The Winter Carnival Issue (2.9.2017)

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

Volu m e 3 6 , Is su e 14

T hu r s d ay, Febr u ar y 9 , 2 0 1 7

THE WINTER CARNIVAL ISSUE

AN OLD TRADITION roars back to life.

Harry Enten Comes Home Fitzgerald Tours Hanover Sandor Farkas Matthew R. Zubrow Editor-inChief President

The Dartmouth Review sat down with Harry Enten ‘11 on the occasion of his vist to Dartmouth.

The Dartmouth Review (TDR): Can you tell us about your time at Dartmouth and what issues you were interested in then?

Harry Enten (HE): I started here in 2007. I was always interested in elections, so I took a lot of Government courses.

I wasn’t involved in student politics too much.

I was class treasurer. I helped run student elections my senior year. I was also involved with the College Democrats.

I was probably the only person in the College

Dems who, in my senior year, voted for the Republican candidate for the House of Representatives. I voted for Charlie Bass. I mean, it’s just one of those strange things. People in my field have always tried to pin me as left or right wing, but at least during my time here, I was a registered independent.

I was certainly involved with politics and government stuff.

TDR: Did you have any favorite professors?

HE: There’s so many you can list. I think a few people who were really involved were Bob Norman over in mathematical and social sciences, Karen Gocsik over in the writing department (who I think is now at UC San Diego,) and Joseph Bafumi. From an academic angle, I en-

ANTI-SEMITISM, ISRAEL, & JEWISH VALUES

joyed my time here.

TDR: Speaking of your time here, what are your impressions of the Dartmouth Review?

HE: I think that there are two impressions that I have of the Dartmouth Review. There’s the impression that I had while I was here and there’s the longer-lasting impression. People think of the Dartmouth Review in the eighties as this very radical paper. That was not necessarily my impression while I was here. I thought of it as the conservative alternative to the more liberal ideology that permeates Dartmouth. That was always to me the funniest thing. People always said Dartmouth was so conservative, and I said, “What? Compared to Brown?” The campus itself is a fairly liberal

campus, at least politically speaking. When Milo Yiannopoulos was here, even if people disagreed with his viewpoint, he was treated with the understanding that we need free speech and that it’s important to hear each other out and disagree with each other if need be. I think for the most part Dartmouth is probably the least radical Ivy out there. It’s liberal but it’s not radically liberal. It’s a place where I think viewpoints are respected. At least I hope they are.

TDR: How do you think the College could better use polling to improve student life?

HE: I know that there’s been some movement to have a Dartmouth polling site to poll students

> FEATURES PAGE 14

Nicholas Desai

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Editor’s Note: The following is a Review favorite from the archives. Former Editor-in-Chief Nicholas Desai drew this account of Fitzgerald’s visit to Hanover from Dartmouth Library’s Budd Schulburg The story of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1939 trip to Dartmouth for Winter Carnival is legendary, even if the best known version has it simply that the novelist got very drunk in Hanover. Even this condensed form has appeal: the man of letters who does not uphold the supposed dignity of his profession is both comic and tragic. Yet an investigation of the Budd Schulberg papers reveals a tale that, when fleshed

Zachary P. Port

out, gains still more gravity and comic appeal.

It’s a yarn that Schulberg ‘36 related many times in publications, at conferences, and in fictional form in his 1951 novel The Disenchanted. Like any drinking story, it seems to alter with each telling to provide maximum entertainment, usually through emphasis but occasionally in presentation of facts.(Did Schulberg really take Fitzgerald to Psi U or simply feint in that direction?)

But Schulberg, the acclaimed novelist of What Makes Sammy Run? and Academy Award-winning screenwriter of “On the Waterfront,” tells it well each time. What follows is the ‘39 bender according

> FEATURES PAGE 12

THE HISTORY OF CARNIVAL

POLITICS ON GAME DAY

The Review defines anti-Semitism and examines its consequences

A retrospective look at the history of this proud and storied Dartmouth tradition

The Review offers perspective on the controversial nature of this year’s commercials

> EDITORIAL PAGE 3

> FEATURES PAGE 8

> FEATURES PAGE 15

2 Thursday – February 9, 2017

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 Interview with Harry Enten

The Review sits down with FiveThirtyEight wiz kid Harry Enten ............................PAGE 1

Fitzgerald comes to Dartmouth

A retrospective on the (in)famous visit of the legendary author............................... PAGE 1

Editorial: Antisemitism and its Lessons

The History of Winter Carnival

The Review offers perspective on the history of the storied campus tradition........ PAGE 8

Call Me Bill

Former Editor-in-Chief of The Review James Panero recounts his winter with William F. Buckley, Jr. ..................................................................................................................... PAGE 11

The Dartmouth Review Editor-in-Chief offers his contemplations on the evil still plaguing our society......................................................................................................... PAGE 4

The Glory Days: Carnival at its Best

Israel’s Purpose

Advertisements at the Big Game

Managing Editor Joshua L. Kauderer responds to an editorial in The Dartmouth regarding the role of Israel in world politics........................................................................... PAGE 6

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

Former Professor Jeffrey Hart recounts the Winter Carnival of yesteryear........... PAGE 12

We offer thoughts on the overly-political nature of the commercials of this year’s Super Bowl................................................................................................................................. PAGE 13

CHURCHILL READS THE REVIEW. DO YOU?

The Dartmouth Review

Thursday – February 9, 2017

3

MASTHEAD & EDITORIAL EST. 1980

“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win great triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank 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

...‫אם תרצו‬

Sandor Farkas

Executive Editors Jack F. Mourouzis Joseph R. Torsella

Managing Editors Joshua L. Kauderer Marcus J. Thompson Devon M. Kurtz Rushil Shukla

Associate Editors Jack S. Hutensky B. Webb Harrington Zachary P. Port

BUSINESS STAFF President

Matthew R. Zubrow

Vice Presidents Robert Y. Sayegh Samuel W. Lawhon

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 Esfahani-Smith, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Sidney Zion

NOTES Special thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr. “Dartmouth wasn’t trill enough for this!”

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

The debate over the connection between who is anti-Israel of being an anti-Semite. What anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitism suffers they argue is that anti-Israel sentiment is merefrom a fundamental disagreement over the na- ly the contemporary historical circumstance ture of anti-Semitism. The common conception used to justify the public expression of latent anof anti-Semitism is that it is a prejudice towards ti-Semitism. Without contesting the particulars the Jews derived from any one of a multitude of of claims against the State of Israel, they seek to historical events or libels. Some say that modern show that such claims often originate from openanti-Semitism comes from medieval Jewish usu- ly anti-Semitic sources or circumstances and that ry. Others trace it to the accusation that the Jews these claims are only popular because they justify murdered Jesus. Anti-Semites often justify their veiled hatred of Jews. The result of this populariown anti-Semitism with blood libels or conspir- ty is that many people who do not explicitly hate acy theories. The fact remains that anti-Semitism Jews come to believe the libels leveled at them. predates all of these claims, regardless of their Even Jews are susceptible to this: it is not surprisveracity. ing that there is a long history of Jews buying into If no event or libel caused anti-Semitism, the anti-Jewish libels given the prevalence of these next logical assumption is that it is a baseless lies. Criticism of Israel is not inherently anracial prejudice, much like racism against ti-Semitic, but the vast majority of exAmerican blacks. Anti-Semitism ofternal “criticism” of Israel serves the ten features ethnic or religious prejbroader cause of Jew-hatred. This udice, but it does not fit in with does not mean that it is wrong to other prejudices. Most ethnic criticize Israel, merely that to do so and racial prejudices denican have unintended significance. grate their targets and exist Review Managing Editor Joshin specific historical circumua Kauderer recently published an stances to serve political or editorial in the Not-So-Daily social purposes. Anti-SemDartmouth that claimed anitism often exaggerates the ti-Israel sentiment was a form power of the Jews instead of of anti-Semitism. A student Sándor Farkas defaming them. It has arisen named Isaac Green penned a in many, diverse historical periods and has often response in which he justified criticism of Israrun contrary to the best interests of the societies el and delved into unrelated attacks on Donald that most virulently espouse it.

Trump. Mr. Kauderer has chosen to defend his The term anti-Semitism is an 1879 euphe- writing on page six of this issue, but I feel obligatmism for the German word Judenhauss, or ed to defend Israel from one of Mr. Green’s many Jew-hatred. It is a hatred of Jews – however you attacks. Green wrote that, “the U.N. also created choose to define them – that exists independent- Israel and with every passing day Israel deserves ly of historical circumstances. It exists as a latent less and less the title of true democracy.” Israel is popular sentiment, which periodically erupts not remarkable because it is a democracy. That it into prejudice or violence and justifies itself us- is one is nothing more than an accident of histoing libels or incidental trends. Anti-Semitism ry, and there are many democracies in the world has a cause: the Jews are chosen. Different people and throughout history. Forms of government choose to interpret this in different ways depend- come and go, as will Israel’s. It is remarkable being on their beliefs and identity. Some Jews might cause it is a Jewish State – the only Jewish state argue that God ordained anti-Semitism when he – and it is the first such state to exist in just under chose the people of Israel. Others have claimed two thousand years. Someone who loves Israel that anti-Semitism exists because the world re- for the sole reason that it is a democracy does not sents the Jews for introducing monotheism and love Israel.

Abrahamic morality to society. Those who do While the second part of Green’s statement is not believe in the divine Torah point out that a fairly commonplace criticism, his first claim is anti-Semitism could simply be a reaction to the jarring. The League of Nations recognized the chutzpah inherent in maintaining a claim of ex- right of Jews to a sovereign state in all of Manclusivity for a few thousand years. The idea that datory Palestine. The United Nations voted to anti-Semitism is a negative reaction to positive recognize a divided State of Israel, against the qualities of the Jewish people does not reflect well objections of the Arab world. But the United Naon those who dislike the Jews. tions did not create Israel. God gave Israel to the Those who do not view themselves as an- Jews, and they redeemed it with willpower, with ti-Semitic but either unconsciously hate Jews blood, and with the grace of God. Green’s asseror believe libels against the Jews may find this tion that the world, likely in a bout of guilt over definition of anti-Semitism insulting. Tracing the Holocaust, deigned to give the helpless Jews the origins and causes of anti-Semitism to spe- a small plot of land is an insult to the memory of cific historical events both alleviates personal the thousands who gave their lives in defense of responsibility for Jew-hatred and enables people their home. to justify hatred caused by certain libels while reJews have always faced anti-Semitism, but it jecting hatred caused by others. When anti-Israel should not bother us. It is the burden of our birthsentiment is equated with anti-Semitism, both right, and in three thousand years, it has failed to anti-Israel and “neutral” individuals protest that bring us to our knees. We are a people with a will such a proposition is an ad hominen attack and like no other, because we have the courage of our falsely equates opposition to the polity of the State convictions. Others who face hatred based solely of Israel with a hatred of the Jewish people. This on their identities can learn from our suffering outrage is understandable given the implications and our achievements. Nothing is won through of the label “anti-Semite” and the previously ex- pity or the aid of others: the will to fight hatred plained disparity in definitions. through force, work, or love is all that is necessary Those who claim that anti-Israel sentiment is to defeat it. As Theodore Hertzel said, “If you will rooted in anti-Semitism rarely accuse everyone it, it is no dream.”

4 Thursday – February 9, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

WEEK IN REVIEW A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE DARTMOUTH REVIEW Dear Sandor Farkas, On the morning of Januar y 16, 2016, The Dartmouth Review printed a series of articles that seemingly contradict themselves. I applaud you when you declare in your “Week in Review” section that: We at The Review hope for a day when we can address the cultural, social, and economics issues facing our nation with calm opposition not prone to levelling accusations of racism and insisting conservatives “check their privilege” at the slightest deviation from their narrow thinking.

