A number of readers have written in to note that a well regarded design blog, Brand New, is a fan of the College’s new branding program:
That said, when a writer is endlessly effusive, as both immediately above and throughout the review — and never once critical — about something as multi-faceted as the College’s rebranding effort, it’s hard not to smell a rat. After all, what critic is not critical at least part of the time? The comments section at the bottom of the post contains observations that are a fair bit less enthusiastic, even if overall voting by readers is highly positive:
Addendum: Most of the 1065 undergrad students who took a Pulse poll about the rebranding were less adulatory. 86.8% said that they strongly or somewhat preferred the old logo:
As always, click on any image to resize it for easier reading.
A weeklong trip back to Dominica finds the country hammered by Hurricane Maria, whose 160mph winds damaged almost all of the island’s buildings five months ago. Today half the roofs on the island are still covered in blue tarpaulin, and the remnants of huge, destructive mudslides are to be seen everywhere: piles of broken trees litter the landscape, though now removed from the roads and habitable areas that they blocked for weeks. Acres of forest remain stripped of foliage where Maria’s force denuded them of every leaf. Here is a stretch of timber on the island’s Atlantic side that I viewed as we landed at Dominica’s Melville Hall airport. The approach rivals that of Gustavia in St. Bart’s for its reach-out-and-touch-the-vegetation fun:
Longtime readers will recall that Dominica is the home of a large colony of sperm whales with whom one can happily swim.
Religion Professor Kevin Reinhart (who has earned the sobriquet “Reinhartass” for his rigor) was interviewed in the Review recently. Among other thoughtful remarks, he had the following to say about the liberal arts:
TDR: As a professor of religion, a department in the humanities, what do you think is the role of a liberal arts education in today’s pre-professional society?
KR: Well the short answer to that is simple: people who do pre-professional work, someone who comes to Dartmouth and just does economics all the way through, I think are being trained to be middle-management. It is a luxury to be one of the people who, to use the business cliche, can see around corners. People who can draw on a wide variety of, not just American but also world cultural features — history, languages, so on and so forth — have that kind of ability. They are the ones who are going to be leaders. The ones who do solely pre-professional work may be well compensated, but they will not be leaders. To that end, I would point to the fact that two of Dartmouth’s most successful graduates in finance, one the head of the Fed and one the Secretary of the Treasury, both studied subjects other than finance. One was a history major and one was an Asian Studies major. It is a shame that students feel discouraged from taking advantage of a liberal arts education when, in fact, that is both what will benefit them and what Dartmouth is best at.
I agree in spades. Over the years, whether in dealing with managers or lawyers or even architects and other professionals, folks with a liberal arts background understand larger issues which people with only technical training just can’t comprehend.
Professor Reinhart is referring to Hank Paulson ‘68 and Tim Geithner ‘83, both of whom served as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. Paulson was an English major, and Geithner majored in Government and Asian Studies.
Addendum: I expressed a few thoughts similar to Reinhart’s in a November 1, 2012 post subtly titled, Why the Liberal Arts? To Make Money! And Mike Gazzaniga ‘61, in his dinner address on the day in 2011 that he received an honorary degree from the College, confirmed the link between the humanities and scientific research at the highest level.
I have gone back and forth over the years on the question of preferred admissions for legacies (way back in the day, some of the strongest proponents of co-education were alumni fathers wanting their daughters to come to the College), and finally I have come down in favor of the preference as a way of ensuring historical continuity at Dartmouth in the face of academic fashion.
The issue could come to the front burner again, given the below story:
Interestingly, the College has no first-generation student group. I call that a good thing. Students are students; they should not divide themselves up by class background, not when there are far more compelling attributes that can unify them.
Addendum: Here is the raw data for the number of legacies per class for the past thirty years:
As we have reported, the big jump in legacy admits in 2010 was part of the Kim Administration’s financial restructuring efforts; which included more legacies, private school students, early admissions admits and fewer first-generation students. Jim Kim had hi$ principle$, that’s for sure.
The large drop in legacy admits in the early 1990’s stemmed from Jim Freedman’s and his Admissions Dean, Karl Furstenberg’s, desire to change the character of the College. They succeeded in doing so on at least one level: ask anyone in fundraising about the “90’s Men.” This cohort gives far less money than any comparable group of alumni.
The First Year Student Enrichment Program (FYSEP) empowers first-generation students to thrive academically and in the greater college community.
FYSEP provides a rigorous, dynamic and transformative experience that puts participants in a position to thrive at Dartmouth both academically and socially. The program offers sample classes with Dartmouth faculty, workshops, activities, and seminars designed to simulate life at Dartmouth and to prepare participants to handle some of the challenges they may face during the course of their first year.
Through a six day pre-Orientation program and ongoing support throughout their first year, FYSEP students gain a broad array of understandings and skills designed to help them make the most of their experiences both inside and outside of the classroom. ?As an example, all students participate in one-to-one mentoring meetings from upperclass students.
This College-organized group concerns itself with supporting first gen kids in dealing with the particular academic and social challenges that many of them face in the Dartmouth environment. However I believe that the Associated Press report reproduced above is correct that at the College there is no student-organized first gen group in Hanover, one that might take a political stand on an issue like legacy admissions.
