O Tempora O Mores! (2.27.2017)

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

Volu m e 3 6 , Is su e 15

Mond ay, Febr u ar y 2 7 , 2 0 1 7

O TEMPORA O MORES!

“AND THEIR HEARTS leap’d high with the flame.” –Richard Hovey

Romains de la Décadence by Thomas Couture, 1847

Hanover: Sanctuary Town?

Jack F. Mourouzis Jack S. Hutensky

Executive Editor Associate Editor Editor’s Note: In light of the recent week’s meeting regarding the potential designation of Hanover as a sanctuary city, we sat down with Hanover’s town manager Julia Griffin to discuss various aspects of this resolution.

The Dartmouth Review (TDR): What kind of work and changes would go into making Hanover a sanctuary city?

Julia Griffin (JG): There isn’t much work involved, if you look at what other communities have done.

A town meeting on May 9 would debate this and vote for or against the establishment of Hanover as a sanctuary city. When you look at what other sanctuary cities across the country have done or are doing, typical-

ly all it involves is the development of a written set of policies that guide the way the community interacts with immigrants and refugees, both the police departments interactions but also general community interaction. It’s not as if when you vote to become a sanctuary community, you suddenly have to absorb a whole body of regulations or policies. There isn’t a blueprint out there. It’s really up to each community to decide how they want to articulate the fact that they have declared themselves a sanctuary community.

TDR: How did this idea first come about within Hanover’s town management?

JG: As soon as I heard about the Trump Administration’s inclination related to illegal immigrants, I began anticipating that this was an issue we were going

to have to grapple with here because we have an internationally diverse campus community. I was first approached in December by our Friends meeting; the Quakers have long been active in the area of immigration, and the local Friends house has been very active in issues of immigration in the past. They approached me to talk about sanctuary community designation. I spent a fair amount of time reading up on the sanctuary movement and also conferring with some of my fellow colleagues, other municipal managers in New England.

We actively talked to each other about what other communities are hearing, thinking about, and considering with regards to this issue.

TDR: If this decision were made, what changes or policies would Hanover ultimately implement? In other words, what tangible

changes would occur?

JG: There actually would not be any changes. That was the point I made to the group that gathered on Wednesday, February 22 at St. Thomas Episcopal Church. We used that time to talk about the fact that we already are, on most levels, a sanctuary community, if you look at what the current definition of sanctuary community is. For example, our police department does not in any way get involved with immigration issues.

We don’t inquire as to an individual’s immigration status when we do a motor vehicle stop, arrest, or if we’re dealing with a victim or a witness who is reporting a crime. Asking immigration status isn’t a part of our procedure and the reason it isn’t is that immigration law is civil law, not criminal law.

> FEATURES PAGE 7

Shades of Conservatism Devon M. Kurtz

Managing Editor The third week of my freshman year, I was sitting in Brace Commons working on homework when a stranger approached me. As a ’20, it was typical to meet random people without any context, so I didn’t think much of it.

“Hey, I hear you’re a Republican.” No name, no introduction, no propriety. The stranger made this accusatory statement and nothing more.

Looking up from my laptop, I curtly replied, “That’s correct.” His eyes widened.

“So, are you a racist?”

A conversation that lasted several hours followed this peculiar introduction. My new friend ran through a series of -isms and -phobias that he believed I must profess if I were, in fact, a true Republican. More than half of the time, he cut off my explanations with, “Then

you can’t be a conservative!” as if he had finally cornered me into admitting that I was secretly one of his comrades.

Whenever I am asked about conservative life at Dartmouth, I use this exchange as an illustration of my experiences.

So far at Dartmouth, I have engaged in many thought-provoking conversations and debates. Some of these have been so informative that they have profoundly influenced the evolution of my political beliefs and values. However, conversations like the aforementioned one indicate a shockingly deep-rooted ignorance on the part of my left-leaning peers. Some conservative students might consider this interaction an example of how they are regularly oppressed; I do not share this opinion.

> FEATURES PAGE 11

SEXUAL VIOLENCE ON CAMPUS

TROUBLE WITH GLC ELECTIONS

EVANGELICALS AT DARTMOUTH

The Review considers the challenges in combating sexual violence and explores solutions

Everything you need to know about the recent controversy surrounding the GLC’s recent elections

The Review looks at the role evangelical Christians play on campus

> EDITORIAL PAGE 3

> FEATURES PAGE 6

> FEATURES PAGE 9

2 Monday – February 27, 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 Julia Griffin

The Review sits down with Hanover’s town manager Julia Griffin to discuss the ongoing debate regarding santuary cities.................................................................................... PAGE 1

Conservative Identity at Dartmouth

Associate Editor Devon Kurtz offers his thoughts on the experiences of being a conservative at a predominantly liberal institution.................................................. PAGE 1

Controversy in the Greek Leadership Council

Interview with Christina Hoff Sommers

The “Factual Feminist” opens up to The Dartmouth Review on her unique perspective...................................................................................................................................... PAGE 8

Evangelicals at Dartmouth

The Review explores why this group is so underrepresented at Dartmouth............ PAGE 9

Diversity at The Review

We take a look at controversial issues brewing within the GLC................................ PAGE 6

Underclassman contributors offer their perspective on the unique niche that The Review currently occupies at the College................................................................................. PAGE 10

SUBSCRIBE

CHURCHILL READS THE REVIEW. DO YOU?

The Dartmouth Review is produced bi-weekly by Dartmouth College undergraduates. It is published by the Hanover Review, Inc., a tax-deductible, non-profit organization.

Please consider helping to support Dartmouth’s only independent newspaper, and perhaps the only voice of reason left here on campus. Yearly print subscriptions start at just $40, for which we will mail each issue directly to your door. Electronic subscriptions cost $25 per year, for which you receive a PDF of The Review in your inbox at press time. Contributions above $40 are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Please include your mailing address and make checks payable to:

Or subscribe online at:

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

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – February 27, 2017

3

MASTHEAD & EDITORIAL EST. 1980 EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief Sandor Farkas

Executive Editors Jack F. Mourouzis Joseph R. Torsella

Managing Editors Joshua L. Kauderer Max J. Frankel Marcus J. Thompson Devon M. Kurtz

Associate Editors Rushil Shukla Jack S. Hutensky B. Webb Harrington

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 Cooperstein, Dinesh D’Souza, Michael Ellis, Robert Flanigan, John Fund, Kevin Robbins, Gordon Haff, Jeffrey Hart, Laura Ingraham, Mildred Fay Jefferson, William Lind, Steven Menashi, James Panero, Hugo Restall, Roland Reynolds, William Rusher, Weston Sager, Emily Esfahani-Smith, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Sidney Zion

NOTES Special thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr. “Any ideas for the Issue Joke?”

“The Dartmouth.”

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

“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win great triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to takerank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”

—Theodore Roosevelt

EDITORIAL

Combating Sexual Violence

Sexual violence is not exclusive to college campuses. It pursue a criminal case or the victim does not wish to puris not the sole provenance of prisons, boarding schools, sue one, colleges should have a system in place to handle and barracks. It is not just an issue in backward coun- matters in a just manner. When no crime has been comtries embroiled in grotesque civil wars. Crucially, it is not mitted but one or both parties feel uncomfortable with unique to our time. There is no more an epidemic of rape what happened, colleges should also provide a platform now than there was twenty, thirty, or a hundred years ago. for arbitration and redressing grievances. While a college Expanding definitions and social consciousness of sexu- prosecution exists partially for the express purpose of al assault and rape have created a hysteria over the view dealing with a case that does not meet criminal standards that there is an epidemic of sexual assault on American of evidence, it is essential that such processes meet strict college campuses. Such a view distorts what should be standards of due process. It is irrelevant that Constituan uncomfortable truth: sexual assault has always been a tional requirements do not apply to private institutions. problem, and it will always be our problem. We cannot The reason we prosecute people is that we have societal delegate it to an elusive class of miscreants or a backward values that are worth upholding. Due process is integral mentality. Instead of blindly hurling resources at the to those societal values, rendering prosecuissue or treating it as a political question, we tion without due process hypocritical. should approach it in a rational manner and Prevention, the fight to reduce instanctreat all of its manifestations with equal attenes of sexual assault by dissuading offenders tion. and encouraging intervention, is far more We cannot stop sexual assault and complex. It is important to recognize that rape from occurring entirely; no matby the time students enter college, their valter what we do, there will always be ues and societal mores are generally settled. those who find a way to do evil. What The fundamental social concept that prewe can do is work to curtail exacervents sexual violence is the idea that you bating factors and address the issues simply cannot touch a person unless with how colleges handle instances they indicate consent. This needs to of these crimes. Colleges have effecbe ingrained in children from an early Sándor Farkas tively broken down this approach into age, and our education efforts should educating about prevention and intervention, providing focus on teaching students to teach their children this victim resources, and enacting punitive measures. This concept. breakdown makes logical sense, but the way many instiUnderstanding sexual violence is the most efficient tutions execute these tasks is ineffective and even count- topic to focus on when educating current students, as er-productive. it promotes effective bystander intervention. We must Educational programs are often condescending and first dispel the myth of a typical offender: not just image generally follow progressive agendas, thereby alienating of the creepy man with a trench coat in an alley, but the many students. Even newer programs that reflect these stereotype of the predatory fraternity man. Anyone can concerns do little to reach students whose views do not be a thief. Anyone can commit a murder. Anyone can be already align with their stated doctrines. Efforts to help a rapist. It’s a crime, it’s not a type of person. sexual assault victims are noble, but the “shotgun” apWe should also examine factors that facilitate sexual proach of providing as many options as possible often violence, which manifests in different ways in varying does more to confuse victims and waste resources than contexts. Understanding how alcohol and our sexually it does to actually provide support to those who need it. permissive culture relate to sexual violence is not “victim Punitive measures for sexual assault in higher education blaming.” It is a necessary step in determining effective have a host of problems: victims are often forced into un- intervention. Moderate consumption of alcohol is a intended circumstances, guilty parties often get off with learned virtue. It is not evil to indulge in drink, and it is relatively minor punishments, and accused students go clearly a rite of passage in our societal microcosm. That without essential tenants of due processes. The way insti- said, students should learn over time to drink in moderatutions of higher education handle sexual assault is in dire tion. Most importantly, regardless of their level of alcohol need of improvement, and conservative students should consumption, all students who drink need to be aware spearhead the needed reforms. that they are engaging in a behavior that puts them at risk The simplest area to reform is the provision of resourc- and need to act accordingly. Drinking does not mean es for victims. It is important that we offer a wide array of that an individual is to blame when another person sexuservices and for there to be a diverse group of venues for ally assaults him, but we have a fundamental obligation to such services, but this should not be taken to the extreme. ensure our own physical safety. Fulfilling this obligation Venues for services to should be centralized into three can be as simple as having a “battle buddy” when drinkcategories based on the identity of service providers: col- ing. Risqué clothing, another commonly cited factor in lege staff, community professionals, and students. Within sexual violence, is only a symptom of sexually permissive these centralized programs, providers can orchestrate a culture. Sexually permissive culture is not responsible plethora of resources, but such resources should remain for sexual violence. Individuals who want to assault are subordinate and avoid redundancy. This approach would the only ones responsible. That said, sexually permissive prevent waste, ensure quality, and simplify access for vic- culture makes those individuals feel more confident in tims. breaching social prohibitions against sexual violence.

Reforming the legal issues surrounding sexual assault Fighting against sexually permissive culture may by a on college campuses involves competing moral, legal, conservative tendency, but it is also an important societal and practical requirements. The first step in restructuring current that prevents many universally defined evils. the system should be assigning cases to legal prosecution, Sexual violence is not new and it is not unique to college college prosecution, or college arbitration based on their campuses, but it is a universal evil and we should be united level of violence, amount of evidence, degree of ambigui- in our efforts to combat it. No one group has a monopoty, and the wishes of the victim. In those instances where ly on the solutions to this problem, just as no one group the victim desires criminal prosecution and there is suffi- is solely responsible for it. We must completely reject the cient evidence to support such a path, colleges should not politicization of this fight and embark on a course defined interfere. When there is either not sufficient evidence to by rational debate and guided by our values.

4 Monday – February 27, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

WEEK IN REVIEW ON THE “VICTIMHOOD” OF CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE STUDENTS In his recent op-ed to the New York Times, liberal Bucknell professor Aaron Hanlon, a former student writer for the conservative paper, argued that conservative students should stop playing the victim card. As a conservative student myself, and someone who writes for a conservative newspaper on a liberal college campus, I must respectfully disagree with Professor Hanlon.

Victim is a name extended to someone harmed, injured, or killed, as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. Conservative students are not playing the victim card; they are victims and simply acknowledging what is happening on campuses all around the country. When there were riots at the University of California at Berkley, due to a protest of Milo Yiannopoulos, conservative students were victims. Freedom of speech is a part of our constitution. That’s why when liberal students around the country were chanting “not my president” after the election, no conservative students stopped them. However, when a conservative speaker, like Milo, tries to discuss political issues from a rightwing perspective, the far left suppresses his right to speech because his ideas are different from theirs.

Milo, a controversial speaker even among conservatives, isn’t the only one. DePaul recently banned Ben Shapiro from campus. If liberal campuses keep banning conservative speakers and showing hostility towards conservative ideology, they are harming conservative students mentally. What message does it send, that they can be the most respectful people on campus, yet still be considered ignorant xenophobes because of a political party they support. It’s not like they advocated a David Duke candidacy. If campuses keep banning speakers from campus, all students, not just the conservative ones will be victims, as the left leaning students will suffer from a lack of a differing point of view. Exchange of ideas and discussing issues of politics should be part of all campuses, and we cannot just let one side dominate the debate.

Mentally harming conservative students was not the only thing that happened at Berkeley. Freedom to protest is one thing, but rioting and harming others is not. Think about how many stories of Trump supporters getting beaten up by liberals there are in the news, both before and after the election. There were multiple reports at Berkley alone. At UNC, fli-

ers were found threatening Trump supporters. Try and find an instance of a conservative threatening or attacking a Hilary supporter, or rioting because of a liberal speaker and you find almost nothing.

Conservative students were victims in this case; they were attacked physically and beaten just for being conservative. Someone attacked is literally the textbook definition of a victim, so for Hanlon to make the claim that conservative students are not victims, is simply ignoring the facts.

After the election, many college campuses, including my own, cancelled classes, cancelled exams, and had safe spaces for crying, among other things. If the election went the other way, none of that would have happened. If I had asked to have a safe space to grieve about Hilary Clinton being elected, I would have been laughed at. Liberals play their non-existent victim card all the time, claiming conservatives are all racist, sexist, xenophobic, and any other bad adjective you can think of. The liberal media put ideas into people’s mind about the conservative ideology and liberal students took that as the truth, and saw the election as a vindication of that ideology.

They put all conservatives in a media-decided bag, defaming them. Conservative students were labeled as villains simply because of their political leanings, and that in itself makes them victims.

Hanlon is wrong on this issue. Conservative students are victims; they have been beaten up and had their freedom of speech suppressed. The Dartmouth Review isn’t even allowed on campus. Conservative students have seen college administrations side with the liberal right time and time again. They have been physically, mentally, and spiritually harmed. Being a conservative student is tough, and they are victims, regardless of what a right leaning professor has to say; one just has to look at the facts.

ABBY D’AGOSTINO COMES TO HANOVER On February 20, Olympic runner and Dartmouth Legend Abbey D’Agostino ‘14 spoke to a packed house at Beta Alpha Omega fraternity. The event was organized by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. D’Agostino spoke about her “raw and vulnerable” relationship with God, which was forged over many years of trials, tribulations, setbacks, and injuries on the track. She also read passages from the bible and shared a number of stories from her experience at the Olympic games. The 7-time NCAA champion and current professional runner also took

questions from the audience, including one regarding her famous act of sportsmanship during the 2016 Rio Games, when she helped another runner across the finish line after they collided. Referring to the outpouring of public support after the event, which included praise from then-president Barack Obama and the Rio 2016 Fair Play Award, D’Agostino said: “It was almost encouraging that people saw and felt ‘there’s something about that’… it’s encouraging that people see a very simple act of kindness, and they are, like, ‘That’s what we’re like. There’s something about that, that unites us.’”

THE COLLEGE ON THE HILL Dartmouth College is unique among its peers in the Ivy League, not simply because of the myriad cultural differences, but due to one, simple word: “College.” Unlike the other Ivy Leagues and almost every other top-tier center of higher education in the world, Dartmouth does not hold the title of “University.” Many incoming students and outsiders are perplexed by this, often incorrectly calling us “Dartmouth University.” The name has been known to cause confusion in countries where the word “college” means high school or technical school.

Former Interim President Carol Folt even claimed that this simple word is to blame for Dartmouth’s perceived lack of international recognition and prestige. In 2014, The Not-So-Daily Dartmouth reported that 37.9% of the (admittedly small number of) faculty they surveyed are in favor of renaming the College “Dartmouth University.” This measure is nothing new, and the change has been attempted numerous times in the past, though it has always faced fierce opposition.

Freshmen (and upperclassmen who have not been reading their history) may be wondering why this issue is so controversial. The answer lies in a Supreme Court case that took place almost two centuries ago, Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. In 1779, Eleazer Wheelock’s son, John Wheelock, was a colonel fighting against the British. Returning home to Hanover to assume the presidency, John proved himself vastly less popular than his father. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, the Board of Trustees underwent a transformation. More traditionally-minded members were replaced by those who saw the College in a more independent light, and resented John’s leadership. When a dispute erupted between John and the local church, the Trustees refused to back him. Incensed, John published a scathing and nominally anonymous letter concerning the Trustees. After more escalations, John (a Whig) went to the Federalist governor of New Hampshire, William

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – February 27, 2017

Brandon E. Teixeira Plumber, for assistance. The two men joined forces, and the State of New Hampshire asserted ownership of Dartmouth based on its British charter and the defeat of that nation in the American Revolution, renaming the College “Dartmouth University.” The Trustees refused to acknowledge the State of New Hampshire’s claim, and a standoff ensued. Both groups claimed ownership of the institution and her grounds, turning Hanover in to a virtual battleground. The Trustees and most of the students occupied a number of the buildings, while John Wheelock, a few loyal students, and new students sent by the State occupied others.

To rectify the situation, The Trustees of the College brought a suit against the president of the Board of the University, William Woodward. The College retained an alumnus, Daniel Webster, as council, and the case progressed through the New Hampshire courts. Due to the Federalist bias of the courts, the College repeatedly failed in its attempts to rid themselves of the University, until the case was accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States, then under Chief Justice John Marshall.

In 1819, the Court ruled in favor of Dartmouth College, returning it to the full control of the Trustees, but not before Daniel Webster had what was arguably the greatest speech of his career. An eyewitness gave this account of his words, reprinted below from the archives of Dartmouth College: “This, Sir, is my case! It is the case not merely of that humble institution, it is the case of every college in our Land! It is more! It is the case of every eleemosynary institution throughout our country – of all those great charities founded by the piety of our ancestors to alleviate human misery, and scatter blessings along the pathway of life! It is more! It is, in some sense, the case of every man among us who has property of which he may be stripped, for the question is simply this, ‘Shall our State Legislatures be allowed to take that which is not their own, to turn it from its original use, and apply it to such ends and purposes as they in their discretion shall see fit!’

“Sir, you may destroy this little institution; it is weak, it is in your hands! I know it is one of the lesser lights in the literary horizon of our country. You may put it out!

But if you do so, you must carry through your work! You must extinguish, one after another, all those great lights of science which for more than a century have thrown their radiance over our land! It is, Sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it!”

Here the feelings which he had thus far succeeded in keeping down, broke forth. His lips quivered; his firm cheek trembled with emotion; his eyes were filled with tears; his voice choked; and he seemed struggling to the utmost, simply to gain that mastery over himself which might save him from an unmanly burst of feeling. I will not attempt to give the few broken words of tenderness in which he went on to speak of his attachment to the college. It seemed to be mingled throughout with the recollections of father, mother, brother, and all the trials and preventions through which he had made his way into life. Everyone saw that it was wholly unpremeditated — a pressure on his heart which sought relief in words and tears. Recovering himself, after a few moments, and turning to Judge [John] Marshall, he said, “Sir, I know not how others may feel (glancing at the opponents of the college before him), but for myself, when I see my Alma Mater surrounded, like Caesar in the senate house, by those who are reiterating stab upon stab, I would not for this right hand have her say to me, ‘Et tu quoque, mi fili!’”

Webster’s words reportedly brought tears to the Chief Justice himself and the words, “It is, Sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it!” are heard often in every facet of campus discussion. Those who would change this unique aspect of Dartmouth need not look any further for the best argument against their machinations. As Webster remarks, Dartmouth is not special because of its prestige. It is special because those few who pass through its halls love it. Truthfully, a name change may have no effect on either the reputation of the college or its vaulted traditions. What it will mean is that we have, at long last, capitulated our fierce individuality to the forces that be.

Sandor Farkas Jack S. Hutensky

CARTOON

“Do you think they can make Hanover a sanctuary city from finals?”

CARTOON

“Maybe the Greek Leadership Council should ostracize SigEp before it siezes power....”

CARTOON

“Did you watch the Oscars?”

“Talk about fake news....”

5

6 Monday – February 27, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Something is Rotten in the GLC

DARTMOUTH FRATERNITIES Things aren’t as black and white as they used to be.

Joseph R. Torsella Max J. Frankel Executive Editor Managing Editor Compared to some of the other organizations governing Greek life on campus, like the Inter-Fraternity Council, the Greek Leadership Council (GLC) has low visibility. Nevertheless, it has been the subject of some quiet controversy in the past few weeks, mainly concerning its last election. An investigation by The Dartmouth Review revealed some troubling practices in this powerful organization, which allow for the current council members to have an unduly large say in the selection of their successors. These structural problems provide some context for complaints about the election for the 2017-2018 term, which has prompted some dissent within the GLC. The GLC is the organization nominally at the head of the Greek system at Dartmouth. It exists to engage with the administration on issues affecting Greek houses, to foster unity among the various Greek organizations, and Mr. Torsella is a sophomore at the College and an Executive Editor at The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Frankel is a sophomore at the College and a Managing Editor to The Dartmouth Review.

to, “support its constituents in their pursuit of academic success, leadership development, and flourishing in social environments.” In pursuit of that goal, the GLC has the authority to set policies and impose them on Greek organizations through various sanctions.

Theoretically, the GLC is supposed to represent in corporate form the individual Greek chapters through the participation of their presidents. Greek presidents can vote on new regulations, and in theory, they elect the members of the Council itself.

Certain parties to the GLC have come forward with concerns about the recent round of GLC elections. These elections are for the executive positions on the GLC. The GLC election process is, in fact, rather complicated. First, the current GLC is supposed to form a committee in order to elect a slate of candidates, which will in turn be voted on by the current Greek chapter presidents. That committee is composed of the Vice Chair of the GLC, who nominates two members of the GLC as well as two sub-council presidents who vote on the slate. The Dartmouth administration, in the form of the Office Greek Life, consults on the selection of the slating committee. The committee chooses between applicants who have applied to be executive members of

the GLC. Demand is not high; for this year’s slate, 8 applied and 6 were chosen.

The Greek chapter presidents then vote on the slate – the entire slate – in one go. If a Greek President is unhappy with one of the officers, he has to challenge that officer with a second from another president. In order to propose another candidate, a nomination and a second are needed as well. The slated officer who has been challenged is then separated from the slate, and the rest of the slate is still voted on as a whole.

Note that this complicated procedure allows the slating committee fairly effective control over the composition of the following year’s executive council.

Indeed, much of the current council is composed of Sig Eps, and there are many Sig Eps on the future council.

That being said, Sig Eps do make up the bulk of the male applicants.

The problem with the current organization of the GLC elections is that it effectively distances the Greek chapter presidents from the institution that is supposed to represent them. Because the College’s representative also has a say on the selection committee, the College also has an undeserved voice in the GLC. This dilution of the raison d’etre of the GLC has important implications.

The GLC, although relatively un-

known, has a great deal of influence over Greek life on campus. It received nearly forty thousand dollars in allocated funds for the most recent academic year, some of which went to programming events for freshman during the six-week ban. Incidentally, the sixweek ban is among the GLC’s many initiatives, which also include the ban on the Indian symbol throughout the Greek system and changes to financial policies of all Greek houses. The influence of the GLC stems from its ability to make policy that holds throughout the Greek system. Working closely with the administration, it is often the vehicle for such changes as are deemed necessary for the entire Greek system.

So it is perhaps not a surprise, given the complexities of the election system, that the GLC has seen some controversy surrounding the most recent election, which occurred on February 8. Sources speaking to The Dartmouth Review were concerned with the new system of voting by email, the process for slating candidates, and the short time between the announcement of the slate and the actual voting: candidates were given only twenty four hours to consider the slate, and some never received the email. These complaints have apparently reached the GLC itself, which held a meeting on February 15,

two days after the announcement of the new council, which was intended to address this feedback.

Further complicating matters, a source told The Dartmouth Review that the GLC intends to change their constitution to reflect the abbreviated procedures from the most recent election. The only positive change is that instead of the slating committee consisting of only the Chair and Vice Chair, it will now be altered to include the presidents of the Panhellenic Council and the IFC as well as the GLC executive board. Commenting on the lack of house president input on the election process, the president of Sigma Nu, Lota Ezenwa, said, “The GLC works with the administration to create alcohol policies, but this process excludes elected representatives of those who actually comply with these policies.”

The principal-agent problem is not unique to for-profit corporations. The GLC, as the representative of the Greek community at Dartmouth, should represent, as far as possible, the Greek house presidents. It should not be allowed to be diverted from its mission.

The GLC should not represent its own executive board or the College, but instead the fraternities. It is clear that at some sort of reform is badly needed.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – February 27, 2017

7

FEATURES

An Interview with Julia Griffin > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Police departments do not enforce civil laws; they only enforce criminal laws. Hanover Police Department doesn’t play a role in immigration enforcement now, nor do we have any interest in doing so. One of the questions that came up was that it’s always conceivable that the federal government, either via an executive order or a change in federal law, could articulate the requirement that local law enforcement become extensions of the immigration and customs enforcement, but you would see states and communities pushing back legally, saying that civil law is not criminal law, and we have no role. So we are just not involved at all on immigration issues. The counties, however, are more likely to be involved because they host the jails. If you look at what counties are doing around the nation, there are some counties that have adopted sanctuary county policies, there are other counties that have already actively entered into “287G Agreements” with ICE to become extensions of immigrations and customs enforcement; it varies widely from county to county across the United States.

It would not be unusual for an individual who might be arrested at the local level and processed and transported up to the county jail for incarceration for the county to be involved in inquiring into their immigration status.

Grafton County is an entity that would have more cooperation with ICE, but we do not. Just because we would take the action of formalizing our classification as a sanctuary city doesn’t mean that we would suddenly have a whole new set of policies to implement, because we’re already abiding by that approach.

