Page 1 The Dartmouth Review February 18, 2013

Dartmouth’s Only Independent NewspaperVolume 32, Issue 11February 18, 2013

The Hanover Review, Inc.P.O. Box 343

Hanover, NH 03755

The Dartmouth Review

Tensions Are Rising in Hanover

Inside this Issue:

Bias Incidents and Freedom of Expression Alpha Phi Alpha Judgment Raises Questions

The Whining Wall of Baker-Berry

Page 2 The Dartmouth Review February 18, 2013

Bias Incidents and Freedom of Expression

Write for The Dartmouth Review

Mondays at 6:30 Phi Delta Alpha

By Nick Duva

A message containing a racist slur was scrawled on a whiteboard outside a room in the Choates early on Saturday, January 19th. The author remains unknown, as does the target. The incident was the second reported this academic year, followed by a third on January 23rd, in which a student approached two groups of Asian students in Class of 1953 Commons and spoke in mock-Chinese gibberish. The fallout from the events has been immense. Barely a day after the Choates incident, Interim President Carol Folt and Dean of Students Charlotte Johnson sent out a campus-wide Blitz, noting that “the Bias Incident Response Team has responded quickly, is investigating the matter, and is providing support to impacted students.” The Office of Pluralism and Leadership organized an event in Kemeny Hall in response to the events. Even Safety & Security got involved in looking for the suspects. From all corners, there has been widespread condemnation of the bias incidents. Because the administration has gone after bias speech with a particular vehemence, its efforts portend an undue impact on freedom of expression on campus. In any such instance there is invariably a trade-off between the need to preserve an open campus culture and to promote an envi-ronment free of bigotry. For instance, if the administration were to punish someone for directing an epithet at a fellow student, it would be impinging upon his right to say what he feels. Similarly, if such an incident were ignored, the administration would be tacitly allowing bigotry in the name of free speech. This basic example illustrates the underlying conflict, which is unfortunate, as both values are central tenets of a modern, democratic society. That they are both so important indicates that a prudent middle course ought to be pursued. Different institutions respond in different ways to this

Mr. Duva is a freshman at the College and News Editor of The Dartmouth Review.

quandary. Our federal government has long been one of the more liberal voices in the debate. In the United States, speech is only illegal in two cases. One is when it incites to “imminent lawless action”—not just abstract advocacy of force or law-breaking—as dictated in the 1969 Supreme Court case of Brandenberg v. Ohio. Clarence Branden-berg was a Ku Klux Klan leader that led rallies featuring speeches that advocated “revengence” against black and Jewish Americans in front of throngs of robe-clad, rifle-toting Klansmen. He was sentenced by a Ohio court un-der a criminal syndicate statute to serve one to ten years in prison; the conviction and the law that led to it were

unanimously overturned by the Earl Warren-led Supreme Court. The other way in which speech is illegal, as per the Watts vs. United States case, is when it constitutes a “true threat.” Any other form of speech, as malevolent as it may be, is protected by the Constitution. Other governments are more restrictive. German criminal law notably incorporates the concept of Volksver-hetzung (incitement of popular hatred), making speech that attacks die Menschenwürde anderer—the human dignity of others—illegal. Under German law, a myriad of big-oted actions and speech can be grounds for prosecution, including Holocaust denial, the display of swastikas, and the distribution of racist pamphlets. Similar laws, chiefly

the Public Order Act 1986 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, are on the books in the United Kingdom. What made the institutions come to such different conclusions? Why do some democratic governments prioritize personal liberty, whereas others prioritize order and social cohesion? The answer lies in three factors: the history and legacy of discrimination, current problems with discrimination, and the composition of the institution. The first factor, historical discrimination, can be seen in Germany, where the legacy of Nazism helped lead to the country’s notoriously strict regulations. But even in the United States, there has been talk of “special cases.” Clarence Thomas, dissenting alone in the 2003 Supreme Court case Virginia v. Black, proposed that cross-burning, due to its association with racism, be made illegal. The next factor, current discrimination, is a bit more palpable. A high level of discrimination can provide an excuse to infringe upon civil liberties. But while Dart-mouth’s administration works vigorously to cull bias speech, incidences on campus are quite low. This year, there have been three reported bias incidents. One, in November, involved racist comments left on campaign signs of President Obama. The second took place, as noted, on January 19th, when “Good job at practice nigga” was reportedly scribbled on a whiteboard; in the third, a student spoke in mocking gibberish to Asian students at lunch. For an exceptionally diverse campus of over 4000 individuals, all of whom have different backgrounds and viewpoints, three minor bias incidents is by no means indicative of a disturbing, underlying trend. There are, of course, incidences that have not been reported to the Bias Incident Response Team. It is inherently difficult to catalogue the exact level of discrimination at the College, or in any place, for that matter. But some metric has to be used, and the number of reported bias incidents is the best one available, especially seeing as how actively the administration promotes that avenue. Overall, the fundamental ideals of the institution itself are the most important factor. The main reason why the

In a place where the free exchange of ideas is supposed to be paramount, the idea

that you can say a word any place at any time and find yourself standing in front of a disciplinary tribunal, facing expulsion, is a scary thought. This scenario is not an imag-ined one; the College directly and publicly threatened the unknown perpetrator behind the third incident with expulsion.

February 18, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 3

The Dartmouth Oral History Project, one of the most interesting initiatives at Rauner Special Collections Library, sees editor Mary Donin record interviews with Dartmouth College people, including alumni, professors, and the like. One facet of the project, “The War Years at Dartmouth,” focuses on students of the 1940s and their experiences surrounding the Second World War. Among those transcripts, certain interviewees stand out as insightful, spirited, and evocative. One such, Walter Fisher class of 1950, strikes a tone of equal parts nostalgia and petulance. Fisher’s view of John Sloan Dickey is particularly de-nunciatory, which led me to the name of Pudge Neidlinger and down the rabbit hole of College history. As Fisher saw it, “..the dean, Pudge Neidlinger, he was really running the school. John Sloan Dickey thought he was running the school, but he was full of baloney. He was off in some ethereal world that this school didn’t even understand.”Fisher’s view is contrary to popular opinion on Dickey, and flies in the face of the sentiment invoked by President Kim. My interest was piqued. Piecing together other inter-views, newspaper articles, and the small number of anecdotes avail-able, I began to form an image of the erstwhile dean. According to his obituary in the Daytona Beach Sunday News-Journal, Lloyd “Pudge” Neidlinger was born December 23, 1901 in Brooklyn, New York. He came to the College in the early 1920s as an undergraduate. In 1922, Pudge kicked a 51 yard field goal, a Dartmouth Football record that stood for . He was a star football player—named a second team All-American by Walter Camp in 1922—and a skilled hockey goalie. He graduated in 1923. But it was ten years later that Pudge Neidlinger returned and left his mark at the College, serving as dean from 1933-1952 under both President Hopkins and President Dickey. As for personality, Dean Neidlinger is remembered by his students as stern, but committed administrator of the College. It was Dean Neidlinger who, upon hearing that students were responding to the news of Pearl Harbor by

trashing fraternity houses, walked into the Delta Kappa Epsilon House (Pudge was a DKE, himself) and threw the offenders out of the building. It was Dean Neidlinger who gave Walter Fisher time off from school to get married, even if it was only one week for ceremony and honeymoon. But it was also Dean Neidlinger who personally took guardianship of Takanobu Mitsui ’43, so that the student would not be relocated to an internment camp during World War II. John Sloan Dickey may have headed the College, but Pudge Neidlinger made sure all the cogs were running smoothly. Such is an example that should be heeded by all ad-ministrators of the College, but an appeal is particularly

necessary to Dean Johnson and the incoming Dr. Hanlon. Dean Neidlinger did not orchestrate the public face of the College—such was neither his interest nor his task—but to those who attended the school under his deanship, he could hardly be forgotten. This invocation of Dean Neidlinger is not to suggest that Dr. Hanlon’s eye should not be focused outside Hanover. The role of president has steadily become that of representative and fundraiser, the face of the College. This is an important role, but by no stretch of the imagination should it be the only role served by the leader of Dartmouth. Dr. Hanlon should consider both aspects of

the presidency with weight. As was witnessed with Dr. Kim, imbalance therein has perilous consequences. Perhaps it is fitting that there is no building on

campus named for Dean Neidlinger, nor any public remembrance of his tenure. It is just as fitting, then, that so many memories of his actions and personal-ity are recalled so fondly a half-century later by the students on whom he left a lifelong impression. Which is the stronger legacy? My lot is cast with Pudge. After

all, how many buildings on the Dartmouth campus are named for people long forgotten by the College, or at any rate, her students? n

