Lite on Literature
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.
5 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
To the Editor:
Despite its good intentions, Andrew Hanauer's column entitled "Lott is not Alone" (The Dartmouth, Jan. 9) is tragic demonstration of the manner in which the reactionary left has undermined open, honest discussion of race relations in America. That is not, of course, to suggest that the left's record on race is somehow more invidious than the right's -- the victory of the Civil Rights movement over state-sponsored segregation is one of the great chapters in the history of American liberalism. Rather, it is to suggest that the present atmosphere in America, in which race is never discussed openly and is always used as a means to silence one's opposition, is an atmosphere for which liberals are much to blame.
Recently, the Educational Testing Service proposed several potential changes to the SAT, which for the past 60 years or so has seen many incarnations. Among the changes would be the addition of a short essay, the addition of "Algebra II skills" to the quantitative section and the removal of the analogies component of the verbal section, "which require an understanding of the nuances of English rather than a rote memorization of vocabulary" (CNN.com). My own background in standardized tests -- aside from having taken the normal battery that all Dartmouth students go through -- is fairly extensive. I have taught test preparation to a diverse set of students, including Taiwanese and Chinese first- and second-generation immigrants, "continuation" (read: failed out of normal high school) students and prisoners at Windsor State Penitentiary. I have debated and studied equity issues in standardized testing as both a student and a teaching assistant. When I first read the news of the ETS decision, and as I read op-ed issues in support and in criticism of it, I could not help but feel that the greater point has been totally missed.
In his March 29 editorial, "The Miracle of Birth," Dan Rothfarb has finally succeeded in crossing the line from the inane to the offensive. For a long time, his particular brand of atheism -- which involves not only a personal denial of God, but also a dismissal of those who do not share his belief -- has been evident. In his most recent column, however, it reaches such heights of ignorance and intolerance as to offend even a fellow non-believer such as myself.
To the Editor: