The Commencement Issue (5.31.17)

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

Volu m e 3 7 , Is su e 5

We d nes d ay, May 3 1 , 2 0 1 7

the commencement issue

commencement We at The Review wish the class of 2017 all the best in their future endeavors!

Image courtesy of Tuck Communications

Lessons from Robert Frost Sexual Assault at Dartmouth Robert Frost Alumnus

Editor’s note: Frost ’96 delivered this commencement address in 1955.

The Dartmouth Review offers the College’s graduating seniors the wisdom of Frost’s words as the seniors prepare for their departure into the real world.

This is a rounding out for you, and a rounding out is the main part of it. You’re rounding out four years. I’m rounding out something like sixty-three, isn’t it? But it is a real rounding out for me. I’m one of the original members of the Outing Club—me and Ledyard. You don’t know it, and I shouldn’t tell it perhaps, but I go every year, once a year, to touch Ledyard’s monument down there, as the patron saint of freshmen

who run away. And I ran away because I was more interested in education than anybody in the College at that time.

I thought I’d say to you just a few words about that, and so as to lead up to two or three poems of my own. I usually am permitted to say a poem or two—am expected to.

I’ll make them short and easy for you to listen to.

But you came to college bringing with you something to go on with—that was the idea from my point of view: something to go on with. And you brought it with an instinct, I hope, to keep it— not to have it taken away from you, not to have it taken away from you, not to be bamboozled out of it or scared out of it by any fancy teachers. I’ve known teachers with a real hanker for ravishing innocence. They like to tell you things that will

disturb you.

Now, I think the College itself has given you one thing of importance I’d like to speak of. It’s given you, slowly, gradually, the means to deal with that sort of thing, not only in college but the rest of your life. The formula would be something like this: always politely accept the other man’s premises. Don’t contradict anybody. It’s contentious and ill-natured. Accept the premises—take it up where it’s given you and then show ’em what you can make of it. You’ve been broadened and enlarged to where you can listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.

You came from the “Bible belt,” let’s say. You were confronted with the facts of evolution. It was supposed to disturb you about your God.

But you found a way to say—either with presence of mind, wittily, or slowly with meditation— you found the way to say, “Sure, God probably didn’t make man out of mud. But He made him out of prepared mud.”

You still had your God, you see.

You were a Bostonian and you had been brought up to worship the cod. To you the cod was sacred and her eggs precious. You were confronted with facts of waste in nature. One cod egg is all that survives of a million. And you said— what did you say? You found something to say, surely. You said, “Perhaps those other eggs were necessary in order to make the ocean a proper broth for the one to grow up in. No waste; just expense.” And so on.

> FEATURES page 10

Devon M. Kurtz News Editor During the 2012 election cycle, U.S. Representative Todd Akin infamously proclaimed, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” While he rightfully received heavy criticism for this confusing, disturbing, and false statement, many people rushed to his defense.

This statement may have been egregiously stupid, but it did shed light on the widespread misinformation about and ignorance of the subject of sexual assault and rape culture.

Conservatives are often criticized for their questionable track re-

cord on defining and punishing sexual violence. When it comes to sexual harassment, many accuse “conservative” men especially of belittling the experience of being targeted by unwarranted sexually charged comments. In instances of sexual violence, “conservatives” are (often rightfully) criticized for making statements like the ones by Todd Akin in 2012 and by President Trump in the infamous Access Hollywood “Grab her by the p---y” video, or for making the alltoo-common marginalizing rationalizations, “She was asking for it” and “Did you see what she was wearing?”

> Features page 14

the beginning of the end

a review of the drinking age

Bored@Baker: end of an era

TDR Editor-in-Chief Jack Mourouzis discusses the dismal state of the College, with an optimistic edge

We examine the United State’s drinking age laws and raise some questions about the issue

The Review sits down with the administrator of the now-defunct website for some closure

> EDITORIAL page 3

> features page 8

> features page 9

2 Wednesday – May 31, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

Table of Contents Tanzi’s is back on main street in hanover!

10% off your first appointment at our brand new salon Please feel free to walk in or call for an appointment 603-643-8400

Inside the issue Robert Frost’s Commencement Address

Great Professors: Sergei Kan

Sexual Assault at Dartmouth

Witch Hunts and Intellectual Diversity

A Review of the Drinking Age

The Duthu Denouement

The End of Bored@Baker

The Review Reviews: Six South Bistro

Short-lived Dartmouth student and legendary poet Robert Frost offers some thoughts from his 1955 commencement address........................................................................ PAGE 1

News Editor Devon Kurtz looks at the College’s history and practice regarding this important and timely issue............................................................................................. PAGE 1

We take a look at the oft-criticized drinking age in the United States, exploring whether or not the law is truly justified...................................................................................................... PAGE 8

The Review sits down the Jae Daemon, the administrator of the much-maligned bastion of free speech at the College, in light of its recent permanent shutdown.......................... PAGE 9

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

We have a conversation with the influential professor of anthropology, one of the more outspoken conservative-leaning faculty members.................................................... PAGE 10

Executive Editor Joey Torsella offers a different perspective on the recent controversy surrounding the appointment of N. Bruce Duthu.................................................... PAGE 12

We offer some closure on the Duthu debacle, discussing the problematic nature of the controversy, alongside the letter from Dartmouth Students for Israel................... PAGE 13

The tried-and-true review team takes a look at what they believe might just be the most underrated restaurant in all of Hanover..................................................................... PAGE 14

justice gorsuch reads the review.

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – May 31, 2017

3

MASTHEAD & EDitorial EST. 1980

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

The Beginning of the End

Jack F. Mourouzis

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Sandor Farkas

Executive Editors

Joshua L. Kauderer & Joseph R. Torsella

Managing Editors Jack S. Hutensky Devon M. Kurtz Rushil Shukla Zachary P. Port

Associate Editors Shawn E. Honaryar Elliott A. Lancry B. Webb Harrington Brandon E. Teixeira

Senior Correspondents

Brian Chen & Marcus J. Thompson

Business staff President

Robert Y. Sayegh

President Emeritus Matthew R. Zubrow

Vice Presidents Jason B. Ceto & Noah J. Sofio

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. Let’s get the hell out of Dodge.

The Editors of The Dartmouth Review welcome correspondence from readers concerning any subject, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on material published previously in The Review. We reserve the right to edit all letters for clarity and length. Please submit letters to the editor by mail or email: editor@dartreview.com Or by mail at:

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

Please direct all complaints to: editor@thedartmouth.com

The legendary T. S. Eliot wrote in his 1942 poem “Little Gidding:”

life. The metrics also paint a picture of a dangerously divided student body: about 35% of students hold a favorable view of What we call the beginning is often the end Black Lives Matter on campus, with just And to make and end is to make a beginning. over 40% holding an unfavorable view. A The end is where we start from. similar number express discontent with the new housing system, which continAnother school year has come and past. ues to be a failure of epic proportions in For many of the students amongst us, it terms of winning students’ loyalty over is their final school year, an exhausting the Greek system. The statistics speak for end to a storied journey. It is certainly a themselves: this campus is in the midst bittersweet time; many think back on the of damaging turmoil, with no clear end fond memories of their past four years, in sight. while looking forward to the opFinally, I will turn to an issue portunities the future might that is most timely: particihold. Increasingly, however, pation in the Senior Gift. it appears as though this Traditionally seen as a mettime has become all the ric of good will toward the more sweet, and signififuture of the College, the cantly less bitter. With each Senior Gift has, seen a draspassing day and every new tic drop in contributions in scandal, it appears more recent years. In 2010, conand more evident that Darttribution was essentially mouth College is a failing 100%. That figure fell to institution. just over 60% in 2014. In The first metric – and 2016, only around 30% perhaps also the most of seniors contributed, tangible – is the Cola number so dismallege’s numerical ranking ly low that the College Jack F. Mourouzis as provided by U.S. News did not even announce and World Report, the leading college it. It seems that students simply no lonranking aggregate in America. While we ger hold the same love for this hallowed at The Review have previously called into institution, to the point that the stage question the legitimacy and merit of such is already being set for future failure. A rankings, ultimately, it is still a valuable petition and letter released by student and oft-utilized metric for many. Dart- leadership around the time of the Senior mouth currently sits at number 11 on the Gift campaign likely played a role in this list; though this year’s rank is a slight im- decline, as it urged “the Board of Trustprovement over last year’s number 12, it ees, along with President Hanlon and the still represents a stark difference from our rest of the Dartmouth administration, to historical ranking, which was at number depart from the realm of student life and 7 as recently as 1998. The College held instead expend every possible effort to steady at number 9 throughout most of eliminate unnecessary costs so that the the 2000s, before dropping significantly school can refocus on the elements that in more recent years; it would be prudent once made Dartmouth a truly unique to assume that the recent stream of scan- College: a passionate intellectual comdalous events, such as the Andrew Lohse munity mixed with an environment in debacle, and damaging press, such as that which students acquire the experience coming as a result of the infamous Black necessary to thrive in the real world.” As Lives Matter library protests, has played a the same time of the year once again rolls role in this sharp decline. around, these words of advice – indeed, The second aspect of this sorry state of of warning – ought to grace the ears of affairs has to do with the general senti- students once again. ment of the student body. As this is the Ultimately, it is not the beginning of population most directly affected by the the end; the end has already begun, and misdeeds of the administration, it would has indeed hit its full stride. Dartmouth make sense that the College would act is, regrettably, a failing institution. It is in a way that would cater to its most im- unclear what the future may hold, espeportant constituents. Unfortunately, this cially on this clear downward trajectory. could not be further from the truth. Stu- We at The Review certainly wish this indent satisfaction with the administration stitution all the best; indeed, our highest is indeed at a critically low level. Perhps order is to seek the improvement of Dartthe most accurate metric for measuring mouth College, striving for its persistence this decline comes in the form of the as an institution of the highest quality. It Class of 2016’s Senior Survey, the results is time to take Eliot’s words true to heart: of which came out last June. According The end is where we start from. Let this be to analysis of the results by The Dart- a call to arms to all who truly care about mouth, over 77% of respondents claimed the College on the Hill. With each pass“an unfavorable view of the administra- ing year, the College reaches a new low tion,” with over 60% expressing “an un- point; it is up to us to continue fighting favorable view of College President Phil the good fight, and do our very best to Hanlon,” and roughly 55% expressing make sure that this place remains the an unfavorable view of changes in Greek small college that we dearly love.

4 Wednesday – May 31, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

WEEK IN REVIEW the review responds to petition by native americans at dartmouth

radical islamic terrorism shakes the united kingdom

threatening message at kde sorority sends shockwaves across campus

We at The Review would like to respond to a ludicrous attack on our publication by the Native Americans at Dartmouth Association, which recently released a statement (in the attached images) criticizing our editorial on the controversial appointment of N. Bruce Duthu to the post of Dean of the Faculty. These so-called criticisms, however, are actually FAKE NEWS. The NAD statement claims that our article, entitled “The Duthu Disaster,” has “denigrated” Professor Duthu to an “affirmative action checkbox.” The Review has never described Professor Duthu in such a way.

The statement also claims that Professor Duthu has received “heightened criticism... regarding his credentials and scholarship.” In actuality, the article in question actively compares Duthu to his predecessors and peer faculty, concluding that his qualifications simply do not match up to those of his constituents.

Furthermore, we at The Review reject the claim that the view of the BDS movement as being anti-Semitic is an “extreme” position; quite the contrary. In fact, it is commonly held (by many individuals and organizations, including the ADL) that support for the BDS movement is, indeed, an “extreme” and anti-Semitic viewpoint.

Finally, it is absurd to propose that the administration’s accommodation of a conservative viewpoint “means to promote a propagandizing and anti-intellectual approach to political dissent unworthy of a research institution.” In fact, it would be difficult to find a group of students more committed to open discourse and intellectual exchange than contributors to The Dartmouth Review.

Despite the unfair treatment of our editorial viewpoints, we stand by our criticism of the appointment of Professor Duthu to the post of Dean of the Faculty, and hope that the administration will reconsider this ill-advised decision.

Indeed, on May 22, Duthu withdrew his appointment to the post of Dean of the Faculty. A campus-wide email from President Phil Hanlon expressed that “We understand that the news of Bruce’s decision will be disappointing to members of our community who were excited about the prospect of his leadership in academic excellence, interdisciplinary study, and diversity and inclusion. Let us assure you that we remain committed to advancing these critical values and priorities for Dartmouth.” As of now, no replacement nominee has been named.

On Monday May 22, the world was shocked when it heard of the horror that had taken place in Manchester, England. News began to break about the incident shortly after it occurred when Ariana Grande stepped away from the stage at approximately 10:30pm. There was a blast that shook Manchester Arena; when the smoke lifted, 22 individuals lay there lifeless. Of that group of 22 people who lost their lives that night, many were children and adolescents. The attack was not officially declared an act of terror when news broke, but shortly thereafter; the attacker, Salman Abedi, was found to have links to ISIS after they claimed the attack. It is speculated that Abedi received training in Syria months before the attack, according to recent information given by a US official to CNN. It is also believed that others in his family were radicalized as well, and for this reason, both his brother and father were arrested.