George A. MendozaFeatures Editors

Editorial

Subscribe: $40The Dartmouth Review

P.O. Box 343Hanover, N.H. 03755

603-643-4370

Contributions are

tax-deductible.www.dartreview.com

Benjamin M. RileyPresident

The DarTmouTh review is produced bi-weekly by Dart-mouth College undergraduates for Dartmouth students and alumni. It is published by the Hanover Review, Inc., a non-profit tax-deductible organization. Please send all inquiries to:

The Dartmouth ReviewP.O. Box 343

Hanover, N.H. 03755

FoundersGreg Fossedal, Gordon Haff,Benjamin Hart, Keeney Jones

“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win great tri-umphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”

—Theodore Roosevelt

Special Thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr.

Adam I.W. SchwartzmanEditor-in-Chief

The Review Advisory Board

Contributors

Mean-Spirited, Cruel and UglyLegal Counsel

The Editors of The DarTmouTh review welcome cor-respondence from readers concerning any subject, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on mate-rial published previously in The review. We reserve the right to edit all letters for clarity and length.Submit letters by mail or e-mail:

Adam.I.W.Schwartzman.13@dartmouth.edu

Blake S. Neff, Jay M. Keating III, Michael T. Haughey, Stuart A. Allan, J.P. Harrington, John Melvin, Melanie

Wilcox, Paul Trethaway, Charles Jang

“Signed, sealed, delivered.”

Thomas L. Hauch • Rebecca Hecht • Nicholas P. Desatnick

Managing Editors

Elizabeth A. Reynolds • Taylor CathcartVice Presidents

Coleman E. ShearExecutive Editor

Nick Duva • Caroline SohrNews Editors

Martin Anderson, Patrick Buchanan, Theodore Cooper-stein, Dinesh D’Souza, Michael Ellis, Robert Flanigan, John Fund, Kevin Robbins, Gordon Haff, Jeffrey Hart, Laura Ingraham, Mildred Fay Jefferson, William Lind, Steven Menashi, James Panero, Hugo Restall, Roland

Reynolds, Weston Sager, Emily Esfahani Smith, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Charles Dameron

TheDartmouth Review

Bias Incidents and Freedom of Speech Page 2 Week in Review Pages 4 & 5 Alpha Phi Alpha Decision Raises Questions Page 7 The Whining Wall of Baker-Berry Pages 8 & 9 The Living Moment Page 10 Kemeny on Tucker Page 10 Fond Memories of Baker-Berry Page 11 Last Word & Mixology Page 12

Adam I.W. Schwartzman

It was Dean Neidlinger who gave Walter Fisher time off from school to get married,

even if it was only one week for ceremony and honeymoon. But it was also Dean Nei-dlinger who personally took guardianship of Takanobu Mitsui ’43, so that the student would not be relocated to an internment camp during World War II.

Chloe M. TeeterMedia Editor

Hilary Hamm • Kirk JingAssociate Editors

Who Was Pudge Neidlinger ‘23?

Stinson’s: Your Pong HQCups, Balls, Paddles, Accessories

(603) 643-6086 | www.stinsonsvillagestore.com

and Morgan Stanley, both of which the SEC regularly investigates. As chairwoman of the SEC, White will be charged with the task of going after banks in the wake of the regulatory nightmare of the Dodd-Frank Act. However, her lack of knowledge of financial markets is certainly a drawback, as she has almost no experience in writing regulatory laws, a main function of the SEC. Supporters say that her prosecu-torial career makes up for her dearth of knowledge and that she will learn the job quickly. But because of her nonexistent track record in the industry, it is largely uncertain how she will implement major financial reform bills. Her appointment also creates a conflict of inter-est as she will now be prosecuting the same institu-tions that she had just spent the last ten years of her career defending. Her revolving-door style career of moving back and forth between private practice and government makes many uneasy. Moreover, her husband, John White, is a financial consultant who advises firms on regulatory dealings with the SEC. For the first two years as the head of the regulatory giant, White will likely be required to recuse herself from any cases dealing with Debevoise or any of her (or her husband’s) clients. Her nomination is seen as a gesture by Presi-dent Obama that he intents to crack down on Wall Street banks and trading firms. However, White’s track record indicates an uncertain future for the regulatory machine of the SEC.

Bill Proposed to Repeal ‘SYG’

Representative Stephen Shurtleff (D) of the New Hampshire State Legislature has proposed HB 135, a bill repealing New Hampshire’s Stand Your Ground provision. Made infamous during the February 2012 Trayvon Martin shooting, Stand Your Ground, codified into law in 19 states, has been mischaracterized as a doctrine allowing gun owners to shoot and kill in public at the slightest provocation, escaping punishment by claiming “self-defense” as an excuse. Representative Laura Pantelakos, a supporter of HB 135 and another Democrat, illustrated this misguided view when she opined, “There have to be laws; you don’t have a right to shoot someone.” Stand Your Ground, of course, does not give free rein for murderers and psychopaths to get off scot-free. Its basic idea is simple: if one is in public, and is faced with deadly force (this is important) one may use deadly force against it. This is an im-provement over the previous position of the law (the “Duty to Retreat” doctrine), which mandated that, if one were attacked in public with deadly force, one would have to retreat until it was no longer possible to do so. The result would seem obvi-ous from a reversion; people genuinely defending themselves in public against, say, muggers, rapists, or Confederate soldiers sneaking in through Canada

The Week in ReviewState Senate Debates

Good Sam Bill A New Hampshire bill could create one less nemesis for Dartmouth students. Former State Representative Jennifer Coffey proposed a Good Samaritan law that is being debated in the state legislature. If the measure passes, seeking help for drug and alcohol related incidents by calling 911 will no longer be accompanied by criminal and civil liability for either the victim or the caller. Eight states have already enacted similar laws that ultimately value human life over legal consequences. If the bill passes, students who are sent to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (rather than Dick’s House) will no longer face arrest for particular nighttime revelries. Opponents of the bill have questioned potential unintended consequences. Would a hypothetical drunk driver who called the police following an accident be exonerated from manslaughter charges? Hanover Police fear that this law will create a re-volving door, requiring them to babysit the same offenders week after week. While this paper is generally in support of such a measure, we kindly remind student readers to remain wary of Hanover Police.

Obama Nominates New SEC Head

President Obama tapped former prosecutor Mary Jo White to replace Mary Schapiro as head of the SEC. If approved by the Senate, she will be the first former prosecutor to head the regulatory body, and the only woman in an all male Obama cabinet. A graduate of Columbia Law School, White has had a colorful career. As a federal prosecu-tor for the Southern District of New York, White prosecuted everyone from terrorists connected to the 1993 World Trade Center Bombings to mobster Jon Gotti, the “Teflon Don.” She also indicted Osama bin Laden for the US Embassy Bombings in Africa. After her nine-year stint as a prosecutor, White moved to private practice, partnering at Debevoise and Plimpton where she defended firms such as JP Morgan Chase

“That’s a bias incident waiting to happen!” -Col. James Donovan ‘39

The Week in Review

(it happened in 1864 in St. Albans, Vermont) would find themselves entangled in red tape as lawyers would debate over whether they could have run away any more, leading to, at best, hefty legal fees, and, at worst, criminal charges. HB 135 would revert back to the previous law. It would back the Stand Your Ground laws that allow people to defend themselves in public. It would make displaying a firearm considered “deadly force” (not aiming a gun at someone; simply drawing or displaying one will suffice). It also repeals a provision granting legal immunity to people defending themselves. While the bill may pass the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate, which has a one-seat Republican majority.

