Rempe-Hiam: An Intersection of Lunch and Pollutants
This article is featured in the 2026 Commencement special issue.
Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Dartmouth's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query.
1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
This article is featured in the 2026 Commencement special issue.
This article is featured in the 2026 Commencement special issue.
This article is featured in the 2026 Commencement special issue.
This article is featured in the 2026 Commencement special issue.
What could be controversial about awarding an honorary degree to someone who has fought for free speech for 25 years? Yet, with two pieces attacking him in The Dartmouth as a right-wing shill and transphobe, four alums have managed to create a controversy. There should be none.
At the end of fall term, my editors asked me to write a reflection on my first term at Dartmouth. I wrote a column called “Learning the Shape of a Place.” Reading it again now, at the end of freshman year, I can see exactly where I was standing when I wrote it: Only a few months into Dartmouth, still trying to orient myself inside a place that felt larger, faster and more established than I was. I wrote about feeling slightly off-balance, about the relentlessness of the quarter system and about trying to trust a process I did not yet fully understand.
Harvard faculty recently voted to cap A grades at 20% of undergraduates per course to combat grade inflation. The Dartmouth’s Opinion writers weighed in about grade inflation at Dartmouth.
Re: Letter to the Editor: Be Glad You Have the Freedom to Choose — Use It or Lose It.
Re: Benash: Why I Am Not Voting This Election Day
At Commencement this year, Dartmouth will award Greg Lukianoff an honorary Doctor of Laws. Lukianoff is president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy group. That honor will be tremendously well-deserved.
Most of the in-class essays I’ve had to write throughout my academic career have ended in a similar scene. With a cramped right hand, I frantically flip through my blue book reviewing my work, all the while nervously glancing back at the clock to check how many seconds I have left. As I try to read over my panicked, borderline-illegible handwriting, I make peace with an inevitable truth: The essay I just wrote sucks. It’s shallow. It’s a desperate attempt to string together ideas from course readings and namedrop theories for the sake of it, and it’s mostly just nonsense. But despite the stressful process of writing it, I’m never very concerned about the quality of the final product. Why? Because I know no higher standard can be expected of in-class writing.
Re: Taneja: The Apocalypse Will Save Us All
As we approach the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election, one of my biggest fears is that the Democrats will run on the temptingly easy “anti-Trump” platform. The Democratic Party has long stood as a purveyor of constructive, immortalized policy — I want that approach to re-emerge and set our nation back on course. We don’t need more political division and hateful rhetoric. We need more jobs, more housing and a long-postponed, much-needed response to the climate crisis. We need to rail.
For the first time in my adult life, I will not be voting come Election Day.
On May 19, Harvard University faculty voted to cap the number of A’s professors could hand out at 20% per course, with an allowance of an additional four A’s per class. This follows months of debate over Harvard’s grade inflation — a “crisis” we’re witnessing at higher-ed institutions across the country. A 25-page report, released last October by Harvard dean of undergraduate education Amanda Claybaugh, concluded that Harvard’s current grading system was “damaging the academic culture of the College.”
Last week, a writer at the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine reached out to ask if I would speak to her about artificial intelligence. She had read my columns in The Dartmouth and concluded I was a critic, while also asking if I was a member of some kind of anti-AI organization on campus. I was surprised on both counts. At any given moment, you can find me running three different large language models simultaneously, and here I was being accused of being an AI non-believer and a potential member of some technophobe cult. I spent 20 minutes digging through my own archives before understanding the confusion. I had never written against AI as a whole. I had written against AI in specific contexts, specifically art and mental health. Convinced I needed to rehabilitate myself, I wrote a piece arguing that AI is a tool and a college education must teach us how to use it well. Eli Moyse ’27 read that piece and wrote a rebuttal. This is my rebuttal to his rebuttal, but more importantly, a feeble attempt at clarifying that I am neither an AI-denialist nor an AI-romanticist, but a mere realist who dares to hope.
I grew up in a rural town of roughly 2,500 people among the orchards of eastern Washington state, where driving more than 30 minutes for errands or appointments was ordinary life. A full tank of gas wasn’t a convenience; it was an everyday necessity. You couldn’t opt out of fuel costs the way you might in a city with a subway. The road and the pump beside it were our infrastructure.
Re: Verbum Ultimum: We are Missing the Right