing results that justify their continual encroachment. Rather than enhancing the student experience, these positions inadvertently (or maybe not) deprive the college of its unique character and endearing qualities. A blizzard of bureaucratic regulation and programs is fundamentally altering the College. The same rigor and

step. However, half-measures are alone are inadequate to alleviate Dartmouth of its considerable organizational debt. If Hanlon truly wants to move Dartmouth forward, he will need to swing a lot harder. The College does have legitimate concerns and justifications for the increased expense. The federal government has increasingly burdened the college with a multiplicity of accountability and record-keeping requirements. These numerous mandates have buried Dartmouth under an ocean of paperwork and record keeping, dramatically driving up the cost of traditional academic activities like applying for and facilitating research grants. Here it is not the College’s bureaucrats at fault, but rather a different set of bureaucrats - those who work for the governmental. It is an open question which category does less work. There is also an issue of resource reallocation. As Departments like Economics and Computer Science get increasingly flooded by eager students, The College should be willing to shift resources to accommodate demand. Current enthusiasm is leading to increasing class sizes. Their popularity is a sign of the department’s success and quality, and should serve as encouragement to continue good work. If future demand is not met, Dartmouth risks calling in question the hallmark of our brand and our main differentiator within the Ivy League - small undergraduate classes and personal attention from professors. The College risks crowding out its main mission if action is not taken. Bureaucrats are nothing if not self-perpetuating, and the inertial mass of a lumbering administration and internal politics makes nimble reforms an increasingly difficult task. The College has to be willing to redirect its resources and focus. The economics of education

also make this problem difficult to rectify. Teaching at Dartmouth has remained an extremely labor intensive discipline, with any budget slack going to smaller class sizes and more seminars. Consequently, we have not seen the same level of productivity improvements seen in other tasks that utilize more technology and capital equipment. It is inherently far more difficult to make a student twice as smart or a teacher twice as good at giving lectures than it is to make a faster computer. Thus as prices in other sectors continue to fall and productivity increases, Dartmouth must compensate with higher salaries and price increases above the general price level. The question that still needs to be asked is why has not the same technological and capital improvements made in other sectors of the economy been applied to Dartmouth? It is not an iron law that the process of teaching and research remain eternally the same. Other industries continue to successfully grapple with this difficult problem and college education should be no different. This is a difficult problem, and we hope Dartmouth will become a leader in addressing it with innovative, new ideas that will improve quality and contain costs. Dartmouth is lucky. Both parents and prospective students apply in ever larger droves, and the endowment continues to grow, bolstered by alumni donations. There is no immediate reason to change. To the contrary, it appears society is placing an even greater premium on a Dartmouth education. There is little pressure to adapt or improve. Yet

HANLON He is not a crook

as a member of the Ivy League, Dartmouth should not settle for mediocrity but continue to strive for excellence. Dartmouth should not idle in mediocrity just because there is no present emergency, but instead focus on relentless efficiency and self-improvement. The college is presently at a fundamental crossroads. Towards which end does the college exist? Is the college to cater to students, or administrators? Is our institution to be an institution of undergraduate-focused higher learning, or a vehicle for the institutionalization of bureaucratic mediocrity? Are we to be a college, or an employment agency? The answer should be obvious Dartmouth College is a College. We need to return her to that purpose. To do so would not even be exceptionally complicated; it is resolve that is missing, not ideas. Parkhurst would do well to reflect on the “Alma Mater.” Some absent New Hampshire Granite might yet perhaps be rediscovered. Financial retrenchment is never easy. Yet, as the College enters the waning years of Philip Hanlon’s inelegant ministrations, the question of his legacy looms large. Will history look back kindly on President Hanlon? One of many uncomfortable inheritances from the Hanlon years could well be the bloated state of the administration. The same man who shabbily banished hard alcohol from the college will leave her administrative ranks pathetically bloated. One wonders if the hard alcohol ban applies to their offices at Collis -- bloat is a well-known side effect of drinking only beer.

Courtesy Photo


8 Wednesday – April 27th, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES it seems rather harmless compared to the protesters allegations against Derby. Apart from gambling, horse racing is mostly synonymous with good company, food and drink, and outlandish fashion. It’s hard to see such a merry southern tradition lambasted only to fit the agenda of clueless protesters.

THE KENTUCKY DERBY An American tradition since 1875

Courtesy Photo

Examing the Derby Debacle Marcus J. Thompson John S. Stahel

life: Dartmouth’s beloved fraternities, sororities, and co-ed houses.

When campus liberalism ceases to advocate freedom, intellectual expression, openness, and civility it can no longer claim the “progressive” label. Across the United States and the Western world colleges and universities have been plagued by the rise of the regressive left and their brand of shrill liberalism. Liberalism is no longer an ideology of free thought and expression, but has morphed into an endless list of things you cannot do, say, or think without the threat of being outcast as some bigoted degenerate espousing fundamental evil. Across western colleges and universities, the regressive left has weaponized political correctness and identity politics to threaten a centuries-long curriculum of Western canon, demand modern incarnations of segregation, and silence any opposition as “violent.” Their ideology is synthesized by the refrain, “your rights end where my feelings begin” and manifest in their refusal to do much of anything save for aggressive, spiteful protests and the endless search for more things to ban.