The search for the College’s next Provost is ongoing, with headhunters Witt Kieffer leading the charge and a College search committee following along. The thumbnail description on the search firm’s website has a section leaps out at me:
Do Phil’s two major academic appointments — Carolyn Dever and Bruce Duthu — even come close to fulfilling the described goals? You have to be kidding.
The impassioned debate about Ryan Spector ‘19’s column concerning the gender composition of the DOC Trips Directorate has to date contained little historical perspective. Let’s take a look at past practices.
Though the current directors, Lucia Pierson ‘18 and Dalia Rodriguez-Caspeta ‘18, have asserted that their choices for membership on the Directorate were made on merit alone (resulting in fifteen women and four men), last year’s director, Doug Phipps ‘17, stated forthrightly in a column in The D that a racial quota system was in place in choosing the Directorate’s members:
Of course, nobody this time around has spoken about white and non-white members, but clearly a focus on individual merit was not a feature of the selection process last year. We should be skeptical that such rigor was therefore in place this year.
Look at the division between men and women on the Trips Directorate over the last seven years (all figures drawn from The D and listserv announcements):
As a percentage, the number of men is dropping precipitously — from a disproportionately high level to a low level that existed well before Ryan Spector was unable to secure a spot:
Do you discern a trend? Civil rights lawyers would. And with this kind of information, they could get the attention of a judge.
Addendum: Given that the Directorate was almost 4:1 female to male beginning in 2016, it is possible that men have held back from applying in the last couple of years. Why waste their time in a vain effort? If the DOC is going to release application numbers, it should do so for the past three years so that we get a complete picture of the process.
Addendum: In Monday’s D, Government Professor Michael Herron, who is also the chair of the quantitative social science program, dissects the (im)probability that the selection process for the Trips Directorate was gender-neutral:
Based on this model, the probability that the 19 students chosen for the Trips directorate are all men or all women is approximately 3.8 X 10^-6. This number is not zero, which means that it is possible for the Trips directorate to be completely gender imbalanced even if the process for choosing the directorate were gender-blind. This point is worth noting: A gender imbalance in the directorate is not necessarily evidence of a gender-aware leader selection process. Still, assuming that Trips leaders were chosen randomly from a gender-balanced pool, there is only a minuscule chance that a completely gender imbalanced directorate would result.
He also, amusingly, ends his piece with a pitch for the importance of understanding probability theory, and he encourages students to take a course in his discipline:
Spector’s argument about the inherent fairness of the Trips directorate selection process is the sort of claim that probability theory can address. With that in mind, if you have not taken a statistics course at Dartmouth or a course that teaches basic probability yet, it might be worth taking one next quarter. And if you have taken such a course but did not anticipate the argument made here, you might want to consider reviewing relevant material.
All is marketing.
Addendum: A friend of the College writes in:
Years ago, when I was on Wall Street and our firm was trying to figure out how to hire more women, a consultant put us in touch with a psychologist from Colombia who told us that, in general, male managers tended to hire both men and women when presented with equally qualified candidates, but that female managers were more likely to hire women candidates under the same circumstances. The reason for this — or so she said — lay in the differences between how men and women work in groups, with the task aspect of the group work being more important to the male managers and the social aspects of the group working together being more important to the female managers (with males seen as potentially disruptive to this social order, and thus to be avoided). She also said that in neither case were these apparent biases deliberate conscious choices.
Curiously, I’ve noticed this pattern in various organizations throughout my career, and it also tends to explain why many administrative functions at Dartmouth have evolved over time to be staffed primarily with women. Alumni Relations is a good example.
The faculty will meet two weeks from yesterday, and to a man and women, they should think of shouldering their responsibilities to the College. Little if any good has come from the Hanlon administration; most actions have been lackluster, and there are decisions on the horizon that will be the death of Dartmouth. A motion of no confidence should be presented for the sake of everyone who cares about the school. Let me add my voice to that of The Review’s Jack Mourouzis and the Editors of the D.
Will Dartmouth be lost because two faculty members can’t be found to speak truth to an ever-weakening power. All it will take is a professor to put forward a motion and another one to second it. That would be the end of Phil.
Addendum: Of course, the members of the Hanlon administration care little for the thoughts of students, faculty and anyone else who might disagree with them. VP of Advancement Bob Lasher ‘88 has said as much.
How dispiriting to see Marxists work so hard to make their lifelong learning relevant in the post-Soviet, post-ChiCom, post-pretty-much-anything-but-Hugo-Chavez era. If you want to see smart people spin their wheels in the sands of time trying to say something applicable to the modern world, you should attend today’s lecture: Spiraling Out of Control: A Conversation on Capitalism’s Current Crisis:
I might just go, simply for nostalgia’s sake. As an undergraduate I took a course in Marxism with Marlene Fried, and since Russell Rickford left town, there has been nobody (at least publicly) who espouses that ol’ time religion.
Note to Nancy Fraser: the reason capitalists like me get to keep any surplus (minus total government taxes of about 66%: federal income tax, state corporate profits tax, city property tax, employee payroll tax) is that we are saddled with all of the losses, too, if a business fails. And some do, most assuredly.