TDR: What would the benefits be of making Hanover a sanctuary city? What would the drawbacks or consequences be?

JG: As I interacted with this group on February 22 (there were probably 50 or 60 people there), I would say it was 50% Dartmouth students, faculty, and staff, and the other 50% community residents; it wasn’t exclusively a Dartmouth gathering. I saw a lot of anxiety and concern in the room.

There were some people there who were directly affected as immigrants and refugees. I think what they clearly articulated is that the declaration of a community as a sanctuary sends a clear message to your residents that you stand for those principles. To do anything less than that means Mr. Mourouzis is a junior at the College and an executive editor at The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Hutensky is a freshman at the College and an associate editor at The Dartmouth Review.

it may be less than clear what your principles are. I absolutely hear that, but the only thing that I worry about when you undertake the official declaration, they’re suddenly in the spotlight that the Trump Administration tends to thrust on communities that act in disagreement with the policies of the administration. What I hate to see is federal funding for Dartmouth threatened by the declaration of ourselves as a sanctuary city. Chances are that threat from the Trump Administration would not hold up in a court of law, but knowing that any college or university campus is significantly dependent on federal funding, I don’t want to take that matter lightly.

TDR: How does the process of becoming a sanctuary city differ in Hanover’s case in comparison with how it would work in larger cities, for example Chicago or New York?

JG: We are a town, and towns operate under a different set of regulations than cities do. Obviously we operate very differently from a major metropolitan area, but fundamentally, unless a city makes a conscious decision to be actively involved in some way in immigration work, you don’t typically see cities performing immigration functions. The only change in practice you might observe is that some communities may more readily call ICE when they’re dealing with an individual who is either undocumented or an immigrant who has committed a crime. There was a feature on NHPR recently contrasting the town of Salem, NH with the city of Nashua. They share a border. Those two communities police somewhat differently.

Nashua, which is very ethnically diverse and hosts a lot of refugees, does not work with ICE at all unless they’re dealing with a major felony committed by an undocumented individual. Salem regularly interacts with ICE. The program interviews the two police chiefs, doing a comparison, and what that show reveals is that it’s very much an individual police department and community decision. I do think that the whole sanctuary discussion and the shifts that are happening at the federal level are probably provoking more communities to do some introspection and say, “Okay, wait a minute, this is what we’re doing now, do we want to do that consciously, or do we want to revise our practices with respect to our interaction with ICE?” I know that in cities and towns across the nation communities are having these conversations.

We haven’t really thought about it proactively before because there hasn’t been such a spotlight on this issue as we’re seeing right now. But from Hanover’s perspective, our practice has never been

to be involved in an inquiry on somebody’s immigrant, refugee, or undocumented alien status, nor do we intend to move in that direction. Practically, we don’t have the resources, and also, we’re a community with a lot of international diversity because of the College and the medical center.

Our police chief feels very strongly that we need to be a community where every single person who lives here feels comfortable interacting with the police, and what we don’t want to do is create a climate of fear amongst individuals from outside the US that would discourage them from calling the police whenever they need assistance. Part of community policing is being sensitive to the needs of your residents and recognizing that we’re not going to be involved in civil law enforcement in this community.

TDR: Is there anything in the works for Hanover to respond if there’s a pushback from defying the federal law enforcement regulations?

JG: Not yet. It’s not like we’ve strategized how we’re going to be defiant in the face of federal regulations that we disagree with. I think that our approach right now is simply to say, “From our perspective, immigration law is civil law, our police department does not enforce civil law, we don’t have any interest in being expected to take on the role of enforcing civil law, we focus our policing around the needs of our community, and we need to be mindful of the needs of our non-US citizens who are here and a part of our community.”

TDR: One criticism of this proposal is that the legal issues inherent in becoming a sanctuary city, coupled with the fact that Hanover is a small, remote town, would result in any action only having symbolic value. Is this criticism valid?

JG: I think it is. Let’s face it: Hanover is not ever going to be the epicenter of immigration enforcement actions. This has many more significant implications for communities along the border with Mexico and communities in the southeastern part of the United States that may be dealing with refugees coming in with places like Cuba, and the major metropolitan areas which tend to see a larger influx of immigrants from central America, from Africa, from the Middle East. For rural New Hampshire, we don’t see a large influx of undocumented aliens in our community. What we’re seeing are faculty, staff, students, and others who come here either to get an education or to work in conjunction with the College, the medical center, or our major employers.

99.9% of the time these folks are

documented, and in the case of the DACA students who are attending Dartmouth, the Trump Administration has indicated this is not a group they are interested in targeting. I can only imagine those students are nervous, but for now, we’d like to think they can go about continuing to get their education here. This is more symbolic than anything else, but interestingly enough, the other group of individuals that are out there in our community are those folks who are here as foreign nationals with valid visas who may not be able to go home for fear they won’t be able to get back in to the US. For example, you can have a student from any one of the seven countries [with restricted immigration under President Trump’s recent executive order] who is here on an appropriate visa to study at Dartmouth, and all they want to do is go home for break, but they may not feel they can because they may not be able to get back into the US, given what’s tending to happen now in terms of TSA and immigration looking at foreigners trying to come back into the country.

You have a whole group of folks who are sort of in immigration limbo, who are here legitimately but can’t go home again, because going home again means they can’t return. We just don’t know how many people are feeling in immigration limbo, even though they’re here legitimately.

to come and share with them the same perspective I shared with her, and I said “Yes, and let me bring the police chief.” Sometimes folks are less anxious when they can hear an actual representative of their law enforcement agency talking about what we don’t do now. Charlie Dennis did a great job of answering lots of questions, like “What if I’m a student from another country who is detained for drinking alcohol underage?”

The rumor is police officers are stopping people for a broken taillight or an alcohol violation, and next thing you know, that person is deported. Charlie was able to let them know that first of all, underage consumption of alcohol is a violation, not a misdemeanor or felony, it’s not an offense that warrants an arrest. It yields a court appearance or diversion, but no, you don’t have to worry that if you’re caught drinking underage that it could lead to deportation.

There were lots of questions like that from the audience that were very specific, and I hope that folks found it helpful to hear from the police chief what they don’t need to worry about, because there’s a lot of rumors out there online, in casual conversation, wherever, and we’re trying to do our best to debunk myths.

TDR: Where are we seeing the support for this decision? Is it primarily amongst students, or permanent residents of Hanover?

JG: The only thing I urged the group to consider was scheduling a meeting with our counterparts in the county – the county sheriff, county attorney – because I think it behooves this group to understand the role the county does play. Every county sheriff ’s department is a little bit different, so I thought it’d be helpful to understand from that perspective, what interaction the sheriff ’s department has with ICE. We reminded them that when we arrest somebody, we process them at the Hanover Police Department, but they’re then transported immediately to the Grafton County House of Corrections, where they are jailed. That’s where you could see potential for more interaction between the jail staff and ICE. I’m hoping the group will avail themselves of that advice and schedule a meeting with the Grafton County sheriff and attorney to talk about what the county’s doing.

JG: Definitely a mix. I initially heard from the Friends, but very shortly thereafter, started hearing from a wide range of residents – not students and not all faculty, but also just local residents who began emailing me to ask if we had considered sanctuary designation. In part, their interest was prompted by the fact that there was press attention now focused on other communities that were taking the step to become official sanctuary communities. Every time a new story ran about this issue, inquiries would bubble up through my email, but it’s been an interesting broad spectrum of folks. It hasn’t just been Dartmouth-affiliated. I wasn’t contacted by students until just last week when one of the co-founders of the Upper Valley Coalition came to speak with me.

TDR: What was that conversation like?

JG: She really wanted to know what our thoughts were on sanctuary, and I literally walked her through what I just walked you through. She mentioned that the group was meeting on February 22, and asked if I would be willing

TDR: Is there anything else you’d like to add regarding the gathering at St. Thomas Church on February 22?

TDR: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

JG: The only thing I would add, I also I offered it on Wednesday night, is that anyone who has a concern about this and needs to be better informed as to what we’re doing now should feel free to reach out to us, because we want to help as many people as possible understand what our current practice is.

8 Monday – February 27, 2016

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Christina Hoff Sommers Tells All

I understand that many schools want to encourage civility and respect. So do I. But civility is best taught through example—not censorship regimes. Enforced “Civility” can also serve as a pretense for banning tough criticism, humor, satire—or unpopular ideas. The truth is not always polite.

TDR: Moving on towards the topic of gender equity. You are also published on the issues facing young boys in society (The War Against Boys), when much focus is placed on young girls. What happened to “male privilege?”

CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS poses for her fans.

Jack F. Mourouzis Executive Editor Editor’s Note: Christina Hoff Sommers is a well-known former philosophy professor and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of several books including Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys. She also hosts a video blog entitled The Factual Feminist. The Review sat down with Ms. Sommers to gain some insight on her perspective on modern-day gender movements and feminist controversy.

The Dartmouth Review (TDR): Much of your writing has to do with the warped state of modern feminism. Can you explain how it came to this? Where does the modern movement have its origins, and why is it the way it is today?