This incident is the second act of terror that has taken place in England in the last six months, and has resulted in a raising of the threat level from severe to critical. What is happening across Europe is no coincidence, however; it must therefore be taken as a warning to America and other liberal democracies. In the age we live in, it is naive to continue taking in copious numbers of refugees from embattled nations in the Middle East, it is counterintuitive to limit the surveillance capacity of the nation in the name of “civil liberties,” and it is essential that war be declared on ISIS. These are actions that can and should be taken given the current climate.

Many may decry these measures as extreme or not actually solving the issue of terrorism, but if one takes a look at the number of attacks and fatalities in the post-9/11 period under the Bush administration, it is clear that these strategies did indeed have a positive effect in foiling and reducing the number of terrorist plots across the nation. These are common sense measures that have proven effective, and we must not cower to the cries and uproar the left would give if such a plan were our strategy; our current administration must not back down in its efforts to protect the American people, and should do whatever possible to eradicate radical Islamic terrorism once and for all.

On Wednesday May 28, at around 7:50 pm, an unidentified person broke into Kappa Delta Epsilon and vandalized a fridge with a vulgar message, which included explicit threats of sexual assault.

Safety and Security patrolled frat row throughout the night, and focused on the area surrounding KDE. Various acapella shows were scheduled, but the night became centered around keeping everyone safe and locating the individual who wrote this repulsive threat for sexual violence. Many frats closed their doors early in light of the incident, and students drifted away from frat row to let the area around KDE be patrolled more easily. A middle aged man was rumored to have been walking up to the front doors of off-campus student residences, but there was no evidence of any connection to KDE incident. Word of the incident spread quickly throughout the student body, and an image of the explicit, disturbing message was circulated amongst students via text.

The Dartmouth has received additional information regarding the investigation, quoting Hanover Police Lieutenant Scott Rathburn and describing how “an additional message was found written in the house” and that “the department had formulated a theory as to how the burglary at KDE had occurred,” which could not be divulged due to the ongoing investigation.

During the night and the throughout the following days, administrators and campus organizations sent out campus-wide emails that denounced the threat of sexual violence and urged everyone to stay safe and comply with law enforcement. A circle of support gathering was held on the Green on Friday, May 26, offering positive and encouraging thoughts and support for students affected by the incident. Students directly impacted by the incident have been encouraged to seek counseling and take extra measures to stay together and stay safe. Dartmouth has collectively made it clear that there is no place for sexual assault on campus, and students have come together to keep everyone safe. The perpetrator has not been identified yet, but the Hanover Police Department and Safety and Security are investigating the issue and patrolling the campus with extra vigilance.

Advertisement

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

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

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – May 31, 2017

5

Noah J. Sofio Erik R. Jones Abraham Herrera Jack F. Mourouzis

Everything but anchovies restaurant closes after nearly 40 years This month, Hanover said goodbye to a longtime staple of the Dartmouth community – the restaurant Everything But Anchovies. For over 38 years EBAs served pizza, wings, and many other dishes to Dartmouth students and residents of Hanover.

Many speculate that the sudden closure was a result of tough competition. More specifically, Domino’s late night pizza delivery is believed to have severely hurt EBAs, as well as other restaurants such as Ramunto’s and C&A’s Pizza. Furthermore, EBAs was also allegedly hurt by the College’s DDS late-night food truck.

EBAs closing marks a growing fear in the Hanover community that larger, national chains will eventually shut local businesses down. Many in the community are hopeful when it comes to filling the spot left vacant by EBAs. The loss of EBAs has affected students and townspeople alike, who now must alter their dining habits to cope with the loss. However, despite the community’s and college’s disappointment with the closure of EBAs, one cannot fault competitors with the loss. After all, it is ultimately the consumers who choose competitors over EBAs, putting the local restaurant out of business. We at The Review still express our deepest thanks to the EBAs management for providing Hanover with such a tremendous culinary establishment for nearly forty years, and wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Cartoon

“I wasn’t invited to Commencement. Something about ‘not enough required credits.’

And they say they’re against exclusivity!”

Cartoon

“Did you donate your senior gift?”

“Are you serious?! I thought that was fake news!”

Cartoon

We at The Review would like to wish all the best to our senior contributors as they depart the college on the hill to embark on future endeavors!

“We’re so happy to be graduating - we can FINALLY have hard alcohol again!”

6 Wednesday – May 31, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

features

«If It’s a Legitimate Rape...» > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Conservatives are indicted for blaming victims, perpetuating “rape culture,” and too often doubting the validity of sexual assault reports. However, I would challenge the validity of these assertions.

Anyone who is guilty of any of the above offenses, regardless of their other political views, the R next to their name, or the politician they vote for or donate to, is not a conservative. Those wrongdoings are incompatible with conservativism.

You do not get to tell a rape victim that he or she was asking for it because of what they were wearing, what they drank, or the bar they went to, and then a few minutes later talk about why we need a return of “law and order” in our cities and on our streets and still call yourself a conservative. You do not get to justify rape culture with “locker room talk,” only to turn around and call for “family values” and still call yourself a conservative. You do not get to say “well, he has his whole life ahead of him” when you argue for a young rapist from a “good family” to be let off easy, and then call, as Governor Paul Lepage did, for drug dealers to be guillotined and still call yourself a conservative. You are not a conservative.

One of the sustaining tenets of conservativism is the preservation of laws and the punishment of crimes. From Edmund Burke’s skepticism of revolution, to President Nixon’s call for “law and order,” and, more recently, to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ declaration that “prosecutors will seek the most serious charges and stricter sentences,” conservatives have demanded that the laws of the land be enforced and those who break them be held accountable. Because those who break the law are in effect undermining it, any infraction affects the entire community who lives under those same laws. This logic is why conservatives demand harsher punishments, fewer prisoner benefits, and a greater police presence. But at some point, between universal “law and order” and misogynistic defenses of male misconducts, that same logic becomes twisted and absented when it is applied to the nuances of sexual assault. It ought to not be so.

A sexual attack—whether it be unwanted kissing or groping, sex that begins consensually, is no longer wanted, and is involuntarily continued, or forced penetration—is a crime against both the victim and the laws that govern our community. Sexual violence is a crime against all of us. Sexual assault is not a women’s issue; it is not a colMr. Kurtz is a freshman at the College and News Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

lege issue, a gay issue, and certainly not a new issue. Sexual assault, in all of its many forms, is violence, and violence is society’s issue—all of society’s. One’s political ideology or personal history with sexual assault does not matter. The only reason that need be sufficient enough to join together to fight sexual assault in all of its forms is our membership in our community—whether it be our college, city, state, nation, or humanity.

While it is important for conservatives to prioritize sexual assault prevention and response, it is as important for everyone else, regardless of political stance, to do

felt as a transgression against all of our community.

In many ways, Dartmouth College has taken actions to make the prevention and handling of sexual assaults a priority; however, many of these actions are half-measures that do not fully address or recognize the issue. The efforts that the College has put forth to ensure that incoming students are educated on what consent means are a step in the right direction, and the program that the College uses does in fact capture some of the nuances of consent. While Dartmouth’s Title IX Coordinator and deputy coordinators are all well-trained and

“Anyone, regardless of their other political views, the R next to their name, or the politician they vote for or donate to, who is guilty of any of the above offenses is not a conservative. Those wrongdoings are incompatible with conservativism.” the same. The same principle applies to Dartmouth: sexual assault is an issue for everyone within our community. While there should be consideration of recent events, it is important to make it clear that sexual assault has been, is, and unfortunately will continue to be an issue on Dartmouth’s campus. We must straddle the line between respecting the ultimate victimhood of those most affected—whether it be those who live in Kappa Delta Epsilon who were threatened with sexual violence or the many students on this campus who have been sexually assaulted—and realizing that an attack on them is an attack on all of us. In just the past week, many on campus—men and women alike—were paralyzed with fear when a disturbing note was found in KDE’s house threatening sexual violence against the women who live there. Within a few hours, Safety & Security and Hanover Police Department increased their patrols around campus, and students were encouraged to stay vigilant and lock their doors in a slew of e-mail warnings by Dean Rebecca Biron, Provost Carolyn Dever, and Student Assembly President and Vice-President Ian Sullivan and Matthew Ferguson.

While wild rumors and stories circulated, students found themselves afraid to walk around their own campus, suspecting everyone they saw outside of being a predator. Despite the trespassing and the threat being targeted specifically at KDE, fear and insecurity gripped Dartmouth’s entire community.

The response to any other threat or act of sexual violence should not be any different from how the Dartmouth community responded to this event. We should feel every sexual assault as a community. Every transgression against an individual in our community must be

readily willing to respond seriously and effectively to any degree of report of sexual violence, the policies that govern the proceedings after incidents are reported to Judicial Affairs are not as robust as they ought to be.

The student handbook outlines the procedures of the College when dealing with many different types of student violations of conduct, ranging from academic dishonesty to alcohol possession to sexual assault. The common argument for strict rules and severe punishments for violations of academic honor is that any violation threatens the academic integrity of every

an academic community, students should expect to be suspended if they engage in acts of academic dishonesty,” the language used for sexual assaults is rather weak in comparison, “Students who engage in Sexual Assault; Aiding, Abetting, or Inciting Sexual Assault; or Retaliation (as defined below) are subject to disciplinary action up to and including permanent separation (i.e., expulsion).” The former proclaims an expectation of nothing less than suspension, while the latter creates no such floor for punishment. Sure, the language used to discuss the punishment for sexual assault introduces the ultimate punishment of expulsion, but it offers no assurance of a minimum punishment. Even the policy on providing hard alcohol to others on campus outlines an expected minimum punishment: “1st Incident: 1 term suspension.”

The student handbook does decree a minimum punishment of suspension for those found responsible for sexual assault involving penetration, but there is no minimum penalty at all for those found responsible for other forms of sexual assault. When paired with the clear expectations of suspension as a minimum punishment for other offenses such as cheating on an exam or giving someone a glass of whiskey, Dartmouth College’s prioritization of preventing and handling sexual violence is called into question. This lack of seriousness about the less heinous forms of sexual assault on the part of the College is damaging, as it reinforces the disturbing but commonly

“If the College believes that sexual violence ought to be viewed as a worse offense against the Dartmouth community than giving a friend a gin and tonic, then the College must change both the language in the handbook and the implementation of its policies that handle sexual assault.” student at the College. While this claim is absolutely justifiable, and it adequately explains why the punishments for academic dishonesty are tougher than the punishments for many other offenses, the same logic used to rationalize it applies to the issue of sexual assault as much as or more than it does to academic honor. Just as any academic violation threatens the academic integrity of all, it follows that any instance of sexual violence threatens the safety of all.

The language in the student handbook is much clearer and harsher for those guilty of academic dishonesty than for those found responsible for sexual assault. While for cases involving academic violations the student handbook reads, “Given the fundamental nature of the Academic Honor Principle in

held ignorance that “real” sexual assault is defined only as forced penetration. If the College is at all intent at dispelling this profoundly harmful belief, and if the College believes that sexual violence ought to be viewed as a worse offense against the Dartmouth community than giving a friend a gin and tonic, then the College must change both the language in the handbook and the implementation of its policies that handle sexual assault.

There must be clear minimum punishments for all students found responsible for sexually assaulting another member of the Dartmouth Community to any degree.

Since there is no minimum penalty—implemented or expected—a student can be found responsible for a sexual assault that does not involve penetration and receive as

light a punishment as a warning or reprimand. Even if the student— who has been found responsible— receives the more serious but still relatively light punishment of probation, no notation about the sexual assault appears on the student’s transcript. Students who are put on probation are limited in some of the activities they can participate in, such as being a UGA, but they are not barred from serving in a role like first-year trip leader.

A student found guilty of a sexual assault—and who receives a warning or reprimand—could very well be giving tours to new students, acting in a positive of power and authority over new and current students as a UGA, or leading a first-year trip through the Dartmouth Outing Club. In fact, even if the victim, out of concern for the Dartmouth community, shared the information with relevant offices like Residential Life or clubs such as the DOC, Judicial Affairs warns that the actions could be construed as a violation of the so-called responding student’s privacy. Positions like undergraduate advisor and trip leader inherently create power dynamics that can be twisted in a disturbing way when the authority figure has a confirmed history of committing sexual violence. It is unacceptable that the College even allows the possibility for these instances to occur.

The Dartmouth community— our community—has been tainted by sexual assault throughout its long history. Regardless of the gender of the student assaulted, regardless of the circumstances, and regardless of the degree of the assault, sexual violence is violence. It is not a question of “legitimate rape” or of “forced rape” or of “violent rape;” it is a question of whether or not someone was coerced, drugged, or physically forced to engage or receive sexual acts against their will. If there is no consent, then the act is violent. The damages done by these violent acts can be seen in the hollowed eyes of our peers here at Dartmouth: a young woman who was forced to have sex with her boyfriend despite her protests; a young man whose polite offer of a drink to a new friend is construed as an invitation for unwanted sexual advances; or a person who begins a hook up and decides to stop part way through but is forced to continue against their will. Anyone can commit sexual assault, and anyone can be assaulted. If we are truly a community, then an attack on any individual within our community should be considered an attack on all of us.