If you can’t make Monday’s panel, have no fear, Fraser and Harvey put on exactly same event last November 17 at the CUNY Graduate Center:
Addendum: There is a fair bit of chatter among the faculty about Nancy Fraser’s year-long sinecure at the College. The Marxist warhorse has a reputation of being impossible to work with, and her year in Hanover as the Roth Family Distinguished Scholar seems to involve doing little more than pocketing cash and offering a couple of public lectures.
Addendum: At least locally, today’s crisis in capitalism is about trying to find people to fill all of the open jobs. At my local business (250 full- and part-time employees), we have a dozen vacant positions right now. Are you a personal trainer? Can you cut hair or do aesthetic treatments? Or push a mop? Call me.
Addendum: An alumnus writes in:
I would like to deliver a lecture on how well Marxism worked. It will be a five-part lecture. The sections are as follows:
1. How great was Marxism for those millions who died in “Dekulakization”!
2. How great was Marxism for the millions who died when Mao was rounding up their cooking pots to become slag in inferior steel mills!
3. How great was Marxism for the million + who died in Cambodian killing fields!
4. How great has Marxism been for the freedoms of religion, press, and speech!
5. And finally, great prospects for Venezuela’s poor through Marxism, a look at the current state of play!
A quick trip to London included excellent meals at Core and Yen, two restaurants where the food is as beautiful as it is delicious. The pain perdu at Core and the fruit salad at Yen were both so pretty that a diner regretted disturbing them:
When I worked for Bain in London from 1983-85, dining was lackluster at best. As the joke went, to find a good restaurant in Britain’s capital city, you had to drive 150 miles down the Edgware Road and stop when you got to France. No more.
Based on today’s Dartblog announcements on new IVY League sponsors, is it too soon to expect that Indian Motorcycles will be the new corporate sponsor of Dartmouth athletics??? A long time leader in its field with a history of excellence… Hmmmmm!
The Council for Aid to Education has released the results of it annual Voluntary Support of Education survey, and the figures show specifically what we have long expected: the rising stock market has led to the highest level of charitable giving to colleges and universities in history. Inside Higher Education reports:
While overall giving in 2017 rose 6.3%, alumni giving was up an impressive 14.5%.
And how did Phil Hanlon and Dartmouth do in this target-rich environment?
As we have noted, total giving to Dartmouth in 2017 was down 10.44%: from $318.9 in 2016 to $285.6 (the annual target last year was $350 million), even though the College is staffed up for an ever-on-the-horizon capital campaign. Actually the word is still that the campaign will kick off in April, just short of the fifth anniversary of Phil’s arrival in Hanover.
Addendum: Will the College’s new “branding” stimulate giving?
Just about six months after this space broke the story of the administration’s incipient closing of the Hanover Country Club and its 18-hole golf course, Executive Vice President Rick Mills has appointed an eleven-person committee to suggest alternatives for the course. The group will be chaired by popular Government Professor Charlie Wheelan ‘88:
Their mission, should they decide to accept it (committees should feel free to leave the reservation, I say) is:
… evaluating three scenarios for the golf course. One is to continue operation as is while taking steps to limit or reduce cost; another is to close the course and analyze options for an indoor golf practice facility; and the third is to redesign and alter the golf course to improve its operation and develop a funding plan that is not reliant on the College’s operating budget.
Let’s hope for some courage and imagination from this group.
Addendum: If you know any of these folks, tell them what you think.
Addendum: A friend of the College writes in:
How can the committee not include the Head Golf Pro and/or Superintendent… the two people who run the day-to-day operation.
Addendum: A (cheeky) alumna writes in:
It goes without saying that any selected group that is male-majority receives less attention for the imbalance than if it were majority women.
Take the golf course committee for example: 9 men, 2 women. Surely there’s an uproar as to whether this committee can make unbiased decisions, right??? Right?
As a student in the late 1970’s, when the College had about 6-8% fewer undergraduates than it does today, I can’t ever recall having more than a dozen people in line ahead of me to get into Thayer. So what it the meaning of the below? A friend took this photo last week:
Lines to get into the College’s main dining hall can vary by time of day: lunch tends to have longer lines than dinner apparently. And while the queue can move along, why should harried students waste time gaining entrance to an all-you-can-eat refectory?
Hapless Phil’s administration should be fixing problems like this every minute. Gosh knows that there are enough administrators in enough meetings. Why can’t they come up with solutions to nagging issues like making students stand in the rain?
Addendum: The week before last The D ran a nice chart showing the evolution in pricing for meals at FoCo:
Since 2012, the CPI is up 8.76%, but DDS meals are up as follows: SmartChoice5: +31.9%; SmartChoice10: +17.9%; SmartChoice14: +15.2%; SmartChoice20: +14.0%.
There is absolutely no valid reason why mealplan prices have risen so much faster than inflation. Perhaps DDS is making even more profit than in the past. More likely, it is getting ever harder to afford the fat salaries and plush benefits given to the grossly over-compensated staff. In a better world, the College would turn over DDS to a private company like Bon Appétit Management Company (here and here).