Christina Hoff Sommers (CHS): I am a strong supporter of classical equity feminism — the sort of feminism that won women the vote, educational opportunities, and many other freedoms. But on today’s campus, equity feminism has been eclipsed by fainting-couch feminism. Fainting-couchers view women as psychically fragile and prone to trauma. They demand trigger warnings, safe spaces, and micro-aggression monitoring. Their primary focus is not equality with men—but rather protection from them. As an equity feminist from the 70s, I see this as a setback for feminism—and for women. There was a battle for the soul of feminism in the 80s and 90s. The wrong side won. Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin (precursors to today’s fainting-couchers) sought

to protect women from the ravages of an implacable, all-encompassing patriarchy. Never mind that no such patriarchy existed. Another group, known as sex-positive or libertarian feminists, focused on female freedom, personal responsibility, and pleasure. They saw MacDworkinism (as it came to be called) as a reactionary social purity movement. The libertarians had better arguments, but the MacDworkinites won most of the assistant professorships. Over the years, MacDworkinism has melded with “intersectionality.” Today, undergraduate women are told (depending on their identities) that they are oppressed not only by sexism, but by racism, classism, ableism, etc.

Conceptually, the theory is muddled. For one thing it fights sexism and racism by classifying everyone according to sex and race. But at the highly privileged intersections of American higher education, the theory is all the rage. For an equality feminist like myself, this is a sorry development. Our feminist foremothers viewed women as just as competent and mentally strong as men, so they fought and won a battle for equality. Trigger warnings, safe spaces and identity theatrics betray that tradition, and treat women like fragile little birds in need of protection. I see too many talented, idealistic young women turning inward—away from a world that needs them.

TDR: In addition to the movement itself, many words have lost their original meanings. Terms like “racism,” “sexism,” “violence,” “unconstitutional,” “fascism,” and various other -isms and -phobias do not mean the same thing that they did even three years ago. How

Courtesy of the American Enterprise Institute has this happened?

CHS: For activists committed to the doctrine of intersectionality, universities have to be seen as racist, sexist, violent institutions. The theory demands it. In fact, our institutions of higher learning are among the least bigoted or violent places on earth. To maintain the theory, activists stretch the meanings of words beyond comprehension. When I politely challenged fainting-couch feminism at Oberlin and Georgetown—protestors accused me of “violence.” Instead of challenging what I said, they have re-labeled it as violence and ruled it out of bounds.

That’s not only absurd, it contradicts to principles foundational to our Constitutional democracy. The American legal tradition makes a clear distinction between words and deeds. According to diversity officials at Berkeley and UCLA, anyone who suggests that “Men and women have equal opportunities for achievement” or refers to the US as “a land of opportunity” is creating a “hostile” environment and “targeting” marginalized people.

They have good intentions, but they twist words in ways prevent rational debate.

TDR: In wake of the Berkeley riots this past week, it’s become more clear than ever that freedom of speech is, in fact, a dangerous thing. Interestingly, it has not come under threat from the government - which is what the constitution explicitly protects against - but rather from private citizens.

What is the danger of this? How can we overcome this conflict over freedom of ideas?

CHS: On some campuses, activists have assumed the role of thought

police. When they heckle speakers or shut down events, they set themselves up as arbiters of what others can hear and say. Who put them in charge? They are free to not attend events they don’t like or to protest peacefully. What they can’t do is to shut down discussion. Legally, the First Amendment applies only to the government, but the moral principles on which it is based ought to apply to private universities as well.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, a legendary champion of liberal causes, called restrictions on free speech “dangerous subversions” and “the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” Why un-American? Because in our free and open democracy—there is no Ministry of Truth.

TDR: Where does free speech stop and hate speech start?

CHS: The First Amendment does not recognize the distinction. Hateful and benign words are equally protected. You can say vicious things about all groups—Jews, Muslims, Christians, Whites, Blacks, women or men—even babies. You can burn a flag, insult Catholics or celebrate Hitler. I find such speech reprehensible and there is far too much of it in the blogosphere as well as on campus. But in America we deal with it by social scorn, not censorship. We don’t have blasphemy laws.

That is not our tradition. We err on the side of freedom. Any public university that imposes a speech code is violating the US Constitution.

Private universities like Dartmouth have more leeway. But even private schools may have contractual obligations to protect academic freedom if that was promised in their mission statement.

CHS: Girls and women are the privileged sex in education. From preschool to graduate school, and across ethnic and class lines, women get better grades, they win most of the honors and prizes, and they’re far more likely to go to college. Today women earn a majority of bachelor’s degrees and advanced degrees.

Latino girls are now slightly more likely to attend college than white boys. When an education policy analyst looked at current trends in higher education he quipped, only half in jest, “The last male will graduate from college in 2068.” Our schools have offered untold number of admirable and effective programs to strengthen girls in areas where they languished—in sports, math, and science. Where are the programs to help boys in areas where they falter: reading, writing, grades, school engagement and college matriculation? So far Congress, schools of education, school boards and the Department of Education have looked the other way.

TDR: In what ways are women and girls actually worse off than men and boys? How can this be helped, and what role is modern feminism playing in actually addressing these issues?

CHS: Women, far more than men, struggle with the challenge of combining work and family. They still earn less. Although violence against women is on the decline, it continues to exact a terrible toll. In the past, feminists played a decisive (even heroic) role in improving the status and safety of women. But, today the movement is carried away with a “war-on-women” narrative.

Advocates never tire of telling us that women are cheated out of nearly a quarter of their salary; thaone in four college women is sexually assaulted, or that women are facing an epidemic of online abuse and violence. Such claims are hugely distorted, but they have been repeated so often they are have taken on the aura of truth. Workplace discrimination, sexual assault and on-line threats are genuine problems, but to solve them women need sober analysis, not hype and spin. Exaggerated claims and crying wolf discredit good causes and send scarce resources in the wrong direction.

TDR: What effect does gender-neutral child-rearing actually

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – February 27, 2017

9

FEATURES

The Factual Feminist

have on kids growing up today?

What are the consequences going to be down the line?

CHS: With few exceptions, children are powerfully drawn to sex-stereotyped play. Parents who imbibed too much Judith Butler in college and view gender as fluid and malleable may be startled by the counterevidence provided by their toddlers.

A 2012 cross-cultural study on sex differences confirmed what most of us already knew to be true: Throughout the world, women tend to be more nurturing, risk averse and emotionally expressive, while men are usually more competitive, risk taking, and emotionally flat. (Of course there are exceptions, but these researchers were looking at the norms.) As for play preferences, the female penchant for nurturing play Mr. Mourouzis is a junior at the College and an executive editor at The Dartmouth Review.

and the male propensity for roughand-tumble play hold cross-culturally and even cross-species. Among our close relatives such as rhesus and vervet monkeys, researchers have found that females play with dolls far more than their brothers, who prefer balls and toy cars. It seems unlikely that the monkeys are acting out a culturally manufactured gender binary. The best evidence we have suggests that some not-yet entirely understood combination of biology and culture is behind typical male/female differences. Of course parents and teachers should expose kids to a wide range of toys and play activities. But they must also be careful not to shame their children for their preferences. That sort of shaming can do harm. To give one example, little boys tend to favor superhero play where they vanquish bad guys. Two researchers noticed that many teachers don’t like that sort of play and often don’t allow it.

They asked an important question:

“If boys, due to their choices of dramatic play themes, are discouraged from dramatic play, how will this affect their early language and literacy development and their engagement in school?” Ignoring genuine differences between boys and girls can be just as misguided as creating differences where none exist.

TDR: What effect is Donald Trump’s presidency going to have on this movement? Are things going to get better, or worse?

CHS: I have given up making predictions about Mr. Trump.

TDR: Can higher education be saved? What’s it going to take?

CHS: To save themselves universities must overcome their obsession with identity politics. There are too many classes focused on narrow topics: too few on transcendent works of genius. Students com-

plain, “I don’t see myself in the curriculum.” You are not supposed to.

The purpose of education is to take you outside yourself into a larger world. Conservative scholars can’t do much to turn things around.

They have all but disappeared from campus. So it’s up to liberal academics to restore sanity. Will they do it? I’m not so sure. Anyone who challenges the identitarians will face a lot of hostility and be told the check their privilege. Who wants that? But there is one hopeful development. The University of Chicago has indicated that it will not be going the way of safe-space, trigger warnings and censorship. Some have suggested that universities need to be clear about their primary mission: They can pursue truth, at the expense of identity validation and emotional comfort--or they can choose comfort, and admit that they sometimes do so at the expense of truth. Either is fine, but at least students will have a choice.

God and Man at Dartmouth

B. Webb Harrington Associate Editor

When William F. Buckley Jr. wrote his perennial treatise on religion at Yale, God and Man at Yale, he identified a trend of anti-religiousness in academia. At the time, he was most concerned not by anti-religious professors who were willing to bias the material they taught, but by religious professors who did their best to maintain objectivity. This ultimately plays a negative role in the free exchange of ideas by placing different ideas on different playing fields. The trend identified by Buckley continues even today, as there is significant evidence of religious discrimination in admissions at the College. While the administration spends nearly infinite amounts of time bragging about each percentage point of First-Generation College Students, or the male-female ratio, or the diversity represented by the various racial or ethnic groups present at Dartmouth, religion and religious diversity are topics wholly ignored. A case of particular interest is evangelicals; despite being one of the largest group of Christians in America, they are perhaps one of the most underrepresented groups at Dartmouth.

