Search Results

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.

172 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.

Baum: Why I Voted for Trump

(11/15/16 5:16am)

Shortly after Florida Sen. Marco Rubio announced his candidacy for president of the United States on April 13, 2015, I pledged my support to his campaign — a campaign largely grounded on the rural conservative ideologies I was raised with. My support for the Republican candidate’s campaign strengthened as the GOP debates progressed last fall, and I did not look back. I distinctly remember when Rubio, while on the campaign trail in Waverly, Iowa this past January, promised an atheist voter that “no one’s going to force you to believe in God. But no one’s going to force me to stop talking about God.” As an evangelical Christian and a Constitutionalist who supports atheists’ rights as firmly as those of Christians, I became even more committed to Rubio and his campaign after hearing this.

Green: A Presumption of Good Faith

(11/15/16 5:15am)

Donald Trump is the next president of the United States. It seems easy to lose hope, to believe that this election shows the irredeemable hate that lives in this nation’s underbelly. We desperately want to disengage and hope that, in four years, there will be enough of a millennial or minority vote to return us to the path of “progress.” Mostly rural, white Americans decided this election. They felt left out, excluded from the progress of the past eight years. They have grounds to believe that globalization and technology have robbed them of their once-thriving livelihoods. They have been told that life is better now than it was eight years ago by people for whom that is true — but that is not how they feel. They have expressed this anxiety through a rhetoric rife with hate, but hate alone did not win this election. To continue to believe that it did would be to continue missing what the media and liberal America have failed to recognize over the past year and a half.

Coffey: Droning On About The Facts

(10/03/13 2:00am)

As one of the art history professors and droning voices who defend the Orozco murals and the College's decision to restrict access to the Hovey murals, I feel compelled to offer a response to recent complaints about censorship published in The Dartmouth. This most recent lament is but one in a chorus of "dissenting" voices on this issue that have graced the pages of the paper since the 1970s. The latest round takes the novel tack of insulting Dartmouth students, characterizing them as grade-grubbing zombies in an attempt to rile them up about the issue. Since no actual research on the history of the murals or the College's response to them seems to have been done, I will here inform the campus readership of just a few things that might interest them.

Coffey: A Mural Imperative

(11/11/10 4:00am)

In public art controversy, the art in question is almost always the occasion for voicing other grievances. For example, when attacking the colonial legacies of racial inequality seem impossible, the easier and at times more productive thing to do is to criticize a work of public art and demand some form of public representation that would symbolically rectify what otherwise seems politically or economically intractable. Dartmouth College is no stranger to public art controversy. From Orozco's frescos, executed in 1932-33, to Walter Beach Humphrey's "Hovey Murals," completed in 1939, to Wenda Gu's "hair installation" occupying the library's Main Street in 2007-08, the College has witnessed periodic calls for censorship, often accompanied by race-baiting vitriol. Bizarrely, Roger Lott's editorial in The D ("Points in Perspective, Wednesday, Nov. 10, 2010) represents the first assertion that there "should" or "ought" to be controversy where none currently exists.