Dartmouth's Daily Blog
News, commentary, criticism and praise for the College on the Hill, enlivened with history, culture and travel when we feel so moved.
The Latest Posts
Dartmouth has a wealth of experienced professors who lead their respective research fields, while also working closely with students — inspiring them in the classroom and leading them in laboratory environments. And while at Dartblog we talk frequently about problems that need to be fixed at the College, there are still many bright spots. Our professors deserve more recognition for their achievements. As such, this is one of a series of posts that shines a spotlight on the best professors in Hanover:
William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in Government and an expert in the field of international relations. In particular, Wohlforth’s research focuses on what every Risk-playing kid’s dreams are made of — issues of grand strategy and realism, the latter of which is defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a “view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side.”
After graduating summa cum laude with a degree in International Relations from Beloit College in 1982, Wohlforth continued his study of politics at Yale, from which he earned a Ph.D. with distinction in 1989. He then went on to Princeton, where he taught until 1996, and Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, where he was Assistant Professor from 1998-2000. Dartmouth nabbed him from the Hoyas at that point, and Wohlforth has been roaming the hallways and classrooms of Silsby ever since, including as Chair of the Government Department between 2006 and 2009.
In light of the myriad questions that recent political developments have raised about the future of the current international order, it is difficult to imagine a more relevant body of research within the field of political science than Wohlforth’s. Specifically, he has comprehensively examined the place of the United States in a changing world that contains, among other possible threats to American power, an assertive Russia and an ascendant China. Wohlforth’s scholarship, which is expansive (an h-index of 31 and over 5700 individual citations according to Google Scholar) is perhaps reason for optimism: Wohlforth has argued, most notably in his and Stephen Brooks’ 2008 book World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy, that the United States should not necessarily be expected to lose its position as the most powerful nation in the world, even though conventional wisdom among international relations scholars says otherwise.
In fact, Wohlforth has himself advocated for “deep engagement” on the part of the United States in the realm of international affairs (in contrast to our newly-inaugurated President). This is a rejoinder to the view, held by many academics, that America should adopt a policy of so-called “retrenchment” and reduce its role on the global stage. Along with his fellow faculty member Brooks, Wohlforth spells out his argument in the recently-published book America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century. Deep engagement, they explain, is not only the best way to ensure security; additionally, this type of foreign policy allows the United States to shape the globalized realms of economics and international institutions in ways that advance its own national interest. Retrenchment, on the other hand, is a short-sighted philosophy that both ignores non-security objectives and over-estimates the costs of maintaining a vigorously active role in international affairs.
As a Russia expert, Wohlforth has published a great deal about the Cold War, including the authorship of one book on the topic and editing duties for two others. There was a certain prescience present in his work in this area, as is proven by the conclusion to a 1995 article in which Wohlforth defends the viability of realist theory after the collapse of the Soviet Union. If you’ve turned on a television or opened a newspaper at some point in the past couple of years, this may well be an eerie read:
This leads to the frankly inductive warning for the West: keep a weather eye on Russia. Russia has often experienced rapid shifts in relative power with dire international consequences. In this century alone, Russia’s sudden decline after the 1905 war with Japan and its equally sudden rise in the years before 1914 were important preconditions for World War I; its apparent weakness conditioned the disastrous diplomacy of the 1930s; its sudden rise in apparent power as a result of World War II set the Cold War in motion; its perceived forward surge in the late 1950s and early 1960s set the stage for the dangerous crises of that era; and its apparent sudden decline in the late 1980s was the catalyst for the greatest upheaval in international relationships in half a century. Russia may be down now, but prudent policymakers should not count it out.
Of course, Wohlforth is kept busy in the classroom as well. He teaches at all three levels of the Government Department’s course structure — introductory, intermediate, and seminar. His Govt. 5 course, Introduction to International Politics, often provides the first exposure that freshmen have to the study of political science, and his seminar on Russian foreign policy is on the bucket list of many a Government major.
For a direct sense of Professor Wohlforth, listen to him speak about Shifting from a Unipolar to a Multipolar World? at Johns Hopkins:
Addendum: In the fall of 2012, I was one of the freshmen enrolled in Professor Wohlforth’s Introduction to International Politics course. The experience ended up being one of the reasons I decided to pursue study in the Government Department. Wohlforth is a powerful and thoughtful lecturer, and I remember his excellent ability to cultivate active class discussions. I can personally attest to the fact that he is devoted to Dartmouth as an institution, and he is, perhaps most importantly of all, an all-around good guy.
The Times piece about the relative wealth of families sending their children to American institutions of higher learning is eliciting a lot of interest (two days after publication it is still the Times’ most e-mailed story). As the College celebrates MLK week, what an embarrassment to see that we are not walking the walk, even as Hanover is overwhelmed by social justice talk. Look how we do in the Times ranking as against the other Ivies:
As I say endlessly, the administration’s real priority is money for the staff. All the other chatter about equity and education is just window dressing.
Addendum: The College’s Dartmouth News website is highlighting our presence on the Best College Art and History Museums In the Northeast story in the HuffPost, but to date has no reference at all to the above Times piece. FYI we have the best college art museum in New Hampshire.
The endowment is only part of the story in understanding the College’s fiscal health. To fill out the picture, let’s look at the administration’s borrowing. Of course, debt has its place in financial management — why wait for money to come in when an important project can be built right now. But the temptation to use debt to cover budgetary holes that stem from over-staffing, the over-compensation of employees, and excessive spending, is strong, too. Look at the evolution of debt at the College over the past 26 years: the amount owing on bonds and mortgages today is almost an order of magnitude over what it was in 1990, a period of time during which inflation was 84%.
Of course, there comes a point when the party stops. The College lost its prestigious Triple A bond rating in 2009, a move which resulted in an increase in the interest rates payable on Dartmouth’s bonds.
But the administration’s taste for the easy-money party is far from over. This past April the College issued another $250 million of debt, in part to finance the house system.
Another way to look at the issue is to note that while the endowment has increased by approximately two billion dollars since 2000, during that time our debt has climbed by a billion dollars, too, eating up half of the endowment’s gains.
Needless to say, there is another way to finance new projects: cut waste from the budget. Any good business is always finding ways to increase productivity, even as it grows. The College should start doing so now.
Last week I ran a well received post entitled Why Are We a Rich Kids School?, and today the Times has a story about a lengthy report (The Equality of Opportunity Project) on the economic backgrounds of the nation’s students. The College does not fare well. Of the country’s élite schools, we take more kids from the 1% than anyone:
For the Dartmouth-specific data in the study, click here.
Addendum: An alum writes in:
Was discussing over lunch with an ’ 82. The Dartmouth of our day had less ethnic and geographic diversity (and women were still not at parity). But there was more economic diversity. Lots of students (especially of French-Canadian descent) came from working class towns in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine.
The evolution of a school’s endowment is a combination of three elements: investment returns achieved by the endowment office, financial giving by the alumni, and funds drawn out of the endowment by the administration for ongoing operations.
Look at how well the Freedman administration did versus the other Ivy schools in adding to the College’s financial resources. In the 1990-2000 period we were the top performer in the Ivies in terms of endowment growth:
However, as we have documented, when the reins were passed to the lamentable Jim Wright, the spending floodgates were opened, and we are still suffering today from his profligacy. As a result, during the 2000-2010 period Dartmouth went from first to worst:
And how have things unfurled since 2010? A little better than middling: we are in the top half of the Ancient Eight. Penn leads. We are behind Yale, and just ahead of Princeton. And the four of us handily beat the remaining schools:
Of course, the first glimmerings of fiscal discipline merit few applause. To use Reagan Budget Director David Stockman’s memorable phrase, the College remains a sinkhole of waste.
The MDF faculty residence/clubhouse next to the President’s Mansion at 18 Webster Avenue is a typical small New England clapboard. It’s somewhat spare — where are the shutters? — the windows are pokey, and the walls are made of panelized sections (constructed off-site), but it is the kind of house that everyone in the Upper Valley recognizes:
Its interior layout is nothing special either: a kitchen, dining room, and a large gathering room on the main floor, along with a two-car garage:
But once again, the College has found a way to spend a fortune for even a simple building:
Recall that the above $640k figure is for constuction cost only. Add to that, according to an e-mail from the College’s recently departed Chief Facilities Officer Lisa Hogarty, soft costs in the amount of a quarter of a million dollars:
In addition to the construction costs we spent another $250k. About half of that went to site work and landscaping. The rest was for indoor and outdoor furniture, FO&M and IT expenses, project management and architect fees and lastly permitting. The house is 3000 sq .ft exclusive of the basement and two car garage.
That figure gets us to $890k and we haven’t yet added the value of land.
Does this look like a million-dollar Hanover house to you? Not on your life.
