Opinion: Guns Protect Your Rights

In a series of votes on Wednesday April 17th, the United States Senate acted decisively and put an end to the national debate on gun regulation, at least for the time being. The measures proposed included an expansion of background checks, a ban on so-called “assault weapons”, and a ban on high capacity magazines, but none of them were able to gar­ner the 60-vote majority necessary for passage. Predictably, this outcome generated a storm of criticism from the Obama administration and their usual throng of anti-gun activists. However, all American citizens should be thankful that the Senate acted as it did and preserved what is one of the most sacred and fundamental components of our great democracy.

The United States of America is the longest-lasting con­tinuous democracy since the days of Athens and the Roman Republic, and is the world’s first true democracy in the sense that all citizens enjoy the right to vote regardless of race, gender, or class. The reason for the remarkably long-lived success of this unique experiment in self-government is that our Founding Fathers built an ingenious system of checks and balances into the core structure of the government they created, thereby ensuring that no individual or group could gain too much power and use it for self advantage. Most of the current gun control debate focuses on the Second Amendment and its enshrinement of the right to bear arms as an individual right, but the original purpose of the Second Amendment was much more than that. The Founding Fathers, ever mindful of their fledgling nation’s birth out of the oppression of the British monarchy, embedded the right to bear arms into the Constitution so that an armed society could act as the ultimate check to the power of the Federal government. Ultimately, the Second Amendment is every bit as important a check/bal­ance as the Presidential veto or Congressional impeachment power, if not more so, because it alone has kept the Federal government from accruing an undue amount of power.

Unfortunately, none of the current political debate about gun legislation has focused on the Second Amendment as a check to government power, and both sides are to blame for this to some extent. For their part, conservatives are guilty of allowing themselves to be too easily painted as minions of the gun lobby. An especially irritating trend is their focus on promoting the AR-15 and similar semiautomatic long guns as “modern sporting rifles”, when in fact they are nothing of the sort. The .223 caliber bullet fired by the AR-15, also known as 5.56x45mm NATO, is a cartridge that is not particularly effective for medium or large game. However, it is very good at killing human beings, the purpose for which it was designed, due to the bullet’s tendency to yaw and tumble through human flesh, creating large wounds and imparting massive shock to the target. Similarly, the popular right-wing argument that the AR-15’s 30-round magazines are necessary for hunting and target shooting fall short; a real hunter is a marksman and kills the prey with a single shot, while the argument that it is a hindrance when target shooting to reload more frequently than once every thirty rounds seems grounded in nothing but laziness. The AR-15 is not a “modern sporting rifle”; it is an assault rifle, designed to provide an infantryman with the most efficient tool for killing in a combat environment. Rather than shying away from this fact, conservatives should be actively promoting civilian ownership of assault weapons for this very reason; they would be the most effective personal weapon for US citizens to own in a situation where an armed uprising against a tyrannical Federal government became necessary.

The typical liberal rhetoric against the argument that the Second Amendment is the ultimate check of governmental power is typically something along the lines of “lightly-armed civilians could never fight the US military; try stopping a tank with an AR-15!” While it seems somewhat sound on the surface, this argument fails to hold true in two crucial ways. Firstly, the United States military is not some conscripted extremist force controlled by a dictatorial state. It is solely comprised of citizen volunteers, men and women who represent some of the finest individuals this great nation has to offer. Therefore, the notion that the military would open fire on American citizens if ordered to is absurd to anyone who has interacted with servicemen and women. Secondly, even if the military were to somehow end up obeying the orders of an oppressive Federal government and fighting against an armed civilian rebellion, they would certainly win some engagements but would never be able to win a long-term conflict. Historically, our military has always struggled with counter-guerilla war­fare. It took almost a decade of vicious fighting to begin to suppress the insurgency in Iraq, a geographically small nation with a population of only 31 million and an average of 34 privately owned firearms per 100 citizens. Thus, it stands to reason that it would be virtually impossible to attempt the same sort of warfare in America, a huge and geographically diverse country with a population ten times the size of Iraq’s and an average of 89 privately owned firearms per 100 citizens. Because of this, the Second Amendment is truly an effective counter to Federal government power.

