I read Friday's Verbum Ultimum (May 20) with much ambivalence. Certainly, anyone should be alarmed when a trustee candidate claims about how weblogs have taught him about the "real" situation on campus. As an occasional visitor of the blogs, I read them more for their entertainment value than anything else because I enjoy reading the strong opinions of some of their very bright authors. However, weblogs are hardly an outlet of unbiased and legitimate news, and I think that the candidates recognized this by posting news articles and editorials (some written by this very Editorial Board itself) in defending their stances.
Instead, I find it more troubling that candidates were occasionally citing The Dartmouth Review -- a publication that lately has merely devoted its efforts to mocking its political enemies and attempting to get people all riled-up rather than actually contributing well-researched or thoughtful views to left-right debates (don't worry, the Dartmouth Free Press is every bit as guilty). The Review has sadly devolved into little more than a bitter, satirical commentary of the political left and the campus left. If anyone needs any evidence, one need not look further than how they reply to criticism in their Letters to the Editor; they choose to respond only to their opponents' weakest arguments rather than to those that are most compelling.
Sadly, this same faulty method plagues Friday's Verbum Ultimum. The amount of name-calling and number of unsubstantiated buzzwords employed to condemn stances taken by trustee candidates in this short column is simply stunning -- "demonized," "ignorant" and "ideologically motivated" to name a few. I'm not even sure why they've put the term "evils of liberal academia" in quotes; I can't find it anywhere in perusing the candidates' statements.
Moreover, the evidence used by the Editorial Board to defend the seemingly "good" relations between students and Parkhurst is hardly fair to any candidate in the trustee election. Everything they mentioned occurred at the end of or after the election. Instead, in evaluating Parkhurst's recent receptiveness, should we at least entertain the possibility that these candidates may have won a victory for students through their petitioning? We've been working on extending library hours, devoting more resources to abuse counseling, changing the alcohol policy and creating a new sorority since my freshman year. These issues aren't new, and only now are we seeing success. Perhaps the election finally brought some very serious issues to the forefront, forcing Parkhurst to realize that many alumni were also fed up with their continued dodging of these and other important student issues.
No matter our views on the election's outcome, we must all recognize that now is a time to unite. Everyone is tired of Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth, AAWTF, and embittered mass e-mails from members of the Dartmouth community. This election is over. Columns that gloat or decry the election's results should end. If Dartmouth is to move forward, then we should already be uniting to improve the outlook for Dartmouth's future. To do this, our administrators should be more responsive to the concerns and interests of its students, faculty and alumni; I am at least encouraged by the more cooperative tone they are beginning to adopt toward students since the election, and I hope that these relations not only continue, but also progress.
Now it is Dartmouth's time to forge ahead of other universities in solving oversubscription, reducing class sizes, improving an athletic program that remains devoted to scholarship, encouraging a Greek community that gives us a much-needed social outlet but does not overly detract from our academic mission or engage in acts of hatred, and hiring more permanent faculty who can use their research to complement their dedication to students and an excellence in teaching. These efforts will truly help us to strike "the right balance between progress and tradition."