The College’s 21-person Office of Communications might sing Phil’s praises, but out in the real world people vote with their feet, or rather, students weigh in on various colleges’ popularity with their applications. Look at the total number of applications received by each of the Ivies for the Classes of 2007 through 2020. We rank at the bottom in absolute terms, and everyone in the Ivies except Dartmouth has increased their number of applications since 2016:
Of course, you say, Dartmouth is the smallest of the Ivies (just as Cornell is the largest); it’s not fair to put us up against the bigger schools. And you are right. Therefore my data-minded ‘18 has crunched the data on a number-of-application-per-freshman-year-slot basis to see where we stand relative to the other Ivies. Yikes.
Look at how our applications/slot numbers plummeted from the Class of 2016 to the Class of 2018 (I have added a red arrow); they have stayed in third-from-the-bottom place since then, after having been in the thick of things for many years. Harvard, Princeton and Brown passed us during that time frame, and the situation has not improved since:
Thank heavens for Penn and Cornell. They are keeping us out of the Ivy basement, at least for the time being.
Addendum: An alumnus-correspondent notes that he is now seeing many applicants interested in the Ivies who apply to only seven of the Ancient Eight. All of them except us. Do you think that the problem is Phil’s breath?
Addendum: An alumnus writes in:
One would think that the Trustees would notice stuff like this. Of course, they are most reluctant to admit they made a horrible hiring decision in the first place.
John Sloan Dickey: How we miss you!
From the NY Times obit in 1991:
“Under Mr. Dickey, Dartmouth’s 12th president, the faculty and graduate schools were greatly strengthened, the student body was diversified with more minority students and a Great Issues course was required for all seniors to underscore the responsibility of free citizens in the nuclear age.”
“Mr. Dickey’s dedication to Dartmouth was acknowledged by annual alumni contributions, which rose to more than $2 million, from $337,000, with up to 66 percent of the alumni contributing, the highest percentage in the nation for a major school.”
I call it a sea of clouds when flying above it, but it’s a carpet when the whole of Western Europe is swept under it — as it was when I flew from Paris to Milan recently:
Add restricted daylight hours, because of Europe’s northern latitude, to the dreariness of not seeing the sun for days and even weeks on end, and you have a recipe for plenty of existential angst:
Addendum: I am always amazed that the High Dynamic Range function of my iPhone lets me point the viewfinder directly into the sun and take a well resolved picture.
Perhaps I should be called for piling on, but the MDF clubhouses are ugly both inside and out. Look at the interior of the $2.0 million plastic structure next to the Alumni Gym. Sanborn House it ain’t:
And the $3.0 million convenience store cum clubhouse behind the Gold Coast is no better. The place has all the charm of a basement cafeteria in a municipal hospital:
Students inform me that MDF events are sparsely attended. Who would have guessed that Greek houses would exert a greater pull on students than these architectural gems?
Addendum: As I like to say, each year the College does less with more. Can we expect the dynamic Phil Hanlon to turn things around?
In other news, Phil Hanlon announced that Dartmouth Row will soon be demolished to create space for an administrative office complex, and the Green will subsequently be paved over so that the inhabitants of the new buildings will be able to park close to their places of work.
Addendum: Only Dartblog will have this story. Nobody had any time to write it up for The D.
Addendum: An alumnus write in:
That snow-sculpture email was disappointing for two reasons. Obviously the lack of even an attempted major sculpture marks the end of a wonderful tradition. Equally disturbing was the wording of the announcement. I’ve read it three times and cannot identify an actual statement that there will be no snow sculpture this year. It’s implied by the list of difficulties, but they never actually come out and say it. It’s pusillanimous language to match our pusillanimous times.
Addendum: It seems that students have rallied and a private group will build a snow sculpture after all.
(We are re-printing a few highlights that students have commented on favorably)
The events of May 2, 2013 between Parker Gilbert and the young woman who pressed charges against him for rape need to be looked at in a broader context. The gymnastics that occurred between them seemingly did not mark firsts for either one, a point that can sadly be made about many students. What the defense called “clumsy, awkward, drunk college sex” is a feature of weekly life at the College for far too many students — the end result of which is, at best, hurt feelings, and at worst, angry “he slurred/she slurred” accusations.
Consent is a strange concept for two people who hardly know each other, whose inhibitions and modesty have been erased by liquor. One or both are vulnerable to abuse, and certainly clear communication between respectful people is well nigh impossible. The hook-up culture will lead to many more May 2’s; things cannot be otherwise. No need to wait. Just look around you, and talk to students whose emotional wounds are not buried at all.