America as a whole is a very religious nation; according to Pew Research, a little more than 75% of Americans are religious. About 70% of Americans are Christian. To many Americans, this religious identification is one of the most important parts of their identity. Religious affiliation is correlated with everything from homosexual behavior to voting patterns.

A full one in four Americans identify as Evangelical Christians. Other religions, such as Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, represent a mere 5.9% of the US population.

Because of the administration’s Mr. Harrington is a freshman at the College and an Associate Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

penchant for avoiding actual numbers about religion at the College, The Dartmouth Review performed a study by distributing 97 surveys to Dartmouth students in the Class of 1953 Commons while they ate dinner on a Thursday night. Admittedly, this survey did not collect information on a perfectly representative sample of Dartmouth students; about 60% of respondents were male, and 40% were part of the new class of 2020. While the survey was by no means perfect, the figures were striking and perhaps the best available source of information on the religious make-up of Dartmouth. While Dartmouth is indeed heavily Christian – 54% of Dartmouth students identify as such – Evangelicals are almost entirely missing from the school. Only one student out of 97 respondents identified as Evangelical.

Evangelicals are under-represented by 25-fold. To put this in perspective, if African-American students were similarly under-represented, there would be only twelve black students at Dartmouth College. The bulk of the missing evangelicals were replaced by a mixture of faiths other than Christianity, particularly Jews and Hindus. Altogether, religious students of non-Christian faith made up 21% of the student body, compared to 5.9% of America.

There are a variety of possible explanations as to why Evangelicals are so under-represented at Dartmouth College. Chiefly, Dartmouth could discriminate based upon characteristics that are correlated with certain faiths, like Evangelical Christianity, but not directly discriminate against Evangelicals. Some examples might be: geographic location, homeschooling, education, rural vs. urban divide, political affiliation, or insider vs. outsider tendencies. Dartmouth may also simply not provide sufficient outreach to evangelical high-school students.

Evangelicals tend to be geographically clustered in certain regions of the country. Namely, according to Pew

Research, Evangelicals make up 34% of Southerners, 24% of Midwesterners, 22% of Westerners, 13% of people from the North East, and only a negligible percentage of people from outside the United States. However, the College maintains that it seeks geographic diversity. Only 26% of students in the class of 2020 come from New England or overseas, suggesting that at least a quarter of the remainder ought to be Evangelical. Unfortunately, Dartmouth College presents no information as to the distribution of students from rural or urban environments, so it is impossible to judge with great certainty how much of a role this might play in the lack of Evangelicals at Dartmouth. It is also possible that since people on the coasts of greater wealth and “privilege” tend not to be Evangelicals, admissions policies favor these groups over the Middle American Evangelical. Evidence for this theory is sparse and often contradictory, however, as many people living on the coasts are indeed Evangelicals.

Groups whose parents went to college are more likely to go to college themselves. Could Evangelicals’ lack of education be an explanation for their absence at the College? That is less likely. According to a comprehensive study of religion in America by professors Barry Kosmin and Ariela Keysar of Trinity College, Evangelicals are far more likely to have graduated from college than most other religious groups. In their study, the Trinity College professors found that 49% of Evangelicals had a college degree, whereas only 33% of Americans in general had done the same. Jews, Hindus, and a few main-line Protestant churches were the only religious groups with a higher degree of educational attainment than Evangelicals. If education is taken into account, more than the national average of Evangelicals should be present at Dartmouth.

Another possible source of under-representation of Evangelicals at Dartmouth is the challenge that ho-

meschooling presents to college admissions officers. While standardized test scores do make it easier to see if homeschooled students are up to snuff in their education generally, it is still difficult to understand students if there is no school context to place them into.

For admissions officers who eschew such narrow educational measures as the SAT or ACT, homeschoolers who can offer little else are a difficult sell. According to the Department of Education, homeschoolers make up about 3.4% of students in America, though only a few of these students are homeschooled K-12, and for their full educational curriculum. Most are only homeschooled for a portion of their years spent studying and/or take a few classes at traditional schools.

According to the Dartmouth Admissions website, “There is no separate form or special application for home school students. Standardized test scores can demonstrate proficiency.

We ask your home school supervisor to submit additional information on curriculum, grading scale, and evaluation. Dartmouth receives many applications from home school students, and our holistic review process means we consider each applicant within the context of their educational environment, community, and opportunities.”

If homeschooled students are indeed still under-represented at Dartmouth despite this policy, then the College ought to expand its outreach to homeschooled students. However, it appears that Dartmouth is fully aware of the difficulties of evaluating homeschoolers’ educational performance and readiness, and that Dartmouth already does its best to alleviate those difficulties. Homeschoolers’ tendency towards being Evangelical does not appear to be a significant cause of under-representation at Dartmouth.

Evangelicals tend to be very conservative. Just after the November election, the Washington Post cited exit polls suggesting that about 80% of white Evangelicals voted for Don-

TDR: What is the best advice you can offer to conservative students, closeted or otherwise, struggling against the oppressive weight of radical liberalism plaguing campuses nationwide?

CHS: Conservative students are the group I worry about the least.

Few people at your college are worried about your feelings. That is a good thing. Your views are tested and challenged every day. That’s what education is all about, and it’s something many liberal students are missing. Unfortunately, there is a noisy coterie of students, and a few professors, who see you as the embodiment of evil. But don’t be intimidated, because there are others—many others—who will appreciate your independent mind.

But do check out student programs at think tanks lik AEI, Cato, Hertog, and FIRE. These summer institutes are some of the safest spaces for reason, logic, and debate.

ald Trump. It appears that most of this came on the back of Anti-Clinton fervor and Trump’s promise to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. It is possible that since such a disproportionate percentage of Evangelicals tend to vote Republican, if the admissions office indeed discriminates against conservatives, they might skew Dartmouth admissions against Evangelicals. However, there are two main points to consider. First, even if the College successfully screened out the 80% of Evangelicals that claimed to have voted for President Trump, this still would not explain the lack of Evangelicals at Dartmouth. Evangelicals are under-represented by about 96%. The College would have to cut those 80% of Evangelicals, and then another 80% of those remaining in order to successfully reduce the number of Evangelicals at Dartmouth to its current level. Second, while the administration’s discrimination against conservatives on campus often becomes apparent, as in the Blue Lives Matter Controversy from last spring, the administration has denied discrimination against conservatives, or for that matter people of any religion.

As Occam the Franciscan Friar observed half a millennium ago, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. This principle is especially true when other explanations have no evidence, and more commonly have evidence against being the explanation. It is possible that the administration does not discriminate against Evangelicals. It is possible that because of other trends in admissions, or due to errors in the survey’s methods, that Evangelicals are not in fact discriminated against in admissions and are merely the victims of other policies and trends largely outside of the control of the administration generally and Admissions office specifically. It is possible that Dartmouth does not hate Evangelicals. It is possible, but unlikely.

10 Monday – February 27, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Diversity & The Dartmouth Review

1991 Students protest The Dartmouth Review

Rushil Shukla Erik R. Jones

Associate Editor Contributor Wooden platforms had been set up on the Green, complete with amplifying equipment. Thousands of student protestors and onlookers were milling around, many wearing T-shirts emblazoned with a circle and a red line through the word HATE. These students had come together for the “Rally Against Hate,” an event staged by Dartmouth President James O. Freedman ‘57 in October 1990 to protest the independent, off-campus newspaper The Dartmouth Review. At this nationally publicized event, all sorts of wild things were said by President Freedman and a wide swath of students, faculty, and alumni. Most notable, perhaps, was the following statement by President Freedman: “For ten years, The Dartmouth ReMr. Shukla is a freshman at the College and a Associate Editor at The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Jones is a freshman at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

view has attacked blacks because they are blacks, women because they are women, homosexuals because they are homosexuals, and Jews because they are Jews.”

The Editor-in-Chief of the paper at the time, who stood next to the platform as President Freedman denounced The Review for its “moral cowardice” and “vicious hatred,” was Kevin Pritchett, an African-American. Two previous Editors-in-Chief of The Review had been Indian-Americans, one of them Dinesh D’Souza, a now-famous conservative political commentator and author. The first President of The Review had been Nathan Levinson, a Jewish American. Yet President Freedman continued to advance scurrilous charges of anti-Semitism, racism, and bigotry against the editors of the paper and its supporters. Similar criticisms have been levelled against The Review since its inception in the 1980s. George Munroe, former chairman of Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees, once went so far as to suggest in The Wall Street Journal that The Review should be suppressed because it interfered

Courtesy of Rauner Library with the College’s efforts to recruit a “diverse” student body. Administrators and members of the Dartmouth community have often claimed that The Review opposes diversity on campus. Such accusations are not only false but represent the very height of irony. In the balkanized and Orwellian world of Dartmouth, The Review is one of the only places on campus where an individual can experience complete meritocracy and egalitarianism. At The Review, political beliefs, religion, and ethnicity are irrelevant.