NYC School Bus Strike Ends

Last Friday marked the end of the school bus strike in New York City. School bus unions had been on strike for about a month, demanding, among other things, a job protection clause in the union contract be preserved, against attempts by Mayor Bloomberg to do away with it. The clause stipulated that all open jobs be filled based on a seniority list. School bus unions called off the strike after receiving promises from five individual Democratic mayoral candidates for 2014 to work more closely with unions, should they get elected. No surprise these mayoral candidates are steadfast New York cronies: Comptroller John Liu; Public Advocate Bill de Blasio; former Comptroller Bill Thompson; former City Councilman Sal Albanese; City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. These five crafted and signed a letter pledging to help unions meet their “needs” under the new mayor. When asked how this letter was written and who wrote it, Comptroller John Liu responded that those facts were “irrelevant.” The sole voice of reason among the muck came from Republican candidate Joseph Lhota, who remarked, “I find it appalling and disrespectful that five Democrat candidates for mayor would pledge to put the desires of a union ahead of the needs of all New Yorkers.” “All New Yorkers” is quite accurate. Besides obtaining pathetic acts of submission from these five candidates, it would appear that the strike ac-complished absolutely nothing else, while hurting all involved: 150,000 students who rely on bus transportation to school, their parents, many of whom had to take hours off from work to bring

their children to school, and the 8,000 bus drivers and mechanics on strike who were only making reduced pay while the strike was going on. Mr. Lhota was generous to say that the union was put forward by these union leaders. Many bus drivers, mostly those with fewer years on the job, have lost their jobs during the strike, as bus companies were forced to hire drivers to replace them. Leave it to union leaders to make Mayor Bloomberg come off looking like a champion of New Yorkers. This is not the first school bus union strike and it will not be the last. Now that these five democrats have promised themselves to the unions (not to say their word means a whole lot), the chances of a situation like this occurring again in the next couple of years definitely increases.

Pope Benedict XVI Resigns

Pope Benedict XVI announced that he will be resigning from office. This is the second time in history that a living pope has abdicated power; the position is usually kept for the remainder of a Pope’s life. Benedict’s main reason for stepping down is that he feels he can no longer perform the duties of Pope with his advancing age. The church is currently at a crossroads with attendance dwindling in the West, but growing in the developing world. Benedict comes from the more conservative wing of the Catholic Church, like his predecessor John Paul II. Both named a large number of mem-bers of the College of Cardinals so it is likely that the new Pope will be a conservative cut from the same cloth. Speculation abounds as to the reasons behind his resignation.

Free Dale Askey In today’s neurotically litigious society, feckless lawsuits are all too common. But a recent case out Onatario’s McMaster University has surpassed all others by turning what was a legal frivolity into an exercise in self-destruction. In the summer of 2010, Dale Askey, then at staffer at a library within the Kansas State Uni-versity System, posted an article to his personal blog in which he criticized Edwin Mellen Press for publishing “dubious” works of “second-class scholarship.” The post was met with clamorous approval, as a number of commentators voiced

similar concerns about the credibility of the orga-nization. One poster in particular suggested that the company’s founder was a “facist and evangelical scientologist” whose unscientific biases pervaded its corporate culture and left it unfit for the task of handling serious academic material. Although the criticism was almost universal, activity on the page was short-lived, and after a few days of snarkiness, all commentary subsided and the article was forgot-ten. Or so, Mr. Askey had thought. Nearly two years later, he received a notice of action from the founder of Edwin Mellen Press that he was being sued over $1-million in damages. That same day, the publishing house itself sent a similar notification to Mr. Askey and McMaster University, his current employer, telling them that they were both being sued for $3-million each. In the lawsuits, filed in Canadian court, the firm and its founder are seeking compensation for the “perceived defamation fostered by” the blog post and the comments left by its readers, leaving the unwitting college librarian on the hook for a potential $4-million payout. The subsequent uproar was immediate and widespread. Within days, librarians, professors and academic associations around the world rallied to Mr. Askey’s defense, calling this case an assault on academic freedom and the right to unimpeded speech. Tweeting under the hashtag of #Free-DaleAskey, they have collected several thousand signatures from concerned citizens and scholars and have attracted high-profile support from some of the largest academic interest groups in Canada. Many of these organizations have threatened to boycott any publications produced by Edwin Mellen Press until the suits are dropped and a formal apology has been issued. As of this article’s publication, representatives from the firm have yet to respond. Regardless of how the lawsuit turns out, it appears that both Edwin Mellen and its founder will wind-up as the biggest losers. Having sunk several million dollars into what has amounted to a catastrophic PR faux pas, it is not even clear that there are any legal grounds for the action they have taken. When Mr. Askey posted his private criticism of the of the publishing house, he was living in Kansas and was employed by an American institution; only after to moving to Ontario and accepting employment at a local university was he retroactively targeted for libel. If this is not grounds enough for the dismissal of both suits, then the additional complication of the free speech rights of internet commentators will surely prove to be. In what is perhaps the great-est irony of the case, the legal counsel of Edwin Mellen is not seeking damages for anything that Mr. Askey or his employer published, but rather what their readers wrote in the comments section. This detail has led many Canadian and American legal scholars to discredit the case in its entirety and call for its dismissal. But whatever comes of the legal action, one fact remains: Edwin Mellen has seriously dam-aged its scholarly reputation and its perception as a respectable academic publisher. In the words of one blogger, “Edwin Mellen has now extinguished themselves. No self-respecting university would dare touch it or subscribe to articles now that it has tried to eat one of their own.” Thus, in the im-mortal words of Hamlet, it appears that the schemer “hath hoisted himself with his own petard” in a most dramatic fashion. And when that happens, everyone but the “librarian chasers” loses and loses big. n

“I need a hot tip on something relevant to complain about.” -Col. James Donovan ‘39

Page 6 The Dartmouth Review February 18, 2013

Bias Incidents ContinuedUnited States continues to allow most bias speech is that the country was founded by thinkers of the Enlightenment, holding in mind the notion that no one would “abridg[e] the freedom of speech.” Subsequent generations have adhered to those principles and freedom of speech remains central to this country’s nature. What our federal government decides to do, of course, has little relevance to how Dartmouth chooses to punish those who use bias speech. It is a private institution, after all, and has the right to discipline its students as it sees fit. But the example of the United States shows how a country with such a deep history of racism (and a good amount of modern discrimi-nation) nevertheless does not prosecute hate speech in the name of free expression. On the other hand, Dartmouth does prosecute it. Even though the level of racism on this campus, past and present, is nowhere near what has been seen throughout this country, Dartmouth goes above and beyond our government in its pursuit of bias speech. This means one of two things: either the College’s essential ideals support a course of order or social cohesion over freedom of expression, or the administration is abusing its mandate. It is not likely that the former is the case. Dartmouth, after all, is a liberal arts col-lege, where the ultimate goal for students is the pursuit of knowledge. A liberal arts education is supposed to pro-duce well-rounded graduates with great depth of thought. Schools like Dartmouth have a special responsibility to promote freedom of speech and thought, even when certain statements may be offensive to the sensibilities of the majority. This does not mean, of course, that Dartmouth should allow all manners of speech. But when the old quandary–freedom of speech vs. efforts against discrimi-nation–comes into play, the College should always err on the side of freedom. The College, regrettably, has veered hard in the op-posite direction. The web page of the “Bias Incidents Response Team” states that “if you witness or directly experience a bias incident or find evidence of bias incidents on the Dartmouth College campus, immediately contact a College official, contact Safety and Security, or report the incident online.” The College here is actively encouraging students to report on one another. In a place where the free exchange of ideas is supposed to be paramount, the idea that you can say a word any place at any time and find yourself standing in front of a disciplinary tribunal, facing expulsion, is a scary thought. This scenario is not an imagined one; the College directly and publicly threatened the unknown perpetrator behind the third

incident with expulsion. When a short, non-threatening exchange in the lunch hall can get someone kicked out of

school, academic freedom, a bedrock of a democratic society, is curbed. It should be clear that current bias regulations at the College are antithetical to its ideals. Neverthe-less, the administration continues in its paternalistic manner. Notice that, in all three of the bias incidents, what was actually said never became public.

