This past Friday, John Strayer wrote an editorial ("Brennan is on the campaign trail," Jan.13) asserting that Jim Brennan's actions -- specifically the recent Conservative Union at Dartmouth's (CUaD) petition against freshman dorms -- were motivated by his own political self-interests.
Just as Strayer claims that it is important to closely examine the actions of those in the public eye, it is at the same time equally important to examine the accusations that are made against them. Our world seems to be one in which public figures can be stigmatized by a label advanced by the media regardless of whether or not there is any truth behind the label used. Strayer potentially created this sort of situation.
It would be easy for the Dartmouth community to accept Strayer's assertions and label Brennan "political." However, that would be doing a disservice to both Brennan and ourselves. Thus, we need to carefully analyze the ideas that were put forth on Friday and determine if there is any validity in them.
Interestingly, as one examines Strayer's claims it becomes very clear that they are flawed and unfair. Perhaps the most perplexing aspect is Strayer's vacillating portrayal of the Dartmouth student. He claims that the CUaD petition insults the intelligence of Dartmouth students in that it implies and assumes that each student could not handle the 30 pages worth of information. Strayer assumes a well informed, independent-thinking student body; if this were not the case he would not feel that CUaD had insulted the intelligence of the
student body as there would not be any intelligence to insult.
I wholeheartedly agree with him on this view of the Dartmouth student body. We are a group that takes the time to think issues through and makes intelligent decisions. Now the CUaD petition was signed by over 500 students. What was these students' motivation? Strayer implies that those students were duped by CUaD, and therefore insulted. Surely this conclusion contradicts the model of a Dartmouth student that Strayer proposed earlier in his column. I would contend that 500-plus students signed the petition because they were in agreement with its contents. A petition can be sneaky if one is dealing with a group of people that does not have the capability to understand and analyze a question. However, at a place like Dartmouth the student body is certainly able to undergo these thought processes. So, while Strayer argues that Brennan and CUaD insulted our collective intelligence, he seems to do exactly that when he contends that more than 500 students would blindly sign a petition.
Secondly, Strayer states that CUaD, led by Mr. Brennan, took the entire issue of first year dorms out of context by removing it from the large spectrum of the Report of the Committee on the First Year Experience. Now one can easily rebut this point by again stating that we are dealing with an intelligent group of people that signed that petition -- a group that is smart enough to view the issue of freshman dorms in a broader sense.
However, the analysis of Strayer's argument can be taken one step further. The simple fact is that there are certain goals that the Report is looking to achieve. In order to try to achieve these goals the committee proposed a series of changes. Freshman dorms are clearly the change that would most alter this campus. It would probably be the largest social change on this campus since coeducation.
The goals expressed in the Report are admirable. I do not think many of us would resist increased intellectualism and more contact between faculty and students. However, what CUaD was trying to show was that the College was planning to achieve these goals in a way that was not popular among the students.
In the final analysis it becomes clear that Strayer's claims are simply not buttressed by his given analysis. Rather, it seems that his impetus to write the editorial came from the queasy feeling in his stomach. We all have hunches and the like, but to publicly disparage another student based on a hunch is unfair.
I am in no position to speculate as to what Strayer's motives for writing the piece were, for it would be purely that -- speculation.