As somebody who attended a highly liberal high school (which even had a fully-functioning socialist club), I have seen far too many cases where “check your privilege” and its variants surfaced at the most baffling of opportunities. In particular, I recall an instance where a group of approximately ten highly motivated students lectured around fifty people on the inequalities caused by race.

Unfortunately, they focused on the concept of white privilege and the necessity of affirmative action in school admissions. I am Asian and I am male. Naturally, I was opposed to affirmative action and wanted to speak my opinion. So, as preaching time turned to question time, I asked the group, “But isn’t using affirmative action still a way to discriminate on race? Why can’t we use a more meritocratic process in which applicants are selected for their achievements?”

“Furthermore,” the voice of one of my (white) friends followed, “Asians need to score 250 more points on the SAT than African-Americans to get into the same colleges.” One of the speakers on that panel then proceeded to completely ignore me, the person who posed the question in the first place, and focused her attention on my white friend. Her response could be made simpler and more civil by abbreviating it to, “shut up, whitey!”

The speaker had chosen to rant on my friend’s skin color. She completely ignored the validity of his SAT statistic. She disregarded my original question on meritocracy. She attacked the person

rather than the actual argument. At that moment, I knew that the check-your-privilege movement was unhinged. I cemented my belief that one should “address cultural, social, and economic issues…with calm opposition” and debate rather than with accusations of privilege and racism, as The Dartmouth Review nobly recommended.

However, The Dartmouth Review eschews their own stated goals and instead engages in similar behavior as the people who constantly cr y, “Racist!” I fully admit that I have never seen Editor-In-Chief Sandor Farkas scream, “Racist!” whenever he argues with somebody he disagrees with. However, that doesn’t permit The Review to stifle calm political discussion with by throwing buzzwords at liberals.

The Review shamelessly mocks and stereotypes liberals; it’s the same thing that they have done to you, but with different words. Instead of screaming “Racist!” you decr y liberals by associating them with “hubris,” accusing them of “elitism,” and stamping them as the “regressive left.” Instead of caricaturizing liberals as ignorant white males who need to check their privilege, you debase them as people who need “fair-trade soy lattes” and “tissues” for the liberal tears they’re going to cr y. This behavior is exactly the same as the behavior for which you attack liberals; you stereotype and denigrate them with buzzwords instead of arguing with them. This is unacceptable.

None of your liberal-bashing advances your goals of calm political debate using facts and statistics as references. Instead, you push liberals away from the debating room with your dismissive and stereotypical rhetoric. When you conservatives deride liberals as elitist cr ybabies, you do nothing but anger them and make conversation more difficult. I am not saying that conser vatives stereotype liberals more than liberals stereotype conser vatives. I only say that you should practice what you preach.

If you truly believe that Americans must solve the multitudinous issues the United States of America faces through calm discussion and debate instead of superficial and stereotypical accusations, then you must show leadership. Stand up for reason! Stop the stereotyping! Stop being hypocrites. Conser vatives can and should value reasonable debate over spamming buzzwords. We must take the high ground and lead by example. If we don’t, then maybe the liberals will take it back when they reorganize.

Sincerely, Jeffer y Qiao

BERKLEY PROTESTERS RIOT AGAINST GAY, JEWISH IMMIGRANT On the evening of Wednesday Februar y 1st, UC Berkeley went into lockdown amid a violent riot. The riots were sparked by dissident protestors who were attempting to stifle free speech on Berkeley’s campus by preventing Milo Yiannopoulos, a homosexual activist and editor for Breitbart, from speaking. Nearly 1,500 students came out to protest against free speech, non-conforming homosexuals, and a conser vative voice in political dialogue. The protests turned violent when several hundred masked rebels from a militant anarchist hate group called “Black Bloc” infiltrated the demonstrations, inciting many students to adopt more radical tactics than merely sign-holding.

According to UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennett, “This was a group of agitators who were masked up, throwing rocks, commercial grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails at officers.” It is still unclear whether or not the student protestors, who held signs that read “This is war”, recruited members of Black Bloc to come to the protests to escalate the situation, or if any of the members had been hired to attack the two members of Berkeley College Republicans who were assaulted that night. One Berkeley student, wearing a red hat that said “Make Bitcoin Great Again”, was pepper-sprayed to the ground by a protestor, but was saved from being further assaulted by bystanders. With several students injured, Chief Bennett determined that the police could not guarantee safety and to cancel the event–as they were unwilling to arrest any of the rioters.

As police began ordering the protestors to disperse, fires erupted and chaos struck. News organizations covering the event described the scene as “a war zone” and an “utter breakdown of order. Many of these student marauders apparently opposed to small businesses and literature, destroyed a construction site of a new dorm, set fire to a campus bookstore, and smashed the storefronts of local banks. None of the banks commented on how they felt about their buildings being attacked by students to whom they were loaning hundreds of thousands of dollars for their educations.

After evacuating the premises, Yiannopoulos criticized the students by posting on Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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

The Dartmouth Review

Thursday – February 9, 2017

William Bednarz

that they are “absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down.”

President Trump rushed to support Yiannopoulos, tweeting later that night: “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Yiannopoulos has a tendency to exfoliate the true nature of the students on each campus he visits. Berkeley’s treatment of Yiannopoulos clearly reflects the narrow mentality of coddled students, while Dartmouth’s respect for Yiannopoulos¬, even those who were opposed to his ideas, displayed the class and composure that separates Dartmouth students from those in the UCs.

Devon M. Kurtz Brandon Teixeira

CARTOON

A SNOW SCULPTURE RISES FROM THE FLURRIES Here at Dartmouth, traditions are ingrained in our muscles and our brain. As the alma mater says, “Dear old Dartmouth, set a watch, Lest the old traditions fail;” it is our duty as students to keep these traditions going strong, to remember those who came before us, the ones of “old, undying faith,” and those still to come. Traditions are an integral part of the Dartmouth culture, yet this year, the C ollege has once again decided to neglect the Winter Carnival snow sculpture, a tradition dating back to the late 1920’s, citing warm winters with a lack of snowfall, decreasing student participation, and an absence of student leadership. It is concerning how much disdain the College shows to one of its longest standing traditions, one which brought home the Guinness World Record for “ Tallest Snowman” in 1987, and fostered the creation of the famous 2004 Cat in the Hat Sculpture, made in honor of esteemed alumnus Dr. Seuss’s 100 th birthday. The College, in defiance of its own alma mater, has again found itself at odds with both student and alumni.

This year, students began to complain, asking how the school they love so much could take away something that fosters such great school spirit and alumni participation. Even my fellow 20’s, most of whom had never seen the snow sculpture and were looking for ward to building their first, were in disbelief that something that they had looked for ward to since they decided to attend was now gone. However, after the announcement of the decision to end the snow sculpture, about 20 courageous students stepped up and decided to spearhead the 2017 incarnation because they were not going to let an old and storied tradition go down without a fight. Students brought the decision to the attention of concerned alumni – “The loyal ones who love her” – and the much-advertised alumni network swung into full force, providing funding and assistance in bringing back the tradition they loved so much.

Before long, local community members got involved and the campaign to bring back the sculpture was back in full force due to the outstanding support against the college’s actions. The group had solved two of the college’s main problems: lack of student participation and an insufficient leadership for the sculpture. However, the lack of snowfall was still an issue, until the group decided to ship in snow from Campion, a local ice skating rink, so that they could build the sculpture. All three of the problems have been solved and the snow sculpture is now back on the agenda for Winter Carnival 2017. If the College continues to cancel more traditions or defy the alma mater, we at The Review are confident that the sons and daughters of old Dartmouth, “Though ‘round the girdled Earth they roam,” will keep the College’s long-standing traditions going strong into the future.

5

“I just wanted to play some ice hockey! Damn you, global warming!”

CARTOON

“So how much longer you think we’ll have Carnival?”

“Three, four years. Five, maybe, thanks to Trump.”

CARTOON

“Back in my day...”

“I’ve heard your story twenty times, Earl.”

6 Thursday – February 9, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Setting the Record Straight on Israel

FREEDOM The liberation of the Temple Mount at the conclusion of the Six-Day War. Israel has no right to exist — that seek to delegitimize Isra- “utterly irresponsible.”

Joshua L. Kauderer You also fail to acknowledge are anti-Semitic? I think not. el’s right to exist, supporters of Managing Editor Those who engage in this rhet- Israel are derided as racists un- the new form of anti-SemiEditor’s Note: This editorial is oric single out the world’s only der the guise of political cor- tism. You make the outrageous in response to a column in The Jewish State among all the na- rectness. And those supporters claim that anti-Semitism “was Dartmouth entitled “Israel is tions of the world and subject are most often Jewish students contained a long time ago,” as Not Above Reproach,” by Isaac it to mass-condemnation. Even and faculty. if it is a relic of the past. You Green ’17.

You also write that “Kauder- could not be more mistaken.

Israel’s Arab neighbors, whose citizens’ “lives are at risk from er suggests that Jewish people You make this claim as news I would like to set the record extremism, violence and big- are the religious group that outlets from The Telegraph straight regarding the many otry,” are not targeted with the most needs defending in to- to The Jewish Daily Forward unfair criticisms that “Israel same hostility or persistence as day’s society,” and that “Kau- to Breitbart report that Jews is Not Above Reproach” made the State of Israel. derer seem[s] to feel no obli- are leaving Europe in record about my own article.

You start your article by gation to ensure that the oft numbers. You make this claim You pointed out that that making broad assertions repeated motto “Never Again” as traditional anti-Semitism I did not mention Muslims about my op-ed, including is extended to all those whose has risen to record levels in in my article, even though it that I argue that “criticism of lives are at risk from extrem- the U.K. and France, and is was published on the day that Israel amounts to anti-Sem- ism, violence and bigotry.” steadily on the rise in the President Trump announced itism.” Not once did I make Why should combating bigot- United States. Alongside this his Executive Order targeting “My point is not that all critics of Israel’s policies are anti-Semrefugees from seven predomites. To the contrary. I feel strongly that anyone should feel free inantly Muslim nations. As a former staff member of The to express their views about Israel’s policies—both opponents Dartmouth, you clearly know and supporters. But on many college campuses today, supthat my op-ed went to print well before that announceporters of Israel do not feel free to express their views. In ment was made. But in any many cases, their classmates and administrations overtly case I ask, why is it “utterly silence them.” irresponsible” to write about the plight of the world’s Jews, a plight that is unmatched in this claim. My point is not that ry, whether it be anti-Semitism overt anti-Semitism, an equalhuman history? Is it “utterly all critics of Israel’s policies or racism, be a zero-sum game? ly dangerous form thrives on irresponsible” to believe that are anti-Semites. To the con- We can and should combat an- college campuses. It seeks to history can repeat itself, as it trary. I feel strongly that any- ti-Semitism while remaining attack the world’s Jews by deoften does, in arguing that we one should feel free to express vigilant against other forms of nying that a Jewish State has must be ever-vigilant in the their views about Israel’s poli- bigotry. Current ideas about the right to exist, and singles fight against anti-Semitism in cies—both opponents and sup- political correctness make it that state out among all the naour time? Let me ask you, Mr. porters. But on many college acceptable to be anti-Semitic. tions of the world. When the Green: is it “utterly irrespon- campuses today, supporters of Your argument seeks to trivi- United Nations condemns the sible” to argue that those who Israel do not feel free to ex- alize the rising levels of overt State of Israel while ignoring engage in anti-Zionist rhetoric press their views. In many cas- anti-Semitism in Europe and the atrocities committed by — and believe that the State of es, their classmates and admin- the United States and that is other nations, that is the new istrations overtly silence them. incredibly dangerous. History anti-Semitism. When academMr. Kauderer is a sophomore at the While opponents of Israel can often repeats itself, and your ics on college campuses focus College and a Managing Editor at freely make unsubstantiated casual dismissal of this rising on the State of Israel for alThe Dartmouth Review. and often outlandish claims anti-Semitism is what is truly leged human rights violations

while conveniently ignoring the violations of its neighbors and other nations around the world, that is the new anti-Semitism. And when supporters of Israel are silenced in the name of political correctness, the new anti-Semitism gains a legitimacy it should not have. You speak of “Never Again.” Standing idly by as a new anti-Semitism creeps toward legitimacy is the ultimate violation of that doctrine.

