Another Sunny Day In Hanover (4.23.2018)

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

Volu m e 3 8 , Is su e 2

Mond ay, Apr i l 2 3 , 2 0 1 8

ANOTHER SUNNY DAY IN HANOVER

THE SITE OF THE LONE PINE A memorial to the original Lone Pine stands.

Distinguished Alums of Venezuela: A Dartmouth: Austen Fletcher Failed State Daniel M. Bring

Managing Editor Austen Fletcher ‘12 has recently developed quite a following on YouTube with his channel, FleccasTalks.

The premise of his videos is simple, as Fletcher puts it, “I amplify the voices of leftist protestors.” Through candid interviews with protestors in the midst of demonstrations, Fletcher exposes the radicalism, hypocrisy, and lunacy common in these movements.

Most recently, he received widespread attention for his video on the ground at the large “March for Our Lives” event in Los Angeles last month. FleccasTalks currently boasts over 140,000 subscribers on YouTube and Fletcher has

more than 57,000 followers on his personal Twitter account. He spoke with Review Managing Editor Daniel M. Bring to discuss his YouTube channel, his time at Dartmouth, and his views on what’s going on today in this country.

TDR: For those curious and uninformed, can you describe a little bit about what you do on your channel, FleccasTalks?

AF: I am a recent conservative and I wasn’t really following politics while I was in college that much and this past election really woke me up. I think that was the case for a lot of people that weren’t taking politics too seriously in

their day-to-day lives. So then I started my channel about a year and a half ago, called FleccasTalks, and basically I go to protests and I interview protestors, just to see how much they know about what they’re protesting. At first, I did it just to talk about the ideas and hear another side, but the more and more I did it, the more I realized it was basically going to be more of a comedy channel, just because all of the protestors I come across don’t really know what they’re protesting or the deep down facts that go along with all of the events that they’re demonstrating against. So I interview protestors with a wooden spoon microphone and find out what they

think about certain topics.

Mostly conservatives and rational centrists think my channel is pretty funny.

TDR: What’s the story behind the spoon?

AF: My whole thing since the start, is I think the mainstream media, the dinosaur media is dying, and I think it’s really important to show people that journalism, or even just getting the story and standing up for your views, doesn’t have to be a million-dollar production. You don’t need a CNN studio or a guy in a jacket and a tie with all the equipment to tell you what’s going on.

> FEATURES PAGE 6

Alexander Rauda

Associate Editor Few could imagine the growth of Venezuela’s economy during the 20th century. A booming oil industry would bear much of the responsibility for this growth, but also for its decline.

As oil became the center of the Venezuelan economy, it led to an undiversified economy, and further internal problems did not seem to help the situation. That would all change, or so some thought, when Hugo Chávez, a socialist from a military background was elected in 1999. Hugo Chávez was just one of many personas that emerged during the end of the 20th century in Latin America. What political scientists now call the ‘Pink Tide,’ a turn to leftist ideologues, seemed to spread across the Western

Hemisphere. Even with the failure of Chávez’s policies, he was nonetheless a charismatic leader. When he died on March 5, 2013, his successor Nicolás Maduro, took Venezuela further down an authoritarian path. However, even with massive protests and the lack of resources, Maduro still clings to power. What strategies does Maduro employ to remain in power? What role did Chávez play in this path towards authoritarianism?

How will Venezuela overcome this struggle? These are the questions that Javier Corrales, a Dwight W Morrow 1895 Professor of Political Science from Amherst College, sought to answer in a presentation given on April 17, 2018.

> FEATURES PAGE 7

PROGRESSIVE DOG WHISTLES

IN MEMORIAM: BARBARA BUSH

FREE SPEECH IN KUWAIT

Editor-in-Chief Webb Harrington examines modern-day dog whistles.

The Review’s tribute to a great former First Lady of the United States.

One of The Review’s Editors-in-Chief abroad examines free speech in the Middle East.

> EDITORIAL PAGE 3

> FEATURES PAGE 11

> FEATURES PAGE 9

2 Monday – April 23, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STUDENTS

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, Former Vice Provost for Student Affairs

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

INSIDE THE ISSUE

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD COME TO ONE OF OUR MEETINGS BEFORE MAKING LUDICROUS ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT US.

An Interview with Austen Fletcher....................................Page 1 Venezuela: A Failed State.....................................................Page 1 Editorial: Progressive Dog Whistling................................Page 3 Another Greek Bites the Dust: SigEp.................................Page 8 Orwell Realized: Free Speech in Kuwait...........................Page 9 Defense in the Face of Disapproval..................................Page 10 Rebuttal: Defense in the Face of Disapproval................Page 11 In Memoriam: Barbara Bush............................................Page 11

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

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

Please include your mailing address and make checks payable to:

Or subscribe online at:

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

NIGEL FARAGE READS THE REVIEW.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – April 23, 2018

3

MASTHEAD & EDITORIAL EST. 1980

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

—Theodore Roosevelt

EDITORIAL BOARD

EDITORIAL

Editor-in-Chief

Dog Whistling

B. Webb Harrington

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Jack Mourozis

Executive Editors Joshua L. Kauderer

Managing Editors Daniel M. Bring Rachel T. Gambee

Tech Editor Erik R. Jones

Associate Editors Eashwar N. Sivarajan Will Jelsma Alexander Rauda

Senior Correspondents Josh Kotran

BUSINESS STAFF President

Noah J. Sofio

President Emeritus Robert Y. Sayegh

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. “Europe is growing more and more lost every day. I alone can fix!”

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

For those young people who do not re- cial group is the people who are “woke.” member when the term was popular, dog In other words, they are the group that whistling is the use of a message that may is extremely interested in social justice. be interpreted one way by the broader Social Justice Warriors use phrases like population but has a more specific mean- “diversity,” “inclusion,” “empowerment,” ing to a targeted political audience. A “representation,” “equity,” or “historicalcommonly cited example is when politi- ly oppressed groups.” These phrases may cians, particularly conservatives, use the seem innocuous, confusing, or even posterm “family values.” This is a dog whistle itive to those who have been successfully for Christians who want their values to indoctrinated, but really, they represent be upheld and protected while the term a new form of dog whistling. When pamdoes not necessarily phlets advertising a new offend large atheistic student club, a new or secular segments of college program, or a the American populajob opening use this tion. However, perhaps kind of language they the most common use are trying to attract the of the term in politics type of people who unis when liberal poliderstand this language. ticians, academics, or Liberal politicians like members of the media Hillary Clinton or Berrefer to something that nie Sanders who used a conservative politithis language were cian is saying as “dog desperately trying to whistling.” Typically, dog whistle to young the members of the left liberals. It is even posargue that conservative sible that Bernie Sandpoliticians use phrasers seemed so much B. Webb Harrington es like “states-rights,” more in touch to young “welfare queens,” or “criminals” to illicit leftists because he was better at dog whisresponses from racists in order to gain tling by using this very specific language votes. They would argue that while the than Hillary Clinton. phrases seem innocuous enough on their This dog whistling frequently shows own, they really are coded signals that up in pop culture as well. Take the Marwill be picked up by racists so that they vel Cinematic Universe as an example. know that the conservative politician is Asgard, the fictional land of the Norse on their side. With the possible exception Gods where Thor lives is a wondrous of examples relating to Donald Trump, product of CGI and decades of imagisuch as his use of the word “****hole” native comic-books. Wakanda has been countries, my experience of politics has a similarly high product, decades in the been substantially devoid of the left re- coming but instead is a fictional country ferring to conservative language as dog set in Africa that is technologically adwhistling. Whether this is because con- vanced and was never colonized. Why servatives have stopped dog whistling, did Asgard suddenly become racialliberals have stopped being able to falsely ly “diverse” in the recent Thor movies, accuse conservatives of dog whistling, or with a strange ensemble of black, white, because people have stopped paying at- and Asian characters with few matching tention to dog whistling is up for debate. extras, while Wakanda remained an allHowever, dog whistling has not disap- black nation? What is even stranger is peared as a useful term. Instead a differ- that many reviews and articles about both ent group of people should start using it. movies describe the casts as “diverse.” In On leftist college campuses, language fact many used this term specifically to has become a thing of fascination. In describe what they saw as some of the particular, typically far-left departments best things about Black Panther. Howlike Women and Gender Studies use ex- ever, Wakanda is objectively not diverse. tremely specific language in all of their It is a monoracial country made up of a writings. Many books that have become few closely related tribes. The reason that the basis for post-modernism and these many people who are deeply connected departments are laser-focused on the with social justice describe both movies language that is used to discuss a certain as diverse, or even Black Panther as more topic. Many conservatives have derided diverse than Thor, is that “diverse” is a such linguistic specificity as “virtue-sig- dog whistle that means mixed to the gennaling” or “nonsense.” This character- eral public, but not white to the specific ization, while comforting, is incorrect audience. Black Panther has only a tiny and fundamentally misunderstands the number of white characters and is thus purpose behind such language. These “diverse.” leftist departments are not just trying to While “diverse” is only one example of seem like better people than they are or a single term being used in reference to trying to confuse their audience, they are popular culture, such words are extremewriting for a different audience than they ly common. The language is not virtue seem to be. They are dog whistling. They signaling and it is not nonsensical. Ordiare saying one thing to the general pop- nary people must recognize exactly what ulation but communicating something this language represents: modern-day else a special group of people. That spe- dog whistling.

