Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2003/11/17/letters_to_the_editor.php
Monday, November 17, 2003
Buzzblather
Sirs,
Thank you for exposing the sheer ridiculousness of Buzzflood. Mr. Reidy, Mr. Sehgal, and their followers need to get over their inferiority complexes and realize that branding is for cows, not colleges. They should also realize that every Dartmouth alum that I have talked to in the last six months (and I have talked to many from several different generations) sincerely disapproves of their behavior and believes that student attitude of that kind could change Dartmouth for the very worst. I agree whole-heartedly.
Carl Schillhammer '05
Women & History II
Sirs,
I am greatly distressed upon reading one of your letters to the editor, by alumnus Spencer Miller, '31. I am a conservative, who believes like you all that many of the "diversity" programs during orientation were a bunch of hogwash, presenting a jaded view of Dartmouth and a jaded view of people in general, especially white males. However, if all you can do in your articles is praise beer, and beer pong, how can you expect to combat the stereotypes shown to the freshman class during "sex Signals?" For example, this letter to the editor is probably the most infuriating statement I have ever read in a conservative paper. I don't say "offensive?" I say "infuriating" for several reasons. First, the very reason "feminism" is so maligned today is that it focuses on issues other than what originally started the movement—achieving the right to vote. Today, it puts "abortion rights" and "women's rights" detestably in the same sentence.
I am a woman, a conservative, who believes that abortion is murder and both the abortion "doctors" and the women who do it should be prosecuted—though I believe the "morning after pill" has its place for women who are raped. However, the very reason I complain about what the "women's movement" has become, is the fact that I am proud of what it used to be. I am proud of the women of America who banded together to achieve the vote. I cherish my right to vote, and have proudly exercised it since the first election in which I was eligible. As a student of history, I am infuriated by Mr. Miller's comments. It is not the women of history who are to blame for our current preoccupation with "women's issues" and "gender studies". The women of history deserve to be defended and defend them I shall! Would Caesar and Anthony have fought if it weren't for Cleopatra, a woman so despised by the Romans that Caesar turned against his friend? What would have happened to France, if it weren't for Joan of Arc? Would they have even won the war? Don't even pretend that English history would be the same without Elizabeth I, Bloody Mary, Mary Queen of Scots, Lady Jane Gray, or Margaret Thatcher! If Catherine of Aragon had produced a male heir, what would have become of the English Reformation? Think about First Ladies, and the impact they have had on their husbands throughout American history. It is not to say that every woman has only had a positive impact on history—by no means! (Certainly every man has not had one either!) But the removal of women would certainly alter it! Now that we have the right to vote, and as of 1973 have the right to be Dartmouth students, women have more of an opportunity to make an impact on history.
How dare anyone say that history would be the same without the contributions of women! Mr. Miller points out that there has never been a female Virgil, or Shakespeare. Well, I'd like to inform Mr. Miller that that would be nearly impossible since during the time of Virgil, and of Shakespeare, women were not taught to read and write. Wouldn't that make writing rather difficult? I'd recommend that all of you at the Review read Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own where she discusses the question "What if Shakespeare had a sister?" and concludes that if he had, she would not have been taught to write, and if she had wanted to, she would have been encouraged and then ordered not to by family members and by the customs of the day. We cannot criticize an entire gender for not creating "great works" if we understand that that gender was not given the tools that that other gender was, with which to write and create any such "great work". At the same time, we must not ignore the contributions of actual historical women, without which western civilization would certainly not be the same.
Elizabeth Terry '07
The Editors respond: Letters to the Editor do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of The Dartmouth Review. Send your comments to editor@dartreview.com.
Fresh Air
Sirs,
I just wanted to write a brief blitz to thank the Dartmouth Review for representing the conservative voice at Dartmouth. it's a breath of fresh air to read articles unencumbered with political correctness that tell things how they really are. So, I applaud your efforts to counter the liberal tide of the school. Go Indians!