Lastly, your claim that people like me with the gall to publicize anti-Semitism are “pouring the majority of our resources into squashing the last embers of a fire” continues your article’s trend of trivializing it. You seem to think that anti-Semitism is no longer real, and that the world’s Jews are under no threat. Again, you are very mistaken. I will continue to be vigilant in combating anti-Semitism — in both its subtle and overt forms — because, in the words of Maajid Nawaz, the chairman of the U.K. think tank Quilliam, “No surer sign of rising fascism have we had in our history than the scapegoating of our Jewish communities. Alarm bells should be sounding, and yet they are not.”

I will never forget the Holocaust that led to the systematic execution of six million of my fellow Jews. For that reason, I will do my utmost to prevent American Jews from spreading falsehoods that endanger their brethren around the wor ld.

The Dartmouth Review

Thursday – February 9, 2017

FEATURES

Students Protest Immigration Order The Dartmouth Review Staff A multitude of people poured onto the Dartmouth Green mid-day Saturday after Al Nur, the Muslim Student Association at Dartmouth College, emailed out about the event.

The protesters, including students, faculty, and community members, carried signs and chanted while marching through downtown Hanover by way of Main Street. They were protesting many things, although their foremost concern was President Trump’s recent executive order temporarily halting immigration from certain countries. Some of the chants included: “No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here,” and, “Hey hey, ho ho, the Muslim ban has got to go.”

Notable signs read: “Immigrants are America,” “No ban / No wall / All are welcome,” “Welcome Refugees (Ban Trump!),” and “Immigrants get the job done.”

Some protesters wore pink

knitted hats intended to symbolize female genitalia, a throwback to the recent Women’s March. In addition to the religious Muslims who took part, a number of non-Muslims donned hijabs and traditional head wear from Muslim majority countries.

After about an hour of marching, the protesters made their way back to the Dartmouth Green. Protesters concluded the demonstration by forming a circle, holding hands, and singing This Land is Your Land, although many appeared to be ignorant of the lyrics.

NIGEL FARAGE READS THE REVIEW, BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW, THE DARTMOUTH IS PRETTY MUCH A NON-NEWSPAPER.

7

8 Thursday – February 9, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

WINTER CARNIVAL (left) Suzanne Horney 1960 Queen of the Snows (right) A microagression in action.

Rauner Special Collections

The Mardi Gras of the North Emily Esfahani-Smith Editor-in-Chief Emerita

Editor’s Note: The following story was first published in The Review’s 2009 Winter Carnival Issue Ninety-nine years ago, Dartmouth Outing Club president Fred Harris ‘11 devised a celebration of winter sports, and invited students from nearby colleges to compete against the unbeatable Dartmouth skiers. Officially named Winter Carnival the following year, the annual event evolved into a legendary festival once dubbed “the Mardi Gras of the North” by National Geographic magazine.

Before long, Winter Carnival became a favorite social weekend for college students from other schools.

Today, the athletic dimension of the Carnival remains, as well as the shadow of campus parties.

In the Beginning In 1910, skiing had not yet emerged as a common form of winter recreation. At Dartmouth, Fred Harris ’11 and his friend A.T. Cobb ’12 were among the few students who participated in the sport. Harris, as president of the newly-formed Dartmouth Outing Club, had an interest in promoting skiing and winter sports, so he undertook the organization of a weekend devoted to those activities.

Harris wrote a letter to the Daily Dartmouth outlining his proposal to Dartmouth’s community. Shortly thereafter, the newspaper published an editorial calling for an event that could act as the “culmination of the season.” The weekend, read the editorial, “would undoubtedly be a feature of College activity which from its novelty alone, if for no other reason, would prove attractive. It is not impossible that Dartmouth, in initiating this movement, is setting an example that will later find Ms. Smith is a graduate of the class of 2009 at the College and Editor-in-Chief Emerita of The Dartmouth Review.

devotees among other New England and northern colleges.”

The initial “field day” proved to be a huge success, popular with students, faculty, and local townspeople. The events of the first weekend included ski races, ski jumping and snowshoe races.

Harris was a hands-down favorite to sweep the events, but a knee injury sustained during practice— coupled with the distraction of a fire in South Fayerweather Hall, Harris’ dormitory—detracted from his performance. Cobb emerged victorious in every skiing event.

Encouraged by the popularity of the winter sports weekend, students began to lay out plans for the first Winter Carnival in 1911. Such an event, they reasoned, would benefit from a female presence. Said the Daily Dartmouth: “It is up to every man with a purse or a heart, or with a bit of enthusiasm for a good time when it heaves in sight, to make haste to procure that most necessary item.” Dartmouth students heeded the advice, and the first band of Winter Carnival dates consisted of fifty visitors from Smith, Mount Holyoke, Wellesley, and other nearby colleges. A 1939 Winter Carnival article blasted, “Hanover is set back on its collective heels as girls, girls, girls pour in.”

The new social aspect of the weekend, which consisted of a dance and some theater, was welcomed by all involved ,but athletics remained paramount in the celebration. Once again, Harris and Cobb dominated the events, with the latter retaining most of the crowns won the previous year. The ski jump was the biggest thrill for many spectators, who had never seen or experienced such a thing.

The Outing Club Ball, which followed the sporting events, signaled that the weekend was more than a field day. For Dartmouth students, Winter Carnival became an instant tradition. “The Winter Carnival of the Outing Club won a deserved success, and will undoubtedly remain a permanent feature of Hanover winter life,” wrote

the Daily D , “This is how it should be. Winter is the characteristic Hanover season, winter weather is Hanover’s finest weather, and winter sports should be, and are coming to be, the characteristic sports of the Dartmouth undergraduate.”

The Legend Grows

Before long, the Dartmouth Winter Carnival developed into the most celebrated college weekend in the nation. In 1919, National Geographic devoted a feature article to the “Mardi Gras of the North.” The number of activities increased, as did the number of visitors to Hanover. Dances held by Dartmouth fraternities became a highlight of the weekend—which, of course, required a significant number of female guests. Trains would make their way north from New York and Boston, making stops at Northampton, Springfield, Holyoke, and Greenfield to pick up female passengers on their way to White River Junction, where expectant Dartmouth men would greet them with cheers of jubilee.

The scenario is singularly detailed in the film Winter Carnival, a fictional account of the 1939 celebration. The storyline follows the somewhat corny romance between a Dartmouth professor and his old flame, a divorced duchess who had held the crown of Winter Carnival Queen in her younger days. Among the amusing subplots is a situation at the campus daily, where the incoming editor decides to change the paper to a tabloid called the Dartmouth Graphic. Its headline: “Smooth Babes Invade Campus.” An entertaining look at Winter Carnivals of old, the movie shows not only students meeting their dates at the train station, but also footage of athletic events and black-tie dances at fraternities.

Winter Carnival’s producer, Walter Wanger ’15, enlisted Budd Schulberg ’36 and author F. Scott Fitzgerald to write the screenplay.

When the duo journeyed to Hanover to prepare the story,

Fitzgerald drank so much at the fraternities that he had to withdraw from the project. Despite Fitzgerald’s absence, the story perhaps shows a bit of his influence; at the blacktie fraternity dance, the dejected college professor drowns his sorrows in double scotches. Winter Carnival was named “one of the five objectionable pictures of 1939” by the Catholic Legion of Decency—a distinction shared by Gone With the Wind and Of Human Bondage; it’s a must-see for every Dartmouth student.

All Hail the Queen One tradition that emerged fairly early in Carnival history is the crowning of the Winter Carnival Queen. The tradition, possibly, was inevitable, since a highlight of Winter Carnival was the presence of women on the normally all-male campus. Said one former president of the Dartmouth Outing Club, “Dartmouth likes lots of company over Carnival weekend, especially if it is cute and wears skirts.”

The tradition of the Winter Carnival Queen began in 1923, when the young Mary Warren was honored and adorned in garb from the Russian Royal Court. The criteria for Carnival Queen were changed in 1928 so that the Queen would be selected in line with the Carnival’s outdoor theme. The editors of the Daily Dartmouth encouraged the choice of “the most charming girl in winter sports costume for the Queen of Snows.”

The competition for the title of Winter Carnival Queen continued for forty-nine years until, in 1973, the Carnival Committee decided to eliminate the tradition. Said George Ritcheske, the committee chairman, “Prevailing attitudes indicate that contests which stress beauty as their primary or only criterion no longer have the widespread popularity they once enjoyed.”

Changing Traditions In 1939 a 37-foot snow statue of

Eleazar Wheelock “toasted visitors with a fifteen gallon mug.” Visitors to Dartmouth will appear again this year for Winter Carnival, but they won’t be regarded as the saviors of the social scene, as they once were.

Dormitories, surely, are no longer vacated to make room for trainloads of female guests. Nor is the Hanover Inn cleared out and turned into a women’s residence. Today, because of increased College oversight of the fraternities and sororities, much of Dartmouth’s past hospitality is no longer possible, and visitors are regularly turned away.

In 1998, Carnival turned ugly.

In the wake of President Wright’s and the Trustees’ first salvo against the Greek system with the announcement of the Student Life Initiative, the Co-ed, Fraternity, and Sorority Council cancelled all Carnival celebrations. “I haven’t been invited to many fraternity parties this weekend,” President Wright announced at the opening ceremonies, “but I still plan on having a good time.” Students booed Wright and the next day held a rally at Psi Upsilon fraternity.

“President Wright’s announcement on Wednesday embodies how not to run a ollege,” said Psi U president Teddy Rice. “This cannot be over.

And if it is, then I’m going to go down fighting.”

Recent years’ debates over Dartmouth’s community life have found less proactive, and more litigious, expression. Traditions like the Psi U keg jump have been shut down and their return seems unlikely as the middling regulations that govern student life grow stricter every year. “There was nothing like it almost anywhere,” Budd Schulberg told the New York Times two years ago. “There was a sexual revolution going on. And for the girls—as we called them then—it was a big honor to be invited. There was enormous excitement in the air.

It was romantic, really, in an oldfashioned sense. It’s still what you’d call a party, but it’s nothing like it was back then.”

Several years ago, Dartmouth suffered the clumsiness of a Carnival Committee that, after choosing Calvin and Hobbes as the Carnival’s mascots, insisted that an alternative theme be chosen—despite the comic’s author insistence use of “Calvin and Hobbes” was okay. The committee eventually settled upon some hybrid that left the student body scratching its collective head.

Then came the snow sculpture, both sad and small in comparison to its ancestors, and a fate that seems to be upon us once more in 2009. Though no one can be held responsible for the lack of snow that has led to smaller sculptures constructed out of imported and purchased snow, it nonetheless leaves a gaping hole in the Dartmouth experience for those current generations of Dartmouth students who have yet to witness the spectacular works that once marked this holiday.

Though Carnival is not what it once was—and what is these days?— students this year will again reclaim College traditions and hark back to the days of old. Carnival remains a celebration of the outdoors, of life, and of Dartmouth.

