THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2018
THE DARTMOUTH OPINION
PAGE 6
CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST CHRISTOPHER CHENG ’21
SENIOR STAFF COLUMNIST PARKER RICHARDS ’18
Cut the Gelato
Looking for Brutus
Take Dartmouth Home can become even better. In an earlier article, I noted Dartmouth’s relatively limited international reputation. A few weeks later, the admissions office emailed the student body, recruiting students to promote Dartmouth to their local communities during the winter break. The office called this initiative “Take Dartmouth Home.” To me, it sounded perfect. Given the vast ar ray of student employment opportunities on campus, the College clearly believes Dartmouth students are a great workforce. They might receive little pay, sometimes just a dollar above minimum wage. At that price, the College gets Ivy League-educated individuals to film team practices, enter data into spreadsheets, swipe IDs and more. It’s a fantastic bargain for the College, since Dartmouth students have proven themselves willing to work hard for what they regard as sufficient pay. To most students, “sufficient pay” isn’t much. Consequently, Take Dartmouth Home could produce a global public relations wave of Dartmouth students lauding the College. Not only that, these students would be tremendously effective: With their pre-established connection with their communities, their advocacy on behalf of the College would be much more meaningful than that of an ordinary admissions officer. Therein lies the kicker: With the current incentives it offers, Take Dartmouth Home is shooting itself in the foot. A gift card for Morano Gelato may be enough motivation for some students, but it may not be enough for many students who would otherwise be willing to sing praises about Dartmouth to their high schools. The admissions office is asking students not only to present the College to their communities but also undergo training and draft a report afterward. Today, in a time when Dartmouth students can earn up to $25 an hour as online tutors could be paid $100 to be trained, an ice cream gift card and a lunch just don’t cut it. Sure, you could argue that those willing to take such limited pay for their work are those that love Dartmouth to an extraordinary extent and will do an exceptional job. It’s
the old quantity-versus-quality argument. However, no matter how great a presentation in, for instance, Hong Kong is, it won’t foster any more interest in Dartmouth among kids from a place like Mississippi. In Mississippi, even a mediocre student representative would be more than qualified for the job. However, you’re unlikely to get those few Mississippians to show up to do the job if you just give them ice cream, a lunch and a pat on the back. The problem with ice cream and a lunch doesn’t lie in their inherent value. I’m sure many were incentivized to sign up for Take Dartmouth Home and did a great job over winter interim. Their problem lies in their inflexibility. Between a Morano gift card worth $10 and an Amazon gift card worth the same, amount, the latter is arguably worth more due to optionality. Perhaps the admissions office can take a cue from the Student Wellness Center and the University of New Hampshire. Both surveyed Dartmouth students and offered Amazon gift cards as rewards. If the admissions office were to invest the money it spends on Morano cards and lunch on Amazon gift cards instead, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more students signing up to do the job. I’d probably be one of them. As a quality control measure, in case this incentive attracts relatively lower quality student representatives, the admissions office should require representatives to film their presentations to their high schools. They could then bring them to the admissions office for review. Overall, Take Dartmouth Home does an admirable job using Dartmouth students to promote the College in their communities across the globe. Indeed, members of this group may have the greatest potential as the College’s advocates. They not only have a love for their school but are also informed on its latest issues. Alumni could even be recruited in the future, and there could be a contrast between students and alumni in these student-run presentations. But please, admissions office: Cut the gelato.
6175 ROBINSON HALL, HANOVER N.H. 03755 • (603) 646-2600
RAY LU, Editor-in-Chief KOURTNEY KAWANO, Executive Editor ZACH BENJAMIN, Managing Editor SONIA QIN, Managing Editor PRODUCTION EDITORS PARKER RICHARDS, IOANA SOLOMON
& ZIQIN YUAN, Opinion Editors
MARIE-CAPUCINE PINEAU-VALENCIENNE & CAROLYN ZHOU, Mirror Editors
EVAN MORGAN & CHRIS SHIM, Sports Editors HALEY GORDON & MADELINE KILLEN, Arts Editors MELANIE KOS, Dartbeat Editor JESSICA CAMPANILE, Multimedia Editor SAMANTHA BURACK & JEE SEOB JUNG, Design Editors
PHILIP RASANSKY, Publisher ERIN LEE, Executive Editor ALEXA GREEN, Managing Editor AMANDA ZHOU, Managing Editor BUSINESS DIRECTORS ALFREDO GURMENDI, Finance & Strategy Director ROSHNI CHANDWANI, Finance & Strategy Director SHINAR JAIN, Advertising Director KELLY CHEN, Product Development Director ELYSE KUO, Product Development Director EMMA MARSANO, Marketing & Communications Director MATTHEW GOBIN, Technology Director PHOTOGRAPHY EDITOR TIFFANY ZHAI
ALEXANDER AGADJANIAN, Survey Editor ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Nathan Albrinck, Samantha Hussey, Elise Higgins, Divya Kopalle, Joyce Lee, Michael Lin, Tyler Malbreaux
ISSUE NEWS LAYOUT: Sonia Qin SUBMISSIONS: We welcome letters and guest columns. All submissions must include the author’s name and affiliation with Dartmouth College, and should not exceed 250 words for letters or 700 words for columns. The Dartmouth reserves the right to edit all material before publication. All material submitted becomes property of The Dartmouth. Please email submissions to editor@thedartmouth.com.