4 Monday – April 23, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

WEEK WEEKIN INREVIEW REVIEW THE COLLEGE SHUTS DOWN UPNE On April 18, the Office of Communications announced that the University Press of New England (UPNE), the College’s scholarly imprint, will be shut down by the end of the calendar year. Founded in 1970, UPNE was established as a consortium of Universities, with up to 10 colleges and universities at its peak. However, for the last two years, only Dartmouth College and Brandeis University have run the consortium. Furthermore, the College recently hired all of the twenty staff employed by UPNE. On April 17, the UPNE Board of Governors voted to dissolve the consortium and close the press. Once UPNE officially closes in December, Dartmouth and Brandeis will assume control of their respective imprints — the Dartmouth College Press and the Brandeis University Press respectively. A “study group” of faculty is expected to be created to decide if and how Dartmouth’s imprint should proceed.

The study group is expected to be charged with evaluating issues related to the future of a Dartmouth publishing enterprise, including the level of engagement among faculty and considering whether there are specific subject areas on which Dartmouth College Press should focus. If the College does decide to prioritize the publication of books that adhere to its philosophy, the Dartmouth College Press would be indistinguishable from propaganda and would do a great disservice to the numerous scholars who write those books and the students who read them. The faculty’s involvement creates a similar problem since they are themselves biased.

The reason the UPNE was shut down, according to President Hanlon, was that it had become unsustainable to operate because it only had two-member institutions. The administration apparently decided that what it spent on the press was simply too much of the college’s operating budget.

One can only hope that it cost the College enough to justify shuttering an almost fifty-year-old publication.

DARTMOUTH WELCOMES CLASS OF 2022 AT DIMENSIONS EVENTS Soon after being accepted to Dartmouth College, potential students have an opportunity to visit the campus. From April 12-13th, prospective students were hosted by current students in an overnight experience which the adminis-

tration hopes will help these admitted students decide on Dartmouth. Students from all around the globe arrived on April 12th just to visit the college on the hill. Greeted by Lee Coffin, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, prospective students, or “prospies”, then had an opportunity of exploring the campus on their own.

With events such as “The Dimensions of YOU,” the College puts on the façade of diversity to appeal to students from all backgrounds. Regardless, of whether this is genuine or not, the College does it best to make prospective students feel welcomed. Furthermore, the famous “After Dark Tours,” which many students work hard on before Dimensions, has become a tradition for incoming students. On April 13th, multiple departments held open houses to showcase the academic opportunities that the college has to offer. The incoming 22’s also had a chance to see the student organizations at the Student Activities Fair. The College will host the second wave of admitted students on April 23-24th. As to whether students will catch a glimpse of the infamous mob of prospies in Baker-Berry remains to be seen.

HOLY CROSS PROFESSOR ADVANCES RADICAL RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE The College of the Holy Cross is the oldest Catholic University in New England. You might have some assumptions about Holy Cross given its religious affiliation, but you would be wrong. The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion whose direct purpose is to destroy the fetus and even considers all forms of artificial contraception to be “intrinsically evil.” However, since the year 2000, Holy Cross has allowed seminars from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, both noted pro-abortion activist groups. Holy Cross is so far removed from the teachings of the Church that Bishop Robert McManus once threatened to revoke its Catholic status.

As The Fenwick Review, an independent conservative newspaper at Holy Cross, reported, Tat-Siong Benny Liew, a religious studies professor at Holy Cross, holds arguably blasphemous views. In a paper written in 2009, Mr. Liew claimed that Jesus Christ was a “drag king” with “queer desires”. In the paper, Mr. Liew says that Christ’s Passion may be viewed in a homoerotic light and that His crucifixion suggests a masochistic sexual relationship with the Father.

While we will dignify those absurd accusations with a response, the reaction of the administration of Holy Cross is important to note. Rev. Boroughs, president of Holy Cross, described Mr. Liew as a “man of faith” and defended scholars’ freedom to “push boundaries on widely accepted thought.” One can only imagine that Rev. Boroughs would

similarly defend the freedom of professors who make equally absurd assertions, like denying the Holocaust or suggesting that Allah is gay. It must be noted that this defense was not a matter of loyalty.

Holy Cross knew of Mr. Liew’s views before they appointed him Chair in New Testament Studies in 2013. A Catholic university intentionally hired a man whose views run contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. We can only speculate why and hope that this is not a trend leading to an abandonment of the faith.

DARTMOUTH HOSTS SEXUAL ASSAULT SYMPOSIUM On April 13th, Dartmouth held its 7th annual Sexual Assault Symposium, hosted by the Student and Presidential Committee on Sexual Assault (SPCSA). On their website, the SPCSA claims to “serve as an intermediary between students and the larger Dartmouth College community including the administration, faculty, and alumni of the college.”

As such, they work toward planning and implementing cross-campus initiatives to address sexual violence, some of which they presented on this year at the symposium. The event was open to the public, with approximately 70 people in attendance, including residents of Hanover, students, and faculty of Dartmouth.

President Phil Hanlon kicked off the symposium with a speech. He addressed his support for the committee’s work and acknowledged his appreciation for recent campus action against sexual violence, such as the “Take Back the Night” march on April 6, during which Greek houses closed their doors in solidarity with victims of sexual assault. Subsequently, members of the SPCSA presented on numerous projects on which they have made progress on since last year, including a “Survivors of Sexual Assault Handbook” and a flowchart to direct survivors of sexual assault toward the appropriate resources available to them. The handbook will serve as a guide to survivors on how to move forward after experiencing violence and will provide a compilation of the resources and post-assault processes.

Also, at the event, Liz Agosto, Senior Associate Dean of Student Affairs, presented on a 2017 Sexual Misconduct Survey. In the survey, 34 percent of respondents experienced non-consensual sexual contact since their arrival on campus. This figure is an increase from the 2015 survey, in which only 28 percent of respondents claimed the same.

However, as acknowledged by Agosto, a variety of reasons could explain this apparent increase in sexual misconduct, including the small sample size and changing attitudes toward the meaning of sexual misconduct.

While sexual assault remains a significant issue on campus

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – April 23, 2018

Eashwar N. Sivarajan Jacob Hunter and at campuses across the nation, it is indeed encouraging to note the awareness being raised around the issue as well as the attempts in the community to make progress on this issue. The Review commends the SPCSA for their role in the Sexual Assault Symposium and hopes Dartmouth will continue to make strides toward mitigating sexual misconduct.

Alexander Rauda Paul Woodberry

CARTOON

DARTMOUTH HOSTS FREE SPEECH PANEL MODERATED

BY DAVE RUBIN Last Thursday evening, the Dartmouth Open Campus Coalition (DOCC) hosted a panel on free speech sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). The host of the popular talk show, “The Rubin Report,” comedian Dave Rubin moderated a discussion with Objectivist philosopher Onkar Ghate and ex-Muslim activist Yasmine Mohammed. The three talked extensively about free speech, religion, and Objectivist philosophy. Specific issues included censorship on college campuses, political diversity in education, the modern totalitarianism of Islam, and ideological division in America.

There was a healthy mix of agreement and disagreement among the panelists. Each speaker was able to provide their unique perspective on the issues at hand. For instance, Ms. Mohammed shared her personal experience with the oppressiveness of Islam, and Dr. Ghate described the politicization of academia in his career. Trump and Washington politics stayed out of the conversation for all but three minutes of the two-hour-long event. When the President was mentioned, Dr. Ghate separated himself from the other panelists by emphasizing the threat Trump poses to free exchange of ideas in America.