The Dartmouth Review

Thursday – February 9, 2017

FEATURES

A Retrospective on Winter Revelry

Photographs courtesy of Rauner Special Collections Library.

9

10 Thursday – February 9, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Call Me Bill

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. having a good time.

James S. Panero

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Editors Note: The following was written by former Editor-in-Chief James Panero ‘98, and was originally published in The National Review. It is being reprinted with the permission of the author.

The winter after my senior year in college, Bill Buckley invited me to Gstaad, Switzerland, to help him on a novel called Spytime: The Undoing of James Jesus Angleton. Our program there followed much of what he

lated into an internship at NR, then an editorial job. But I had really met him only a handful of times when he called me into his office and asked me if I liked to ski. I said, “Yes, Mr. Buckley, I do.”

He put his hand on my shoulder and said, “Call me Bill.”

The invitation to Switzerland came the next day.

“There is never a good time for a busy man to take a vacation,” Bill once said.

“And since there is never a good time, he might as well take it whenever he wants.”

But Bill never vacationed,

“Being so close to Bill could be like staring at the center of the sun. It certainly caused me to reevaluate the writer I wanted to be.” had been doing each year.

For a little over a month, he and his wife Pat and a small staff took over a chalet in the ski area, in a village called Rougemont. Somewhere in Switzerland, Bill had stored a crate of old dictionaries, videocassettes of Brideshead Revisited, abstract paintings, and leopard-print throws. In the days before his arrival, the staff used these items to convert the chalet into another Buckley office and home.

And each year, Bill brought along a young college graduate to be his writing assistant.

He put us up in an inn just down the hill.

I first got to know Bill, a bit, as the undergraduate editor of The Dartmouth Review. Jeffrey Hart showed him a piece I had written — I think it was a review of the movie Kids — and Bill wrote back approvingly. That transMr. Panero ‘98 is the Executive Editor of The New Criterion and a former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.

even on vacation. He never took weekends off, most likely because his greatest fear was boredom.

So Bill gave himself the assignment of writing a book each year during his stay in Gstaad. The winter I was there, it wasn’t one of his Blackford Oakes novels, but it was a Cold War thriller.

The book was a fictionalized first-person story as told by James Angleton, the real-life head of U.S. counterintelligence. Angleton’s archenemy, in our book as in real life, was Kim Philby, the famous double agent from the British secret service. Philby had been recruited by the Communists as one of the Cambridge Five and defected in 1963 to the Soviet Union, where he was awarded the Order of Lenin.

For Angleton, Philby was the spy who got away, and our novel hinted that it drove Angleton insane.

So in Gstaad, while everyone else went on holiday, we made a novel. Bill woke up at

4:30 every morning. I drove up to the chalet, overlooking the mountain face of the Videmanette, at 7:30. Bill always lent his four-wheeldrive Peugeot to his young assistants. He handed me the keys our first day at the top of the hill and gave me a quiz about the route to get his morning newspaper. I didn’t want to admit I couldn’t drive stick. So I learned on the road from my hotel to the chalet, and promptly burned out the clutch.

We worked for several hours together every morning, our desks catty-corner to each other. The Goldberg Variations — the Glenn Gould recordings — played in the background as Bill typed. If Bill wanted to set a scene in Beirut in the 1960s, he’d ask me to come up with the details. Then we went to lunch in one of the hamlets dotting the resort, or in the private restaurant atop the Wasserngrat called the Eagle Club. Here we’d discuss what should happen next in the plot. How about we hide a gun in the camera? Let’s kill off so-and-so. He had very little sense of where his book would go. Then we would ski for a few hours. Then we would return for the afternoon session.

Buckley had it in him to write 1,500 words a day —

were all wrong. I helped fix those in the afternoon sessions. Then at 7 p.m., Julian, his cook, brought in a kir — white wine with a drop of crème de cassis — for each of us. We’d pull out the Dutch cigars and discuss the day’s progress.

Things moved quickly into evening. The Buckleys almost always included me in their entertaining, which was Pat’s full-time job in Gstaad (she didn’t ski): Where should we seat the princess of Denmark, the actor Roger Moore, the pretender to the throne of Greece, the would-be czar of Russia, and, Julian, do we have enough fois de canard for everyone? “James,” Bill would say, “you sit here next to me.” As every young person learned around Bill, he always wanted to hear your opinion, even if you didn’t have one. To close out the night, he would have me sing standards while he accompanied me on the piano. This promptly cleared out the house. He liked to be in bed by 10. We repeated it all the next day.

The time I had with him

a week by a tutor named Penelope Oyen. Buckley tells us that “Miss Oyen loved music with a passion. The use of that word here is not platitudinous. Because Penelope Oyen would weep when listening to music. Not always; not for every composer; but almost always for J. S. Bach. . . . I believed her when she said that music is very serious business. As poetry is very serious business. As art of any sort is very, very serious business: that which is sublime can’t be anything less.” Certainly, this sense for the sublime connected with his faith in God. His greatest regret, he said late in life, was that he wasn’t better at prayer.

This passage reminded me of what it felt like to be there in Gstaad. Bill was never a master at the piano, but he was a great virtuoso. In Switzerland, like a sort of music appreciation, Bill was giving out Buckley appreciation.

Bill found music in words.

He played them into his writing, channeled Bach through the computer keyboard. He was probably second only

was a fairy tale, of course, but it was also an intense experience. I imagine it was something similar for all the young people he brought in over the years, a list that runs from Neal B. Freeman and Linda Bridges and Paul Gigot to Peter Robinson and Lawrence Perelman and Danilo Petranovich — and to more than one or two apostates. Being so close to Bill could be like staring at the center of the sun. It certainly caused me to reevaluate the writer I wanted to be. After Gstaad, I ended up enrolling in an art-history graduate program before moving on to my current job at The New Criterion. Bill and I kept up with overnight sails across Long Island Sound. He also asked me to write to him often and was encouraging in whatever turn my life was taking.

In Miles Gone By, his most personal collection of essays, Bill devotes more than one

to Shakespeare in bringing words into circulation. “Why do you want to be a party to diminishing the choices that you have, when you’re dealing with a language which you worship for its beauty?” he once said. This virtuosity combined with his great vocal presence. Willmoore Kendall once said that Buckley could do as much with his voice as Laurence Olivier.

I am still amazed how much he shared these gifts with someone who was an entry-level editor, and how much he believed in my help.

Even when we were together in Gstaad, and emphysema was starting to take its toll on him, his talents were dazzling. “A sort of personal ebulliency sustains me,” he once said in an interview.

David Brooks said that “for all of Buckley’s contributions to conservative ideas, his most striking contribution is to the conservative personality. He made being conservative attractive and even glamorous.”

Bill Buckley’s unabashed life performance was his answer to the fallen century he had been born into, which he was determined to stand athwart. At the heart of this conservatism was this great generosity, to convey his brilliance through example, to reach across generations, and to have us close enough to listen in.

“So in Gstaad, while everyone else went on holiday, we made a novel. Bill woke up at 4:30 every morning.”

“Bill Buckley’s unabashed life performance was his answer to the fallen century he had been born into, which he was determined to stand athwart. At the heart of this conservatism was this great generosity...” after a month, you have a novel. But those 1,500 words needed a second pair of eyes, and that’s where I came in.

In his first drafts, character names changed. Dates

chapter to his childhood music instruction. In addition to weekly piano tutorials, the Buckley children were exposed to an hour of phonograph listening four times

The Dartmouth Review

Thursday – February 9, 2017 11

FEATURES

The Glory Days: Carnival at Its Best Jeffrey Hart

Dartmouth Review Trustee Professor of English Emeritus Editor’s Note: The following story was first published in The Review’s 2009 Winter Carnival Issue.

Dr. Hart is professor emeritus of English at the College and author of The Making of the American Conservative Mind.

In the summer of 1947 I had just finished my first year at Dartmouth, and most of the girls I knew were members of the West Side Tennis Club in Forest Hills. One afternoon, I saw a girl approaching across the porch of the club. She would soon become known as the ace prom trotter around the Ivy League, her goal to get invited to every Big Weekend she possibly could. I call her an “ace” because in her own limited field of action she could be compared to Baron Manfred Von Richtofen, the “Red Baron” who, in his red Fokker tri-plane, would shoot down eighty six enemy planes on the Western Front.

For each kill he had a small silver cup made with the date and place of the kill engraved on it. He was a hunter of planes. Without much small talk this weekend hunter got right to the point: “You are going to invite me to the Dartmouth Winter Carnival this year, aren’t you, Jeffrey.”

I certainly wasn’t, so I banked my plane sharply to the left, pushed the stick forward and dove out of the way: “Terribly sorry. I’ve already invited someone else.”

The following February I saw her at the Winter Carnival anyway with a Dartmouth man I didn’t know. Another silver cup joined her collection. My Class of 1951, entering in 1946, was the first class after the war to come directly from secondary schools, and a large proportion of the undergraduate body consisted of veterans. During my sophomore year I lived on the fourth floor of Wheeler Hall, along with a number of veterans.

One had a small bag full of Japanese gold teeth. Years later a Marine who had fought in the Pacific told me the teeth were extracted by a rifle butt, the Japanese soldier presumably dead. Another veteran in Wheeler still had his service revolver and liked to shoot beer cans off a waste basket when he was drunk.

The College then had strict parietal rules: when a woman was in the room, the door had to be open one foot. No women after eight pm.

With so many veterans in the dorms enforcement was almost impossible, even dangerous. There was a campus cop whose Dickensian name actually was Wormwood. Wearing sneakers, he crept around the dorms trying to catch a woman in someone’s room.

One night in Wheeler some veterans were waiting for him at the top of the stairwell, ready with the fire hose.

When Wormwood reached the third floor they washed him back down Dr. Hart is professor emeritus of English at the College and author of The Making of the American Conservative Mind.

the stairs with a cataract of water.

The Dartmouth Winter Carnival was probably the most famous Big Weekend in the Ivy League. The ice sculptures in front of the dorms and the fraternities were often brilliantly done. The Outdoor Evening in the football stadium featured expert ice skating performances, a band concert, and the presentation of the Carnival Queen, her selection mostly a matter of fraternity politics. A name band performed for the Saturday night dance. My father had been in the Dartmouth Class of 1921 and I still have a dance card he had for the Carnival dance, small green leatherbound facing pages with numbered dances and women’s names written in for each.

In 1947 there must have been

convexity of breasts. Their knobby knees are topped by frilled garters.

A Theta Delt is strumming “Bye Bye Blackbird” on his ukulele for a covey of shebas sitting on the library steps.

They sit with legs apart, displaying the V-shaped pattern of their lace panties with provocative unconcern.

Then of course came the Game: There is not a vacant seat in the furlined stadium. The saxophones of the band are muted. It is that hushed moment before the two teams surge onto the empty field and the rival captains walk toward each other for the coin-toss. Any hushed moment, however, is apt to be shattered by the crash of a hip flask inadvertently dropped on the concrete. That was during “Prohibition,” booze outlawed.

Sure. Off the New Jersey shore ships

Fitzgerald’s epic bender began as they polished off the champagne on the trip.

They stayed at the old Hanover Inn, still the Hanover Inn when I was in college, and Fitzgerald first got drunk at the C and G house across the street. Things went downhill from there.

When I returned to teach at Dartmouth in the fall of 1963, Henry Williams was a professor in the English Department and remembered Fitzgerald in 1939 at a reception for him in the lounge of the Inn. He told me that Fitzgerald swayed on his feet as if uncertain of his balance. Also that no other member of the English Department showed up at the reception. He didn’t explain this, but I inferred

“ My father had been in the Dartmouth Class of 1921 and I still have a dance card he had for the Carnival dance, small green leather-bound facing pages with numbered dances and women’s names written in for each. ” downhill ski races somewhere. The Dartmouth Skiway did not exist then.