Recently, the Kappa Delta Epsilon sorority voted almost unanimously to end its Derby party -- a springtime tradition occurring ever since the inception of the sorority -- in wake of protests against the event last year. The demonstrators, roughly twenty people, protested police brutality against people of color at Derby as well as Alpha Chi Alpha’s “Pigstick” party. After meeting with the protesters early this term, the KDE executive board pushed changing the theme of the party, stating that it was related “pre-war Southern culture” and had racial connotations liable to offend students.

Senior Editors

Our opinion is that when compared to other elite institutions, Dartmouth tends to fare a bit better in this regard. Most efforts to reform student culture unfortunately come from our administration, which sacrifices genuine improvement in lieu of cosmetic changes to dispel a perceived stigma against our College. It is therefore troubling that the climate of fear surrounding the potential to give offense has extended to the epicenter of social Mr. Thompson is a freshman at the College and an Associate Editor at The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Stahel is a sophomore at the College and a Managing Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

took time to research the event they would understand that if anything the United States has committed the grave sin of cultural appropriation against the English by bringing the Derby to Kentucky. It’s a wonder why British international students haven’t beaten Black Lives Matter to protesting the party! The connection between Derby and the antebellum South is dubious at best and leaves the theme change lacking a legitimate justification. One of the social chairs of KDE offered an alternative perspective that we believe more accurately explains the switch. In a statement to The Dartmouth, Jehanna Axelrod ‘17, a KDE social chair, said, “We realized that if anyone on campus

“Liberalism is no longer an ideology of free thought and expression, but has morphed into an endless list of things you cannot do, say, or think without the threat of being outcast as some bigoted degenerate” Upon closer examination, Derby itself is not a legacy of the Antebellum South but an import from Hanoverian England. In 1872, grandson of William Clark of the Lewis and Clark Expedition Meriwether Lewis Clark Jr. traveled to England and attended Derby, a horse race run since 1780. Impressed by the event, Clark brought the spectacle across the pond to Kentucky. Since 1875, the Kentucky Derby has been run annually and is perhaps the most prestigious race in the American Triple Crown. How one could possibly conclude that Derby has racial connotations is a mystery to me. Like many social events at the College, it’s a theme in which students have the opportunity to dress in excessive clothing. Clearly the true history of Derby is lost on protesters and the KDE executive board alike, for if they

felt uncomfortable or upset with the theme, then we obviously shouldn’t have it.” The current campus climate has imposed a culture of sensitivity putting any social event in danger of cancellation if “anyone” feels uncomfortable. I wonder if it’s even possible to please such a large assortment of people spanning both ends of any ideological spectrum. With the broad range of social options afforded by the College and the Greek System, what stands in the way of students simply picking and choosing which ones to attend? Why must protesters single out objectively benign events enjoyed by many rather than simply spending their time elsewhere? One might even ask what these students gain from their minor victory? Will they be able to rest easy knowing that the harmless tradition has fallen or is

this just the first step in a campaign to end the Kentucky Derby itself? Or perhaps these protestors only wish to keep Dartmouth relevant by drawing more and more press to the college in such a turbulent time. It seems likely that their time would be more productively spent devoted to a legitimate method of starting a campus conversation and shedding light on a difficult subject. Passing the change with the support of 96% of members in attendance, the ladies of KDE succumbed to the pressure of a slim yet vocal proportion of campus delusional enough to tie the Kentucky Derby to antebellum southern culture. Campus activists desperately search for any insignificant or even counterfactual correlation with which they can justify their point, but how can people supposedly so in touch the feelings of students on campus lack the empathy necessary to realize the cultural groups they are attacking? We ask our liberal friends to flip their perspective. Could Southerners, especially students who associate their culture with the pageantry and revelry of horseracing, feel stigmatized and attacked by the false characterization and repression of their cultural tradition? Campus activism professes to respect the cultures, traditions, and identities, yet any traditions associated with the south or Western civilization in general are under attack from the regressive left. Horse racing and the Derby do not harbor a climate of hate or racial resentment. The $115 billion industry profits not by the subjugation of minorities, but instead by the basic human instinct to wager money on nothing more than a gut feeling. This betting tradition dates back thousands of years to the time of the Romans, for whom horse racing was a staple entertainment spectacle. Albeit gambling is a dangerous vice,