Despite disagreement among the speakers, all three were able to come together to apply Objectivist and classical-liberal principles to the issues of free speech, diversity, and religious fundamentalism. In the question and answer section of the discussion, several audience members focused on Objectivist philosophy. Some students even expressed a desire to understand the ethics that Dr. Ghate promotes. These participants ranged from those who had hardly heard of Ayn Rand’s school of thought to those who were intimately familiar with Objectivist reasoning. As a supplement, ARI provided free copies of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and more of Ayn Rand’s works.

Over thirty students attended Thursday’s event. Given the divisiveness of the speakers and ideas present, the DOCC forestalled potential disruptions with the presence of several Safety and Security officers and officers from the Hanover Police Department. Ultimately, the extra security wasn’t necessary; the audience respected the speakers, and outside protest was nonexistent. Organizing leaders of the DOCC simultaneously expressed gratitude for the high turnout and dissatisfaction with the missed potential for large-scale campus conversation.

5

“Did you just assume my gender?”

CARTOON

“I heard your frat is gonna become a frat again!”

CARTOON

“Do you think they’ll have enough space for us next year?”

6 Monday –April 23, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

An Interview with Austen Fletcher ‘12 aka “FleccasTalks” Editor’s Note: For the sake of concision, some parts of this interview have been omitted.

Daniel M. Bring

Managing Editor So I originally I used the spoon as a microphone, I taped the microphone to it, and at first, it kind of discredited me. People think I’m an idiot and stupid, I wear hipster clothes, I’m out of shape, I have a beard, and a wooden spoon mic, so people open up to me more and don’t think I’m a credible person and don’t mind opening up to me. One of the bigger, overarching themes of the spoon mic is that I have an Italian mom and growing up I would get threatened with the wooden spoon if I misbehaved.

I think when it comes to the millennials especially, the structured discipline environment that I grew up in, I don’t think my peers had a similar experience, and that’s why we’re seeing a lot of what we’re seeing when it comes to these temper tantrums in the streets.

TDR: Where does the nickname “Fleccas” come from?

AF: I was in Fahey my freshman year, my best friend Zach, texted me saying, “I love you, Fleccas,” late one night. I wasn’t over 21 at the point, so I probably wasn’t drinking. People started calling me Fleccas on the football team and it was a random nickname that stuck. It just worked and fell into place.

TDR: Including the election of 2016 as you mentioned, what experiences led to you getting involved in today’s political conversations?

AF: I grew up in New York, so I’ve been somewhat following Hillary Clinton for her whole career, and I’ve always known, my family’s always known, that she’s corrupt and not the best politician. When the debates started happening and I saw how favorably the mainstream media was treating Hillary and the spin they were doing for her, it really woke me up and made me question what they were telling me about Donald Trump. So once I actually did some research, looked at some reliable sources, and figured out what was really going on, I realized that that the mainstream media was lying to me. They were preying on people who don’t follow politics but consider themselves of high moral stature. ‘Oh, you’re moral, you’re for gay rights, you’re for women’s rights, you’re not racist, so you’re a Democrat.’ That’s Mr. Bring is a freshman at the College and a Managing Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

how I thought it was, just because I wasn’t paying attention, when I was in college, when I was younger.

Once I realized that was the game they’re playing, I did some more research and figured basically everything they told us was a lie.

TDR: Getting back to your content, what are some of the craziest or eye-opening experiences you’ve had on the streets?

those on the Right are capable of countering effectively?

AF: Yeah, I think so. Conservatives will ‘red pill’ their rational friends, who don’t participate in politics by sending them Ben Shapiro videos or a podcast or Milo [Yiannopoulos], whatever it is, and introduce them to the other side.

While, I’m noticing, Democrats would rather capitalize on emotion-based events, like a shooting

“I think college students today, now more than ever are needed to share their view, because the people that matter are the individuals.”

AF: One guy pulled out a huge knife and was flailing it around.

That’s probably the craziest thing I’ve seen. When it comes to the actual protests, in LA, and I’m sure it’s the same across the country, there is a core group of organizers that I’m sure are paid protestors, part of the refusefascism.org group. They’re at every protest, every demonstration, they’re there with mass produced signs and it’s the same core people and everyone else just floats in based on the event. What I’m realizing about the protest culture out here, something that’s very telling to the larger issue with young people in America, I think that it’s basically how they were raised. A lot of these people are victimizing themselves and fell victim to the narrative that the mainstream media pushed that they are victims and they are oppressed. When the game is going on and you think you’re oppressed and you’re a victim, instead of trying to win, when you first reach a roadblock, you try to leverage your victimhood to win the game without having to compete. The people I’ve met on the conservative side come from every creed, gender, sexuality, everything, and they’re hard-working people, who have at base, immigrant values. My grandparents are immigrants, and there’s toughness, combined with a work ethic and determination, that a lot of these people have strayed away from. Instead of trying to compete and win at all costs, they’d rather blame the game and the rules, because they’re a victim, leverage that to their success, which never works. You never win by pulling the winner down, you win by doing whatever you have to do.

TDR: The Left in America today seems so energized and organized, do you think that’s something that

or a natural disaster, and attack the Right on those situations. As we saw with Parkland, the Left comes out and gets all these people in the streets to protest and condemn the NRA and that’s really just an attempt to rile people up before 2018 to vote against the Republicans who supposedly want more mass shootings. The Right tries to be rational and says ‘Hey, look at the numbers,’ while the Left would rather target the emotions of the groups and the masses and say ‘Oh, if you don’t want more kids to die, you have to be a Democrat.’

did, and it scares me.

TDR: Apolitically, what was your time at Dartmouth like?

AF: I was a four-year starter on the football team. I was All-Ivy twice. I was in GDX, the fraternity, where I was the social chair. I really had a great time at school; I loved it. I had great friends, a great football experience. I learned how to get stuff done and how to compete.

It helped me get a job at Citigroup right after, where I worked from 2012 to 2014. Then I resigned from my job, turned down a promotion to go to LA and pursue comedy. I didn’t know what that was going to mean at the time. This election came around and it all kind of fell into place.

TDR: What are your views about what’s going on college campuses today? Events that come to mind are the Berkeley riots and the situation with Charles Murray at Middlebury.

AF: When it comes to the situation on college campuses today, I think a lot of it has to do with the way my generation and the generations that came after me were raised. Being competitive isn’t taken seriously anymore and that

“When it comes to the situation on college campuses today, I think a lot of it has to do with the way my generation and the generations that came after me were raised. Being competitive isn’t taken seriously anymore and that starts at a young age. ” TDR: Let’s talk about your time at Dartmouth. While you said you weren’t that active here, did your experience here shape your views and perspectives in any way?

AF: I was lucky that I didn’t go to class enough to get indoctrinated. My only political debate, or the closest thing to it, was that there was an Occupy Wall Street person on campus with a guitar, and he came to our frat and asked if he could pay us in songs for some beer. I told him no. On campus, I wasn’t the most political; I didn’t really follow it. To be honest, I saw Obama get elected my freshman fall and then re-elected in 2012, and at that time, I was like ‘Oh great, this guy seems great, he’s going to bring the country together.’ Change and hope and change. It sounded so good and I didn’t pay attention, I just trusted the guy. A couple years ago, I did some research into what he really

starts at a young age. I know it’s a cliché to say, but everyone getting a trophy creates a mindset where people aren’t used to losing that doesn’t set them up for success when it comes to an arena of ideas.

So when people hear an opposing idea, it’s a lot easier for them to shut it out and challenge the personal morality of the person saying the idea, as opposed to what the idea actually is. If a right-wing person comes to campus, instead of saying ‘Oh, what does he really think about immigration’ or another topical issue, instead of actually considering what they actually have to say, it’s easier to say ‘That person’s a racist, racists don’t deserve time, shut them down, they shouldn’t speak.’

So a lot of the students on college campuses, unfortunately, are challenging the reason someone’s saying something instead of listening to what they’re actually saying. And with that comes the echo cham-

bers; the Left wants an echo chamber and the Right seems to be the side that wants to talk ideas out. A lot of people I’ve come into contact with on the Right are on the Right because they used to be on the Left and knew what going on and knew the techniques the Left uses to keep you under their spell. What I’m seeing out here is the Right is open to debate, the Right wants to exchange ideas, and the Right is open to changing their mind, while the Left is set in stone, and anyone that challenges their beliefs or brings a new idea into their echo chamber is considered violent and should be opposed at all costs for the safety of the students.