All that matters is an individual’s ability to report, write, edit, and reason.

Over the last few decades, diversity has become one of the leading buzzwords in higher education.

Universities extol their percentages of minority and international students and seek to create “inclusive and diverse communities.”

These institutions ostensibly believe that intellectual life at universities should reflect a diverse array of opinions from a multitude of viewpoints. Yet although schools have dedicated hundreds of hours and millions of dollars to the pri-

ority of improving racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, in the process, viewpoint diversity has fallen by the wayside. Repeated studies have found that only about ten percent of professors in the social sciences or the humanities are conservatives. As higher education becomes a place of ideological exclusivity, ideological diversity suffers. Students at universities are not encouraged to interact with those who do not share their views. The rise of “safe space” culture in colleges across the country has encouraged students to remain close-minded, not to challenge themselves with new ideas. Views outside the mainstream liberal set often earn conservatives a slew of “isms” and “phobias.” Leftism is treated as the norm on college campuses by faculty, students, and administrators alike.

For example, after Donald Trump’s election in the fall, the Dartmouth administration sent campus emails treating the outcome as a tragedy, assuming that everyone saw it as such. America’s universities are ornaments of Western civilization, and their descent into liberal authoritarianism is alarming. If students no longer engage with people of different views, then Dartmouth can no longer be called a truly inclusive community.

Luckily, Dartmouth seems to be moving in a hopeful direction since the 2016 presidential election, but there is still much improvement needed toward a true free flow of ideas. In an opinion piece for The Dartmouth, Dorothy Qu argued for an increase in intellectual diversity among the Dartmouth faculty.

Titled “The Need for Conservative Faculty,” Qu’s piece makes a strong case for hiring professors of varied backgrounds to challenge students.

Qu laments the “shift toward liberal and progressive professors,” and recognizes the benefits of having true diversity of thought on campus. The Dartmouth Review is one of the few contributors to the conservative sphere that Qu defends.

Unfortunately, in today’s campus culture of single-minded commitment to liberal orthodoxy, The Review is perhaps the only force on campus that is able to successfully challenge the progressively liberal assumptions of Dartmouth, redefining the terms of the campus debate. The Review has consistently opposed the ideological monoculture that our universities are perpetuating, one where conservative ideas aren’t merely rejected, but often are never even heard.

Still, The Review has a substantial stigma attached to its name within the Dartmouth community. Whether due to its alleged “scandals” or to the conservative tilt of the publication, students develop often harsh impressions of the people involved. To be fair, The Dartmouth Review has often been unabashedly conservative in its coverage, attacking campus administrators and local politicians from a right-wing perspective. But underneath the veneer of our ideological rhetoric lies a tremendous

diversity of political thought. The political beliefs represented within The Review’s staff span the distribution of views on campus. There are people with right-of-center views and there are people with left-ofcenter views. There are people who supported Donald Trump in the Republican primary elections, and there are people who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. There are people who swear by Ron Paul’s unique brand of libertarianism, and there are people who support Scandinavian socialism. This mutual respect for differences has always been an important component of The Review.

After all, the students that write for The Review are a tolerant and inquisitive bunch; they are passionate about ideas and they argue vigorously about issues like what it means to be a conservative, what it means to be an American, what it means to receive a liberal arts education, whether America’s foreign policy is moral or amoral, whether corporations possess social responsibility, and whether morals can ever truly be objective.

The Dartmouth Review is not perfect, but it strives to create an atmosphere that is truly open to opposing viewpoints. Devon Kurtz ‘20, an openly gay editor for The Review, attests that he has “never had a problem” telling fellow staffers that he is gay. Kurtz said that it has been more difficult “coming out” as a conservative to fellow Dartmouth students than telling people that he’s gay, even if those people are in The Review. Bringing his unique history and experiences as a gay conservative to The Review, Kurtz can speak to the effects of the left’s identity politics. And it is within this dominant liberal orthodoxy that the The Dartmouth Review has distinguished itself as a vox clamantis in deserto, championing an unpopular, but morally and logically correct, interpretation of diversity that values viewpoint diversity as much as it values other forms of diversity.

After all, The Review is not meant to be a political tool of ultra-conservative alumni or a mouthpiece for a barrage of ultra-right garbage; it is meant to be a source of sensible, unbiased, and reliable coverage free of administrative control, dedicated to running reasonable columns that incorporate conservative viewpoints; this is a mission that students with a broad array of backgrounds and political beliefs can support.

The Dartmouth Review is ever-shifting, but it will always retain its intrinsic values as long as it remains independent from the College. With two former Editors-in-Chief from the Indian subcontinent, three former female Editors-in-Chief, and a number of former African-American Editors-in-Chief, The Review has never been and never will be a place of exclusivity or bigotry. We at The Dartmouth Review value diversity in all its forms and strive to hear all voices, regardless of race, orientation, gender, or religion.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – february 27, 2017 11

FEATURES

Conservative Identity on Campus > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

While conservative viewpoints expressed in class are often shamed or ridiculed, any rational individual can make the realistic distinction between discomfort and oppression.

Many conservatives often make the argument that the dominant, vocal left oppresses them on college campuses. To support these claims, they point to incidents where conservative students on campuses have been threatened with physical violence, property damage, and other forms of intimidation as methods to stifle their right to free discourse. A recent BBC video featuring young college conservatives telling their stories about being called “bigoted,” “racist,” and “homophobic” for simply trying to speak about their right-leaning beliefs seemed to lend credence to these assertions.

I will not delegitimize or dismiss any individual struggles that conservatives have faced because of their peers’ reactions to their beliefs. However, I will not validate these singular events as examples of the systemic and systematic oppression of conservatives on college campuses.

Modern activists on the left side of the political spectrum articulate and endorse a definition of oppression that is based on a sum of smaller instances of prejudice, hardship, and discrimination perpetrated by individuals, society, or the government. The principles of this definition are based on the concept that de facto prejudice is a legitimate form of oppression — an idea that is at odds with conservative philosophy. The right’s definition of oppression focuses on de jure prejudice, or prejudice that is not only found in individuals and throughout society, but that is also ingrained in policy and law. In essence, the burden of proof for the right to classify actions as a form of oppression is higher, as it requires that the government is actively using policy to systemically and systematically discriminate against and create undue hardship for individuals of a certain background. The conservatives who argue that they are oppressed on campuses exploit the left’s definition.

In doing so, they legitimize the left’s definition and concede the debate over oppression to those on the left. It is fair to say that students discriminate against and dismiss the views of conservative students, but this phenomenon alone is not oppression — it is simply a lack of understanding.

Taking all of this into conMr. Kurtz is a freshman at the College and a Managing Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

sideration, it is still undoubtedly true that it is difficult to be a conservative student on a left-leaning college campus. At some point in the 1960’s, the left began to popularly stereotype what it meant to be “rightwing,” and the right began to do the same to the left. College campuses were inundated with leftist individuals and thought, and liberal views became associated with intelligence, academics, diversity, and empathetic understanding. With liberal voices overwhelming conservative voices in higher education, conservative

nority groups exist, yet they are sometimes blinded to the diversity that exists inside of those very groups. Introducing a third dimension may be more challenging to conceptualize or understand, but it is exactly that complexity which makes it a truer reflection of human identity.

Both internal and external characteristics create the essence of who a person is; this fact is not difficult to grasp.

Everyone understands that an amalgamation of race, sex, health, gender, sexuality, and other traits makes up identity.

of their college experience.

Therefore, it is more common to find liberal students limiting and dismissing the speech and advocacy of the right than to find conservative students doing the same to the left. Many conservative students, especially at Dartmouth, identify as right-leaning moderates, but still find themselves being grouped in with more fervent conservatives by their liberal peers. In the weeks and months after the 2016 Presidential Election, it was common to find moderates and conservatives discussing why they did

“ Evidently, right-leaning students are more likely to recognize and embrace a spectrum of political beliefs, and a spectrum of personal identities that hold those beliefs, on their own side as well as on the left’s side. Left-wing students often refuse to afford the same level of critical analysis and understanding to the right’s spectrum of beliefs. ” views became associated with old-school elitism and outdated views of race, sex, class, and sexuality. The clichés attributed to the two schools of thought by their opposition began to define them: the left was dismissed as bleeding-heart communism and the right was discredited with accusations of racism, homophobia, sexism, and classism. The Democrats were supposedly comprised of social justice warriors, social deviants, minorities, labor unions, women, and the lower class, while the Republicans were the party of the rich white male and the evangelical conservative. Although this categorical sorting of traits has been largely debunked, many people on both sides of the aisle still think along these lines, fundamentally misunderstanding the complexity of peoples’ identities.

Countless proverbs and writers have observed that a sheet of paper, as thin as it is, has two sides. Everything in life, no matter how thin it may seem, has another side. As brilliant as this commentary seems, it is mistaken. A sheet of paper has six sides. As thin as it is, it is still a three-dimensional object. The only way to truly understand a sheet of paper — or in this case, an identity — is to view it in three dimensions. It is the best way to capture the true complexity of an individual’s identity. When people think of the traditional spectrum of identity, they oftentimes only consider the innate aspects of it like gender and sexuality. While this point of view does address some of the more obvious distinctions of identity, it is akin to recognizing that a sheet of paper has two — and only two — sides. Many people who have not been part of traditionally marginalized minority groups obviously understand that mi-

In addition to these more personal characteristics, political inclinations are also an influential factor in a person’s identity.

