An Ode To Reason (8.13.18)

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

Vol u m e 3 8 , Issue 6

A ug us t 1 3 , 2 0 1 8

AN ODE TO REASON

DARTMOUTH DEMS The booth for the Dartmouth Dems at the “non-political” Dartmouth Cares event.

Dartmouth Cares: A Philanthropic Failure Scotch Cara Contributor

On the Saturday of Sophomore Family Weekend, Chi Delta—a local sorority— hosted a “rally against family separation” called “Dartmouth Cares” on Gold Coast Lawn. The event was sponsored by the Greek Leadership Council and had participation in the form of fundraising booths from numerous Greek Houses and Non-Greek Organizations.

The individuals running Dartmouth Cares wanted to stress that the event was not meant to be explicitly political and was merely designed to raise money for a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization called RAICES— The Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services.

It is at this point that the

> EDITORIAL PAGE 3

Review would like to make a few things abundantly clear.

First, we would like to go on record publicly condemning family separation.

Conservative values are family values, and we believe that no child should be separated from their parents unless those parents threaten the child’s safety. Second, we believe that private donations to causes that individuals wish to support are undoubtedly important. Philanthropy and charity are essential actions for helping society. Everyone should be free to use their money how they wish and be encouraged to use some of it to make a real difference.

Finally, while one can put partisanship aside to solve a humanitarian crisis, it is absurd to consider something inextricably tied to policy a

“non-political issue.”

Dartmouth Cares had fine intentions. But intentions do not always translate to practice. There are a few main categories of problems associated with the event.

First, there were budgetary problems in allocating funds for the event and unrealistic planning about how much the event would earn. Second, there were logistics related concerns such as a lack of communication about the purpose of the event and poor outreach to campus.

Third, for a “non-political” event, Dartmouth Cares was most certainly political. None of these problems undermine the money that Dartmouth Cares raised for the event. But all of these problems speak to a bigger dilemma about oncampus activism.

Dealing with money is hard.

Estimating how much money you expect to earn is also hard. In the first meeting for Dartmouth Cares, organizations were asked to state how much they expected to raise. This is normally a good technique for estimating income and determining a budget that you can use to help fund certain booths. One organization declared that they would raise $800. They only managed to earn just shy of $400. Another organization declared that they would raise $250 and only managed to raise approximately $50. For this latter organization, the amount raised was estimated based on a small mason jar filled with tickets representing $1.

> FEATURES PAGE 6

Scotch Cara

Bon-Fired Philip R. Swanson Contributor

For generations, the Homecoming Bonfire has been a staple of the Dartmouth experience. The blaze towering over the Green is a familiar sight to members of the Dartmouth community new and old. Classes of years past come from around the globe to celebrate the college on the hill and welcome yet another class into the evergrowing family. However, the bonfire had a deeper meaning than simply a welcoming ceremony. It was a fleeting moment every year when members of the Dartmouth family from every creed, class, color and background could all gather to celebrate something they all had in common, Dartmouth. But as many of the traditions that have been central to the Dartmouth experience come under fire, the bonfire seems to be no exception.

In recent years, restrictions

have changed the event to the point where it is largely unrecognizable compared to years past. Each of these new regulations has been made I the name of “safety,” but at some point, one must wonder if this has become merely an excuse, conscious or otherwise, to slowly work towards extinguishing the flames forever. The building controversy around the bonfire seems, in many ways to be a string of miscommunications and unintended consequences.

Regardless, the Homecoming bonfire is a centerpiece of any wide-eyed freshman’s Dartmouth experience and is a vital part of the community that must not be diminished.

The Bonfire used to be almost entirely constructed by students, creating a competition between classes as to who could build the largest, most impressive fire.

> FEATURES PAGE 8

A LEARNING OPPORTUNITY

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

KIRK-LAND SIGNATURE

Editor-in-Chief Devon M. Kurtz issues a callto-teach for conservative intellectuals.

The Review reports on Dartmouth’s plan to spend $3 billion.

Devon M. Kurtz condemns the bottomshelf tactics of Turning Point USA.

> EDITORIAL PAGE 3

> FEATURES PAGE 11

> FEATURES PAGE 10

2 Monday – August 13, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STUDENTS

WRITE

WORK

For thirty-five years, The Dartmouth Review has been the College’s only independent newspaper and the only student opinion journal that matters. It is the oldest and most renowned campus commentary publication in the nation and spawned a national movement at the likes of Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and countless others. Our staff members and alumni have won many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, and have been published in the Boston Globe, New York Times, National Review, American Spectator, Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, Village Voice, New Criterion, and many others.

The Review aims to provide a voice for any student who enjoys challenging brittle and orthodox thinking. We stand for free speech, student rights, and the liberating arts. Whatever your political leanings, we invite you to come steep yourself in campus culture and politics, Dartmouth lore, keen witticisms, and the fun that comes with writing for an audience of thousands. We’re looking for writers, photographers, cartoonists, aspiring business managers, graphic designers, web maestros, and anyone else who wants to learn from Dartmouth’s unofficial school of journalism.

PONTIFICATE

CONSERVATIVE

SAFE space

“Because every student deserves a safe space”

– Inge-Lise Ameer, Former Vice Provost for Student Affairs

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

INSIDE THE ISSUE An Exposé on Dartmouth Cares........................................Page 1

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

The Last Flicker of the Bonfire...........................................Page 1 Editorial: A Learning Opportunity....................................Page 3 Every Vote Counts............................................................Page 9 Failed Strategies: TPUSA...................................................Page 10 An Update on Dartmouth’s “Call to Lead” ....................Page 11 College Concludes Investigation......................................Page 11

PRESIDENT HANLON READS THE REVIEW 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

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – August 13, 2018

3

MASTHEAD & EDITORIAL EST. 1980 EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief Devon M. Kurtz

Executive Editor William G. Jelsma

Managing Editor Daniel M. Bring

Tech Editor Erik R. Jones

Associate Editor Eashwar N. Sivarajan

BUSINESS STAFF President

Jason B. Ceto

Vice President Jake G. Philhower

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 Thank you to Scotch Cara and Philip R. Swanson. Although they only write under pseudonym, they both put in commendable effort to this issue. It could not have been successful without them.

Special thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr. “He thinks ‘Gold Digger’ is a generational masterpiece.”

“I think he just likes to say the N-word.”

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

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

Please direct all complaints to: editor@thedartmouth.com

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

—Theodore Roosevelt

EDITORIAL

A Learning Opportunity “You are sieging Troy, and you have no Trojan pay notoriously low wages, but education majors— horse.” which many public-school districts prefer over I once said this to a group of conservative strate- specialized majors— are among the lowest scorers gists who asked me for my opinion, as a conservative in terms of GPA and standardized tests. Securing student at a “left-leaning” elite institution, on how to university professorships not only takes more than “take back college campuses.” As I have made abun- a decade of higher education, but the job market for dantly clear in all of my writings on this subject, I those positions is also one of the most competitive do not believe conservative and over-saturated. Even at students face any significant Dartmouth, where conseradversity on college camvative students could have a puses. I am, however, deeply competitive edge in securing disturbed by the direction jobs in academia compared that the American educato lower tier university stution system is headed. I have dents, when given the option heard conservative strategists between a six-year PhD profirsthand question whether gram and a job in finance, or not youth are a worthDartmouth’s conservatives while investment for conseroverwhelmingly pick the vatives. Young people are the latter. So, what, then, can be lifeblood of any movement, done? and yet, conservatives have With regard to K–12 edalmost no infrastructure in ucation, conservatives must place to ensure that students join their liberal counterparts Devon M. Kurtz engage with conservative in a comprehensive re-evaluphilosophy at all. This is not to suggest indoctrina- ation of education standards, the socio-cultural position— I am quite confident that conservative ideals, tion of teachers in society, and the pedagogical trainwhen framed as acceptable ideological options, will ing of educators. While conservatives have initiated prevail in the free market of ideas. But even if our goal a righteous move in returning educational decision was indoctrination, we would be utterly incapable of making to local governments, they have not made it. Education, as we all know, has come to be domi- any attempt to heighten the importance of educanated by the Left. So, the question, as I was asked, is tion or critically evaluate what the goals of education how do we even the playing field? should be.