TDR: What advice would you give to a student today who’s sick of what going on at college campuses and wants to get involved in these wider conversations?

AF: My message has been from the beginning, and it’s why I use the wooden spoon, that you don’t need a production studio, you don’t a camera crew, and you don’t need a suit and a desk to be a journalist or seek the truth. I think college students today, now more than ever are needed to share their view, because the people that matter are the individuals. When it comes to students in America today, the Left is very outspoken and just because the Left is loudest voice doesn’t mean it’s the most correct. The Right, as it’s historically been, is the silent majority and it needs to be less silent, because the political atmosphere today is not going away.

I really think we’re in a culture war, a non-violent civil war basically, so it’s not going to be that both sides agree to do their own thing and we’ll see in two years or four years, whenever the next election is. This is really going to be a bigger battle for ideas. On a college campus, if you feel a certain way or if you’re seeing something you don’t agree with, now more than ever you need to speak up and either challenge the idea and change the opinion of people who hear it or challenge yourself and change your own views based on new information. I think the Left is encouraging a lot of people to stay in their echo chambers, keep their heads down, and believe they’re morally superior to everyone. The Right tends to challenge their ideas and change their minds, so now more than ever I think we need to challenge other people’s ideas and try our best to change as many minds as possible.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – April 23, 2018

7

FEATURES

Venezuela’s Sad State of Affairs Alexander Rauda

Associate Editor

The event, “Venezuela: The Survival Strategies of an Authoritarian Regime,” sponsored by the John Sloan Dickey Center of International Understanding, the Latin American, Latino and Caribbean Studies Program, and the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences, provided a concise yet in-depth exploration as to why Maduro remains in power.

To understand the current state of affairs in Venezuela, Professor Corrales claims we must first understand the inherent political problems that plague the country.

Even before Chávez took advantage of the lucrative oil prices to spread the wealth, the country had an abnormal voter distribution. In a typical voting distribution, most voters will lean center, while only a few will be on the outskirts of the political spectrum. For example, 10-40-40-10, is a common distribution, with 10 being left, 40 being center-left, 40 being center-right, and 10 being right. With this distribution, it is easy for an incumbent president to lose an election if they do a horrible job. However, Corrales postulates that Venezuela had a heavy left-leaning leaning block: 44 left, 22 center-left, 33 center-right, and 1 right. Not only did this make it harder for Chávez to lose, but it also made it easier for Chávez to promote hate speech against the opposition. Corrales’s work is interesting in that he does not place emphasize on the economic redistribution that Chávez pushed for. The reason for this he claims is that these voting blocs existed even before the increase in oil prices. Therefore, even without the added benefit of economic redistribution, Chávez had already embarked on a shift towards a socialist semi-authoritarian state.

Following the exposition of voter blocs, Professor Corrales discussed how to eliminate problems that came up when consolidating power. While all of these were started under Chávez, under Maduro these techniques increased ten-fold. These categories, were wonderfully presented in a table that demonstrated the increase in severity and occurrence under the Maduro regime. First, Corrales declared was the issue of the opposition in the public electorate.

Maduro took notes from Chávez’s antagonism of the opposition and continued them. However, keep in mind that the voting electorate was already skewed to the left.

What then happens is that the opposition becomes more radical in order to counter the incumbent, leading to further antagonism from the incumbent. Secondly, Chávez decided to pack the supreme court, when the court was not on his side. However, Maduro’s Mr. Rauda is a freshman at the College and an Associate Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

Supreme Court decided to strip the National Assembly’s powers in 2017. With the National Assembly out of the way, Maduro established a ‘Constituent Assembly.’ 545 seats of this assembly consist of members of the Simón Bolívar Great Patriotic Pole, a party originally created by Chávez to consolidate support. Rumors of a tumbling, whirling-like sound at Bolívar’s grave at the National Pantheon remain unsubstantiated. Then, Maduro moved to purge the army and his party for supporters. Many followers of the Venezuelan crisis may recall the horrible exchange rates and near collapse of the Bolívar. However, this is done to provide a leverage to Maduro’s party and military supporters, as they can procure goods and services without having to worry about exchange rates. Furthermore, Corrales claims that Venezuela is a semi-narcostate, as cronyism and drug cartels are essentially ignored by the Maduro administration.

AN UNHAPPY VENEZUELAN A mad hombre waves a flag on the road lower the standard of living in Venezuela. According to Corrales the only reason the suppression of goods has not achieved its full goal is because Maduro’s bureaucracy is highly ineffective. With massive amounts of corruption

“Rumors of a tumbling, whirling-like sound at Bolívar’s grave at the National Pantheon remain unsubstantiated.”

When dealing with street protests and uprisings, the answer is simple: repression. As of 2018 more than 5,000 Venezuelans have been arrested and over 130 lie dead.

The severity of this repression is not uncommon in socialist states around the world. Finally, when dealing with international pressure from countries such as the United States, Venezuela decided to cozy up to Russia and China.

The United States is no stranger to having a socialist state within its hemisphere. However, with the rising threat of international terrorism, the United States had bigger fish to fry. Therefore, it was not until recently that the United States began to focus on the crisis in Venezuela. Many leftists proclaim that the United States purposefully manipulated the oil markets to take revenge on Venezuela for apparently having a successful ‘socialist’ state. However, Professor Corrales claimed that while the United States’ oil policies had no doubt affected Venezuela’s oil prices, it was not intentional. Besides, according to Corrales’s work, the push towards a socialist dictatorship started before the oil prices were beneficial for Chávez’s social policies. Corrales also mentioned that if the United States had truly wanted to curb Venezuela’s supposed success, then it would have done much more to ruin Venezuela.

On the domestic front, Corrales proclaimed that Maduro was trying to purposefully suppress consumption to get Venezuelans used to scarcity. Once they are used to scarcity, then rationing and suppression of civil rights become normalized, which gives Maduro increased political capital. Not only is Maduro essentially running a starvation economy, but he continues to purposefully

and support of drug cartels, it is easy to see why. After the presentation I asked him what the United States should do to stop the crisis.

He claimed that the current steps that the Trump administration is taking, that is to embargo individuals instead of the country, is the correct approach. Corrales also declared that carrying a ‘big stick’ could make this into a “David versus Goliath” conflict, that is one where Venezuela claims to be the victim of Western or American imperialism. While a reasonable answer, Venezuela already claims to be the victim of ‘Yankee Imperialism,’ clearly a rallying point for the failing Maduro regime. Finally, I asked Corrales, what the least violent solution to this problem would be. Acknowledging the optimism behind his answer, he claimed that the perfect solution would be for Maduro to accept the results of the upcoming May 1st election. He claimed that Venezuela was not yet lost; democracy could be saved in the South American nation. Corrales gave an alarming prediction of the future of Venezuela if Maduro remained in power. He stated that Cuba was a perfect example of what happens when the state, not the people, wins. “In Cuba the state won much faster, the battle is far from over in Venezuela,” declared Corrales.

At the presentation I happened to meet a student from Venezuela that had a much more pessimistic outlook on the crisis. Joshua Zambrano ’20 firmly claimed “there is no solution.” Upon further dialogue he disclosed that his family left Venezuela in 2007.

Zambrano stated that his family worked as accountants at a firm that got nationalized by Chávez in 2007. After that, his father knew that the situation would only get worse. Chávez claimed that he

was nationalizing firms for a more representative democracy, but the reality was that Chávez was pillaging Venezuela’s economy in order to achieve full socialism.

However, half of Zambrano’s family remained in Venezuela, whom support 40 other families with 50 dollars each. These 50 dollars are not in cash, but rather in food that has become a scarcity these days.

More interestingly, Zambrano told a story about one of his family members that was a die-hard ‘Chavista,’ hanging pictures of him on their wall, crying endlessly when he died. That all changed two years after Maduro came in power, but it nonetheless shows

Venezuela is also facing a braindrain due to professorial wages ranging from six to twenty-five dollars. Universities in neighboring countries such as Ecuador can pay the fledging professors fifty times more than the universities in Venezuela.

Yet even with its evident failures, Venezuela continues to attract its fair share of supporters.

Leftists such as Bernie Sanders have supported Venezuela up until recently, and across the Atlantic, terrorist-enabler Jeremy Corbyn stills supports Venezuela. There is no denying that building ties to Russia and China is problematic enough, but when terrorist groups

the cult of personality that Chávez created, and that now Maduro lacks. Joshua Zambrano, however, was fortunate enough to move to America. Meanwhile, many college students remain in Venezuela, and some are behind the protests against Maduro.

