Page 1

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

Volu m e 3 8 , Is su e 5

Tu es d ay, May 2 9 , 2 0 1 8


COMMENCEMENT We at The Review wish the Class of 2018 all the best in their future endeavors.

In Defense of the Capital Campaign Daniel M. Bring

Managing Editor On April 27th, 2018, President Phil Hanlon of Dartmouth College announced “The Call to Lead: A Campaign for Dartmouth,” a capital campaign seeking $3 billion of gifts and fiduciary commitments. The immediate reaction was mixed, with the general attitude seeming to be the apathy, which accompanies most major announcements from the administration. Some of Old Dartmouth’s proud friends have decried “The Call to Lead” as another attempt by the Hanlon administration to destroy the College’s traditions and uniqueness. These detractors include many of my colleagues at

The Dartmouth Review, whom I seek to challenge on the premise the capital campaign isn’t that bad. In fact, it may even be a good thing for Dartmouth. Many of the capital campaign’s opponents see it as the latest manifestation of President Hanlon’s expansionist, transgressive, and ultimately destructive vision for the College. However, this view is simply rooted in a lack of understanding. President Hanlon’s critics are loath to acknowledge any possibility that he may have put forward a sound proposal, and so close their minds to any thoughtful consideration. So, in order to even evaluate the capital campaign, we must understand its aims.

Consider the stated “Strategic Priorities” from the capital campaign’s website: 1. “Affirm Dartmouth’s Distinctive Model of Education” 2. “Revolutionize the West End of Campus” 3. “Nurture Creativity Through a Vibrant Arts District” 4. “Make Big, Strategic Bets on Discovery” 5. “Create a Nationally Recognized Graduate School” 6. “Transform the Residential Life Experience” 7. “Develop Leaders Through Experiential Learning” 8. “Expand the Availability of Financial Aid”


A Great Leap Backwards: ‘The Call to Mislead’ Alexander Rauda James S. Rikton

Associate Editor Comtributor “Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land! Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d, As home his footsteps he hath turn’d From wandering on a foreign strand!” In these lines from his poem “Patriotism 01 Innominatus,” Sir Walter Scott spoke of a man who had grown enamored with a foreign land and no longer loved his former home. Perhaps no one fits this description better than Presi-

dent Phil Hanlon. A member of the Class of 1977, Philip J. Hanlon was a brother at Alpha Delta, Dartmouth’s most infamous frat, when he was at the College. Hanlon’s escapades were so infamous that he earned himself the nickname “Juan Carlos.” After earning a Ph.D. from Caltech and completing his postdoctoral work at MIT, Hanlon joined the faculty of the University of Michigan in 1986. As one would expect from a son of Dartmouth, he rose through the ranks, becoming a full professor in 1990, Vice Provost in 2004, and Provost in 2010. From even 2013, when he was called upon to serve his Alma Mater as her 18th President, it was ob-

vious that he had changed after his stint at the University of Michigan, that he no longer believed in the Dartmouth he attended, evident by his apparent contempt for the unique culture and traditions of Old Dartmouth. The current capital campaign is simply his latest attempt at changing the College and if he succeeds, the damage to Old Dartmouth might be permanent. At three billion dollars, The Call to Lead might seem overly ambitious, until you realize that Brown University’s capital campaign had a goal of $3.5 billion, even though Brown’s endowment is less than Dartmouth’s.





Editor-in-Chief Webb Harrington thanks the Greeks at Dartmouth for creating a great scene.

Contributor Philip R. Swanson looks at the old traditions. Lest the old traditions fail!

Contibutors examine the system that President Hanlon is trying to make us students swallow.




2 Tuesday – may 29, 2018

The Dartmouth Review





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.



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 In Defense of the Capital Campaign.................................Page 1


A Great Leap Backwards: ‘A Call to Mislead’...................Page 1 Editorial: Bloated Bureaucracy..........................................Page 3 A Review of the Housing System........................................Page 6 Summer Classes at Dartmouth...........................................Page 7 Endangered Traditions.........................................................Page 7 Review Reviews: Power of Meaning ................................Page 10 Review Reviews: Antonia Okafor Talks .........................Page 10 Campus Carry: Antonia Okafor.......................................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


The Dartmouth Review

Tuesday – May 29, 2018


MASTHEAD & EDITORIAL EST. 1980 EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief B. Webb Harrington

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Jack F. Mourouzis

Executive Editor Joshua L. Kauderer

Managing Editors Daniel M. Bring Rachel T. Gambee

Tech Editor Erik R. Jones

Associate Editors Eashwar N. Sivarajan William G. Jelsma Alexander Rauda

Senior Correspondent Joshua D. Kotran


Noah J. Sofio

President Emeritus Robert Y. Sayegh

Vice President Jake G. Philhower


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. “A great thanks to all the brave soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice.” 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: Or by mail at:

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

Please direct all complaints to:

“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


Bloated Bureaucracy As seniors prepare to graduate and helping students with the paper timesay so long to Dartmouth, it seems fit- card, a task frequently carried out in ting to examine for what their four years that office. It is worth pointing out that of tuition actually paid. The educational the office that I went into probably has advancement that the College provides enough space for twenty or so workers should be obvious to any graduating at the typical arrangement, and many customer. They know how much they more if they were to squeeze in like have learned over the last four years. the Capitol Hill office in which I once Each graduating senior also knows the worked. It appeared however that the position of employment they will soon office was nearly abandoned when I enhold, or the lack thereof. Professors and tered at around 1:00 pm in the middle of classrooms are of course a deepthe week. The person whose ly important part of signature I needed was the Dartmouth edunot back yet; her twocation, but those are hour lunch break had what we see every day. called her away. When Given this, it seems asked why the process opportune to discuss was the way it was− the other thing that time consuming and student tuition, along confusing− one of with whatever other the office workers remoney can be fleeced sponded by saying “so from students via students don’t fill out Dartmouth Dining paper timecards.” Services or other fees, I later went to 7 actually pays for: adLebanon Street in ministration. Accorddowntown Hanover. ing to Dartmouth’s The Payroll Office ocB. Webb Harrington filings as a non-profcupies an office at this it, the College employs approximately location. The Payroll Office was closed 2700 non-Geisel employees. A filing and abandoned at 3:10 PM when I arfrom 2012 suggests that about 60% of rived. This is policy as the office is only those employees work in the following open 25 hours per week. After further areas: “Advancement,” Dean of the Col- inquiry, I was informed that all emlege, Finance, and Administration, the ployees in this office are full-time emPresident’s Office, and a concentration ployees, and work nowhere else but the of employees in the Provost’s Office. For Payroll Office. If only I had such a work comparison, there are only about 4400 schedule. undergraduates attending Dartmouth, I dropped off my signed form and so there are two employees for every headed downstairs to ask more about three students at Dartmouth. Only 600 typical hours for the organization. After of all of Dartmouth’s employees are ten- a brief and pleasant conversation with ured or tenure-track faculty, including several more staffers, excited to soon be the graduate schools. These facts and able to head out for the day. Perhaps one figures can only go so far as to describe reason that they were so open to helping the administrative situation at Dart- me is that it appeared that they had no mouth whereas personal experience can other work to be accomplishing. normally do more to illustrate it. In the By the end of my journey, I had learned last few weeks, I have had a personal a lot. I learned that administrators have episode with a small portion of Dart- very little work to do without clear roles mouth’s administrative bloat that exem- assigned to them. I’m sure that many plifies a common student experience. of my fellows who are graduating to On campus, I work as a Study Group pursue careers in investment banking, Leader in Economics. In order to get consulting, and technology will be enpaid, like many other Dartmouth em- tertained, and then probably offended ployees, I fill out a time card online. If that so many employees “work” only 25 there is a mistake in the electronic time- or 30 hours per week, including time off card by the end of a two week pay period, for lunch. I learned that some administhen I have to fill out a paper timecard trative procedures exist merely to try to and follow the process to get it amend- make students’ lives more difficult and ed. After a miscommunication concern- time-consuming. Just as my journey ing whether I billed for preparation time through a small portion of the Dartbetween myself and the College, I got to mouth administration came to an end, follow this process and experience for so too does the journey of many seniors myself the mire of the College’s admin- through our small, if bloated, College istrative branch. on a hill. Our graduating friends get to First, I went to the library, second look back on their four years fondly. For floor Baker to be exact. There, I met the parents, students, and alumni who with three different women, each of wonder what the check they signed is whom tried to help me fill out a form being used for, the answer is obvious: that was not self-explanatory. As it turns another bureaucrat. I am sure the doout, despite such a large bureaucracy, in- nation to the continued employment dividual employees’ roles are not clearly of many unnecessary administrators is defined. No one person has the job of much appreciated.