In the wake of recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook massacre, the Obama administration and a variety of other liberal political forces have preyed on heightened public emotions in an attempt to force through legislation that would have dramatically restricted Americans’ right to firearms ownership.

It is a callous and despicable tactic on the part of the left to exploit lamentable events like Sandy Hook to further their political aims. The truth of the matter is that tragedies happen. Human nature is imperfect, and there are always people who are driven to do horrible things to their fellow human beings. Even if firearms ownership were restricted, those wishing to harm others could obtain guns illegally. The real lesson of Sandy Hook is that this country has done an incredibly poor job of developing an awareness and understanding of mental illness. The Senate should have tackled that issue. Despite all the pressure and scare tactics applied by the left, the US Senate decided to preserve the individual right to own firearms as a counter to the power of government.

-- Paul F. Danyow 

Demystifying SAPA, COS & Reform

Sexual assault assuredly occurs at Dartmouth, a disturbing and frightening fact for all students, female and male alike.  More students than ever are demanding the administration to “take action” against sexual assault. But what exactly is being done now to stop sexual assault from occurring and to hold individuals found guilty of sexual misconduct responsible for their behavior?   

SAPAs – sexual abuse peer advisors – are students who are dedicated to supporting their peers who have had experiences with sexual assault. During the winter and spring terms each  year, new SAPAs undergo a 32-hour training course, learning the fundamentals of supporting the survivors of sexual  assault. After completing this course, SAPAs are certified to work with survivors by providing medical and emotional advice and referring victims to other resources if necessary.  

In addition to working with individuals, SAPA seeks to educate the entire Dartmouth community about sexual assault and violence. April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM), so SAPAs have been particularly visible lately with campus-wide events and programs. On Thursday, April 25, for example, SAPAs held their annual “Take Back the Night” (TBTN) event. About 50 students, faculty, and staff gathered in this march around campus, which concluded with a gathering in the middle of the Green. TBTN events are held at college campuses around the world, aiming to raise awareness about sexual assault and establish nonviolent and supportive communities. The Student Presidential Committee on Sexual Assault (SPCSA), Mentors Against Violence (MAV), Sexperts, and V-Day Dartmouth are other student groups, in addition to SAPAs, that work tirelessly to support the survivors of sexual assault and educate all community members in order to prevent future incidents.   

During the Dimensions show, the protestors chanted about specific incidents of rape on campus, often repeating, like a chorus, “95% of rapes are unreported!” The protestors did not cite the source of this statistic during their demonstration. Many studies conclude that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 women are raped while they are college students. However, figures approximating the incidence of unreported rape on college campuses vary widely. Some studies do suggest rates of 95 percent while others report lower figures – around 75 or 80 percent. None of those are specific to Dartmouth’s campus.  Nonetheless, many victims of sexual assault do not report their incidents, usually because of the traumatic nature of sexual assault or fear of retaliation.   

Sexual misconduct, which is defined as any nonconsensual, threatening, or intimidating sexual behavior, violates Section III of Dartmouth’s Standards of Conduct. Those found responsible for violating Section III will, according to the Student Handbook, “incur the most serious sanctions the College can impose, up to and including separation.”  But how exactly is that enforced? How does the College attempt to make certain that sexual misconduct is punished and survivors of sexual assault are protected?  Once a sexual assault has occurred, victims have various  routes through which to press charges, in addition to numerous sources of support – such SAPAs, SAAP (Sexual Abuse  Awareness Program) Coordinators, and of course the Deans.  If the victim chooses not to move his or her incident through the college disciplinary process initially, he or she may still anonymously file a complaint through the SAAP Program,  Undergraduate Judicial Affairs, or an Undergraduate Dean.   

SAAP professionals can provide counseling and resources to the victim while Judicial Affairs and the Deans can inform the victim about the process of filing a formal charge with the College. The College cannot take disciplinary action against any individuals accused of sexual assault based on these reports or conversations with SAAP, Judicial Affairs, or the Deans. However, after receiving counseling and advice from  these professionals, a victim can move forward and file an  official report with the College through Safety and Security  or Judicial Affairs, if he or she so chooses.  

Students who do choose to file a formal complaint must provide a written statement to Judicial Affairs or a verbal account to a Safety and Security investigator. Once these reports are filed, the Director of Undergraduate Judicial Affairs determines whether there is “sufficient evidence to warrant a disciplinary allegation.” If there is such evidence, the accused student will receive an “allegation packet.” This includes a letter from the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office that describes the allegation, information gathered during the investigation, and potential outcomes of the case.  The packet also includes a form through which the accused individual officially admits or denies these charges.  If a student who is accused of a serious violation, such as sexual assault, admits responsibility for the incident in question, he or she can have a hearing before the Committee on Standards (COS) or request a one-on-one hearing with a dean. One-on-one dean’s hearings are very rare in assault cases, but require accused students to admit responsibility before the meeting and provide a statement detailing his or her actions. The meetings are held without advisors or witnesses and, usually, without attorneys. They may not end in a finding of “not responsible.”  

If an accused individual does not admit responsibility,  then he or she will have a COS hearing. A panel of five members of the Dartmouth community, consisting of two faculty  members, two students, and one administrator, will hear the  case. In order to find responsibility, for which a preponderance  of evidence is necessary, a COS hearing requires a majority  vote. The victims of an alleged assault, advisors, and witnesses  may be present, and a finding of “not responsible” may be  issued.   Accused students must also choose whether to have an  open or closed hearing. Any student, faculty, or staff member can attend an open hearing, as can reporters. In a closed  hearing, only the Committee, witnesses, accused students,  advisors, and the victim may attend. Again, attorneys are left  outside the door in a process similar to that described in the  editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal by Judith Grossman. Before the hearing, the COS holds a closed meeting to  discuss “administrative details” and questions they plan to  ask during the hearing. COS hearings are based on the assumption of innocence. Hearings typically consist of opening  statements, questions, and closing statements.   After closing statements, the COS deliberates, first questioning the accused individual’s responsibility and then, if he  or she is found responsible, the appropriate judicial action.  

Possible sanctions include a warning, reprimand, college  probation, suspension, and permanent separation from the  College. The accused individual is informed of the outcome  of his or her hearing and possible sanctions the next day. Sanctions usually begin immediately. Students can request a review  or the hearing if he or she believes there was a significant  procedural error during the hearing or if new information that  could possibly exonerate him or her has been discovered.   

Sexual assault violates not only campus policy but also New Hampshire state law. When allegations of sexual assault are brought before the College, they are not forwarded to the Hanover Police unless the victim is under age eighteen or requests for the College to do so. However, a victim of sexual assault can always request a criminal trial or bring civil charges against his or her assailant through the Hanover Police Department.  

This past February, the presidents of 27 of Dartmouth’s Greek organizations voted unanimously to update the College’s sexual assault policy to include automatic sanctions on affiliated individuals who have been found responsible of sexual misconduct by the COS. Previously, an affiliated student found responsible for sexual assault could be reprimanded by his or her Greek organization (in addition to the COS sanctioning). However, some felt that this policy allowed Greek houses to turn a blind eye to assaults in order to avoid adjudicating their own brothers or sisters. This would have been a result of having two separate judicial processes.   

Now, after an affiliated individual is sanctioned by the COS for sexual misconduct, he or she will automatically receive additional Greek sanctions. If the individual has  received a sentence of probation or one-term suspension, he  or she will also be put on social probation, be barred from  holding a leadership position in the organization, and may not  live in the house. In addition, the individual must participate in an education program, which is individually constructed by representatives from GLOS (Greek Letter Organizations and Society), SAAP, Judicial Affairs, and the student’s Greek  house. There is also a second category for more serious violations. In this second category, Greek houses essentially signed over their ability to protect their brothers and sisters  in order to help end sexual assault. If an affiliated individual  is suspended for two or more terms or permanently separated  from the College, he or she will immediately and permanently  be separated from the Greek organization. It is interesting  that this particular reform hasn’t been discussed in much of  the current dialogue on campus.  

