<p>I was just curious as to the intellectual life at Darthmouth. From what I've hear, it sounds as if intellectual discussion rarely exists outside of the classroom; that everyone is far more interested in drinking and partying. </p>
<p>Is this true? Please explain or clear up any misconceptions I have. Thanks</p>
<p>I don't know who you've been hearing that from (and I hope you realize that CC is pretty unrepresentative given the relatively low volume of current (and former) Dartmouth students present), but that is a condition of higher education in the United States at large (for better or worse). It's certainly unfair to pin it on Dartmouth and claim that it stands out as unusual. As a matter of fact, I find that there is quite a lot of very interesting and thought-provoking intellectual discussion that goes on at Dartmouth, both in the classroom and out of it, and most, if not all the people that I've met have opinions about a very broad range of subjects that they want to share with others.</p>
<p>Yeah I agree - Dartmouth tends to be more politically charged than most other Ivy campuses because there's actually a relatively decent distribution of points of view. I've spent as many nights staying in and debating with friends or discussing intellectual issues as I have out partying. There's a segment of this campus, like any, that's apathetic and only cares about having fun, but there's also a very fiercely intellectual contingent. Campus issues are more controversial and more hotly debated at Dartmouth than at some of the other colleges I've experienced.</p>
<p>If you look for it, you will find an enormous number of opportunities for intellectual discussion outside of the Dartmouth classroom.</p>
<p>For example, tonight I went to this event:</p>
<p>The Distinguished Gentlemen of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. Theta Zeta Chapter cordially invite you to join us for a proactive and thought provoking discussion</p>
<hr>
<pre><code>Preventing Regression Together:
A Forum to Discuss Current Minority Issues at Dartmouth
***************************************
</code></pre>
<p>When: Monday, November 27th, 2006 @ 6PM
Where: Carson L02
Food and Refreshments Provided.</p>
<p>The objectives of this program are to raise awareness of the current racially tense events that have occurred this term and to have administrators available to attend to any constructive questions that the general community may have. In addition, we would like to use this program as a formal step towards unification of the Dartmouth Community, and to facilitate confrontation of these problems as a cohesive unit instead of individual communities. We believe there is strength in numbers; and united our voices will be heard. </p>
<p>What an amazing discussion! I came away with new perspectives on free speech, activism, respect for minorities, etc. </p>
<p>One of the main venues for intellectual discussion is through small groups meeting over lunch or dinner. There are several political discussion groups that meet once a week, provide free food, and focus on a particular political issue each meeting. These groups include PoliTALK, Daniel Webster Legal Society, and Women in Leadership. The World Affairs Council discusses international events weekly. Aporia hosts philosophical discussion and lunch weekly. </p>
<p>Many campus cultural groups also discuss important issues and hold events to promote cultural awareness. These groups include the Dartmouth Chinese Cultural Society, Milan (South Asian Society), Native Americans at Dartmouth, and many more.</p>
<p>Also, many students write and respond to op-eds in The Dartmouth every day.</p>
<p>Intellectual debate and discussion is very prominent on the Dartmouth campus -- don't let anyone tell you otherwise!</p>
<p>mmm ic. Another question, are the majority of classes in D discussion based or lectures? Or both?</p>
<p>I think that intellectual discourse is as prevalent and easy to find as you choose to make it. As an East Wheelocker (for a bit longer), I find that political and intellectual discussions arise often among residents there. Numerous campus organizations exist where one can exercise intellectual discourse as well.</p>
<p>wen2hu, it really depends on what departments you're interested in. Courses in the sciences and large classes rarely engage in discussion, but most other subjects have a nice mixture of each, in my experience.</p>
<p>I actually found intellectual discussion outside the classroom to be much more prevelant at Dartmouth than Columbia. I think people tend to think partying eliminates discussion, I never found the social like on the weekends impinging on great discussions.</p>
<p>I have heard the most extraordinary things about Professor Hart.
He is a legend and quite beloved by his former students and confidantes. </p>
<p>I highly recommend his book:
“Smiling through the Cultural Catastrophe” …this book, more than any other, helped me to focus my academic and intellectual pursuits and priorities. Brilliant from front to back.</p>
<p>As I understand Professor Hart also has some interest in the doings of The Dartmouth Review, a rather renowned college review by any standards--the best and most attractive writers in college journalism, bar none. </p>
<p>Anyhow, that’s what I’ve heard.</p>
<p>half_baked above is one of them and has written in defense if the Review some of the most eloquent and passionate prose I've encountered on CC</p>
<p>"12-07-2006, 01:07 AM #108
half_baked
Junior Member</p>
<p>Join Date: Nov 2005
Threads:
Posts: 148
Josh,</p>
<p>I'm able to write for and put my name on the Review because it's the courageous thing to do. I concede that sometimes in the pursuit of a better world, dirty tactics have to be used. However, I will not stand by and allow the system that, though not without flaws, is ultimately capable of making a near-perfect world be eroded from the inside. I sincerely believe that a capitalist liberal democratic society that adheres to the classical Western tradition of liberty ultimately has the potential within it to fix all of the problems the world faces today. I am committed to defending that system and thereby defending the potential for progress and a better future.</p>
<p>I am convinced that my thoughts, words, and actions are not only incredibly good, but also undeniably just. This includes, but is not limited to, my advocacy for the Review. This is not to say that I am so arrogant as to suggest that I think every individual action I and the Review take is ethical, nor is it to suggest that I believe that I am infallible. What I'm saying is that I believe that our fight against anti-liberal, anti-capitalist, and anti-Western forces is both a pure and ethical struggle; it is very regrettable, in my mind, that sometimes we have to stoop to using the base, crude tactics often employed by our enemies. I want to emphasize that I really do feel regret for some of the things that have to be done when considered in isolation; however, when I weigh the negative consequences of these actions against the positive outgrowths that result, I'm content. A prime example is the recent cover of the Review. While it is undeniable in my mind that what we did was an offensive shock tactic, the result was positive. The Review baited several of the groups that it is critical of into organizing and protesting free speech: there were a group of protestors on the green doing the equivalent of burning books and calling for the blood of the royal family. They staged a Stalinist mock trial in order to extract a false confession to all manner of wrongdoings. I cannot say how happy I am, though, that the Review refused to recant. You've already made it your Emmanuel Goldstein; it will never, however, be your Winston Smith - we are not the dead.</p>
<p>In the end, like it or not, the Review won. The arguments that have been made by the paper about the disproportionate amount of power and consideration that is granted to vocal minority groups came to life that day when a mob assembled outside of Dartmouth Hall to call for an end to not only free speech, but free thought. The result was that those who were either moderates or previously politically apathetic were disgusted by what they saw and were forced to acknowledge that the Review was right after all. It wasn't just a bunch of conservatives sitting around bi tching. There might actually be a rollback of the foundations Western civil society in favor of pandering to every "disenfranchised" group; it might actually be time to stand up and speak out against that trend.</p>
<p>In an ideal world, I would be able to agitate for change while taking only the purest of ethical actions. However, the price that people like you and I pay for rejecting political apathy is that we're forced to get our hands dirty. In this way, I can both understand and empathize with why the NADs and other groups argued during the protest that those who write for the Review should be penalized for their actions. I'd like to think that you're not actually against free speech, just as I hope you realize that I'm not a racist. I'm a person of color myself and have been subjected to prejudice and bigotry as a result. However, I sincerely believe that my vision of the world has a better shot at fixing those problems than yours does.</p>
<p>I think that political efficacy and awareness confers a large amount of responsibility upon those who possess it. Think of it this way: everyone can agree that killing is wrong, but some people have to be soldiers who go out and do the fighting. Without them, the rest of us would have nothing. In a similar way, I think that 100% purity of conscience is a luxury of the meek and ignorant; I am neither. There are things that need to be done, written, and said that are not pretty. However, if I don't do it, who will? I do these things in the name of progress, and in the name of a better society for everyone. I think that being intimidated and beaten into submission in the face of resistance and criticism, as some Reviewers did in the wake of the protest, is cowardly. It's times like these that separate the true believers from the fairweather activists. I am neither a coward nor have I ever been afraid of a little bit of rain and thunder. The whole point of having genuine beliefs, and not simply being an opportunist, is that you always fight for what you believe in, not just it's when convenient.</p>
<p>I realize that all of this makes me sound like a really radical idealist conservative, and I'd say that's probably a fair characterization of me. I see myself as a defender of the West. I see myself as part of the vanguard against shortsightedness and the easy way out. I refuse to allow yet another well-intentioned, ill-fated idea add another cinderblock in American society's road to hell. I write for The Dartmouth Review because I'm convinced that it's the right thing to do.
Last edited by half_baked : 12-07-2006 at 01:19 AM."</p>
<p>^Thanks, I appreciate that.</p>
<p>Yeah, there really is a lot of political discussion on campus that's both fueled and covered by the Review.</p>
<p>Is Dartmouth generally more conservative than some of the other ivies?</p>
<p>Yes, in the same way that Liechtenstein is larger than Monaco and the Vatican. Dartmouth is not so much conservative as less liberal (and with a slightly more conservative voice on campus) than the other Ivies. Though some would love to see the Review disappear forever, I am not one of them; as a moderate, I feel that the Review, for better or worse, continues to facilitate discussion and provide a balance in what would otherwise be a rather politically vanilla campus. After all, where's the fun in arguing politics if everyone agrees with you?</p>
<p>Hey Ernie -- check out this thread from a couple of weeks ago about Dartmouth's political atmosphere:</p>
<p>Seriously guys, **** the Review. It's just a bunch of rich white male heterosexual racists and misogynists who get a kick out of provoking people. I have never read anything even remotely intelligent in an issue of that newspaper, nor have I ever met someone who writes for the paper who isn't a total douchebag and completely ignorant.</p>
<p>The Dartmouth Free Press on the other hand is a truly intellectual paper. The writing from a purely literary perspective is fantastic. The paper really embodies the soul of journalism: instead of just patting the Dartmouth administration on the back for what it does, the DFP really takes them to taks and criticizes the administration, thus acting as a true check on administrative power. I know many people hate the Free Press and, instead of either reading it or allowing others to read it, just throw away stacks of it when they see it in public. I think this is so wrong. What an underappreciated group of individuals - they take the hard stances and ask the tough, politically incorrect questions that no one else is willing to ask for fear of social reprecussion and being out of the mainstream political norm. The courage exhibited by this group of individuals stands in stark contrast to the constant whining and name calling used by The Review. Don't take my world for it - there's a reason why the DFP is a nationally famous, extraordinarily prestigious newspaper while The Review is something that no one outside of Dartmouth knows about. The Review scores cheap points by making fun of the DFP in almost every issue; the DFP, being the better and more dignified paper, never even acknowledges the existence of the inferior Review.</p>
<p>Seriously, conservatives are just a bunch of Bible banging rich homophobic racists anyway.</p>
<p>exactly!!!</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p><<seriously, conservatives="" are="" just="" a="" bunch="" of="" bible="" banging="" rich="" homophobic="" racists="" anyway.="">></seriously,></p>
<p>This is why we go to college: to open minds, starting with this one.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure half_baked's post was pure sarcasm. He's said in past posts that he himself writes for the conservative Dartmouth Review.</p>
<p>Having written for three of the campus papers, I am pleased that they all do their own thing in their own way, as the muse directs them.</p>
<p>Although, certainly, I still have a preference for one of them.</p>
<p>Which ones did you write for? Unless I'm mistaken, pigeonhole principle dictates that there's no way you could have written for three papers without at least one political one.</p>
<p>let's just say you are right.</p>