<p>This blithering self-righteous takeover has to be the best thing that ever happened to those hopefuls on the Dartmouth wait list. Anyone on the fence between Dartmouth vs any other top 20 is off on the other side ( with a decided parental push!) . I foresee Dartmouth groping deep into its wait list this year. Weird how Dartmouth is now trying to out-Wesleyan Wesleyan, a notorious bastion of the self-beleaguered and ultimate politically correct.</p>
<p>@Bayrunner - Please do not create straw men: 1) I never said they did not have value - in fact, I said I have no problem with their grievances, even though I find many of them rather ill-formed. 2) I did not say erase them from campus - I said the way they are going about it is rude and disrespectful to other students. Here is a news flash - there are other ways to do things, which are just as successful.</p>
<p>@awcntdbâ - Thank you for the kind words. </p>
<p>The only thing I would like to add⊠one can say social action is disrespectful, but often it is the only way to make your point if you have no societal power. Take for example many times in our history as a country when we used similar actions that were disrespectful to make a point. Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus (which you can argue was disrespectful and inconvenienced others). The Boston Tea Party (same). Many marches throughout our history that disrupted cities, the capital, etc. Certainly many civil rights marches were inconvenient for people, traffic, work, etc. </p>
<p>I would argue that disruption of the norm is often a prerequisite for making real change, especially when you have gone through other channels and not been able to facilitate change.</p>
<p>This is where I come from, with my perspective that itâs SO positive to see students make the commitment and have the passion to really try and BE the change they want to see. </p>
1 Like
<p>@makennacomptonâ - Weâll have go agree to disagree. As misguided as they are, I think this wonât harm them at all. I wish we could see the results to verify one way or another. </p>
<p>And the Dartmouth protestorsâ poorly-written piece of garbage will never be mistaken for our Founding Fathersâ Declaration of Independence. I wonder if Thomas Jefferson would have been admitted to present day Dartmouth. </p>
<p>Iâm sure Jefferson also did some stupid stuff when he was a kid. 
Give the kids a break! Making mistakes is an important part of growing up. </p>
<p>To the parents who are concerned that protestors will somehow damage your kidsâ precious days at Dartmouth. I think your kids would eye-roll you. Really? Are they that fragile? The piles of vomit on the sidewalks on a Sunday morning are more intrusive than those protestors.</p>
<p>We had some actions going when I was at another Ivy in the late 80s. Some were rude. Some were obnoxious and one could easily deride them. But in hindsight, they made me and my friends think. Did they have a point? What were the counter arguments? Why did they think that way? What about my lifeâs perspective made me different/the same? How would I protest something? Is there anything that would cause me to do the same?</p>
<p>I get it â reading over protestors manifestos and somewhat goofball or even noisome behavior can be a head-shaker. But I personally, Iâm happy they do what they do â for everyone at Dartmouth.</p>
1 Like
<p>@T26E4 - My point had nothing to do with fragile. I would just rather a different experience for them given that of what the protestors are saying are directed at perceived their lifestyle and my kids have gone nothing to them.
It is basically a parent wishing for that cost that the experience was different. It does not help I disagree with the protestors either. </p>
<p>However, your point is correct, as my kids are not fragile and could survive such protests just fine; however, I confess, if in those shoes, I would rather a different experience for my kids. But, my kids do not go to Dartmouth, so it was simply a thought that I am assuming other parents are having. I could be wrong there too though.</p>
<p>@makennacompton:
</p>
<p>Itâs interesting that you would say that. Around Middletown, the trope is that the only reason Wesleyan is the one of the last small New England colleges with any all-male fraternities is that it is trying to be more like Dartmouth. They even speak of frat brothers in similarly disparaging terms. For example:</p>
<p>1) That they bring the college unwanted and unflattering publicity
2) That they are tolerated only because of a misguided notion of âdiversityâ gone amok.
