The most important steps in moving forward in any context are to be aware of your surroundings and to embrace and motivate change. Let's put this idea in more applicable terms. Perhaps it is human nature to fear change, but the truth is Dartmouth is changing. In reading the past articles on Dartmouth branding, I have held reservations as to the direct intent of its purpose. An image-focused brand was not the reason I dropped my Dartmouth application in the mail two years ago, nor will it be the reason I will give back to the school post graduation. However, after reading Joe Rago's op-ed "Dear Dean Furstenberg" (July 30, 2003), I see a new interpretation to the interesting dialogue that has ensued.
The opinions of students who believe that the "no nonsense" good old days of 1967 are what the admission officers should strive to recover is pretty scary. Walking down memory lane, it is easy to gloss over all the issues Dartmouth has wrestled with and the many battles it has overcome. We cannot forget the past 30 years have been an arena for social struggle at our school; we have removed a political and racially charged mascot, integrated women, ethnic diversity and larger numbers of international students. Anyone who has benefited from these changes, virtually the entire campus, is thankful we are not in standstill from 1967. Our school is not, and cannot afford to be an old-boys country club network. Thus it should not be seen in that light.
Ask anyone on campus "Would you like Dartmouth to revert to its values of 1967?" A select few will sing the cohog song, but most students inherently know how much richer the campus has become in sight of the changing student body. We owe our diversity to those who had vision and the strength to recognize the importance of change in Dartmouth's future. If we did not bring about these changes, we would no longer be a reputable community in the world's eye. Let's take the example of co-education. Of course, talking is easy, but many people from all sectors of the campus had to fight and perhaps are still fighting to find equilibrium in student equality. Nevertheless, Dartmouth, a slow-moving institution like any other university, finally embraced the change that created tidal waves of progress to allow students like myself to feel comfortable and to have a voice here.
My point is not that tradition is bad, but the willingness to recognize our gaps and to want change displays strength of character, vision, and confidence. When we hold simply to our past, we essentially become inflexible and backward thinkers, insecure in recognizing our flaws, and unable to foresee our future. This is not the Dartmouth I chose to attend or ever hope to see.
In countless ways, we are lucky to be removed from the current tragedies of the cosmopolitan world, but even a splendid little village in the remote New England hills must attune its rhythm with modern time. We are not the class of 1967, nor should we ever strive to be. I am proud to be a member of Dartmouth 2005, and I think the admissions selected just the right mix so we continue to have the ebb and flow of controversy which eventually initiates change.
In response to the Rago article last week, you cannot fight arrogance with arrogance; you become blind sighted to your own cause. How can you truly see the opposing side of an argument, if you hold stridently to the past and solely to tradition? True, Dartmouth is not Harvard, and most students are here because it's not. Dartmouth is also not Animal House, nor is it a bunch of drunken guys eagerly waiting for their busload of women to arrive. In light of these stereotypes, if branding Dartmouth means revamping Dartmouth's name to illuminate its progress from the "old days," perhaps we should explore this new interpretation. Are we satisfied with where we are? If not, how can we change?