Until it is viewed as an issue that applies to all of us, sexual assault will continue to be stigmatized, trivialized, and ignored, even—if not especially—here at Dartmouth College.

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – May 31, 2017

7

Features

Robert Frost’s Commencement Address

robert frost contemplating life

> CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 I myself have been bothered by certain things. I’ve been bothered by rapid reading. All my teaching days I’ve heard rapid reading advocated as if it were something to attain to.

Yes, sure; accept the premises, always, as a gentleman. Rapid reading—I’m one of the rapidest of readers. I look on all the reading you do in college—ten times as much a year as I do in ten years, and I’m a reader—I look on it as simply scansion. You’re simply looking the books over to see whether you want to read ’em, later. It comes to that; and accepting it that way. The word’s gone forth, you happen to know probably, that the rapid reading is going to be played down in the educational world. But it can be regarded as simple scansion.

What you’re doing as a rapid reader is saying, per paragraph, per paragraph, “Yeah, I know” (two words you see in it)— “Yeah, that about ‘togetherness’” “Yeah.” And, paragraph by paragraph you know that that’s what it would say if you read it all. And you can do that by the chapter—the chapter titles. You say, “Yeah,” you know, “I know what that chapter would be.” You can go further than that: “I can tell by the spine of the book.” Very rapid reader.

Always fall in with what you’re asked to accept, you know; fall in with it—and turn it your way. Expression like “divine right.”—Divine right?

Mr. Frost attended Dartmouth College for two months and delivered this commencement address in 1955.

yes,—if you let me make what I want of it: the answerability of the ruler, of the leader; the first answerability to himself. That’s his divine right. First answerability to his highest in himself, to his God. Then one more that I’d just like to speak of—you run on to these things all the time. I live on them. I’m going to tell you that every single one of my poems is probably one of these adaptations that I’ve made. I’ve taken whatever you give me and made it what I want it to be.

That’s what every one of the poems is. I look over them. They are no arguments. I’ve never contradicted anybody. My object in life has been to hold my own with whatever’s going—not against, but with—to hold my own. To come through college holding my own so that I won’t be made over beyond recognition by my family and my home town, if I ever go back to it. It’s a poor sort of person, it seems to me, that delights in thinking, “I have had four years that have transformed me into somebody my own mother won’t know.”

Saint Paul had one conversion.

Let’s leave it to Saint Paul. Don’t get converted. Stay.

This one turns up, too—another expression. They say, “If eventually, why not now?” I say, “Yeah,” but also, “if eventually, why now?”

You’ve got to handle these things. You’ve got to have something to say to the Sphinx.

You see, that’s all. And you’ve been, I’m pretty sure—you’ve come more and more to value yourself on being able to handle whatever turns up.

What would you say to this one? (You probably haven’t encountered it. I have lately.) We hired a Swede to come

over here and pass an expert’s opinion on our form of government. And after he passed his judgment on it, we invited him back and gave him another honorary degree, just like this.

(Never mind his name—we won’t go into names—maybe I’ve forgotten it.) But, anyway, did you hear what his judgment was? That our form of government is a conspiracy against the common man.

You’ve been enlarged and broadened to where you can listen to anything without getting mad. So have I. But I have to have something to say to that, sooner or later—on the spur of the moment, to show my wit, or at leisure, you know, to show my ability at reasoning, my reasoning powers. Well, the answer to that is that that’s what it was intended to be. It was intended to be a conspiracy against the common man. Let him make himself uncommon.

He wasn’t to be put in the saddle. And so on. Now I conclude that.

This is an emotional occasion to me. Mr. Dickey has made it an emotional occasion, very much of an emotion, such as has seldom happened to me in my life. I’ve been in and out of Dartmouth all these many years and known the presidents—no one so intimately as I’ve known Mr. Dickey. Part of what I’m saying to you springs from what he’s been saying.

He spoke very sternly to you; splendidly, with splendid sternness.

What I ask of you is the same: Have you got enlarged a little bit? Have you broadened a little bit in these years, as you might have outside? (I don’t know, maybe more so in college than out.) Have you got where you can take care of yourself in the conflicts of thought—in the

says. It didn’t say that when I was writing it; it didn’t say it until long afterward. It’s of the nature of mythology to be wiser than philosophy, because it says things in stories before it says them in abstractions. All mythology’s like that. The Greeks’ mythology covered everything we’ve ever thought in philosophy, but covered it in stories.

And the abstraction emerges even with the man that makes the stories.

[Mr. Frost recites “Mending Walls.”]

“It’s a poor sort of person, it seems to me, that delights in thinking, “I have had four years that have transformed me into somebody my own mother won’t know.””

See, that all about life being cellular. I didn’t think of that ’til years after I wrote it. And you may be sure it is—walls going down and walls coming up, between nations and inside your own body. In seven years, you know, you’re a different person, though you don’t notice it.

Then, little one—two more— little one, again. This is called “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.”

[Mr. Frost recites “Stopping

by Woods on a Snowy Evening.”]

Now everybody suspected that there was something in that line, “But I have promises to keep.” You see. And they pursued me about that, and so I’ve decided to have a meaning for it. Finally, a committee waited on me about it. I said, “Promises may be divided into two kinds: those I make for myself, and those my ancestors made for me known as the social contract.” See, that’s a way out of that.

Then, two more—one anoth-

“I’d rather hold my own with anybody than hold my own against anybody—with him.

That makes a polite evening—and polite class, a better class than any other.” stresses of thought, not conflicts, stresses. I’d rather hold my own with anybody than hold my own against anybody—with him. That makes a polite evening—and polite class, a better class than any other.

Shall I say you a poem or two? And you can maybe guess what I was doing in the poems, after what I’ve said. Suppose I say to you one called “Mending Wall”—countrified poem.

And shall I tell you beforehand what I was dealing with in it?

I’d heard that life was cellular, in the body and outside the body. Nobody’d ever put it in so many words, but I kept hearing something that made me see that life was cellular. (Even the Communists have cells.) All life is cellular, that’s all the poem

premises. Anybody’s premise is all right. Nobody was to blame.

All it was was the beginning of the end of colonialism. No animus on my part. “The land was ours before we were the land’s.”

It’s all summed up in that, you see.

[Mr. Frost recites “The Gift Outright.”]

That poem’s twenty-five or thirty or forty years old. It isn’t just got up for the occasion of all this talk about the end of colonialism. Ours was the beginning of the end of colonialism,

er little one. I’d like to say one to you that I wrote when I was about your age—just about the time (’95 or ‘96 along there) just when I should have been graduating, you know, instead of now.

I saw you all I suppose, pretty much—’tis but yesterday, isn’t it, we were in the G.I.—had you all where I could talk to you— about Tom Paine I talked about to you there. I didn’t get any great answer out of you. You didn’t get angry enough.

This one is called—it’s better without the name. It’s about our American Revolution. I’ve met many who thought the British were to blame, and I’ve met a few Americans who thought the Americans were to blame. Well, it doesn’t matter. Accept the

and that poem makes the point that ours was the beginning of the end of colonialism.

Then, one more. You know you hear about retreat and you hear about escape. When people talk about escape, I want to talk about retreat. Just that way it’s pretty near the same thing, but just my shade of difference.

This is the last one. This is called “Birches.”

[Extended applause after “Birches.”]

Shall I say one absurd one in parting? Somebody congratulated me the other night on getting through an occasion without ever reciting this one.

It’s hard—it’s a sort of temptation to sort of break it up, you know, break up the meeting.

One of the things that you suspect the academic world of is overpowering, overwhelming departmentalism, you know— passing-the-buckism, whatever you call it. But now I’ve never suffered from that at all. That’s why I ran away and all that. I’ve just kept dodging round—just the same as I ran away, I dodged—and I’ve never got caught at the departmentalism, never suffered from it.

But you’d think I had from this poem. This is an agony. Shows where agaonies come from, you know, from nowhere. The less there is to them, the stronger they can be.

I’ll emphasize the rhyme and meter in this for the fun of it.

Of course you’ve heard me do it, some of you have. This is about an ant I met in Key West.

It’s not a New England poem at all, I like to say that disclaimer. It’s got nothing to do with college or my having suffered form departmentalism, but it’s just very objective.

[Mr. Frost then recites “Departmental.”]

And remember for me, will you, the one thing, that you’ve reached the place where you can listen to what anybody says and, you know, just pull it your way with one little, nice pull.

That’s what makes life.

8 Wednesday – May 31, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

Features

Thoughts on the Drinking Age Jack S. Hutensky Elliott A. Lancry Web Editor Associate Editor

Many people often say that their most memorable—or perhaps least memorable—birthday was their twenty-first. Twenty-one years old, of course, is the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) for alcohol.

Because of the freedom that comes with the ability to legally drink, the age of twenty-one has been deeply ingrained in American society as a sort of rite of passage, but it wasn’t always that way. American drinking laws, in fact, have changed dramatically over the years.

From the early 1970s until 1984, many states had their own drinking ages ranging from eighteen to twenty years old, since regulations pertaining to the age for legal alcohol consumption are delegated to the states by the Tenth Amendment. For much of that time period, Dartmouth College even sponsored pong tournaments. It was in 1984 that President Ronald Reagan, otherwise a good friend of The Review and champion of limiting government overreach, passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The act compelled states to raise their drinking ages to a national minimum of twenty-one, skirting Tenth Amendment issues by making it a “choice” to either comply with the minimum or lose precious highway funding.

We also mustn’t forget another important irregularity in the history of our country’s drinking laws: prohibition. From 1920, when the Eighteenth Amendment to the constitution was ratified, until 1933, when it was repealed by the ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment, “the manufacture, sale, or transportation” of alcohol was illegal throughout the United States.

In the earlier years of our republic, drinking laws fluctuated as well.

Before the mid to late 1800s, there was no minimum drinking age anywhere in the country. What little information that is available shows that Wisconsin passed the first such ordinance in 1839, which prevented the sale of wine or liquor to anyone under the age of 18 unless they had a parent’s consent. Select other states followed in the 1880s as the temperance movement gained strength; however, for many states there was little regulation of the consumption of alcohol until the Eighteenth Amendment.

Drinking laws also vary throughout the rest of the world. European governments fail to see any reason for waiting until twenty-one and neither do governments on most other continents. 61% of countries allow the consumption of alcohol at eighteen or nineteen, while another 11% allow teenagers at sixteen or seventeen to partake. England, Mr. Hutensky is a freshman at the College and Web Editor at The Dartmouth Review. Mr. Lancry is a freshman at the College and an Associate Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

France, Russia, India, and Australia all have MLDAs between eighteen and nineteen, and Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and Belgium have MLDAs between sixteen and seventeen.

Even China’s repressive regime, ranked 141st (below Russia and Turkey) on the Cato Institute’s Freedom index, has no MLDA. America has the highest MLDA of any Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development country. The few other countries who share the MLDA of twenty-one with the United States include the failed state of Iraq and a number of small Pacific Islands.

Clearly, the drinking age is fungible. Countries around the world have set many different guidelines.

Even within the United States, it has changed many times over the years and could change again. Considering that a change in the drinking age in the United States is perfectly possible, there are many strong reasons in favor of a change in that age. The MLDA ought not be twenty-one, but rather it should be eighteen— the legal age of majority in just about every other aspect of American life.

First off, there is no significance in the age twenty-one with regards to physiological development. Many opponents of a lower MLDA will argue that the extra three years of (theoretically) not drinking yields better results because it allows the brain to develop. In truth, say MIT researchers, the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that affects decision making and that is mostly affected by alcohol, isn’t fully developed until age twenty-five. This means that current law allows four full years of legal alcohol consumption while the brain is still developing. Clearly, the arbitrary age of twenty-one is not linked to science or brain development.

Second, the twenty-one years old drinking age is a safety hazard.

Adults aged eighteen to twenty seek less help because alcohol is illegal and the consequences and stigma are greater. If the drinking age were lowered to eighteen, adults younger than twenty-one would be significantly safer. Considering the fact that the purpose of a drinking age is to ensure the safety of all Americans, lowering the drinking age eighteen makes a lot of sense.

To start with, there is one formality we must get out of the way.

People younger the twenty-one do drink, and in fact they drink quite heavily. Some 90% of underage drinking is binge drinking, according to a National Academy of Medicine report. Even conceptually, the prohibition of alcohol doesn’t work.

Making something illegal does not stop people from obtaining it if they care enough. Look at Prohibition in America in the 1920s and early ‘30s.

Bootleggers made millions sneaking alcohol into the United States from abroad, while moonshiners made illicit alcohol wherever they could and speakeasies opened their doors to serve a large clientele. In the same way that prohibition drove Americans to more secretive and dangerous drinking habits (like drinking poisonous methanol wood alcohol

either by accident or out of desperation), “prohibiting” adult Americans aged eighteen to twenty-one from drinking leads to more secretive and dangerous drinking habits.