4 Tuesday – May 29, 2018

The Dartmouth Review



A survey of students recently published by The Dartmouth highlights the partisan divide at the College today. Especially with regards to free expression and viewpoint diversity, the campus is sharply divided along party lines. These findings are particularly concerning given that Dartmouth was given a “red light” free speech rating by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education (FIRE) earlier this year. Furthermore, the results of the survey indicate that politics has become a more significant factor in personal relationships than at the average college campus. Across the nearly 500 students of the College that responded to the survey, free expression proved to be a partisan issue. 69 percent of Republican respondents feel that free speech is threatened on campus, compared with only 21 percent of Democrats. In contrast, results from this year and previous years indicate that most students (71 percent) are in favor of an open free speech environment over a prohibitive learning environment. The survey defined an open environment as “an open learning environment where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints, even if it means allowing speech that is offensive or biased against certain groups of people,” and a prohibitive environment as “a positive learning environment for all students by prohibiting certain speech or expression of viewpoints that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people.” On the one hand, the threat to free speech is mostly perceived by Republicans. On the other hand, most students claim to want to be exposed to different perspectives, even if they are offensive. What could be the cause of this discrepancy? The answer lies in the repressive climate of the College. 81 percent of Dartmouth students feel that “the climate on Dartmouth’s campus prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.” This figure stands in contrast with the average college campus, where, according to a Gallup/Knight survey, only 51 percent of students feel similarly. As expected, more Republicans identified with the statement than Democrats (94 percent vs. 77 percent). Additionally, Democratic students said that they would be less likely to interact with someone if they had opposing political views. For instance, 39 percent of Democrats (vs. 10 percent of Republicans) would be less likely to trust another student if they discovered they had different political views. Indeed, the evidence proves the existence of a clear partisan divide at the College.

On Monday, May 21st, professors of histor y and economics Annelise Orleck and Jonathan Z inman distributed a list of proposed C ollege polic y changes to a faculty of Arts and S ciences meeting. In response to so-called limitations on academic freedom, accompanied by the recent decision by the C ollege to close the University Press of New England, the two professors have started to revive Dartmouth’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, a non-union group with about 50 dues-paying members. While the C ollege’s chapter was founded back in 1916, interest in the group was re-ignited when President Hanlon openly distanced the C ollege from histor y lecturer Mark Bray, who publicly endorsed political violence in his book Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. Claiming to be acting in response to a trend of “targeted harassment of faculty and students,” the group aims to distance school administrators from the classroom and academic discussions. Their stance is that “the default position of the administration and trustees should be to remain silent on the views of individual faculty members particularly when those views are based on scholarly inquir y,” effectually aiming to prevent another Bray-like incident from occurring. Additionally, the group has voiced concerns about the transparenc y and consistenc y of the tenure process, looking to make it easier for professors to ensure their positions for the long term. While the chapter is not currently considered a union, as they don’t aim to engage in collective bargaining, there is the possibility that they could eventually become one. This possibility should reasonably be concerning to students, as an external organization controlling the college’s employment process distances those receiving an education from their educators. In the case of a small school like Dartmouth esteemed for its quality of professors, the inter vention of an outside union is threatening, as it makes it difficult for the C ollege to maintain this high standard. While the threat may currently be minimal, students should reasonably be vigilant and conscientious of the future implications of such organizing.

NH SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW VOTING BILL The New Hampshire Supreme Court is set to review a controversial voting bill on May 31. After a vote on Wednesday, May 16 by the Executive Council, with votes falling along party lines, Gov. Chris Sununu submitted a request to ask the court to look into the constitutionality of House Bill 12664. A day later, the justices set the date of May 31 for the memoranda on the bill. House Bill 12664 removes language that differentiates between residency and domicile so that only those who are in residence or are intending to become residents can vote here. While the current law allows voting for those that intend to remain in New Hampshire for “the indefinite future,” the bill seeks to change this so that only those who are planning on making New Hampshire their “principal place of residence to the exclusion of all others” can vote. This process includes registering vehicles and obtaining driver’s licenses within 60 days. Opponents of the bill claim that the requirement for a driver’s license and registration would disenfranchise some poorer residents. They point out that students who study in New Hampshire can claim it as their domicile, but not their residence, excluding them from voting under the new bill. Supporters of the bill have called such claims as “an untrue narrative.” Republican Gov. Sununu, after repeatedly stating his dissatisfaction and opposition to both House Bill 12664 and a similar bill, House Bill 372, has said that if the bill was constitutional, “I think it would be hard not to sign it, to be honest.” This statement was a stark departure from the earlier firm opposition when he mentioned that he “hated” the bill, was “hoping that the Legislature kills it” and that he would “never support anything that suppresses the student vote.”

DARTMOUTH ATHLETICS RECEIVES 18 APR PUBLIC RECOGNITION AWARDS Each year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) awards collegiate athletic teams for their performance in the classroom. This year Dartmouth


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

(603) 643-6086 |

The Dartmouth Review

Tuesday – May 29, 2018

Joseph R. Torsella Brian L. Drisdelle Jacob Hunter received 18 Public Recognition Awards from the NCAA. This year the NCAA recognized 1,284 teams nationally based on their Academic Progress Rate. The NCAA honors collegiate teams with a Public Recognition Award if those teams ranked in the top ten percent of APR score for their respective sports. The APR assigns a value between 1 and 1000 to each team. The best score is a 1,000 and signifies that each member of the team is academically eligible for the next quarter and did, in fact, return to school or graduated. This year, all Dartmouth sports teams had APR scores far above the penalty line of 930, and eighteen were in the top ten percent to receive the award. The eighteen recognized teams are: Baseball, Men’s Basketball, Men’s Cross Country, Football FCS, Men’s golf, Men’s Lacrosse, Men’s Track, Women’s Basketball, Women’s Cross Country, Women’s Ice Hockey, Women’s Lacrosse, Women’s Rowing, Women’s Skiing, Softball, Women’s Swimming & Diving, Women’s Tennis, and Women’s Volleyball. Dartmouth’s athletes performed incredibly when compared to other division one schools. Dartmouth tied for third for the most teams to receive the award, trailing only Brown and Holy Cross. In fact, Dartmouth has been ranked in the top three every year since the award was created in 2006. Dartmouth tied with Yale for having at least seven teams honored in all 13 years of the award’s existence. Unsurprisingly, the Ivy League had more teams get recognized by the NCAA than any other conference. Dartmouth’s consistency in receiving Public Recognition Awards shows that Dartmouth athletes are committed to excellence in the classroom as well as on the playing field.

Joseph Januszewicz Robert F. Carangelo


“It’s hip to be square!”


THAYER DEAN JOSEPH HELBLE NAMED NEW PROVOST Thayer Dean Joseph Helble has been named as Dartmouth’s next Provost. Selected by a national search, he will replace interim Provost David Kotz. Helble will take office in October 2018. As Provost, Dartmouth’s most senior academic officer, he will influence Dartmouth’s academic budget and extensive authority over enrollment and admissions. Over four consecutive terms, Helble has enjoyed a successful 13-year period as Dean of the Thayer School of Engineering. He presided over increases in enrollment in the school’s graduate and undergraduate programs and saw the percentage of women graduating with undergraduate engineering degrees climb to over 50%, much higher than the national average. Helble has also found significant success in promoting faculty entrepreneurship and increasing the number of tenure-track professors at Thayer. In a press release containing the news of his appointment, Helble emphasized the importance of the liberal arts in education. This statement comes at a time of increased tension between Dartmouth’s commitment to the liberal arts and its ambitions of becoming a nationally recognized research institution. Helble’s appointment also comes after the beginning of an ambitious three billion dollar capital campaign—The Call to Lead—aimed significant expansion, including the building of a new engineering, computer science, and entrepreneurship complex. Helble is an esteemed academic, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the recipient of multiple national science awards. He will be the first permanent Provost appointed since former Provost Carolyn Dever returned to teaching in November 2017. Eminently qualified for the position and with a strong record of success, Helble is an excellent and proven choice for Provost.


“Oh man look at all those Women and Genders Studies Majors walking across stage!”


