Music professor's second tenure denial is 'incomprehensible'
To the Editor: We, the students (former and present) of Professor of Music Paul Moravec, whole-heartedly support him in his appeal for tenure.
To the Editor: We, the students (former and present) of Professor of Music Paul Moravec, whole-heartedly support him in his appeal for tenure.
To the Editor: I was very pleased to see your avid support of recent drama productions. However, I wish The Dartmouth was able to give equal support to all the arts at Dartmouth.
Day unto day uttereth speech. The clouds change. The seasons pass over our woods and fields in their slow and regular procession, and time is gone before you were aware of it." --Thomas Merton It seems as if Dartmouth College is a different school each term.
To the Editor: I have no affiliation with the College, aside from living here in Hanover, working at an organization which occupies Dartmouth-owned real estate and knowing some people who are affiliated with the College (including some of the individuals who have taken it upon themselves to protect Hanover from the scourge of nude photography.) Therefore, I have no reason to care if Dartmouth's reputation would be besmirched by having a few of its students disrobe for Playboy's cameras. I have been following the controversy in the pages of The Dartmouth for a variety of reasons, the most important of these being that this whole business is a nice break from our community's usual stuffiness.
To the Editor: I would like to respond to the column in The Dartmouth ("Playboy Models Will Represent Dartmouth," May 11, 1995) which outlined the ignominy that we, as noble Dartmouth students, should feel on behalf of the morally corrupt harlots who pose naked for Playboy. Now, I myself do not find Playboy's pictures appealing.
To the Editor: While I completely agree with the main point Kevin Walsh '98 is trying to make in his May 2 column, I do have a small complaint.
I'llbe glad when Playboy is long gone from our campus. Not out of any strong moral conviction about the implications of its presence, but because I have grown tired of a debate that misses the fundamental point. For the sake of this argument, let us start by simply granting the anti-Playboy argument.
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.