To me the answer is quite obvious— students The conservative movement has been relucneed conservative professors. At most elite institu- tant to encourage or support conservative students tions, less than 10% of faculty identify as conserva- to seek graduate degrees that would lead them to tive, and the statistics are not much more favorable academia, even though there are countless scholat most universities nationwide. Perhaps even worse, arships for politically active conservative students K–12 education is also deficient of conservative interested in law, foreign service, and public policy. teachers. It is perfectly possible, and even likely, for a For those organizations that do support non-prostudent in America today to go through seventeen fessional academic pursuits, they primarily focus years of education without having a single conser- on political economy, government, and economics. vative instructor. The fatal flaw of the conservative For conservative students who desire a degree in the movement’s strategy to attract youth is that it is humanities—a cohort that is vastly underrepresentmaking no concerted effort to “take back” academia ed— there is minimal support available from conwith an influx of well-educated, deeply intellectual servative organizations. Conservatives have fought conservative pedagogues. Moreover, there has been against the founding of “identity” departments like more effort spent in abandoning the college “battle- Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies— departground” altogether by actively discouraging college ments and areas of academic discourse that are not attendance for young people. It is undeniable that disappearing anytime soon— instead of supporting this academic crisis is jeopardizing the future of the conservative students in becoming experts in those conservative movement. fields. The conservative condemnation of these But where are these conservative professors? “identity studies” departments is ineffective and out Are they being blocked out by liberal institutions? of touch. Instead, conservatives ought to abandon While it is possible that there is some institutional their condescension and meaningfully, honestly, and bias, there is not much research that suggests the rigorously engage with these fields of study. conservatives are systematically being turned away Organizational financial support would certainly by academia. Rather, there is much research that make graduate studies more enticing, but money suggests the opposite: conservatives have turned alone is not enough. Once that support is in place, acaway from academia. At conference after conference tive recruitment must be the next step. Both the Left of conservative student activists, I have asked the and the Right have adopted the practice of recruiting, question, “Who else wants to be a professor?” Only training, and grooming viable candidates for political a few hands, if any, go up. Finance, consulting, law, positions. The same must be done for finding conmedicine, engineering, military service, and busi- servative students that show potential for academic ness— these are the paths that attract conservatives. pursuits. Not only will this help reinforce academia I find it fascinating— concerning, but fascinating— as a realistic option for young conservatives, but it that more conservatives would rather sell insurance will also legitimize the crucial, but currently waning, policies than teach America’s youth. place of intellectuals and academics in the conservaThere are certainly economic answers to some of tive movement. This revitalization of fierce, conserthe questions concerning America’s lack of conser- vative intellectualism is imperative— conservatives vative teachers. Jobs in K–12 education do not only must initiate a call to teach.

4 Monday –August 13, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

SUMMER IN REVIEW DEMOCRATS HOLD IMMIGRATION RALLY ON THE GREEN, 2750 MILES FROM THE SOUTHERN BORDER On Saturday June 30th, activists and protestors from the Hanover Town Democrats and the Dartmouth C ollege Democrats filled the Green to hold a demonstration about the U.S.’s immigration crisis. The C ollege Democrats announced the protest in a timely email to campus at 1:11 PM, stating that the time of the protest would be Noon. The crowd formed on the south end of the Green, consisting of mostly residents of the Upper Valley along with some Dartmouth students.

Demonstrators formed a circle around a space cleared for individuals to voice their concerns about the situation on the U.S.’s southern border.

Most protestors seemed outraged with the “family separation polic y,” calling for it to end immediately (something that President Trump did halt with an executive order on June 20th). Many of those in attendance held signs criticizing President Trump, the government, and ICE. A few of these signs read: “No Baby Jails,” “Keep families together,” and “Abolish ICE Abolish B orders.”

One speaker at the rally made a point to suggest that “concentration camps in militar y bases on the border” were in the near future. The allusions to Nazi Germany were quite clear and blatant, with one protestor in front of the Hanover in screaming “ There’s Nazis in the White House, your children are in danger.” While it has been three years since President Trump announced his candidac y, the tactics employed by anti-Trump activists have not changed since then. With midterm elections this autumn, it will soon be clear whether or not the decision by the “resistance” to keep the same tactics will prove to be effective.

ALEX AZAR ‘88 CRITICIZED FOR ATTENDING CLASS REUNION S ecretar y of Health and Human S er vices Alex Azar ‘88 came under fire by MSNB C’s R achel Maddow earlier this summer. S ecretar y Azar, whose department is overseeing the wellbeing

of children separated from their parents at the U.S.’s southern border, spent a quaint Saturday in Hanover catching up with his classmates. While it makes perfect sense for a busy, assuredly exhausted, public ser vant to spend his weekend however he sees fit, Maddow condemned Azar for not spending his weekend in Texas solving the crisis in-person himself. Azar did not comment on the matter, but he was seen chatting at his fraternity for a couple of hours, before departing, most likely to go back to Washington, where the “separation crisis” could actually be “solved.” After Maddow’s immature hit-piece aired, some Dartmouth students called for Azar to be banned from reunions and from campus, while others wondered why they hadn’t been warned of his presence on campus. It is worth noting that reunions occur during the interim period between Spring and Summer term, when few students are even on campus.

With no action taken by the C ollege, and a loss of interest on the parts of Maddow, Dartmouth students, and the general public on a matter that really concerned none of them, the incident simply faded away. But this incident ought to raise eyebrows among concerned alumni. Must alumni wishing to go to their reunions consider public opinion before attending? Will they be banned from attending if their actions in their professional life are not in accordance with the views of the loudest voices on campus? Azar will by no means be the last alumnus that radical leftist students tr y to banish from the C ollege that they do not even have degrees from yet.

DAVID SHULA ‘81 RETURNS AS BIG GREEN’S WIDE RECEIVER COACH Few Dartmouth assistant head coach hires make news outside of the Upper Valley, but this season the Big Green has an addition to the coaching staff that is quite noteworthy. Former NFL Head C oach David Shula ’81 had a difficult tenure with the Cincinnati B engals, with a record of 19-52 during his 5-year stint with the team. David had a short career in the NFL as a player playing for the Baltimore C olts for one year in 1981 prior to being hired by his father, Don Shula, as the Wide Receivers coach of the Miami Dolphins in 1982. Don Shula is a hall of

fame, two-time Super B owl winning head coach, but the Dolphins were unable to win either of the two Super B owls they appeared in during Dave Shula’s tenure as an assistant coach. He was hired

by Hall of Fame Head C oach Jimmy Johnson to be the Offensive C oordinator of the Dallas C owboys in 1989 and held that position for two years before he left for an assistant coaching position with the B engals. After being fired following a 1-6 start to the season in 1996, Shula stepped away from coaching for over 20 years.

Now Shula is back on the football field for the first time in this millennium, coaching the Big Green’s wide recievers. With a deep receiving core that features Hunter Hagdorn ’20, who was the Iv y League Rookie of the Year his freshman year and second team All-Iv y League in his 2017 campaign, Shula looks poised to help put the Big Green offense over the top in 2018. After falling just short of the Iv y League title last year with an 8-2 record, the Big Green is hungr y for more. Dartmouth was able to hand the eventual champion, the Yale University Bulldogs, their only loss of the season during homecoming last year. However, for the Big Green to win an outright title in their 2018 campaign, they need to take a big step for ward. Loosing quarterback Jack Heneghan ’18 will be a tough loss for Dartmouth, but hopefully Shula’s wide receiving core will provide plenty of options for Heneghan’s replacement.

COLLEGE CREATES REFUGEE CAMP FOR STUDENTS DURING HEAT WAVE Twice this summer, Dartmouth administrators sent out emails to campus warning of week-long extreme heat. Since temporar y air conditioning units are forbidden in C ollege dorms, Dartmouth created a make-shift refugee camp for students tr ying to escape from the oppressive temperatures, offering students cots on a “first-come first-ser ved basis” in Sarner Underground. The email itself lacked any attempt at hospitality, ordering students to “plan to return to your room first thing the next morning” and declaring the space a “for sleeping only.”

Undoubtedly, this was a considerate offer from the C ollege, albeit completely embarrassing for such a wealthy and elite institution. While certainly some students cannot afford air condi-

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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

The Dartmouth Review

tioners, many students felt perfectly comfortable purchasing their own, if only the C ollege would permit them to. But with the C ollege saving up $3 billion for its “Call to Lead,” apparently times are tough for the school with one of the highest per-student endowments in the countr y. While the purse strings tighten, Iv y League students will continue to be reconcentrated, through the scorching heat, from their dorms to their designated cooling areas each summer, only to be tossed back out into the elements at the break of dawn.

Chi Delt and the Dartmouth Dems are yet to issue statements condemning the C ollege for separating sorority sisters who have medical approval for air conditioners from those who are forced to seek refuge in Sarner.