Dartblog has learned that the Hanlon administration, in addition to changing the College’s logo and “branding,” has decided also to drop the long-used phrase Vox Clamantis In Deserto from all Dartmouth materials.
From now on, in its place, the following words will appear:
Iuxta Morem Universae Terrae
The phrase translates as: “Like Everyone Else.”
Addendum: Just kidding. But not really.
Addendum: An alumnus writes in:
Joe: Please add something about Vox Clamantis in Deserto, and how inspired that phrase is for the future of Dartmouth as well as a reminder of its classical Latin past, beyond geography. A travesty to lose that!!! The world is still filled with virtual wildernesses that need pathways, and pathfinders, to enlightenment. The mission of the College must continue to be the education of those pathfinders. People who do not understand this do not understand Dartmouth.
Addendum: A close observer of the College writes in:
If the new logo was something interesting and inspired, I might be open to a fresh branding effort. But it is really not that creative or evocative. Its main asset is that it scales easily and is simple — but not in an effective way (like, say, Apple’s logo or Nike’s swoosh symbol). And I cannot imagine using it as the College’s crest. Who would want a “D” with a tree in it embroidered on a blazer?
I sound like a curmudgeon saying this. I am open to improving and refreshing things. But I don’t sense this logo accomplishes either of those objectives. It feels more like change for the sake of change, trading one of the College’s birthrights for a bowl of pottage.
College Pulse has the ability to slice and dice in many different ways all the data offered up by students responding to its surveys. Let’s take a look at the questions we reviewed yesterday, but in this instance to see how the responses vary between male and female Dartmouth students.
Q: Do you think it was okay for The Dartmouth to publish the article?
82.8% of Dartmouth men think that it was acceptable for The D to publish Ryan Spector ‘19’s article, but only 52.8% of women share that view:
Q: In general, do you agree with the writer’s position?
66.9% of men disagree with Spector’s position versus 91.1% of women:
Q:Agree/Disagree: Assuming that the applicant pool was evenly split in terms of gender, the decision to select an 80% female directorate is inherently unjust.
41.3% of men agree that a 15:4 gender imbalance would be inherently unjust if the applicant pool were balanced 50:50, whereas only 13.8% of women do:
Q:Do you think gender was considered in the directors’ selection process?
75.9% of men believe that gender was a factor in the Trips Director and Assistant Director coming up with a 15:4 gender imbalance among its members, but only 53.3% of women do?
So why the stark difference between men and women on these pointed questions?
I was going to speculate about an answer, but then from down in Cambridge I heard Larry Summers yelling, “Don’t do it!” So I won’t.
Any suggestions, dear readers?
Addendum: An alumnus writes in:
You seem to need a fool to rush in where wise men fear to tread, so here are some speculations:
Question 1: This was the closest vote, but those opposing publication may have been motivated by concern that “discussion” of the selection process could prove to be a Trojan Horse introduced by the forces of male privilege. These people would tend to see this issue as a struggle between male and female privilege, with no possibility of a middle ground.
Questions 2-4: Women may have more likely than men to disagree with Spector, reject the idea that the 80/20 imbalance is inherently unjust, and doubt that gender was a criterion for selection because the opposite views might be taken to imply that women could not have won 80% of the positions based on merit alone. Given the history of male attitudes toward women, some women may have felt that they could not afford to concede on any of these three questions.
The thread that runs through all of these potential explanations is a distrust of men and a suspicion that men have still not accepted women as equals. Give a man an inch, and he’ll take a mile.
Addendum: And another:
I’m not a mathematician, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so you might want to check my math, but if all things were equal (applicant pool had same number of male and female applicants of equal merit) and there was no unconscious (or conscious) bias, then the odds of selecting 15 females and 4 men would be the same as getting 15 heads if you flipped a coin 19 times and the odds of that happening is less than 1% (.00739 according to an online odds calculator).
Just saying …
Addendum: A (female) parent writes in:
Zombies are preferring to eat the brains of our girls? No, just kidding. But this is of course an extension of the concept of affirmative action, and that’s not, shall we say, an uncomplicated subject. With finite places for an infinite number of applicants, correcting historical injustice means making current generations pay for the sins of their foreparents.
And in a way of course that’s reasonable; a white male excluded, say, from Harvard so a black female can be accepted still has great odds of succeeding in the wider world, even without, perhaps, an Ivy League degree. The world is full of movers and shakers who got excellent educations at SUNY schools, for example. There’s the lifelong sting of not having that glittering diploma, perhaps, but not a huge detriment to a successful life.
But that black woman who did get it? That might have granted her the extra credibility her own talents might not have been sufficiently respected for.
This of course is the rosiest of spins, but it’s not invalid.
And perhaps, regarding the case in question here, the same shall have been accomplished, though on a less earthshaking scale, for the women accepted as Trips leaders. Mr. Spector can clearly advocate quite loudly for himself and does not slink off abashed into the night.
And it’s always possible they just didn’t like him, and with all things considered, and equal qualifications all around, they did what hiring managers do everywhere, every hour of every day — given two equally-qualified candidates, you go for the chemistry. Equal-opportunity, non-discrimination laws attempt to put bounds on this natural human impulse, to try to even out the playing field a little.