Because of the economy, Venezuelan students are unable to afford college. Therefore, under the implication that they have nothing to lose, college students are the most active resistors of the Maduro regime. Some of the colleges have been purposefully attacked

by Maduro as he believes they are “bastions of the wealthy elites” who are the “enemies of the state.”

The “wealthy elites” seems to be a common trope among those on the far-left. Ironically, Maduro’s education policies hurt lower income students more as they now must scavenge for food and medical supplies just to support their families. On the other hand, state run colleges, called “Bolivarian universities,” espouse Marxist ideas and only serve to propagate the government’s ideology. Soon however, it will not be the lack of a Western curriculum that will impact the students in Venezuela, but rather the lack of a curriculum in general. Soon even these state-run schools will face a lack of funding.

and drug cartels are supported

by Venezuela, the United States cannot afford to turn a blind eye.

Venezuela is undermining sanctions on Iran and has even hosted an FBI-wanted Hezbollah operative. With Maduro ignoring drug cartels, one could argue that he is directly responsible for drugs infiltrating American borders and ergo violating American sovereignty.

Furthermore, the economic and educational suicide of Venezuela have created a humanitarian crisis like no other in the Western Hemisphere. The world will be watching Venezuela on May 1st when it holds elections. However, opposition parties have not cooperated enough or have resorted to boycotting due to electoral discrepancies. The truth remains, Venezuela cannot solve this issue on their own. America’s enemies will use Venezuela as a launching pad to further undermine American hard and soft power in the region and in the world. The United States cannot afford another Cuba in its hemisphere. It is time to bring back the Monroe Doctrine.

It is time to admit that socialism has failed yet again. It is time to acknowledge the violence Maduro inflicts on his own people. It is time to acknowledge Venezuela as a failed state.

“It is time to admit that socialism has failed yet again. It is time to acknowledge the violence Maduro inflicts on his own people. It is time to acknowledge Venezuela as a failed state.”

8 Monday – April 23, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Another Greek Bites the Dust

SIGMA PHI EPSILON a Greek house in strife

Eashwar N. Sivarajan

Associate Editor

In August 2017, the national fraternity Sigma Phi Epsilon (SigEp) decided to eliminate all alcohol from their chapters around the nation by 2020. The controversial decision was reached at their Grand Chapter Conclave and announced on the fraternity’s website. Sigma Phi Epsilon’s CEO, Brian Warren said that the policy was instituted because “Sigma Phi Epsilon and our peers have unfortunately earned a reputation for being organizations that promote alcohol consumption, misogyny and violence. For SigEp, there can be no more discussion about maintaining that status quo. Fraternities must change.”

Mr. Warren and the leadership of Sigma Phi Epsilon have decided that fraternities must combat misogyny, a noble ambition, no doubt. Mr. Warren further seems to believe that drinking alcohol causes men to be misogynistic, a claim so absurd that few of even the most ardent feminists would agree with it. While Mr. Warren’s explanation was full of buzzwords intended to silence criticism, the last part of that statement is by far the most important. “Fraternities must change.” This might seem pedantic, but I find it inMr. Sivarajan is a freshman at the College and an Associate Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

teresting that he said change and not improve. The fraternity was so focused on changing that they ignored the harm their policy would cause.

SigEp’s chapter at Dartmouth, the New Hampshire Alpha chapter, was suspended on March 26, 2018, pending a “membership review” to “identify chapter members who are committed to living up to Sig Ep’s values.” Apparently, it wasn’t enough that the chapter’s members were complying with the SigEp’s order; they had to be happy that they were being treated like alcoholics who lacked the self-control not to assault people.

In response to what they viewed as an unnecessary imposition, more than two hundred SigEp alumni wrote a letter to the New Hampshire Alpha Alumni and Volunteer Corporation Board of Trustees (AVC), which provides oversight of the chapter’s facility and finances condemning both the national organizations decision to go “substance-free” and the “membership review” of the NH Alpha chapter.

In the letter, the alumni explained their opposition to the new policies which they believed would destroy the fraternal bond between the brothers, the reason fraternities exist. Further, they criticized the AVC’s capitulation to the unnecessary demands of “SigEp National.” They argued that while the aim of the substance-free policy was admirable, it simply

Image courtesy of Dartmo was not “suited to the realities and needs of SigEp NH Alpha.” They argued that SigEp was unique in that it enabled students to interact harmlessly in a safe environment, unlike other frats where predatory behavior generated a hostile environment. The accuracy of that last point is hotly debated, but the crux of their argument is still valid: The substance-free policy will break the bonds of brotherhood between the men of SigEp. Worse than their substance-free policy was their decision to suspend the NH Alpha Chapter pending “membership review.”

The national fraternity decided that it would personally ensure that all the members of Dartmouth’s chapter were happy with the new policy. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire with and provide information regarding their finances, their academic transcript, and their College “conduct records.” Also, a membership review board comprised of SigEp alumni, volunteers and Headquarters staff members would interview each member. Failing to comply meant immediate suspension. At the end of the process, only the people deemed acceptable will be allowed to remain members and everyone else would either be suspended or expelled from the frat. By some estimates, SigEp might lose as much as 60 to 90 percent of its members in the coming weeks.

In all honesty, none of us

should be surprised that Sigma Phi Epsilon instituted this policy.

The progressive movement has made change dogmatic and not wanting to “progress” in a particular direction will get you labeled a backward-thinking bigot. Since Brian Warren claimed, without evidence, that banning alcohol would help reduce misogyny, disagreeing with it must mean you are a misogynist who wants to remain one. Also, the only reason there is even a ban on alcohol is because the fraternity believes it can impose virtue and eliminate what it considers sin among all its members. Like most of the world’s evils, this too stems from a very human desire to immanentize the eschaton. The “membership review”, on the other hand, is textbook tyranny. The national fraternity is essentially hijacking the New Hampshire Alpha chapter in dictating who it can and cannot accept as members and even forcing some people to “de-pledge.”

Progressivism and virtue-signaling are the best explanations of SigEp’s new, potential disastrous policies.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that this terrible situation was worsened by the policies of our esteemed President, Philip J. Hanlon. The members of the NH Alpha chapter of SigEp could have theoretically gone “local,” thereby no longer bound by the rules of Sigma Phi Epsilon. Unfortunately, since President Hanlon’s Moving Dartmouth Forward, the College has cracked down on fraternities, and as a result of these strict rules, SigEp is currently on alcohol probation and therefore is not in good standing with the College, a requirement for going “local.”

Make no mistake, while most of SigEp’s problems arose from irreconcilable internal differences, Hanlon’s terrible policies will be the final nail in its coffin.

President Hanlon’s solution to the “Greek problem” began with the derecognition of Alpha Delta (AD) in 2015, continued with the derecognition of Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) in 2016 and has now resulted in SigEp being decimated.

A competent President who cared about the fellowship that drives men to join fraternities would have allowed these fraternities to continue operating, with reasonable ramifications, of course. If

the current rate of destruction of Greek Life continues, Dartmouth will have no functioning fraternities in ten to fifteen years, the culmination of what seems like this administration’s ultimate vision and the next step in the destruction of the small College on a hill.

President Hanlon and the faculty seem to believe that fraternities pose the greatest threat to their shared vision of greater diversity since some fraternities have historically been predominately white and since the administration believes that frats are where most students binge-drink and where most sexual assaults occur, the elimination of these evil houses will eliminate students’ desire to drink and have sex. In fact, Dartmouth’s faculty voted overwhelming (116-13) in favor of abolishing the Greek system in 2014, which proves that the sanity of the Board of Trustees is the only thing keeping Greek life alive. However, Hanlon’s systematic destruction of fraternities seems to have no end in sight. Kappa Kappa Kappa (Tri-Kap) is currently suspended and will be on alcohol probation for four more terms and College probation until Winter 2020. This arguably Draconian punishment was inflicted for violating the College’s hazing and alcohol policies, which were amended in 2015 under President Hanlon’s Moving Dartmouth Forward plan. Even a minor violation of Hanlon’s rules over the next 18 months would almost certainly guarantee Tri-Kap’s derecognition. If that happens, this administration would have all but destroyed four fraternities in five years, an impressive albeit horrific accomplishment.