But the ski jumping competition was a major event on Sunday afternoon.

On Sunday morning there were milk punch parties, good for a bad hangover, and in the afternoon a big crowd turned out to watch the ski jumping at the large jump on the golf course. The ski jumping event has now been dropped, because insurance is so expensive. Also, there were a few famous accidents when drunks tried to go off the jump in baby carriages.

The presence of so many veterans after the war made Dartmouth a very different place, more serious, less distinctively “collegiate,” than it had been during the 1930s, let alone the 1920s. Many of the veterans were married and lived in houses north of the campus. There were said to be Marxist study groups there, even as the Cold War got sub-zero colder.

But nevertheless and somewhat contradictorily the 1950s began to have something in common with the 1920s, and not surprisingly the great revival of interest in F. Scott Fitzgerald and the 1920s began to happen. I first read Fitzgerald’s This Side of Paradise on the train going from White River Junction to New York. The college atmosphere of the 1920s is beautifully evoked by Francis Russell’s great essay, “Sheiks and Shebas Dance No More: The World of John Held Junior.”

It is always the autumn of 1926, the last Saturday in September or the first in October, the ivy leaves on the stadium wall crisping to scarlet, the sun still warm, the lucent air all blue and gold. . . . Over that pied and milling campus the sunshine is almost tangible. The sheiks wear Fair Isle sweaters of gaudy intricacy, checkered plus-eights with tasseled socks, or grey flannels so bellbottomed that they completely cover the saddle-strapped shoes.

Most of the sheiks are hatless and their hair, parted in the middle, is lacquered with Slickum or Staycomb to a mirror-like stiffness. The shebas have close-cropped shingled hair.

Beneath their sweaters or sheath dresses there is only the vaguest

full of booze anchored outside the three-mile limit while speedboats full of booze beat the coast-guard boats to the beach as thousands stood watching and cheered. College Humor, a popular magazine of the time, summed it up wittily, “College bred. A four year loaf.” It was not especially difficult to get into a Ivy League college during the 1920s and 1930s. Yale admitted about one third of those who applied. And there was always the “Gentleman C.” All of that changed after the war. The veterans were on the GI Bill, had been delayed by the war, and wanted to get on with their careers. Most college students now did not come from wealthy families, planned on serious careers, many wanted to go on to postgraduate work, and a gentleman’s C was not good enough.

The 1939 movie “Winter Carnival” attests to the persisting glamorous reputation of this event at the end of the 1930s. I can’t think of another college weekend that would have a similar appeal. Walter Wanger, a Dartmouth graduate, was a producer at MGM and conceived of this movie, with an improbable plot but still of interest as a period piece. Ann Sheridan plays a woman recently divorced from a count who has returned to Dartmouth where she had been a Carnival Queen. Her younger sister is vying for the title now. Now the woman picks up with a former boyfriend, who has become a stereotypically stodgy Dartmouth professor.

In 1939 F. Scott Fitzgerald was an MGM screenwriter in Hollywood.

Once a famous novelist and shortstory writer, Fitzgerald was now struggling to recover from alcoholism and debt, and prosper in a new career. Wanger had the bright idea of sending Fitzgerald along with Budd Schulberg, a Dartmouth graduate and former editor of The Dartmouth , back to Hanover to witness a Carnival firsthand, get some color and maybe write some preliminary material. Schulberg’s father was important in the movie industry, and gave Budd a bottle of champagne for the plane trip back east. That’s where

that the rest of the Department saw Fitzgerald as little more than a washed up writer from the 1920s, a Saturday Evening Post short story hack. Well, this was the author of The Great Gatsby , an American classic, recently reissued with scholarly apparatus by the Cambridge University Press. I’ve thought about this Inn reception episode. Maybe the English Department in 1939 was pretty dismal. Maybe the stodgy Professor in the “Winter Carnival” movie possessed some truth. I spent two undergraduate years at Dartmouth, and one reason I left was that the English Department was undistinguished, even boring: I wasn’t learning much. I didn’t know that then-President John Dickey agreed and was trying energetically to improve the faculty across the board.

Not surprisingly, Fitzgerald and Schulberg produced nothing for the movie, and were dropped from the

project by Walter Wanger.

Fitzgerald was in such bad shape that he checked in at Doctors Hospital in New York before returning to Hollywood. About a year later, living with his last love Sheilah Graham, he died of a heart attack at age forty on December 21, 1940 while listening to Beethoven’s Eroica symphony on a phonograph and reading the Princeton alumni magazine. Incidentally, “Sheilah Graham” was a female Jay Gatsby.

Born in England of Jewish parents, her name was Lilly Sheil. She moved to America and became a successful Hollywood gossip columnist named Sheilah Graham, which sounded English (Cf. “Gatsby’). Her memoir about Scott, Beloved Infidel, is worth reading.

In the mid 1960s Budd Schulberg visited Hanover and I had a chance to talk with him at a small dinner party.

I asked him what Fitzgerald would be like if he were here with us tonight.

Schulberg replied that except when drunk he was gracious, even courtly, and slightly Southern—though he had been born in St. Paul. When drunk he could be nasty. I also asked Schulberg about Hemingway. Also polite except when drunk. Then he might punch you in the face if you disagreed with him.

Note: When Hemingway was living at his Finca Vigia in Cuba several Brooklyn Dodger players visited him. They admired him. He got in an argument with a young pitcher, who was about 6’ 2” and weighed more than 200 pounds.

Hemingway punched the pitcher, who then knocked him across the room and over the bar, smashing a lot of glass. Hemingway’s fourth wife Mary was not amused. Fitzgerald had once been in awe of the boastful Hemingway, and thought Hem could beat the heavyweight champion, Jack Dempsey. Good thing he never tried.

CARNIVAL COMEDY A sheik and his sheba

Rauner Archives

12 Thursday – February 9, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

F. Scott Fitzgerald Visits Hanover > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 to Schulberg, which is drawn from several accounts and rendered using a combination of quotation and paraphrasing. His is the controlling view, since he stuck by Fitzgerald more closely than anyone else during their brief excursion.

Schulberg was something of a Hollywood prince, the son of a movie mogul who had known only Hollywood, Deerfield Academy, and Dartmouth by the time he had reached his twenty-fourth year. He had graduated from Dartmouth three years before and was working for David O. Selznick, a family friend and the legendary producer who made “Gone with the Wind.”

This would have led to a career in production, like his father’s, but Schulberg aspired to write. After extricating himself from Selznick, he received a call from the producer Walter Wanger ‘15 who proposed making a picture about Dartmouth’s Winter Carnival.

“I always thought of Hollywood like a principality of its own,” Schulberg reelected years later, “It was like a sort of a Luxembourg, or something like that, or Liechtenstein. And the people who ran it really had that attitude. They weren’t only running a studio, they were running a whole little world... They could cover up murder... You could liter-ally have somebody killed, and it wouldn’t be in the papers.

“It was not something on my own I would sit down and be fascinated by, the Winter Carnival movie,” Schulberg recalled, “But it was good money; it was 250 bucks a week, a lot of money—there’s no denying it. I’d been married young.

Also it was about my own place, my own college.”

Schulberg later described the Carnival as “jumping off point in time for the ski craze that was eventually to sweep America from Maine to California. But somehow in the 20’s, it had gotten all mixed up with the election of a Carnival Queen. And by the time I was an undergraduate, I mean a Dartmouth man, the Carnival had developed into a hyped-up beauty contest, winter fashion show and fancy dress ball, complete with an ‘Outdoor Evening’ ski-and-ice extravaganza that would have made Busby Berkeley green with envy.

“In 1929 the Carnival Queen was a fledgling movie star, Florence Rice, daughter of the illustrious Grantland... In 1937, the Dartmouth band led five thousand to Occom Pond in a torchlight parade to cheer the coronation of a gorgeous blonde with full red lips.

The Dartmouth ski team swooped down from the hills with flaming torches in tribute to their Queen of the Snow. Champion skaters twirled on the ice in front of her throne and sky rockets lit the winMr. Desai is a member of the Class of 2008 and a former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.

ter night. It had begun to look more like a snowbound Hollywood super-colossal starring Sonja Henie and a chorus of Goldwyn Girls than the homespun college event Fred Harris had fathered a quarter of a century before. One could hardly blame a movie tycoon-alumnus like Walter Wanger for wanting to bring it to the screen.

“Wanger was a very dapper man; he prided himself on being dapper in a Hollywood setting among gauche Holly-wood producers. Walter was Ivy League, and he played that role of the Ivy League producer. He had the right threads on for the Ivy League: he was Brooks Brothers. And he had books—real books!—in the bookcase behind him. The only thing that bothered me—well, a number of things bothered me about Walter—but the only detail that bothered me was that he had a large photo of Mussolini framed there on the wall, inscribed ‘To Walter, with the best wishes of his friend, Benito.’ By the end of the year that disappeared into the bathroom.”

Wanger told Schulberg that the script he’d written solo was “lousy,” (“I didn’t see War and Peace in Winter Carnival,” quipped Schulberg), and that he would need to bring in another writer. Schulberg said later that no matter how famous or accomplished a writer was in those days, he could be hired for a few days before being summarily fired. So he felt lucky merely to have hung on to the job and asked who his collaborator would be.

“It’s F. Scott Fitzgerald,” said Wanger.

“I looked at him; I honestly thought he was pulling my leg.”

Schulberg had seen Fitzgerald some years back downtown at the Biltmore Theatre as he came out of a play with Dorothy Parker and looking “ghostly white and frail and pail.” But that was some years back, and when Wanger said, ‘F. Scott Fitzgerald,’ I said, ‘Scott Fitzgerald—isn’t he dead?’ And Wanger made some crack like, ‘Well, I doubt that your script is that bad.’ He perhaps said, ‘Maybe bored him to death,’ or something like that. But Wanger said, ‘No, he’s in the next room, and he’s reading your script now.’” Schulberg went to meet him.

“My God, he’s so old,” he thought then. “His complexion,” he said later, “was manuscript white and, though there was still a light brown tint to his hair, the first impression he made on me was of a ghost—the ghost of the Great Novelist Past who had sprung to early fame with This Side of Paradise, capped his early promise at age 29 with what many critics hailed as the great American novel, The Great Gatsby, and then had taken nine years to write and publish the book most of the same critics condemned as ‘disappointing,’ Tender is the Night.”

Fitzgerald finished reading the forty-eight-odd pages of the “Winter Carnival” script and said, “Well,

it’s not very good,” to which Schulberg replied, “Oh, I know, I know, I know it’s not good.” They went to lunch at the Brown Derby.

Schulberg and Fitzgerald soon discovered that they knew “everybody in common; it was a small town... We talked about so many writers. We talked about the dilemma of the Eastern writer coming West and writing movies for a living, always with the dream of that one more chance, one more chance to go back and write that novel, write that play that wouldre-establish him—mostly him, a few hers—once again.” Schulberg told him how much he admired Gatsby, and how much it meant to him, along with the short stories and Tender is the Night.

“I’m really amazed that you know anything about me,” said Fitzgerald, “I’ve had the feeling that nobody in your generation would read me anymore. “I have a lot of friends that do.” (“That was only partly true,” he said later, “Most of my radical, communist-oriented peers looked on him as a relic.”)

“Last year my royalties were $13,” said Fitzgerald.

They discussed politics, literature, and gossip. “Scott was tuned into everything we talked about— everything except “Winter Carnival.” Everything. We went through those things, I think, all afternoon.