While students will initially protest that they have thrown off the shackles of Victorian morality, and sociologists opine that the hook-up culture is a rational response on the part of both males and females to educational pressures and career ambitions that leave them short of time, it doesn’t take long to hear from students that the age-old longings for love and enduring caring still mark them to the core.
The question is whether students in their late-adolescent confusion — and in a world deeply marked by Internet pornography that makes most freshman more knowledgeable about sexual permutations than many of their parents — can learn to hold out for something better than the unsatisfying rutting that takes place today without emotion, let alone love.
The D had a column on Tuesday that, among other things, derided students for what is called on campus “slut shaming.” Maybe we ought to reconsider that point. Perhaps sluts should be shamed as breaking a moral code that treats making love as something precious. And so should “playas” — the kind of guy who thinks that he is admired for bedding as many girls as possible. Both not only do harm to themselves, but they put unneeded pressure on other students to sexually commit themselves far too early in “relationships.”
While we’re at it, let’s also ask students to ask themselves why is it that they need copious amounts of alcohol in order to loosen up and enjoy a party. Are they proud that they have so few personal resources, so little self-confidence, that they can’t go to a fraternity without having knocked back shot after shot of cheap vodka? Examine your lives. Is this how the supposed best and brightest are meant to live with each other? Are the arts of intelligent conversation and romance so dead that Dartmouth students can’t interact without alcoholic lubrication?
Will some group at Dartmouth have the conviction and boldness to break with the herd, and decide that romance is worth the effort — and the risk? A frat? A sorority? A club? There is renown to be had in carving a new way, even if it is the old way. And no little pride in doing an unalloyed good thing. Any takers?
Addendum: An alumnus writes in:
The clubs at Dartmouth, or any college campus, that spring immediately to my mind as adhering to old-fashioned chastity and chivalry are the following Christian groups: Agape, Cru, Navigators, Christian Union, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, comprising at least a few hundred students. There may be other students of Christian and other faith backgrounds who are committed to romance and honor, but these are the ones that I am familiar with. I might also point you to an interesting recent article (with particular attention to point 1) which notes the early Christian church’s distinctiveness in this area:
As we all mourn the departure of Inge-Lise Ameer, I thought I would take the opportunity to share a couple of brief anecdotes relating to my own interactions with the former Vice-Provost of Student Affairs.
I first met Inge-Lise in the spring of 2013, when I was a freshman and she was a “senior associate dean” of the College. As one of two students helping to organize First-Year Family Weekend, I had the privilege of introducing Dean Ameer (who was speaking in lieu of the mysteriously indisposed Charlotte Johnson) at the weekend’s welcome event for a group of assembled parents. Before stepping up to the podium, Dean Ameer and I had the chance to chat for a few minutes in private. She was warm, engaging, and demonstrated genuine interest in both my experience as a freshman and in the success of the event. It seemed obvious that she cared, and I saw this attitude as an encouraging sign.
A little over a year later, I found myself in the same position during Sophomore Family Weekend, which took place in the summer of 2014. Once again, Inge-Lise — who had, in the meantime, received a promotion to Interim Dean of the College — was to deliver the welcome address. She remembered me from the year before, and we had another pleasant conversation. I came away, for the second time, with the impression that she was simply a very nice human being.
Fast-forward to the fall of 2015, in the wake of the infamous library protest. I cracked open the morning issue of The D and came across this article, where the following section on now-Vice Provost for Student Affairs Ameer and her performance at the post-protest venting session at Cutter-Shabazz stood out:
Vice provost for student affairs Inge-Lise Ameer was in attendance at the meeting, and she apologized to students who engaged in the protest for the negative responses and media coverage that they have received.
“There’s a whole conservative world out there that’s not being very nice,” Ameer said.
Ameer pointed to the College’s press release that acknowledges that no complaints of violence have been filed with the College at this time and describes the protest as a “peaceful meeting” turned “political protest.”
Concerned about both the obvious bias in her statement and her blatant distortion of the events in the library, I sent Vice-Provost Ameer an email asking her to explain her words. I received the following reply:
Thank you so much for reaching out to me. I was joking and am sorry you were disappointed. I meant the world can sometimes be a hard and difficult place. The meeting was very intense with your peers expressing lots of fear and frustration about their experiences on campus. I wish you could have been there. I would be happy to meet in person to discuss. Please let me know if you would like to talk.