The decision has been made to change the party’s theme to Woodstock, thought by the KDE officers to promote an image of peace and love associated with the eponymous music festival. Woodstock represents a turning point in current musical history, but it was not all peace, love, and wholesome fun. The festival connotes a counter culture of peace and trendy music, but underneath this historical revision we find that the event was overshadowed by incredible levels of drug abuse. One can only guess that with KDE’s Woodstock party being dry, we may see it devolve into such drug fueled debauchery as the original Woodstock. It seems as a whole that the college is moving in this leftward direction when a theme rooted in blatant drug abuse is permissible, but an American tradition like Derby is not. As cultural libertarians we believe students should have the freedom to hold both parties, but to claim moral high ground by switching the theme is questionable considering abuse of hard drugs at the original Woodstock. To borrow the rhetoric of our wellmeaning liberal friends, could not a recovering addict be triggered by the event? Perhaps KDE should consider another theme change lest one Dartmouth student is inspired by the party to consume schedule-1 substances posing a risk to him of herself. Even if the historical context for Derby were different and its origins were in fact rooted in the antebellum south, would that be reason enough to cancel it? Should we expel all aspects of our culture that have any connection to the antebellum south? Surely we must be able to separate our country’s ugly racial past from the benign and unrelated traditions of the era. The left is well within their right to ask questions and explore our past. It would be ridiculous to say otherwise. The regressive left has led us astray, however, when they have cultivated a climate of fear that shuts down discussion and intimidates our social organizations into ending traditions with false historical justifications. We at The Review do not resent discussions about our heritage and traditions, but do take issue with the culture of fear surrounding conservative dissent and extreme sensitivity that has led to the condemning of Derby under the pretense of historical falsehood. We hope for a climate in which political correctness is not used to silence dissent and excuse historical inaccuracy. In order to truly claim that they are “progressives,” campus liberals should examine their ideological roots: freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and even the freedom to offend.


The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – April 27th, 2016

9

FEATURES

An Interview with Regan Roberts ‘16 AUSTEN C. ROBINSON Staff Writer

Regan Roberts is a senior at the College and a member of the Kappa Delta Epsilon sorrority (K∆E). She recently published and opinion piece in The Dartmouth condemning K∆E’s decision to end their Derby party, a tradition since the inception of the organization. The Dartmouth Review sat down with Ms. Roberts to discuss her views on the matter and political correctness on campus. The Dartmouth Review : Regarding the Derby – what was the immediate reaction? Regan Roberts ‘16 (RR): After the derby party last year was posted we as a house had a weekly chat on Wednesday in an intimate setting. That Wednesday we discussed race and police brutality in America. The chat was probably the best attended chat we’ve ever and it was facilitated by the ’16 the leadership president Emma Peconga. TDR: What was the consensus after that discussion? RR: My impression of the major takeaway was that while Derby is the favorite of a vast majority of sisters there is certainly room for improvement. The most common complaint that I have heard from sisters is that the event is invite-only, which detracts from the spirit of inclusivity in the Greek system that we strive for. As a lot of other Greek houses can relate, we have to meet the rules of regulations of the College regarding risk management. In light of risk management, we see an increasing number of large scale events – especially if they’re drinking events – becoming invite only. For last year’s Derby party, we hired private [Green Mountain] security and worked closely with Safety & Security. After the event, I actually got a call from S&S to say that it was the best managed event they had seen and that the party was executed ver y safely. TDR: What direction did discourse on this topic take more recently? RR: More recently, our first week back on campus – I gather – the ’17 class leadMr Robinson is a freshman at the College and a Staff Writer at The Dartmouth Review.

ership spoke to the protesters form last year regarding their experience at the event and their grievances. I was not there and many sisters did not know it took place. They [the ’17 leadership] announced that next Tuesday there would be mandator y e-mail and only those who came could vote on the spring event. TDR: What was the reaction from the College? RR: Part of the judicial outcome following K∆E’s fall formal included that we could not hold Derby, but we could host one large scale dr y event. I reached out to Judicial Affairs and asked why the theme of Derby was specifically not allowed. They [the college] voiced the concern that the derby

side or so – sometimes just to fact-check. I felt strongly that they were only representing one side of the issue. There was some discussion after the presentation, but it was brief and ver y emotionally charged. It was an interesting dynamic when the leadership basically announced that “Derby is racist – let’s hold a vote.” I felt it was difficult for the 18s to speak up, especially since they hadn’t really experienced house events or other K∆E traditions because the house has been on suspension and probation for the last two terms. The ’17 leadership was featureAd in an article in The Dartmouth – a ver y matter-of-fact writeup announcing the namechange. TDR: Was there any input

“ Those who have reached out uniformly criticize the oppressive culture in academia. One person even spoke to how he abstains from participating in class” party was too closely associated with a tradition of heavy drinking. But for us – the craft beer bottles, rather than typical Keystone – is a treat. Sisters think of our big spring potluck with photos and our closest friends when we think of the Derby tradition. It’s a special day for our house, so I worked closely with the college and asked for the Derby theme to be used for our dr y, largescale spring event. I argued that a dr y Derby could re-focus the emphasis of the event this year and in future years, and Judicial Affairs’ response letter stated “This is a great idea!” TDR: When it came to the decision making – how did such a consensus emerge? RR: Before the vote, the 17 K∆E leadership showed a slideshow at the compulsor y meeting about our upcoming “Spring Event.” We anticipated that the vote would involve the Derby theme as Derby is traditionally our big spring event – some sisters had heard rumors that the ’17 leadership was leaning towards ditching Derby. For a decision like that, I was expecting more of an open forum, but the meeting consisted of the slideshow shown by eight girls who were unified in their opinion, stating that they would be uncomfortable to self-identify themselves with K∆E if the spring party theme was not changed. I raised my hand ever y other