“Racist remarks” were left on Obama campaign literature; “racist graffiti” was left on a whiteboard in the Choates. Why, amid the barrage of emails and forums and candle-light vigils, won’t the administration tell us what was actually said? There are two possibilities. The first is that the administration doesn’t think that the student body is capable of hearing the message, that certain words are too offensive for anyone to hear. The second, and more likely scenario, is that the

administration knows how skeptical the student re-sponse would be if they discovered what the mes-sage actually was. Very few students would believe that someone drunkenly scrib-bling “good job at practice nigga” on a whiteboard early on a Saturday morning is evidence of a campus-wide problem. So, instead, Interim President Folt and Dean Johnson make refer-ence to “racist graffiti” and

pledge that the Bias Incident Response Team will “provide support to impacted students,” trying to insinuate that the words were “fighting words” without saying what they were. In essence, the administration consciously distorts the situation in order to justify its own overreaction. Again, while the values of free speech and tolerance are both impor-tant, certain situations necessitate that the two must be weighed against each other. The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the great driving forces behind the Civil Rights movement and a staunch enemy of discrimination of all kinds, weighed the two values and came to the same conclusion as the Dartmouth Review has: that bias speech codes are the wrong way to fight discrimination. The ACLU, in a primer on college bias speech regulations, notes correctly that “how much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most.” There should be no doubt that discriminatory speech is

The real “silent majority” ought to grow loud and condemn a

system that encourages students to report on one another and denies freedom of speech.

Schools like Dartmouth have a special responsibility to promote freedom of

speech and thought, even when certain state-ments may be offensive to the sensibilities of the majority. This does not mean, of course, that Dartmouth should allow all manners of speech. But when the old quandary–freedom of speech vs. efforts against discrimination–comes into play, the College should always err on the side of freedom.

offensive to most, if not all on this campus. There should be no doubt that discriminatory speech has little value in college discourse. But the idea of free speech is that it is indivisible, that no one can be punished for simply expressing a viewpoint. When one of us loses our right to free speech, all of us do. The problems behind campus speech codes go beyond the simple issue of “minority rights vs. majority rule.” For as the ACLU notes, “the ultimate power to decide what speech is offensive and to whom rests with the college administration—not with those who are the alleged vic-tims of hate speech.” In essence, who determines whether or not speech should be illegal is not the student body at large but a small group of college administrators, carry-ing out policies they believe to be in the best interest of the College. This undue mandate can extend to whatever speech the administration determines to be unnecessary or offensive: extreme left-wing views, anti-Zionism, anything that may be well out of the mainstream or perceived as harmful. It should be clear that no speech, provided that it does not threaten or harass, ought to be censored on a college campus. Such examples are not restricted to the realm of pos-sibility: the Bias Incident Response Team is an example of the administration going against the will of the student body. As I noted, there is a reason why the actual state-ment on the whiteboard was not released. There is a reason why Dean Johnson finds it necessary to invoke a “silent majority.” There is a reason for the collage of students’ experiences with bias in the library: the administration seeks to create the illusion that the student body supports these speech regulations. The real “silent majority” ought to grow loud and condemn a system that encourages students to report on one another and denies freedom of speech. Even to those who consider bias speech an anathema, when the Ameri-can Civil Liberties Union, one of the greatest enemies of

discrimination in American history, staunchly supposes college bias regulations, it should become clear that the administration has gone too far. In the name of the Col-lege’s ideals and freedom of thought, we should reconsider our bias speech policies. n

Notice that, in all three of the bias incidents, what was actually said never became public. “Racist remarks”

were left on Obama campaign literature; “racist graffiti” was left on a whiteboard in the Choates. Why, amid the barrage of emails and forums and candlelight vigils, won’t the administration tell us what was actually said? There are two possibilities. The first is that the administration doesn’t think that the student body is capable of hearing the message, that certain words are too offensive for anyone to hear. The second, and more likely scenario, is that the administration knows how skeptical the student response would be if they discovered what the message actually was.

Subscribe to The Dartmouth Review

for all of your College news!

February 18, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 7

Alpha Phi Alpha Judgement Raises Questions

Ms. Sohr is a freshman at the College and News Editor of The Dartmouth Review.

By Caroline Sohr

After being sentenced to three terms of probation on January 16, Alpha Phi Alpha has become the latest fra-ternity to face punishment from the College for hazing its pledges. However, this time around many have questioned whether the penalties go far enough. Especially since Dean of the College Charlotte Johnson and the Director of Greek Letter Organizations and Socities Wes Schaub previously warned that any frat found guilty of hazing would face harsh consequences, many have begun to wonder whether there were any ulterior motives behind Alpha Phi Alpha’s suspiciously light punishment. According to the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office website, Alpha Phi Alpha has been sentenced to three terms of College Probation (effective 13W, 13S, and 13X) and may not recruit new members until 13F. This announcement comes after an Alpha pledge, Yesuto Shaw ’15, reported hazing to the administration and wrote an article in The Daily Dartmouth’s “Mirror” magazine describing his experience during the fraternity’s initiation process last fall. In his article, Shaw claims that the Alpha Phi Alpha brothers forced him and the other pledges to do “count-less numbers of push-ups and other exercises,” sometimes with additional weight strapped to their backs. They were also hit in the chest with plastic serving spoons and were ordered “to no longer speak to [their] friends outside of the fraternity.” Following this report, many at the College were quick to blame the administration and their failed hazing policies, especially in light of last year’s very public scandal at the hands of Andrew Lohse ‘12. Many felt that Johnson and Schuab were too harsh on the “silly” pledge term traditions like sirens, lunchboxes, ribbons, and flair instead of focusing on the more seri-ous and danger-ous practices and problems at hand. Two weeks af-ter Shaw’s article was published in The Dartmouth, Dean Johnson re-sponded to these allegations in a message to the Dartmouth com-muni ty. In her email sent on No-vember 2, John-son praised those who had stepped forward to report hazing and en-couraged others to do the same. She seemed to believe that her and Wes Schuab’s “efforts to reduce the harm caused by the excessive drinking, hazing, and sexual assault” had been successful, noting that “many students—in the Greek community and beyond—have responded to the call for increased accountability and responsibility.” For the next two months, there was radio silence from the administration. As the College investigated the hazing claims, many wondered what Alpha Phi Alpha’s punish-ment would be. On January 16, the administration finally announced on its website that Alpha Phi Alpha violated Standards I and II of the College Student Handbook. Alpha violated Standard I by causing physi-cal harm to others and Standard II by engaging in behav-ior that “threatens the safety, security, or functioning of the College.” APA now faces three terms of “College Probation,” during which time they may not recruit new members. If Alpha properly follows all the terms of their sentence, they will be able to accept pledges during 13F. However, this “punishment” has essentially no effect on Alpha Phi Alpha’s membership as the fraternity typically accepts most, if not all, its pledges in the fall and would likely not have held a winter or spring rush anyway. Alpha Phi Alpha must also form an Advisory Board

comprised of two local alumni, one representative from the na-tional fraternity, and a faculty member that will meet monthly for the next two years to oversee the recruitment of new members. APA and its Advisory Board must work with Wes Schaub to explain the rationale and process of new member recruit-ment. They must “ensure that all members understand and carry out their roles and responsi-bilities” and do not subject their pledges to any behaviors outside of those explicitly outlined in their developed plan. If Alpha Phi Alpha does not comply with these penalties, they may face further sanctions or “permanent revocation of recognition.” Many were surprised by the leniency of Alpha’s punishment, causing some to question wheth-er there were racial undertones behind the administration’s decision. Some have compared Alpha Phi Alpha’s probation to the punishment to which SAE was sentenced last April. After Andrew Lohse’s now-infamous editorial was pub-lished in The Dartmouth last January, the College placed SAE on three terms of probation, including six weeks of social probation, during which time the fraternity was