NEAL KATYAL ‘91 COMMENTS ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Neal Katyal ‘91, a former acting US S olicitor General who argued against the Trump administration’s travel ban earlier this year, appeared on campus for a speaking engagement at the Rockefeller C enter for Public Polic y this summer. In his first public remarks since the 5-4 decision which upheld the President’s travel ban, Katyal made it clear that he believes the supreme court got this narrow decision wrong by overlooking strong evidence that this was in fact a “Muslim ban.” Of the 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world, this ban put a temporar y pause on immigration from 6 Muslim-majority countries as well as north Korea and Venezuela. Katyal was also quick to make quite radical comparisons of this case to Korematsu v. United States, a case which upheld the Internment of 127,000 Japanese-Americans across the countr y during World War 2. Though a pause on immigration may seem ver y different than a race based imprisonment that resulted in nearly 2,000 deaths to most people, Katyal is certain that the Supreme C ourt was on the wrong side of histor y in Trump v. Hawaii, stating that the case was “Kormatsu with another name.”

In other news Katyal, took to a more partisan position during another part of his talk, discussing the shifting of power within the Supreme C ourt over the past few years. Katyal made it clear that the Democrats rightly should feel cheated out of a supreme court seat when Republicans refused to even hold senate hearings for Justice Antoin S calia’s proposed replacement, Merrick Garland. B ecause the Republicans in the S enate refused to hold a hearing for a judge that they would not confirm regardless, Katyal believes that the Democrats have the right to pack the court the next time they hold power in both the executive and legislative branches. This move would be the first of its kind since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s failed attempt to expand the Supreme C ourt to 15 justices in 1937. Though the left leaning centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy is to be replaced by a center right leaning candidate Brett Kavanaugh pending a vote this fall, Katyal seems to believe that the republicans ought to pay a political price for using their majority power that Democratic S enator Harr y Reid created in 2013. With his “filibuster reform” to reduce the number of votes required to confirm Obama court appointments from 60 to a simple majority of 51, Reid and the Democrats seem to be getting a taste of their own medicine. However, Katyal suddenly seems to believe the left has the right to pack the courts because Republicans made the radical choice to follow the rules and precedent created by the Democratic party.

Monday – August 13, 2018

CARTOON

“Every Wednesday the Green looks like a refugee camp!”

“Dude, that’s just the farmer’s market...”

CARTOON

“Yeah, that guy was a Marxist until he got an internship offer from Goldman.”

CARTOON

“Oooo, are you the guy detaining those kids at the border?”

5

6 Monday – August 13, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

An Exposé on Dartmouth Cares > CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Both of these organizations should be proud to have raised the money that they did. However, Dartmouth Cares should have been realistic about the number of individuals that they expected to attend the event and the amount of money each of those people were going to donate.

The grave overestimation on how much money each booth was expected to raise caused separate budgetary problems for the Greek Leadership Council. Because running these booths would prove to be a budgetary strain for certain Greek organizations, the Greek Leadership Council offered funding for groups to build the booths. The organization that raised approximately $50 was allocated $125 to build the booth. Thankfully, the organization only used around a third of that money. There are numerous problems here. Although the entire sum of approximately $50 likely did go to RAICES, it is absurd that the booth was allocated $125.

The Greek Leadership Council receives its funding from the Undergraduate Finance Council— an organization that funds numerous other organizations such as the Council on Student Organizations, the Dartmouth Outing Club, and the Special Programs Events Council. Each organization is given a budget at for the entire year that begins during the summer term and ends in the Spring term.

Funding is allocated based on the previous year’s budget and expenditure and a presentation to the students who serve on the Undergraduate Finance Council. By allocating an unnecessary number of funds to Dartmouth Cares, the Greek Leadership Council can potentially use this event to boost their budget for the next year.

Even if this does not occur, it was most certainly a ridiculous allocation of funds as no booth at a college philanthropy activity costs $125 to make. Especially when that booth only ends up making $50. It is very likely the case that the rest of the $125 went back to the Greek Leadership Council for them to use for a different charitable event or Greek-related activity. But either way— allocating $125 to begin with was a somewhat ridiculous mistake. Especially when it could have been avoided by having the organization present a budget to them ahead of time. This is a common practice for organizations presenting to the Council on Student Organizations and the Special Programs Events Council. It is most certainly not a common practice for funding organizations to give a group money that they do not need.

At the entrance to the event, the organizers for Dartmouth Cares collected money in the form of cash or DASH (a reloadable balance for stu-

dents) and exchanged the money for an equivalent amount in tickets. These tickets were color coded, but many people working the booths did not have a clear idea on how much money each ticket represented as there was no public sign or e-mail sent out to the volunteers telling them what the color-coded system meant. Because the organizers were selling tickets at the entrance to the event, it is likely the case that they know the exact amount that all of the booths raised combined.

But it is unclear whether anyone knows the breakdown of what each booth raised. This proposal was substantiated with numbers from another booth that estimates that it raised

zation on campus called Dartmouth Cares— it’s a component of the Counseling Center committed to mental health awareness, crisis intervention, and suicide prevention. Once the organizers found this out, they did not bother to change their name or issue a retraction as is customary for student organizations that have poorly named their events. Furthermore, this caused a name recognition and marketing issue for the event. If someone were to search “Dartmouth Cares” on the Internet or in their e-mail, the Counseling Center’s website or e-mails come up.

Another dilemma with this name was that it misrepresents the event—

“The organization that raised approximately $50 was allocated $125 to build the booth.” around $60, but does not know the exact amount, as the organizers never released official numbers. Obviously, this lack of transparency is extraordinarily troubling.

The bottom line on the money issue is that Dartmouth Cares did raise a fair amount of money for RAICES. By our estimates, a conservative estimate for how much the event raised was at least $800. Perhaps that money will even go towards helping separated families rather than overhead costs for an expanding legal organization. But by no means does solely the money made define on-campus activism.

Advocacy of any sort must be backed up by grit and good intentions. Oftentimes these intentions are illustrated with a statement of purpose or at least widely communicated to the general public. Unfortunately, the second main category of problems with Dartmouth Cares was that it had very poor communication.

The first type of communication problem that occurred with Dartmouth Cares was in the naming of the event. There is already an organi-

by no means was this a Dartmouth sponsored event. It was an event created by a single sorority with individual booths from other Greek and nonGreek organizations. Multiple Greek houses were not even represented by the event. To declare that this is “Dartmouth Cares” rather than “Chi Delta Cares” or “Most of Dartmouth Cares” co-opts the institution of Dartmouth for the purpose of adding prestige to the event.

The second communication problem that occurred was likely more of a broad, logistics related difficulty. There was confusion regarding how the booths would work, whether or not booths would be approved, and which organizations were actually participating in the event. By the final organizational meeting on July 26th, the organizers still had not fully figured out how the ticket system would work.

In an official e-mail sent out to the people running the booths, the different activities that each booth had were listed to prevent overlap. One booth was listed as having water pong and face painting as dual activities. This

booth was seen with a pong table at the beginning of the event. By the end of the event, there was no pong being played and there were rumors that the water pong was not allowed at the event. It did not appear as though this was communicated to the booth leaders prior to the event even though all of the booth ideas had to be approved by the event organizers. Another booth closed down almost an hour and a half prior to the end of the event.

Within two weeks of the event, at least three organizations pulled out of the event because of issues such as unclear communication and understanding about the nature of both the event and RAICES. The third communication problem that occurred with Dartmouth Cares is a very basic one. There were only a few posters around campus— most of them were on the columns in the Library by Novack. There were no posters in the student center and barely any posters scattered around campus in academic buildings or in dorms.

Or, if there were, no members of the Review saw them. The organizers did have the event put on the official calendar for Sophomore Year Family Weekend, but it is not clear how many people that attracted, as there were eight other events on the calendar that overlapped with the time slot for Dartmouth Cares.

There were only two e-mails sent out to campus on the Campus Events listserv. One of them was sent on July 17th, 2018 at 2:43pm and barely contained any information at all about the event. This is what it said: “Hello 18Xers!!!!

This Parents Weekend, on July 28th, Chi Delta, with the support of student organizations across campus, will be hosting a fundraiser/rally against family separation on gold coast lawn. There will be state senators, professors, etc. speaking at this event!

BUT.......We need VOLUN-

“It looked almost like a partial schedule for a sports team from 2016.

Here’s a screenshot of the second tab of the sign-up sheet:”

TEERS!!! if you are not already volunteering through a greek house or student organization, please sign up here!

Additionally, if you are interested in speaking on the crisis at the event please blitz [NAME REDACTED] ([E-MAIL REDACTED)” There was a link for people to sign up, but there was no detailed information saying how the event would run, where the money that was raised would be going to, or an official graphic or poster. The sign-up was also confusing as some members of Greek organizations emailed the organizers asking whether they would be able to volunteer and were sent the sign up sheet for non-Greek and non-Student Organization participants. The sign-up sheet itself was also incredibly unclear. The first tab where volunteers were to sign-up was labeled “Roster.”

