Matt Nisbet's column "Just Right of the Center" ("Playboy Opponents Face a Long Fight," April 13, 1995) should have been more appropriately titled, "Just Right Passed the Point." In a stupendous display of logical analysis Nisbet leads us to the quintessential Dartmouth view, "Is it worth the trouble?"
I do not intend to try to explain the difference between art and pornography, which any intelligent person could discern for himself. Yes, art explores sexuality, beauty, nakedness and for that reason it can never be pornography. Pornography (in the Playboy sense) is not about exploring and understanding anything, much less sexuality or beauty or nakedness; it is about using women for the entertainment of men.
But getting back to the point, Nisbet writes in his column, "And if Playboy is indeed pornography, why start the protest now?" It seems to me, that for a feminist, pornography and the degradation of women has been going on at Dartmouth for a number of years." Whatever Nisbet originally meant by this statement is unknown, but the statement grasps the "Is it worth the trouble?" attitude that is so prevalant at Dartmouth.
Nisbet admits that it would be an interesting attempt to determine the effect of pornography on the Dartmouth community, but thinks it a waste of time. This attitude is most commonly found in the form of anti intellectualism at Dartmouth.
Taking a course, doing a research paper or doing a problem set just for the intellectual interest is not something most people on this campus would do, as a columnist pointed out a few days ago. It would not be worth the trouble of doing all that work to answer your innate curiosity, because it most likely would not help your GPA or your resume.
Yes, Dartmouth is a liberal arts college, and students are expected to expand their knowlege and answer those questions that their major courses do not answer. But, that is what the highly valuable Non-Recording Option and the "guts" are for. The majority of students know that answering those questions will more likely hurt their GPA than help it, so the College offers "guts" and NROs as a "meal deal" to try to initiate intellectual investigation.
Certainly the "guts" help to promote intellectual investigation and curiosity right? Not so. How often have you heard,"Yeah, I really love my 'Weeds 101' course. It has really opened me up to a whole new understanding of dandelions." The statement more likely heard is, "I hate this stupid class. We have three exams and a paper. This is supposed to be a gut; it is supposed to be easy."
The Dartmouth ideal of a "well-rounded" student has gone so far that the more extracurricular activities one does, the "better" student one is. Add in the "gut-fever" and NRO card game, and intellectual investigation for personal curiosity has been dumped into the Connecticut River.
In order to survive in both the competitive academic realm of GPAs and resumes, and in the social realm at Dartmouth, those students with sincere intellectual interests outside their abilities most often end up playing the game of anti-intellectualism. Because, trying to be intellectual is just not worth the trouble.
If students at this campus are going to push the "Is it worth it?" issue into all facets of life, then Nisbet's question to those "fiery" feminists, "How far are you willing to go?" is a legitimate one. He seems to believe that since "the degradation of women has been going on at Dartmouth for a number of years," then even the intellectual discussion of pornography versus art, or opposition to the most important supporter of pornography (namely Playboy,) is in vain.
Even if Nisbet is correct that the "fiery" feminists are not going to make a dent, discussion is not a waste of time because even the smallest intellectual investigations are rewarding.