Because it was clear from the video of the event that Ameer was not, in fact, joking, I did want to talk, so I responded to suggest possible times for an appointment. I never heard back.
The moral of the story here is that nice folks don’t necessarily make for good administrators. Perhaps the most important part of working at the managerial level in an educational institution is ensuring that the various interests and perspectives of the different people who comprise that institution are represented fairly. There can be no room for a political agenda — no thumb pressed on one side of the scale — in a setting that should be a truth-seeking one. Inge-Lise Ameer, despite what we can assume to be good intentions, was therefore incapable of even adequately carrying out her duties as a College employee. Let’s hope that she finds another line of work.
Addendum: A ‘15 writes in:
If one thing is consistent about Ameer, it is that she was never around to answer for her actions or engage with Students. When AD was de-recognized, she had given the students her word that the seniors living in the house (weeks into their Senior Spring term) would not have to move out for their final few weeks on campus. Only days later, she threatened suspension if they did not leave immediately. When those students requested to meet her, she told them she was out of town on vacation. Only problem was she was spotted that night at Molly’s — I guess the only way to get out of a lie to the students you are supposed to represent is to continue to lie.
Addendum: A reader writes in:
Enjoyed your post today — your contributions to Dartblog have been overall excellent! You are more charitable toward Dean Ameer than your older colleague, maybe a function of age and idealism, I don’t know :-)
You make the comment that the Dartmouth setting should be “truth-seeking.” But that’s exactly why people like Ameer proliferate in today’s American college: it no longer is primarily concerned with truth! How apropos that the OED 2016 Word of the Year is “post-truth”: “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” God help us all.
Addendum: A regular reader writes in:
With respect, I suggest that Ms. Ameer does not merit inclusion in the roster of “nice folks.” From your anecdotes, she could be superficially pleasant when leftist politics were not at issue. I liked the “mourning”!
In light of the financial aid figures adduced by Michael Beechert last week (here and here), we are certainly competitive with the other Ivies as regards the amount of financial aid that we can offer admitted students (actually, given the size of the endowment, we should be more generous that most of the other Ivy schools, but then there are armies of administrators to feed).
However the question that arises is why, when the admissions dust settles each year, we end up with more full-boat kids in the student body than any other school in the Ancient Eight? As the Dartmouth College Fund ad at right from a recent Alumni Magazine points out (though that is obviously not its intention), 56% of Dartmouth students come from families wealthy enough to pony up about $300,000 — that’s after-tax dollars — so that one son or daughter can come to Hanover for four years (the sky’s the limit on multi-kid families). I’m not ashamed to be in the same bracket, but are we proud that well over half of our students come from families deep into the 1% — the highest proportion of rich kids in the Ivy League:
Just to be clear, I have no problem with wealth. For the most part, its possession reflects honest achievement on the part of the people who earned it, but when a disproportionate number of students come from cossetted backgrounds (my sense is that the College is loaded with suburban kids who are the offspring of professionals), campus life lacks the perspective that poor and middle income kids bring to the mix, let alone city and rural students.
Why do we have a student body with this kind of profile? The College’s flood of early decision admits certainly plays a role — ED kids are well advised and come from a higher income demographic — though this year a greater number of early decision admits appear to be from less wealthy backgrounds according to the College’s press release:
More than half of the admitted students—52 percent—have applied for financial aid, up from 48 percent last year, and at least 11 percent are eligible for federal Pell Grants.
The number of legacies has increased in the last few years, and the number of first-generation-to-college kids has declined, factors which tamp down the number of students requesting aid. That said, both of those trends appear to be turning around.
It’s not clear what’s happening with the College’s extravagant solicitousness towards the children of major donors (the College employs a special liaison in Admissions-Advancement to “work with” wealthy families, whose donations are desperately needed to …), but needless to say, such students often have both big money and little acquaintanceship with the real world.
All in all, as I wrote the other day, the College should revamp its admissions efforts. As but one measure, on-the-ground interviewing by admissions officers (supported by alumni) would help root out the professionally polished applications of rich kids in favor of students, poor or rich, who will bring experience, leadership skills and intellectual curiosity to Hanover.
Addendum: An alumnus who works closely with students writes in:
I just read your latest piece on Dartmouth as the “rich kids’ school.” You are absolutely right. Your article goes the heart of what is wrong with Dartmouth today. I have been around the Dartmouth scene a long time, and the problem has never been so pronounced. The college’s addiction to money now supersedes everything else. A rural kid like myself from a second-rate high school would never be in the mix. The college is a much less interesting and dynamic place because of it.