We decided to meet the next day at the studio at ten, and we did but we got talking about everything but “Winter Carnival”... and we tried we really tried. But “Winter Carnival” was the kind of movie that is very hard to get your mind on, especially when you have the excitement of so many other things that are really more interesting.”

It was, in other words, a pleasant time, though they were not doing the work for which they were being paid. “After about four or five days, it reminded me of sitting around a campus dormitory room in one of those bull sessions, talking about all the things we both shared and enjoyed.” An additional danger loomed: though they drew salaries, they had not signed contracts and could be fired at any time.

After a week, Wanger called them into his office to check on their progress. Having done hardly any work, they nevertheless managed not to let on that they had been ignoring the script. Wanger said that they’d better create a central storyline soon, since the entire crew was traveling to Hanover to shoot “backgrounds.” (“In those days, they would shoot the backgrounds based on what the scenes were and then in the studio have the actors behaving as if they were at the ski-lift, on the porch of the Inn, and so forth.”)

As to whether they should accompany the crew, Fitzgerald was resistant. “Well, Walter, I hadn’t planned to go to Dartmouth.

I’ve seen enough college parties, I think, to write a college movie without having to go to the Win-

ter Carnival.” His resistance was perhaps more understandable if you understand that flying in those days required a goodly chunk of time. “People today don’t realize what flying was. It was just one step away from the Santa Fe Chief. You got on, and you stopped for refueling several times, and it took about sixteen hours.”

To stay employed, Fitzgerald gave in. “While I felt sorry for Scott, I have to admit that I was looking for-ward to going back to Dartmouth with Scott Fitzgerald.”

Schulberg regarded his father, the head of Para-mount, as one of the more literary producers in town, and this trait made him proud that his son was working with such a figure as Fitzgerald. Therefore, the elder Schulberg brought them two bottles of champagne for the trip.

“As we got on the plane, we were still talking,” Schulberg recalled, “We were talking about Edmund Wilson, we were talking about communism, we were talking about the people we knew in common, like Upton Sinclair and Lincoln Steffens. All of this was going on and on. And it would have been great fun if we didn’t have this enormous monkey—more like a gorilla—of “Winter Carnival” on our backs. We got to sipping champagne through the next hour or so; it was very congenial. It was really fun, I thought, and then we cracked the second bottle of champagne. We went on merrily talking and drinking.

Every once in a while we would say, ‘You know, by the time we get to Manhattan we’d better have some kind of a line on this Winter Carnival.’ And we tried all kinds of things; we really did try. “In Manhattan, they stayed at the Warwick Hotel, where they worked for a bit on the story, to no real end. “Scott,” he said, “You’ve written a hundred short stories, and I’ve written a few: I mean between the two of us we should be able to knock out a damn outline for this story.”

“Yes, we will, we will. Don’t worry, pal. We will, we will,” said Fitzgerald. A few college friends called Schulberg, and it turned out they were staying only a few blocks away. “So I told Scott that I would go and see them; I’d be back in one hour. That was one of my mistakes.” When he returned to the room, he found an unpunctuated note that read, from Schulberg’s memory, “Pal you shouldn’t have left me pal because I got lonely pal and I went down to the bar pal and I came up and looked for you pal and now I’m back down at the bar and I’ll be waiting for you pal.” Schulberg found Fitzgerald in a hotel bar a few blocks away and saw that he was in bad shape, not having eaten anything. Nevertheless, they continued to drink and work on the script back in their room in preparation for the nine a.m. meeting with Wanger at the Waldorf Astoria in the morning.

Despite the drink, the lack of sleep, and the fact that they had no story,

they successfully evaded Wanger’s detection and were encouraged to keep working. As they got up, Wanger asked in passing, “Oh, by the way, did you meet anybody on the plane?” Schulberg mentioned that they had seen Sheilah Graham, a movie columnist. “And Walter’s face darkened, and he looked at Scott and said, ‘Scott, you son of a bitch.’”

It turned out that Fitzgerald had secretly arranged to have his girlfriend accompany him on the trip, though it might be more correct to say that she was the one who insisted on it. Fitzgerald, in addition to his alcoholism, simply had very poor health. But, in Schulberg’s presence, Fitzgerald and Graham pretended to have met by chance on the plane. Schulberg apologized to Fitzgerald for mentioning it in the Waldorf. “Well, Budd, it’s my fault. I should have told you.”

Despite this delay, they managed to make the Carnival Special, the train conveying crowds of females to Dartmouth for the weekend.

“They were really like a thousand Scott Fitzgerald heroines, they were...The entire train given over to Winter Carnival.” In 1974, Schulberg revisited Dartmouth and wrote an open letter to Fitzgerald, reminiscing about their little bender. The Carnival Special was apparently the most noticeable absence from the1970s version.

“Can you hear me right, Scott?

No more Carnival Special! No more train loads of breathless dates, doll-faced blondes and saucy brunettes, the prettiest and flashiest from Vassar, Wellesley, and Smith.

Plus the hometown knockouts in form-fitting ski suits, dressed to their sparkling white teeth for what we used to call ‘The Mardi Gras of the North.’ Of course there were some plain faces among them, homespun true loves, as befits any female invasion.”

Though Schulberg had told himself he would keep an eye on Fitzgerald’s drinking, the man had nevertheless managed to procure a pint of gin, which he kept in his overcoat pocket. “One thing that [writers are] able to do, they are like magicians in their ability to hide and then suddenly produce bottles.” Wanger took Schulberg aside and asked him if Fitzgerald had been drinking, to which he answered no, in a sort of writers’ solidarity against producers. “Another thing I should mention in passing is that Scott may have looked as if he was falling down drunk but his mind never stopped,” Schulberg recalled.

When they arrived, the extremely enthusiastic second unit director, Otto Lovering, better known as Lovey, met them on the platform, bright and eager.

“Just tell use where to go, boys, “he said to them, “We’re ready, we got the crew... we’re ready to go!” They stalled and asked to go to the Hanover Inn, where they supposed they might think up a story within an hour or so.

The Dartmouth Review

Thursday – February 9, 2017 13

FEATURES

A Winter Carnival Epic When they got to the Hanover Inn, the entire film crew was already there, “twenty people—more, two dozen—everybody had a room at the Inn.” Sir, we don’t seem to have a reservation for you,” said the desk clerk to Fitzgerald, and as a result Schulberg and Fitzgerald ended up in the attic of the Inn. “It was not really a room meant for people to live in,” remembered Schulberg, “It was sort of an auxiliary room where things were stored.” The room contained a single two-level wire bed, a table, and no chair. “Gee, I’m sorry, Scott, but its hard to believe they’ve forgotten to get a room for us,” said Schulberg.

When they got to the Hanover Inn, the entire film crew was already there, “twenty people—more, two dozen—everybody had a room at the Inn.” Sir, we don’t seem to have a reservation for you,” said the desk clerk to Fitzgerald, and as a result Schulberg and Fitzgerald ended up in the attic of the Inn. “It was not really a room meant for people to live in,” remembered Schulberg, “It was sort of an auxiliary room where things were stored.” The room contained a single two-level wire bed, a table, and no chair. “Gee, I’m sorry, Scott, but its hard to believe they’ve forgotten to get a room for us,” said Schulberg.

“Well,” Fitzgerald quipped, “I guess that really does say something about where the film writer stands in the Hollywood society.” (“And he seemed to see it completely in symbols,” Schulberg remembered later.)They stayed in their attic room the entire day, drinking and trying to write. “Scott stretched out on his back in the lower [bunk], and I in the upper, according to our rank, and we tried to ad-lib a story…But the prospect of still another college musical was hardly inspiring, and soon we were comparing the Princeton of his generation with the Dartmouth of mine.”

“Well, maybe this is good,” thought Schulberg, “The booze will sort of run out. We’re up in the attic; there’s no phone; there’s nothing. And maybe if Scott takes a nap, and we take a deep breath, we’ll just start all over again.”

Periodically, Lovey popped his eager-beaver headinto the room.

“Where do we go? What’s the first set-up?” Schulberg and Fitzgerald simply pulled locations out of thin air with no relation to any extant plot. They told him on a whim to shoot at the Outing Club: “Well, we have a scene of the two of them as they come down the steps and they look at the frozen pond, and we’ll play that scene there.” They didn’t, in fact, have a scene. Lovey enthusiastically dispatched these fool’s errands: ‘”Great, you’ve done it awfully well.”

And just when it seemed that they’d drunk all the alcohol, the “ruddy-faced, ex-athlete “Professor Red Merrill came into their attic chamber, bearing a bottle of whiskey. Schulberg had been introduced to Fitzgerald’s work in Merrill’s class “Sociology and the

American Novel,” and Merrill was a rare Fitzgerald fan. The three of them proceeded to kill this bottle in a few hours while discussing literature. After Merrill left, Lovey ducked in and asked for an-other set-up, which he received. Fitzgerald was then sup- posed to attend a reception with the dean (there was at that time only one dean, according to Schulberg) and several other literature-minded faculty members. The idea was that Wanger would present him and Fitzgerald would describe the plot of the film they were shooting. “It was a disaster since it was pretty obvious that not only was Scott drunk, but when I tried to fill in for him, anyone could see that we had no story.”

“One Professor Macdonald (I remember him well; he was a very dapper man, very well-dressed, very feisty) made me feel bad because I thought he was enjoying Scott’s appearance and Scott’s defeat. He said, ‘He’s really a total wreck, isn’t he? He’s a total wreck.’

But he didn’t say it in a nice way to me. At the same time Scott looked as if he was absolutely non compus, but his mind was going fast and well, and he made observations about these people that were much sharper, I think, than anything that Professor MacDonald or anybody else could say. “Then Schulberg realized why Wanger had insisted so strongly on Fitzgerald’s coming to Dartmouth. He had hoped that the college might confer Wanger an honorary degree if he paraded around a writer. “He thought that showing off Scott Fitzgerald, even a faded Scott Fitzgerald, would help him along that road. And now he’d been embarrassed and, in a way, humiliated.”

In The Daily Dartmouth’s February 11, 1939 issue, John D. Hess wrote up an interview with Wanger and Fitzgerald: “The public personality of Walter Wanger ‘15 is a disturbing blend of abruptness and charm. At this particular interview, he sat quietly in a chair exuding power and authority in easy breaths, seemingly indifferent to anything I said, but quickly, suddenly, sharply catching a phrase, questioning it, commenting upon it, grinding it into me, smiling, and then apparently forgetting all about me again. “In a chair directly across from Mr. Wanger was Mr. F. Scott Fitzgerald, who looked and talked as if he had long since become tired of being known as the spokes-man of that unfortunate lost generation of the 1920’s.Mr. Fitzgerald is working on the script of Mr. Wanger’s picture, ‘Winter Carnival.’”

We now know, of course, that Fitzgerald was not tired but three sheets to the wind. Having more or less survived the faculty ordeal, the pair proceeded back to the Inn, where Schulberg encouraged Fitzgerald to take an invigorating nap.

He lay down on the bottom bunk, and Schulberg, believing Fitzgerald asleep, snuck off to visit some fraternity chums. Sitting at the fraternity bar not long after this escape,

Schulberg felt a tap on his shoulder.

It was Fitzgerald. “I don’t know how he got there or found me, but he did. And he looked so totally out of place. He had on his fedora and his overcoat. He was not in any way prepared either in his clothing or his mind for this Winter Carnival weekend.” Supporting him by the arm, Schulberg walked Fitzgerald out of the house and down Wheelock Street. He seemed suddenly to regain his energy and suggested having a drink at Psi U. “And when we got to the Inn... I tried to fool Scott.