The second tab on the sheet was labeled “Schedule” and contained information completely unrelated to the event. It looked almost like a partial schedule for a sports team from 2016.

We would have also included the first tab of the sign-up sheet as well, but it contained the first and last names, phone numbers, and e-mails of five Dartmouth Students. This private information should not have been made easily available to anyone who had access to the campus-events listserv—something all of Dartmouth’s thousands of students are immediately subscribed to upon getting a Dartmouth e-mail address. It would have been wise for the organizers to keep privacy in mind and instead send out the link to a Google Form that only a select number of people could access.

The second e-mail out to campus occurred on Friday, July 27th at 2:39pm— less than 24 hours before the start of the event. It stated, “Come for good food, incredible speakers, lawn games and more. Help us help the families separated at the border. All funds will go to RAICES.” Attached to this e-mail was an official poster that contained the name of the event,

DARTMOUTH CARES SIGN-UP SHEET The product of a combination of sloppiness, laziness, and incompetence.

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

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – August 13, 2018

7

FEATURES declared it a “rally against family separation,” the date and time of the event, and the location of the event.

As customary for sponsored events, it also contained the fact that the Greek Leadership Council sponsored the event.

The organizers of the event urged participating organizations to send out an e-mail to campus advertising the event with a poster. Although the final e-mail sent out to campus contained a poster calling the event a “rally,” the final informational meeting for groups hosting booths on July 26th urged those groups to send e-mails out to campus that used the word “fundraiser” to describe the event. It appears as though the wrong graphic was sent out to campus. At the very least, this is indicative of poor internal communication. This second poster also omitted the fact that the Greek Leadership Council sponsored the event for an unknown reason.

It is also worth noting that Saturday, July 28th did not fall on “parent’s weekend” as there is no event at Dartmouth called “parent’s weekend.” The name of the weekend as stated previously was “Sophomore Family Weekend.” This was not a major issue with the event, but it is fairly lazy— especially considering that a second poster was created prior to the event.

Another example of poor internal communication occurred during the final organizational meeting on July 26th. The person running point on the event was approximately 30 to 40 minutes late for his or her own meeting. Perhaps they had a legitimate conflict or an emergency, but this is undoubtedly unprofessional. None of the other people leading the meeting could answer basic questions about the event or give any detailed information about the event. One might say that this is simply a fluke— of course the organization running the event would have compiled a document of information or have more than one person know about event logistics.

With Dartmouth Cares, this may not have been the case.

At the event itself, the person running point on the event was overheard answering the question of “[NAME REDACTED], are you running this event alone or with some group?” with a flippant “It’s just me” before explaining that there was, in fact, an entire sorority and multiple other houses participating in the event. This may have very well been a joke. But it is most certainly unprofessional.

To go back briefly to the problems of the final organizational meeting— once the meeting got started, the organizers of the event emphasized a list of odd, seemingly irrelevant rules and intentions for the event. The members of Greek houses who would be working the booths for their Greek organizations were told that they were not to wear any clothes with their Greek letters on it or identifying them with their house even though the booths were allowed to be identified by the Greek organization that they belonged to. When asked why, the event organizers stressed that they wanted to be “inclusive” of the non-Greek booths working the event. Volunteers were Ms. Cara is a sophmore at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

encouraged to wear the color green or Dartmouth shirts but were explicitly told not to wear a Green Tie-Dye shirt. This would encourage “a nice aesthetic” for the event. After explaining the aesthetic value of required clothing choices, the organizers went on to emphasize that there would be a wonderful playlist for the event so that the music would once again contribute to the aesthetic of the event.

I can hardly believe I even need to write this, but— a fundraiser should care more about making money than having “a nice aesthetic.” Furthermore, telling a group of people to not wear Greek letters because it would make another group feel bad is absurd by itself. It’s downright hypocritical when the volunteers at an unnamed non-Greek organization’s booth at the event were all wearing matching t-shirts very clearly identifying them with their organization.

This t-shirt dilemma— although objectively very unimportant to the event itself— speaks once again towards the lack of clarity about the event. The Statement of Purpose released by Chi Delta to the volunteers for the event read as followed: “Dartmouth Cares” was born

POSTERS FOR DARTMOUTH CARES An ever-changing narrative. vulnerable. “ Briefly ignoring the number of grammatical errors in this statement of purpose— not all of the statement is relevant to this particular point about the lack of clarity of the event, but interwoven throughout are comments that specifically mention the Greek community. This event’s stated purpose was to make the “Greek system more impactful,” and in the implementation of the event Greek

raiser” on a poster— does not change the event itself.

At the event itself, there was a table devoted to Democrats. There was a full-sized poster draping the entire front of the table with a Democratic donkey on it. There were posters and pamphlets detailing Democrats to vote for in upcoming elections and volunteers at the booth were seen handing them to people at the event telling them that the pamphlets were

“Dartmouth Cares had the gall to market an event with what were essentially multiple rallies for Democrats as a non-political event... the decision to market the event hypocritically cannot be written off as an ignorant one— Dartmouth students ought to be and are definitely smarter than that.” in the chapter room of Chi Delta.

During the first sisterhood meeting of the summer, the Chi Delta Class of 2020 brainstormed how we could make the Greek system more impactful. One of our sisters suggested that we organize a Greek-house-wide fundraiser for families separated at the border. Our President, [NAME REDACTED], presented this idea to the Presidents of all the Greek houses, and after receiving positive responses, the inclusivity team of Chi Delta started planning for the event that is now Dartmouth Cares.

Chi Delta is a diverse, inclusive sisterhood that believes firmly in the importance of human rights. The indefinite and sometimes permanent separation of migrant children from their family is a clear violation of these human rights. While we understand that immigration is a heavily politicized issue, Dartmouth Cares is not a partisan event. We are raising money for a nonprofit called RAICES, which provides free and low-cost legal services to underserved immigrant children, families and refugees in Texas.

RAICES is an incredible and unique organization — in 2017, they closed 51,000 cases at no cost to their clients. Specifically, we will be donating to RAICES’ Families Together Fund, which funds RAICES’ efforts to keep families together as they navigate the U.S. immigration system.

As a sisterhood, Chi Delta deeply thanks the Greek houses who are supporting this event for expanding its potential far past what we could accomplish alone. We also owe great thanks to the GLC for their sponsorship and organizational help. As a community, Dartmouth Care will help us recognize the Greek system’s enormous capacity to make amazing, impactful change in the lives of the

organizations were told that they were not to wear letters identifying their membership. At the very least, this is a mixed message about the purpose and intention of the event.

This statement of purpose also offers good evidence for the final category of problems with Dartmouth Cares— it attempted to market itself as an event that was not explicitly political.

The definition of political is “relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.” It is true that not all issues should be politicized. But it is utterly impossible and blatantly ignorant to try and make a political issue not political. Immigration issues are political. Child separation is political.

Money going to RAICES to help pay for legal fees in a criminal justice system governed by the laws of the United States is most certainly political.

Dartmouth Cares was, by definition, political.

Political does not mean partisan.

Dartmouth Cares did not have to be partisan. But it was.

One unnamed Greek organization proposed having a booth where individuals could write letters to their representatives to express their personal opinions about the crisis. Their booth was not approved as the organizers were trying not to make the event explicitly political.

In response to an e-mail from a Greek House that pulled out of the event that stated that they were uncomfortable participating in the event because they were not “fully aware of the extent to which the event and the receiving charity are politicized,” the organizers of the event essentially changed their marketing. Changing the marketing for the event— declaring that it is not explicitly political and changing the word “rally” to “fund-

there to “tell [them] who to vote for in November!” The organizers for the event saw this happening and their only move was to give the booth a jar to collect tickets for the booth to sell buttons that had the Statue of Liberty on it and a small child.

Although somewhat shocking, I will give the Democrats credit. They were overheard having a conversation in which they called the event political and at one point during the conversation asked whether the Dartmouth College Republicans had considered having a booth.

A booth is one thing— people can choose whether or not to give their money to it or even whether to interact with it. However, on top of this blatantly political booth, there were also blatantly political speeches given by politicians.

To give just one example— Martha Hennessey, a Democratic New Hampshire State Senator, spoke at the event. She opened up her speech by framing the issue of how Democrats and Republicans consider the issue of immigration. She declared that Republicans approach the issue from an un-emotional and fact driven perspective while Democrats view the issue from a more humanitarian and emotional perspective. While that by itself is still partisan but fine, she then went on to snidely proclaim that she didn’t see how Republicans could not be emotional about the issue. Immediately following this, she stated that she was a Democrat. Furthermore, she ended her speech by first claiming she was no expert on immigration policy and then immediately proposing a list of policy changes she would advocate for in the New Hampshire Senate. Here’s a short list of problems with this speech: 1. She literally just said that

she wasn’t an expert on immigration policy before proposing a number of policy solutions.