The Board of Trustees’ silence on this matter is deafening. While they know that abolishing the Greek system would cause alumni donations to dry up, they are unwilling to oppose President Hanlon’s policies, however flawed they may be, since they believe it improves the College’s image in public. The Board, like Hanlon, seems to believe that to restore Dartmouth’s failing reputation, one must think forward to a very different future, not backward to a very successful past. We can only hope that they see the error of their ways soon because when the last frat falls, Old Dartmouth falls with it.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – April 23, 2018

9

FEATURES

Orwell Realized

Devon M. Kurtz

Editor-in-Chief

Americans love their freedom of speech. We love it so much that we argue that we need guns to defend it, we call out our leaders for threatening it, and even accuse private citizens, universities, and companies of stifling it. We take the suppression of speech seriously, as perhaps we should, out of fear for that Orwellian dystopia in which there is no freedom of speech at all. This passion surrounding freedom of speech empowers young Americans to have opinions, whether they be about gun control, the President, or Kendrick; it has created generations of problematizing arguers, and counterculture rebels, and back-talking, rabble-rousing punks — it has created our unique American identity as boisterous, hotly opinionated assholes. And thank God, right?

What would our country be without the dining room table discussions among the casually racist dad, the bleeding-heart liberal mother, the hair-dyedblue communist daughter, and the “fiscally conservative, but socially liberal” son? I surely can’t imagine a world without their discourse.

and Teslas? Kuwait — Kuwait is what that looks like. Arguably first-world, developed, and richer than the United States, Kuwait is a fully modern country and among the most progressive states in the Gulf, well unless you consider human rights, LGBTQ rights, individual liberty, or democratic values in your calculus for determining “progressive” status. Human rights violations are nothing new in the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — frankly, it is old news and most of the countries are refusing to make changes anyways. But I want to address the life of the average Kuwaiti — not the average resident of Kuwait, as 69% of Kuwait’s residents are ex-patriates and with absolutely no path to citizenship, but the average citizen of Kuwait. These are the thawb-wearing, Maserati-driving, barons of black gold that receive over one hundred thousand dollars a year from their welfare state after they retire. As they say in Kuwait, “You’ll never meet a poor Kuwaiti.” As a humble ex-pat from a comparably impoverished nation living in Kuwait, I can attest that I am still yet to meet a poor Kuwaiti. Yes, the Kuwaitis are rich, but they are critically

“There is no freedom of speech in Kuwait. If you speak out against the Amir — and I assure you that I am doing no such thing, Allah save His Majesty — you can and will be arrested.”

But what if that wasn’t the case? What if students never questioned their teachers, children never questioned their parents, and citizens never questioned their government?

What would that look like in the modern era of iPhones, wide-spread higher education, Mr. Kurtz is a sophomore at the College and Editor-in-Chief at The Dartmouth Review.

impoverished in another area: the wealth of opinions.

There is no freedom of speech in Kuwait. If you speak out against the Amir — and I assure you that I am doing no such thing, Allah save His Majesty — you can and will be arrested. Criticism of the government will not legally be tolerated, criticism of God will not legally be tolerated, criticism of conservative values will not

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF KUWAIT Freedom in the desert be socially tolerated, and criticisms of your parents, teachers, and any other authority are effectively stifled. This has been going on for generations here, as in many parts of the world.

But while other Arab nations, like Egypt, have had citizens effectively use modern technology and social media to fight for greater freedom and the right to be a dissident, Kuwait is experiencing no such transgressions, not even ineffective ones. Quite simply, no one is getting arrested for sedition because no one is speaking out against the Amir or his government. In fact, few are even speaking out against their parents or teachers. Most chilling of all, however, is not that most Kuwaitis don’t feel safe to voice controversial and potentially subversive opinions, but rather that most Kuwaitis don’t even know these kinds of opinions can exist, never mind could they have them.

I am spending my Spring term working closely with Kuwaiti students at American University of Kuwait, a leading liberal arts university in the Middle East. One of my primary tasks has been to create a curriculum to better enhance students’ academic literacy. My most recent focus has been on

academic discourse and argumentative writing, two universally challenging areas. I have taught in the United States as well, and these areas were difficult for students there to grasp too. There is a significant, telling, and disturbing difference between each country’s respective struggle: in Kuwait, the students do not even know they are allowed to have an opinion.

I do not have statistical data, and I have surveyed no one, but I have discussed the issue with the University — everyone I have talked to has agreed that the lack of freedom of expression in public and private life, and the fear of juridical or familial punishment, have at least contributed to this issue.

The deficiency of opinions is so wide spread that instead of teaching students how to argue, as most first-year rhetoric classes will do, AUK must first teach students the concept of an opinion. This was, and still is, the unfortunate cost of the utter erasure of sedition — or of even the possibility of sedition.

Like in Orwell’s dystopia, the reigning philosophy is that if an individual does not possess the language to articulate their discontent, differences, or challenges, then the individual can

VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU: THOU SHALT READ THE REVIEW!

never effectively rebel against the state.

Totalitarian regimes had tried to accomplish the formidable task of erasing the possibility of sedition throughout the 20th Century, but few, if any actually came close. But Kuwait is unique — it has a small population, it is relatively isolated, and it receives fewer international visitors and migrants than their more popular neighbors Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Kuwaiti citizens are high on the opium of wealth, and they would have little to complain about even if they could break through their apathy and formulate an opinion. These conditions allow for the kind of control over Kuwait citizens that the Soviets could only have dreamed of for their population. Thus, Kuwait has been able to achieve the seemingly unattainable — a population without unrest and without the possibility of unrest.

Most terrifying of all? The futility of my attempts to teach students how to articulate opinions and eventually to craft an argument further secures this as reality, with no possible formulae in sight that might be able to lead to even a sliver of change in this regard.

10 Monday – April 23, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

Defense in the Face of Disapproval Scotch M. Cara Contributor

In 1906, Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre published The Friends of Voltaire. An anecdotal biography that tells the stories of the friends of Voltaire, in it Hall coined the phrase “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Often misattributed to Voltaire himself, Hall’s phrase is said to sum up the principle of free speech.

Free speech encapsulates all sorts of activities that enable communication, and there are numerous ways to justify it.

It facilitates the protection of rights within a political system, allows individuals to represent views essential to their identity and personhood, and acts as a prerequisite for dialogue and argument. The right and exercise of liberty via speech is a method of social interaction that, ideally, does not and ought not discriminate among lines of race, sex, gender, ability, or class.

However, like all of our rights, it is at those times when a right is threatened that we all ought to most ardently fight for it.

When freedom of speech is attacked, it is dialogue, discussion, and protest that protect it and allow it to prosper. While it is easy to defend free speech when what someone is advocating for doesn’t adversely affect you personally, it is much harder to stand by it when it does.

Even The Review— a champion of free speech and personal liberty—is not immune to this sad reality.

On April 1, 2018, a coalition of four undergraduate students sent an email out to campus via the All-Undergraduate Listserv.

Prior to being sent out to all students, this coalition sent a very similar email to the presidents of all of Dartmouth’s Greek Organizations. This coalition was very transparent in their lack of affiliation with any codified Dartmouth organization, and proposed a “Night of Solidarity” to take place on the night of April 6, 2018 following the Take Back the Night march to “protest sexual violence, stand in solidarity with survivors of violence, and demand visibility and safety on campus and beyond for all individuals.” This “Night of Solidarity” was requested for all social spaces on Dartmouth’s campus— “Greek houses, off-campus houses, non-Greek social and living communities, etc.”— in order to ask the Dartmouth community to “think about survivors of violence, reflect on the harm that has been done, and consider potential was to improve the safety of our social spaces on campus.”

Ms. Cara is a student at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

In its email, the coalition of students acknowledged the potential limits of this act and encouraged organizations to hold internal group discussions, share stories of sexual violence that have taken place on Dartmouth’s campus, and facilitate inter-group dialogue as well.

Different members of The Review had different responses to the coalition’s request. One member called for The Review to make a statement condemning the request as they considered it to be coercive towards the Greek System and an ineffective method of addressing the problem of sexual assault on Dartmouth’s campus. Multiple members stated that they wanted to wait to see the responses from Greek Organizations before making any statement. Another member agreed with the original claim of coerciveness, going as far as to say that it would force capitulation. The response to this claim from multiple other members of The Review was that the email did not qualify as coercive for a few reasons.There was a claim that if fraternities and sororities agreed to close their doors, these organizations deemed this act as important enough to do so. One person then brought up that organizations had the right to either refuse to participate in the endeavor or in its entirety or engage in similar activism in another way that the organization deemed more productive. Another member referred to this brand of community activism as a representation of democracy at work while referencing the fact that they don’t believe in democracy. After this small tangent, multiple members reiterated that Greek Houses were not being forced to close— the coalition a) had no mechanism of enforcing participation and b) were simply requesting participation. Here, someone raised a worry about the potential backlash that houses that chose not to participate would face. The response was straightforward: a fear of backlash is not coercive and houses could choose to participate in other ways besides closing their basement.

