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.
Granite Staters deserve a governor who will be as all-in on defending reproductive rights as they are — and we can elect one in November 2024.
As a senior-plus-one, I’ve become accustomed to the way in which the Dartmouth administration communicates with the student body: principally, emails with neutral subject lines — addressed “to the Dartmouth community” — and a body crafted to maximize word count and minimize information conveyed. These statements range from monotonous at best to insulting at worst; more often than not, they toe the line between the two. College Provost David Kotz was able to execute such a balancing act with his June 2 update on the College’s ongoing review of Dartmouth’s mental health policies. The statement outlines an extensive list of actions taken and initiatives underway, touting the successes of both. Although a more comprehensive plan will be made public in the fall, this email worries me. If the content of the update is anything to go off of, the administration’s plan will not sufficiently address students’ concerns over the College’s ailing mental health infrastructure.
The “lesser of two evils” argument has been a mainstay of Democratic election strategy since 2016. The formula is clear: 1) Throw overwhelming institutional support at an often unpopular and watered-down candidate. 2) Tell primary voters not to actually vote for their desired candidate because they are “unelectable.” 3) After forcing through a politician that many voters did not want, tell voters to be a good citizen and choose the “lesser of two evils” in the general election. This strategy is unsustainable, ineffective and sabotaging the core of our democracy.
Ever since I was a middle schooler, I’ve identified as a conservative, inspired by former President Ronald Reagan’s vision of optimism, limited government and military strength. When I was a child, I dragged my parents to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif. because I was enamored with the 40th President of the United States. That same night, I bought a copy of Jon Meacham’s book, “Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush.” The book taught me about how the Commander-in-Chief of the Greatest Generation lived a life of service and conducted his presidency in a bipartisan fashion: what conservative governance can accomplish at its best. In my mind, it was the optimistic, conservative vision of these two presidents that revitalized America and brought a peaceful end to the Cold War — no small achievement. Now, however, the party that won the Cold War is taking policy positions that remind me of the Nazi and Soviet leaders that oppressed my grandparents and murdered millions in the name of an ideology.
In the past few decades, we have seen the abundance of new technologies continue to sprawl, leading to incredible amounts of “progress” for humanity. These sweeping advancements, particularly in automation, have not only made consumer products more affordable but have also significantly liberated valuable time previously dedicated to laborious tasks. Additionally, the recent developments in the realm of AI have led to exciting prospects for various industries and fields, revolutionizing the way we live and work.
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine rages on, President Joe Biden granted President Volodymyr Zelensky’s request for Ukrainian usage of American cluster bombs against the Russian military. Biden’s decision is controversial, as critics point to a consensus that their use constitutes a war crime and that transferring U.S. weapons to other states carries an inherent risk. Meanwhile, supporters claim the bombs are necessary for Ukrainian victory against Russia’s violent invasion that currently employs cluster bombs against Ukrainians. However, there are more just and effective methods for the U.S. to support Ukraine’s freedom. Ultimately, war must not justify war crimes.
On July 3, the Israeli military stormed a refugee camp in the West Bank with bulldozers, tanks and soldiers. While on paper a counter-insurgency attack, it is emblematic of a pattern for the Israeli government — extreme violence with no care for civilians. This mission destroyed houses, harmed the water and electric grids and blocked ambulances from responding to the over 100 people who were injured. It killed four teenagers — at least one of whom was allegedly unarmed.
Amidst the current uproar about the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, one topic is notably absent from discourse: unions and workers’ rights. On June 1, the Supreme Court ordered a workers union to pay for damages incurred during their strike in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters. Before that, Janus v. The AFSCME overturned unions’ ability to collect fees from non-union members, while Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid severely limited unions’ ability to speak to workers. These decisions show that this Supreme Court is the most anti-labor Court in nearly a century. All of these decisions overturned decades — sometimes nearly a century — of precedent, laws and widely accepted doctrines. These decisions all but spit in the face of current unions.
On June 29, two campus-wide emails were sent out by College President Sian Leah Beilock and Dean of the College Scott Brown, in turn. Finally, I would know what the leadership of the College thought about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. However, I was disappointed by the emails. I read and reread them, only to find out they’d said nothing substantive — only irresolute words, noncommittal phrases and the oddly-timed assurance that, lest we forget, “[we] are not alone.”
This month, the world witnessed quite the whirlwind of events in Russia. Yevgeny Prigozhin led his Wagner mercenary company in a short-lived but shocking mutiny against the Russian military, with Wagner forces driving from the Southern city of Rostov-on-Don to less than 150 miles from Moscow. If they had completed their march, it would have been about the driving distance between Chicago and Washington, D.C. Given that the whole rebellion only lasted about a day, this is quite a feat — and a very embarrassing one for the Russian government. If it can’t even stop a column of mercenaries driving in broad daylight on the highway, the Russian state seems pretty vulnerable. What matters here is that had the revolt lasted longer, it easily could have generated a massive wave of refugees, and it seems unlikely anyone would have been prepared. Next time, we need to be.
The Dartmouth Association of Latino Alumni is committed to fostering a culture of inclusivity and equity within Dartmouth College. We recognize the need for faculty that reflects the richness and diversity of Dartmouth’s student body. Recent concerns regarding tenure decisions, including the denial of tenure to beloved Professor Patricia (tish) Lopez, underscore the existence of a significant inclusivity gap that must be addressed. Professor Lopez is widely respected as a teacher and talented academic, whose departure we see as an extremely regrettable loss for Dartmouth — especially for the Latino community.