I was trying to get him back in the room. I said, ‘O.K., Scott, here we are,’ and he realized what I was doing and got very mad at me. We had sort of a tussle and we fell down in the snow, kind of rolled in the snow.” After this was resolved, they decided to visit a coffee shop. “[At the coffee shop] it was humorous in a way because there were all those kids enjoying Winter Carnival, and everybody was so up, and we were so bedraggled, so down, worried, in despair.” Suddenly, Fitzgerald went into his element, and told “this marvelous detailed, romantic story of a girl in an open touring car (he described how she was dressed).

Over the top of the hill is this skier coming down, and she stops theca and looks at him. Scott described it immaculately well.”

Having finished the coffee, they proceeded back to the Hanover Inn, on whose steps loomed—“as in a bad movie—or maybe in the movie we were trying to write” — none other than Walter Wanger, dressed in a white tie and top hat “like Fred Astaire... He was not a tall man, but standing a step or two above us and with a top hat, he really looked like a Hollywood god staring down at us.”

“I don’t know what the next train out of here is,” Wanger intoned, “but you two are going to be on it.”

“They put us on the train about one o’clock in the morning with no luggage,” Schulberg remembers,” They just threw us on the train.” At dawn they pulled into New York, and Schulberg with the porter had to rouse Fitzgerald and drag him into a cab. They returned to the Warwick they had just left, and apparently experiencing a motif, were greeted with the news that there was no room. Perhaps, Schulberg thought later, their appearance and lack of luggage dissuaded the staff.

“Somehow the days had run together and we hadn’t changed. We both looked like what you look like when you haven’t done some of the things that one needs to do to keep yourself together.”

“Have you got a reservation?” the desk staff asked. “Well, we just left,” they responded, although, Schulberg recalled, “It seemed like a year, an eternity... As I look back we had no luggage, and the two of us looked like God knows what. I don’t think we’d changed our clothes from the time we’d left Hollywood. I’m sure we’d hardly gone to bed, maybe an hour or so,

half-dressed, in the Warwick.” Several unreceptive hotels later, Fitzgerald said, “Budd, take me to the Doctors’ Hospital. They’ll take me in there at the Doctors’ Hospital.”

This worked, and a week later Sheila Graham took Fitzgerald back west.

He was of course Fred. Schulberg was fired and re-hired. “After Winter Carnival,” he was in major trouble,” remembers Schulberg, “You know what a small town it is.

Everybody knows everybody else’s business, and Scott was extremely damaged.” Yet, touchingly for Schulberg, Fitzgerald continued to send him notes about the film.

“He had great dreams about Hollywood,” Schulberg said, “It was not just the money. Most of the writers I knew— Faulkner and the others— just wanted to get the money and get out. Scott was different. He believed in the movies…. He went to films all the time and he kept a card file of the plots. He’d go back and write out the plot of every film he saw. “Still, the picture itself couldn’t have worked, he said, “For by the end of the 30’s, when we haunted the Carnival, it had become a show in itself. And backstage stories are notoriously resistant to quality.”

Schulberg and Fitzgerald remained good friends afterwards, continuing to discuss what they’d always wished to discuss without the burden of Wanger or his film.

Schulberg remained struck by Fitzgerald’s irrepressible, almost boyish enthusiasm for ideas. “One evening, in West Los Angeles,” Schulberg wrote, “I was dashing off, late for a dinner party, when Scott burst in.

‘I’ve just been rereading Spengler’s Decline of the West.’ That was for openers from the playboy of the western world. How did he maintain this incredible sophomoric enthusiasm that all the agonies could not down? I told him I just didn’t have time to go into Spengler now.

I was notoriously late and had to run. Scott accepted this with his usual Minneapolis-cum-Princeton-cum-Southern good manners.

‘All right. But we have to talk about it. In the light of what Hitler is doing in Europe. Spengler saw it coming. I could feel it. But did nothing about it. Typical—of the decline of the west.’ “Maybe it was to make up for the years frittered away at Princeton, and in the playgrounds of the rich, but, drunk or sober (and except for the Dartmouth trip and one other occasion, I only saw him sober),he never stopped learning, never stopped inquiring.” Schulberg remembers the day he saw Fitzgerald for the last time. “I remember very well it was on the first day of December in 1940, and I was going East; I’d been working on my first novel), I went to say goodbye to Scott, and he was in bed. He lived in a sort of simple, fairly plain apartment right in pretty much the heart of old Hollywood off of Sunset Boulevard right around the corner from Schwab’s Drugstore, which was the hangout for everyone in the neighborhood.

Scott had this desk built for him

to rest around him in the bed, as he was pretty frail and feeling weak and at the same time found he could write in bed for two-three hours every day.” He brought a copy of Tender is the Night, which he had Fitzgerald inscribe to his daughter Vicky. The inscription read, “Whose illustrious father pulled me out of snowdrifts and away from avalanches.” (Dartmouth has this inscribed copy in its special collections.)Schulberg asked how his novel, which turned out to be The Last Tycoon, was progressing. Though Schulberg didn’t know the novel’s exact subject matter, he guessed it was Hollywood since Fitzgerald had barraged him with questions about the film industry, and what it had been like growing up around it. Later, Schulberg was mildly disappointed to read in the first pages of The Last Tycoon an insight that he had given Fitzgerald during one off these interviews. It was the idea that Hollywood was an industry town like any other, except that it made movies instead of tires or steel.

Yet, it did not sting too badly: “I’ve known writers (I was raised with them), and I’ve known them from one end of my life to the other. And he was one of the gentlest, kindest, most sympathetic and generous writers I’ve ever met. At the same time, of course, he couldn’t stop lifting something you said because that’s the profession he was in.” In late December 1940, Schulberg had a drink with a Dartmouth professor, Herb West, at the Hanover Inn. West “suddenly but terribly casually looked up from his glass and said, ‘Isn’t it too bad about Scott Fitzgerald?’” This was the first that Schulberg had heard of Fitzgerald’s death of a heart attack in Sheila Graham’s apartment. The obituaries portrayed Fitzgerald as a mere mascot of the Jazz Age, a man unfit for the age of political commitment.

Disgusted, Schulberg, John O’Hara, and Edmund Wilson, inter alia, approached The New Republic in 1941 with the idea of a Fitzgerald memorial issue, which ran.

Wanger went on to lead the Association of Alumni and the Motion Picture Academy, while continuing to produce movies.

Schulberg testified voluntarily before the House Un-American Activities Committee, explaining that he broke with communism when they tried to interfere with his literary work. He won the Academy Award for the screenplay for “On the Waterfront” several years later.

In 1951, Wanger shot his actress wife’s agent in the groin with a .38 pistol. “I shot him because he broke up my home,” he told the police.

The incident was well-covered in the papers. He served four months in prison. Schulberg’s The Disenchanted, published in 1950, was widely seen as a roman-à-clef about Fitzgerald and became a bestseller.

It renewed interest in Fitzgerald and his novels, which were reprinted. Today, his critical reputation is unassailable..

14 Thursay – February 9, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

‘Wiz Kid’ Harry Enten Discusses

the Jewish community. In terms of Israeli relations, one of the unfortunate things that has occurred (if you’re a fan of Israel) is that we are starting to form a real partisan regarding the way in which Republicans and Democrats view Israeli-U.S relations. One of the reasons Israel has always been able to maintain a strong tie with the U.S. is that it’s been a bipartisan issue. That may be starting to change, and both sides of the aisle need to be keeping an eye out for that.

Depending on your political viewpoint, it could be a good thing or a bad thing, but we will begin to see a change over the next decade.

TDR: One area you spoke about yesterday was elections in Europe. Have taken an interest in analyzing foreign polls?

HARRY ENTEN poses for his fans.

> CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 and I think that is so important. This is not high school anymore. This is college.

This is where boys develop into men and girls develop into women. This is where children develop into adults.

I just think that it’s very important that you have student input. Exactly how that’s done I think is up to each individual institution and what they see themselves as. One issue to me that was so funny when I was here was the issue of dining hall dollars. When I was here, people liked the á la carte system, and then they [introduced meal swipes.] I thought that was such a ridiculous move. I don’t think a lot of students necessarily wanted that. Polling can be used in that situation to help us know for sure whether or not that’s something that most people want.

TDR: A number of different people have characterized you as preferring numbers over ideas. There are many issues in American politics where people don’t take numbers into account when making decisions.

How do you impose a numerical structure on those issues?

HE: I think sometimes it’s very difficult. People come to their opinions, and we have research that shows that if we show them that numbers

Courtesy of Harry Enten doesn’t necessarily back their ideas, they actually become more entrenched in their ideas despite what the numbers show. I’m not necessarily sure that numbers can convince people whether they’re right or wrong. What I’m interested in is numbers over ideas. What gets me up in the morning isn’t what so-and-so thinks about such-and-such.

I don’t want to have a policy debate. I’m interested in applying numbers and saying, “Okay, which do people agree with more? Which idea holds more sway with the American people?” and not necessarily which idea holds more sway over me.

TDR: What is 538 considering on a long-term basis? Are you looking to expand into other areas?

HE: Obviously we have sports.

We have culture. We have science. We have politics. We have a lot of different areas.

What you are hopefully going to see over the next few months is more investigative pieces and more policy-oriented pieces. Not necessarily policy with a capital P, but just trying to apply our craft to policy so people can get a better understanding of it.

Right now, with Trump, there are so many people that think everything Trump does is outrageous. Let’s take a step back.

Let’s understand what the ac-

tual implications of this are.

How out of the norm is this, if it is out of the norm at all?

I think that’s so important because there are some things Donald Trump has done that are certainly unusual and not normal, but there are some things that he has done that are perfectly normal that people are just looking to get upset about. I think that we can hopefully use our techniques to sort those out.

TDR: And have you guys already started to do that?

HE: We’re starting. We’re not anywhere near where we want to be with that. Part of the problem with the Trump administration is that he makes news everyday. It’s sometimes difficult to take a step back and get a larger view.

TDR: You use the “Jewish echoes” and the hashtag “#RenegadeJew” on your Twitter.

What does being Jewish mean to you and what does it mean in your field?

HE: Those were started by Rosenberg, who is a writer with Tablet: good guy, really respect him. He took the lead on that. Am I a religious guy?

Not necessarily sure you can say that. Some things shake people in different ways. That being said, I’ll never run from who I am. Various groups have persecuted the Jewish

people through the ages. I think during this election cycle, there was a small, select group of people who decided to make that an issue again. I don’t think that will ever not be an issue. I just wanted to take a stand because I think my last name does not really make it clear as to what my background is. I wanted to make sure I was clear about what I was and who I was. Judaism means different things to different people. To me, it is who I am, and I wanted to make sure that people understood that.

TDR: You’ve done a few articles on American-Jewish political views and a few articles on the American-Israeli relationship. In doing that research, was there anything that surprised you?

HE: I don’t know if there’s anything that surprised me so much. People tend to think of voters as blocks. Jewish voters are overwhelmingly Democrats. Among Jews, there are many diverse viewpoints. We know that if someone goes to synagogue once a week, he is far more likely to be Republican. Something that I’m going to look at in the next few years is how specifically Orthodox Jews differ from Reform Jews, especially as Orthodox Jews rise as a proportion of the Jewish population. You see these very different viewpoints in

HE: We haven’t done a ton of that, and obviously foreign elections can sometimes be a very different game, but I think that we’ll certainly have pieces on it. I don’t think you’re going to see any forecasts on it, but I think it’s very important to keep an eye out on these French and German elections that will be coming up in terms of understanding what is really a world movement with this populist nationalism. So far the nationalists have been on a pretty good roll lately, whether it be with the referendum down in South America and Colombia, the United States, or Brexit. I’m very interested to see whether or not they can continue on that roll or whether they get stopped in their tracks.

TDR: They got stopped in Austria….