And what is just in theory is always going to hurt someone. Life is, you know, always going to be unfair, even if we try to pour salve on it 24 hours a day…
Addendum: An alumnus writes in:
This whole “In Solidarity” dialog is terribly dispiriting. Tired identity cliches stacked one on top of another, together with gross mis-statements of Spector’s actual position. (And together with silly errors like not knowing how to use an apostrophe.)
Rachel Kesler ‘19, a member of Native Americans at Dartmouth, has penned a letter to President Hanlon, with copies to all of the College’s fraternities, pressuring them to come out against Ryan Spector ‘19:
Spector is a member of Alpha Chi.
Addendum: Curiously absent from the addressees of this email is Alpha Phi Alpha — the College’s African-American fraternity.
Addendum: Here is Alpha Chi’s letter of solidarity, which was published yesterday afternoon:
To the Dartmouth community,
We are writing in response to the op-ed published in The Dartmouth on Friday. The article asserts that the members of the Trips Directorate were selected not on merit, but rather because of their identities. These claims are unfounded and harmful, and we stand in solidarity with the Director, Assistant Director, and the entire Trips Directorate. We additionally wish to express our support for women, POC, those with marginalized identities, and all other individuals negatively impacted by its publication.
Many Alpha Chi’s have been heavily involved in the Trips program as leaders, croo members, and members of directorate. We know how important Trips is to shaping the incoming classes’ experiences, and we have the utmost faith in the current Directorate’s ability to provide a fantastic and welcoming experience to the class of 2022.
Although Dartmouth students are allowed to have differing opinions, we cannot condone attempts to discredit the accomplishments of hard working community members simply on the basis of their identities. This issue is not isolated to a single individual or a single opinion; we as a campus must constantly strive towards a more inclusive Dartmouth.
Alpha Chi Alpha
Addendum: Go to the College listserv to see all of the different letters penned by students groups opposed to Spector’s op-ed column.
Breaking: Students Support Publication of Spector Op-ed, But Disagree With Him
In another example of how effective the College Pulse software is at measuring student opinion, the on-line survey platform rapidly gathered responses yesterday from 846 undergraduate students concerning Ryan Spector ‘19’s critique in The D of the Trips Director’s and Assistant Director’s choice of fifteen women and only four men for the Trips Directorate. A sample size of only about half that amount, 450 students, is considered statistically valid in accurately measuring the sentiments of Dartmouth’s undergraduates.
In response to the question, “Do you think it was okay for The Dartmouth to publish the article?”, an overall majority of 71% of all students believes that the paper was correct in printing Spector’s piece. However a fairly sharp divergence of responses to this question exists among students of different races, with only 50% of Black/AfAm student supporting The D’s decision to publish the article:
However 78.6% of all students disagreed with Spector’s critique of the Trips leadership in staffing the Directorate — a result that again has fairly sharp differences of opinion among students of different races:
To date the composition of the applicant pool for the Directorate has not been revealed, but one Pulse query asks students to assume that it is known: “Assuming that the applicant pool was evenly split in terms of gender, the decision to select an 80% female directorate is inherently unjust.” A full 72.5% of students somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, believing that an 80-20 female:male division was acceptable:
Finally, two thirds of all students felt that gender was a factor used in the Trip leader selection process:
What to say about the above? We can be glad that students support The D’s right to print a controversial article, but their acceptance of a self-evidently skewed end result in the selection process gives this observer pause.
But then, this stance should come as no surprise. After all, Phl Hanlon as much as told the assembled faculty that race and gender were the critical factors in his own selection of senior administrators, as he said at the May 9, 2016 faculty meeting:
My history in dean searches is probably relevant here. In my day I have conducted nine dean searches, all of them national searches. In every case I insisted that the search process generate a deep, talented, diverse pool of internal and external candidates from which to choose. In five of those cases I hired an internal candidate; in four of them I hired an external candidate. Of the nine, only two of the deans I hired were white males; four of them were people of color. So, that sort of tells you what I am looking for in the search…
Not long thereafter, Phil selected Native American Bruce Duthu for the Dean of the Faculty position, notwithstanding that Duthu did not hold a Ph.D, had a thin scholarly record, and had only served as the Associate Dean of the Faculty for International Studies & Interdisciplinary Programs for a scant ten months.
Addendum: Although there now seem to be a total of 37 open letters circulating on campus, virtually all of them condemning Spector and his column, when students can express their opinions on the Pulse platform, their views are more moderate.
It seems to me that the operative rule for these students is: thou shalt not criticize people of color, no matter how biased and discriminatory their behavior. And any criticism is to be equated not just with disagreement, but with violence.
A guest column entitled “You’re Not Tripping” was published this past Friday in The Dartmouth, resulting in campus discourse as well as questions about the newspaper’s editorial policies. The Dartmouth accepts guest column submissions from all members of the Dartmouth community and edits each in the same way. Guest columns, and any column published in The Dartmouth not under the authorship of “The Dartmouth Editorial Board,” do not represent the views of the newspaper or the editors who worked to bring it to publication.