2.

The New Hampshire State Senate has absolutely no control over national immigration policy or anything regarding family separation.

3. This end of her speech very much seemed like a campaign speech… at a “non-political, non-partisan” event.

4.

Declaring that there are differences between the way Democrats and Republicans approach an issue imposes partisanship into the speech and the event.

5. The organizers for Dartmouth Cares clapped and cheered at the end of the speech— seemingly not recognizing any problem with the event.

Other speakers also advocated for blatantly political actions like defunding the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security. The method advocated for this was, shockingly, calling up United States Democratic Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen— the lead Democrat of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee— to tell her to vote to defund both of these agencies. Apart from actually defunding the Department of Homeland Security being a horrifically idiotic idea, this is another example of the event being very much political.

Dartmouth Cares had the gall to market an event with what were essentially multiple rallies for Democrats as a non-political event. The audacity here is appalling and unacceptable. Regardless of the logistics related offenses of the event that could be written off as inexperienced college students planning a philanthropic event for the first time, the decision to market the event hypocritically cannot be written off as an ignorant one— Dartmouth students ought to be and are definitely smarter than that.

To the organizers of the event— I applaud you for attempting to create an event to support a humanitarian crisis that you all obviously care about. I applaud you for the money and awareness that you raised. But I implore you to reflect on your event in a critical manner. You ought not be immune from criticism simply because your event had good intentions.

There’s a reason why effective philanthropy is studied and an even better reason why philanthropic events ought to be marketed as what they are rather than what you wish them to be.

8 Monday – August 13, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

The Last Flicker of the Bonfire

THE HOMECOMING BONFIRE Has the old tradition failed?

> CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 This finally ended in the early ‘90s when there was a rule change limiting the size of the bonfire, thus immortalizing (in their own mind at least) the class of ’79, who built a structure with a record-setting one hundred stories of railroad ties. But, as limits and regulations began to ramp up, students became more separated from the pro-

ity for the incoming class as students circled the blaze as many times the same number of times as their class year (or at least as many as a select few drunken students could count to). However, with the task of building the fire shifting from only students to almost exclusively paid engineers and laborer, students came to adopt a tradition which involved a

“‘I don’t remember trying to touch the fire in ‘88, but one of my friends tried to light a cigarette on it,’ wrote a member of the Class of ’92 wrote to Dartblog.com. ‘The attempt, which I think was successful, melted the sleeve of his bright yellow Patagonia jacket.

He wore that jacket all four years. The Class Historians even made a joke about him at Class Day in ‘92.’” cess. No longer are students laying the blueprints for the blaze, but rather invited to “help out” as they perform only grunt work for the team of engineers and construction workers hired for the project.

Many of these concessions have been made in the name of safety, especially after 1999, when a bonfire being built at Texas A&M collapsed, killing twelve people and injuring 27 others. A tragedy like the one at A&M naturally brings much attention to safety regulations.

However, with a team of some of the brightest engineers designing the blaze to collapse in on itself, wouldn’t one assume the event has become far more safe?

In the 80s, freshmen began circling the fire, turning the event into a track meet of sorts. This fun tradition provided a new responsibilMr. Swanson is a freshman at the College and a contributor to The Dartmouth Review.

much more daring feat, touching the fire. Any class who failed to convince a brave soul to slap a log extending out of the crackling blaze was dubbed the “worst class ever.”

Though this daring dash required athletic ability and a certain level of agility to juke officers from both Safety and Security and the Hanover Police, the few who were caught walked away with merely a demerit, at worst probation from judicial affairs. No one seems to know exactly when touching the Bonfire started, but it grew as a tradition until the Class of 2020 managed to have over fifty people touch the structure, causing the event to be ended early with the extinguishing of the flames.

“I don’t remember trying to touch the fire in ‘88, but one of my friends tried to light a cigarette on it,” wrote a member of the Class of ’92 wrote to Dartblog.com. “The attempt, which I think was successful, melted the sleeve of his bright yellow Patagonia jack-

et. He wore that jacket all four years. The Class Historians even made a joke about him at Class Day in ‘92.”

For the Class of 2021, many changes to the “safety” protocols were made last fall.

Surrounding the blaze was a ten-foot-high fence and a minefield of officers in green or black jackets. The incoming freshmen were issued a seemingly typical warning from the UGAs citing the possibilities of burns, injury, and “discipline.” While this was quickly disregarded by many young freshmen looking to make a name for themselves, there was a key point that the administration forgot to convey: the definition of discipline. Following the events of Dartmouth Night, very similar cases met with varying results. Some students received the harsher end of the old discipline scale, probation, while others found themselves receiving unprecedented sentences of up to three term suspensions. Though it’s important to not jump to conclusions in situations such as this, it’s hard to not to feel as though judicial affairs made an example of certain students. Students touching a thirty-foot blaze while running from police are definitely a safety risk.

However, if the College really wanted to end “touching the fire,” one would think think they would at least be transparent about the consequences. Using a career-threatening suspension as a deterrent rather than a retroactive punishment would have gone further towards accomplishing their goal.

“Touching the fire” is not the only endangered Homecoming tradition. The fall of 2018 will be pivotal to the

mit required from the town is a mere 15-foot fire. In comparison, today’s bonfire stands 35 feet tall.

The fact that the short-lived tradition of touching the fire is threatening to diminish or even destroy something that has been part of the Dartmouth community for over a century is an absolute shame. As a whole, the student body needs to recognize that the school and the town have an immense legal liability surrounding this storied event. When the students refuse to cooperate in keeping this potentially hazardous occasion safe by simply not touching the equivalent of a four-story burning building, the administration and the town understandably must take steps to ensuring they are not sued by an injured student. Fire touching has effectively become a detriment to the entire Dartmouth Community and as a result should die immediately.

As part of a statement from the College’s news page about Hanover’s notice, Susan J. Boutwell writes, “Pitting police officers against students who try to touch the bonfire— an unsafe act that some students have attempted in recent years—puts law enforcement and the public in unnecessary danger during an event whose purpose is community-building.”

Boutwell is completely right here. The old traditions are an important part of Dartmouth’s fabric that has been sewn through generations of students. But foolish acts of “bravery” to touch the pyre is a recent development from the last 20 or so years, and they create risks that Dartmouth, law enforcement,

“There are several different avenues that can be pursued to try and make the students more involved in the event, something that seems increasingly important when encouraging students to not engage in dangerous behavior.” future of the bonfire itself. In June, officials from the town of Hanover notified the college that they would no longer issue a permit for the Homecoming Bonfire, citing safety concerns surrounding the event. Though the notice cites overall concern of the pyre collapsing and causing injury, one might assume that instances of students in between the structure and the 10-foot chain link fence obstructing their escape had a role in invoking this decision. Moreover, it is important to note that the largest structure that could be built without a per-

and the town cannot continue to undertake. With the death penalty on the table for the bonfire, it is becoming increasingly critical for students to realize that fire touching is simply not worth it.

Regardless, the town of Hanover’s grievances, as mentioned in its notice, ought to be taken at face value rather than speculated upon. The town has made it clear that they do not want to issue another warrant because of the safety concerns surrounding the bonfire, but it is difficult to imagine how the event could be made any safer without the coopera-

tion of students. It is already a pyre guarded by several collapse zones and a police presence from Hanover Police and Safety and Security that rivals the DMZ. The collapse zone is sufficiently wide enough that if it were to fall directly on its side, it would still be well contained. Furthermore, a team of engineers is tasked with designing a fire that collapses on itself and will be of little danger to any spectators. The only people who could be in danger are students attempting to touch the fire, but with the massive punishments handed down for the Class of ’21, that tradition may be moribund.

If the College were serious about making the event safer in the eyes of the town without fundamentally changing its nature, they would be up front with the Class of 2022 and threaten an automatic two or three term suspension for those who attempt to touch the fire. They could do this by citing the harsh punishments that were sprung upon select ’21 fire-touchers. Dartmouth students have had a lack of respect for authority over years as the authority of the college was backed by a precedent of demerits, at the very worst a suspension. With a clear standard of discipline set for the future classes, fire-touching will quickly die and eliminate the most dangerous part of the bonfire.

With such a central tradition to the Dartmouth experience at a crossroads, it is high time for the administration and the students to both reflect upon what has gone wrong in years past. If students were more involved in building the structure, maybe there would be less of a fascination with touching it. There are several different avenues that can be pursued to try and make the students more involved in the event, something that seems increasingly important when encouraging students to not engage in dangerous behavior. Understandably it is still important for the fire construction to be supervised by engineers and people who will ensure it won’t collapse out towards spectators, but involving students more in the process of planning, organizing, and constructing the fire may be a worthwhile change. Whatever the college may pursue in the future, hopefully the bonfire will be saved for the foreseeable future. Without creating a clear punishment for students who put all parties involved at risk, as well as a focus on alternative student involvement with the event, this custom may sadly be on its last legs.