Even with education and slowly modified policy,  sexual assault will probably never be truly eradicated from  Dartmouth’s campus or from the  world in general. That is the sad  truth. However, SAPAs and all  individuals at Dartmouth who  work to combat sexual assault  have venerable goals. While we  may sometimes question their  specific actions, they do, nonetheless, serve an extremely important  purpose at Dartmouth. While the  SAPAs support survivors and the  COS and GLC policies reprimand  aggressors, we as students have  the lion’s share of the power to  stop these incidents before they occur through bystander  intervention and enforcing cultural mores against questionable situations or possible sexual assault.

There are no simple answers to ending sexual violence.  No one policy will eradicate all dark deeds from campus. And  banning the Greek system will hardly reduce sexual assault  if it forces drinking and social scenes out of relatively public  and open basements into locations hidden even deeper underground. At least Safety & Security currently knows where most  of the drinking takes place on campus. It’s time for everyone  on campus to grow up and accept a few harsh realities. The  first is that sexual assualt occurs at Dartmouth just as it does  at most other places in this country and the world. The second  is that only through concerted and prolonged effort coupled  with campus-specific and scientific policy changes can we  truly impact sexual assault at Dartmouth. This may be a five  or ten year project with several different policy tweaks every  year, but with a subject so serious, we can’t rush to judgment.  As tempting as that route is, it leads towards an abyss full of  unintended consequences.

Instead, we need to all sit down at the bargaining table  and slowly create beneficial policies that unite our campus  in a campaign against sexual assault. Culture wars are not  won overnight by a few radical activists. We can unite everyone on campus together under a banner of serious and  thoughtful reform. Students and alumni all want to be a part  of that process to improve Dartmouth, let’s make sure the  administration proceeds in that fashion rather than a careening course calculated to respond to each and every gust of  public opinion.

While we do not agree with the protesters’ methods or  their seemingly one-minded crusade against the Greek system,  we do agree on a few basic tenets. We agree that sexual assault is wrong. The protest is a sign: that the campus climate  is ready for a discussion of sexual assault at Dartmouth. The  alumni are ready as can be seen in our interview with Susan Struble ‘93. She recently founded DartmouthChange along  with other alumni in order to pressure the administration  towards making sensible reforms. The faculty seem to be  interested given the fact that they participated in the teach-ins  and the community exercises when classes were cancelled.  The students appear to be ready. At least, we know we here  at The Dartmouth Review are ready for that discussion.

Note that we said discussion, not dictatorship. Every member of our community has a voice and should be allowed to use  that voice. There are long discussions ahead for Dartmouth,  but that’s good. Let us just hope that everyone both on and  off-campus is willing to participate in that discussion respectfully, thoughtfully and carefully. After all, we’re meant to be make the world’s problems ours and then to attempt to solve  them. Can we honestly shrink from solving the problems at  our doorstep simply because they are complicated? Simply because sexual assault is a difficult topic and will require us  to continue discussing and changing policy for years? Those are all paltry reasons compared to the moral obligation we  have to reduce the violence occurring in our own backyards.  First, we must fix our own problems. Then the world’s.  

-- Caroline Sohr 

Data is the Answer, Not Delusional Hopes

On the heels of the protests by the radical group for­merly known as Dartmouth REALTALK (now known as Dartmouth RealTalk), there comes the news that Greek leadership is considering a new policy to ban freshmen from all Greek houses while alcohol is being served or consumed until the Monday after Homecoming. On the one hand, this is something I support. It's a reform of the Greek system that's targeted at reducing the problems associated with Greek life while maintaining the institution itself. Good. It's hardly an attempt to ban the Greek system which so many RealTalk aficionados appear to desperately desire.

It is not inherently a bad idea, but I fear it will have dangerous consequences. Ban freshmen by all means, but then where will they go?

I remember the halcyon days of my freshman fall. We were not lured to the fra­ternities. Rather, we chose to go because we wanted to. As for the theories that this will limit access to alcohol, I worry that is merely a pipe dream. Everyone on my freshman floor had an upperclassman friend who would buy hard liquor for them within a fortnight. And, unlike the light beer that is consumed in the fraternities, our pre-games always consisted of grain spirits or cheap vodka. Why? It was easier to store, more cost-effective and finally more concealable. By far, mixed drinks were the beverage of choice.

