Week in Review

Wednesday, January 14, 1998

One-Horse Race

In conjunction with the official start of President Clinton's dialogue on race, a teleconference was broadcast for the Dartmouth community in Collis on Wednesday, November 19th by the Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action Office and the Diversity Committee of the Dean of the College.

The teleconference, entitled 'Race Relations in Higher Education: a Prescription for Progress and Empowerment' was produced by the television show 'Black Issues in Higher Education.'

The program, a panel discussion, was similar to the Clinton initiative in more than just timing; it failed to invite a single opponent of affirmative action to the discussion. That lack was obvious as the two hour discussion focused around exactly how unfair the system was, and how to defeat the anti-affirmative action initiatives currently in progress. Whether the system was unfair was not an issue, and whether affirmative action should be altered or abolished was discussed only once. The panelists generally agreed that class should be included along with race in affirmative action programs.

Three general themes arose from the discussion. First, the real issues of race relations are not being discussed. Second, current admissions standards, excluding affirmative action, are biased. Third, the nature of white society is discriminatory.

Dr. Stanley Fish, professor of English at Duke University: 'University faculties and administrations find way of not confronting the real questions. They are able to wrap themselves in a kind of high-sounding halo.'

Christopher Edley, Jr, scholar/political strategist/professor of Law at Harvard University: 'The public is under the impression that tests like the SAT's and the ACT's measure merit. The right way to measure merit isn't by a score on some test'

Dr. Fish: 'It's necessary to keep on redefining merit.'Mr. Edley: 'The effort to get rid of affirmative action is a method of maintaining the racist and white supremacist status quo.'

Dr. Sumi Cho, attorney, scholar/activist/organizer and professor at DePaul University: 'Corporate America only wants affirmative action to be a very restricted remedy to hold off the revolution.'

The totality of the teleconference was less intriguing than might have been hoped. While a discussion of the discriminatory nature of society is interesting, it was only rehashing topics that have been widely pronounced for years.

The defense of affirmative action was forceful, but without any voice from the opposing perspective it was an example of preaching to the converted. The unfortunate reality is that few, if any, of those viewers who dislike affirmative action could have their minds changed by this broadcast.

But at least they got to hear academic leaders using adjectives like 'really down home' on national television.

Bombing Princeton

Princeton University was the target of a bomb threat that occurred in an America Online chat room on the evening of December 19. An AOL security officer notified the Princeton Borough Police of the threat at 4:00 AM the next day.

The message, it was later discovered, was posted by a twelve-year-old boy from Holyoke, Massachusetts and read 'Princeton sucks an [sic] I am setting off a pipe bomb in one of the lockers on Monday so if you don't want me to set the pipe bomb off you better send me 100,000 dollars by Sunday. P.S. you'll have to find me to give me the money I am not going to find you to get the money.'

Unnerved by the threat, Princeton University Public Safety considered a full locker search in Dillon Gym with the Borough Police. Cooler heads prevailed, however, and Public Safety called off the search. So far, no charges have been filed and no arrests made.

When asked how Dartmouth would handle such a threat on Berry Gymnasium one anonymous Dartmouth Safety and Security officer said that, 'Well, we'd probably handle it like we do fire alarms — we'd look through the gym right after we thoroughly searched the basement of every fraternity on campus.'

Storming Brown

Approximately thirty members of the Brown University Young Communist League invaded the office of Brown Executive Vice-President for Finance and Administration Donald Reaves on November 5.

The students demanded that the university exempt financial aid students from the $150 fine for late tuition and the 1.5 percent interest rate on unpaid balances. The young communists further directed Brown to open its libraries to the public. Chanting 'Extra funds for checks delayed? Why do you think I'm on financial aid?', the students displayed signs that read 'Don't fine me for being poor.'

Acting Brown University President James Pomerantz attempted to silence the protesters by assuring them that their concerns would be addressed, provided they properly register their complaints.

'The real issue here is financial aid students,' said Young Communist League spokesman Sage Wilson. 'We're not particularly worried about how Brown collects tuition from European royalty.'

Carving the Pumpkin

The controversy surrounding the Jack-O-Lantern finally saw its conclusion on Wednesday the 12th of November, as the Committee on Student Organizations chose to impose conditions on continued funding for the campus humor magazine, but refrained from derecognizing it. In order to continue to receive funding the Jack-O will have to obtain a faculty advisor who will be deeply involved with the publication. The editorial system will have to be changed in order to provide greater control over the writers. This follows in the wake off the widely condemned 'Wu-Tang Clan Duets,' 'Eskimo Pick-Up Lines,' and the 'Dartmouth Review Dictionary.' The Jack-O will be required to publish an apology in its next issue, in addition to the one they wrote to The Dartmouth several weeks ago. COSO members have stated that the continued funding of the magazine is dependent upon their following these guidelines as well as pursuing a general policy of improvement in regards to the Jack-O's sensitivity to the feelings of the community.

The Colossus Cometh

The controversy over the new Berry Library ended at a recent meeting of the Board of Trustees where the Trustees released a statement confirming their support for the current plans. Two petitions, one faculty and one student, were presented calling for a modification of the Berry plans. The Trustees decreed that 'reasonable people can differ' on the design, but the Board will continue to ignore campus criticism of the plans. The Board, in its own words, 'continues to be pleased with the design.'

Art Professor Robert McGrath, a member of the Design Review Committee was disgusted by 'the ludicrous suggestion that there can be 'reasonable disagreement' about the plans.' He said, 'How can a group of professionals with several lifetimes of study and practice of architecture be equated with a bunch of well informed amateurs [the Trustees]?' The Design Review Committee, made up of faculty, started the controversy by rejecting the current plans and calling for changes.

Week in Review

Article Tools

Related Articles