Imagine a bell curve and give it a Z-axis. You now have a three-dimensional bell curve.

Label the X-axis as “personal identity,” the Y-axis as “percentage of population,” and the Z-axis as “ideological identity.” Much like a standard two-dimensional bell curve, the majority of people fall in the middle of this new bell shape.

But, just like in a two-dimensional bell curve, there are outliers—people who do not fit the traditional expectation, or stereotype, of statistical likelihood. On the “personal identity” axis, there are nearly countless internal and external variables that influence one’s placement. There are a similar number of variables that contribute to one’s place on the “ideological identity” axis.

Now imagine that the identities of Dartmouth’s entire student population are plotted in this three-dimensional manner. This model is capable of changing the “deep-rooted ignorance” that lies at the heart of a widespread lack of understanding that plagues college campuses like ours.

It is an undoubtable truth that there are more vocal liberals than vocal conservatives on college campuses. Because of this fact, it is more common for liberal students to characterize conservative students based on stereotypes than the other way around. By doing so, these students ignore the outliers discussed in the three-dimensional bell shape.

Conservative students typically do not have the luxury of judging, stereotyping, or excluding their liberal peers. If they did, they simply would not have that many friends or access to the social dimension

or did not vote for a particular candidate, but it was rare to find liberal students who were willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of any Trump voter’s motives. It was a daily occurrence to see liberal Dartmouth students condemning not only Trump supporters, but any conservative in general, without any willingness to empathize, compromise, or understand. Evidently, right-leaning students are more likely to recognize and embrace a spectrum of political beliefs, and a spectrum of personal identities that hold those beliefs, on their own side as well as on the left’s side. Left-wing students often refuse to afford the same level of critical analysis and understanding to the right’s spectrum of beliefs.

Some phantom degree of oppression is not the cause of the difficulty entailed by being a conservative on campus. The true cause is our liberal peers’ refusal to acknowledge the same depth and nuance in our values and beliefs that we do in theirs. My daily challenges as a conservative at Dartmouth do not stem from liberal students trying to stifle my speech and persecute me; they stem from the constant inability of liberal students to understand, or even attempt to understand, the complexity of my political and personal identity. I am not oppressed, but I am horribly misunderstood. As a gay conservative, I am regularly dismissed by liberal students, forced to watch looks of confusion and occasionally disgust spread across their faces when I discuss politics. Liberal students often accuse me of exhibiting cognitive dissonance and of being a hypocrite and a traitor to the LGBTQ+ community because of my conservative. The semi-permeable compartmentalization of my personal identity and my political identity

is often incomprehensible to many liberal students at Dartmouth, yet I receive nothing but acceptance from conservative students.

To many on this campus, people can either be social justice warriors or Strom Thurmond-esque conservatives; there is nothing in between.

This could not be further from reality. It is dumbfounding that some of the world’s top students — whose Ivy League education trains them to analyze the nuances in academic and literary works — are incapable of applying their analytical abilities to nuances in the beliefs of their peers.

Political beliefs are only one aspect of an individual’s identity. These beliefs are based off of the other parts of that individual’s identity, values, and convictions. The gradient hierarchy of one’s beliefs dictates their political views, regardless of popular stereotypes. The idea that individuals can compartmentalize different portions of their identity might be difficult for some to understand, but that does not mean that people — liberals, conservatives, and everyone in between — cannot and do not do it. If we can agree that people are complex, then it makes sense that we can agree that people are complex in every aspect of their lives. Furthermore, complexity implies nuance. If these nuances are accepted and embraced, then it is perfectly fine for gay-conservative-Christians, rich-WASP-social-liberals, middle-class-transgender-black-Republicans, and Asian-asexual-libertarians to coexist. Conservatives deserve their own grey-scale rainbow of political ideology.

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP READS THE REVIEW. TREMENDOUS!

12 Monday – February 27, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

THE LAST WORD GORDON HAFF’S

COMPILED BY CONRAD KISSINGER

“If someone believes they are limited by their gender, race, or background, they will become more limited.”

–Carly Fiorina

“I decided that I would work very hard for gay rights. It would be totally dishonorable, being gay, not to do that.”

–Former Representative Barney Frank

“Those who believe religiona nd politics aren’t connected don’t understand either.”

–Mahatma Ghandi

“Do not ghettoize society by putting people into legal categories of gender, race, ethnicity, language, or other such characteristics.”

–Preston Manning

“I don’t think I’ve ever used the term ‘gay rights,’ becasue I don’t really believe in rights based on your behavior.”

–Senator Rand Paul

“In my view, church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled.”

–President Millard Fillmore

“I’m not going to advocate for a female leader who I’m voting for solely on the basis of gender. And I think a lot of people feel that way.”

–Ivanka Trump “Hillary Clinton is funded by people who murder homosexuals.”

–Milo Yiannapoulos “If any man claims the Negro should be content... let him say he would willingly change the color of his skin and go to live in the Negro section of a large city.”

–Robert Kennedy “There are people who were gay and lived a gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore. I don’t know if that’s a similar situation - I don’t think that’s the case with anybody that is black.”

–Former Senator Rick Santorum “I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party.”

–Frederick Douglass

“I’m saying it loud: I’m a Republican who supports gay rights.”

–Mark McKinnon “We’re not willing to water down our beliefs in order to be accepted.”

–Austin Weatherby “The College may subject to disciplinary action any employee or student who engages in or encourages: touching, caressing, and other physical conduct of a sexual nature with a person of the same sex.”

–Student Handbook of the College of the Ozarks “This is a book about God, guns, grits, and gravy.”

–Governor Mike Huckabee “I’m a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.”

–Vice President Michael Pence “Believing is putting everything you have, your heart, soul, life, putting everything into standing for what’s right.”

–Senator Ted Cruz

“It gets lonely: being a conservative on a liberal campus.”

–Title of a recent BBC video “Most of us conservatives didn’t suffer from similar injustices, but we saw ourselves nevertheless as victims of ideological oppression.”

–Dr. Aaron Hanlon “We are intent on bringing conservative ideas to liberal campuses, or bringing liberal ideas to conservative campuses.”

–The Amherst Student “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

–Barry Goldwater “Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

–Mitt Romney “African-Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do.”

–Former President William Clinton

BARRETT’S MIXOLOGY

ADVERTISEMENT

The “Smirnoff Ice”

Get your “Hard Facts” from The Dartmouth Review (See “The D” for Fake News)

Ingredients

• 1 shot of tequila • 1 year on disciplinary probation

8:30pm, Friday. Brown 3, Choates.

It was the country music that tipped off our reclusive UGA, Lil Phil (whose pronouns are they, them, their, and theirs.) Instead of sticking to the freshman standard of censored mainstream rap and pop music, my roommate Dirty Daniel W. and I loaded up a Spotify playlist chock-full of country drinking songs. The playlist featured only works with booze-soaked lyrics, sung by likes of the Maestro Merle Haggard, the Legend Waylon Jennings, the highly overrated Brad Paisley, and every bibulous country artist in-between. Spilling into the hallway from a Bluetooth speaker, Jim Reeves’ classic tune, “Drinkin’ Tequila,” roused Lil Phil to action. Thumbs trembling, Lil Phil scrolled through his phone’s 15 contacts and speed-dialed Safety and Security. “It’s time,” he squeaked into his iPhone.

No more than 15 minutes after Lil Phil’s call was placed, Officer Blart of the 69th Dartmouth S&S Regiment was on the scene. Fresh off a tour of duty at the Cedargrove Mall in Manchester, VT, Blart had certainly seen some things in his day. A highlight from Blart’s time at Cedargrove was when he broke up a gang of indoor squirrels; he first tried diplomacy, learning the squirrels’ ways and customs, yet was ultimately forced to terminate the gang with extreme prejudice. Now, with a flashlight in his right hand and the Student Handbook hanging on a gold chain around his neck, Blart was ready to carry out Commander-In-Chief Philip J. Hanlon’s will.

Taking the steps two at a time, Blart made a beeline for the room blasting country music. After fidgeting with his Choates master key, Blart burst into the penitentiary-esque room, shouting “S&S!” at the top of his lungs. Dirty Dan and I were shocked. Lil Phil had said nothing to us about turning down our music; plus, Lil Phil was supposed to be playing the trombone at the men’s hockey game that night! Tequila shots in hand, Dirty Dan and I knew we were dead men. A small smile tugged at Blart’s lips, making him look like a very large toad: “Where’s the handle?” he asked. Dirty Dan scoffed. “Um, like, actually, this drink told me to tell you that it self-identifies as a Smirnoff Ice,” retorted Dan with a straight face (read: Smirnoff Ice is 5.6% ABV.) Blart was utterly bewildered and it took him nearly two whole minutes of complete silence to reset his brain. Alas! Dirty Dan and I are facing a year on disciplinary probation with the College.

— Chief Wahoowah