Vox Clamantis: Keep Speaking Up
To the Editor:
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.
20 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
To the Editor:
We Americans work a lot. A 2005 study by the Families and Work Institute found that two-thirds of Americans are either "highly" or "chronically" overworked, and it shows in our faces and sighs. All American workers face the basic conflict between material comfort and leisure time. Why can't we have a lot of both? The immediate answer is our market-driven economy, which ensures that punishment for slacking off is swift and dire. The deeper answer is the interaction of two inconveniences fundamental to humanity: hedonism and narcissism.
As we roll into November 2007 with all political eyes fixed on November 2008, do not let this year's Election Day pass you by. The contests may be less than nail-biting, but voting is still a virtue, and we should head to the polls as always. Right? Actually, no.
The lawsuit brought against the College by six Association of Alumni executives highlights a fundamental point about Dartmouth that seems ironic these days: Alumni love the place. The lawsuit is a result of their deep devotion to the value of community that Dartmouth itself instilled in them.
Over the summer, I once found myself on the subway with a non-New Yorker friend of mine when one of those obnoxious subterranean sermonizers stumbled into our subway car and began to rant. I had forgotten to instruct my friend to feign blindness and deafness when faced with such urban insolence, so she listened unabashedly. We were treated to some run-of-the-mill drivel informing us of the usual truism that if we do not accept Jesus Christ the lord as our savior, we will suffer an inferno of infinite agony for eternity. Just as the sermonizer finished, my friend, by a stroke of really extraordinary stupidity, exclaimed the following announcement loudly and clearly, not only to the sermonizer but also to the car at large: "Excuse me, sir, I'm an atheist."
After six weeks of voting, 44 relevant articles and opinions in this paper and extensive coverage in the national media, Stephen Smith '88 was elected last Thursday as Dartmouth's newest trustee. Rumors flew, accusations followed and tempers flared throughout the race. It is over for now, but the fight will continue, for Smith's victory confirms the coherence of the many recent manifestations of alumni discontent. Three years after T.J. Rodgers '70's surprise election to the board, one fact is now undeniable: We have settled firmly into a new model of Dartmouth politics.
Having witnessed the farcical antics of this year's Student Assembly, Dartmouth students are treating the upcoming presidential elections with their annual surge of relentless cynicism. Maybe more cynicism than usual: We have always cracked that there is nothing at stake in these elections but the candidates' resumes, but this year we actually mean it. And it is true: Student Assembly is such a nonentity that even if the candidates did have serious platforms, it would be powerless to institute them. For those of us disillusioned with the irrelevance of the whole joke, there is a solution. The best way to change something is to make an utter mockery of it. I urge you to cast a write-in vote for Stephen Colbert for Student Body President.
It has been said that liberals are very broadminded. They are always willing to give careful consideration to all sides of the same side.
Let's chat about priorities.
There is a lot of fog surrounding the petition candidacy of Stephen Smith '88 for Dartmouth's Board of Trustees. Often it seems petition candidates are demonized merely because they earned candidacy by petition. But Smith is not only a victim, for he has engaged in some odious politicking himself. All this maneuvering has detracted attention from Smith's real platform, which advocates a major realignment of current administrative priorities -- a position worth serious consideration. It is time to see the demonization, the politicking, and the platform for just what they are. Let us be candid about Smith's candidacy.
"Authoritarian" is a strong word. If the federal Patriot Act doesn't qualify for the term, surely it is inappropriate in discussion of the simple matter of banning smoking in New Hampshire restaurants and bars. But Jon Wisniewski '07 uses it ("Not a Fan of NH Smoking Ban," Feb. 22). Wisniewski apparently opposes the smoking ban on the grounds that it is an unwarranted government intrusion into citizens' lives. But his case seriously undervalues practicality and simple common sense. The benefits of the ban far outweigh the costs.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a trustee as "a person in whom confidence is put." This spring, Dartmouth's alumni will elect their newest trustee. In whom will they put their confidence? They will have four choices. Three were selected by the Alumni Council -- Richard "Sandy" Alderson '69, Sherri Oberg '82 Tu'86, and John Wolf '70 -- and one petitioned for candidacy, Stephen Smith '88. Contrary to popular belief, there are real differences between the candidates on matters of both personal style and platform.
Whether they realize it or not, all Dartmouth students have great interest vested in College policy -- $190,000 worth of interest. Why then, are so many students so antagonistic toward the Dartmouth administration? Improving communication between students and the administration would go a long way toward ending the adversarial and unproductive attitude that often exists between the two groups.
To the Editor:
In his inaugural address on April 6, 1998, President James Wright declared that "Dartmouth is a research university in all but name." He has repeated his claim many times since, much to the dismay of some students who view Dartmouth's undergraduate college as its only feature worth mentioning. These students have reason for annoyance. It is a little silly to think Hanover might be home to a great research university. In striving so eagerly for academic preeminence, President Wright has been chasing a lost cause. Dartmouth is not well-served by devoting exorbitant resources to building an international academic reputation. The major rural university is a paradox.
I propose Hamlet as Dartmouth's new mascot. He is certainly indecisive enough.
In general, Dartmouth Dining Services does a superb job of feeding the campus community. Its food is reliably appealing, sometimes excellent. For an institution that serves thousands of meals each day, that record is difficult to beat. Indeed, the logistical issues behind such an extensive culinary operation must be extraordinary. But there are a few matters on which DDS policy seems needlessly off the mark, and could probably be fixed with relative ease.
Dartmouth sells itself on a few primary slogans, one of which is "diversity." Without doubting for a second the great value of diversity itself, I ask: Is Dartmouth's public relations emphasis on diversity too great?
Fairness is a non-issue in college admissions. The college admissions process is neither fair, nor can it be. Trying to structure admissions policy based on some determination of what is fair, as many have recently done with regards to early admissions programs, is misguided.
With Harvard's decision on Sept. 12 to discontinue its Early Action program, college admissions issues have again come to the forefront of attention in the national education consciousness.