3) That they flaunt their dislike of polite conventions<br>
3) That they probably arenât very smart
4) .That they take up seats belonging to the more deserving
and,
5) No one will miss them because their numbers are so appallingly small. </p>
<p>@T26E4 - Excuse all the typos in my previous post. I typed and uploaded way too quickly. Here it is corrected.</p>
<p>My point had nothing to do with fragile. I would just rather a different experience for them given that some of what the protestors are saying is directed at my kidsâ perceived lifestyle and my kids have done nothing to them. It is basically a parent wishing the experience was different for that high tuition cost. It does not help I disagree with the protestors either.</p>
<p>However, your point is correct, as my kids are not fragile and could survive such protests just fine; however, I confess, if in those shoes, I would rather a different experience for my kids. But, my kids do not go to Dartmouth, so it was simply a thought I am assuming other parents are having. I could be wrong there too though.</p>
<p>@psalcal - There is a fundamental distinction I would take: all your examples are people rising up against government. </p>
<p>Dartmouth is a private college, and people do voluntarily pay money to go there and thus do have a right to expect a certain level of service, as they are paying for it. These protestors, to some (maybe many), interrupt that level of service.</p>
<p>Dartmouth and any other private college has no required obligation to behave a certain way toward these students beyond not breaking the law. The protesting students are free to go to another school. </p>
<p>Your examples are public issues for which there was no freedom to go elsewhere if one did not like what is being done to you. </p>
<p>I do see this as a private versus public institution issue. </p>
<p>@awcntdbâ - ya, true, but those same types of actions have happened with private institutions. Chick-fil-a was boycotted by activists. Gun rights activists have visited Starbucks across the country as a way of furthering their agenda as well. Even labor strikes against private companies would seem to fall under the same umbrella. </p>
<p>This is a time honored tradition in our country of political activism that, by nature, inconveniences the general public. </p>
<p>@psalcal - Everything you state is dead on. Except that you seem not to want to acknowledge the costs to such actions. </p>
<p>Yes, it is time-honored tradition, but that was not my point. My point was there is a loss involved that I believe the protestors really have no right in imposing on others who are paying and depending on said private businesses. </p>
<p>Specifically, your analysis does not include the point-of-view of the employees who did not support a strike, yet whose families suffered because of lost paychecks. Why do the protestors think they have a right to harm those families? Your analysis did not include the potential monetary loss of the franchise owners of Chick-Fil-A. Why do protestors think they have a right to impose a monetary loss on those owners?</p>
<p>Following the above examples, I do not think the protesters have the right to detract from the Dartmouth experience of other paying students who may not believe in what they are doing. That was my point.</p>
<p>PS: The Starbucks example is a weird one to analyze because it was both gun rights activists and gun control activists that met at Starbucks. Kind of a dueling rally thing. Not sure what to make of that one. Sounds like a wash.</p>
<p>@awcntdbâ - Sorry, I didnât mean to leave out the costs. In all cases there is a cost to peaceful protest. To me the cost to society is offset by the societal importance of individual activism. But that is my bias. I can certainly understand how someone might feel the other way. </p>
<p>I guess I donât agree there is a major inconvenience to the students at Dartmouth. Classes still go on, right? Maybe they have to avoid a building and walk further? Itâs certainly possible this has more of an impact on students than Iâm seeing. If it were causing classes to be canceled/etc I am inclined to agree with you, but as is it doesnât really seem to be causing any real hardship.</p>
<p>The starbucks example seems just as relevant to me⊠it actually started with pro open carry people. Eventually the anti-gun people joined in as well, but thatâs not how it began. I think the same thing happened with Chick-fil-a. First it was the pro same sex marriage people, then the other side joined in. I fully support the rights of either side to peacefully protest. I donât think itâs too much to ask that people walk an extra 50 steps to go around protesters as a tradeoff for free speech rights. </p>
<p>I personally find the concept of âfree speech zonesâ as a way of putting demonstrators far enough away that they are unable to be heard by the people they want to protest VERY distasteful⊠and that goes for both abortion clinic protestors and occupy wall streeters. That does do what you seem to want, which is to ensure the people are not disruptive, but I think itâs a poor tradeoff in a so called free society. </p>
<p>Speaking of costs, how many millions of dollars would their Freedom proposal cost if enacted? They come off kind of silly for not even realizing that.</p>
<p>@pcalcal - No argument from me on your points. </p>
<p>I admit I am not a protest type of person, but just because I am not that type, I still would defend their right to protest. Please note I was very careful not to say they did not have the right to protest, I said I do not think they gave the right to disrupt the students. That is a debatable point, I understand because there is a difference between disrupting students and patrons and disturbing the peace. Clearly, no one has yet thought they reached the threshold of disturbing the peace, given no authorities have been called in.</p>
<p>I think where we differ and where I still give pause is the presidentâs office is not a free speech zone and was forcefully entered (although peacefully without resistance). I do not go for that, but that is just me. And the act of doing that does, at least to me, disrupt the running of the college. How can it not? Given that action, I do not have as much sympathy for them. Yet, I still would protect their right to speak.</p>
<p>Question - how would you devise the protest differently if occupying the president 's office was not an option?</p>
<p>@awcntdbâ - I think we established their demands and even their process is a bit silly. Thatâs pretty clear. Iâm really only supporting their passion and the fact they are taking action⊠not what they are trying to accomplish. </p>
<p>Your question is a good one⊠maybe they would think about occupying a different building on campus? Maybe they should occupy the financial aid office and give all those on the wait list a spot and a scholarship. Maybe they already tried to engage the school leadership and their demand werenât met, so they felt they needed to up the anti. I donât have a good answer⊠but usually what makes a protest like this work is they take over a place that is important. Otherwise nobody cares! I donât think it would work if they took over the cafeteria⊠maybe the students would be happy and they could make better food. </p>
<p>I think itâs important to recognize the truly limited scope of this âprotestâ. It is not as if the entire campus is in turmoil. Yes, they did occupy the Presidentâs office, and some marched outside from time to time. Yes, some of their demands are naĂŻve, maybe even silly, but some are genuinely important. Yes, this adds more to Dartmouthâs recent bad press. But according to my two daughters at Dartmouth, this had no real impact on the process of education. Except for occasionally seeing the outside demonstrators when walking across campus, it was otherwise a mild event for most students, if not for the administration. </p>
<p>^^ Thanks for the on-the-ground report.</p>
<p>Brilliant commentary from Victor Davis Hanson today:
<a href=âOur Psychodramatic Campuses â PJ Mediaâ>http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/our-psychodramatic-campuses/</a> </p>