forbidden from holding any social events. While neither APA’s nor SAE’s fall recruit-ments were directly affected by their proba-tions, SAE’s restriction from hosting parties, although only lasting for a few weeks, was an actual constraint on its existence. On the other hand, Alpha Phi Alpha sponsored a party the weekend after its punishment was announced. Recently, Yesuto Shaw wrote another editorial published in The Dartmouth, in which he explains that he purposely reported Alpha Phi Alpha’s hazing during a “grace period” in order to protect the fraternity from being derecognized. When Shaw met with Wes Shaub last October, the College had just implemented its stricter hazing policies on September 21. All Greek societies were in a month-long “grace period,” which lasted until October 22, as the organizations ad-justed to the new procedures. If a fraternity were accused of hazing during this time, its

punishment was to be focused on helping develop new pledging procedures and educating the organization’s members on the effects and consequences of hazing. Schuab told Shaw that he could choose whether to officially report the hazing during this grace period or wait until after it had ended so that Alpha Phi Alpha would face a harsher punishment and possibly be removed from Dartmouth’s campus. According to Shaw, he chose to take advantage of the grace period because he was assured that Alpha Phi Alpha “would not be derecognized [and] would have their consequences more focused on education than on punish-ment” and wanted to ensure that Alpha Phi Alpha remained

at the College as a social organization for African American students. However, if the grace period was meant to function as Shaw’s editorial suggests, it seems that Schuab essen-tially allowed and encouraged Greek organizations to haze their pledges during this time without the risk of

derecognition. Instead of applying to all hazing standards, this grace period should have applied exclusively to the College’s new regulations and not to the practices that would have also been prohibited under the old policy. Why should Alpha Phi Alpha have received a lighter punishment for hazing pledges during this “grace period” when the physical beating and emotional abuse to which it subjected its pledges certainly would have been forbidden before the policies changed? It seems that Shaw and Shaub used the grace period to their advantage in order to protect Alpha Phi Alpha. By changing its meaning to apply to all hazing offenses, even those that had been prohibited for years

before the new standards were implemented, the College essentially used the grace period as a shield specifically for Alpha Phi Alpha in order to justify their lighter punishments and decision not to derecognize the fraternity. After Charlotte Johnson announced Alpha Phi Al-pha’s punishment, or lack thereof, many on campus were outraged. Some were quick to suggest that Alpha got off easy because the College did not want to derecognize its only historically black fraternity, especially after Johnson and Schuab had previously threatened that the next frat caught hazing its pledges would be kicked off campus. They argued that Alpha Phi Alpha’s punishment reflects a double standard, suspecting that a mainstream fraternity would have been derecognized for the same practices and, as has become increasingly common at the College, have called for Dean Johnson to be fired. Although Dean Johnson clearly did not fully follow through with previously threatened punishment, it is too soon to tell whether or not Alpha’s history as a social space for minority students has anything to do with its less than strict sentencing. Until another fraternity is found guilty of similar violations (but presumably faces harsher punishments), we are left to wonder whether Alpha Phi Alpha’s sanctions will prove a reliable litmus test for future sanctions. And if this is the case, and physically, mentally, and emotionally abusing pledges leads to three terms of probation, we must also wonder what on Earth could be grounds for derecognition. n

—Many have questioned whether Dean of the College Charlotte Johnson had ulte-rior motives in the unexpectedly lenient punishment dished out to Alpha Phi Alpha.—

—Alpha Phi Alpha co-hosted a party in the same week that their College probation was announced.—

Until another fraternity is found guilty of similar violations (but presumably faces

harsher punishments), we are left to wonder whether Alpha Phi Alpha’s sanctions will prove a reliable litmus test for future sanctions.

Page 8 The Dartmouth Review February 18, 2013

I thought we could win in Vietnam, establish an in-dependent and democratic South Vietnam. And I was not alone on that. But I learned an indispensable lesson. I did not know the relevant facts. And I keep returning to the lessons of Vietnam when evaluating other foreign policy issues. On Vietnam the relevant facts appeared in Behind the Lines: Hanoi December 23, 1966—January 7, 1967, a book by Harrison Salisbury, foreign policy reporter for The New York Times. Harrison Salisbury has many interesting things to report, including the air-raid shelters built of cylindrical concrete structures moving underground from the surface. It would take a direct hit to kill. But the most important part is Salisbury’s visit to The Museum of the Revolution. It turns out not to be about revolution but about inde-pendence: for 600 years Vietnam fought against China for independence. A Vietnamese princess, riding on an elephant led an army of Vietnamese soldiers against the Chinese. The Vietnamese dug pits along the trails that came south into and through Vietnam. Sharp bamboo spears were installed in the bottom of the pits—and sod was arranged so that the pits were hard to detect from above. Vietnam fought the Chinese, the French, the Japanese occupiers, the French again, then the Americans. The results, we have seen. Today Vietnam is Communist in name only. It is gov-erned by the Communist Party, but there is a lot of small

business and is a consumer society that welcomes American tourists and American investment. I read the following in the TLS: In 1919 during the Versailles Peace Conference Ho Chi Minh was working in Paris. He understood that Woodrow Wilson favored self-determination. Eureka! Wilson was Ho’s man. He wrote to the American delegation, requesting a meeting with Wilson. He rented formal attire to wear when meeting the president. He received no reply. Of course Clemenceau would have laughed at self-determination for the colonies of the French empire in southeast Asia. And it would not have sounded good to David Lloyd George, either. Why didn’t successive American administrations know about the history of Vietnam? President Kennedy’s national security adviser was McGeorge Bundy. At age 34 he had been the youngest dean of Harvard faculty. He certainly knew and had access to such experts as John King Fairbank, the preeminent expert on the history of China. When I was in Naval Intelligence and stationed in Boston I lived in Cambridge and got to know Fairbank. A fine gentleman he was editing the Cambridge History of China. A dozen or so volumes were on a shelf as this rolled along. Fairbank, who knew centuries of Chinese history discerned a self-correcting dynamic acting over time. And lo, it came to pass: Mao Zedong’s permanent revolu-tion gave way to Deng Xiaopeng’s correction: he threw out Marx but kept Lenin: the elite party. Harvard’s Edwin Reischauer was the expert on Japan, and became Kennedy’s ambassador to Japan. Of course they would have welcomed an inquiry by Bundy. And there was no reason to limit inquiry to Harvard. Every major university had the relevant experts. What was Kennedy adviser W.W. Rostow worth? Zilch.

Robert Dallek’s An Unfinished Life is a useful biog-raphy of John F. Kennedy. Early in his administration, Kennedy sent about 16,000 troops to Vietnam, active in the battles. They were suffer-ing so many casualties, with little favorable results that

Kennedy said that after he defeated Goldwater in 1964 he would pull out of Vietnam. But Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 and LBJ escalated in 1965. In early 1968 we were startled by the Tet uprising in Vietnam. We understood that the insurgent Viet-

cong suffered enormous casualties. The uprising was a defeat. James Chace wrote a good biography of Dean Ache-son. After the Tet uprising, LBJ called the “wise men” together for advice. One was Dean Acheson. Another, Arthur Goldberg. LBJ had persuaded Goldberg to leave his seat of the Supreme Court to become instead the American Ambassador to the UN. Acheson and Goldberg talked with senior men in the Army. They sought an answer to an important question: how large was the insurgency that had sustained the num-ber of Viet Cong casualties we counted. The answer was 320,000.