The guest column policy, publicly available here, requires that submissions fall within a specific word count, disclose author affiliations with the subject material and comply with the newspaper’s standard editing procedure for accuracy and style. This process includes verifying all factual assertions and strictly prohibiting hate speech. The paper requires that writers provide sources, which are generally not published, for every factual assertion. Columns that adhere to these policies are published. If a factual inaccuracy is found following publication, a correction will be issued.
Every factual assertion in the guest column in question was reviewed to ensure that the piece is neither slanderous nor ad hominem in its criticisms. The Dartmouth published publicly-available names, in accordance with the practice of specifying individuals discussed when they are public figures or organizational leaders, and notified the individuals named both upon receipt of the guest column submission and prior to its publication. To these points, the guest column will remain online in its current form.
The Dartmouth, an independent newspaper, takes its role seriously and aims to continue to advance open discourse within the community. The paper encourages any interested individuals to direct questions, comments or concerns about the column or the paper’s policies to firstname.lastname@example.org. Individuals are also welcome to submit guest columns of their own to email@example.com and/or firstname.lastname@example.org. Submissions will undergo the same fact-checking and editing process and be published upon compliance with the guest column policy.
We encourage readers to continue to contribute to the discussion on our coverage and policies. We remain committed to fostering constructive dialogue and appreciate the feedback that has been provided both publicly and privately. We will continue to serve the Dartmouth community to the best of our abilities.
Doomsayers and signs of the times nonetheless, a fair number of the kids are all right. The others (examples like Mark Bray notwithstanding) will grow up some day. I, too, was pretty dumb at that age; it takes life to teach you.
I’d wish some of our cable TV hosts might take note of what The Dartmouth’s editors wrote today, and the courage it required to do so, and that the courage was there. The rest of us should take good note too.
Addendum: A College/Tuck alumnus writes in to share some news:
I am a Dartmouth and Tuck alumnus — and now give only to Tuck directly (although I continue to support undergrad organizations with which was affiliated). My confidence in Tuck’s leadership to use my money for the right priorities and in an efficient manner so far exceeds the undergrad side of things that I can’t justify splitting it any way but 100% to 0%.
What’s happening on the fundraising front down Tuck Drive is an interesting juxtaposition to Parkhurst’s woes…
Whenever someone asserts that the College’s problems are structural — too small, not urban, in an all-white part of the country — look at Tuck’s ongoing achievement.
The Dartmouth Review opines on Ryan Spector ‘19’s op-ed in The D about the 15-4 female:male composition of the Trips Directorate:
On behalf of the more conservative members of the Dartmouth community, we would like to offer our support to both Ryan Spector and The Dartmouth in light of the recent publication of the op-ed entitled “You’re Not Tripping.”
While Spector’s column is not without flaws, we would like to condemn the numerous personal attacks he has endured, in addition to the dangerous rhetoric coming from many of the condemning organizations. While it is difficult to substantiate that the decisions regarding Trips executives were based on identity rather than merit, the issues he raises in his article are important, and it is important that an open discussion of the topic is held. Spector’s closing statement - that trips is “no longer for trippees… It is for ideology, no matter how cruel the implications” - indeed paints a picture of a troubling, yet very real state of affairs.
Furthermore, we find the notion that Spector’s column communicates any type of hate, racism, bigotry, or “toxic masculinity” to be wholly ridiculous. His words are not an attack on any population or any individual; they are simply raising awareness of a perceived problem. The many emails proclaiming solidarity for “victims” of his article have a warped perception of his ideas; nowhere does he convey the notion that “there is nothing meritable about a room full of women, WOC, or POC,” or that his article is an “attack on people of color, queer folk, gender non-conforming people, first generation, low-income students or women.” These perceptions are nothing but absurd. As such, any personal attacks directed back upon him - or anyone coming to his defense - are reprehensible.
Finally, and most importantly, we wholly support the decision of The Dartmouth to publish this article in the first place. It is an important step in assuring that all ideas, unpopular or popular, conservative or liberal, right or left, are heard on a campus that is overwhelmingly liberal and that often ignores unpopular, conservative, or right-leaning notions. We always stand for open discourse, and we condemn all those who seek its destruction.
Addendum: For further letters concerning the Spector op-ed, please see the extended:
Ryan Spector 19’s op-ed in The D, in which he decried the unfairness of a Freshman Trips Directory skewed 15-4 in favor of women, has elicited a series of angry public comments in Hanover.
Here is a letter from the women of Epsilon Kappa Theta, which styles itself “one of the most diverse and progressive sororities on Dartmouth’s campus”:
From: Epsilon Kappa Theta
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 10:38 PM
Subject: Letter in Solidarity
A Message to the Dartmouth Community,
The members of Epsilon Kappa Theta stand in solidarity with the 2018 First Year Trips director, the assistant director, the chosen directorate and the decisions they have and will continue to make in their leadership positions.