“And then she said, ‘If I’m not married by 30, I’ll propose to you at our reunion.’”

6 Tuesday –May 29, 2018

The Dartmouth Review


A Review of the Housing System James S. Rikton Jacob Hunter Contributor Contributor Imagine, if you will, the vision of the College’s housing system carried to its inevitable end. The year is 2020. The Greek System has been cast out of campus, and in its place has been erected an overfunded, overstaffed, and generally unpopular housing system. Student mental health is at an all time low. Worst of all, the College has become ridden with tribalism and disunity unseen in the country since 1968. The college parades a neutered Student Assembly as evidence of student voice in administration, when in reality, the administrative autocracy has veiled itself in Kafkaesque obscurity. Philip J. Hanlon, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Republics of Dartmouth College and the Supreme Soviet that is his administrative staff enforces the separation of the Six House Republics to “encourage” competition. While this vision might seem contrived, it is not too far from the College’s current trajectory. The administration is on a crusade to make the house system a central feature of student life, despite widespread student op-

with a “utopian” residential system in which relationships require neither effort nor desire, where the bonds of friendship are formed through a shared bondage in a forced friendship camp of sorts. Strong language, yes, but definitely deserved. President Hanlon’s system, even ideally, is inferior to the fraternities in every way. The natural question that arises is why the process of rushing and pledging yourself to a fraternity is important. Fraternities allow you to bond with people easily, especially outside the classroom. By organizing relatively safe parties open to campus, they provide people with an opportunity to socialize. In addition, they help students assume leadership roles outside of the College and give them access to upperclassmen and alumni who act as mentors. More importantly, rushing and pledging help develop a sense of loyalty and commitment, important virtues the administration no longer tries to instill in the College’s undergraduates. But the worst part is the reason for President Hanlon’s recent “innovation.” He claimed that one of the benefits of the housing system was that it would curb high-risk behavior. Apparently, he and his administration thinks

“The administration is on a crusade to make the house system a central feature of student life, despite widespread student opposition. Though the administration claims that the house system exists to “provide more continuity in the residential experience,” the true motives, it seems, are far more sinister: the destruction of the Greek System and Dartmouth as we know it. ” position. Though the administration claims that the house system exists to “provide more continuity in the residential experience,” the true motives, it seems, are far more sinister: the destruction of the Greek System and Dartmouth as we know it. Fortunately for Old Dartmouth and the Greeks, President Hanlon is as Icarian as he is Thanatotic. While it seems that he wants to destroy the College’s traditionalism and unique environment, the greatest inhibitors of his policies are their own infeasibility and Hanlon’s own extreme ineptitude. So what about the President’s plan is so bad? For starters, he tries to force fraternity, seeking to replace the natural order of rushing, hazing and pledging Mr. Rikton is a freshman at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Hunter is a freshman and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

that fraternities, the only institutions the new system would subvert, were harmful to both Dartmouth’s undergraduates and her reputation. While Greek life at Dartmouth is legendarily excessive, nobody is forced to do anything they don’t choose to. Just 75% of eligible students choose to join a Greek house. In fact, the number of students in single-gender houses is lower than that because of the College’s many co-ed houses. That means at least 25% of upperclassmen, or almost 800 students, are unaffiliated. Therefore, some say that pressure to participate in Greek life at Dartmouth is no more prevalent than at any other college. Further, the implication that fraternities are harmful to students is categorically false. They are, at their core, communities of like-minded individuals who choose to spend their time at the College together. If the administration really cared

THE PRIVACY OF A DORM UNDER THREAT BY HANLON about undergraduates and their what the residential communiwell-being, should they not be in ties actually do to create an intelfavor of them finding their own lectual community. First, the difgroup, a place where they feel ferent housing communities are like they belong? The new hous- endowed with more money than ing system essentially comprises they need, to buy stuff for their of six “fraternities” that are all members and to sponsor events. centrally controlled by the Pres- The houses give, and at times sell, ident of Dartmouth College who such things as hats and shirts to coincidentally created them. Fur- their members, stuff most peother, since students are random- ple would find unnecessary and ly assigned to their residential wasteful. And the events spon“communities,” they are deprived sored range from somewhat popof the choice they had at Old ular ones like free trips to Red Dartmouth, the ability to choose Sox games to puerile, lousy ones who they room and interact with like the “School House Playevery day. To an outsider, it looks ground” that are not only poorlike the new residential system is ly attended, but do nothing but a power-grab by President Han- infantilize the American college lon who had little authority over student. the activities of the fraternities, Even events within the housat the expense of the undergrad- ing community that seem interuates of the College. esting on paper leave much to be The most common allegation desired. In fact, the only house against fraternities is that they events that are well-attended facilitate rape since most sexu- are those that offer free food to al assaults reportedly occur in attendees. It isn’t implausible fraternity buildings. While it is that the only reason students go debatable if there is a culture on to those events is because DDS college campuses that perpetuate fleeces them for everything they “rape culture,” it is undeniable have, pricing even something as that most documented sexual small as a fruit cup at over five assaults occur in Greek hous- dollars! Even with the attractive es. The usual suspects are “toxic power of free food, house events masculinity” supposedly perpet- fail to be accessible to all. Many uated by men living together and students of the College have alcohol. The argument in favor complained about a lack of vegof the housing system is that it an options in house-sponsored makes campus a safer place by catered meals. Others simply eliminating these two things. don’t find appeal in the refreshIf the administration really be- ments at house events. Events lieves that students have no way that are genuinely conducive of acquiring booze outside frats, to an intellectual environment, they are more naive than anyone such as talks by visiting scholars, thought. More importantly, fra- are grossly under-attended for ternity basements are simply a the amount of resources put in. convenient place to gather. The According to a recent survey by same things that happen there College Pulse, most undergraducan just as easily occur in a dorm ates have only been to one house room or, in some cases, a public event this term. During orientabathroom. tion week for the class of 2021, On that note, let us look at some house professors confessed

that educational discussions or presentations rarely draw the expected audience. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that the College is not and will not be able to fulfill all expectations for event planning. Worse yet, students are losing the ability to escape from their assigned house identities. Almost all on-campus housing is now divided by house, preventing friends in different houses from rooming with one another. This places a serious limit on the ability of students to form bonds between houses, further disuniting campus. To make matters worse, the geographic distribution of the first year residences does little to foster house cohesion. Freshman floors are organized by house, but different floors might be composed of different house members, even within the same building. In contrast, non-freshman buildings are typically organized by house. If the administration truly desired cohesive residential spaces, why would it change the house structure of residential halls after freshman year? Even if the housing system was misguided, one would not be wrong to think that it could still potentially be of some good to the Dartmouth community. Many people at the college, especially freshman and sophomores, have said that the housing system has given them a place to meet new people, socialize with other students, and engage with the campus from the beginning of freshman year. However, there is little reason to believe that this is any credit to the housing system itself. Students who came to the College only after the six houses were already in place have never known, and could never imagine, the alternative. Moreover, the implementation of house communities has failed to justify their necessity.

The Dartmouth Review

Tuesday – MAy 29, 2018



Summer Classes at Dartmouth Erik R. Jones

Tech Editor

Sophomore summer is crucial part of every Dartmouth student’s experience. It has become a fundamental part of Dartmouth’s culture, and people all across the country seem to know what it is. After hearing so many stories and advice from upperclassmen, every sophomore is determined to do sophomore summer right. Most students want to take the minimal number of classes necessary for their D-Plan to enable as much permissiveness and outdoor activity as possible. But in terms of which classes to take, and how many we can take, the stakes are higher than ever when signing up for the narrow range of available summer classes. Many of us have heard horror stories of the student that made the mistake of enrolling in too many challenging courses, and was forced to isolate himself in the library while his peers got to explore the outdoors. We are forced to balance the competing advice that we have heard from older students, whether to take two classes sophomore summer, or whether it would be smarter to wait until senior spring, giving us room to withMr. Jones is a sophomore at the College and a Tech Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

draw from a course junior or senior year. Just before summer rolls around, a substantial percentage of the Dartmouth faculty leaves campus, and so do their classes. A smaller percentage of professors, along with many visiting professors, stay every summer to teach courses mainly offered for the sophomore class, with a few freshman and juniors on campus with them. But recently, there has been a high demand for certain courses that has not been met by the available class options. Specifically, the availability for classes in economics, engineering, and other STEM-related departments has not reflected the rising trend of majors in those subject areas. Additionally, since it is mainly just sophomores on campus during the summer, rather than a distributed range of freshmen through seniors, many students find themselves at similar checkpoints in their major tracks compared to their peers. Because of that, a big percentage of students within a given major try to get into the same one or two classes, which puts the classes over capacity and forces many of these students to find a new class. And for many students whose course plans have been mapped out for the rest of their time at Dartmouth, this can

severely strain students and force them into an uncomfortable place — whether to just take two classes now and have to take four another term, or just sign up for a random third course that is available in the summer. An example of a course that has had particularly high demand is the Econ 20 course in econometrics. This course is fundamental for not only the major in economics, but also for the economics minor and any econ modified majors, along with QSS majors and minors. The number of econ majors and econ major modifications has been sharply rising this past decade, and the class availability has not adequately reflected that change. Also, since Math 3 and a 10 level course in econ, gov, or math are required as prerequisites, the demand for this course is naturally taken by many during sophomore year. Since Econ 21, 26, and 36 are the only other available econ classes in the summer, a large percentage of econ majors plan to take Econ 20 during sophomore summer. One student, who was turned away from Econ 20 for this summer, described how this situation has made his course planning more difficult: “It definitely has [negatively affected my D-Plan]. The workload I’m already expecting to

