Letters to the EditorThe Political Prevarications of Dartmouth's Demagogue To the Editor: You might also mention that Freedman's prevarications serve to demonstrate his incompetence as a scholar and academician, further demonstrating his lack of fitness for the position of president at a most distinguished college. Keep up the good work!! Down with demagoguery! Regards, Michael L. Carroll
To the Editor: Whenever your paper is released, I read it from cover to cover. Generally, I enjoy it all. Still, when I came upon Bradford Stanley's interview with the Rinpoche Lama [TDR, 10/21/98], I cannot say I was impressed. The constant attempts to ridicule the Lama were petty and detracted from any quality this particular piece could have had. Although I personally have no special affection for the Lama, it angered me to read such disrespect for a human being who has devoted his life to spread information about what is happening with his people and to promote freedom. Even if you don't agree with him or what he stands for, don't humiliate your paper by printing something so trivial. If you were seeking only a reaction, you have it. I generally enjoy your paper, with its insights and brisk humor, and only because I feel that you can do better do I spend the time to write you. Sincerely, Tico Blumenthal '02 Mr. Blumenthal — Your letter runs here because it is probably the most thoughtful of a series of letters we received along similar lines. The Rinpoche Lama (or, more accurately, his press assistant) called our offices seeking an interview to publicize a conference. We did not seek him out demanding an interview in order to make fun of him. Brad Stanley, who happened to be in the office, conducted the interview on the spur of the moment. I decided to run it because I thought it was a really funny piece that would do a lot to spice up an otherwise serious issue. Is it offensive? A little bit. But it is not offensive in any really damaging way, and is far more humorous than hurtful. —BCWW
To the Editor: In response to your editorial in the October 7th issue, Ivy Aid '98: You wrote, 'Furstenberg is right: kids don't pick colleges on whether they give a few more dollars in financial aid, they pick colleges because of their reputations and prestige.' No, you and Furstenberg are wrong. Most of the Could I afford six times that cost and come to Dartmouth? Not even close. But I could afford about three times the cost, and the financial aid office made up the rest of it. So why did I choose to come to Dartmouth? It all came down to those extra 'few dollars.' Most of us do consider money in our college choice and do not have the luxury of choosing simply on 'reputations and prestige.' Sincerely, Gary Weissman '02 Mr. Weissman — It strikes me, then, that you will agree even more forcefully with the general bent of the editorial, an unmitigated praise for Furstenberg's initiative to increase Dartmouth's financial aid packages. —BCWW
To the Editor: I am delighted to see that you classify David Lagomarsino as among the beautiful, for teaching that the Inquisition was more fair than most judicial procedures of its time [TDR, 9/30/98]. I am even happier to report that we understand it to be fair (judging based on its historical context) because of the work of historians who discovered that the 'Inquisition' was in part a myth created by Protestants who opposed Spain. The search for context — and the understanding that truth emerges from understanding context — is one of the important lessons that historians bring us. I am delighted that the study of context has led to such important insights — and that the editors of the Dartmouth Review respect those insights. Regards, Alfred L. Brophy
To the Editor: As a conservative, I have from time-to-time read the Review for its occasionally necessary rebuttal to liberal dogma. In the process I have impatiently scanned redundancy, hyperbole, and poor writing. But these pale when compared with the 'naivete' (his word) or, perhaps, defiance of foot, found in Christopher Pearson's Book Review appearing at page 8 of your August 31, 1998 issue. My liberal friends say that we conservatives have been captured by Big Tobacco. Their examples begin with a campaign statement by Bob Dole, the failure of Congress to pass legislation which addresses the danger of tobacco to youth - and so on. Mr. Pearson's article would be a fitting late addition to that sorry history. Starting at ground zero, Mr. Pearson seems to actually dispute the addictive quality of tobacco. In so doing he controverts the virtually unchallenged findings of numerous unbiased scientific studies conducted over many years. He also ignores the forensic evidence from the files of Big Tobacco which proves their efforts to maximize the addictive component(s) of cigarettes. He makes a comparison between smoking and consumption of 'high-fat food.' To a point, I agree! In a free society one may choose his own poison — but he may not poison others against their will. If the distinction is not obvious, let us examine Pearson's opening anecdote — an objection to smoking on a train station. For openers, I'll note that in my time no gentleman would have lit up under those circumstances without asking permission. Apparently that courtesy has been forgotten. Moving on, Pearson makes the point that there was perhaps 100 feet of empty platform — to which, we infer, the offended woman could have retreated. Who should move, the person who does not wish to breathe polluted air, or the polluter? Let's leave it here: ' I'll not poison your water. Don't you poison my air.' Sincerely, Louis Lee Abbott '46
To the Editor: I haven't communicated much with you folks lately, but the enclosed [a Dartmouth Alumni Magazine photo of the Dartmouth Moose] — for some reason — prompted me to do so. There's something about this picture — I can't quite put my finger on it. I assume the Indian symbol is pretty much a dead issue now, which is sad. Although the caption includes a mention that the moose is not an official symbol, it is disheartening to see such an oafish-looking thing offered to view. Sincerely,
To the Editor: I would like to point out that focusing more on research does not necessarily cause problems for undergraduates. There are many professors who are very happy to involve undergraduates as well as graduate students in their research, which provides an excellent learning opportunity for those undergrads. (It also gives those of us who want to go to grad school a head start.) Wright's plan isn't *entirely* bad. Sincerely, Alik Widge '99 Mr. Widge — The question is not whether Dartmouth can find one or two professors who manage to satisfactorily balance teaching and research; undoubtedly it can. There are geniuses in every field, even modern academia. The question, instead, is one of institutional focus. By forcing the intellectual orientation of the school into research, President Wright's plan threatens to damage, on an institutional level, the quality of teaching and scholarship afforded to the undergraduate. Numerous academic and philanthropic reports, most notably the recent report by the Carnegie Foundation, have held that there is a direct and serious correlation between an increase in focus on research and a decline in the quality of teaching. We are not employing guesswork and blind supposition here. Everywhere else an increased focus on research has damaged teaching; we have every reason to believe it will happen at Dartmouth also. —BCWW |
Article ToolsRelated Articles· Fitz and Schul Defeat Sobriety and Bad Cinema · Fitz and Schul Defeat Sobriety and Bad Cinema: The Story of F. Scott Fitzgerald at Winter Carnival · Wright to Step Down in June 2009 · Winter Carnival: The History
Advertisement  Advertisement |
|
|
Copyright © 1996-2008 The Dartmouth Review |
||