Goldberg said, “Who the hell are we fighting?” When Henry Kiss-inger returned from the Paris Peace talks in early 1973 announcing, “Peace is at hand,” in fact when the terms were examined it wasn’t peace at all: a) it left a large number of North Vietnamese soldiers

in South Vietnam, and b) did nothing, and could do noth-ing, about the indigenous Vietcong. Of course that “peace” could have been had any time. But Nixon wanted to wait until he had won the 1972 elec-tion. How many died because of that delay? n

By Coleman E. Shear

For a large part of winter term outside of King Arthur Flour Cafe in Baker-Berry Library, a Whining Wall has begun to form for Dartmouth students to post complaints about Dartmouth culture. These complaints range from Dartmouth’s rampant racism to Dartmouth’s culture of misogyny and assault, and every-thing in between. While sexual assault and racism are of course real and serious in their own right, blaming one’s own dissatisfaction with Dartmouth on these issues is not only completely inappropri-ate, but trivializes their substance. Our campus kabuki theatre culture—with candlelight vigils and panels where partici-pants share their feelings, weeping, and everyone claps in turn—has some resemblance to the Stalinist show trials of the Great Purge. Everyone knows what the verdict of each of these panels will be: emotional confessions will be extracted from participants and the campus culture warriors running the show will proudly display yet another Dartmouth student who has grown “emotionally.” No real progress is made, but everyone has a great cry and pats each other on the back. The problem is, ev-eryone is trying to change Dartmouth one panel at a time. College can be a time where people feel isolated and alone, but loneliness is not the fault of the school. Dartmouth is not a nanny designed to dish out happiness. Everyone makes his or her own Dartmouth experience. It can be spent com-

plaining about the campus culture, remaining huddled in a small group of like-minded equally miserable misanthropes, or it can be spent broadening horizons and meeting new people.One of the main subjects of the Whining Wall is Dartmouth’s fraternity culture. Many on this campus who are intolerant of fraternity

culture seem to have a belief that ending the frat system is a panacea that will cure all so-cial problems. Once the frats are shut down,

the fool’s tale goes, the masses will flock to Sarner underground and the other alternative social spaces that the school has so dedicated itself to creating. These anti-Greeks claim baselessly that fraternities are bastions of white privilege. This is hardly the case. The fraternity system has diversity in spades—not just superficial diversity, nor racial diversity, but genuine diversity of opinion and experi-

ence. It is no surprise that Dartmouth alumni feel such passion for the Greek system. And the point remains that no one is putting a gun to an anti-Greek’s head and telling them they must go to a fraternity.

Dartmouth is a “social” free market. Dartmouth students overwhelmingly elect into Greek life. Many of the frater-nity system’s greatest detractors do not invest enough time to really understand that which they condemn. To these detractors, I will speak directly: I don’t quite understand

how a bunch of people hanging out in a house on a Friday night negatively influences your life. The greatest irony of the Whining Wall is that the people who have written about the fraternity system as the root of all evil are themselves

practicing discrimi-nation against a large part of this campus. But, lest we forget, it’s okay to prac-tice discrimination at Dartmouth if it’s against the main-stream culture. Our campus culture has supported whiners of the worst type: public whin-ers. “Never keep any of your feelings to yourself” is the new mantra. It’s okay to

share your feelings with your close friends. My friend group at Dartmouth has had its ups and downs, but at the end of the day we’ve all been there for each other. You don’t need a panel for support and Dartmouth doesn’t need a community outpouring every time someone’s feelings are hurt. I’m not trying to say that campus needs to become completely stoic, but there’s something to say for not put-ting one’s emotions on display. Margaret Thatcher put it best when she said, “To wear your heart on your sleeve isn’t a very good plan; you should wear it inside, where it functions best.” When people are faced with challenges, they can either make the best of their situation and fight for what they believe in, fighting to prove themselves to the world. Or they can sit there and whine about why the cards have been stacked against them. Dartmouth is encouraging in its students to do the latter. Dartmouth is supposed to be rearing the nation’s future leaders, not whiners. n

Professor Hart is a Professor of English, Emeritus at the College and longtime advisor to The Dartmouth Review.

Mr. Shear is a senior at the College and Executive Editor of The Dartmouth Review.

Vietnam: Lessons from a Tragedy

The Whining Wall of Baker-Berry

The greatest irony of the Whining Wall is that the people who have written about the fraternity sys-

tem as the root of all evil are themselves practicing discrimination against a large part of this campus. But, lest we forget, it’s okay to practice discrimination at Dartmouth if it’s against the mainstream culture.

While sexual assault and racism are of course real and serious

in their own right, blaming one’s own dissatisfaction with Dartmouth on these issues is not only completely inappro-priate, but trivializes their substance.

By Professor Jeffrey Hart

Acheson and Goldberg talked with senior men in the Army. They sought

an answer to an important question: how large was the insurgency that had sustained the number of Viet Cong casualties we counted. The answer was 320,000. Gold-berg said, “Who the hell are we fighting?”

Vietnam fought the Chi-nese, the French, the Jap-

anese occupiers, the French again, then the Americans. The results, we have seen.

February 18, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 9

The Whining Wall in Pictures

Photographs clockwise from top: the main board of the Baker-Berry wall allows students to air their grievances in magic marker on con-struction paper, an obligatory Indian mascot grievance, a freshman re-calls a troubling encounter with vaguely racial overtones, a sophomore seizes the opportunity to condemn some colorful language.

Page 10 The Dartmouth Review February 18, 2013

The Living Moment

Mr. Schwartzman is a senior at the College and Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review.

By Adam I. W. Schwartzman

Perhaps the most striking thing about Professor Jef-frey Hart’s latest book is its precise attention to detail. The Living Moment: Modernism in a Broken World explores the works of T.S. Elliott, Robert Frost, F. Scott Fitzgerald and more, connecting them through the theme of living in

a broken world. Consider, for instance, Professor Hart’s discussion of Frost’s famous “Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening.” Hart leads us through to the poem’s rising action, reaching a simple descriptor: “The woods are lovely, dark and deep.” As he explains, the inclusion of a single extraneous comma has perilous implications for an accurate reading of the poem. As the line was originally written (the way it is recorded above), the reader understands the narrator to think the woods lovely because of two qualities: dark and deep. When the line reads “The woods are lovely, dark, and deep” with an extra comma—as altered by editor Edward Connery Lathem—the woods have three qualities in equal proportion: lovely,

dark, and deep. As Professor Hart explains, “That is a huge difference. Frost’s original line expresses the man’s series of perceptions as he contemplates the woods and is drawn further into what constitutes he loveliness.” Such is the level of detail in Professor Hart’s analysis: the scrutiny of an entire poem can hinge on a single comma. More than that, Professor Hart delves into the worlds of his authors, describing the impact of bustling, dirty London on T.S. Eliot, Robert Frost’s devious sense of humor as an aging poet and national icon, and Heming-way’s perfectionism, standing up at his desk rewriting the last page of A Farewell to Arms fifteen times. This multifaceted approach lends completeness to The Living Moment, which makes use of literary criticism, thematic examination, and historical context in its analysis. Professor Hart’s style takes dense, highly academic sub-ject matter and refashions it into an engaging, accessible examination. The analysis begins with a comparison of Robert Frost and T.S. Eliot, noting many fundamental differences between the poetry of the quintessentially American Frost and Eliot, an adopted son of England. Frost’s “Protestant individualism” is contrasted with Eliot’s sense of tradi-tion, which connects Eliot’s works to those of his literary predecessors. Hart writes that the two authors “constitute polarities of energy that have been intrinsic to American culture.” Whereas Eliot embraced mystery and metaphor

in his poetry, Frost’s skepticism of such devices defined his own brand of realism. Hart next turns to Fitzgerald, pinning Amory Loch of This Side of Paradise and the eponymous Jay Gatsby with a capacity for wonder

tied to the American dream of wealth and social elevation. Both characters, like Fitzgerald himself, are romantics, and both ultimately fail in large part due to the almost magical quality they attach to wealth and the importance of money. The examination then turns to Hemingway and Fitzger-

ald who, despite their developed a “literary, ethical, and personal” quarrel that lasted even through Hemingway’s posthumously published A Moveable Feast.