Since its inception, students have been pushing the limits of safety (and security) in hopes of being woven into this larger than life tale. First years looking to make a name for themselves on campus have been attempting to touch the bonfire for years, dodging S&S and Hanover Police officers alike along their dash to glory. This is a surprisingly new part of Dartmouth Night. “I don’t remember trying to touch the fire in ‘88, but one of my friends tried to light a cigarette on it” wrote in an anonymous alumnus to “The attempt, which I think was successful, melted the sleeve of his bright yellow Patagonia jacket. He wore that jacket all four years. The Class Historians even made a joke about him at Class Day in ‘92.” Classes who failed to touch the fire were dubbed the “worst class ever” by upperclassmen across campus. However, in recent years the administration has made a point to discourage freshmen from staring fear in the face, increasing penalties and ramping up anti-fire touching propaganda. In 2016, the fire was put out early because an overwhelming number of 20’s

were touching the fire and the safety concerns became too great. In response, Phil Hanlon and the administration erected the “Hanover Wall” surrounding the bonfire. This chain link fence proved to be no match for the Class of 2021 as several freshmen scaled the fence on the way to Dartmouth glory. “I’m a kid from Minnesota who went to an all-boys catholic military high school that also had many, many strong traditions that students tried fearlessly to uphold” said fire toucher Thor “Will” Mayleben ’21. “I couldn’t let down my classmates and alums here at Dartmouth.” With penalties levied against fire touchers reaching up into suspensions, it remains to be seen whether every subsequent class to the ‘21s will be the worst class ever. Fire touching is certainly not dead, but it very well may be on its last legs. The construction of the bonfire is also a quintessential piece of the event that makes it such a central part of Dartmouth. The bonfire used to be constructed exclusively by students, so much so that it was a competition between classes to see who could con-

Endangered Traditions Philip R. Swanson


The College on the Hill boasts many illustrious storied, and sordid traditions. The “Old Traditions” of Dartmouth have been a common thread between generations of students and are part of what makes community so close. Tales of Dartmouth night, first year trips, and winter carnival have been some of the many traditions that have connected members of the Dartmouth family young and old. As Dartmouth grows and changes, traditions change, fade, or even disappear. Many of these rituals have now been relegated to the history books. We at The Review are concerned by the fading of “Old Dartmouth” and would like to highlight a few traditions that are on life support. One of Dartmouth’s most famous rituals is the homecoming bonfire. First lit in 1888 to celebrate a smashing baseball victory over Manchester, the Dartmouth Night bonfire has served as the crown jewel of Homecoming weekend for alumni and students alike. Mr. Swanson is a freshman at the College and a contributor at The Dartmouth Review.

DARTMOUTH HALL IN THE SUMMER take in the fall makes it unlike- a sign that not enough secly I can take the class, which tions of the class were offered I need to complete my major, — this is probably a symptom and I’m not sure when my next of a growing Dartmouth and a chance will be.” Going into ju- large number of majors in econior year of college, students in nomics and STEM.” Additionsophomore summer often have ally, the course availability on very little flexibility in their banner does not seem to reflect classes for the upcoming ac- the fact that many sophomores ademic terms. Some students are at similar points in their are off or abroad in both the major process. Dartmouth fall and the winter of their ju- needs to adapt to this concennior year, which forces them tration of demand for a small to postpone any missed classes subset of classes by creating to junior spring or sometime enough seats in those classes in senior year. This trend has for the number of students that become apparent not only in want to take them each year. economics classes, but also in Whether that means adding various mid-level engineer- a section for classes that have ing classes, such as Engs 21, the highest demand, or hiring 31, and 33, which are all at a new professor, Dartmouth or above full capacity. As this needs to do more to offer the student stated, “classes should necessary space for students of rarely be full, because that is all majors.

THE ENDANGERED TRADTION OF THE BONFIRE struct the largest. That is of course until the great class of ’79 erected a 100-tier wooden tower which attendees claim burned so hot it drove people off of the green entirely. The school later made a rule limiting the bonfire height, but the bonfire remains a student project. Today, the pyre’s construction is largely managed by Buildings and Grounds employees and engineers due to safety concerns. Many of the newer safety provisions surrounding the bonfire can be linked to an accident in 1999 at Texas A&M University where a student built bonfire collapsed before being lit, killing several surrounding students. “It was the Texas A&M col-

lapse that changed the shape of the bonfire,” wrote Former Hanover Police Chief Nick Giaccone to Dartblog. org. “and also made changes in how College staff assisted in its construction. No longer would it be just freshman.” Though it is understandable that the safety of the general public should not be solely left up to a group of 18 year olds, the college involvement in the process proved to be overbearing. As a result, the building of the bonfire is no longer a bonding activity but rather an afterthought. Though students are still able to take part in the bonfire’s construction, the comradery and class spirit that accompanied the undertaking are all but gone.

8 Tuesday – may 29, 2018

The Dartmouth Review


In Defense of the Capital Campaign


The first strategic priority, among other things, aims to improve considerably Dartmouth’s notoriously lackluster faculty compensation. With the departure of well-known professors like Hany Farid and Brendan Nyhan at hand, the need for competitive compensation should rightly be at the forefront of the College’s attention. The goal also seeks to facilitate undergraduate research through increased funding and advance “innovations in the liberal arts.” The latter objective is more vague, though it seems the College is minded towards improving increasingly popular courses of study in the social sciences, such as Economics and History. The goal intends to maintain the teacher-scholar model of the faculty which has formed the backbone of undergraduate-focused instruction at Dartmouth. This strategic

mouth is a worthwhile pursuit in its own right. This objective also seeks to create new opportunities for the incorporation of the arts into curricula, and although I am unsure what that will look like, it seems like a meaningful endeavor. The fourth strategic priority seems very broad, but it is actually focused on providing new funds for a variety of established research initiatives, which seek to tackle some of the world’s largest challenges. The four named programs in this priority’s fundraising goals are the Irving Institute for Energy and Society, the Norris Cotton Cancer Center, the Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, and the Institute for Arctic Studies. Additionally, this priority will provide funding to the Cluster Initiative, which is a project established in 2017 to create interdisciplinary academic clusters of faculty to design

“We should recognize that Dartmouth is an exceptional institution and not try to stifle efforts to improve the College’s standing as a worldwide academic leader.” priority pays remarkable and careful attention to the distinctive qualities of undergraduate teaching at Dartmouth and so deserves acceptance if not praise. The second strategic priority is directed at the development and improvement of instructional capacities in the river-facing quarter of campus. So, many of its smaller aims are centered on improving the Tuck School of Business. Tuck is already recognized as one of the world’s leading business schools; however, attention should still be paid to maintaining or even improving that standing and the quality of business education offered there. This priority also seeks to provide new an expensive (~$200 million) new center for instruction in Engineering and Computer Science. Though the price tag is quite hefty, it is right that the College should be providing new opportunities for a growing and marketable pool of STEM majors. This priority is also quite forward thinking; Dartmouth’s most generous alumni are often graduates of Tuck, Thayer, or undergraduate STEM programs. The third strategic priority only seeks to raise funds for the expansion of the Hood Museum of Art and the support of the Hopkins Center for the Performing Arts. Though this objective claims nebulously that “cultural ripples of this development will ignite campuswide creativity,” the support of the fine arts at Dart-

coursework and research opportunities focused on ten separate topics. To me, the Cluster Initiative seems very vague in its implementation, but the topics it deals with are certainly substantive; for instance, there are clusters devoted to “Meeting New Challenges of Cybersecurity” and “Personalized Treatments for Cystic Fibrosis.” Overall, this seems like another priority based on improving undergraduate research opportunities and involving students in the study of pressing present-day issues. The fifth strategic priority intends to create an endowment for the Advanced and Graduate Studies Program, now called the Frank J. Guarini School of Graduate and Advanced Studies. The endowment will enable the Guarini School to offer more fellowships as well as professional development opportunities and engage in faculty and student recruiting. The Advanced and Graduate Studies Program has long been in need of improvement, and even though it is only an aesthetic improvement, the name change signifies the College’s intentions. The creation of a brand for a graduate school is significant, as we know from the example of Tuck’s far-reaching reputation. The promised growth of the Guarini Graduate School offers Dartmouth a tremendous opportunity to build its profile as a preeminent center of academic research beyond the studies of business, engineering, and medicine.