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – August 13, 2018

9

FEATURES

Every Vote Counts: Dartmouth Students Voting in New Hampshire William G. Jelsma

Executive Editor

In the 2016 State Election for New Hampshire U.S. Senate, Democrat Maggie Hassan unseated incumbent Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte.

Senator Hassan won the race by .1% of the vote— a mere 1,017 votes. With such a small number of votes deciding the election, a town as small as Hanover, and even a student body as small as Dartmouth, could easily have played a pivotal role.

In Hanover alone, a total of 7,638 votes were cast. Senator Hassan won the township by a whopping 4,346 votes— more than four times the amount that Hassan won by in the state of New Hampshire.

According to the most recent census, there were 11,260 people living in Hanover in the year 2010. In the census, the Hanover area includes the campus of Dartmouth College. The median age in the census was 22.1 years old and 49.6% of the population was aged 18 to 24. From this data, college students clearly demographically dominate Hanover. While the 2016 election occurred six years after the census was taken, these

only 35 students were from the state of New Hampshire.

Dartmouth College is home to 6,409 graduate and undergraduate students. Extrapolating from the data from the Undergraduate Class of 2020, it is likely that fewer than 200 students grew up in New Hampshire— a mere 3%. In addition, only 18% of the class was even from New England, while the rest was from all over the country.

Students often mention the “Dartmouth bubble” as a way of referencing how different Dartmouth is from the surrounding areas of New Hampshire. The campus is physically small and more than 90% of students live on campus. For many students, life in New Hampshire outside of Dartmouth has almost no effect on them. Yet a large number of them do vote as if it does.

The current voting laws in New Hampshire allow non-permanent residents like college students and medical residents to declare themselves as New Hampshire residents for voting purposes.

As someone who attempted to get a New Hampshire license plate while living in a Dartmouth dorm building,

“Senators, House Representatives, and local politicians are all beholden to their constituents and their constituents ought to be true New Hampshirites. Most Dartmouth students are not true New Hampshirites. ” numbers have probably not changed drastically in that time.

The vote of Dartmouth students most likely swung the election in Hassan’s favor. In 2016, there were 6,350 registered students at the college, 90% of whom were U.S. citizens. Only one sixth of the Dartmouth population was the same number of votes as the deciding factor in the election. Judging by the large campaigns encouraging students to get out and vote, the shuttle rides providing easy access to Hanover High School, and the number of “I voted” stickers around campus on election day, enough Dartmouth students voted that they likely did decide the election.

Out of the 2,176 students who were offered admission into the college in 2020— the freshman class in 2016— Mr. Jelsma is a junior at the College and Executive Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

I can attest that Dartmouth students are not actually considered New Hampshire residents for anything else. Because of New Hampshire state laws, way more than the 3% of Dartmouth students who are from New Hampshire vote in Grafton County.

As proven by the most recent election, Dartmouth students have the ability to alter the state politics of New Hampshire, leading to a practical disenfranchisement of the voters of an entire state.

For local elections, Dartmouth students are a dominant demographic in Hanover. Yet, due to Dartmouth’s self-contained nature, local elections have very little effect on the lives of students. Senators, House Representatives, and local politicians are all beholden to their constituents and their constituents ought to be true New Hampshirites.

Most Dartmouth students are not true New Hampshirites. Dartmouth students for the most part do not pay taxes in New Hampshire.

While some students do drive in New Hampshire, they have license and license plates from their home states. The majority of Dartmouth students live in campus-owned housing, and therefore most

ty rather than Hanover Police patrolling fraternities and sororities.

Dartmouth terms are broken up into a quarter system, and students are told that they must be on an off-term for at

“Dartmouth students— vote in your home state. Get involved with your local politics.

Apply for absentee ballots. Stop running for political office in a state that most certainly isn’t yours.” do not own property. Dartmouth students usually work on-campus jobs. Even among those students who indulge in hard drugs, most exhibit a strong proclivity for powdering their nose, and are thus largely untouched by the New Hampshire opioid epidemic.

Dartmouth is a private institution— not a public one— so its funding does not come from New Hampshire. There is on-campus private securi-

least three out of their fifteen terms. Senator Hassan’s term is six years long— two years longer than the standard amount of time it takes an undergraduate student to complete his or her degree.

And undergraduate students most certainly had a say in her election. But it is not just a six-year term. Any policy that Hassan advocates for will certainly affect New Hampshirites for far longer than

that. And most Dartmouth students not only choose not to stay in Hanover, but choose to leave the state entirely after graduation.

Representation is a tricky task to get right. Restrictions on voting are also difficult, and can often function as a form of voter suppression.

But the fix for this dilemma does not necessarily require a policy change. Dartmouth students— vote in your home state. Get involved with your local politics. Apply for absentee ballots. Stop running for political office in a state that most certainly isn’t yours.

If you care about politics, then put partisan interests aside and campaign for actual Hanover residents to vote for the person that they believe should represent them. Using your vote wisely can mean deciding not to use it at all.

“If you care about politics, then put partisan interests aside and campaign for actual Hanover residents to vote for the person that they believe should represent them. Using your vote wisely can mean deciding not to use it at all.”

10 Monday – August 13, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

FEATURES

TPUSA Not the change American campuses need.

Courtesy of ProfessorWatchlist.org

Failed Strategies: Turning Point USA Devon M. Kurtz

Editor-in-Chief

Earlier this summer, at a retreat in Colorado, the Koch brothers took aim at the conservative effort to reclaim college campuses. In short, they criticized the anti-intellectual, anti-liberty sensationalism of groups like Turning Point USA, that have targeted professors who promote leftist ideas and called for the destruction of education in cultural Marxism.

Doubling down on intellectual freedom, the Koch brothers, according to the Washington Post, encouraged students to learn about and engage with Marxism, Leninism, and other theories that Turning Point USA believes should be purged from college education, along with suggesting that curricula include more works by Alexis de Tocqueville, Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. But the power of this goes beyond intellectual freedom, as implicit in the Kochs’ suggestion is the idea that pedagogy which educates students in depth on both sides of opposing arguments creates a dynamic conducive to productive discourse and persuasion. Putting aside their usual inflammatory elitism, the Koch duo displayed the sort of prudence and nuance that is so gravely lacking in the conservative movement nationally.

While the Koch brothers did not go as far as to challenge the popular— and largely unfounded— victim narrative of college conservatives, their defense of intellectual freedom and debate ought to be praised by conservatives and liberals alike. Their approach to the “Campus Question”— that is, the question of whether college campuses are a lost cause for the conservative movement, or that they can be liberated from the “grip” of “cultural Marxists and radical feminists”— is decidedly

conservative in principle: we can “win” by proving we offer the best ideas through free and open discourse. The “Koch approach” is, in essence, to be completely informed— philosophically and historically— about all sides, and, through that, to build an intellectual arsenal that can effectively and rigorously contest the claims of the “Left.”

The potential success of what the Kochs have suggested is difficult to calculate, but it is certainly a

is employing a problematic and largely ineffective strategy on the campuses themselves.

Unsurprisingly, Dartmouth’s own TPUSA chapter collapsed after less than a year. TPUSA’s main strategy is based around the following: • Educating students about the importance of free market values through wellplanned, effective activism initiatives.

• Re-branding free

“Prudence, decency and propriety, and proportionality are as constitutive of conservatism as freedom, liberty, and individualism.

And yet, the strategy being employed on college campuses is utterly devoid of any of these principles.” more measured response than advocating for the annihilation of leftist thought. The viability of the Kochs’ call-to-discourse is not, however, the issue that I wish to address; rather, I wish to argue that the current conservative campus strategies being employed by groups like those that the Koch brothers criticized are, in addition to failing, making a mockery of conservative principles.

Turning Point USA (TPUSA), in addition to being the group most heavily criticized by the Koch Network, is a rapidly growing grassroots organization. The founder, Charlie Kirk, is only twenty-three, and never attended college. Over the past few years,

market values on college campuses through studentdriven messaging efforts and face-to-face conversations.

• Effectively pushing back against intolerance and bias against conservatives in higher education.

The tactics that TPUSA relies on, however, are often taken from the playbook of the very “leftists” that they vilify. While TPUSA is quick to criticize leftist ideology through historical tragedies like the Soviet Union and Mao’s China, they are not as willing to acknowledge the well-documented injustices of capitalist America. TPUSA uses American exceptionalism to corroborate the free market values

largely defensible, and yet they themselves have co-opted that same superficial approach to arguing in favor of capitalism.