from the alumni? RR: Even before my article, some friends had heard from alumni who were disappointed to hear that 96 percent of girls voted against Derby. Since writing my article, alumni have reached out to me to speak to the original spirit of Derby as a spoof on

their Dartmouth experience. Those who have reached out uniformly criticize the oppressive culture in academia. One person even spoke to how he abstains from participating in class because he is so fearful that what he says will be politically incorrect or that people will discredit his opinion because how he represents his dissenting opinion may come off as politically incorrect, and therefore insensitive and disrespectful and therefore people will think that he’s a bad person. For me, there’s nothing more heartbreaking than to read a message from someone that says “I don’t participate in my Ivy League courses because I am so scared of this oppressive culture in academia.” Hearing people would rather abstain from engaging in discussion – we’re really losing that spirit of academia that we’re all here for, to question ourselves and learn and grow from actual discussions. The ironic part is that we’ve silenced people with the claim that there’s a socially superior answer. TDR: What do you think of the new theme, Woodstock? RR: My grandfather and his brother ser ved in Vietnam. When I wrote my article I posted it along with a pho-

“ Someone will take offense with every issue – especially the incredibly nuanced issues in this country – and people’s varying opinions should be respected” Southern sorority culture to establish themselves as local and different. To the original sisters, the party was meant to be a spoof of traditional sorority culture rather than a specific commentar y on the Kentucky Derby. Some have reached out just to say how proud they are that I voiced my opinion. Some of them outright agreed with me. All of the alumni who reached out to me were crestfallen – they’ve blessed us with agency to reshape the sorority as suits each class of sisters, but I think that they would have loved to be consulted – they’re feel they’re invested in the sisterhood to this day. We have to thank them a lot for what we have.

to of my grandfather – who was an army chaplain – when he was holding a ser vice in Vietnam over just a rifle and the fallen soldier’s helmet. It was just a photo, but I had a quote from my grandfather which said the Vietnam war effort “was a most generous sacrifice on the part of the American people.” Since the theme change, I’ve had some conversations with veter-

an students who are disappointed by the change. But I think the more interesting response is that they’re not surprised: this is what we see in academia these days, a politically-correct cause. While they are disappointed to see a decision like that so hastily made – they’re not surprised by the outcome. In the slideshow, the 17 leadership said “Woodstock’s not problematic, we double checked!” – and for me, I feel, you can’t tell me what’s uncomfortable to me. You can’t tell me what I find offensive, what I find problematic or unacceptable. TDR: So you prefer the old theme? RR: My issue with the Derby or Woodstock decision is that you can’t tell me what I find offensive: someone will take offense with ever y issue – especially the incredibly nuanced issues in this countr y – and people’s var ying opinions should be respected. For the 17 leadership to say that Derby’s histor y is plagued with racism according to histor y and to the claims of the protesters – which I did not hear at the time of the actual protest – was interesting to hear a year later. I have my own life experiences and opinions of the world that cause me to feel other wise. Regardless of the theme, for anyone to say that the Kentucky Derby is racist and therefore problematic, and that Woodstock is not – well, who are you to tell me? *The Review would like to note for factual accuracy that The Kentucky Derby began in 1875 – 11 years after the end of the Civil War. Kentucky also remained in the Union throughout the Civil War. The Kentucky state song, “My Old Kentucky Home, Good-Night” is an anti-slaver y ballad and is sung at the opening of the Kentucky Derby races ever y year.

TDR: How do you feel your article has been received? RR: I’ve had current KDE sisters – and men and women across campus – reach out to me to say that my article’s message resonated with

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS A feature of many modern colleges and universities. Courtesy Photo


10 Wednesday – April 27, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

FIRE’s Silverglate on PC > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Anyways, so I actually have some hope of a turnaround, a sign of a backbone. Larry Summers of Harvard tried to have a backbone and he got tossed out. So the president of Princeton is showing some backbone, he’s got the support of the trustees; the trustees refuse to obliterate the name of Woodrow Wilson, whether or not they were for or against the man. He did some things that were good, he did some things that were horrible, he was a good president in some ways and a horrible president in other ways. The idea of taking his name off of a building, revising history, is something that fanatics do. It gets me nervous, its not the way a free people operate. So I thought it was a good sign that Princeton was resisting the call to strip the name. What is happening at Princeton, if I’m right is the beginning of a counter-revolution. It could affect Dartmouth. It’s totally ridiculous in this regard. In some ways I admire you guys for just being about to get up in the morning and go to classes having an administration that is so ridiculous. Harvard’s is just as bad, Yale’s is worse. Of course state universities are hopeless because in addition to the normal pressures you have in a private university for increasing the number of bureaucrats, at public universities, you have the additional pressures of having to put relatives of politicians into positions in the administration. They can’t teach, they’re not very smart, so you have this gigantic bloated administration in the state university. They are so expensive, in fact, that the universities are not hiring tenured professors, they are hiring teachers that teach on a short contract [adjuncts]. This is clearly lowering the quality of educations. Instead they are supporting absurd administrations and promoting ridiculous philosophical systems. I can tell you, but you actually probably already know this from being students, that a lot of students that I talk to don’t buy into this, they don’t think that that equity and inclusion are more important than intellectual achievement but they don’t say anything either, they just want to get their degree and get the hell out of the asylum. I think that people have to be Mr. Kotran is a sophomore at the College and an Executive Editor for The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Postiglione is a freshman and an Associate News Editor for The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Chartouni is a freshman at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

