Education Department a Valuable Resource
To the Editor: The recent resolution passed by the Committee on Social Science regarding the education department represents a disturbing degree of institutional and epistemological myopia.
To the Editor: The recent resolution passed by the Committee on Social Science regarding the education department represents a disturbing degree of institutional and epistemological myopia.
Maybe it's because of the spring, another pollen-infested spring that brings with it the bane of allergies, and maybe these allergies have started to affect my brain like they always do, but I think I've had just about enough of critical theory. Oh, don't sit there and pretend you don't know what critical theory is, because I know you do, even if you don't call it "critical theory." It's the stuff that keeps 95 percent of academics from being unemployed (excepting, of course, the research scientists, but we'll spare them a bashing this time, at least). Critical theory is a facilitator, I think, in driving many college students completely insane.
On May 14, The Dartmouth ran a comic titled "Sleazy the Wonder Squirrel Show." Chris Miller '97 evidently though it would be funny to get a few pokes in at Hanover's skateboarders.
We are members of the Student Assembly. We are also members of both the community of color and the community of women on the Dartmouth campus.
Dartmouth worries about alcohol and its effects on campus life. When students act to address those concerns, all parts of the College should rally behind them. Students and administrators cite alcohol as their greatest concern about the Greek system.
He calls former friend Clinton an "amiable windsock." No, it is not Dole. He has suggested he would jump into the '96 Presidential race if the circumstances were right.
To the Editor: In Joshua Mooney '98's Letter to the Editor ["Politicians Should be Held Responsible for their Actions," The Dartmouth, May 14], Senator Slade Gorton of Washington is incorrectly identified as a member of "Dartmouth Class of 1950" when, in fact, he is a member of the Class of 1949. A small point, perhaps, in relation to the rest of Mooney's letter, but a significant one, nevertheless, to alumni for whom class affiliation is important.
At the end of winter term, I had my last official Undergraduate Advisor group meeting before I left for France.
This week the Republican Party officially adopted the anti-abortion plank into the party platform.
They really should offer a class on how to manipulate the Dartmouth Plan. I feel like I stumbled blindly into my enrollment pattern.
As I attempt to produce another column, I find in me, again, an urge to refute what I have previously written.
Dartmouth's education department and Jimmy Hoffa have more in common than you might think. Both were up against a powerful and secretive group that wanted them eliminated.
To the Editor: Last Saturday I attended the "Crisis is Nigeria" discussion presented by AfriCaSo in which key note speaker, Hafisat Abiola, daughter of the imprisoned president-elect, described the plight of her family and her country.
To the Editor: John Dewey said: "What we want and need is education pure and simple, and we shall make surer and faster progress when we devote ourselves to finding out what education is and what conditions have to be satisfied in order that education may be a reality and not a name or slogan." Moreover, "the constant factors [in education] are the formation of ideas, acting upon ideas, observation of the conditions which result, and organization of facts and ideas for future use." When this cycle of learning is embraced by an entire community, it represents the essence of democracy and the core purpose of a liberal arts college. The education department is a century-old experiment.
To the Editor: On July 27, 1995, Congress and the President of the United States sent a message to the citizens of this country -- they are willing to suspend all major environmental legislation to allow timber companies to log in previously protected areas.
One of the springtime rites of passage of every Dartmouth sophomore is picking a major. In spite of the mercurial nature of our recent selections, a major question has since festered in my mind: What says more about a person -- their major, or the reasons they choose that major? In order to alleviate your "anticipating columnist cliche" pains, I will get my hackneyed but applicable dose of cliches out of the way early and rephrase my question at the same time: Do your means justify your ends, or do your ends justify your means (perhaps more idealistically, can your ends ever truly justify your means?). An overdue explanation will now follow. As far as my sophomore eyes see it, the major scenario plays out to three general schools of thought. First, there is the anal-retentive career-oriented bunch who choose their major for the sole purpose of inflating their grade point average (the most over-heard, over-emphasized words on any Ivy League campus) to the brink of its 4.0 boundary. Second, there are the premeditated pre-professionals whose tunnel-visioned folks have scoped out the most accommodating job market.
The discussion on May 9 on the future of the education department revealed numerous important issues to futher examine.
To the Editor: On Thursday, May 9, I attended the discussion about the future of the education department here at the College.
After a long weekend of mediocre revelry and occasional insanity, a friend and I sat down outside the Hop on a fine rainy Sunday morning.
What good is history? Since Herodotus first earned himself the title "father of lies," it has been the penchant of a few men to note down accounts of the words and deeds of the ages preceding theirs. Perhaps, as Henry Ford suggested, these men have been wasting their time; perhaps, like the alchemists and astrologers, they were chasing after nonsense; perhaps what we really need in this age is to do away with history entirely and concentrate on subjects which will fit men to deal with the problems and occupations of our day. At this point Santayana's famous quip on the matter comes to mind, but this is not a good defense, for even if history has lessons to teach us, we must not forget that history never repeats itself -- perhaps it is sometimes better that we do not pay too close attention to what learned accounts tell us. There is a better defense of the study of history.