With an MLDA set at eighteen, adults aged eighteen to twenty would be more likely to seek out help in emergency situations involving alcohol. Let’s look at a hypothetical Friday night at Dartmouth where someone has a little too much to drink, a mistake that could happen to anyone, even a twenty-five-yearold. This intoxicated student, starts to feel nauseous and begins to vomit.

If the student were an adult over the age of twenty-one, he or his friends would be more likely stray on the side of caution and call for help if necessary. After all, that is what emergency services are for. Anyone over twenty-one with health insurance would be transported to a hospital and would not face immense costs. However, “minor adults” between the ages of eighteen and twenty are in a different situation. If this student falls into that category and needs help, he faces stigma and serious consequences.

For instance, the Good Sam Policy—an effective policy which allows students to anonymously call help for their friends without facing academic consequence— could be utilized. This policy is a brilliant Band-Aid that Dartmouth has devised, considering the drinking age nationwide is twenty-one. However, there is still a stigma and very real consequences for an adult under the age of twenty-one receiving a Good Sam. In terms of the stigma, Good Sam closes a lot of doors on campus. For example, you can’t be an Undergraduate Advisor (UGA) if you’ve been Good Sammed. If you try to get help for having one accident, you’re not allowed to serve the Dartmouth Community by being a UGA. Furthermore, receiving a Good Sam costs $400 (for care at Dick’s House) and (for under twenty-one-year-olds) comes with compulsory attendance in classes called “BASICS” that are supposed to “help” with drinking.

Preliminary interviews with BASICs graduates show that the class is essentially useless. The teachers even acknowledge the great majority of the “students” do not have real drinking problems and only attend because Dartmouth has mandated it. Why? Because although the attendees are adults, they are under the arbitrary age of twenty-one. If an adult twenty-one or over felt sick and needed help, they could call for other forms of help and avoid the stigma and consequences of the Good Sam policy.

A third reason the drinking age should be eighteen is because it works in the rest of the world. Europe is a classic example of the success of the lower drinking age. According to an initiative called Choose Responsibility, fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds experience far fewer instances of dangerous intoxication in European countries where the drinking age is eighteen or younger, than American teens of the same ages. The initiative

also found that in Southern Europe, where the drinking age is not higher than eighteen, only 10% of drinking ends in intoxication. Comparatively, in the U.S., 50% of drinking ends in intoxication. The same substance is significantly more dangerous in the U.S. than in Europe. Why? It’s simple: the higher drinking age. In Europe, alcohol doesn’t carry the same taboo. From a young age, parents expose their children to alcohol. They teach their children how to use it responsibly and in a socially acceptable manner. However, alcohol has a heavy stigma attached to it here in the U.S. As a result, parents seldom talk to their children about it.

Consequently, American teens suffer and risk much more dangerous drinking conditions than European teens.

Anti-eighteen advocates would now argue that Europe is different.

They would say that there is a car culture in the U.S. that doesn’t exist in Europe. After all, Europe is much more densely populated than the U.S. An eighteen-year-old adult in Europe would probably walk home from a bar after enjoying a couple beers with friends. However, an eighteen-year-old adult in the U.S. would likely have to drive home from the party they were attending.

Anti-eighteen advocates say that eighteen- to twenty-year-olds cause many more car accidents than their twenty-one and over adult counterparts.

Anti-eighteen advocates have a flawed point. While statistics do show that automobile fatalities decreased after the MLDA was raised to twenty-one, there are a number of confounding variables. One such variable is significant increases in automobile safety features around the time of the MLDA changes. Another, large, part of the decrease in car accidents was the phenomenon of “blood borders.” Before the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, states were free to make their drinking age whatever they wanted. As a result, eighteen to twenty-year-old adults who wanted nothing more than to share drinks with friends would drive to states with lower legal minimum drinking ages and then drive home. Naturally, this caused problems. However, this would cause problems with any age. The issue is not the age eighteen versus the age twenty-one, but consistency. Any adult who does not enjoy the liberty of other adults in their home state will travel to a place that will afford them such liberty. This is true, for instance, in states that have recently legalized recreational marijuana use: an entire marijuana tourism industry has arisen in Colorado to cater to adults from other states where the substance isn’t legal. If the legal age for drinking was the age of majority 18 in all states, “blood borders” would remain a non-issue.

The model of Europe demonstrates the major safety advantages of having a younger MLDA. When people drink, they are much less likely to get intoxicated in Europe than in the U.S. Anti-eighteen advocates say eighteen- to twenty-

year-olds cause more car accidents.

However, they misunderstand the problem, which is really consistency. If the U.S. wants drinking to be safer, it should set the drinking age to eighteen universally and better enforce drunk driving statutes.

A fourth argument that always comes up when discussing the drinking age in the United States is its rampant inconsistency with the minimum age for almost everything else. This argument has become almost cliched for good reason: it is very compelling. In America, the age of majority, the age in which a person is considered an adult before the law (and therefore able to make his or her own decisions) is eighteen, (with a few state and territory exceptions). At the age of majority, Americans are entrusted with the right to choose to do many things that are riskier than drinking a beer. At eighteen, a person is able to open a credit card, take out a loan, or enter into a binding contract (possible financial risks), consent to risky medical treatments, and get married without a parent’s consent.

At eighteen, a brave citizen can also join the military on his or her own volition, a choice that carries the possibility of making the ultimate sacrifice with it. In fact, at least 962 servicemen and women gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan before turning they reached the MLDA. As the National Youth Rights Association, which compiled that list, points out: “they serve us, but we won’t serve them.”

Even other regulated substances are legal at age eighteen, including cigarettes, cigars, and chewing tobacco. Though states that allow recreational marijuana only do so at twenty-one, it is because that is also the minimum legal drinking age and governments that have legalized marijuana have chosen to treat it the same as alcohol.

Perhaps most telling is the fact eighteen-year-olds are liable to be sued and tried as adults and not children (meaning they are eligible for more severe penalties). The reason for that is that at eighteen, the law considers a person to be responsible for his or her actions. If this is the case, what basis is there to prevent a person from opening a beer. Clearly, setting the minimum legal drinking age at twenty-one is hypocritical—it is inconsistent with any other parts of the law that govern the age of majority for different actions.

To conclude, there are many compelling reasons to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. From a physiological standpoint, age twenty-one does not denote brain development.

Doing so makes eighteen- to twentyyear-olds safer by removing a legal barrier to emergency help for those adults who happen to fall under the MLDA. It would also more closely mirror successful policies in Europe.

Lastly, it would settle a number of highly hypocritical inconsistencies in the law, which considers those between ages eighteen and twenty adults in all but one case. It is time to reopen the national conversation about drinking.

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – May 31, 2017

9

Features

Bored@Baker: End of an Era

Jack F. Mourouzis Editor-in-Chief

Editor’s Note: In light of the permanent shutdown of the Bored@ Baker website, we have decided to sit down with the website’s founder, who goes by the alias Jae Daemon, in order to gain a little bit of closure at the conclusion of a decade-long social experiment.

The Dartmouth Review (TDR): Can you tell us a bit about the genesis of the Bored@ service?

How did you come up with the ideas, what were your motivations, and how did the service gain an initial foothold?

Jae Daemon (JD): It was originally created in 2006. I was literally bored in the library and I was teaching myself computer programming, and I essentially stumbled across the idea. If you take a blank page and put a post box at the top and you just post what goes in that box down the page, that’s what you get: Bored@.

You have to remember this is before Facebook had feeds, before there was even any kind of feed concept; it was just really kind of an engineering exercise. I didn’t start it with some grand vision; it was just something that I discovered while teaching myself how to program.

TDR: Bored@ was active at a number of small colleges, including Columbia, Carleton, and Butler. Why did it gain a particularly large following at Dartmouth?

JD: I think your answer is just as good as mine. Really all it does is facilitate collaboration, and I suppose there’s just a lot to talk about at Dartmouth. It seemed there was a need for the Dartmouth community to have open and frank conversations. I think that Mr. Mourouzis is a junior at the College and Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.

that’s probably why it originally had success.

TDR: What role did you play in building the Bored@Baker community at Dartmouth? To what extent was it constructed by you versus organically built by the participants?

JD: Bored@ was written once, and it’s the same thing for each school, so it’s not like I built anything specific for Dartmouth. I did take feedback that I got from Dartmouth, and the things that people were asking for. Some specific things coming directly from Dartmouth I went and built, but it’s not like I specifically built anything for Dartmouth. It would work for all the other schools as well. It was just a blank canvas, and the culture and everything that resulted from it is just a result of what Dartmouth kids have to say.

TDR: Can you offer some interesting anecdotes from the service’s heyday? What were some particularly interesting or meaningful memories that have stuck with you?

JD: I can’t speak to Dartmouth specifically, because I never really experienced the Bored@Baker culture. What I mean by that is I never really followed the conversation day-to-day like many of the users. Frankly, this is a great question for the users themselves that had all of these crazy experiences. I can say that during the last few years, it was very popular at Carleton College, and I took the time to fly out to Carleton and to visit the students on campus and to join one of their regular meetups. I went to a meet-up and there was this room full of kids that are all best friends, and they all met through Bored@. As I understand it, during its heyday, that was also something that Bored@ Baker students did as well, whether that was just get-togethers or parties. I never experienced any

of that at Dartmouth, but I’d have to say, walking into a room full of Bored@Baker users that are all friends and that had made established friendships during the service was probably the most impactful experience that I had.

That came and went at Dartmouth before I even knew that that kind of experience existed.

TDR: You said you didn’t interact with students at Dartmouth very often. Did the administration ever reach out to you?

JD: Only when they wanted something removed. I was always very open to collaborate with anyone, whether that was the Dartmouth administration, the Hanover Police Department, or the FBI. I’m fine. I will have a conversation with anyone. But I don’t get the impression that the Dartmouth administration wanted to have a conversation. They only wanted to have one when they had a particular issue that they had to deal with. It could have been a two-way communication, but was just never prioritized that way.

TDR: Bored@Baker underwent several hiatuses before the service’s ultimate shutdown at the end of 2016. When and how did you begin to realize that B@B was coming to an end, or becoming too negative or destructive, or on the way out?

JD: It was none of those reasons. I shut down Bored@Baker because it was too expensive for me. Over the past five years I spent about $150,000 running it, building it, enhancing it, adding features to it, blocking malicious users, building a moderation system, building a point and badges system, designing each individual badge myself. I spent a lot of time and a lot of energy and a lot of money. It was a labor of love, not a business, but practically, I just couldn’t continue doing that, as fun as it was. I simply could not

continue to fund it out of pocket the way that I was. That’s the primary reason. Secondarily, I would also say that I don’t think it was appreciated. I’m done with the media writing articles about it and talking about how crazy it was. People only wanted to talk about it when there was something scandalous to talk about.

That was the only time people would want to have a conversation about it. Forget about all the amazing things that happened because of it: the experiences people had, the friendships people built, the suicides it prevented, the hope that it provided to some people when they were at their worst; none of that was ever talked about or appreciated. In the age of Trump troll armies and a Dartmouth administration that considered it something they had to battle, I was just not signing up for that anymore. It didn’t make any sense.

TDR: Can you elaborate on the role that B @B played in fostering campus discourse and free speech? What are the biggest positives you can highlight?

JD: At its height, it was where you first heard about everything.

It was allowing people to have conversations that they normally couldn’t have in any other forum or any other medium. I think that was its biggest value: just being a place where you could quickly understand what is happening on campus. That’s useful in and of itself.

TDR: B@B received copious amounts of undue criticism throughout the years. Do you have anything to say in response to that criticism?

JD: No. I am no longer trying to make an argument for it. I’m tired of doing that. I’m really tired of it because at the end of the day, no one ever got it to begin with. I could speak for hours about it, but

I’m not going to because there’s no point.

TDR: Based on your perspective as the administrator of the service, did B@B leave a significant legacy on Dartmouth, or perhaps the other colleges involved?

JD: I couldn’t care less about a legacy. If everyone would just forget about it, that would be just fine with me. I personally have moved on, and I think everyone else needs to move on as well. I think that it had its time and place. There is nothing good that you can tie the history of Bored@Baker to. Every single thing is some scandal. And that’s a shame that that’s how it’s been portrayed. If it could just go away, that would probably be the best-case scenario. I don’t want anything to do with the Dartmouth campus or culture; you guys have your own set of problems to deal with. I wish you all luck on discovering the solution to those problems. Bored@Baker is unfortunately not the tool to do that; you have to figure it out some other way. I’m sure there are some people who think that because it’s gone, the problems are gone. I wouldn’t even bother trying to have a conversation with that kind of person.

TDR: What have you learned from the whole experiment, and what does the future hold for you?

JD: If you want to have an impact on the world, create a community.

That’s often the answer; if you’re passionate about something, if you think something needs change, if you want to bring people together, if you want to accomplish something that seems impossible, build a community around it. Doesn’t have to be a virtual community; it could be a student group, it could be a band of musicians, it could be a camp for Burning Man, it could be anything. The whole point is: if you want to make real change, create a community around it.