HANLON PRESENTS HIS CALL TO LEAD The sixth strategic priority is the only one with which I can take a reasonable amount of issue, as it seeks to re-engineer residential life at Dartmouth. As its primary aim, this priority seeks to allocate $200 million for the construction of a 350-bed dormitory. I do not find this part objectionable, as the new dorm does not come with the caveat of expanding undergraduate enrollment or destroying College Park, and most can agree that there is a shortage of beds at Dartmouth. However, this priority also intends to create a $50 million endowment for the execrable house communities. This endowment is the only major issue with the expansion plan, because as I see it, the house communities are a waste of millions of dollars that could be spent on nobler projects, even within the capital campaign. The house communities are purposeless and unpopular, complicating roommate choices at best and squandering resources and attacking traditions at worst. That is to say, without the endowment for the house communities, I would find the capital campaign hard not to support. If West House scarves and optional events at alternative social spaces is the price of these other noble aims, then so be it. The seventh strategic priority is one of the vaguer ones and therefore easier to criticize. It seeks to establish something called the Dartmouth Leadership Project for $25 million in addition to spending $90 million on “Athletic competitiveness and leadership development.” The latter seems to have something to do with Dartmouth Peak Performance, which works on leadership and personal development with the College’s student-athletes. In all honesty, I do not know what that entails and so I find it difficult to defend or criticize. However, the Leadership Project, while still in its pre-infancy, has the promise

of a great opportunity for enriching students. As the capital campaign materials indicate, it will be the first such program in the Ivy League, so only time will tell how it looks in practice. Nevertheless, leadership skills are crucial for success in many fields, even academia, and should be taught to undergraduates by experiential means.

FROM DARTMOUTH.EDU most of its propositions are tolerable if not praiseworthy. This capital campaign simply does not pose any threat to the traditions or institutions of the College. Instead, it seeks to support and develop beloved aspects of the Dartmouth education, such as the importance of teacher-scholars. It does make changes, but they are mostly focused on educational

“Though some of the objectives included within the eight strategic priorities are vague, and it is blighted by the inclusion of the house communities, most of its propositions are tolerable if not praiseworthy. ” In contrast with the seventh, the eighth and final strategic priority is very clear about its overarching objective, which is to improve financial aid at Dartmouth. This priority seeks $250 million to preserve “need-blind” admissions, which I think is a most agreeable goal to most community members. Financial aid at Dartmouth has been criticized lately for failing to meet demonstrated need and for neglecting international students. Since 2015, financial aid for international students has been “need-aware,” meaning that their financial needs are a consideration when deciding to admit them or not. The capital campaign seeks to change that, by requesting $90 million to “restore needblind admissions for foreign citizens.” The financial aid objectives also seek to eliminate loans from aid packages as to avoid a debt burden on lowand middle-income families. It is right and honorable for the College to be improving its accessibility to all deserving applicants, so the renewed commitment to addressing financial need is laudable. Though some of the objectives included within the eight strategic priorities are vague, and it is blighted by the inclusion of the house communities,

aspects, not issues of student life. We should recognize that Dartmouth is an exceptional institution and not try to stifle efforts to improve the College’s standing as a worldwide academic leader. The capital campaign is far from perfect and does allocate funds to the housing communities, a negative influence on Dartmouth’s cultural traditions. However, it does present an enormous effort to improve quality of life and education for students and faculty and to build Dartmouth’s prominence as a global center of learning. Dartmouth has been losing ground lately in terms of fundraising and development when compared to the other Ivies. Some detractors will argue that given the track record of cost-overruns and delays of the Hanlon administration, the capital campaign is doomed to fail in its implementation. Even if the money is squandered and lost by mismanagement, that will not be a failure of the campaign. Instead, that would be a failure of the administration to see its plans through, for which administrators must be held accountable. Mr. Bring is a freshman at the College and a Managing Editor of The Dartmouth Review

The Dartmouth Review

Tuesday – May 29, 2018



A Great Leap Backwards: ‘The Call to Mislead’ revolutionizing the West End of

> CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 campus, the part closest to the

However, The Call to Lead is the College’s most ambitious campaign to-date. Dartmouth had so-far avoided asking her friends and alumni for large sums of money because she did not have to. Currently, only a little over 40% of the College’s alumni give back to Dartmouth, far lower than it was just a few generations ago. Back then, the College and her alumni had a relationship like no other. Her former students acknowledged her assistance in making them what they were and, out of gratitude, gave back to her when she leaned on them for support. Since that has not been the case for decades, President Hanlon was forced to find a way to raise money, since he, for all his faults, wants Dartmouth to succeed. Unfortunately, The Call to Lead will almost certainly not improve Dartmouth, but will indubitably change the very nature of this small college. Nonetheless the only way to examine the disastrous proposals of the Call to Lead is by looking at each of the nine priorities. Priority 1: Affirm Dartmouth’s Distinctive Model of Education One of President Hanlon’s stated goals is to affirm Dartmouth’s distinctive model of education. The administration states that they want the preserve Dartmouth’s distinctive position “at the intersection of the very best liberal arts colleges and highest-quality research universities.” President Hanlon has apparently resigned himself to the fact that the College will always be a “research university,” a university that expects its entire tenured and tenure-track faculty to continuously engage in research. While this can be spun as encouraging professors to continually improve, the sad truth is that requiring faculty to engage in research could easily lower the quality of undergraduate teaching. Requiring professors do a tremendous amount of work simply to keep their job will almost force them to focus less than they otherwise would have on teaching undergraduates to stay employed. More importantly, the College has not been a university since the Supreme Court derecognized Dartmouth University in 1819, almost 200 years ago. Dartmouth was founded, earlier than America itself, as a liberal arts college and she must remain one, as a testament to the arts. By professing its desire to make the College a research university, the administration flaunts its disregard for the many still-loyal undergraduates, which could explain the decline in the alumni donation rate over the last few years. Priority 2: Revolutionize the West End of Campus Another way that President Hanlon wants to squander the money of generous donors is by

Connecticut River. The administration claims to want to convert the West End of Dartmouth into the technology center of the College. To do this, they plan to move the Computer Science department closer to the Engineering department, currently located at Sudikoff and Thayer, respectively. At the surface, this does not look like a bad idea. It is unarguable that having the technology-related departments near each other would make collaboration between these departments more accessible. However, one wonders if this is a project the College should devote half a billion dollars to. In addition to monetary concerns, one should be worried about the repercussions of clumping the applied sciences in one of the least traversed places on campus. This effective marginalization would result in Dartmouth bearing the burdens of a research institution of funding the research of numerous technical scientists, while reaping none of the benefits of a prominent technologically driven science program. Priority 3: Nurture Creativity Through a Vibrant Arts District The development of a new Vibrant Arts District is another aspect of the Call to Lead. The issue with this new District lays in the opportunities it can provide. Attending multiple events at the Hopkins Center would it make it clear to anyone that the arts district attracts a lot of the communities surrounding Dartmouth. In a sense, the development of the arts district would reinvigorate the relationship between Dartmouth and the town of Hanover. However, what sort of creativity would be nurtured at the Hopkins Center? An objective push for art that seeks to challenge the mind and present different points of views, or to further reinforce the abstract, mind-numbing creations, such as fully white paintings? With $75 Million going to the Hopkins Center and $50 million to the Hood Museum expansion, one truly wonders where exactly this money is going. Currently, the Hopkins Center functions as an art gallery, a cafe, a mailroom, and a theater. Here is to hoping that the money goes to developing new artistic undertakings that reinforce the ingenuity of Dartmouth students rather than buying paper straws at the Courtyard Cafe. Priority 4: Make Big, Strategic Bets on Discovery While Dartmouth has no obligation to help the world resolve some of its foremost problems, it nonetheless increases the profile of the school to engage in “tackling some of the most urgent challenges facing [mankind] today.” Interestingly, most of the money is allotted to specific programs and centers at the school.