A professor writes in:
Here is the problem: we have a growing number of adjuncts teaching courses at Dartmouth. However, they do not undergo the rigorous examination of their teaching quality that tenure-track faculty undergo. We receive student evaluations, of course, but we do not have a process for adjuncts of sitting in on classes, observing the teaching, discussing the teaching with the instructor, etc. What’s the result? Do we not care about the quality of adjuncts, some of whom teach for decades?
The point is not insignificant in that Dean of the Faculty Mike Mastanduno and Registrar Meredith Braz have both confirmed to me that approximately 34% of the College’s classes are taught by non-tenure-track/non-tenured professors.
This state of affairs has come about as the College has lessened teaching loads on tenure-line faculty members over the years (everyone used to teach five courses each year; today faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences teach four courses, and professors in the Sciences teach three). Of course, there are competitive reasons for reduced teaching, but the College has not compensated for the changes by adding additional, expensive full faculty members to its ranks (it’s better to hire hundreds of staffers, right?). The administration, as at so many other schools, chose to go with part-timers and other teachers who had been unable to secure tenure track positions — thereby debasing the coin of the realm.
The contrast is notable. As examples, for English 5 (now Writing 5), I was taught by now-full-professor Don Pease (and I survived); and my Italian 1 prof was Nancy Vickers, who went on to become the President of Bryn Mawr. Can today’s students claim teachers of the same pedigree?
That said, the College is holding the line as compared to most institutions in higher education, according to a report published in November by the Delta Cost Project — The Shifting Academic Workforce: Where Are the Contingent Faculty:
Between 2003 and 2013, the study finds, the share of faculty members who were off the tenure track increased from:
- 45 to 62 percent at public bachelor’s degree-granting institutions.
- 52 to 60 percent at private bachelor’s-granting colleges.
- 44 to 50 percent at public research universities.
- 80 to 83 percent at community colleges.
However, given Dartmouth’s wealth, if Phil could get his priorities straight, expanding the faculty in order that classes be smaller and tenure-track faculty have more contact with students, we might help claw back our declining ranking as regards undergraduate teaching.
Addendum: One further comment from a past post:
As in all things, the issue here is balance. Any institution needs a certain percentage of adjunct professors — people to whom it does not make a long term commitment. For example, these flexible relationships allow the administration to shift resources from departments less favored by students over time to more popular ones. And often adjunct faculty are the highly qualified spouses of tenured professors, for whom there is no available tenured position. Their teaching and research can be first-rate.
August 14, 2013
Breaking: Of Crips and Bloods and Memories of Ghetto Parties
History repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce, or sometimes it just repeats itself. From the New York Times on November 30, 1998: At Dartmouth College, white students at a ”ghetto party” dressed…
June 25, 2013
Dean of the College Charlotte Johnson’s War on Students Part (2/2)
Part 1, Part 2 Today’s post again recounts the events that befell the Freshman. However, the content of the Hanover Police department report reproduced in this space yesterday is supplemented by information from my own…
October 18, 2009
When Love Beckoned in 52nd Street
We were at San Francisco’s BIX last evening, enjoying prosecco, cheese, and a bit of music. A full year of inhabitation in Northern California has unraveled to me no decent venue for proper lounging, but…
October 9, 2009
D Afraid of a Little Competish
So our colleague and Dartblog writer Joe Asch informed me that the D has rejected our cunning advertising campaign. Uh-oh. The Dartmouth is widely known as a breeding ground for instant New York Times successes,…
September 4, 2009
How Regents Should Reign
As Dartmouth alumni proceed through the legal hoops necessary to defuse a Board-packing plan—which put in unhappy desuetude an historic 1891 Agreement between alumni and the College guaranteeing a half-democratically-elected Board of Trustees—it strikes one…
August 29, 2009
Election Reform Study Committee
If you are an alum of the College on the Hill, you may have received a number of e-mails of late beseeching your input for a new arm of the College’s Alumni Control Apparatus called…
- The Dartmouth College Case
- 2007 Trustee Election
- Dartmouth Constitution
- Sunday Morning Sinatra
- The Indian Wars
Subscribe by Email
This website reflects the personal opinions of its authors. Any e-mails received may be published along with the full name of the sender. If you wish otherwise, please say so.
All content appearing at Dartblog.com should be presumed copyright 2004-2017 its respective bylined author unless otherwise noted or unless linked to original source.