A column was run last term ["College Should Promote Intellectualism," Feb. 1, 1996] which examined intellectualism at Dartmouth in light of the proposed additions to the East Wheelock cluster. Although the column brings a number of good observations to the front, the author's arguments in support of intellectualism are both largely stereotypical and inherently un-intellectual.
In analyzing the lifestyles of Dartmouth students, the author creates a seemingly unbreachable dichotomy between the intellectuals of the campus on one hand and the anti-intellectuals on the other. While it is even a stretch to suggest that every person nicely fits into one or the other of the above categories, the author continues his questionable logic by claiming that "most Dartmouth students are [not] of the anti-intellectual, fraternity basement types."
Is this to say that not only must one be either intellectual or anti-intellectual, but if one is anti-intellectual he must also necessarily be a fraternity basement type (or vice versa)?
In the context of his statement, the author goes on to say that there are "actually ... people at Dartmouth who would rather argue over dinner than drink beer in a frat basement." While there is nothing suspicious about this statement when it is taken at face value, there is most definitely a stereotype lingering here that almost rings of the anti-intellectualism he purports to abhor in the first place. It is ridiculous to assume, first of all, that intellectualism cannot take place in a fraternity basement. It is even more ridiculous to assume that involving oneself in one activity necessarily excludes one from the other. Is it not possible to talk politics over a game of pong? Is it not possible to argue morality over dinner at 6 p.m. and go to a fraternity party later that night at 11?
To be sure, perhaps such activities do not frequently take place on this campus. Perhaps they do not take place at all. But to assume otherwise, and to make accusations and suggestions as to how this campus ought to work based on such groundless assumptions, is to hinder the very foundations of intellectualism itself. Just how can one hope to develop the intellect if one begins with the premise that all others not engaging in such exercise are consequently anti-intellectuals? To further expand the paradox, how can one ever attend a fraternity party, play pong in a frat basement, or (heaven forbid) actually join a fraternity if one has any hopes of devoting time to intellectual pursuits?
It is a noble goal to encourage and nurture intellectualism at any college, especially our own. Let us not ruin such virtuous attempts with silly assumptions, be they intentional or otherwise. Intellectualism need not engulf our entire college existence; there is ample time and place for mindless fun and games. On the other hand, intellectualism need not be necessarily separated from such un-intellectual endeavors either. It is only upon the realization of this fact that false stereotypes can be rendered meaningless and true intellectualism can be given free reign. As Oliver Goldsmith said, "Who mix'd reason with pleasure, and wisdom with mirth: If he had any faults, he has left us in doubt"