Verily I say unto you: thou shalt read the review.

100 Wednesday – May 31, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

Features

Dartmouth’s Best Professors:

sergei kan Professor of Anthropology, NAS, JWST, and Russian Image courtesy of Dartmouth College an impressive scope!

Sandor Farkas

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus The Dartmouth Review (TDR): Can you tell us a bit about your background and how you gained an interest in academia?

Sergei Kan (SK): I was born in the Soviet Union in 1953, just a few weeks after Joseph Stalin died. My father had a PhD in history and so did his father, and my mother obtained a PhD in history later on. My father specialized in European History and my mother in South Asian history. When I was born, it was the tail end of Stalin’s anti-Semitic campaign. The primary victims of that were actually Jewish academics, Jewish intelligentsia, artists, doctors.

So at the time, both my father and my grandfather were out of work. It was a pretty difficult situation for my family, but luckily Stalin died and gradually things improved. But discrimination against Jews in general, particularly in terms of jobs for educated Jews, continued throughout the Soviet era. I know, for example, when I finished high school in 1970 and applied to take my entrance exams to get into the History Department of Moscow University I was going to have to overcome some obstacles. –Even though my mother was part Russian, which allowed me to registered as Russian (in my passport), my last name is “Kan” so they knew I was Jewish. I knew that I would have a higher bar to jump over to get in. I got past four exams and got 18 points out of 20. If I had gotten all As, I would have had 20 points, but with 18s non-Jewish students passed but Jewish students didn’t. Luckily my father knew some of the people in the department (which he had graduated from himself), so he had to use his personal ties to them, and he pleaded, and they admitted me. Even that was unpleasant because you knew someone

had to plead on your behalf; it wasn’t just on your merit. A number of other Jewish applicants were rejected and never made it.

I also knew that doing history in a system that was so politicized that we were obligated to study Marxism for the five years of our university education – that was the only theory you could apply to the study of history; so studying history was still pretty interesting but there were major restrictions on what you could read and research. You couldn’t really say everything you wanted.

Sometimes you had to distort your representations, even distort facts; like one colleague of my father who was studying medieval history in the 70s and actually working in the direction of the interesting French structural historians; he was severely criticized for that because clearly he wasn’t a Marxist anymore. One of his critics, a senior Soviet historian, said, ‘What kind of history are you doing? All we Soviet historians need are a couple of facts and a deep Marxist analysis. That’s all we need.’

So the book he wrote was trashed.

My father studied Scandinavian history, but he started with Medieval history, because with earlier periods in history, ancient and medieval, you had a little more freedom.

But once you moved into modern times it became more and more politicized. My father had two PhDs: his first was agricultural history in the Middle Ages and early Modern Era. There he had a little more freedom, but he did have to quote Marx, whether it was necessary or not. His second PhD was actually very modern diplomatic history: diplomatic policies of Scandinavian countries during World War II. He did a good job researching for both of his dissertations (did a lot of archival research mostly in the USSR and a little bit abroad too). He knew a number of foreign languages and I think it was a good piece of work

but certainly there were limitations to what he could say; he certainly could not say anything critical about Soviet policies (like the Soviet war with Finland in 1939).

I was raised by my mother’s family, my parents were divorced when I was a kid, and my mother was very anti-establishment. She was a dissident, a very brave women, did things to help political prisoners in Russia. She studied ancient Sri Lanka, Buddhism in ancient Sri Lanka, and when she wrote her dissertation her boss said, ‘Elena, very nice dissertation but you don’t have a single quote in it from the guy with the big beard’ (he meant Marx), and so even her boss was cynical about it. He didn’t believe in Marx, but he said that you needed the guy with the beard, our “classical scholar, and precursor of Lenin.” So the ideological and political system was already rotten, but most of them were still pretending just to survive; only a few diehards still believed in the Soviet-style dogmatic Marxism.

It’s like saying you need a few biblical quotes in your work. My mother said to the guy, ‘Marx never said anything about Sri Lanka, so I’m not going to quote him,’ and surprising they let her defend her Ph. D. thesis. In some places people were a bit more flexible than in others plus it was the more liberal Khrushchev era then. So I’ve kind of looked up to my mom – I loved my dad dearly, but when it came to taking a stand, my mother was my hero. (My father passed way just a few months ago at the age 91 and I miss his very much.

My mom is alive and well and living in Boston).

I decided to do archaeology because in USSR at that time, ethnography/ anthropology and archaeology were considered part of history as far as the educational system. And archaeologists seemed to be the least political, and so for two years I just studied general history. In the third year, we had to specialize. The less politically oriented students went into ancient

was so excited then when the doors opened and Russian Jews started leaving in the early 70s, although the main reason for me was just to leave the country where there was no political freedom, no intellectual freedom, and where Jews were second class citizens. So my family, my mom, my stepfather, later my grandmother as well, we were among the first who left the country in early ’74.

The pioneers of immigration were Jews from the Baltics, from Western Ukraine, but then Moscow, Leningrad, and other Russian Jews began leaving as well. Some went to Israel – I had pro-Israel sentiments but I wasn’t a passionate Zionist then the way I am now. We had friends who had left even earlier and settled to Boston so we followed them. Since I didn’t finish university in Russia – only the first three years out of five, I wanted to continue my education, so I came to Boston in the summer of ‘74 and, with the help of some American Jews who were very active in the “Save Soviet Jewry” movement, I was very fortunate that even though admission to the fall of ‘74 academic year was definitely over, they helped me get into Boston University. So I became a junior – I had two more years of college at BU. It was a wonderful time; I remember opening the catalogue and realizing that I could take any course I want.

In Russia if you were a history major you only took history, which was ok in that you’d learn more in your discipline but you couldn’t even take literature or philosophy. Here I could take religion, I could take Judaism, I could take philosophy, or German literature, and anything I wanted.

history, medieval history, archaeology, while the more ambitious ones went into modern history. American history was in high demand because students were hoping to travel to the United States or work in the Soviet embassy there, and the real goofballs who did not want to study English and just wanted a career in the Soviet establishment studied the history of the Soviet Communist Party.

Much of Soviet archaeology was kind of boring – they all focused on objects and not big concepts or theory. There were some good faculty there, but studying objects just didn’t appeal to me. Now I’m not against archaeology; I have colleagues here at Dartmouth who are wonderful scholars. But Soviet archaeology circa 1972 was a bit dull. And their ethnography (anthropology) department was also kind of dull. That was one of reasons, I think, why I

Beatles records we could listen to. By American standards we were probably pretty repressed, but we drank and we had our own love lives, and some of us read forbidden literature published in the West or available in Russia only via typewritten texts (samizdat). Boston in ’74 was at the tail end of the Age of Aquarius.

It was both interesting and I was curious, but it seemed a bit childish (“what do these young people really want”?) and there were still lots of hippies hanging around Harvard Square. The Vietnam War was coming to a close, so the anti-war movement was pretty much over. We arrived when Nixon was about to resign, and I actually thought that was a wonderful example of a basically healthy country. You could have a president step down, but nothing really happened. Everything went on and the vice president stepped in – it

TDR: What was it like socially going from a communist Russian university to an American university in the 1970s?

SK: We weren’t totally restricted in Moscow; we were really restricted in our public life, but in private we were somewhat rebellious and we had

“America was very attractive, a beautiful country. Sort of like moving from a black and white movie to a colored movie – that was definitely the case.”

was a serious political issue, but nobody was buying up all the food in the stores or crying. The sky wasn’t falling. America was very attractive, a beautiful country. Sort of like moving from a black and white movie to a colored movie – that was definitely the case. The affluence, the beauty, and America was not all just skyscrapers as we thought. The green grass everywhere, the little houses in Boston, people were just friendly. We had good expectations, but what we saw was even better. It may sound naive but when you escape from prison, you appreciate things like that.

I just enjoyed studying; I focused on cultural anthropology, which I was already beginning to think about a lot back in Russia. I started reading about different peoples and exploring their cultures – a lot more interesting than just looking at artifacts.

But I also took courses in Judaism and that’s where I began my journey.

Right before I left Russia I also met a wonderful young woman who later became my wife. Her parents, especially her father, were much more committed to Zionism and Judaism than my family. Her father grew up in the 1910s-1920s in Ukraine and he had a bar mitzvah. He partook in Jewish religion and public culture before the Soviets crushed it. My father-in-law (who eventually became my hero), passed his values on to my future wife. We got married in Boston in ’76 with a religious wedding.

I also had a wonderful professor of Judaica who is still one of my best friends. I plunged into Jewish life and studies. After two years I graduated and my professors in Anthropology encouraged me to pursue graduate school, I had good grades and a senior thesis, and a letter of recommendation from none other than the great Russian-American linguist Roman Jacobson, who was a friend of our family and was interested in helping me, so I was admitted into all the schools I applied to except for one. The best anthropology department for symbolic anthropology, which is what I wanted to do, was at the University of Chicago, so that’s where I went. It had some great anthropologists at the time.

I was there from ’76 until ’79 just taking classes. Then I did fieldwork in Alaska with the Tlingit people.

I came back to Boston in ’80 and wrote my dissertation, I tried to find a job in Boston, which was hard; I just took part time there at several schools. I got my PhD in ’82, got my first job in ’83 at the University of Michigan, which was a very big school and had a major anthropology department. There were pluses and minuses; it was very high-powered, very ambitious, but there were also factions within the department which made working there difficult.

Everyone talked about teaching, but it was really research that they were focused on. I taught there for six years and then a job at Dartmouth materialized. A joint-appointment in anthropology and Native American studies opened up and that seemed ideal. So I came here in ’89 and I’ve been here ever since.

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – May 31, 2017 11

Features

Sergei Kan, Anthropology TDR: What initially drew you to Native American Studies in general, and the Tlingit people in particular?

SK: I had a professor at Boston University by the name of Dennis Tedlock, who worked with the Zuni Indians in the southwest, and taught courses on their culture, southwestern cultures, and other Native American cultures. He was very charismatic and had an influence on me and I wrote papers for him about Siberian native people because most of the accounts of Siberian native cultures were in Russian, and that was my first language. We talked about it and he said “You’re not going to Siberia, it’s closed for immigrants like you; but you could go to Alaska, and there’s similarities there: northern cultures, their religion, their shamanism, ceremonies, and so on.” The part of Alaska where I did my research was formerly part of “Russia America”, so there had been some Russian influence (e.g., many of the Tlingit people still belong to the Russian Orthodox Church).

More specifically the Pacific Northwest, the Alaska panhandle, is an area where there are very interesting “potlatch” feasts, a very elaborate social structure, intricate and beautiful totem poles, fascinating art; it’s an area that has always attracted anthropologists, from American to French. The great French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss worked there, as did Franz Boas, the “father” of US anthropology. So I developed an interest in it, and then when I got to U of Chicago, one of my other BU professors, a woman named Eva Hunt, knew someone in the anthro. department there, who she said I should study with: Prof. Ray Fogelson, who also worked with Native Americans. He studied the culture of the Eastern Cherokees, but he had this encyclopedic knowledge of many other Native American cultures, so I went to work with him, among other people. Ray took me under his wing; he was not only a great scholar, but also a good man, very gregarious and friendly. So that’s how I became a Native American Studies scholar. Unlike other Chicago professors who were also terrific, but often kind of reserved and a bit snobbish, his home was always where the party was, and so his students were all kind of a family. We all shared interests in Native American cultures and were all devoted to our mentor. We met some prominent Native American scholars and intellectuals at his house on the north side of Chicago...That’s a very important thing because as a graduate student you’re older and you’re all future scholars; it’s a different level of interaction than most undergraduates have.

TDR: Do you think there’s anything unique about being a faculty member at Dartmouth compared Mr. Farkas is a graduating senior at the College and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of The Dartmouth Review.

to some of the other schools you’ve taught or studied at?

SK: I think relations with students here are tend to be closer. I do miss not having graduate students a little because, with really good graduate students, you do have a relationship as with colleagues. With undergraduates, you occasionally do if they’re really superb and/or are planning

of things that are wrong with our society, but if you teach it with an open mind, where students are not afraid to challenge the professor, then it’s okay. But if you tell students from day one that “It’s either my way or the highway,” which is what I think would happen, maybe with a few exceptions – we have some people on the left who are open-minded – by and large, it’s going to be “How

“When we came in the seventies, there were a lot of people on the left that we disagreed with, but they didn’t question the idea that we can all express our opinions. I look at the free speech movement in the sixties; those people were fighting for being able to say anything you want. Now we’re fighting for a restriction of those freedoms.” to be working in your discipline, but most of them will go into fields that are not your field. I kind of miss that. Although I do have some graduate students outside of Dartmouth, mainly I deal with undergraduates, and the quality of undergraduates here is by-and-large great. Undergraduates have open minds; they’re not as preoccupied with things that graduate students are, they’re not competing against each other in terms of future jobs in anthropology. I’ve forgotten most of my undergraduates from Michigan; there are maybe a few I still remember.