For those of you who no longer imbibe, mixed drinks are far more dangerous than light beer. It’s a lot easier to down six extra shots in thirty minutes than six extra beers. And then, you will be in a lot more trouble. Sadly, I fear that freshmen will merely remain in their dorms or in less monitored spaces, pre-gaming with hard liquor and mixed drinks. That is far more dangerous in terms of drinking behavior than a game or two of beer pong with Keystone Light in a fraternity basement. After all, in a fraternity, there are experienced upperclassmen monitoring the situation to make sure no drunk freshman dies on their couches. In an open basement, there are other individuals who are present in the situation who can instantly spot a stumbling and vomiting individual and then help them. All of these are good safeguards. Some claim that freshmen won’t pre-game if there are no available parties. To these seemingly naive people, I reply that the pre-game will become the party.

As for sexual assault, I believe this policy could reduce the number of sexual assaults significantly. But, I worry there may also be other unintended consequences. For example, wouldn't it be a worse power dynamic if liquor was scarce? If there were only a few parties available to freshmen? If an older student held a party in his dormitory room and invited freshmen, wouldn't that be a far more hostile environment than a fraternity basement which is open to all students? In a fraternity basement filled with older male and female students from across campus, bystander intervention is a far more likely occurrence. At the same time, then freshmen can easily choose to leave a threatening and uncomfort­able environment. After all, the next opportunity to get alcohol is just steps away down Webster Avenue. If the supply of liquor is restricted to those few unethical enough to invite over freshmen, why would that reduce sexual assault? It could, conceivably as fresh­men would be on guard at such parties as opposed to assuming that fraternity par­ties are completely safe. But is that the only reason we are supporting this policy?

I desperately hope that banning freshmen does indeed reduce sexual assault, but I also do not believe that we should just march blindly over the cliff of bad policy without a little forethought. So, instead of just blindly passing this policy, the Greek leadership should very clearly state to the administration that as a consequence of this policy’s passage, extensive records must be kept of all relevant statistics for the incom­ing freshmen class and then publicly shared. For example, we need to know if sexual as­saults increased or decreased before and after Homecom­ing. Did this policy merely delay sexual assaults until fraternities were opened to freshmen? Or did it increase sexual assault by pushing freshmen social scenes and alcohol consumption into unregulated areas of campus? The same goes for binge drinking. Why not conduct anonymous surveys on sexual assault as well as record all reported sexual assaults and freshmen who were sent to DHMC or Dick’s House? Why not record their BACs as well?

The debate on campus is woefully bereft of facts or data. If we’re going to try a new policy, we must also examine its effects. How else can we know if we’ve truly improved the situation? How else can we discover the truth about sexual assault, fraternities and binge drinking? Policy based on theories instead of facts is dangerous and irresponsible. We can and should do better.

-- Thomas J.P. Harrington 

Trance Movie Review

Danny Boyle’s Trance is the type of film that gets so muddled in how to say something of merit that it forgets what it’s trying to say in the first place. After all, when you combine Mr. Boyle’s surrealistic directorial style with a story that features more twists than a vase of Red Vines, you would find it nigh on impossible not to leave audiences more befuddled than enlightened. 

After taking home the Oscar for Best Director in 2009 for Slumdog Millionaire, Mr. Boyle confined his exuberantly odd style to a very small film in 127 Hours. The film focuses on, surprisingly enough, the 127 hours that mountain climber Aron Ralston spent trapped under a rock before cutting his arm off and stumbling to rescue. For the director of Trainspotting, a highly acclaimed film that features the many daydream and nightmare sequences of heroin addicts, this was certainly a step down.

But, rest assured, Trance is filled with many a camera trick and surreal image. After all, half of it takes place inside one of the main character’s heads. Or at least, that’s what I believe was going on. Let’s start at the beginning. Well, at the first beginning of the film, that is. Yes, it is that confusing and the point is well worth belaboring. 

James McAvoy plays Simon, a sharp-dressed, but somewhat effete art auctioneer. Unfortunately, Simon is also a compulsive gambler. As a result, the film opens with Simon describing the auction house’s precautions to the audience and to a ring of criminals in a breathy, but elated voice. Together, Simon and the criminals conspire in order to snatch an artwork by Goya that just happens to be valued at twenty million dollars.  