Where Fitzgerald’s prose drew on the Roman-tic tradition, Hemingway tread new ground with a style influenced by Ezra Pound and Gertrude Stein. Hart writes that The Sun Also Rises was as much a novel meant to compete with The Great Gatsby as Robert Cohn was a caricature of Fitzgerald, himself. Professor Hart forges

ahead with Gilead, Marilynne Robinson’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 2004 novel. Hart considers the protagonist Rev-erend John Ames an embodiment of Martin Heidegger’s philosophy of Being, a form of transcendence revealed through the character’s constant monologue of contempla-tion. Where Heidegger associates this concept with feelings of dread and anxiety (much like Hemingway’s prose in A Farewell to Arms, Hart notes), John Ames ponders with feelings of awe and wonder. The dissertation ends with Mann’s Doctor Faustus, which Professor Hart places not only in the tradition of Marlowe and Goethe, but in intimate connection with the personal journey of Mann himself, and a reflection of a Germany perverted by nihilism and baited by Nazism. Hart reads Doctor Faustus as humanist and Christian, modernist and evocative, German and European. Ultimately Professor Hart identifies in each text a phenomenon that serves as “an exigent point around which the chaos of experience could be organized.” It is the mo-ment Elliot variously described as the “still-point” and the “moment in and out of time.” It is the event around which the fragmented world can be pieced together—the living moment. Professor Jeffrey Hart’s The Living Moment: Modern-ism in a Broken World scrutinizes the titans of modernist literature with the grounding and perspective that can only be summoned by a lifelong academic. n

The Living Moment: Modernism in a Broken World

Jeffrey HartNorthwestern University Press, 2012

Book Review

Such is the level of detail in Professor Hart’s analysis: the

scrutiny of an entire poem can hinge on a single comma.

Ultimately Professor Hart identifies in each text a phenomenon that serves

as “an exigent point around which the chaos of experience could be organized.” It is the moment Elliot variously described as the “still-point” and the “moment in and out of time.” It is the event around which the fragmented world can be pieced together—the living moment.

Editor’s Note: What follows is the first in a series of College-related texts selected by editors of The Dartmouth Review in the hopes that Dr. Hanlon will glean from them important sentiment for his fast-approaching presidency. This selection is from a convocation address given by President Kemeny on September 22, 1975.

In his inaugural, William Jewett Tucker advocated a major expansion of the school, and therefore he faced up to the fear that this expansion would lead Dartmouth into becoming a university. This fear apparently was reopened after the found-ing of Tuck School, as many critics said that adding one more professional school would push Dartmouth over the borderline and turn it into a university. Dr. Tucker, in his address, emphatically rejects the role of Dartmouth as a university, and therefore he must say what to his mind distinguishes a college from a university. He takes up first a very quick answer that one hears often even today: that universities have a mission for research, for the expansion of human knowledge, while colleges should teach. President Tucker rejects that point of view. He agrees that there is a diverence in degree in the missions of the two institutions, but the key portion of his address on this subject reads as follows: No man is fully prepared to teach, in the sense of communicating knowledge, who is not himself at work at the sources. Professors are not mere intermediaries. Contrary to the assertion of Cardinal Newman that to discover and to teach are separate functions seldom united in the same person, I believe that discovery stimulates teaching and that teaching necessitates discovery. The teaching ideal is undergoing a very radical change. The ideal of yesterday was the man of many and easy accomplishments. The ideal of today is the man of single-minded, thorough, and if pos sible original, knowledge.That is a quite remarkable statement for the year 1893. Thus research and scholarship in his view are essential to the teach-

if not the oldest graduate school of engineering in the country, and the first graduate school of business administration. We have certainly been pioneers. It is interesting to read the com-ments of William Jewett Tucker concerning Tuck School. As Dean Hennessey has mentioned, at that time there were already in existence undergraduate programs that of-fered a commercial education, but Dr. Tucker firmly believed that this was the wrong course, because he believed that each individual should have a firm foundation in the liberal arts before engaging upon professional education. And yet he believed that training for business deserved the same

dignity as training for law or medicine, and therefore he instituted a graduate program in business administration that built upon a strong liberal arts foundation. He said that the creation of Tuck School was in keeping with “the creative function of liberal education.” And certainly the history of Tuck School has fully justified President Tucker’s hopes. Dartmouth has pioneered in graduate education when it felt that it had a unique contribution to make. In each of these schools we have insisted on—and prided ourselves upon—a close relation-ship between faculty and students, we have emphasized the importance of teaching, and we have never lost sight of the central role of undergraduate education. I was fascinated to note that Dr. Tucker is forced to return to this topic again and again. Very near the end of his ad-

ministration he makes a definitive statement in which he firmly rejects the role of Dartmouth as a small college—and you have to remember that “small college” in his day meant a very, very small college indeed—he rejects that role and indeed sees no role for such institutions in the future. At the same time he again rejects Dartmouth’s role as a university. He advocates for Dartmouth an intermediate role different from that chosen by other institutions, and for it he coins the phrase “the large college.” He feels that it will be the honor of Dartmouth to make the case nationally for the importance of the large college in American higher education, an institution which is different from the university and different from the small college. n

Kemeny on Tuckering purpose of the institution, but he feels that teaching must be the central purpose, and he therefore spends some time outlining what it takes to produce good teachers... ...He concludes that there are two fundamental diverences between a college and a university as he conceives those institutions. One is the homogeneity of purpose of a college, which certainly does not exist in today’s large universities, and sec-ondly, the supreme emphasis on the importance of teaching. To these I would add two more points that I’m sure President Tucker took for granted but that I think should be part of a complete definition: the close relationship between teacher

and student (that has characterized this institution), and the centrality of the undergraduate program that characterizes a college. With those additions this description is as true today as it was in President Tucker’s age. Here research and scholarship prosper, probably better than at many universi-ties, encouraged and supported because they are essential for good teaching. But we never forget that teaching is the fundamental purpose. Then why are we celebrating today the anniversary of [Tuck] professional school? Why has Dartmouth engaged in professional education? Indeed, we have pioneered it: the fourth oldest medical school in the country, one of the oldest

Tucker concludes that there are two fundamental diverences between a college and a university as

he conceives those institutions. One is the homoge-neity of purpose of a college, which certainly does not exist in today’s large universities, and secondly, the supreme emphasis on the importance of teach-ing. To these I would add two more points: the close relationship between teacher and student (that has characterized this institution), and the centrality of the undergraduate program that characterizes a college.

February 18, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 11

Fond Memories of Baker-Berry

Mr. Riley is a senior at the College and President of The Dartmouth Review.

By Benjamin M. Riley

Baker-Berry Library is perhaps the single universal aspect of the oft-touted ‘Dartmouth experience’. While budding frat-stars (looking at you, ‘15s) might posture and snort “Nah dude, Keystone,” that view is solipsistic. Just because all of your friends like to drink grim beers in grimmer basements does not mean that all Dartmouth students do. The more ecumeni-cal among us might suggest FoCo, but that too is a limiting choice. We all knew that one kid on our freshman floor who only ate at the Hop, or if we didn’t know him we knew someone who did. Hop kid is a special creature who probably deserves his own article, but here’s not the place. Look for that sometime in the future. But back to the library. And when I say library I do mean all of it, even the new Berry side, which though an aesthetic abomination does have its purposes. The library is the single unify-ing aspect of all Dartmouth students’ careers. Even if a student chooses never to study there, preferring the comfort of his room or perhaps Collis (thanks, but no), he will surely know the library—its floors, its stacks, its overpriced sandwiches and under-syruped sodas, truly everything. The library is Dartmouth’s common refer-ence point. And this is a brief appreciation of the building that, unlike freshman year advisors or General Tso’s at the Hop, has always been there for us. Like most freshmen, I first approached the library with a serious dose of timidity. I had heard all the rumors—only facetimey people study on the first floor, the stacks are better preserved for illicit trysts than actual work, and countless others. Some turned out to be true, some turned out to be false. But what does it say that we have developed an entire mythology surrounding a library and its study spots? During freshman year I actually did most of my studying in my room, so I didn’t really get to know the library until my second year at the College. Those were the days before King Arthur Flour when most trips to the library were to do work, not sit around drinking cafés au lait and pretending to watch CNN while actually scouting the line to see if a chat-and-cut opportunity is in the offing. And I encountered a vast ecosystem, a truly unique environment. Each study area was like its own country, a sovereign entity with a singular cultural identity. I was introduced to the lawless land that is lower level, a veritable Siberia. Anything could happen in lower level; I witnessed beers drunk, dance-offs, and some things that are better left unrevealed. Contrast this to the prim quietude of the fourth floor. The rumors were true—only the truly dedicated studied all the way up there. And by truly dedicated I mean nerds. Third floor proved an interesting mix. In the front there were the athletes I’d heard about, but also a mix of sweet guys and their favorite gals. And of course the guys who wanted to be like them. Sometimes it’s so hard to tell. And yet for all the would-be social capital in the front, the side desks lacked a distinct flavor. Could this be

my spot? In a word, no. I detest stairs and worse yet would be to be seen using the elevator. Second floor was always a wild card, without the pretenses of the first and the elevation of the third. And so it became my thing. For a full two years I made the second floor my regular library home, shifting between the desks in the front and the bar-style seating on the sides. It wasn’t perfect. For one, the side-by-side seating often found me uncomfortably close to psych majors whose textbooks take up serious space.