active—that is absolutely essential. I think that Princeton must have received a ton of mail from alumni about the Woodrow Wilson idiocy, now let me remind you, you can dislike Woodrow Wilson, he is a very dislikable person, his notions of race were atrocious, but the idea of rewriting history by renaming buildings has antecedents in totalitarian societies. It is a very bad approach to history and so I think that there was a lot of adverse reaction from alumni, and I don’t only mean alumni form my class – I was the class of ’64 – I mean alumni from fifteen years ago, because the Princeton report was one that was worthy of an institute of higher learning, it was thoughtful, and it was not cowardly, they thoughtfully analyzed the problem, they had a clear eyed view of Wilson’s pluses and minuses and they decided that renaming history was not the way an institution should operate and I admired their decision. Do I think that it was entirely spontaneous? No I think that they saw that the alumni were up behind it and I don’t mean racist alumni, I mean alumni that were full of thought. TDR: Do alumni have more power than students in effectuating this type of change? HS: I think that alumni have more power to affect change, but I also think that students are essential too. The reason that alumni have more power is because of their wallets. They have money that they donate. They are independent and they can say what they want. Their degrees cannot be taken away from them. The problem students face is that they are subject to being victimized by mindless bureaucrats who don’t mind filing charges for every imagined transgression. The definition of harassment is so vague that every student can be charged with harassing or offending somebody. All you have to do is disagree with someone and yell a bit too loud. Or say to someone, which I do all the time, “You’re an idiot.” There is a dean or other administrator waiting to charge you with harassment. “You’ve hurt that person; you’ve demeaned that person.” Well you’re damned right, people who are really idiots should be demeaned. That is what a free society is all about. I can call the president of the United States an idiot, and not end up in a dungeon. What a great thing. Well the campus should be more free, not less free. TDR: So, why do you think that student newspapers are so hesitant to attack school

administrations?

HS: First of all, not all student newspapers have their own endowments; they are dependent on student activity fees. One of the favorite ploys of college presidents and deans who are afraid the student newspaper is saying too much, or is telling the outside world what an asylum the campus has become, they cut off the funds. So, a lot of the newspapers that are not independent, but are endowed, have more guts because they have more independence, and you get a lot of important, objective information from reading those papers. Up until four or five years ago, I read the Harvard Crimson every day, because it was truly independent, and does have an endowment, and the student journalists were quite brave in disclosing the various idiocies of the day at Harvard. The last four or five years, the Crimson has been much more pro administration. I attribute that to the fact that they have been brainwashed throughout elementary school and high school, and by the time they get to Harvard, they’re zombies in a lot of ways, so the Crimson is not as independent as it used to be. Every so often, there is a brave op-ed piece published by a student who doesn’t give a damn, and who is willing to tell the truth, but an awful lot of the gibberish you see at the Harvard about equity; anyone who adheres to the equity and inclusion line you know has drunk the KoolAid. Because if you are interested in the quality, and I am, and I think that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection law is one of the most important laws in the Constitution, after all we fought a civil war over it. But anybody who uses the phrase “equity and inclusion” is not serious, is parodying one of the least enlightening phrases in the modern language, it is meaningless, it is an excuse for hiring deans and assistant deans and deputy assistant

HARVEY SILVERGLATE Left: Silverglate himself. Upper right: the logo of FIR right: the “traffic light” system by which FIRE rates free speech policy at diff cabulary, we are getting serious about education and about, frankly, equality. You can’t have real equality without widespread education, and you can’t run an education system when bureaucrats are in charge, rather than academics. It’s a whole circle. TDR: Can you recall any examples of Administrators blatantly tampering with student newspapers? HS: I had a remarkable experience a few years ago. Harvard Law School has one independent student edited newspaper. It’s been around forever. When I was a student there from 1964-67, it was put out in newsprint every week, the Harvard Law Record, student written and student edited. It was not paid for by the administration and they had no control over it. During the deanship of Elena Kagan, who is now on the Supreme Court, there were seven publications by the administration of Harvard Law School, touting the administration’s line. These were not the