Sara Huneke '07
More Review Appreciation
Sirs,
Thanks for putting out a great Review once again. The quality seems to have risen since I got here a year ago. While I don't always agree with its content, by and large I find the Review to be the most sane and well-written Dartmouth newspaper. And unlike the other publications (excepting perhaps the Jacko) you provide a great service by questioning the decisions of the administration.
Anyways, just thought y?all deserved a little appreciation.
Nathan P. Hamilton '06
God Bless Us, Every one
Sirs,
My name is Robert Hartshorn (Bob), Class of Dartmouth '50; a History major.
Since then (graduation), I have, from time to time, followed the news about things at Dartmouth and herself—engendered "mutations" from the Christian character of her founding.
When I entered Dartmouth, the majority of the students were veterans from World War II, and were more of a serious character, though not without restrained levity; and the college probably better-tempered because of them.
But a so-called "Liberal" element was also there with a stealthy agenda for a so-called "brave new world," which agenda has since seen much fruition as the so-called "secular Nation," under which the country's roots now struggle for existence.
Organizations like the atheist/humanist/Communist American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—better described as the "Anti-Christian" Civil Liberties Union—have been quite successful; have gained the ear of the Leftist elements in the federal government (particularly the judiciary) and public education.
"Separate a people from their heritage, and they are more easily persuaded," said Karl Marx; arch-atheist, arch-communist.
Who today can remember or even have ever known or learned that the first settlers in America were all of the Christian Faith and its Judeo-Christian moral laws? Right up to the times of the establishment of the Constitution, 98% of the population were Protestant Christians, 1.8% were Roman Catholic Christians, and 0.2% professed to be Jews. Fifty or more of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were Christians.
These were the people who wrote their convictions and aspirations into the Declaration of Independence (the Nation's charter and organic law), and in which they acknowledged Almighty God as the author of our Liberties—not the government, "far from it," said James Madison, called the "chief architect of the Constitution." George Washington stated that "Religion and morality are indispensable supports (of political prosperity)" and that no man is a Patriot who labors to undermine those supports"—"these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
So, having seen the course of Dartmouth join the "brave new" march of "secularism/Humanism," I began to think, "with the College deserting all of Dartmouth's foundations, and separating the students from their country's heritage, wouldn't it be great if they could at least hear the world-view from another perspective"—and from my own experience, I thought I knew just who could give another ?world view? that I doubt you experience at college or ever did in public school.
His name is D. James Kennedy, Senior Pastor of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, FL and founder of the Knox Theological Seminary in that city. Dr. Kennedy is a Christian who believes in the Bible as the inspired Word of God; as the "sole authority and rule of faith and practice." He is not like so many "run of the mill pastors" who are willing to compromise or abandon the fundamentals truths of the Christian faith for the sake of their own "self-esteem." Dr. Kennedy is a Christian patriot with the same fundamental convictions of this Nation's foundings. He has a Christian world-view and his messages touch on all kinds of subjects: morality, philosophy, history, biography, science, current events, etc.
I have admired your courage of your convictions in a, should I say, almost hostile college environment and hope and pray God Himself may shine into you and bless you with His Truth.
I hear Dr. Kennedy every Sunday morn. On ABS TV at 8 a.m., and since he seems to broadcast nation-wide, he may be on a TV channel ABS in your area: "The Coral Ridge Hour."
As I said before, I had thought it would be great for you all to have a look at a "World View" other than what the modernist colleges offer today; so I thought I'd "give it a try" and send you some messages Dr. Kennedy had delivered in times past?audio tapes. Side A of the enclosed one will introduce you to Dr. Kennedy (entitled "Absolutes in a Revivalistic Age"). Side B is entitled "The Christian World & Life View."
I'm not a person of much financial means, but I thought I might be able to open up to you a different World/Life View after the likes of Eleazer Wheelock, Samsom Occum, and the Founders of our Christian Nation.
If you prefer not to receive these tapes I send you from time to time, please let me know.God Bless you all.
Sincerely,
Robert Hartshorn '50