This is a bittersweet soapbox for a senior. This is my third Homecoming column, and in writing it, I flirted with the tired topics that I've touched on in the past. I could wax cynical it's certainly easy.
Maybe the many tears of rush-spurned '12 girls will put out the bonfire. Maybe our endowment's embarrassing shrinkage is another sign that tuition will increase again. Maybe former College Provost Barry Scherr discovered the same Da Vinci Code-esque secret within Parkhurst that doomed former Dean of the College Tom Crady and former College President Wright (kidding, kidding). Maybe Matthew Ritger '10 was right, and his Machiavellian dream will come true, and someone young will die tonight.
Let me take Ritger's recent argument ("The Gospel According to Matthew," Oct. 9) about the destructive groupthink of Greek life and introduce it to the idea of Homecoming spirit.
Ritger claimed that "it's [a] trade we all make, one way or another: individuality for society."
Contrarily, we can see Homecoming as the culmination of this sacrifice and a celebration of solidarity. As Ritger posits, "You do not need brothers, or sisters. You can be just you."
Beyond this cult of individuality looms the contradictory presence of our Dartmouth siblings. I'd like to propose that our College is comprised of constituents who should all maintain the freedom of self-definition and self-discovery but still remain citizens of a greater community.
In other words, touch the fire, but not because we tell you to.
College President Jim Yong Kim recently paraphrased philosopher John Dewey in his inauguration speech: "He argued that the best learning comes through active experience, and not through passive absorption of established doctrine," Kim recalled.
I agree with Ritger and Dewey: No one should blindly adopt rhetoric, behavior, or ideology without purpose. How often do we propagate repeated stereotypes, and assumptions and caricatures of our own lives? Isn't the Overheard section of The Mirror a self-satirizing display of our own stubborn and unhealthy cultural flaws?
If you suddenly find yourself adulterated by the Dartmouth world, re-examine your individual authority. Does the H-Croo experience foster individuality, or legitimize the indoctrination of the freshmen? Is new member education intended to create leaders, or blindly punish independent thought?
If we forfeit the right to active reflection and skepticism, we have sacrificed our individuality. Pursuing a skeptical examination of our culture can bring us closer to a utopian vision of Dartmouth.
Dartmouth College was not specifically created to cater to Greek life or athletic teams or student organizations.
Individuality is at the College's core, but these collective institutions were created to make students into better men and women. We mature under the tutelage of our professors and peers. Classes give students a chance to learn together.
Likewise, student groups offer chances to lead, apply our education and organize our efforts for the greater good.
We can selectively inherit the spirit of leadership, fraternity and service from these groups, and rebuke traditions of exclusivity, apathy and insensitive interaction that trouble us.
If we see systemic problems, let us tackle them with the same analysis and debate we learn in the classroom.
Let's use our organizations mechanisms for progress to improve. Is this the ideal Dartmouth? Professors, students, alumni, form a vibrant debate! What do you think of Greek life? What is Dartmouth's purpose? What flaws can we address as individuals?
Bring on the passionate verbiage, for the sake of self-betterment! Invite progressive action!
Tradition and innovation are not mutually exclusive.