“[Wilson] is a very dislikable person, his notions of race were atrocious, but the idea of rewriting history by renaming buildings has antecedents in totalitarian societies.” deans. This whole bureaucracy has grown up over this phrase that no one really understands. They do no use for work, I can tell you. The sooner I’ll know that we’ve turned the corner when I no longer here multiple times a day, and you know I live in Cambridge in the “belly of the beast,” when I no longer open a newspaper or listen to a radio show, and hear someone speaking about the important of equity and inclusion. When those words are out of the vo-

creation of Dean Kagan, these long preceded her. She has this great advantage; she is able to control the message because there were seven in-house published journals. The only independent voice was the Harvard Law Record, which was very critical of some of the things going on in the law school, as it should have been. During Kagan’s deanship, she announces that they are starting a new inhouse edited publication, and I think it’s called Harvard Law Today, or something like that,

you know one of these “good feeling” names. And they made a deal. Historically, the Harvard Law Record was funded by alumni contributions. How? If you were a member of the Harvard Law School Alumni Association, part of your dues went to pay for a subscription to the Harvard Law Record, so the majority of Harvard Law graduates belonged to the alumni association, as it is a very loyal bunch, and they pay dues, their checks clear, and part of the dues would go back for subscriptions to the Record. And the Record sent, every issue, to every alum who was a member of the Alumni Association, this independent, student voice, of Harvard Law School. Kagan’s administration makes a deal with the Alumni Association, that instead of the dues going to the Harvard Law Record for automatic subscription to the Record, the administration will give every alumnus who is a member of the Alumni Association a free subscription to the new magazine, the glossy magazine. The Harvard Law Record was not very sexy: it was printed on newsprint. This is a glossy, full-color, propaganda sheet, basically. All of the sudden, the Harvard Law Record is faced with extinction, because the only income it had were these dues, forked over by the Alumni Association, and the Alumni Association was trying to save money, because they got these free, Harvard Law School publications that they were getting. Now, if you read the new glossy, you realize that there is never any criticism of the administration. Oh, what a surprise! Now, the alumni are cut off from the only source of objective information about what’s going on. So I complained to Kagan, and I said,


The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – April 27, 2016 11

FEATURES dent newspaper because it did an editorial that was criticizing the administration. Something like that, even if there was nothing in a speech code that allows that to happen, if the administration harasses the independent student newspaper, we consider that a serious violation and we will red light the school even if their handbook doesn’t indicate that it is a totalitarian enclave. So that’s how we get a lot of sources of information; we have very good sources of what’s going on the campuses. We especially value students who are students currently, who tell us what’s going on. There’s no substitute for having a couple of spies in a student body. It really puts us in touch with the realities. You can’t get the reality by reading what the administration puts out. TDR: You discussed in your first book how Cornell and UMass have all black dormitories in which white students are forbidden from living.

RE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Lower fferent colleges. Courtesy Photos HS: There’s a word for that. It’s “Why did you do this? You’re don’t like any speech codes, and called segregation. supposedly a First Amendment we don’t understand why there fan, you love free speech, so should be any speech codes at TDR: We have an Asian comwhy is it that you allowed this all. What we have done is, we munity, and Cutter Shabbaz, to happen under your watch?” have used a First Amendment which is basically an all black And her answer was absolutely standard as determined by the residential community. But chilling. Kagan said, “Well, the latest Supreme Court case law. they’re not restricted from administration is entitled to And if a school’s speech code people of other races. have its point of view out there would not be found in violatoo.” Oh, are seven publications tion of the First Amendment HS: I’m all in favor of free asnot enough! You need eight, by a federal court, we consider sociation. If students feel they and the eighth puts the Law that to be a green light school. have something in common— Record out of business. And If the truth be known, colleges whether it’s religion, whether that’s what happened; howev- should offer more protection it’s politics, whether it’s race, an er, there was a denouement. than the Supreme Court offers interest in literary endeavors, Ralph Nader made a gift to the American citizens, because in an interest in golf—I believe in Harvard Law Record of whatev- theory you should be able to free association. It happens to er they needed to put out the have freer speech on campus be guaranteed by the constituRecord, and he now funds [it]; than out on “Main Street.” But tion. The Supreme Court has the Harvard Law Record is still we’re satisfied if you have as decided some very important in business because of Ralph much freedom of speech on a freedom of association cases Nader. He was offended, I sup- campus as you have out in the unanimously. It’s not contropose, as the same way I was of- real world. We will green light versial. If people want to assofended. And he has a number that school. If there are vague ciate among themselves based of foundations, and they have restrictions, but not terribly on any commonality they have, enough money, so Nader funds restricting, we will yellow light they should be allowed to do the independent Harvard Law you. And if you have real se- that. I believe, however, that it Record, which is still a thorn rious limitations on what you is social engineering for a uniin the side of the administra- can say without getting in trou- versity to try to influence or dition. I cheer the Harvard Law ble, we red light you. And in rect those kinds of associations. Record; I cheer Ralph Nader for addition to the speech codes, And if it’s free association, I’m doing this. But I couldn’t say I “But I couldn’t say I was very impressed was very impressed with Elena Kagan, and it was a terrible with Elena Kagan ... I am hoping that she is thing that happened under her more loyal to the First Amendment as a Suwatch. I am hoping that she is more loyal to the First Amendpreme Court Justice than she was as a dean ment as a Supreme Court Jus[at Harvard Law].” tice than she was as a dean. of which many are quite stu- fine. Whatever your interest TDR: FIRE has a list of pid: you can’t say something is. But not to have the adminschools, and you rate each that insults somebody because istration operating to socially school on how they treat free- of their looks. I mean for God’s engineer. The thing about addom of speech. Can you dis- sake, you can’t say to some- ministrators is, they can’t help cuss why Dartmouth was re- body that they’re as ugly as themselves. cently downgraded, and what their thoughts are. You know, it is doing currently and what not a nice comment, but that’s When they have a title like harassment? Give me a break! “Dean of Diversity and Incluit can do to improve? They have many truly moronic sion,” they have all kinds of HS: First of all, you are talking codes that only an administra- wacko ideas as to what that about the red light, yellow light, tor could think of. But, there means, because of course the green light system. One of the are other incidents that [FIRE] truth is that it’s meaningless. most important things that we will use to judge a code. For Whatever you see in it is what use as a guide for the system is example, if there was a recent it is. It is terribly insulting to the speech codes. Mind you, we example of harassment of a stu- students’ intelligence to be so-

