Dartblog

Jim Kim was well known for his fatuous language: no platitude was too foolish, no statement too exaggerated, like his endless assertions that he and his administration were “scouring the planet” for solutions to problems, and his recent observation that “the [Chinese] premier and the new regime wants [sic] to surge forward in a strategic, evidence-based way.” Ugh. Hardest to take, however, was Kim’s rote praise for Jim Wright: “I am honored and humbled to accept this role, and look forward to building on the many achievements of Jim Wright…” and so on.

Of course, there will be those among you who believe that “he has to say that kind of thing” — so deep have the values of disingenuous PR been drilled into our consciousness. The problem is, Jim Wright did not have many (any?) achievements. Yet nonetheless, Kim made the statement.

As devoted readers know, Jim Kim’s and Carol Folt’s lack of impact in Hanover mirrors Wright’s blank scorecard (for the purposes of today’s discussion, we’ll ignore the many outright negatives), but surprisingly enough — given the low public standard in such matters — since being named President, Phil Hanlon has not praised his immediate predecessors. Why not?

Maybe, just maybe, Phil Hanlon believes that words have meaning, and their very meaning has something sacred about it: words must be true. And he understands that each time we say something that is false or shaded or designed not to impart honest knowledge, but rather to ingratiate ourselves with a listener, we demean ourselves and our listener in a slight way. And those slight ways build up, until we get to where we cannot recognize the truth at all. Might this be the reason that Phil Hanlon has not mouthed the usual homilies?

Listen again. Not a word about Jim Wright and Jim Kim and Carol Folt. Just sincere and respectful reverence for the soul of Dartmouth College.

Maybe, just maybe.