For example, the Norris Cotton Cancer Center receives $100 million and the Arthur L. Irving Institute for Energy and Society receives $160 million. The investment in these centers for research is a noble effort. However, the biggest eyebrow raiser is the investment in “academic clusters around global challenges” at a whopping $120 million. These “academic clusters” sound like substitutes for existing clubs and organizations around campus. There is no way that the administration will spend $120 million on existing clubs. Besides, what exactly are “global challenges?” Are they limited to preventing epidemics and curing diseases? Or do they extend to the imagined problems of reaching “Peak Oil” and other alarmist conspiracy theories? One can only wait and hope. Priority 5: Create a Nationally Recognized Graduate School Probably the worst of the numerous terrible ideas President Hanlon has had is his plan to build a nationally recognized graduate school. The College’s undergraduate focus is the only reason many prospective students choose to brave four years in the wilderness of New Hampshire. The administration must know this because, until three years ago, the College didn’t have a standalone graduate school. Since all money is fungible, funds allocated to the graduate school are funds that could otherwise have gone to the undergraduate college, or to justly compensate the underpaid faculty or any one of dozens of ways the College could improve the undergraduate experience. The similarities between The Call to Lead and James O. Freedman’s “Will to Excel” campaign are uncanny. The Will to Excel campaign wanted to rebuild Dartmouth in the image of Yale and Harvard. For reasons that are beyond us, President Hanlon wants to emulate Freedman, seeming to believe that it is preferable for the College to play second fiddle to its supposed-betters. The fact that Dartmouth differs culturally from other Ivies in a superior way is one that is utterly ignored by Hanlon. If President Hanlon truly wants to make Dartmouth more appealing, he needs to convince prospective students that the College is better than its peers by emphasizing its rich history and noble traditions, not by some unrealistic metric designed to emulate universities. Apparently, the College’s administration doesn’t realize that drastically changing the College projects weakness, and appears as though focusing on undergraduates is a deleterious endeavor. Further, it is a tacit admission that universities like Harvard and Princeton are better than Dartmouth, which is frankly offensive. At

least when Freedman was President we knew that he wanted to reshape Dartmouth in the image of the other Ivy League institutions. We cannot say the same is true for President Hanlon. Priority 6: Transform the Residential Life Experience The Call to Lead, as expected, aims to immortalize Hanlon’s housing system, the residential model designed to shove a sense of community down students’ throats. To state that the housing system, comprising of six residential houses into which each students are randomly assigned, is a disaster, is an understatement. The administration plans to funnel tens of millions of dollars into the failed system. When the housing system was first instituted, the administration hoped that arbitrarily assigning undergraduates into houses would give them a sense of community, a feeling that used to come from a Greek system they wanted to weaken. Unfortunately for Hanlon, the only thing the housing system accomplished was fueling a sense of resentment towards the administration since all it did was restrict where and with whom upperclassmen could room. In a transparent attempt to make the housing system more appealing, the College endows each house with more money than it needs, which the houses spend on unnecessary stuff and hosting events that few people attend. Priority 7: Develop Leaders Through Experiential Learning The thing about leaders is that not everyone can be a leader; if everyone were a leader then no one would be. Granted, “Dartmouth is now poised to capitalize on its tradition of educating tomorrow’s leaders by creating a four-year comprehensive leadership program for every student.” While Dartmouth graduates encompass a small percentage of the world’s population, Hanlon’s fit-all model for developing leaders is beyond naive. How exactly will the administration cater to individual needs? Through bureaucracy. What is most interesting is that of the $90 million allocated towards Priority 7, 60.5 percent goes to “Athletic Competitiveness and Leadership Development.” Why is Hanlon trying to pork barrel athletic competitiveness with leadership development? Meanwhile, the Center for Professional Development gets a meager $2.5 million. Even the Moosilauke Ravine Lodge receives $18.2 million, which begs the question of whether Priority 7 is just a way for Hanlon to spend money on things that do not fit any of the other priorities. The “Comprehensive 4-Year Undergraduate Leadership Program” categorical grant-like program receives a hefty $25 million, but the question still remains of how

exactly the school will foster leadership skills in every student. It may very well turn out to be that leaders are born, not made, especially not by Orwellian-named feel-good programs. Priority 8: Expand the Availability of Financial Aid Perhaps one of the ways Wheelock’s legacy is carried on is through the generous financial aid Dartmouth provides. One of the more ambitious aspects of the program is to offer needblind assistance to international students. What the administration will never mention is that this was already the case prior to 2015, when President Hanlon, in his infinite wisdom, eliminated it. On the Dartmouth News website, it boldly claims that “extending need-blind admissions to international citizens will make Dartmouth one of only six U.S. institutions of higher education that admits foreign applicants without considering their ability to pay.” While this will make the college more exclusive, it will only reap a good harvest if the aid goes to students that deserve it. This is more of an issue with the admissions process of the college, which is equivocal. However, with the Class of 2022 being the smallest yet, the college may very well manage the distribution. On the other hand, with Hanlon still trying to force expanded housing down Dartmouth’s throat, it would not be surprising if the school began to admit larger classes than usual, defeating the purpose of the aid. Nonetheless, the unfortunate reality is that the administration is asking for money to reinstate a program it gutted just a few years ago, simultaneously demonstrating both ineptitude and arrogance. Ernie Parizeau ’79 remarked, “Dartmouth creates a worldclass product, discounts the price 54 percent, gives an additional discount for certain buyers… then begs for money.” This is a working business model for now, but will not be once Hanlon’s changes are implemented. If The Call to Lead is successful, it will lower the quality of education one receives at the College and the expansion will force an increase in tuition; if there’s one thing we know about Phil Hanlon, it is that his administration is inefficient. The ambitious goal of The Call to Lead is proof that President Hanlon does not know how to manage money. Eventually, if current trends continue, Dartmouth’s business model will fail. One can only hope that President Hanlon matures out of what appears to be an iconoclastic phase before the College we all know and love commits Seppuku. Mr. Rauda is a freshman at the College and Asscoiate Editor at The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Rikton is a contributor at The Dartmouth Review.

10 Tuesday – May 29, 2018

The Dartmouth Review


Review Reviews: Power of Meaning Rachel T. Gambee

Managing Editor Author Emily Esfahani-Smith ‘09 spoke to a collection of Dartmouth students, faculty, and community members last Friday to promote her new book, The Power of Meaning: Finding Fulfillment in a World Obsessed with Happiness. Her talk was structured as a discussion with Professor Russell Muirhead of the Government department where both parties enumerated the differences between happiness and meaning. Ms. Esfahani-Smith, a former editor and current board member at The Review, was elegant and erudite as she captivated the almost alarmingly packed Ms. Gambee is a freshman at the College and a Managing Editor of The Dartmouth Review.

auditorium. She opened the discussion arguing that pursuing happiness makes one a “taker” while pursuing meaning makes one a “giver.” Thus, happiness is inherently self-oriented, a quality which accounts for its ultimately unfulfilling nature. The nature of happiness was something that Ms. Esfahani-Smith studied extensively during her time in Dartmouth. As a philosophy major, Aristotle’s writings on happiness had a particularly large impact on her as an undergraduate. Nevertheless, during her graduate studies in Positive Psycholog y at the University of Pennsylvania, Ms. Esfahani-Smith discovered that fulfillment is much more indicative of a person’s emotional well being than happiness is. Fulfillment, she asserted, comes direct-

ly from having meaning in one’s life. As described in her book, meaning is built upon four pillars: belonging, purpose, stor ytelling, and transcendence. Belonging refers to a sense of community, either coming from a social circle or a family. Purpose could come from a job, or community ser vice work, but is essentially the belief that one’s work has meaning. Stor ytelling is the narrative that you construct about your own life. Transcendence is a connection to something greater than the temporal. Ms. Esfahani-Smith emphasized that a meaningful life often coming from the combination of these four qualities in a ration that suits the individual. She, along with Professor Muirhead, did caution the room of students against placing

too much emphasis on finding a job that is meaningful. Professor Muirhead discussed the sympathy he has for students entering the workforce who feel forced to choose between “meaningful” and work that allows them to be financially secure. Ms. Esfahani-Smith warned, however, that it is the unattainable expectations that students put on their work that leads to unfulfillment. Originally religion gave meaning to the student’s lives. Eventually that gave way to secular attitudes, and ‘great books’ courses with classical writings and philosophy imparted meaning to the lives of students. Now, as she ver y astutely pointed out, even at liberal arts schools like Dartmouth, only the most motivated students receive a compre-

hensive education in these areas. Instead students often leave their undergraduate education with the belief that the pursuit of meaning and the pursuit career success are the same. This creates impossibly high standards for meaningful work. When students’ work does not meet these standards, they feel that their entire life lacks meaning. With her four-pillar system, Ms. Esfahani-Smith gave students hope by reminding them that they do not need to despair if their job is not the “calling” that they were promised it would be. She gave them the much needed reminded that fulfillment comes from a balanced life and human connection. Her talk was visibly well received by students and faculty alike.