Admitting that capitalism and America are imperfect and advocating for their continued success and improvement are not mutually exclusive, and doing so can actually prove to be quite persuasive. Obviously, this is not to say that TPUSA should engage in “America-bashing,” but it ought to be more nuanced and skeptical of absolutist arguments if it hopes to gain support on college campuses.

If Kirk and TPUSA are serious about “rebranding free market values,” this is the way to do it— their current brand concept is unoriginal, as it is equally trite and polemical as the Left’s but merely opposite in message.

While TPUSA’s approach to educating students and rebranding might be ineffective, they do not directly conflict with conservative values. But that is not the case in TPUSA’s most infamous campus strategy: crusading against anticonservative bias. There are two problems with this: first, the legitimacy of the problem itself, and second, the tactics used to fight this crusade.

Through Kirk’s own vociferous speeches on college campuses and FOX News, TPUSA has been able to effectively sensationalize the “dangers” that conservatives face on college campuses, exaggerating the narrative of liberal professors “discriminating” against conservative students. While there are plenty of examples of professors and college administrations acting like, frankly, idiots— that is, after all, one of the primary reasons people read The Dartmouth Review— I question whether or not these incidents constitute “oppression” in any significant way.

Conservative critics, especially TPUSA’s Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk, have lambasted people of color, LGBTQ people, women, and other historically unequal groups for claiming that universities and society at large discriminate against them. Even with the “social progress” on college campuses, these groups often do still face legitimate obstacles based on their identity.

There are certainly still issues of sensationalism and exaggeration among these groups’ narratives, but the principle remains that they are still often targeted. Despite the flashy protests at Berkeley whenever a conservative tries to

“TPUSA may be able to stomach the delusional prospect of a consequentialist victory at the cost of conservative principles, but we ought not. ” Kirk has grown the organization to over a thousand campuses and has raised millions of dollars.

While Kirk is himself a rising star in the conservative movement— he was the youngest speaker at the 2016 Republican National Convention— his organization

it proposes, disregarding any negative historical context just as many advocates of universal healthcare ignore the failings of socialism. TPUSA’s claim that many professors conspicuously ignore the historical ills that resulted from leftist ideology is

speak, the reality remains that most campuses are quite safe and comfortable for conservatives, if not socially, then academically, and certainly physically. In my own experience, and based on conversations I have had with conservative student activists around the country,

conservatives are ostracized more often for being indecent than for being conservative.

There are few proven instances of conservative views impacting grades. And perhaps most ridiculous of all is the claim that conservatives are not physically safe: in the small handful of cases where a conservative student was physically touched, it almost never constituted an actual assault. The irony is that TPUSA is simultaneously criticizing these groups for using the “victim card” to secure protections, advancements, and empathy while themselves being deceptively dramatic with their own victim narrative in order to secure the exact same things.

TPUSA infantilizes conservative students, and in doing so, has done exactly what they have accused leftist students of doing.

More importantly, however, are the concerns about TPUSA’s tactics. In November 2016, Kirk created TPUSA’s professor watch list, which is “dedicated to documenting and exposing college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values, and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” The list has taken on a McCarthy-esque life of its own, with numerous professors having their personal information publicly exposed and receiving threats of physical violence. Additionally, much of the information on the list, which is provided by the public, has been found to be factually inaccurate, and even completely fabricated. Once more, TPUSA, which has criticized the left’s use of the tactic of “doxing”— publicly exposing the contact information, home addresses, and places of work of alleged members of the alt-right— have abandoned their principles and hypocritically adopted the very tactics they condemn.

The overall strategy of TPUSA has not only proven to be ineffective, but it is not based on any conservative principles.

Conservatism’s philosophical roots go far beyond “fiscal responsibility.”

Prudence, decency and propriety, and proportionality are as constitutive of conservatism as freedom, liberty, and individualism.

And yet, the strategy being employed on college campuses is utterly devoid of any of these principles. The reliance on hyperbole when discussing the issues conservative students face is more hysterical than prudent. The professor watch list stands in stark opposition to intellectual freedom, lacks any and all decency, and is irreverent of proportionality. TPUSA may be able to stomach the delusional prospect of a consequentialist victory at the cost of conservative principles, but we ought not.

Mr. Kurtz is a sophomore at the College and the Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review

The Dartmouth Review

Monday – August 13, 2018 11

FEATURES

An Update on Dartmouth’s Call to Lead Erik R. Jones

Tech Editor

Since its official announcement in April, Dartmouth’s “Call to Lead” capital campaign has come under scrutiny. Many have noted the significant increase from the last capital campaign in 2004 of $1.3 billion to the current target of three billion for the new campaign. The general mission of the campaign focuses on three main areas of improvement for Dartmouth: 1) improving the general educational model, 2) creating more opportunities to benefit humankind, and 3) expanding leadership development for students. To accomplish those broad goals, the website now cites nine “strategic priorities” to explain the intended numerical distribution of the three billion that the college hopes to raise: 1.

Improving the educational model ($512 million) 2. Creating leaders with more experiential learning ($149 million) 3. Improving the Tuck School of Business and Thayer engineering facilities ($496 million) 4.

Enhancing the arts center on campus ($125 million) Mr. Jones is a sophomore at the College and the Tech Editor at The Dartmouth Review

5. Investing in resources to combat global problems facing humanity ($405 million) 6. Making Dartmouth’s graduate school nationally acclaimed ($50 million) 7. Improving residential life and expanding the housing community budgets ($285 million) 8. Expanding financial aid ($500 million) 9.

“Energiz[ing] annual giving to keep Dartmouth affordable for all students” ($478 million) Even though the general mission of the campaign seems admirable, there has been very little in-depth justification for actual projects that will amount to the three billion dollar target, and the campaign website has had several inconsistencies in its’ project descriptions. The campaign’s website initially only provided the justification for $2,571,700,000 of the three billion dollar campaign goal, leaving $428.3 million unaccounted for. The website has since been modified after The Review initially reported this mishap in the spring. There were some minor changes in the website, but a significant change was a new ninth strategic priority described as “energizing annual giving to keep Dartmouth affordable” even though the eighth priority is already about expanding financial aid. Now that the website has nine strategic priorities instead

of eight, the numbers now add up correctly to three billion, but the addition seems to be an arbitrary filler to correct for the previous miscalculation. In fact, the entire paragraph description for Priority 8 ($500 million) was copy/pasted into the explanation for Priority 9 ($478 million). The number of 478 million clearly seems to be an randomly chosen dollar amount intended to make the math work. It appears that the college noticed the initial mathematical error in the sum of their subtotals, and decided to just add half a billion to financial aid to cover the difference.

It has become clear that the three billion amount for the campaign target did not organically arise from the specific needs of the Dartmouth campus, but that the target of three billion came first, and the numerical allocations of those funds came second. The sensible way to come up with a target for the campaign would be to use the needs and improvement areas of Dartmouth to compile a list of specific projects and reach a total based on that, but it seems like this method was not the one that was used.

These vague and shifting explanations of where the funds will be allocated creates doubts about how detailed the campaign preparation was, and also leaves potential donors unsure what specific projects

will be executed to accomplish the stated goals. Additionally, the broad descriptions of funding needs will make it harder for members of the Dartmouth community to hold the school accountable for its promises.

As shared in Joseph Asch’s post in Dartblog, one alumnus stated that “administrators desperately want soft sketched goals” which effectively means “no accountability.” The same alum went on to say that “as more money goes to the endowment, donors and accountability become even more irrelevant.” The generic justifications for funding numbers on the campaign website is not a coincidence. The website currently states 9 “strategic priorities,” but each one only has vague bullet point descriptions, rather than concrete numbers for expected capital expenditures. The error-riddled and overtly inspecific campaign website for The Call to Lead suggests endowment expansion as the true motivation behind the campaign, rather than campus improvement.

The relationship between the Dartmouth administration and the alumni base is getting increasingly tenuous as more and more alums are concerned about the effectiveness of this campaign and are losing faith in the Dartmouth administration. In his blog post on Dartblog about the capital campaign, Joseph Asch ‘78 laments how Dartmouth

seems to define a “capital campaign.” He states that in the past capital campaigns used to mean funding for traditional capital expenditures such as buildings, and would not include “operations, financial aid, and specifically targeted gifts like ‘Friends of [your favorite team here]’ programs.” Dartmouth clearly has shifted away from that definition, with about $1 billion out of the $3 billion going directly to financial aid.

The campaign website provides very few concrete examples to color the obscure overarching mission of The Call to Lead. The language on the website is consistently unspecific, with plans to “expand opportunities” and “establish programs” in various parts of campus, but without the necessary details to justify the numbers they came up with.

