Continual debates tend to generate many varieties of arguments both for and against a given issue. Taking into account the existence of many such arguments on the SLI issue, I was surprised by their absence in N. Alex Tonelli's opinion piece "The Anti-Pledge of Allegiance" (Feb. 15) While correctly estimating the power of the purse that alumni hold over Dartmouth's policymaking, he assumes that alumni's sole reason for contribution is the maintenance of the frat scene. Does he think that all alumni belonged to or wanted to belong to fraternities? He confuses the predominance of the Greek system with it being the only social outlet for students, past and present. The fact is that while Greek life dominates, it is not all-encompassing, and other social alternatives exist.
Taking the unqualified assumption that Greek is good, Tonelli makes several assertions. He opines: "The only reason that the Greek system still stands is because of the strength of the rational alumni, and the ability of Greek organizations to work around block-headed alcohol sensitive softies who despise kegs because they never had the guts to take a keg stand themselves." First, those are two reasons, not one. Second, his characterization of alumni who support the Greek system as "rational" is unwarranted. Does being vocal make them rational? Or is their rationality endowed by their monetary power? His reason could be rephrased to mean that the Greek system endures because of the weakness of anti-Greek alumni. The second part of that sentence blatantly mischaracterizes both the administration and its motives. I will not speak on the obtuseness of Parkhurst officials' heads, but I know that their sensitivity is not to alcohol but rather to its effects on the College community. Does Tonelli really think that people in our Administration "despise kegs because they never had the guts to take a keg stand themselves?" It's a funny notion, to be exact, but not one worthy of reflection. Rather, I propose that the Administration does not buy the arguments in favor of kegs specifically that by limiting alcohol sources from many beer cans to a few kegs they might both reduce alcohol consumption and reduce the potential for roofing drinks. It is exactly these arguments that a debate on kegs should focus on and not the Administration's aversion to keg stands.
To get rid of the Student Life Initiative, Tonelli proposes for alumni to cut back their contributions. I concede that this would force the Administration's hand on the issue, but calling such a tactic "the only way that every single member of the alumni can have their displeasure heard" is hypocritical at best. He confuses money votes with alumni votes. When alums vote with their pocketbooks, every dollar is equal to every other dollar. But some alums have more dollars than others, and thus their votes count more. He proposes plutocracy, not democracy, while assuming that this system will provide a fair and balanced benchmark of alumni opinion. In fact, cutting contributions will only voice the opinion of the contributors, not of "every single member of the alumni."
Tonelli refers to the Student Life Initiative as the "No Fun Policy." Unfortunately, many at Dartmouth would agree with him, because fun for them means perpetual intoxication in a dim frat basement. But it is worth pointing out that not all College students feel that way. Fun can be sports, friends, dancing, or perhaps writing op-eds, not drinking, passing out, and peeing on a roommate. The prefix in front of Policy ultimately depends on your definition of fun.
I understand, though do not agree with, Tonelli's love for money and intoxicating fun. But if an issue is to be discussed, rather than ridiculed, it should be done in an argumentative fashion, not in the "head on a fence post" one. Maybe the reason for the less fervent student view on the SLI is that students got used to the no-keg policy while the new students, oblivious to the keg era, take the status quo for granted. Or maybe the current generation's thirst for beer is not as strong. Either way, I believe that the direction of Dartmouth should be shaped by the men and women who walk its halls today, and not by past generations. Alumni are both wise and experienced. Their voices should be heard and respected. But we cannot let the contributions of alumni who once walked these halls to change the policies that affect those who now live here. We are here now. We are Dartmouth.