Review Reviews: Antonia Okafor Talks Hailey C. Holm

Contributor “Nothing stops a bad guy with a gun except a good guy—or girl—with a gun.” This is, in short, the summary of Antonia Okafor’s May 10th speech and discussion. Okafor—2nd Amendment supporter and campus carry advocate—visited Dartmouth on May 10th. She discussed her defense of the 2nd Amendment and argued for increased student involvement on gun rights issues. Antonia is a graduate of UT Dallas, a Campus Reform correspondent, frequent political commentator, and founder of EmPOWERed, an organization of conservative women in favor of gun rights. The Dartmouth College Republicans sponsored the event. Newly elected DCR president Josh Kauderer spearheaded the organization, and even though Antonia had just finished attending the NRA convention, she put in the effort to come almost straight to Dartmouth. The event kicked off with a recorded TV debate between Antonia Okafor and Piers Morgan, followed by a fifteen-minute prepared speech and a thirty-five-minute question-and-answer session with the audience. Antonia’s Dartmouth Coach got stuck in traffic and made her about 30 minutes late for the event, and she proceeded to open her talk by thanking DartMs. Holm is a freshman at the College and a Contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

mouth College for hosting her, and “I know I’m late, but you guys can’t say anything, because I’m black,” to laughter from the audience. Antonia briefly discussed her work with EmPOWERed, a gun rights organization geared towards “empowering millennial women to defend themselves,” particularly on campus. She argued that the founding principle of the 2nd Amendment is that an armed populace is a deterrent to government overreach. In the wake of the Parkland shooting and other similar tragedies, Antonia said, we have “seen the best of American society” as the country has come together in support of the victims of mass shootings, but we have also seen legal gun owners vilified as if they are mass shooters themselves. It “is a misguided idea,” she says, to assume that fewer guns will reduce gun-related violence. “The fewer guns there are, the easier it becomes for evil people to commit crimes.” Antonia pointed out that more than 96% of school shootings since the late 1990s have occurred in gun-free zones. While the gun-free designation was designed to make schools a safer place, “it has failed to protect students too many times.” She also stated that guns are used “as many as 2.5 million times a year in self-defense,” many times more frequently than they are used to take a life. One of the classic pro-gun arguments is that disarming law-abiding gun

owners will do nothing more than leave those law-abiding citizens vulnerable to criminals. Antonia brought this up, and told several stories from recent years in which a “good guy with a gun” was able to stop a shooter and save lives. Antonia transitioned to the issue of campus carry with an anecdote about a girl at the University of Las Vegas, who was kidnapped and sexually assaulted, and managed to escape by grabbing her assailant’s gun. “If the victim was allowed to carry her firearm, she could’ve defended herself,” Antonia said, challenging listeners to consider the potential for legal campus carry to empower women. Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, and Kansas, she said, have already instituted legal concealed carry policies on college campuses, without incident thus far. In fact, within six months of it going into effect at the University of Kansas, the campus saw a 13% decrease in crime—”which comes out to roughly one hundred fewer criminal offenses.” After the campus carry discussion, she attacked Florida’s decision to pass a law raising the minimum age for firearms purchase to 21 years old. “This is not only a mistake,” she said, “but a direct attack on our right to self-defense.” To her, the Florida state legislature’s action leaves law-abiding people vulnerable to attack while doing nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes. To conclude, Antonia of-

STUDENTS ENJOY MS.OKAFOR’S TALK fered a personal justification of her positions. As a woman, she supports the right of other women, “many of whom, like me, have experienced the horror of sexual assault.” Those women could have defended themselves more effectively if they’d been armed, and other women will be able to in the future. And “above all else, as an American,” she considers it her responsibility to stand up in defense of law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defense. The question-and-answer session that followed lasted over twice as long as the talk itself. Asked how she would go about resolving differences that come from two people using different sets of facts, Antonia said that it’s important to bring personal testimonies into the conversation, because that will help “open doors” between differing people. Another person pointed out that she thought there was a misun-

Joshua L. Kauderer

derstanding in that most gun rights advocates think gun control advocates want to “take away” their guns rather than create safer regulations. Antonia brought up several prominent liberal intellectuals’ calls to repeal the second amendment, and said that while she personally does not think that the left is out to “get our guns,” she can understand why that misconception happens. When pressed about the risks inherent to having guns on college campuses, spaces where there’s inevitably alcohol and impulsive young adults, Antonia replied that those risks are the same risks that exist off college campuses in private homes, and asked why we should have a double standard for people of the same age based simply on whether or not they live on a college campus. Although there were disagreements, the tone of the Q&A period was polite, respectful, and open-minded.

The Dartmouth Review

Tuesday – May 29, 2018 11


Campus Carry with Antonia Okafor William G. Jelsma Scotch M. Cara

Associate Editor Contributor In a talk sponsored by the College Republicans on May 10, gun rights and campus carry activist Antonia Okafor addressed the flaws inherent in gun control and gun-free zones, argued that guns empower law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and answered questions from students on the gun control debate. Okafor is one of the most prominent advocates for concealed carry on campus. In 2015, as Southwest Regional Director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, she successfully advocated for the Texas campus carry law, which later passed. She is also the founder and CEO of EmPOWERed, an organization dedicated to educating women about safe gun ownership. Recently, she spoke alongside President Donald Trump at the NRA convention in Dallas. While campus carry was not a central feature of Okafor’s remarks on Thursday, it has been the main focus of her pro-gun activism to date. She successfully advocated for campus carry in Texas public universities as Southwest Regional Director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus in 2015. Texas passed its campus carry law in 2016. Okafor argued for campus based on its effect on its effect on sexual assault and crime rates in general. Assessed by this metric, campus carry has been successful overall. Okafor brought up the examples of multiple students at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas who were sexually assaulted in situations where they could have defended themselves with a gun. One, a concealed carry license holder who could not carry her gun on campus due to it being a Mr. Jelsma is a junior at the College and an Associate Editor of The Dartmouth Review. Ms. Cara is a Contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

gun free zone, was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by a serial rapist. Another was assaulted and had to take her assailant’s gun to get away. Both of these situations could have been easily prevented if either student had been allowed to carry a gun. But, Okafor said, campus carry affected general crime rates as well as sexual assault. Since campus carry was implemented at the University of Kansas, there was a thirteen percent reduction in all forms of crime, adding up to around a hundred crimes per year. In her prepared remarks, Okafor did not distinguish between students who live on-campus and off-campus. This is an important distinction, as on-campus students face problems when it comes to gun storage that commuting students do not have. Dormitories are a communal environment where there is more opportunity for other people to get access to a gun. More importantly, places such as fraternities where parties spill over into people’s rooms gives a chance for guns and alcohol to mix. When asked, Okafor responded that she trusted gun owners to be responsible with storing their firearms, regardless of whether in a private home or campus housing. Dartmouth allowed students to keep firearms in dorm rooms until the 1980s without any major issues, so perhaps the difference between students living on-campus and off-campus is not as large as it seems. Dartmouth’s current policy is to prohibit all weapons on campus. If a student owns a firearm— or archery equipment, hunting knives, or any other weapons that may not fall into this category such as martial arts equipment—he or she must register their weapon with Dartmouth’s Safety and Security. In order to do this, members of the college must pass safety courses and abide by state and federal laws. If students fail to handle their weapons responsibly, the college reserves the