cially engineering them. But if people want to live together on the basis of race, voluntarily, that’s not segregation, that’s free association. And I’m okay with it. Would I like if my child or grandchild did it? No, I want that child to get a broader picture of the world than associating only with people like himself or who think or look like him. I think higher education is the opportunity to see a broader world than you did when you were in fifth grade. But if a student wants to do that, it’s what this country is about. It’s called freedom. That’s what freedom is all about. So I think it is very bad for schools to engineer these kinds of living situations. I’ve always wanted to see the kind of neighborhoods that these deans live in, I can just imagine that everyone thinks alike, looks alike, has the same kind of bank account, but maybe I’m too cynical after too many years in dealing with these people. TDR: You’ve worked with the Review in the past? HS: That must have been about ten years ago. It was the early days of FIRE, but what it was— Jim Wright was the president of Dartmouth—and he was trying to get rid of the Review. The Review was a gigantic pain in the neck to him, because it reported things that didn’t make him look good. And the reason they didn’t make him look good was he wasn’t a very good president. He was insufferably politically correct, insufferably! And he wanted the Review off his case and willing to do anything to try and get rid of it. So we fought like banshees against the administration, and we eventually prevailed. It was a little too raw for a liberal arts university president to be too obvious in wanting to get rid of the student newspaper. It eventually developed a stench. It hurt his reputation, and for good reason! So it ended up not going down as one of Dartmouth’s proudest moments, in a lot of people’s books, but the Review is still around. You guys have a lot of staying power, so I admire that. TDR: Do you have any conception of how Dartmouth has changed since then? HS: I don’t know much about the culture of Dartmouth, but I’ve dealt with the administration, I’ve dealt with the speech codes. My most educational experience regarding Dartmouth was dealing with this group of insurgent candidates for the board. Dartmouth has a certain number of seats on its board that are not self-perpetuating, they’re not filled by a majority vote of the board; they’re filled by the vote of the alumni. And

there’s an historical reason for that. Dartmouth was almost broke, and a group of alumni offered to save it by forking over money, provided that the Board of Trustees have a certain number of alumni elected members. And the Administration, realizing they were facing bankruptcy, succumbed and agreed. So historically, Dartmouth’s Board has a certain number of alumni-elected representation on it. Alumni can petition candidates, and the candidates can run the board. Dartmouth was trying to torpedo that little annoyance, and we went to court to try to enforce, as a matter of contract, the provision guaranteeing the Alumni Association a certain number of seats on the Dartmouth Board. And we were winning that litigation, Dartmouth moved to dismiss, and the judge refused to dismiss. And he wrote an opinion, it’s a published opinion on this, the judge said that we were right, that this was a matter of historic contract, the contract was still valid, and that the Alumni Association could run candidates for the seats on the Board. And we were on the verge of this huge victory, and the Administration struck back, and what they did, was they engineered an election of the Board of the Alumni Association that put on that Board only administration-approved candidates. And as soon as that election took place and these people took over the Alumni Association, the next day they voted to withdraw the lawsuit, and the lawsuit got closed down, and it occurred to me that the worst that Dartmouth has done, of all the horrible things it’s done, was defeating alumni democracy by taking over the Alumni Association in order to get dismissed a lawsuit which was meant to guarantee some alumni influence on the Board of Trustees. That’s my worst Dartmouth story. Stuff that happened to you guys, you survived, but Dartmouth has been very much injured by the failure of that initiative to put some sane, independent people on the Board of Trustees who are not controlled by the administration. And what you see happening today, the proliferation of bureaucrats, the restrictions on speech, and the nefarious influence on the academic level. You’ve got some politically correct courses that you look at and shake your head, thinking, “How does a course like this get into a liberal arts college?” It’s total idiocy, the professor’s an idiot, the reading list is idiotic, how does this happen? The answer is that the Board that would have performed its fiduciary duty to not let that happen to Dartmouth got defeated by trick.