We cannot and will not stand for any attack on people of color, queer folk, gender non-conforming people, first generation, low-income students or women. Let us be perfectly clear, “You’re Not Tripping”, the editorial featured in The Dartmouth was exactly that. This “op-ed” was not merely an opinion; it was a manifestation of the racism, sexism and homophobia that permeates this campus daily. The Dartmouth, instead of standing up for marginalized communities, chose to give a platform for the propagation of this violence. By publishing this piece, they were complicit in the reckless inflammatory rhetoric that attempted to invalidate the character, qualifications and ability of the members of the 2018 First Year Trips directorate. As an organization that carries the weight of Dartmouth College in their name, we demand that they reevaluate their criteria for the publication of opinion editorials so that they prioritize the safety of Dartmouth students by refusing to publish content that endangers the lives and dismisses the labor of those actively working to make this college a more diverse and inclusive institution.
Epsilon Kappa Theta is an organization that would have benefited greatly from the representation of the current First Year Trips directorate. We are a house made up people of color, gender non-conforming folks, queer individuals and women; we bear witness to the revolutionary change that the 2018 First Year Trips directorate is working towards. We acknowledge that this change would never have been possible had it not been for the immense amount of labor that queer people of color have historically and currently put into this institution without due recognition. We are angry. We are hurt. And we will not stand for the attack of one of our own. We, as Epsilon Kappa Theta, feel this intimately and will continue to fight against the hateful oppression that attempts to stifle and minimize the successes of our members and communities.
We know the influence of First Year Trips and how it can color the beginning of someone’s Dartmouth career. We support the program and its mission to welcome first year Dartmouth students into our community. We also recognize the work it takes to make Trips a successful and uplifting experience. This is why we so vehemently support the labor the 2018 First Year Trips directorate has put in to create a positive environment for not only the incoming class, but for our larger community as members of Dartmouth College. The inclusion of queer folk and people of color in Trips leadership is not as the editorial states, “a plate on the diversity buffet”, but instead a step towards the radical change this institution must make to recognize and uplift the voices of those that have often been excluded from Dartmouth’s historical narrative.
We ask you to stand with us.
Epsilon Kappa Theta [Emphasis added]
The notion of safety is by now a well worn one in certain circles at the College. Activists from the left continually cite their fear of violence when they are criticized in the media. “Death threats” is a favorite conversation stopper — though, at least at Dartmouth, these supposed threats are never reported to the police or to campus security.
A second group, the College’s Inter-Community Council, “an organization that seeks to build bridges across many campus communities,” has written to the campus decrying Spector’s op-ed, too. The I-CC is made up of 14 community liaisons representing the following constituencies: Environmental Justice, Accessibility, Greek Men, Women, Native American, Black, Latino, Socioeconomic class, Multi-Faith, International, LGBTQA, Pan-Asian/Asian-American, Athletes. The group’s letter is equally anguished:
From: Inter-Community Council
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 7:16 PM
Subject: In Solidarity
To: The campus community,
We are writing to respond to the recent op-ed that was released in The Dartmouth claiming that the selection of the 2018 Trips Directorate was purposefully discriminatory towards men, specifically white men. The author of the article criticizes the Trips Directors for appointing a Directorate that is 80% female and finds it “impossible” that this selection was based only on merit.
The Inter-Community Council expresses its outrage towards this article and declares firm solidarity with the Trips Director, Assistant Director, and all of the members of the Directorate. As a group composed of campus activists who are focused on improving the Dartmouth experience for WOC and other marginalized communities, the ICC cannot stress enough how violent this article is in erasing the work of WOC on campus who have done nothing but make this institution a better place. This article specifically co-opts the vocabularies that WOC have used to critique systems of power and subverts their meanings to give credence to the very systems they aim to dismantle.
We would also like to express our disappointment towards the editors of The Dartmouth, who appear to have sacrificed the safety and wellbeing of students in favor of supposed non-partisanship. It is important to point out that in the past, anyone who has written a remotely organized, researched, and radical opinion piece and submitted it to The D has had to undergo extensive scrutiny prior to publication. We call into question the lack of citations and of substantive research in this piece. The fact that The Dartmouth’s protocols allow for publishing opinion pieces that slander members of the student body is highly problematic. They clearly had no regard for the impact that the op-ed would have upon being published. It is concerning to see how easily privileged grievances make their way into print.
The Dartmouth has suggested that those who disagree with the article write a response piece. However, a response would only validate the author and imply that his opinions are credible and worthy of debate. Opinions that perpetuate violence and systematic oppression do not deserve a public platform. Instead, we urge The Dartmouth to retract the article and issue an apology to those whom the article has harmed.
We stand by and offer support to all of those harmed by these violent actions.
The Inter-Community Council [Emphasis added]
Once again harm and violence are front and center in a critique of an op-ed piece that did nothing more than point out an obvious gender imbalance in the leadership of a popular campus organization.
As well, both open letters are critical of The D for even publishing Spector’s piece. Freedom of the press seems of little value to these students, and the vehemence of their critique will undoubtedly cause the Op-Ed editors at The D — Parker Richards ‘18, Ioana Solomon ‘19 and Ziqin Yuan ‘18 — to hesitate in deciding to run similar pieces in the future.