I write this article not to needlessly air The Review’s dirty laundry. I write this to let it be known that even the most ardent defenders of free speech can waiver in their defense of someone else’s right to speak and protest when it affects their way of life—even when this hesitation constitutes an exercise of free speech, and even for something as objectively trivial as a single on-night away from the Greek system. We all love our houses, and the idea of those spaces being closed off to us was frightening. We all have planned events that night that we were looking forward to. We all worry about the day that hopefully

PROTESTORS in New York march for freedom of speech. never comes when Greek Life is no longer seen on Dartmouth’s campus.

But some of those in The Review who initially felt that the coalition’s request was unreasonable did not waver — they asserted that this group of “random,” unaffiliated students had no right to demand organizations to close their social spaces, unless they went through “proper channels.” This reaction was not based in logic, or even in fact (the coalition did go to the leadership of the Greek houses before they sent the campus-wide email), but rather in something more visceral — it was a gut-reaction to a form of activism they did not understand, and thus feared. Reactive feelings clouded distanced, rational judgement, and the result was an ignorance of any of the potential benefits of the coalition’s proposal and a hyper-focus on the insecurities of the Greek system. Perhaps that was the most fatal flaw of all of these arguments calling for the condemnation of the coalition’s proposal on grounds other than its effectiveness — that is, in voicing so vehemently the ways in which this maneuver would hurt the Greek system, it ignored the broadness of the coalition’s request — that all organization’s closed their social spaces — and placed the Greek houses in the “victim position,” wrongfully confusing a call to action on the part of every organization with a direct attack on the Greek houses.

The knee-jerk, fearful response that some of the members of The Review had to the coalition’s request is not all too different from the discomfort individuals on the left have when a conservative speaker is brought to a college campus. It is not all too different from what prevents pro-life individuals from engaging in a conversation with pro-choice activists, Democrats from arguing politics with Republicans, or hard-core consequentialists from reading Kant. We, as an organization, condemn echo chambers and groupthink. We value the marketplace of ideas and we encourage critical dialogue on a

range of issues. However, when it comes to ideas that require tangible sacrifices and self-criticism, we fall prey to our own selfishness and insecurity. Undoubtedly, it is hard to engage in an uncomfortable discussion.

It is difficult to challenge deeply held beliefs. It’s not easy to stand by one’s words in public, and sometimes it can even be difficult to stand by one’s convictions in private. Instead of challenging the effectiveness of the coalition’s activism, individuals advocated for condemning the coalition’s very attempt at bringing about discussion. Instead of engaging in dialogue with members of the coalition, people resorted to the last salvation of a losing man—name calling and insults.

For just a moment, some members of The Review’s “safe-space for conservatism” justified infringing on the coalition’s right to free speech because they were afraid of the effect the coalition’s call to action would have on their way of life for a single evening.

As was acknowledged in The Review’s discussion of the coalition’s request, nobody participating in the discussion condones sexual assault— like most of this campus, we and our loved ones have been personally affected by sexual violence and wholeheartedly support survivors and campus reform. The question was whether the coalition had a right to demand support from campus in this way, and— if it did—whether closing down houses for a night would prove to be an effective instigator of change.

The value of free speech is that people can engage in dialogue that allows all viewpoints to be presented— regardless of what those viewpoints are. Asking someone to participate in an uncomfortable conversation that one deems to be valuable isn’t coercive— it is the core of free speech. While an individual always has a right to refuse to participate in a discussion, they ought not refuse on the basis of fear, or worse, selfishness. It is inherently selfish to not want to have a conversation because that

conversation would pose a minor inconvenience. In the case of the coalition’s request to campus organizations, the stakes were small: only one, single on-night had to be sacrificed. Cowardice and selfishness should not be rewarded with the support of an echo-chamber. If we value freedom of speech—if we value the comfort of dialogue—then we must equally so value uncomfortable conversations.

I do not agree with the well-warranted opinions of most of the people I interact with. But I will defend to the death their right to be wrong. A defense of free speech depends not on the content of the speech— words cannot speak for themselves, and human rights ought not be contextual. Complex political and social issues are undoubtedly complicated. But their solutions demand nuance that can only be discovered through the use of respectful dialogue. Shutting the door to a conversation does not shut the door to change. It only breeds alienation and a lack of understanding. I have less of a reason to defend the speech that represents the ideas that are already widespread and popular— those do not need defending. Nobody threatens speech that they agree with. I have no reason to defend hate speech— it doesn’t qualify as speech. It is the speech that we have reasonable disagreement with that we have the highest obligation to defend. Because those ideas that we fear are those arguments we need to have. I have no obligation to believe what your speech says, but I have every obligation and every reason to listen to you support your ideas. I can exercise my right to remain unconvinced as long as you exercise your right to try to convince me based on the merits of your argument.

It is in the name of my disapproval of certain arguments that I defend a person’s right to make them. And it is in my disapproval that I exercise my own right to free speech.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – April 23, 2018 11

FEATURES

Rebuttal: Defense in the Face of Disapproval

E.L. Woods Contributor

My esteemed colleague Scotch asserts, we at The Review truly have only one credo: free speech above all else.

This doctrine is, of course, why we are even running this piece; that, and to show that even within the supposedly monolithic organization there can still be hot lines of contention surrounding our most central beliefs. Our debate on the Night of Solidarity, was without a doubt, focused on this and this alone: if one individual’s free speech impos-

points and see The Review as a cobbled cohort of scared fraternity brothers desperately clinging to their male-dominated social spaces; this would be a mistake. It is likely even tempting for some of you to see The Review as an organization that flagrantly denies the horrific reality of sexual assault on this campus; this would also be a mistake.

For the sake of argument, I will address the second account first. The Review both confirms and is unequivocally appalled by the existence of sexual assault on Dartmouth’s

“When the Night of Solidarity movement was launched, the free speech of many of the individual social spaces on campus was infringed upon. ” es upon another’s, does this speech cease to be free speech and become censorship.

It is likely tempting for many of you to take my colleague’s more emotional Ms. Woods is a student at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

campus. Furthermore, no one in The Review condemns the intentions of the four individuals who conceived and organized the Night of Solidarity.

As a part of our recognition of sexual assault as a real problem on this campus, we also recognize that it is a multifaceted problem. Everything from the

rise of violence-oriented pornography to objectification of women in mainstream media to college hookup culture to, yes, Dartmouth’s fraternity culture play a role in fueling the epidemic of sexual assault.

Productive discussion of the complex issue is necessary to combat it. Unfortunately the Night of Solidarity did not facilitate this discussion, but rather stifled it.

The fact that the Night of Solidarity was ineffective is not a point of contention within The Review. My college Scotch would likely be the first the agree with me that forced discussion is often the most shallow. It is in Scotch’s assertion that the organizers of the Night of Solidarity were operating within the bounds of free speech that our opinions differ.

Free speech, in its very nature is only limited by the condition that it must not infringe upon the free speech of others.

Free Speech is thus not merely the freedom to physically open ones mouth and utter words.

This is very easy explain with when extrapolated to the ex-

treme, so that is what I will do: There are Christians currently living in North Korea who when asked each morning who their lord is reply, “My Lord is Jesus Christ.” They have the physical freedom to utter those words, but because of their assertions they are held in brutal prison camps. It is very easy to arrive at a consensus that these individuals do not have free speech. The consequences of their speech are too grave for it to be truly free.

When the Night of Solidarity movement was launched, the free speech of many of the individual social spaces on campus was infringed upon.

As a note, and I am tempted to publish this in capital letters: I’m not equating the plight of the religiously persecuted in North Korea to the problems of fraternity brothers here at Dartmouth. Not in the slightest. Not at all. The example of persecuted Christians is merely a tool to discern the true nature of free speech. Free speech is only free is it comes without the threat of disproportionate retaliation. Now of course no significant physical violence

In Memoriam: Barbara Bush Rachel T. Gambee Managing Editor

Although somber, the passing of former first lady Barbara Bush this past Tuesday, April 17th, has allowed our nation to reflect on the remarkable life of the matriarch of one of America’s last great families.