12 Wednesday – April 27, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

THE LAST WORD GORDON HAFF’S

COMPILED BY MARCUS J. THOMPSON

“You can’t be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.” –Ronald Reagan

“Government! Three fourths parasitic and the other fourt stupid fumbling.” –Robert A. Heinlein

“The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency” –Eugene McCarthy

“This always confuses liberals, that the conservatives like the military and don’t like the bureaucracy. That’s because the military has their guns pointed out and the bureaucracy has them pointed in.” –Grover Norquist

“Profitability is coming from productivity, efficiency, management, austerity, and the way to manage the business.” –Carlos Slim

“Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work.” –Albert Einstein

“Government proposes, bureaucracy disposes. And the bureaucracy must dipose of government proposals by dumping them on us.” –P. J. O’Rourke “If you are going to sin, sin against God, not the bureaucracy. God will forgive you but the bureaucracy won’t.” –Hyman Rickover “It’s amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hopsitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.” –Thomas Sowell “The U.N. bureaucracy has grown to elephantine proportions. Now that the Cold War is over, we are asking that elephant to do gymanstics.” –Madeleine Albright

“Remove the document – and you remove the man.” –Mikhail Bulgakov “Where equality is enthroned, freedom is extinguished. The rise of the egalitarian society means the death of the free society.” –Pat Buchanan “I have an institutional fear of big government. I have an institutional opposition to bureaucracy.” –Rush Limbaugh “Getting things done in this country, if you want to build something, if you want to start a company, it’s getting to be virtually impossible with all of the bureaucracy and all of the approvals.” –Donald Trump ““Den Staat kümmert nicht, ob der Bürger lebt oder stirbt. Wichtig für den Staat und sein Archiv ist, ob der Bürger am Leben oder tot ist.” –J.M. Coetzee

BARRETT’S MIXOLOGY

“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the epxanding bureaucracy” –Oscar Wilde “Every once in awhile, somebody has to get the bureaucracy by the neck and shake it loose and say ‘Stop what you’re doing.’ ” –Ronald Reagan “A bureaucrat force you to obey his decisions, whether you agree with him or not ... If he makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences; If he fails, he passes the loss on to you, in the form of heavier taxes.” –Ayn Rand “There is no justice in bureaucracy for the individual, for bureaucracy caters only to itself. One cannot practice the same bureaucracy as one is fighting against.” –Leon Trotsky “Bureaucracy gives birth to itself and then expects maternity benefits.” –Dale Dauten

ADVERTISEMENT

How I Spent my 4/20 Ingredients

• 1 Bowl of Autumn Blend Tobacco • 1 Briar Pipe • 2 Lips of Copenhagen Long Cut • 1 Bottle of Douro Valley Port

No one really knows how 4/20 started, legend has it that a group of reefers started the tradition on a treasure hunt (starting at 4:20 pm of course) at a high school in California. Since I do not partake in the marijuana smoking traditionally associated with this counter-culture holiday, but still wanted to smoke something in jest of those that take the “holiday” seriously, I thought that the best compromise was to enjoy a nice evening with my aromatic tobacco. I have not always been a connoisseur of the pipe, but after experiencing the tradition and relaxation that accompanies the ritual, I bought a reasonable briar pipe of my own and a nice aromatic blend. It came expertly packed in a hand carved wooden box and covered in a velvet sleeve. The smell of gilded age social clubs came wafting out and… Anyways I am rambling. Let us get back to the story. Dressed in the antithesis of typical stoner garb; a tartan dressing gown and house slippers. I made sure that my room was immaculately clean, turned on my music of choice (Kelly’s Irish Brigade by David Kinkade obviously), and Invited my friend Atticus to enjoy the taste and scent of maple, sugarcane, whisky, citrus, rum and vanilla emanating from the bowl of my meerschaum. Of course, the pipe was accompanied by my under-30-proof-beverage-of-choice, from the Douro Valley of Portugal, the Quinta Do Noval 2011 Vintage Port. The swirling flavors of the wine and the tobacco brought me back to the late 18th century, where I could forget about tuition hikes, and where a bloated bureaucracy was developed around nepotism instead of incompetence. It was a fleeting moment of tranquility and bliss, but soon the world around me came back into focus. I smelled the marijuana emanating from under doors throughout the dormitory blocking the pleasant smell of maple, the computer screen flashed with notifications reminding me that socialism was spreading across my country, and I heard the loud boom of rap music turned up way too high. If only I could go back. I would endlessly relive those glory days of the ages long past. But alas, this is the 21st century and the long-term is here to stay.

— Johnovicus

The Ever-Expanding Bureaucracy (4.27.16)  
The Ever-Expanding Bureaucracy (4.27.16)  
Advertisement