A different photo please
To the Editor: Give me a break! I know that I am not a Hollywood poster pin-up candidate; however, the picture that was printed in the May 3 issue of The Dartmouth did not do justice to me.
To the Editor: Give me a break! I know that I am not a Hollywood poster pin-up candidate; however, the picture that was printed in the May 3 issue of The Dartmouth did not do justice to me.
To the Editor. The letter from my colleagues (Professors Montgomery, Hudson & Thorstensen) on "D-Plan crams courses" (May 10, 1995) may continue the confusion regarding the D-Plan.
During the past two months, I have learnedthat one of the most commonly misunderstood positions in current campus politics is that of the anti-Playboy activist.
Ifirst noticed her on Monday, a woman in my step aerobics class who was exercising like there was no tomorrow.
To the Editor: In his editorial Tuesday ("Let Intellectualism Bloom," May 9, 1995), Abiola Lapite '98 claimed that "the debating club keeps such a low profile as to sometimes cast into doubt its existence." This is probably because there is no "debating club" at Dartmouth.
Whilemany topics of debate on the Dartmouth campus tend to be quite ephemeral, throughout the course of this academic year one issue has remained quite salient.
To the Editor: I guess it's time to make a new batch of "I was Misquoted in the D" buttons for general distribution.
Ihave been thinking a lot about this issue of Playboy coming to campus lately. I thought about how much fun it would be to cover myself in papers and exams to prove a point, and I thought about how flattered I would be if someone thought that I had a nice enough body that men would want to drool over it.
To the Editor: I am writing concerning the "Sleazy The Wonder Squirrel Show" cartoon printed in the Wednesday, April 26 issue of The Dartmouth. Dick's House is not as big a "dark secret" as Chris Miller '97 may suspect.
To The Editor: Dan Richman '95 grossly misunderstood and misrepresented the arguments of the anti-Playboy protesters and those of the pro-choice movement in his narrow-minded comparison of the two ("The Double Standard of 'Choice,' " May 10, 1995). The purpose of Monday's protest was not to prevent women from posing for Playboy, but to persuade them not to.
To the Editor: Contrary to the opinions expressed toward the end of your article "D-Plan made coeducation possible in 1972" (May 6, 1995), many of us in the physical sciences find the D-Plan is not working at all well.
Youknow who they are. The slackers of Dartmouth, a proud bunch of folks who don't need to be proud of anything.
Sundaywas a picture perfect day for the Boston Walk for Hunger. It was a bit windy, but sunny and a lot warmer than New Hampshire.
To the Editor: The article "Class Officers meet over weekend" (May 8, 1995) had some misleading information, and on behalf of the office of Alumni Relations, I would appreciate it if you would note these corrections. 1) The second paragraph of the article causes a potential misunderstanding because the article focuses on a specific aspect of Class Officers Weekend (that COW is for the senior class executive committee members to learn about their positions). As class officers, senior executive committee members are encouraged to participate.
ProspectiveWeek is over. Freshman Parents Weekend is over. The next horde of prospectives probably won't start coming up for a while.
To the Editor: As I opened the Weekend Update(TM) this past week, the fears that I was experiencing as the weekend approached were realized.
To the Editor: I find it highly illuminating that two champions of Playboy's visit to Dartmouth, Playboy photographer David Mecey and Aren Goldsmith '96, interpret the function and effects of the "Women of the Ivy League" issue so differently. Mecey declared that the issue will celebrate "that whole mystique of [being] intelligen[t] and being sexy at the same time." That this is still mystifying to many men is evidenced by Goldsmith's comments, which imply that women cannot be smart and sexy at the same time, even in Playboy.
To the Editor: Thursday morning (May 7) a BlitzMail message was sent out by Giavanna Munafo, head of the Women's Resource Center, stating that, contrary to what had been printed in The Dartmouth, the Dorothy Allison/Dolores Prida reception planned for Friday afternoon was not the first event of the Women Writers Conference (which was open to the public). Rather, the reception was "meant primarily for ... the gay, lesbian and bisexual communities." In other words, straight people are not invited and should please come only to the reading in the evening. The blitz began to bother me.
Ofall the hot topics of debate which have risen this spring, there are none more interesting and ironic than the recent Playboy frenzy. Earlier this week, as the protesters waved their signs and chanted the familiar "Hey, Ho ..." mantra, some strange ironies occurred to me about this ruckus.
To the Editor: Having attended portions of this weekend's conference on " Women Writers and Social Change," I feel particularly motivated to write this letter in response to several articles that appeared on Wednesday, May 4 and Thursday, May 5 in The Dartmouth that addressed recent campus activities on the issue of sexual assault. My first critique is of Thursday's article entitled "Coalitions formed to examine COS," and Friday's House Editorial, "Research Must Precede Reform." I feel that The Dartmouth has done a disservice to those students who have already put in many hours discussing issues and strategies by focusing on the division between the coalitions that have developed to address various concerns.