Fundraising for the three billion dollar capital campaign is expected to continue until 2022 when the school hopes to have reached its target. In the past several months since the campaign’s announcement, Dartmouth has already received around $1.6 billion of the three billion dollar goal. Only time will tell if Dartmouth alumni will continue funding this campaign, despite the ill-defined and ambiguous explanations of how the campaign’s goals will be accomplished.

College Concludes Investigation Eashwar N. Sivarajan

Associate Editor

In late October, President Hanlon sent out a campus-wide email informing the Dartmouth community that three faculty members (later revealed to be Todd Heatherton, Paul Whalen and William Kelley) were under investigation for alleged sexual misconduct. The announcement came on the heels of the accusations of fifteen students who told the The Dartmouth that the three men, who were in the Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences (PBS), created “hostile academic environment in which sexual harassment is normalized.”

It was almost 8 months until the administration’s next update on the investigation, consistent with the swiftness we have come to expect from President Hanlon.

On June 14, President Hanlon informed the student body that Heatherton had retired following the dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Elizabeth Smith’s, recommendation that his tenure be revoked, and he be fired.

On June 26, Whalen resigned under similar circumstances Mr. Sivarajan is a freshman at the College and an Associate Editor at The Dartmouth Review

and on July 17, we were told that Kelley had also resigned after Dean Smith’s recommendation that his employment be terminated, and that Dartmouth’s internal investigation was concluded. Other than the fact that the College used an external investigator, no information about the investigation has been released to

perpetrators as quickly as possible. There is no reason not to since the administration clearly doesn’t care about separating the College from the authorities, evident by the fact that it did everything it could to help the police punish an underage student whose only crime was consuming a few drinks off-campus, only a few

“Few at Dartmouth want to impugn the administration’s integrity, but their lack of transparency has left the student body with no alternatives. ” the anxious students, many of whom fear that sexual harassment has been normalized in certain areas of the College.

Again, this only confirms what we already knew about President Hanlon’s regard for the undergraduate population.

It must be noted that the Attorney General of New Hampshire is conducting a separate legal investigation with which the administration tells us they are cooperating. If the College recommended termination of employment because they found that the allegations against the accused were credible, one hopes that they have shared their evidence with the State of New Hampshire to help them charge the alleged

years ago. If they have, in fact, given the police all the evidence they have, it is only natural to ask what continues to preclude them from charging the former Professors. We can only hypothesize as to the nature of the evidence the College possesses since they refuse to release any of it to the public.

Even if it is true that Dartmouth is doing everything it can to help the State, it might not very be useful since Mr. Heatherton’s attorney claims that the investigation against her client concern an out-ofstate matter when he was on sabbatical, during which time he met with students with the knowledge and approval of the College. This is made worse

by the fact that Heatherton was credibly accused of sexual assault as far back as 2002.

A female student alleged that Heatherton had touched her breasts during a recruitment event “while stating that she was not doing very well in her work.” Heatherton’s attorney said that Dartmouth had investigated the incident and found that “it was not a sexual touching at all.” In addition, Simine Vazire, now a tenured professor at UC Davis, alleges that Prof. Heatherton “squeezed her butt” during a conference at a hotel in Savannah, Georgia in 2002. Heatherton, expectedly, claims to

ed, not much is known about Whalen and Kelley. Few at Dartmouth want to impugn the administration’s integrity, but their lack of transparency has left the student body with no alternatives. Over a third of undergraduate women claim to have been sexual harassed/assaulted. This has caused some students to see a Ted Bundy around every corner, and others to see a “mattress girl” on every bed.

Students who believe that sexual assault is normalized on campus will assume that the withholding of information is indicative of a larger phenomenon of suppressing evidence

“If the administration wants our trust, perhaps they should tell us why they deserve it.” not remember the incident, adding “... if I touched her as she described, all I can say is that I am profoundly sorry.”

Looking at his non-denial, we must wonder whether squeezing someone’s butt is something Todd Heatherton does so often that it isn’t even a memorable event.

Finally, it would be remiss of me to not point out the impact that Dartmouth’s handling of this incident has on campus culture. While Mr. Heatherton’s history of sexual harassment is well-document-

against rapists, whereas students who believe that sexual assault is an over-hyped issue will assume that the administration had no evidence at all and forced the Professors out anyway because of their misplaced faith in all alleged victims. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but it almost certainly won’t matter to many undergraduates. If the administration wants our trust, perhaps they should tell us why they deserve it.

12 Monday – August 13, 2018

The Dartmouth Review

GORDON HAFF’S

THE LAST WORD

“New traditions have been melded with old to create a sorority that is uniquely our own and reflects both the changing character of today’s Dartmouth women and our one of a kind campus personality.”

-Chi Delta History

“It is not given to us to know whether we should succeed or not. In failure, there is no disgrace. There is but one ultimate shame, the cowardice of not having tried.”

-Silver Surfer “I don’t not like you.”

-Batman

“I think your history is a little different than I remember.”

-Wolverine “Why is Gamora?”

-Drax

“Be excellent to each other.”

-Bill and Ted

“You weren’t supposed to see that.”

-Deadpool

“Where is my super-suit?”

-Frozone

“The truest darkness is not absence of light but that light will never return... But the light always returns... Hope is real. You can see it. All you have to do is look up into the sky.”

-Lois Lane

“What one does when faced with the truth is more difficult than you’d think.”

-Diana Price “1.21 gigawatts?!?”

“Sharktopus got slapped.”

-Dunkin’ Deez Nuts ‘92 P’20

“It’s on him.”

-Aquaman

“That word does not mean what you think it means.”

-Indigo Montoya “Good morning, poors” -(unofficial) Betsy DeVos Twitter account “The unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.”

-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “You can be my wingman anytime.”

-Iceman

“The unknown future rolls toward us. I face it for the first time with a sense of hope.”

-Sarah Connor “We cannot turn against each other right now. That’s exactly what the beavers would want.”

BARRETT’S MIXOLOGY The Look Back: A Real Drink For Today’s Students Ingredients • • • • • •

-Doc Brown

8 oz. Milwaukee’s Best 8 oz. Watermelon Wine Cooler 4 oz. Jägermeister 16 oz. hubris 8 oz. self-righteousness Dash of bitter memories

Mix all ingredients and serve in rose colored glasses over ice.

Every generation of Dartmouth students has believed that their time at the college was the most impactful and contentious in the history of the school. No one could possibly understand the degree to which the administration ignored the needs and desires of the students on campus.

“How dare the college allow women to enroll!”

“The shanties have been on the Green too long!”

“The admin wants to get rid of the Greek System!”

“What do you mean we cannot build the bonfire as tall as we want?”

“We should be able to touch the bonfire. It’s tradition!!”

Traditions are a mutually agreed upon set of actions meant to foster a feeling of kinship. They are supposed to bridge the years and connect old and young alike. The only tradition worthy of a true son or daughter of Dartmouth is the tradition of love and respect for the school. Be aware that every generation of Dartmouth students looks back with equal measure of fondness and regret at what has changed and what has remained the same about the College of the Hill. Whether it’s the Beast or Keystone Light doesn’t matter when you are playing pong. All that matters is that we all agree on one thing: real pong is played with paddles!

Dartmouth students today are as privileged as they have always been. You are at an elite school that will open doors for you if you have the desire to put down your phones and walk through them. You don’t live in the real world any more than the administration does. Drop all of your youthful, righteous indignation and just be happy you are able to spend four years here. Someday soon you will be in the real world. Learn how to respect people now so you can make a difference out there. If you don’t, you risk becoming another Dinesh.

— Dunkin’ Deez Nuts, Class of ‘92, P ‘20 Editor’s Note: The views of this particular alumnus do not reflect the views of the current Review staff… even if it is very funny

“Take a long, hard look in the mirror.”

-Gerald Arthur Cooper “George Bush doesn’t care about Black people.”

-Kanye West “You don’t have to agree with [Trump] but the mob can’t make me not love him. We are both dragon energy. He is my brother. I love everyone. I don’t agree with everything anyone does. That’s what makes us individuals. And we have the right to independent thought.”

-Kanye West “People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history.

-Former Vice President Quayle “my MAGA hat is signed [flame emojis]”

-Kanye West

“Kanye will never run in the race of popular opinion and we know that and that’s why I love him and respect him and in a few years someone else will say the exact same thing but they aren’t labeled the way he is...”

-Kim Kardashian West “Infinity War: A true American masterpiece.”

-TDR Editor-in-Chief B. Webb Harrington “Since when do we do movie reviews?”

-Sam

IN MEMORIAM

1890–2018 Rest in Peace

-Anonymous