Barbara Bush, was born Barbara Pierce on June 8th 1925 in New York City. During her youth in the New York City suburbs, Barbara was a lively and athletic girl. She had extensive social and academic success, and was, above all, a voracious reader. To further her education, Barbara’s parents sent her to board at Ashley Hall in Charleston, South Carolina.

In 1941, Barbara, just 16 years old, was home from Charleston for Christmas break when she attended a local Christmas dance with her sister. It was at that dance that Barbara meet George H.W. Bush, who was in his senior year at Andover at the time. In an interview in 1994 she said that she realized immediately what a terrible dancer he was, but was still so taken with him that she begged her parents to let her marry him instead of finishing her schooling. Ultimately, it was not Barbara’s parents, but rather the Second World War that hindered that plan.

Immediately after his graduMs. Gambee is a freshman at the College and a Managing Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

ation from Andover, Bush left to serve as a Navy pilot, becoming the youngest combat pilot in the war. While he was deployed, George and Barbara wrote each other frequently in heartwarming letters using the endearing nicknames, Poppy and Bar. Additionally, George Bush famously named his plane in the war The Barbara.

Following his safe rescue from a harrowing incident where Bush’s plane was shot down in the Pacific, George H.W. Bush returned to New York and the couple married in January 1945. Their first son, President George W. Bush, was born in 1946 while the couple was living in New Haven, Connecticut where George was studying at Yale.

Following his graduation, the family moved to Texas where George would start a career in the petroleum industry, and Barbara would give birth to her five younger children. The Bush’s second child, Pauline Robinson Bush, was born in 1949, just three months after the tragic, unexpected death of Barbara’s mother in a car accident in California. This child, affectionately known as Robin, died at the age of three following a seven-month battle with leukemia. Both President and First Lady Bush would call the death of their daughter a watershed event in their lives. In her memoir, Barbara stated that this loss made them more empathetic and made them care more and place more value on

the life of every human.

Throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s, Mrs. Bush worked tirelessly, raising her five children, supporting her husband’s political career, and completing substantial volunteering work.

Despite her support for her husband, Mrs. Bush always made it clear that her primary focus was her family, not politics. This commitment made her wildly popular across the country first as the Second Lady and then as the First Lady. Following the iconic, Nancy Reagan, Bush was seen as friendly, warm, and unpretentious. She self branded as America’s Grandma, and was beloved for her practical style which always included several strands of fake pearls.

During her time in the White House, Barbara Bush championed literacy, a cause near and dear to her heart, as several of her children struggled with dyslexia. She founded the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, an organization that she remained heavily involved with until her death.

Bush was also beloved for her self-deprecation and wit.

She famously offered the commencement address at Wellesley College in 1990 stating: “And who knows? Somewhere out in this audience may even be someone who will one day follow in my footsteps, and preside over the White House as the President’s spouse. I wish him well!.”

After her husband’s defeat in the 1992 presidential election,

BARBARA BUSH Barbara once again turned her focus entirely to her family. She played instrumental roles in her son’s campaigns for the governorships of Texas and Florida, as well as for the presidency.

When her oldest son George W. Bush was elected in 2000, Barbara Bush became the second woman, after Abigail Adams, to have both a husband and a son as the president.

Even with age and poor health, Mrs. Bush’s unfailing

would have come to a Dartmouth fraternity who decided, for any number of reasons, not to participate in the Night of Solidarity. However, that fraternity as an organization and their brothers as individuals would have faced massive social backlash across campus.

Anyone who denies this fact is simply foolish, something that my college Scotch most certainly is not.

My colleague argues, however, that if the fraternities had banded together and presented a united front against the Night of Solidarity, then they would not have had to participate. Yet, the very fact that the fraternities would need to form this kind of coalition to protect their own right to opt out is proof that this event is obsessive and suppressing their free speech rights.

So to my friend, and those of you who agreed with her points, I will say this: The Review is not a collection of terrified fraternity brothers. We are as we ever were, men and women who believe passionately in and intend to defend free speech.

strength and dignity never failed never wavered. Even the the official statement that Mrs. Bush was seeking only palliative care for her ailments, her family confirmed that it was Mrs. Bush herself that serving as the rock for her family throughout the difficult time prior to her death. Both Mrs. Bush and her entire family affirm that this strength of spirit was a direct result of her faith. A life-long Christian, Bush turned to her

12 Monday– April 23, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

THE LAST WORD GORDON HAFF’S

COMPILED BY E. L. WOODS

“The house does not rest upon the ground, but upon a woman. ” –Mexican Proverb “Twenty million young women rose to their feet with the cry ‘We will not be dictated to’ and promptly became stenographers” -G. K. Chesterton Lady Astor: “Winston, if you were my husband, I should flavor your coffee with poison.”

Churchill: “Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it.”

-Winston Churchill “It’s the good girls who keep diaries;the bad girls never have time.”

-Tallulah Bankhead “Monogamy: A marriage system in which subscribers are requested to return one wife before taking another.”

-Leonard Levinson “Men aren’t necessities, they’re luxuries.”

-Cher

“Two many damned people flying these days. Egalitariansim should never have been allowed to get off the ground.”

-William Bede O’Malley “At Dartmouth, we make you man by allowing you to remain a boy.”

-John Dickey “Who would have believed we’d be sitting here with a son at Vassar anda daughter at Westpoint?”

-Joseph Farris “Early to bed and early ot rise, and you’ll meet very few of the best people.”

-George Ade “The Universe never did make sense: I suspect it was built on a Government conract.”

-Robert Heinlein “The reason adultery is immoral is that it might lead to marriage” -Friedrich Nietzche

“The most popular labor-saving device is still a husband with money.”

-Joey Adams

“In language, gender is particularly confusing. Why, please, should a table be male in German, female in French, and castrated in English.”

-Marlene Dietrich

“If beer got any lighter you could raise goldfish in it.”

-Jerry Adler

“Feminsim is the theory and lesbianism is the practice.”

-Ti-Grace Atkinson

BARRETT’S MIXOLOGY

“The Dartnouth staff conists of many people like the receptionst in Housing. You know-she’s the one with the robin’s nest hairdo and the personality of an electric chair.”

-Keeney Jones “Going to a party with your wife is like going fishing with the game warden.”

-Amos ‘n’ Andy “Join the Republican party if you cannot abide Democrats. You will probably loathe the Republicans just as much, but there are fewer of them -Anthony “When a man opens a car door for his wife, it’s eithera new car or a new wife.”

-Prince Phillip “I don’t care if my lettuce has DDT on it jsut as long as it;s crisp.”

-Jorma Kaukonen “A woman who writes commits two sins; she increases the number of books, and decreases the nuber of women.”

-Alphonse Karr “I’m not overweight, I’m undertall.”

“Better pointed bullets than pointed speeches.”

-Prince Otto von Bismark “Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is.”

-Barbara Bush

ADVERTISEMENT

Hanover Iced Tea Ingredients

Bottle of Aberlour 16yr Double Cask Single Malt

1. Pour a glass of scotch, neat.

2. Drink.

3. Pour yourself another glass of scotch.

4. Drink.

5. Yep you guessed it— scotch #3 6 .Continue drinking scotch.

7. Yay scotch scotchy scotch scotch 8. *All the single-malt ladies, all the single-malt ladies— put your

glass up* 9. I LOVE EVERYONE IN THIS BAR 10. “Yeah, I don’t believe in consequentialism or democracy. Like you can separate the procedural benefits of democracy from democratic ideals and notions of equality. And democratic notions of equality don’t even have anything to do with democracy. You can justify it purely in terms of a general respect of personhood without bringing in a separate normative conception of democracy. And also the electoral college is actually way more democratic than a direct election would be. When you attempt to justify policy with the ends that the policy brought about, it’s a mistake— it’s like using a broken clock to tell time.

Because you use empirical facts to justify what ought to have been a decision founded on normative values or political obligation. Morality isn’t decided by a poll. It’s not decided by a utilitarian calculus. It’s a system meant to guide behavior based on a series of rules. I was kinda into him, but then he justified consequentialism and I’ve never been so turned off in my life. Like who are you? Who do you think you are?

And then he tried to bring metaphysics into my property rights. How dare you. You took something sacred, and ruined it with your angsty bullshit.”

— Scotch Cara

-Garfield