Sadly, the heist goes wrong. After all, does a heist ever go perfectly according to plan? Not because of the Ukrainian ex-special forces security team or the many high tech security systems. No, those happen to be dispatched with some ease thanks to a baseball bat and a very large criminal. Instead, betrayal undermines the genius plan. For some odd reason, Simon steals from his own compatriots. Simon hides the artwork, but is hit on the head by one of the thieves in an unfortunate accident. As a result, he suffers amnesia and is unable to remember where the painting is hidden. 

Enter Rosario Dawson as Dr. Lamb, a trained hypnotherapist. And thus begins the central conceit of the film: using hypnotism to locate where the painting is in Simon’s head.  

After all, only Simon knows where this treasure is. And only Simon can tell us that secret...if he wishes to. From there, the plot descends into a dark swirl of dream sequences, gory violence and extremely revealing nudity. But is it worth all of the furious editing and crescendos of electronic dance music? Sadly, no. 

Trance tries to be far too clever for its own good and ends up falling flat on its face. Like your young and precocious nephew’s favorite joke, it quickly wears out its welcome and soon grows grating. Unfortunately for a movie that screams “plot twist” with every scene, your faithful reviewer quickly guessed the ending of the film in the first twenty minutes after a very poor line delivery by Ms. Dawson. A word of advice, Mr. Boyle: when both of your actors smile revealingly at the camera after what you are attempting to play off as a throwaway line, the jig is up. Even more unfortunately, the plot twist is not that meaningful. It feels strained, uninteresting, and preachy.  

After all, Trance is supposed to be an art heist movie that turns into a psychological thriller…and then suddenly after nearly an hour and ten minutes, it transmogrifies yet again into a film about female empowerment. Suddenly, these men are no longer violent criminals, but instead characters in a play about feminism. And not even a very good one at that. The actors do a passable job, but in this film their only real task is to alternate between angry rants and burning holes in the camera with passionate stares. Hardly the most nuanced of performances. Sadly, the impressive cast of McAvoy, Dawson and Cassel are wasted on such shallow characters lost in the topsy-turvy plot. 

Despite the script, the direction and cinematography is quite impressive. Although too bright, austere, and sterile for my taste, it fulfills its purpose. The viewer is unnerved as the camera swoops through oddly perfect sets meant to represent the interior of Simon’s mind. The visual clues to the plot are brilliant as symbolic packages melt into piles of bloody gauze and one particular character’s severed head delivers a soliloquy which would make anyone’s heart race.  

Unfortunately, all of these images are overwhelmed by a soundtrack that would much better fit a crowded dance hall in the wee hours of Saturday morning than a theater. Perhaps this had something to do with the fact that one of the main characters lives over a night club. But, the music appears only when the characters are far away from this apartment. Odd.

To be quite honest, the soundtrack is far from the strangest thing about this movie. That dubious honor falls to the incessant product placement. For some reason, Simon’s subconscious loves iPads. His memories are represented as embedded in iPads…no, I’m not making that up. Last I checked, Steve Jobs did not manage to cure amnesia.

Sadly, there isn’t an App for that. The ending also features an iPad very prominently in an attempt to force the audience to think about memory, choice and even love. It’s even stranger on screen, I promise you. Sadly, you will not have a conversation about the ambiguous conclusion as you walk out of the theater. Most likely, you will discuss the multiple scenes of full frontal nudity and the strange preoccupation of multiple characters on pubic hair. Of course that presumes that you and your companion or companions will be able to get past the intensely difficult nature of a discussion about pubic hair. In case you haven’t realized yet, this is not a family film and should you suggest it at the next holiday get together, you will likely never be invited back. 

Yes, pubic hair is a fairly significant plot point. All in all, Trance is a movie that’s far too quirky and queer to really deliver a message or an entertaining plot. But, at least it tries to be creative, which is more than can be said for most films that make it to the screen these days. I’ll give it a six out of ten and call it a day.

-- Thomas J.P. Harrington