Whereas I’ve been here almost thirty years and I still remember many of my undergraduate students, their names, and what they worked on; some of them have remain very good friends. So that close relationship is really unique, and it’s the size of the school, it’s the quality of the students, and I think the school does reward that to some degree. And I hope we don’t lose that while we “move Dartmouth forward.”

TDR: Given your unique background that we’ve discussed, do you have any insights as to trends you’re seeing today – not only at Dartmouth, but also in academia in general, or in the student body?

SK: Yeah, a few things. I am obviously somewhat skeptical of some of the things that the more left-wing colleagues of mine are so enthusiastic about. Although I’m not the only one. I’m very much opposed to any mandatory courses. Not mandatory athletics, though I think mandatory athletics is also kind of outmoded.

Mandatory courses, for example on race and ethnicity. If you make anything mandatory, A) students are not going to like it, unless they’re ideologically committed to this subject, and B) you’re only going to have certain professors who want to teach it. It basically becomes indoctrination. There have been attempts; we have some faculty members who really want to institute those courses.

And no matter what they say – that it’s going to be an open intellectual field, anyone can teach it – there’s definitely an agenda there. It’s going to be about all the awful things about American society, and there are lots

can you not agree that everything’s stacked against certain people in our society? How can you not see that white privilege is everywhere, and if you’re white, you’re benefitting from this system big time (even if your family is poor and you’ve been working your butt off while being a college student), and you are also implicitly biased no matter how many minority friends you have and how progressive you are” (As a matter of fact, there is now plenty of social science research, which shows that the psychological theories of “implicit bias” are based on rather questionable research and weak data, yet they are now presented to and by university administrators as “facts” that cannot be questioned). Then those students who belong to the majority group taking such courses will usually feel guilty or will be made to feel guilty. Students will just say and write what they would think they need to say to pass that course, and I don’t think it would be a great educational experience. And we’ve had enough mandatory courses in the Soviet Union, and they were the worst ones, and we hated them, and we just wanted to get them out of the way. I was pleased to see, in the recent debate about mandatory courses, that a number of my colleagues, including colleagues in my department were against such courses on pedagogical grounds. I am against such courses both on pedagogical grounds and also based on my own experience of studying in a restrictive (“ideologically and politically correct”) system in 1970-73; I know what happens when you have those kinds of courses. I was actually part of a large group of faculty at the U of Michigan which fought against such mandatory courses in the late 1980s...

TDR: Does it ever trouble you when you hear students or colleagues expressing opinions on communism, or socialism in general, that, from your experience, you know where those lead?

SK: Of course these colleagues usually say, “Oh, our version of socialism, it’s going to be different here.” I realize that yeah, the Swedish-style social democratic system is not what

we lived through in the USSR, and I can imagine that maybe within certain safeguards you could have a liberal social democratic system, as long as you have freedom of speech and real democracy. But I also think that the US is not Sweden, it has a very different history and culture and a much larger society. And I also have family in Sweden, so I know that even there the state really interferes in so many spheres in your life. There are good things and there are bad things; I admire that education is free, medicine is free, but the kind of bureaucracy they have to deal with blows your mind and many of them are not happy with it, believe me..., and they can no longer afford the kinds of things they used to be able to 20-30 years ago. There’s a downside even in that system that people like Bernie Sanders want to institute here. But that’s the moderate version. Then there are people here who want a much more restrictive system. What really frightens me is when you hear students and some faculty (not so much at Dartmouth but at other American schools) say that they don’t want freedom of speech, that they don’t need it anymore. What they are saying is, “If freedom of speech allows people we don’t like and don’t agree with to express their opinions, we do not want or need that kind of freedom of speech.” That really frightens me. When we came here in the seventies, there were a lot of people on the left that we disagreed with, but they didn’t question the idea that we can all express our opinions. I look at the Free Speech movement in the sixties; those people were fighting for being able to say anything you want. Now a significant segment of the left is fighting for restricting those freedoms.

TDR: Students and faculty admire you for being outspoken on issues you care about, especially when some of your colleagues don’t feel comfortable taking a stand on issues like that. What drives you to speak out about whatever you choose to speak out about, and what do you think the role of professors should be in campus issues?

SK: I think that you don’t have to speak out all the time. If you don’t feel like saying what’s on your mind, you don’t have to. But I think that one has to have the courage to express unpopular opinions. What I notice is that there are a lot of faculty who don’t say anything; either they don’t care or they’re just afraid to say something that’s unpopular.

And since the predominant trend by and large at Dartmouth – though Dartmouth’s is somewhat more moderate than other schools – is a liberal-left-wing ideology (the loudest voices tend to be on the far left), if you want to express those opinions, you don’t risk anything. Now some faculty members think that if you want to express a counter-opinion, it is risky. But is it? I don’t think so, especially if you have tenure – I can understand why junior faculty are afraid, which is a sad story be-

cause nobody should be penalized for their opinions, but there have been cases of such penalties. But I’ve had encounters where even full professors here have told me that they totally agree with some of my “unpopular” positions, but just don’t want to stand out – on Israel or on other issues – they’d just rather do their research or work with students. But why did I leave the Soviet Union? What was the point if I can’t say what’s on my mind? We’re still a (more or less) free society, certainly compared to many others. If I can’t say what I believe, then I cant take advantage of the freedom we still enjoy. The other thing is that those students who espouse views that may not be popular or not mainstream need my support. Some students also share views that are not dominant or are not the loudest, and they’re afraid and don’t want to get in trouble. They feel like they’re powerless because they might get a bad grade or be unpopular or receive a nasty email. But if they see that there are a few professors who think like them, that’s good. So I do it for the students, or I get someone outside Dartmouth who says they’re please that there’s someone there who has the guts to say something, like in the case of Professor Jasbir Puar last year, who came here and said such obnoxious things about Israel. I just received an email from the Hillel Director at the school where she’s a tenured professor, and he said he couldn’t get any of her colleagues to criticize her; nobody wants to do that even though many abhor her views. Or when she spoke at Vassar before coming here, and said the same things she said here; nobody would challenge her. But we -- myself and a number of Jewish students - did! And so eventually several Jewish students from Vassar wrote to me and thanked me for speaking publicly against her maligning Israel with her lies.

It felt good to read their messages.

It makes speaking out worth it for me!

subscribe to the dartmouth review today!

12 Wednesday – May 31, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

Features

On Witch Hunts and Intellectual Diversity

Joseph R. Torsella Executive Editor

Over the past few decades, it has grown apparent that political conflict is a feature, not a bug, of the modern political campus.

Since the student movements of the 1960s, college campuses have increasingly become a hub for activism and dissent. This is, in many respects, unsurprising – young people have always been agents of change, and radical political thought is almost always the product of a new generation.

But it is only recently that this has come to threaten the academic integrity of the university system. The old stereotype of the liberal professor is increasingly being supplemented by the canard of the secret racist, the imperialist, the abettor of hate speech.

Nowhere has this been clearer than on the usually quiet campus of The Evergreen State College, in Olympia Washington. The school, a small public liberal arts college, is itself a product of the idea that radical student activism and academic excellence can work together; while boasting impressive alumni from the creator of the Simpsons to a current congressman, it invited convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal to remotely deliver the 1999 commencement address.

Every year, the college administration endorses a ‘day of absence’ – which usually involves students of color leaving campus for a day to bring awareness to their importance on campus and to issues surrounding race.

But this year was different. For the first time, the administration-sanctioned group organizing the day announced that they would ask white students to leave campus for the day of absence.

White students, the announcement implied, would not be welcome on campus during the day’s events.

This did not sit well with Bret Weinstein, a Professor of Biology at the college. In response to the announcement, he sent a thoughtful, but forceful, email to the rest of the faculty and staff.

In it, he raised salient concerns about the discriminatory act of telling white students to leave – and the threats to freedom of speech that would be entailed by a public institution telling some voices that they are not wanted.

This set off a firebomb. After the email, a mob of angry students disrupted Professor Weinstein’s class and surrounded him. They demanded his resignation. When he refused, they expanded the protest. Speaking to Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Professor Weinstein revealed that the protesters had blocked campus security from getting Mr. Torsella is a junior at the College and an Executive Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

in to the building to protect his safety. The protestors have now sent a list of demands to the President of the college, who has ordered the campus security forces to stand down. Weinstein has been forced to leave campus after being told by the police that it was unsafe for him to remain.

There is no clearer instance than this one of the left eating its own. As Professor Weinstein makes clear in his letter, and in his subsequent statements, he is deeply progressive – and committed to the antiracist mission of the college. But this is not enough in today’s political climate. Emails are violence, disagreement is violence, speech is violence, thought is violence.

And those who perpetrate such violence must be punished. Tenure is no protection against this thinking if students can make administrators submit to their demands and force professors to flee out of fear of retaliation.

But why should we care? This professor was speaking as a private citizen, and was censured as such – does this pose any sort of threat to academic freedom? Yes, I think it does. In their studies, academics constantly deal with hot-button political issues from race to gender to sexuality. And these academics must be free to come to the conclusions they think are true, not just those that are palatable. We cannot, moreover, expect professors not to speak out about issues they care about – they are people, after all, and if we become accustomed to attacking professors for their personal beliefs then we will discourage the best and the brightest from teaching here.

If American academia no longer values the independence of their faculty, then European academia will simply absorb those smart enough to stay away, and we will be all the worse for it.

This incident is astonishing in its magnitude – it lays bare the problems inherent in organized social censure of academics. For this censure is not value-neutral – it hurts people in real ways – financially, professionally, and emotionally.

I would like to say that the Dartmouth community in general, and this paper in particular, have steered clear of this tactic, rejecting the view of academia as radically political – and of academic administration as an object upon which to exercise political influence. But this is not the case. Over the past few weeks, I could not help but feel deeply saddened at the organized action against Associate Dean N. Bruce Duthu. An organized campaign of opposition to his appointment resulted in the withdrawal of Duthu as a candidate for Dean of the Faculty. What happened here does not come close to reaching the level of the events at Evergreen State, but it is the first time

in my memory that the right on this campus has adopted the very tactics we decry on the left, and I am obligated to raise my voice in protest.

There were a number of arguments offered by this paper and other groups against Duthu’s appointment, but only one seemed to play a role in his withdrawal.

The least impactful argument was, ironically, the one that would seem to be most powerful prima facie – this paper contended that Duthu was underqualified. I do not want to dispute this here – whether he is unqualified is irrelevant to the question of

not the case. Susannah Heschel, the chair of Dartmouth’s Jewish Studies program, told The Algemeiner, among other things, that Duthu is set to speak at Hebrew University, that he has helped to bring Israeli academics to Dartmouth, and that he acted in support of an Israeli student exchange program at The College. Given this account, I do not think we can claim that Duthu would take it upon himself to bypass the administration and suddenly implement BDS policies as Dean – actions speak much louder than words, and if he has not done so yet, then it is illegiti-

“If we help make it acceptable to attack professors and administrators on the basis of their beliefs, then we will be the ones to feel the real harms of this practice.” whether the terms on which he was ousted are legitimate. The controversy which ended in his withdrawal from consideration centered around his past support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement – which advocates, among other things, a boycott of the state of Israel and organizations associated with it in order, apparently, to end Palestinian oppression. I think that this is justified by false beliefs – and it is a pernicious policy if implemented.

Students and alumni against Duthu made two related arguments. They said both that Duthu’s support for BDS made him incapable of being an impartial and effective Dean of the Faculty and that support for BDS is inherently anti-Semitic.

The first contention, I think, is manifestly false. If it is the case that his support for BDS means that he would have sidestepped college policy and unilaterally implemented such a regime, then we should expect to see him doing so in his current role as Associate Dean. But this is just

mate to expect that he will.

So we are left with the argument that Duthu is an anti-Semite, or that his beliefs display latent anti-Semitism. I cannot help but be reminded of leftist arguments here. Welfare reform, an argument goes, disproportionately harms minorities. And so anyone who supports welfare reform is a racist. Needless to say, this argument is deeply flawed.

Someone holding racist beliefs is more likely to support welfare reform, yes. But people support this policy for a whole host of reasons – from principled fiscal conservatism to a belief in federalism. And so too might someone support BDS for a whole host of reasons – from antisemitism to a legitimate (if misplaced) concern for human rights. Thus, I do not think we can say that support for BDS is anti-Semitic in and of itself, without any overt manifestation of anti-Semitic beliefs.

But, one might argue, support for BDS is itself deplorable.

Shouldn’t Duthu be disqualified because of this support regardless of whether he is an an-

ti-Semite?

But this stoops to the level of the left. If we defend ourselves from persecution by referring to the values of an open society, then why did we attack Associate Dean Duthu on the basis of thoughtcrime? Is support for BDS any more controversial than opposition to gay marriage? But this view, we want to say, should be protected – no academic should lose their job over it. And so we have applied a dangerous double standard – a double standard which has and will continue to harm our own efforts to promote intellectual diversity in academia. I do not say that Associate Dean Duthu should have been appointed – I am agnostic on this – but that the way in which he was attacked by this paper and other groups on campus was deeply damaging to our integrity and the legitimacy of our voice on issues of academic freedom and free speech on campus.