HE: Yes, they did get stopped in Austria, but I think that was an example where the nationalists were too far to the right (granted, the Green Party candidate was also pretty far to the left.) But you also got the oneon-one that you were looking for. I think you had a lot of people see these things and say, “I can’t believe that this is going to possibly happen,” and I think that the first election, which was so close, made people believe, “Oh my God, this could actually happen.” I think it helped drive people to the polls and made sure that they came out and voted.

TDR: Opinion journalism often seeks to define itself as non-partisan, but there are often claims that this is not so.

HE: I think everyone has a viewpoint. The question is, is it possible to keep that viewpoint and truly be non-partisan. I’m not sure it is, I’m not

The Dartmouth Review

Thursday – February 9, 2016 15

FEATURES

Dartmouth, Trump, and Jewish Opinion

sure it isn’t, and I think that we all know for the most part that the media in this country is more liberal than it is conservative. I think, still, facts are facts, and I think it’s very important to report all facts, and to report on what is a lie and what isn’t a lie. I think some people do that better than others, I think Jake Tapper is someone who does that tremendously well. I think a lot of people do it well, and I think other people don’t do it nearly as well. But I think it’s up to each individual reporter which way they want to view things, and it’s up to the audience which way they want to view said reporter.

TDR: Has Donald Trump changed the relationship?

HE: I think he absolutely has changed the relationship. Donald Trump obviously is very antagonistic towards the media but also loves the media, and more than that -- it’s a lovehate relationship, they feed off of each other. But more than that, Donald Trump has made people who would otherwise seem non-partisan perhaps seem a little bit more partiMr. Farkas is a senior at the College and the Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Zubrow is a senior at the College and the President of The Dartmouth Review.

san, which is so interesting to me. Because if we’re being honest with ourselves, Donald Trump, at least according to the fact-checkers, tells more untruth than other people do, and so I think it becomes very difficult for someone to be seen as non-partisan if that’s something they’re calling him out on all the time. I don’t think that there’s anything partisan about saying that that guy is telling an untruth and that no one seems to care. But I think it’s very hard to maintain that sort of level, that straight face when you have someone who’s doing that all the time.

TDR: Have you guys started looking at re-election prospects for Trump?

HE: Look, well we can talk about it. I don’t think we necessarily know anything. I mean I’m all up for talking about it but he’s got a long way to go. We’ve spoken about Democrats who could potentially run. If you’re looking you can see Kirsten Gillibrand voting down every single nominee. I think that that’s probably a sign that she might be running, and I think that it’s probably foolish to ignore that fact.

TDR: So how do you approach covering President Trump?

HE: You just try and stay with

what you know, and obviously there’s going to be some snark from time to time. When Trump says, “these so-called judges,” you have to call a spade a spade, that’s not something that people normally do, and it can be dangerous. But at the same time I think it’s very important to recognize the numbers say what they say, and you have to say what they say.

As long as you do that, I think that you can do a pretty good job. You stick to the numbers, you stick to what you think is probably going to happen, and if you can do that, then you can do a good job. I think it’s a much more difficult job to stay neutral when you’re reporting on policy, which is part of the reason I’m sometimes hesitant to do so. I think that’s where bias can come out.

TDR: The Republicans used a strategy of obstructing Congress throughout the Obama administration, and that worked well. Now it seems that the Democrats in the opposition are taking that same approach. Do you think that they have the same ability to be successful in that approach or do you think that it will not work as well for them?

HE: I don’t know if it’s going to work less well for them, but can I tell you that I think it’s just part of a larger trend of more and more political po-

larization, and at the end of the day, it’s that small middle of the electorate that’s either going to side with one side or side with the other. I’m not certain it’s going to be successful, but I think in a large part it will be successful or unsuccessful depending on whether people think that things are improving in this country. If they think things aren’t improving, they’re going to vote out the White House party. If they think things are successful, they’re going to keep that party in. I think that if your idea is to keep the country from moving too far to the right, then that could very well work. I don’t think that the American public is going to penalize them, because they didn’t penalize the Republicans, and I see no reason that they’ll penalize the Democrats either.

TDR: One reason would be that Republicans tend to believe that the government is not always the solution, and so obstructing it works in their favor, whereas Democrats tend to want the government to function.

HE: Could be, but I think Democrats at this point want to stop everything that Trump is doing, it’s a funny time in politics at this point.

TDR: What kind of impact do

you think that the third party candidates had on the 2016 elections? Do you think that they shifted the results at all?

HE: No, I don’t think that.

I think that Donald Trump was going to win that election. Now the only question is if Evan Mullen had been in the ballot in a few more states, could that have shifted it? Maybe. But I think that’s a real hypothetical, I think it’s foolish to blame the third parties for Hillary Clinton’s defeat in this election.

I think the fact of the matter was that in the states that were necessary, Trump simply got more votes than she did, and that was simply going to occur more times than not, given everything else we know. Perhaps if some things had shifted or some things had changed, maybe the results would have changed, but I don’t think third parties were responsible for Clinton’s defeat.

TDR: A cursory Google search of your names reveals that you’ve developed a budding cult of personality. Can you comment on that?

HE: I am who I am, and I’ve got to be me. That’s all I can say, and I’ve got no problem being me, and if you don’t like me for me, then you don’t like me. And that’s the truth.

The Super Bowl Gets Politcal Erik R. Jones Contributor Super Bowl LI proved to be one of the most epic sports events of all time. The New England Patriots managed to come back from a 28-3 deficit against the Atlanta Falcons in the second half, breaking a wide range of records with a remarkable performance.

Unfortunately, several companies decided to shift the focus away from the football game in their advertisements towards their own shameless political agendas.

Outrage ensued online after Airbnb, “It’s a 10” hair products, Audi, and 84 Lumber chose to divide the American viewership by promoting leftist propaganda in their ads.

They decided that the new Trump presidency justified a complete violation of our previously held standards for funny, lighthearted, entertaining super bowl commerMr. Jones is a freshman at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

cials.

Lady Gaga, surprisingly, did not use her half time performance as an opportunity to create further division, and stuck purely to entertainment, shying away from polarizing political undertones.

Regardless of the quality of the performance, Lady Gaga admirably reversed the trend set last year by Beyoncé’s controversial tribute to the Black Panthers — a violent black nationalist organization. She honorably agreed to put up with the vile condemnation from the far left by simply choosing to not alienate half the country with an unnecessary political jab. Lady Gaga’s performance stands out in stark contrast to the approach taken by many of the advertisers in the commercial spotlight.

Perhaps the most egregious ad was Audi’s ad called “Daughter,” which depicted a young girl’s go-kart race narrated by the thoughts of her father. As the girl races down the track, he asks with an ominous tone, “What do

I tell my daughter? Do I tell her that her grandpa is worth more than her grandma?

Do I tell her that her dad is worth more than her mom?”

Audi chose to perpetuate the “gender pay gap” myth that no credible economist takes seriously. When one compares national income averages, men do make more than women, but this does not factor in anything about difference in life choices, the effect of parenting, or any of the important factors that contribute to this gap; the “78 cents” myth does not tell the full story. Audi did more than just force a given political opinion down the throats of viewers — they presented a tired political talking point based entirely in misinformation, deliberately to mislead and push this victim mentality. The father then laments that “She will automatically be valued as less than every man she ever meets,” supposedly despite any of her best efforts. Audi produced nothing more than a regurgitation of a theory that has no legitimate

basis in reality.

More subtle with their political undertones were Airbnb, “It’s a 10,” and 84 Lumber. Airbnb’s ad entitled “We Accept” praised diversity and inclusiveness, supposedly in response to Trump’s immigration ban. “It’s a 10” tried to strike a more humorous tone, claiming that “we’re in for at least four years of awful hair.”

It is unclear why these companies would feel inclined to alienate half of their potential customers, but their political motives certainly did not go unnoticed.

In fact, 84 Lumber made such a controversial ad that the initial version was rejected by Fox and the NFL. The original version portrayed the immigration story of a mother and daughter from Mexico to the U.S. — only to be stopped in their tracks by an extensive wall along the border. As the two hold each other in tears, they find a majestic gate in the wall that they can freely pass through. 84 Lumber was forced to remove the part about the border wall

due to its blatant political nature, but advised viewers to go online to watch the unedited version. A company that sells building materials somehow saw it fit to make an ad that glorifies open borders and directly attacks one of President Trump’s plans for immigration reform.

The night of Super Bowl LI was not entirely overshadowed by these biased marketing tactics, but the left has proved once again that there are no limits. People began equating the Patriots to Donald Trump simply because many of the players declined to answer any questions about politics. Twitter erupted after the Patriots’ comeback, lamenting the fact “white people” are happy. A large subset of leftists want politics to consume every aspect of peoples’ lives, and is willing to exploit any scenario to promote their agenda. A night designed for entertainment can easily depreciate into a frenzy of political propaganda, and the left’s character is becoming more and more transparent.

16 Thursday – February 9, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

THE LAST WORD GORDON HAFF’S

COMPILED BY SHERIFF RICK GRIMES

“The People united will never be defeated!”

–Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“We are all Muslims.”

“Migration is beautiful!”

““Did I stutter?” - Lady Liberty” -Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Resist. No ban, no wall.”

“Everyone deserves healthcare!”

–Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Investigate and Impeach!”

“Thank you Judge Robart.”

“No to dictators.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“NO BAN. All are welcome here. You make us stronger.

This is what we stand for.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Truth not alternative facts.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Jews for Muslims.”

“Never ever again.”

“Immigrants get the job done.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“I’m an introvert but even I had to come out for this.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest “Immigrants get the job done.”

“I’m marching for Fatemeh.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Welcome, we love you all.”

“I’m an introvert but even I had to come out for this.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Immigrants are America.”

“You can not comb over hate.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“You can not comb over hate.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“You are loved.”

“Never again begins with you.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest -Sign from the Feb. 4 protest -Sign from the Feb. 4 protest -Sign from the Feb. 4 protest -Sign from the Feb. 4 protest -Sign from the Feb. 4 protest -Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

BARRETT’S MIXOLOGY

“Respect”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest -Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Let them in.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Love.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Impeach Bannon.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“I want to live.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Fear less, love more.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Love not hate makes America.”

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

ADVERTISEMENT

THE POWER OF MEANING

• Ice, ice baby • Dying traditions • Global warming

BOOK SIGNING WITH AUTHOR & TDR ALUMNA

President Phil Hanlon looked out across the melting snow, a frown breaking his normally apathetic expression.

EMILY ESFAHANI SMITH

The world was coming to an end. If the Earth warmed another 0.2 degrees Celsius, the ice caps would melt, Florida would be flooded by rising sea levels (although whether that is really a bad thing remains to be seen), and Trump would sign an executive order discriminating against displaced Eskim ... pardon me, Inuit.

— Sheriff Walter Longmire

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“Build bridges, not walls.”

Ingredients

Lest the old traditions fail, my friends.

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

“No human being is illegal!”

The Big White Rally

Hanlon pondered an email he had just received from the American Chemical Society, showing water to be the highest-level greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It was an imminent threat to the environment; the melting snow from the snow sculpture would emit dangerous levels of H 2O over the green.

Then, suddenly, an epiphany struck. He would establish a Committee for Environmental Preservation, featuring species as well as racial diversity by including a polar bear and a penguin. The Committee would institute a Winter Carnival ban to stop a dangerous buildup of H 2O in the atmosphere.

Instead of snow sculptures, human dogsled races, and patriarchal hazing rituals, Winter Carnival would now feature a protest against climate change encouraging Dartmouth to divest itself from the most dangerous greenhouse gas: water. Maybe they could even truck all the snow away.

-Sign from the Feb. 4 protest

FEBRUARY 11 AT NOON IN THE DARTMOUTH BOOK STORE