It's great to see a discussion taking place at Dartmouth about student publications. No campus can be considered fertile ground for intellectualism without the support of those publications, insofar as that it is the publications themselves that attract, highlight and promote intellectualism. Therefore, their role, as well as the success with which they execute that role, should always be open to debate and criticism.
Amit Chibber's column ("Student Publications Lack Vigor," Feb. 9) on current student publications did a good job in identifying some of the problems with our current campus papers, as well as suggesting remedies. Campus publications have become stale and stagnant. They no longer provoke with their writing; they no longer stimulate the reader to think and react. Instead, they stand behind positions which have become cli-ches, and spew out worn, tired and rehashed rhetoric. One no longer needs to read The Dartmouth Review, The Beacon or Spare Rib in order to find out what they have to say; you can guess in advance.
To be honest, the Beacon has managed to avoid some of this in the past two terms with Farouk Ladha '96 as its editor. Ladha has introduced an element of uncertainty into the editorials and the articles which is delightful. He has called for the de-politicizing of numerous issues, and has shifted the debate on those issues to a more productive field: that of ideas rather than ideologies. Unfortunately, I think this is more the result of Ladha's personal views than a change of policy by the Beacon itself. The fact that the majority of the Conservative Union at Dartmouth is unhappy with the direction Ladha is taking The Beacon shows that we can't expect this positive trend to be maintained once he steps down.
Unfortunately, very few people are willing to argue for what seems to me to be the only viable alternative. The reason that this alternative is so unenviable is that it calls for the publications to walk a very thin and dangerous line between alienating themselves from the student body and simply becoming a tabloid mirror of the students' most simplistic views. To use Amit's words, "the degree of innovation in publishing now needed at Dartmouth requires a vision beyond that of anything students today produce."
Here is what is needed: campus publications should not simply reflect the opinions of the student body. The students who write for and edit these publications are supposed to be the best and brightest of the student body.
The essayist in any society is the person who has given the most thought to and done the most research on an issue. He is well-read, cultured and insightful. He does not spit out what others have said before, but instead thinks of innovative and provocative -- not shocking -- subject matter, as well as new viewpoints on old topics. In short, the essayist is the measure of the society's highest level of culture and debate.
But there is also the other quality. The publication must be able to relate to the reader. It does so on two levels: First, it brings the reader up to the highest standards to which his society ascribes. The ultimate result should be that a student walks away from an article with a new perspective and new thoughts battling away in his mind.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the publication never ignores the opinions of the readers. Much as the editor and columnists are the best that the society has to offer, society is not comprised solely of their opinions. They should be willing at any moment to accept a different viewpoint, consider it, and if they find it worthwhile, change their views in order to accommodate it. A good publication is just as much a give and take between reader and essayists as it is a platform for the voicing of the essayists' opinions.
Perhaps this is asking too much of the students here at Dartmouth. But like other students who have written on these pages, I trust in the level of intelligence and interest that Dartmouth claims to search for in its undergraduates. There are enough concerned and motivated students in order to finally get our publications back on track. At stake here is not only the future of these publications, but the very essence of intellectualism and elevated debate on campus.