Political decency requires action; we are failing the test. To Dante Alighieri, Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger was counted as one of the three most accursed men to have lived. A member of the conservative republican faction in the Roman Senate, he is best remembered for his assassination of Gaius Julius Caesar, and for that act he is vilified as a traitor, an assassin, a “regicidenik.” But what is so often dismissed as base treachery can also be seen as an honor of the highest level, an antiauthoritarian act that put principle before person and country before self. Today, the American republic seems not dissimilar to the late Roman Republic. It is, of course, a cheap comparison made ad infinitum. The decline of dignity among elected officials, the rise of the so-called imperial presidency and a resurgent decadent culture are all easy parallels between the two states. Still, we find ourselves in a period of decline, with a wannabe strongman at the helm of our country. We now need people with Brutus’ commitment to liberty. In Rome, there was a statue of Brutus’ ancestor, Lucius Junius Brutus, who overthrew the last king of Rome, Tarquin the Proud, and established the Republic. In his “Life of Brutus,” Plutarch writes that there were exhortations to the senator written upon the statue: “Thou art not really Brutus,” read one, and another, “Brutus, art thou asleep?” As Caesar assumed greater power and assumed the title of dictator perpetuo, the role of the longdead Brutus came to the fore. Would the senator whose ancestor overthrew a king stand idle while a military officer attempted to seize regal power and hold imperium in perpetuity? According to Plutarch, Brutus was goaded into action by both his fellows in the Senate and the wishes of the people. With Caesar’s followers seeking ever more powers for their leader, Brutus and his allies in the Senate arranged to kill the dictator, hoping to restore the Republic in its former splendor. Of the accumulation of power unto Caesar, Brutus said, “It would at once be my duty not to hold my peace, but to defend my country and die in behalf of liberty.” In America today, there are few who dare to speak out against President Donald Trump and his ilk, rabid followers who see in alleged child molesters ideal senators and in their opponents corruption without basis in fact. This is not to suggest that legislators ought to take knives to Trump; no, simply that the moral thing to do is to prioritize country and principle, and to stand up to those who seek to take power unto themselves at the expense of American democracy. What Brutus contributed was principle and decency. In assassinating Caesar, the Liberators — that is, the assassins — may have weakened their cause, prompting civil war and foregoing debate. That is not the answer. Political violence is never acceptable, and the assassination of Caesar should not be seen as a literal analogue to opposition to Trump, but rather as a metaphor for principled opposition that places loyalty to liberty above loyalty to person or party. Many who once opposed Trump, such as Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, have become obedient lapdogs, the latter notably willing to massage Trump’s ego for a seat at the table. Others have been more robust in their criticisms of the president. Senators Bob Corker and Jeff Flake have lambasted Trump in the media, though they have seemingly done little besides offering harsh
words. “Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as telling it like it is when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified,” Flake said of Trump. “And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else. It is dangerous to a democracy.” Corker said he believes Trump will be remembered for “the debasement of our nation.” But Corker and Flake — along with moderate Republicans in the House like Charlie Dent and Dave Reichert — have opted for electoral capitulation. They have chosen not to stand for re-election, surrendering their bully pulpits, many, likely, to pro-Trump candidates. The choice to abandon elected office may be convenient for their own criticisms of Trump, but it risks abandoning the Republican Party to Trump acolytes. While Trump’s opponents might have been well advised to simply ditch the Republican Party and create their own, that option seems to have passed. The United States will likely be without a credible conservative force, a daunting prospect even for those of us who disagree with most or all conservative aims. Functional democracies require political parties that represent a wide spectrum of (democratic) views, and with one party willing to embrace a strongman wholeheartedly, that party will cease to credibly function within a democratic system. Politicians across the ideological spectrum can learn from each other and grow as leaders and legislators when there are redoubtable intellectual forces backing numerous political causes, and when thoughtful, decorous legislators who disagree passionately with each other can debate. Any liberal or social-democrat should want a strong conservative force, and any conservative should want strong liberal and social-democratic forces. It is when a political movement ceases to exist within the context of a democracy and becomes authoritarian that decent disagreement becomes impossible. Brutus understood that fact. It may seem absurd to use the man who quite literally knifed his opponent on the Senate floor as a paragon of legislative decency, yet Brutus was just that. He upheld, not just in word but in action, the principles of a deliberative body and of a republican institution, unwilling to accept dictatorship. Populist strongmen existed 2,000 years ago, as they exist today, and while those who seek to combat them may earn ignominy in the eyes of many, their achievements in protecting democratic decency are nonetheless worthwhile. Of course, Brutus and his allies failed. The republic fell, and the establishment of an empire went forward under Caesar’s adopted heir Octavian. But Brutus’ attempt nonetheless showed that the republic would not yield quietly to tyranny, and in that, it was laudable nonetheless. Brutus earned, in Dante’s eyes, eternal damnation. To many, he was the poster-child for betrayal. But all of that derision serves as a mask for the reality of his moral standing and his opposition to authoritarianism. So we remember the words of Brutus’ contemporary, Marcus Tullius Cicero, when he spoke against the anti-republican politician Lucius Sergius Catiline, who would later make war against the Senate: “I have always been of the opinion that infamy earned by doing what is right is not infamy at all, but glory.”