right to revoke their permission to the student to register, store, or use their weapon. The odd component of Dartmouth’s policy is that it applies to students living in campus and off campus. Even if campus carry is not a realistic decision for Dartmouth to implement because of the current politics surrounding guns on campus. perhaps the college could consider middle ground policy that would allow students living off-campus in Hanover to keep their guns in their homes. Or perhaps a policy similar to that of many states that disallows firearms within a certain radius of a school. It seems very odd that a student living miles away from campus would be unable to keep his or her gun in a private residence. For the very reasons that Okafor explained in her talk about an individual right to self-defense, it seems unfortunate that College policy would infringe on an adult student’s Second Amendment right completely removed from a college setting. One of the inconsistencies within Okafor’s talk and discussion was the difference between her prepared remarks and her off-the-cuff answers to questions. While her prepared rhetoric often seemed formulaic and driven by emotions, her answers to students’ questions were based on facts. Clearly, Okafor knows a great deal about the gun rights debate in general and about campus carry laws. While some may view Okafor’s ability to shift between rational interpretation and argument and pure pathos admirable, it did raise some confusion. Okafor seemed more comfortable with impromptu speaking and direct student engagement then she did during the pure lecture component of her event. The formulaic nature of her prepared response was a direct contrast to the warm, engaging, and authentic presentation of her answers to questions raised by students. While she mentioned her

self-reflective, original way of thinking during her presentation and in an introductory video shown by the College Republicans prior to the beginning of her talk, this way of thinking did not shine through in the first section of the talk. The arguments she presented for campus carry and gun rights were not unique— they carried with them a unfortunate banality that could not have been more different than the attentive and sympathetic analysis that she she used to respond to students. When students inquired about facts surrounding certain contemporary federal policies, Okafor was ready immediately with a knowledgeable answer. The few times that she paused before responding, her pause was clearly not because she did not know the issues, but because she wanted to take the time to provide the best answer possible. All speakers and activists use different forms of rhetoric. There is not necessarily a problem with that— different tactics will convince different people from different backgrounds with different inclinations. The problem arises when a too heavy use of emotion undermines the credibility of the speaker. There were times when even those in the audience who supported what Okafor was saying were left wondering whether Okafor had the facts necessary to support her activism. Of course, as she demonstrated in the Q&A session, Okafor is highly knowledgeable about firearms and the Second Amendment. She had the facts to support her position, but she did not do a great job of delivering those facts in her prepared speech. Okafor did defend her emotional techniques towards the close of her prepared talks. After showing sections from Route 66, a documentary TV series on polarizing political issues in the United States, she commented that she’s found that while policies should be driven by facts, the


conversation can only be started with an appeal to emotion. While we all might have different opinions on policy, most people want the same thing— the freedom to protect themselves and their loved ones. It is on these grounds that Okafor ardently defends the Second Amendment. It is on these grounds that perhaps her appeal to personal narratives is, in fact, permissible. One of the largest problems in the gun control debate is the partisan divide between the proand anti-gun factions. There is a pervasive belief that the vast majority of pro-gun people are Republican while gun control supporters are Democrats, which contributes to the feeling that there is no common ground between the two sides. While Okafor did use facts to respond to this assumption, saying that 29% of the NRA are registered Democrats, her main point was that guns are a personal issue for everyone. The only thing stronger than a person’s political affiliation is a person’s emotional connection to a difficult subject. Policy is difficult. Motivation is more simple. Okafor’s discussion with students was a productive way of addressing the gun rights debate at Dartmouth. Frequently, any discussion about the Second Amendment devolves into both sides using extreme rhetoric, invective, and name-calling. Although Okafor used emotional appeals to draw people into the discussion, her actual arguments were strongly based in facts, and she was an expert on events and policies in the gun rights debate. She remained polite towards everyone at all times. Even those who remained unconvinced by Okafor’s remarks voiced that they wished that she could have stayed longer to answer more questions. Most importantly, Okafor’s visit facilitated a respectful dialogue about the gun debate, an issue where any respect between the two sides is hard to find.

12 tuesday – May 29, 2018

The Dartmouth Review



“At Dartmouth, we make you into a man by allowing you “The average man’s opinions are much less foolish than they would be if he thought for himself.” to remain a boy.” -Bertrand Russell –John Sloan Dickey “Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remem- “Does college pay? They do if you’re a good open-field ber from time to time that nothing worth knowing can be runner.” -Will Rogers taught.” -Oscar Wilde “The doer alone learneth.” -Friedrich Nietzsche “I would have done better on finals, but we covered all new material this term.” -Dartmouth ‘18 “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest” -Benjamin Franklin “All real education is the architecture of the soul.” -William Bennett “If I were a young man trying to decide where I would go to college I would find out of which college Dr. Hopkins was president and go there.” “Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. -John D. Rockerfeller Jr. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of “The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone character—that is the goal of true education.” are omnipotent.” -Martin Luther King Jr. -Calvin Coolidge “Nothing irks a college student more than shaking out the envelope from home and finding in it nothing but news from home and love.” -Detroit News “Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” -Robert Frost

“Never stop fighting until you arrive at your destined place - that is, the unique you. Have an aim in life, continuously acquire knowledge, work hard, and have perseverance to realise the great life.” -A.P.J. Abdul Kalam


Cap and Gown Ingredients

A glass of champagne A can of Keystone Light A solo cup of batch $250,000 of after-tax income spent on your college education My older brother, Sprat Herringford, graduated in 2016, this is the story of his last 24 hours at Dartmouth College: By the time I was out the door of my dearly beloved fraternity, I had imbibed the alcoholic equivalent of a zookeeper’s tranquilizer dart. My jaw was slack and my chin was numb, so when I took a hard tumble against the coarse surface of Webster Avenue, I didn’t even notice. Despite the noticeable imprint of a road on my face, my brothers and I sallied forth for one last hurrah along the stretch of road leading to the President’s Residence and the Catholic Church. We had resolved to undertake a grand tour of the basements and beer halls that had once so enticed us as freshmen. That night, my last at the college, was more bittersweet than those early, heady days of our time at Dartmouth. Still, we pressed on into the raucous darkness. The night was young and so were we. As I rounded the home base of my fourth keg-stand, the garish lights of an unnamed basement dissolved into a haze. The hours between then and when I awoke, have been to lost to history. My rude awakening came as I found myself slumped over in a shower, naked, in the Fayerweather dormitory which had been my first at Dartmouth. The absence of external light robbed me of my time perception and I had no sense of how many hours had passed since I had last booted and rallied. Non compos mentis I stumbled out of the dorm, which had been abandoned for the summer by its former freshman occupants. Suddenly, the unmistakable tune of Edward Elgar’s “Pomp and Circumstance” echoed across the Green. I started running towards it, unaware of my nudity, and dashed down towards the stage from the lawn in front of Dartmouth Hall. I hurried into the crowd assembled, rushing to join the graduation procession. It wasn’t until I made eye contact with my grand aunt Margaret that I realized the family jewels were in full display. I dashed into a nearby pavilion to forage for the regalia to shield my loins from the gaze of an attentive crowd. I seized the first gown I could find, which turned out to be a women’s medium. Shambling barefoot across the Green, I finally relaxed when I blended normally into the throng of soon-to-be graduates heading for the stage. I breathed a sigh of relief and thought my crisis averted as my name was called to ascend the stage and collect my degree. As I crossed the platform, a strong hillwind came and blew my gown above my waist.

— Scrod Herringford

“The intensity of dark circles under a student’s eyes is inversely proportional to the time remaining in the term” -Wilson’s Law “Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality the cost becomes prohibitive.” -William F. Buckley Jr. “For good nurture and education implant good constitutions.” -Plato “Training is everything. The peach was once a bitter almond; cauliflower is nothing but cabbage with a college education.” -Mark Twain “My mother said I must always be intolerant of ignorance but understanding of illiteracy. That some people, unable to go to school, were more educated and more intelligent than college professors.” -Maya Angelou “The aim of education is the knowledge, not of facts, but of values.” -William S. Burroughs “They have the still North in their soul, The hill winds in their breath, And the granite of New Hampshire Is made part of them ‘til death.” -Dartmouth Alma Mater


Commencement Issue (5.29.18)  

Volume 38 - Issue 5

Commencement Issue (5.29.18)  

Volume 38 - Issue 5