Addendum: An alumnus writes in:
So sad that Dartmouth organizations, which presumably represent the collective wisdom of a group of students, would throw the first amendment away so fast. Their lack of historical context knowledge says they are not educated or properly fearful of tyranny. They’d live in a politically correct version of Iran, if they could. If we let them run our institutions of academia and eventually government, we all may to at some point. So sad.
Addendum: And another:
It’s frightening that so many young people seem to be making their way through Dartmouth believing the following fallacies: 1) That language equals violence; 2) That it’s never OK to criticize a person of color or a gay person, no matter how warranted; 3) That the USA, so rich and so full of opportunities, especially for Ivy League graduates, is nothing but a massive system of oppression leaving only victims in its wake.
Are these kids not getting any guidance from their professors and parents?
As for the issue of Trips leaders, all the directors have to do is release the demographics of the applicant pool to settle this matter once and for all.
As it stands now, it certainly looks like many Dartmouth undergrads believe not in meritocracy but in revenge. In their insistence on the primacy of group membership and not the individual, they have much in common with Maoists. They are heading down a dangerous path.
If you are coming to La Capitale this year, bring galoshes or even hip waders. The Seine is in flood for the second year in a row. In ordinary times the Square du Vert-Galant at the tip of the Ile de la Cité, where the Pont Neuf crosses the river, is one of my favorite places to watch the water roll by or to catch a bateau-mouche sight-seeing boat. Not this year:
However the paysage was a fair bit more inviting on the Stanford campus:
That’s the back of Memorial Church not far from the Design Studio. I took this picture two days ago.
If applications were about 50/50 between men and women — though Director Lucia Pierson ‘18 and Assistant Director Dalia Rodriguez-Caspeta ‘18 aren’t saying — out in the real world you’d be looking at a prima facie case of gender discrimination.
Good for Ryan Spector for speaking truth to power.
Addendum: An alumnus writes in:
When I served on the trips directorate 5 years ago, the directorate I served on was almost 70% men. There was not a single vindictive op-ed from any of the many qualified women who were overlooked.
Make no mistake, this is more personal than it is principled. Spector asserts that “credentials matter not” in the minds of the directors, which is clearly impossible to substantiate. His piece makes half-baked attempts to suggest the process is biased against him using data he doesn’t have, and objections to muddy language. The reality is that the directors this year had to choose one candidate over two or three others for each role (as they have in most years past). If past Trips are any indication, then there are a variety of factors at play: interpersonal qualities, leadership abilities, relevant certifications, prior experience, etc. And, in addition to these candidate against candidate comparisons, the directors must also choose a team of people that will be able to work well together. Their rhetoric is equivocal, probably not because (as Spector conjectures) there is something foul afoot, but because it has to serve as a catch-all for how every decision was made.
Any reader is capable of speculation equal to Spector’s. Perhaps he would prefer the directors say to him outright that he was less qualified than the women who have the outdoor logistics roles, or the two women (and one man) who will serve as trip leader trainers. Perhaps he would rather them say that his entitled attitude lack of nuanced thinking, and penchant for jumping to conclusions would hamper the directorate’s outreach, sustainability, or risk-mitigation efforts. Perhaps he simply wanted to reprise his role on H-Croo (now as a captain), but was unfortunately less likable than his peers who were selected. For what it’s worth, only one of the H-croo captains is a woman. The other is, like Spector, a (white) man.
To allege he has been discriminated against, or has been the victim of a brutally imposed ideology is laughable. Spector is not speaking truth to power. He is whining.
I disagree. A ratio of 15-4 should smell bad to anyone. Lucia Pierson ‘18 and Dalia Rodriguez-Caspeta ‘18 need to let us know the mix of applicants to the Directorate.
Dartmouth has received the largest number of undergraduate admissions applications in five years.
The 22,005 applications for admission to the Class of 2022 are an increase of 9.8 percent over last year and represent the fourth-largest applicant pool in Dartmouth’s history.
The strong rise in the overall applicant pool—which includes both early decision admission and the current round of regular decision admission—is the largest one-year increase in seven years. It follows an all-time high number of applications this year—2,270—for early decision admissions, a 13.5 percent increase over last year’s early decision applications.
Spin. Span. Spun. While it’s nice to see an increase, does the jump in numbers have anything to do with Dartmouth, or are applications up everywhere? (As we reported the other day, applications to NYU were up 12%, Bowdoin 25%, and Middlebury 13.8% — and it was recently announced that Brown is up 8% and Yale 7.3%.)
Saying that this year’s group represents the “fourth-largest applicant pool in Dartmouth’s history” is chest-thumping that has no justification. Look at where everyone else in the Ivy League stood last year:
All of the other Ivies have been setting all-time applications records year after year. Yet the College isn’t even back to to the level at which it stood six years ago.
Addendum: Does the Office of Communications think that nobody will notice this kind of sleight of hand? And that we won’t be offended?
Addendum: We’ll look at the other Ivies’ progress when they have all reported their results.
After desultory, ad hoc efforts at a Carnival Snow Sculpture in the past couple of years, we might have something a little more substantial on the Green this time around. Either the below is a finished effort (the Dartmouth Pimple? Phil’s bold new symbol?) or students are readying a sculpture that will make us proud: