Interesting times at Dartmouth

<p>"Dartmouth alumni elect conservatives to trustee board"</p>

<p>
[quote]
CONCORD, New Hampshire (AP) -- For two decades, Dartmouth College has tried to rein in rowdy fraternities -- such as the one that inspired the movie "Animal House" -- and make the campus more welcoming to women, minorities and scholars.</p>

<p>Now, some alumni who appreciated the old Dartmouth are pushing back. Football, fraternities, opposition to codes regulating hate speech and a fresh focus on teaching undergraduates top their agenda.</p>

<p>The struggle for control of Dartmouth is being waged in elections for the Ivy League school's board of trustees, which steers its policies and hires top administrators. In the past four years, the football-and-fraternities faction has won all four open seats on the 18-member board using a once-obscure rule to elect petition candidates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/05/25/dartmouth.trustees.ap/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/05/25/dartmouth.trustees.ap/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>What does getting rid of frats have to do with whether one is politically conservative? I didn't realize this was a political issue.</p>

<p>The one item I see as "conservative" is the removal of hate speech codes. And I happen to agree with it as a matter of free speech.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The one item I see as "conservative" is the removal of hate speech codes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Except that the reason they don't want codes is so that students can make racial slurs and put up Hitler posters with impunity.</p>

<p>The same people would like to see strict control of the classroom and curriculum: professors banned from espousing liberal political views, courses strictly limited to the "western canon", no freedom of choice for adult students in selecting courses, etc.</p>

<p>Well, I am a free speech die-hard. I don't think we can defend the right of profs to teach what they like while passing rule restricting students' right to say what they like, however loathsome this might be.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Except that the reason they don't want codes is so that students can make racial slurs and put up Hitler posters with impunity.</p>

<p>The same people would like to see strict control of the classroom and curriculum: professors banned from espousing liberal political views, courses strictly limited to the "western canon", no freedom of choice for adult students in selecting courses, etc.

[/quote]
Yet another sweeping, negative generalization, based on no empirical evidence, from interesteddad. By the way, in all the times I've visited Dartmouth, I've never seen anything remotely resembling hate speech on any topic, let alone anything like a Hitler poster. </p>

<p>The Dartmouth students and alumni that I've met are uniformly kind, accepting and considerate. I don't believe they NEED a hate speech ban, because I don't think it would occur to anyone there to use that form of language. I also don't really see much evidence that the trustees influence the daily experience of students to any great extent.</p>

<p>As an African American man, I doubt that Stephen Smith will be promoting hate speech anytime soon. If you are interested, you can find out more about his life -- here's one piece of information:

[quote]
Smith, who is currently a law professor at the University of Virginia, has the kind of life story that many politicians would envy. Raised by a single mother on welfare in Washington, D.C., he earned scholarships to Catholic schools and graduated from high school at the age of 16. “My mother put me in kindergarten a little early,” he explains.</p>

<p>At Dartmouth, Smith married and became a father — apparently, he does just about everything ahead of schedule. He went on to law school at Virginia. On the day he graduated in 1992, the Washington Post ran a front-page story on his rise from a poor neighborhood in Anacostia. The headline: “D.C. Child Leapt From Depths of Welfare to Top of Law Class.”</p>

<p>Like an Olympic triple jumper, Smith kept on leaping. He clerked for two federal judges: David Sentelle at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court. Then he went into private practice and in 2000 joined the Virginia faculty. Today he has five children, all boys.

[/quote]

<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjkwNzRiZGE3NzFmOTE3OTlmODA1YTBmYjBhNjRjYjc=%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjkwNzRiZGE3NzFmOTE3OTlmODA1YTBmYjBhNjRjYjc=&lt;/a>
I don't know anything more about this man, but I certainly admire him for what he's done with his life. I can't imagine that anyone wouldn't.</p>

<p>
[quote]
...while passing rule restricting students' right to say what they like, however loathsome this might be.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's the strawman argument put up by the likes of fire.org and the other right wing education groups. No college has implemented speech codes like that.</p>

<p>What are refered to as "speech codes" are efforts to define harrassment. For example, a provision that allows the college to take action against a student or faculty member who repeatedly, over a period of time, continues to shout "N****R" at black students, even after being informed of the offensive nature of the harrassment.</p>

<p>Speaking of free speech at Dartmouth, you might ask how the "free speech" Darmouth Review alumni reacted when the Admissions Dean's private letter to Al Bloom was published, expressing the opinion that football recruiting undermines the admissions process. They weren't too supportive of the Admission's Dean's freedom speech.</p>