The right holds a precarious position on this campus. We have little representation in the faculty, no representation in the administration, and our voice often cries out in the wilderness against an overwhelming culture of leftist opposition. So it is hard for me to see the events of the past few weeks as anything but deeply damaging to our cause. If we help make it acceptable to attack professors and administrators on the basis of their beliefs, then we will be the ones to feel the real harms of this practice.

Even if this were not the case, the practice inherently harms academic liberty and freedom of expression.

And so I have no choice but to voice my discontent with the actions of this paper and all those who organized against Associate Dean Duthu on the basis of his beliefs. There are not many who continue to stand for academic liberty; if we stop doing so, then I fear that we will only hasten its destruction.

putin reads the review. Вы должны тоже.

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – May 31, 2017 13

Features

The Duthu Denouement Zachary P. Port Web Editor

Professor N. Bruce Duthu was nominated to be the next dean of faculty this past March. Last week, under pressure from what the administration deemed “external audiences,” Duthu withdrew his nomination for the post of Dean of the Faculty. It was clear from the start that the nomination process was deeply flawed. As DartBlog reported, Professor Andrew Samwick, Director of the Rockefeller Center, was one of several star professors not granted an opportunity to even interview for the job.

Duthu, meanwhile, would have been the first Dean of Faculty to have not earned a doctoral degree, holding only a J.D. from Loyola University New Orleans. Academic qualifications aside, Duthu’s undoing stemmed largely from his continued dedication to the BoyMr. Port is a freshman at the College and Web Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

cott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

Professor Alan Gustman was the first to publicly object to the nomination, claiming that Duthu could not possibly coordinate free faculty collaboration while also holding a prejudice against Israeli academics. Gustman demanded that Duthu renounce his support for BDS, or decline his nomination. Although he went out on a limb, Gustman found fervent support from concerned alumni, faculty, and students, who shared his worries of a strongly biased Dean of Faculty. Making matters worse, Duthu, in refusing to step down, promised that he would not let his support for BDS get in the way of his judgment as dean and ultimately refused to disavow his support for BDS. Ultimately, however, installing a prejudiced Dean of Faculty in charge of who can and cannot collaborate with our faculty is like putting Wile E. Coyote in charge of an aviary, despite his tendency toward consuming highspeed birds. When he withdrew his

nomination, Duthu vindicated all who opposed him. When forced to choose between his prejudice and advancing his career, Duthu chose continued support of the anti-Semitic BDS movement. His decision is essentially tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Yet Duthu supporters remain

Duthu chose to resign instead of renounce his support for BDS. The situation could have just as easily been resolved if Duthu renounced his support for BDS, apologized to the Jewish community, and continued on to accept the post of Dean of the Faculty. Yet, the Native community insists that the Jews’

unconvinced or unconcerned about his prejudice. Native Americans at Dartmouth insist that opponents bullied Duthu into resigning – a lie which denigrates the victims of Duthu’s appointment. Indeed, Duthu’s opponents pressured him into renouncing his prejudices – as they should have – but they did not bully him into resigning. At the end of the day,

sole objection to Duthu was his status as a Native American. However, does this status really excuse Duthu of the prejudices he holds?

Does being white bar you from speaking out against prejudice?

Apparently so, if the left would have their say.

NAD’s position reflects a frightening trend in the modern world of mainstreaming tendency to-

ward anti-Semitism. According to the Syrian Government, the Jews were to blame a 2006 breakout of avian flu. According to 84% of Palestinians surveyed by their national newspaper, the Jews were to blame for the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher attack, despite the fact that one of the Charlie Hebdo victims was Jewish and Hyper Cacher is a Jewish grocery store.

Today, Native Americans at Dartmouth hold Jews – in addition to the greater pro-Israel community – culpable for opposing someone who supports a movement that seeks the destruction of their homeland, a state which was created for the express purpose of being a safe haven for Jews in the wake of the Holocaust.

The denouement of the Duthu affair should be a resolve to acknowledge that prejudice against Jews exists and to end it. Instead, the NAD organization seeks to perpetuate more prejudice. Intentional or unintentional, it would be in everyone’s best interest if they were to cease and desist.

State of Israel for human rights violations and inaccurately argues that Israel’s “occupation” of the disputed West Bank is illegal.

It demonizes Israel and holds the country to a double standard.

Its success necessitates the elimination of Israel. The founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti, has confirmed as much, declaring: “Definitely, most definitely, we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.”

The interpretation of BDS as an antisemitic movement is widely held, and is endorsed by Dartmouth Students for Israel.

However, NAD argued that calling BDS antisemitic “means to promote a propagandizing and anti-intellectual approach to political dissent unworthy of a research institution.” This argument is quite ironic. Duthu’s support for an academic boycott of the State of Israel punishes university professors simply because of their nationality. Duthu’s support for an academic boycott is a violation of academic freedom — a core principle of Dartmouth College and of the academy.

Thus, it is NAD and Dean Duthu that seek to promote an “anti-intellectual approach to political dissent” — an approach that silences Israeli professors and universities with a boycott rather than engaging in academic debate.

Moreover, NAD argued that “the Dartmouth community risks being more willing to accommodate extremism than to recognize the silencing of Native voices and belittling of Indigenous people.” It is not an “extremist” view to call BDS antisemitic. BDS is immoral, illegal, undercuts the goal of a two-state

solution and is remarkably bad for Palestinians.

But perhaps what is most damning about the BDS movement is that it represents a blatant double standard. One should wonder why Duthu chose to single out Israel for an academic boycott, rather than any of Israel’s neighbors. Duthu did not boycott Saudi Arabia, where violations of human rights law are enshrined in the kingdom’s legal code, including discrimination against women and minorities.

Duthu did not boycott Jordan, where Palestinians have encountered discrimination and are regularly stripped of their citizenship. And if Duthu is concerned with “illegal occupations,” one should wonder why he did not boycott China, Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey or Armenia, even though each of those nations currently illegally occupies a foreign territory. By refusing to apply his principles equitably, Duthu singles out the State of Israel and gives legitimacy to the BDS campaign.

Dartmouth Students for Israel also takes note of Dartmouth College’s unique history with antisemitism. In 1945, Dartmouth’s president said that the mission of the college was the “Christianization of its students.” Jews were referred to as “ghetto types,” and antisemitic remarks frequented college discourse. In 1997, President James Freedman recognized the college’s antisemitic past and declared that “‘no Jewish students or faculty need fear that they will be discriminated against.”

Unfortunately, it seems that Dartmouth’s ugly past is yet again rearing its head. With the appointment of N. Bruce Duthu to

Dean of the Faculty, and the recent refusal from the Dartmouth Office of Pluralism and Leadership to co-sponsor an event featuring a disabled Israeli combat veteran, while proudly sponsoring a lecture by a supporter of Sharia law and BDS, President Hanlon and the Dartmouth administration put the college on a dangerous path. If Dartmouth truly “supports the vigorous and open debate of ideas within a community marked by mutual respect,” as its mission statement claims, then Israelis should not be excluded from that debate because they are Israeli.

On May 22, 2017, Duthu released a statement announcing his decision to decline his nomination to dean. Dartmouth Students for Israel applauds Duthu’s decision because such a nomination, in Duthu’s words, “has the great potential to be damaging to the College in the long term, given the higher visibility and engagement with external audiences that come with the dean’s position.” This was no doubt a difficult decision for Duthu, but we believe that it is unequivocally the right decision; Duthu is entitled to his own opinions, but his role as Dean of the Faculty could not be fulfilled if he supports the silencing of Israeli universities and professors.

President Hanlon and Provost Dever have also released a statement, responding to Duthu’s decision, in which they claim that opposition to Duthu’s appointment came “particularly from external audiences.”

Hanlon and Dever write, “In principle, we condemn bias against any group or individual and have complete confidence

that Bruce does, as well.”

Although some students might be satisfied with this comment, Dartmouth Students for Israel is not. Although Duthu recently issued a statement distancing himself from academic boycotts, he did not denounce the wider BDS campaign. He did not denounce a campaign that seeks the destruction of the State of Israel, a campaign which is clearly antisemitic. Nor did he strongly denounce the very statements that he had signed and authored.

Hanlon and Dever’s argument is similar to that of many students in the Dartmouth community.

They claim that Duthu’s actions contradict his original support for BDS, and that Duthu has been friendly to Israeli academics and professors throughout his career. But this is about being principled and honest. In the end, Duthu made an honest and principled decision to step down.

In the words of Professor Alan Gustman, “If there is anyone who cannot afford to once again take a person’s word that he doesn’t mean what he says, it is any Jewish person with a memory.”

In the wake of these irreconcilable contradictions, Dartmouth Students for Israel firmly believes that Professor Duthu’s decision was honorable. His decision recognized that support for BDS is incompatible with the commitment to academic freedom and integrity required of college administrators.

Dartmouth Students for Israel remains committed to the principles of academic freedom and debate. We implore the Dartmouth administration to ensure that those principles apply to Israelis, too.

“When forced to choose between his prejudice and advancing his career, Duthu chose continued support of the anti-Semitic BDS movement. His decision is essentially tantamount to an admission of guilt.”

A Letter from Dartmouth Students for Israel Joshua L. Kauderer Jack S. Hutensky Zachary P. Port Matthew R. Zubrow Michelle F. Knesbach Executive Editor Web Editors President Emeritus Contributor

On May 19, 2017, the Native Americans at Dartmouth (NAD) organization sent out an email to the Dartmouth community “to address statements made against the appointment of N. Bruce Duthu as the Dean of Faculty, and to emphasize [their] full support for his appointment.”

In it, NAD defended Duthu’s support for BDS, a campaign that targets the State of Israel with academic and economic boycotts, advances divestment from Israeli corporations and has a longterm mission of getting international sanctions imposed on the country.

BDS has three goals: (1) to end the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank, (2) to grant the “Right of Return” to all Palestinians, and (3) to give Palestinians equal rights in Israel. The first makes no distinction between disputed holy Jewish areas, such as the Old City of Jerusalem, and other regions in the West Bank.

The second supports a policy that would lead to the destruction of the Jewish state qua Jewish state. The third falsely implies that Palestinian-Israelis in Israel do not have equal rights.

BDS unfairly singles out the Contributors to this letter are all affiliated with The Dartmouth Review in addition to the Dartmouth Students for Israel campus organization.

14 Wednesday – May 31, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

REVIEW REVIEWS

The Stupendous Six South Surprise

SIx south bistro Hanover’s greatest hidden gem

Gil Hanlon Hampton Worthmuch Ekval Litty

Contributors

The foremost and often overlooked aspect of a restaurant review is first to make sure that said restaurant is open.

The night started with a walk down Main Street, as most do when one inevitably grows weary of Dartmouth Dining Services. Boston-based consultant Hampton Worthmuch and hard-partying social justice activist Ekval Litty accompanied tried-andtrue reviewers Gil Hanlon and Sheriff Rick Grimes, traveling four abreast down the sidewalk, a force to be reckoned with for anyone walking in the other direction. However, when they arrived at the Six South Street Hotel, they found the lobby devoid of diners or food. Confirming the eatery was indeed closed on Mondays, the colleagues headed back the way they came as Gil made the plea to choose a campus dining option, “Look, I know you guys are sick of DDS,” Gil noted, “But there are 150 NARPs at upstairs FoCo just waiting to be picked on.”

Ekval bristled at Gil’s domineering masculinity, and recommended the group find a much safer space. Thus, the quartet decided to head over to one of their reliable watering holes, the recently reviewed Salt Hill Pub. Plans were made to alternatively review the restaurant the next day so the four headed their separate ways, searching for sweet basement nectar to quench their unrelenting thirsts.

The next day, Hampton and Ekval starved themselves in preparation for their glorious feast. Gil, on the other hand, could not control himself.

Succumbing to the rumblings of his stomach, he gorged himself on smoked venison left over from his hunting Messrs. Hanlon, Worthmuch, and Litty are contributors to the Review and really, really want you to take your business to Six South Bistro.

expedition through the college grant.

Ekval headed to the restaurant early in order to take a seat at the bar and discern the bistro’s vibes, while Hampton, as always, was preoccupied sending and receiving multitudes of emails.

Ekval ordered a surprisingly affordable $3 glass of Switchback Ale, courtesy of Six South Street’s Terrific Tuesdays special, and commended the restaurant for supporting local breweries over national corporations. As the hour approached, the men received devastating news: Sheriff Rick Grimes’ village had been attacked once again, and his well-deserved vacation was to be put on hold. Despite the supreme devastation of losing a drinking companion of Mr. Grimes’ caliber, the duo reluctantly decided to carry on their quest for boozy beverages and delectable cuisine.