And it was a pain to plug in my computer when the only out-lets were at my feet. But these are minor criticisms. In many ways, the second floor was an ideal place to study. Easy enough access to food and drink but far enough from the action that I could focus. I can honestly say some of the best work I’ve done at Dartmouth happened on the second floor of the library. Essays banged out in an afternoon, fifty-page readings done in the hour be-fore class—the second floor was my galvanizing agent. I merely needed to get a spot

and there it was. A serene sense that whatever needed to be done would be done. It’s now senior year and I’ve been on second floor, that old standby, my old friend, fewer than ten times all year. Considering I’m in the library nearly every day, that’s a paltry percentage. What happened to my old routine? Call it foolish-ness, call it senior year wanderlust, whether consciously or not, I decided I needed a change of scene. And it wasn’t until I started my nomadic period that I truly began to appreciate

the wonder of Baker-Berry. I discovered the gentleman’s club pleasure of autumn Saturday afternoons in the Tower Room, soft light streaming in upon the dark wood and ori-ental rugs. It demands whiskey. And sometimes its demands were met. I learned that Carpenter’s computer tables are the ideal place to leave your books and papers for days without fear of their removal. The art history majors are too demure and the hipsters are too meek to do anything about such a blatant breach of library etiquette. Even the Baker Library front hall, whose renovation I decried in these very pages, has its charms. I was wrong about the chairs. They don’t ruin the room. They’re actually an ideal place for a coffee break when King Arthur is too hectic. I even realized the importance of the first floor. Where else at Dartmouth can one get a full social experience while potentially getting some work done? I’ll never be one of those types who heads to the first floor just to see friends. But if I don’t have that much to do then it’s sometimes nice to have a bit of chatter to break up the monotony of a text on Roman cosmetic practices and their effect on gender roles in antiquity. I can’t yet say where this year will take me. Maybe I will become a library Bedouin, permanently on the move, permanently searching for more fertile studying ground. Or maybe I’ll return to the second floor, ending my exploring like Eliot said, by knowing the place for the very first time. But whatever happens, I’ll leave Dartmouth with a great ap-preciation for the library. A place where everyone has his own spot, his own second floor corner, his own periodicals high top. After almost four years, I think I’ve found the Dartmouth experience. It’s in the library. n

—Baker Library (right) and Tower (left) under construction, 1927.—

—Dartmouth College librarians, 1883.—

Each study area was like its own country, a sovereign entity with a

singular cultural identity.

DARTREVIEW.COM

February 18, 2013 The Dartmouth Review Page 12

EBAS.comEBAS (proper noun):

Everything But Anchovies, a Hanover

culinary institution which delivers pizza, chicken sandwiches and other local delicacies until

2:10 A.M. every night. The ultimate in

performance fuel.

603-643-6135

Barrett’s MixologyBy Benjamin M. Riley

Have you ever been to Malta? No? Well don’t bother. There’s nothing in it. Unless you like rosé. Wait, no. I like rosé. And I still can’t recommend a trip to Malta. We were sitting at the blackjack table in the largest casino in Malta (which I might add is similar to being the skinniest kid at fat camp or the smartest kid in summer school) waiting for our complimentary drink order to be taken. The waiter had been signaled with the dealer’s traditional Maltese mating call – the kissy lips noise – and was ambling his way over, spilling out of his undersized faux-grosgrain-tipped waistcoat with a look of utter apathy. He took our orders. A few Cisk beers, national beverage of the island that once played host to the Knights of St. John. I doubt they drank it because it’s complete swill and only preferable to the probably-toxic Mal-tese tap water. I ordered a red wine, hoping that perhaps Malta had some sort of viniculture that I’d missed reading about, some sort of hyper-local non-exportable ambrosia that would do the old trick. While waiting for the fatuous little waiter a few Maltese pensioners sidled up next to us. Don’t call them Maltesers. Apparently it’s the name of a candy and there’s nothing a Malteser hates more than being compared to a candy. These pensioners seemed to play a mean game of blackjack. Not mean as in skilled, mean as in they were nasty. One hasn’t played blackjack until he has been criticized for playing the game the wrong way. Finally the drinks arrived. My red wine had a dusky rose hue, reminiscent of Franzia that had been swilled in one’s mouth and spit back into a cup. The cup was still warm, of course, because every wine snob knows that red wine is meant to be drunk at room temperature. And the casino didn’t have air conditioning so room temperature was roughly eighty degrees Fahrenheit. I took one sip and decided never to return. Not to Malta, not to that casino. Have you ever been to Malta? No? Well don’t bother. There’s nothing in it.

gordon haff ’s

the last word.

Compiled by Adam I. W. Schwartzman

One glass, cheapest and lightest red wine

Maltese Red Wine

Let the punishment match the offense.—Cicero

I am continually fascinated at the difficulty intelligent people have in distinguishing what is controversial from what is merely offensive.

—Norah Ephron

You’re not allowed to call them dinosaurs any more,” said Yo-less. “It’s speciest. You have to call them pre-petroleum persons.”

-Terry Pratchett

As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to il-luminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.

—Gore Vidal

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

—George Washington

I know that even now, having watched enough televi-sion, you probably won’t even refer to them as lepers so as to spare their feelings. You probably call them “parts-dropping-off challenged” or something.

—Christopher Moore

It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscious, and the prudence never to practice either of them.

—Mark Twain

Any euphamism ceases to be euphemistic after a time and the true meaning begins to show through. It’s a losing game, but we keep on trying.

—Joseph Wood Krutch

How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.

—Soren Kierkegaard

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion all have a double aspect—freedom of thought and freedom of action.

—Frank Murphy

You miss one hundred percent of the shots you never take.

—Wayne Gretsky

Euphemism is a euphemism for lying.—Bobbie Gentry

I think my first album opened a lot of doors for me to push the freedom of speech to the limit.

—Marshall Mathers

I know it’s important to do more than just compain when there’s something you don’t like. You need to try to do something about it, or you’re nothing but a whiner.

—Jean Ferris

There’s a grosser irony about Politically Correct English. This is that PCE purports to be the dialect

of progressive reform but is in fact—in its Orwellian substitution of the euphemisms of social equality for social equality itself—of vastly more help to conservative and the US status quo than traditional SNOOT prescriptions ever were.

—David Foster Wallace

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people.

—Brad Thor

It is easy to believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we agree.

—Leo McKern

If you took one-tenth the energy you put into com-plaining and applied it to solving the problem, you’d be surprised by how well things can work out...Complaining does not work as a strategy. We all have finite time and energy. Any time we spend whining is unlikely to help us achieve our goals. And it won’t make us happier.

—Randy Pausch

We who officially value freedom of speech above life itself seem to have nothing to talk about but the weather.

—Barbara Ehrenreich

Do I shock you? I think I do. That’s the problem these days—nobody speaks their mind. No, don’t smile. They really don’t. We’ve been browbeaten into conformity by all sorts of people who tell us what we can and cannot say. Haven’t you noticed it? The tyranny of political correctness. Don’t pass any judgement on anything. Don’t open your trap in case you offend somebody or other.

—Alexander McCall Smith

One should not confuse creativity with whining.—Silvia Hartmann