<p><a href="http://dartreview.com/archives/2006/10/05/furstenberg_out_football_in.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://dartreview.com/archives/2006/10/05/furstenberg_out_football_in.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This is the article from the New York Times, as also profiled yesterday (Friday) on ABC News' Person of the Week segment.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/education/23face.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/education/23face.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Contrast this with the negative coverage in the CNN news that idad quoted..</p>

<p>"Yet another sweeping, negative generalization, based on no empirical evidence, from interesteddad. By the way, in all the times I've visited Dartmouth, I've never seen anything remotely resembling hate speech on any topic, let alone anything like a Hitler poster."</p>

<p>To be fair, he's talking about our common alma mater. </p>

<p>Nothing wrong with free speech. It is hardly worth teaching folks about - they do it quite naturally. What many colleges might do a better job of is teaching - yes, actually teaching (duh, that's a strange idea) - how a community might actually get along a little better. The problem with speech codes is that they are a shortcut. But not having them doesn't take a so-called institution of higher learning off the hook.</p>

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nothing wrong with free speech. It is hardly worth teaching folks about - they do it quite naturally. What many colleges might do a better job of is teaching - yes, actually teaching (duh, that's a strange idea) - how a community might actually get along a little better. The problem with speech codes is that they are a shortcut. But not having them doesn't take a so-called institution of higher learning off the hook.

[/quote]

I agree.</p>

<p>The main rallying cry of the fire.org folk concerning Dartmouth has to do with protecting the "freedom of speech" of the frat boys. In a 2001 incident, the campus newspaper found a vomit stained copy of a Zeta Phi in-house newletter detailing the sexual conquests for the week of the brothers (names, explicit details, etc.). The campus newspaper reprinted the frat newsletter. The frat, already on probation a few years earlier for a similar offense, went through an administration hearing and had its campus charter revoked. It wasn't really a "free speech" finding, but a "standards of conduct for a campus sanctioned social group" issue. But, Dartmouth Review and fire.org was all up in arms and this is one of the rallying cries the new conservative [sic] board members cite as an example of the college's attack on fraternities.</p>

<p>

<a href="http://thedartmouth.com/2007/02/15/opinion/smith/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://thedartmouth.com/2007/02/15/opinion/smith/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>wonder what they mean by the "old dartmouth" how far back do they want to go?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070521/NEWS01/705210344/1002/NEWS01%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070521/NEWS01/705210344/1002/NEWS01&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>He said the numbers tell the real story: Most alumni trust his independence and agree with his proposals: cutting Dartmouth's administrative budget and using the savings to reduce class sizes; improving the performance of sports teams; and ensuring due process for students accused of breaking college rules, usually for underage drinking.</p>

<p>interesting set of priorities</p>

<p><a href="http://phrygiansociety.com/-%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://phrygiansociety.com/-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://thedartmouth.com/2007/03/07/news/secret/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://thedartmouth.com/2007/03/07/news/secret/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>An all-male secret organization that is unrecognized by the College and calls itself the Phrygian Society is striving to “fight against the heavy hand of the administration,” according to documents obtained by The Dartmouth. The society — which consists mostly of politically conservative students, including leaders of conservative campus publications — has held meetings with members of the Board of Trustees and briefly established a shell corporation to receive donations from alumni.</p>

<p>Several members of the organization have used various media outlets to support the positions of petition trustees presently sitting on the Board as well as Stephen Smith ‘88, a candidate in the upcoming trustee election.</p>

<p>Joe Malchow ‘08, for example, placed an advertisement in The Dartmouth in support of Smith and is an administrator of the Facebook.com group “Stephen Smith Supporters,” a group to which Eastman and Ellis also belong.</p>

<p>Fenn has also expressed support for Smith; Smith’s website cites three quotations from him.</p>

<p>(ah, the plot thickens)</p>

<p>
[quote]
The main rallying cry of the fire.org folk concerning Dartmouth has to do with protecting the "freedom of speech" of the frat boys. In a 2001 incident, the campus newspaper found a vomit stained copy of a Zeta Phi in-house newletter detailing the sexual conquests for the week of the brothers (names, explicit details, etc.). The campus newspaper reprinted the frat newsletter. The frat, already on probation a few years earlier for a similar offense, went through an administration hearing and had its campus charter revoked. It wasn't really a "free speech" finding, but a "standards of conduct for a campus sanctioned social group" issue. But, Dartmouth Review and fire.org was all up in arms and this is one of the rallying cries the new conservative [sic] board members cite as an example of the college's attack on fraternities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK...as a current brother of "Zeta Phi" (which if you bothered to spend some time doing research you'd find is actually Zeta Psi) I feel compelled to weigh in here. First of all - the newsletter was not "vomit-stained." Don't know where you came up with that. Secondly, let me just say this. I am about as liberal as you can get - atheist, in favor of a welfare state, the works. I can't stand Stephen Smith. There's a very good chance he's a creationist, and he's been quoted railing against "Marxist, atheist professors" etc etc. A real piece of work. I opposed his candidacy and wish he hadn't been elected, even though he is outspokenly in Zeta Psi's favor. The house is currently full of liberal. Many of my brothers describe themselves as people that weren't planning on pledging any fraternity. Neither I nor any of these other people had any qualms about pledging "Zeta Phi." One of our current members is openly gay (something which was known before he was given a bid) - how many recognized fraternities at Dartmouth can say that? A few, certainly, but not 13 of them. Our disciplinary record (we answered to the Hanover Police, not some half-baked dean's office for the last 5 years) since derecognition has been stellar. Despite all of this, the administration insisted on a dark period which will keep the house closed through 2009 as a condition of re-recognition. The actual newsletter itself was a joke - a terrible, offensive joke, no doubt about it, but a joke which was not intended to go outside the house (you omitted the little detail about how the newsletter was taken out of the house dumpster in pieces and taped back together). Now, at the same time as "Zeta Phi" was being derecognized permanently and in the subsequent years, Phi Delt was setting Chi Gam on fire, a fraternity and sorority, both of which will remain unnamed, were forcing sorority pledges to perform lap dances for brothers, and another unnamed sorority was, while on probation, holding an alcoholic pledge event (against Dartmouth rules, of course) which resulted in 3 women being sent to DHMC to have their stomachs pumped. But of course, you aren't aware of any of these, only about "Zeta Phi," because the "liberal," "tough-on-frats" administration let these fraternities off the hook. Granted, Phi Delt was derecognized for 4 years, but still...Zete was derecognized for 5 years, and now another 2.5 years of dark period. Meanwhile, the first fraternity and sorority in my story were both let off with nothing, and the sorority which was already on probation was let off with more probation. The lesson is obvious - printing lame jokes in an internal newsletter is MUCH worse than arson, real sexual assault, or alcohol violations and pledge hazing. Now you might ask, why was Zete punished more severely than these others? Simple - it was a huge story. CNN and other national news organization were covering it, it was on a lot of people's (read: potential applicants') minds, and so Jimmy and Marty knew they had to go into P.R. damage control mode. That's all it is. Some people talk about how the admin has it out for Zeta Psi. That's ********, of course. But my point is that the administration put P.R. over REAL change. This isn't even mentioning that, when it came time to bring Zete back, they weren't even big enough to admit they had made a mistake and had to resort to demanding a dark period to show everyone how hard they fight against the evil fraternities. I once asked someone in the know, "Why was the sorority that served alcohol at a pledge event (we'll call it Kappa Kappa G, no wait, that's too obvious...K K Gamma) let off the hook?" The response - the administration is afraid of criticism for being too tough on a sorority. It doesn't matter that 3 people almost died - the college can't afford to look bad.</p>

<p>Well, thanks to all of this they now look like complete idiots. As I said last night on the Dartmouth forum, I really do think that these crazy conservative people that are trying to invade Dartmouth are nothing more than a vocal minority. But they've been able to attract the votes of more moderate alumni who would otherwise not want to have anything to do with these crazies but who have been alienated by the administration's brainless, spinless, unilateral, and uncompromising. They don't care about Smith's conservative ideology. He promises to fix a Dartmouth that currently seems broken (it's not just the frat issue that I mentioned above, if you want to know more PM me) and this is what appeals to a lot of people. So I agree with citygirlsmom's assertion about that issues which won Smith the election (except that I'm pretty sure Smith is talking about the Gestapo-esque tactics the COS uses on people accused of plagiarism, not underage drinking but we'll let that slide).</p>

<p>Anyway, my point in writing this long-winded rant when I have better things to do is to point out that there is a lot you have to know before you understand where these people are coming from. This goes way beyond "liberal-conservative" and into competence. A fraternity is a group of guys (or gals) getting together and hanging out. The argument that fraternities are "conservative" or "reactionary" is about as logical as saying that cars are "evil." Bottom line, you can either spend the effort to do some research and use your head before making uninformed statements, or you can talk about how evil "Zeta Phi" is. It's up to you.</p>

<p>Sounds like Dartmouth IS havng "interesting times". :eek:</p>

<p>Perhaps idad meant "conservative" in the sense of seeking to preserve the already established norms, and not in the liberals vs. conservatives sense.</p>