“Alright guys, none of the drinks on this menu are really up to my standards, but I feel like my body is telling me to fill it up with some sugary cocktails, what should I get?” proposed Gil. To Mr. Worthmuch, the question was preposterous: “Would it not be fitting for a son of Dartmouth to indulge in this here concoction, “The Big Green?” Gil was not having it: “No way Jorge, a Malibu-based cocktail? I can’t even drink that stuff straight, let alone when it’s surrounded with sugary fluff.” Upon closer inspection, Gil realized the drink was right up his alley. The alcohol-to-cost ratio seemed competitive as the drink contained Bacardi, Malibu, Sour Apple Pucker, Blue Curacao, sour mix, and pineapple. Gil beckoned to the bartender, signaling his need for libation and addressed him by the peculiar name on his shirt. “Heads, I’m going to try the Big Green, although I must say it is my least favorite of Dartmouth’s mascots.” As Heads began to mix the different liqueurs, it became apparent that the only significant non-alcoholic component to the drink was a small dash of pineapple juice poured on top.

Gil began to wonder if the drink would taste too strong. “You won’t be com-

plaining with this one,” assured Heads, the bartender, who explained to the trio that he only drinks Heineken. “The only complaints I get here come the day after.” “You won’t get one of those from me” said Gil, experienced from decades of liver damage and vicious hangovers.

“I know damn well what I’m doing to my body.”

Hampton, intrigued by the green hue of the concoction bargained for a sip. “What’s up with this fruit punch?” he was baffled by the pineapple and sour mix’s ability to mask the alcohol.

However, Mr. Worthmuch chose a drink more familiar to him “I’ll have to Tucky Punch. I assume it’s named after Tuck Business School. You know, many of my colleagues attended that institution.” The rest of the company groaned, although they could not argue with the tropical allure of Six South Street’s take on the classic rum punch.

Mr. Litty also chose something more his speed – “The GQ.” Billed as Six South Street’s “answer to the Cosmo” (Mr. Litty was quite well acquainted with Cosmopolitans), The GQ packed a potent punch of Absolut Citron and Cointreau tempered with white cranberry and lime juices. Ekval gingerly lifted the glass to his lips and took a long sip. “Mmm, fruity!” he exclaimed, before puckering his face and wheezing out a comment on the cocktail’s high alcohol quantity. Intrigued, Hampton also took a sip, and agreed, noting that it was “important to leverage such cost-efficient methods of getting housed.”

Noticing the patrons’ fascination with the cocktails, Heads pointed out that SSS has some of the more competitive drink specials in the Upper Valley. Terrific Tuesdays and Wicked Wednesdays boast $3 beers on tap and $6 glasses of wine respectively. Their other standout deal was $5 margaritas on Fabulous Fridays, an affordable and tasty way to start any weekend.

Before the alcohol when straight to the diners’ heads, they thought it a good

idea to order some appetizers, their modus operandi. The trio decided on the fried artichoke basket, creamy kale dip, and chicken bites, adhering to Heads’ recommendation. The chicken bites were delectable, comprised of juicy, boneless chicken with a light crispy breading. These weren’t your average McNuggets, but it was clear that the chef, who Heads later mentioned had no formal culinary experience, was trying to add an air of luxury to the traditional bar fare. However, the most captivating aspect of the dish was the whole grain Vermont maple mustard provided for dipping. The sweet and savory condiment artfully enhanced the chicken bites, the perfect vehicle for the mustard.

The artichoke broke the monotony of the fried smorgasboard. The flower was chopped into bite size pieces before being fried and served with a roasted garlic aioli dipping sauce. Hampton, not the biggest fan of the edible buds, was pleasantly surprised, “Finally, a preparation of artichoke that hasn’t caused me to choke!” Ekval, the vegetarian amongst the group, devoured the basket voraciously while lecturing his companions on the importance of foods that did not “visit cruelty on fellow living creatures.” Gil didn’t even touch the appetizer; he had other thoughts on his mind, “How has nobody heard of this place? Is it the distance from campus or just a marketing problem?” Six South Street, for those of you too fearful to venture past the post office, is one of the two hotels in town, and whose restaurant rivals Pine of the Hanover Inn. Worthmuch, realizing the potential of his expertise in this situation, began bouncing ideas: “What if you offered up free drink samples on the green? With competitive drink pricing like this, surely the bar would be a haven for those fed up with the hard alcohol ban!” Heads, however, had second thoughts about Hampton’s aggressive marketing campaign, believing that the food would sell itself; and was he right.

Before the reviewers could place their order, they were interrupted by the sound of what today’s youth refers to as a “party foul” glass shattering on the floor as a pint slipped through the hands of a local patron. However, in almost magical fashion, the mess vanished and another beer appeared in the hand of the customer as fast as one could blink. In astonishment. the trio turned to Heads, who merely winked.

There was something mysterious about the bartender, but the diners thought it best not to dig too deep. Across the bar they heard the foul’s friends chastise him: “Looks like someone’s gonna need to drive him home!” Heads was quick to respond with a jest as he had been doing all night: “Don’t worry everyone, my car has cruise control!” the restaurant erupted in laughter as Heads salvaged the mood. The crew placed their orders and waited patiently until their food arrived.

Worthmuch, craving the visceral experience of cutting up red meat after being disturbed by Litty’s vegetarian

tendencies, ordered the Robie Farm hand-cut New York strip. Hampton ordered the meat rare, however, after the first cut, he was disappointed to find the steak medium rare, a critical, yet important distinction for one judging slabs of cow meat. However, the accompanying potatoes, which were roasted with garlic and romano cheese, sent him to culinary Shangri La. The wine demi-glace complimented the meat and potatoes perfectly making for a hearty and satisfying entree. The asparagus brought the meal together. The veggies had been cooked at a high temperature as to give an almost crunchy texture on the outside doing away with the mealy attributes vegetables too often demonstrate.

Hampton had little time to speak between bites as Ekval and Gil carried the conversation throughout the main course. Gil, in his typical refined fashion, elected to tell the gang about a gruesome injury he had received in a recent pickup basketball game. When one of Gil’s younger Dartmouth opponents leaped to save a ball from going out of bounds, he retrieved the ball and hurled it straight back towards the court, hitting Gil in is nether region at point-blank range. Heads, intrigued by the story, told a about a time when he was playing shortstop without a cup and was hit in the same area by a fast moving, bouncing ground ball. Heads’ fate was worse, everybody agreed, but what sport would be the worst for getting hit in the privates (sans cup)? The group rigorously analyzed all the angles and conducted a series of mathematical calculations to argue their theories.

Mr. Worthmuch had an inkling that hockey would be an underrated option, as slapshots at high levels fire into the crease at speeds approaching 100 MPH. Gil proposed one of his favorite sports, lacrosse, where the ball travels at the same speed but is a more painful spherical shape. After much debate, Heads mentioned an alternative that quickly became the undisputed consensus answer – golf. He recounted a story of an errant line drive which had made impact with a young man’s nether regions, quickly putting an end to his dreams of having children. The trio went back to their meal, questioning the path their discussion had taken.

As the group took the last bites of their entrees, Hampton and Gil began to show signs of weariness. However, a much-inebriated Ekval Litty, who had taken pains to stay ahead of his drinking companions, insisted on ordering dessert, and of course, another round of drinks to accompany this final course.

The group dived into their chocolate mousse cake, a rich and smooth concoction topped with refreshing berries.

It was soon apparent that Six South Street could deliver a high quality meal across every course As the meal began to wind down, our heroes wondered aloud why the Dartmouth community had been so oblivious to such an incredible watering hole. Could this be the most underrated establishment in the entire town of Hanover? Indubitably so.

The Dartmouth Review

Wednesday – May 31, 2017 15

in memoriam Men of Dartmouth They were mighty men of old That she nurtured at her side; Till like Vikings they went forth From the lone and silent North, And they strove, and they wrought, and they died; But the sons of old Dartmouth, The laurelled sons of Dartmouth, The Mother keeps them in her heart And guides their altar flame; The still North remembers them, The hill-winds know their name, And the granite of New Hampshire Keeps the record of their fame; And the granite of New Hampshire Keeps the record of their fame.

Dick Hall Part of the Baker Library memorial containing a canvass fragment from his ambulence and his temporary grave marker.

Barbed Wire and an Abattis replace goals and turf on Dartmouth’s fields, allowing students to train for service in the First World War.

The Hill Winds Know Their Names

In consideration of Memorial Day, this issue is dedicated not only to the thousand members of the class of 2016 who are leaving these halls, but to those Dartmouth graduates who can never return to them. In its early days, The Dartmouth Review printed a Memorial Day list of those laureled sons of Dartmouth who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in its hour of need. Unfortunately, the College stopped keeping track of these names after the Second World War, likely because more Dartmouth men gave their lives in that war (301) than graduated in the average war-time class. While “Men of Dartmouth” implies that “the granite of New Hampshire keeps the record of their fame,” there is no current list of those Dartmouth students and alumni who fell in combat. All those who perished in the Iraq Wars and the War on Terror do not appear in available lists, and neither do those who died in the wars before the American Civil War. In lieu of a list that honors all of the Dartmouth fallen, The Review presents these images as meager tribute to those “mighty men of old.” The granite may be worn smooth, but the hill winds still known their names.

V-E Day President Hopkins prepapres to adress the student body on the historic occasion.

16 Wednesday – may 31, 2017

The Dartmouth Review

The Last word Gordon Haff’s

Compiled By sandor farkas

“What rules the world is ideas, because ideas define the way reality is perceived.”

-Irving Kristol “Women’s liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible. By defining relations between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.”

-Ruth Wisse “I believe that the will of the people is resolved by a strong leadership. Even in a democratic society, events depend on a strong leadership with a strong power of persuasion, and not on the opinion of the masses.”

-Yitzhak Shamir “I still believe in man in spite of man. I believe in language even though it has been wounded, deformed, and perverted by the enemies of mankind. And I continue to cling to words because it is up to us to transform them into instruments of comprehension rather than contempt.

It is up to us to choose whether we wish to use them to curse or to heal, to wound or to console.”

-Elie Wiesel “Tell them three things in my name, and not two: they must get iron; they must choose a king; and they must learn to laugh.”

-Ze’ev Jabotinsky

“Vox clamantis in deserto parate viam Domini rectas facite in solitudine semitas Dei nostril.”

–Isaiah 40:3 “‫ּוצְרִּת םִא‬, ‫הָדָגַא ֹוז ןיֵא‬.”

–‫לֵצְרֶה בֵאְז ןיִמָיְנִּב‬‎

“τοῖς μὲν οὖν τότε, ἅτε οὐκ οὖσι σοφοῖς ὥσπερ ὑμεῖς οἱ νέοι, ἀπέχρη δρυὸς καὶ πέτρας ἀκούειν ὑπ᾽ εὐηθείας, εἰ μόνον ἀληθῆ λέγοιεν: σοὶ δ᾽ ἴσως διαφέρει τίς ὁ λέγων καὶ ποδαπός.”

–Πλάτων “When we lack the will to see things as they really are, there is nothing so mystifying as the obvious.”

–Irving Kristol “Imagination is not something apart and hermetic, not a way of leaving reality behind; it is a way of engaging reality.”

–Irving Howe “[Liberalism] is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other.”

–Irving Kristol “The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.”

–Ayn Rand “A people’s memory is history; and as a man without a memory, so a people without a history cannot grow wiser, better.”

–I. L. Peretz

BArrett’s mixology

“Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles.

We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.”

-Menachem Begin “If you don’t know, the thing to do is not to get scared, but to learn.”

-Ayn Rand “A neoconservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality. A neoliberal is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality but has refused to press charges.”

-Irving Kristol “This is an ugly and mean world, and only to spite it we mustn’t weep. If you want to know, this is the constant source of my good spirit, of my humor. Not to cry, out of spite, only to laugh out of spite, only to laugh.”

-Sholom Eleichem “He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative.”

-G. K. Chesterton “No more wars, no more bloodshed. Peace unto you.

Shalom, salaam, forever.”

-Menachem Begin

Advertisement

Dear Old EBAs Ingredients

• ’79 Chateau Cheval Blanc • 38 bottles of Keystone on the wall • Alumni tears and mozzarella cheese to rim the glass • Capitalism and anchovies to taste

Dear old Dartmouth, give a rouse For the restaurant on main, For the drunks in her booths And the loyal ones who love her.

Give a tip, give a tip with a will!

For the sons of old Dartmouth, For the daughters of Dartmouth.

Though ‘round the Menu their eyes roam, Her Chicken Sandwich remains.

They have the hunger in their stomachs, The cheap beer in their veins, And to her we took for granted In her stalwart, 2:30am delivery.

And to her we took for granted, In her stalwart 2:30am delivery.

Dear old Dartmouth, set a watch, You let old traditions fail.

Stand as sister stands by local business.

Dare a feed from the old mother.

Eat the pizza from the dorms with a hail!

For the sons of old Dartmouth, For the daughters of Dartmouth, Around the campus they took from her Their old undying brand loyalty.

They have the Domino’s in their phones The s--t pizza in their breath, And the strength of EBA’s Has been taken away from them by death.

Oh the Domino’s fall; the centre cannot hold.

By in large, how much there is to scold.

— Scotch Cara