Letters to the Editor

Friday, March 3, 2006

A Satisfied Tabard

Sir—

You don’t know me, but I’ve been reading the Review for some time now. I guess I could call myself a liberal, but I’d hardly group myself with the people here who use the same title. If you’re still reading this after the dreaded “L” word, I just wanted to say this: congratulations. Your last editorial (about Winter Carnival and moderation) was great. I say this because it had all the elements almost every article written by any writer in any publication on campus lacks: it was smart, it had a point which it established early on and proved thoroughly, it made jokes (and as a first for the Free Press / Review -type papers, it was actually funny). And, judging it solely against other Review articles, it surprisingly did not turn into a cut-and-paste job of articles from the past decade. Not even the most scrupulous reader could find: “The old traditions have failed!” or: “whatever happened to the keg jump?” written anywhere in your lines. So I say again: congratulations. It was really, truly, and honestly, one of the better-written articles I’ve read my time here at Dartmouth.

Cheers,
Andrew Blancero ’08

The Folly Of The Alcohol Policy

Sir—

I just read your editorial in the latest issue of the Review . In addition to your well-voiced argument against the hypocrisy of the college’s alcohol policies—impractical policies that, in my judgment, are but thinly veiled attempts to undermine the long-standing Greek system—I’d like to thank you for your mention of Zeta Psi and advocating re-recognition. Despite my liberal leanings, I am in complete accord, for once.

Ever onward,
Daniel D. Lee ’06

In Need of Speaking Practice

Sir—

I noted in the January 20 issue your article “The Death of Departmental Editing.” I also recall reading not too long ago an article about the departure of the Speech Professor. Further, a current article mentions “First Year Writing Seminars.” I am concerned that the “best and brightest” students arrive at Dartmouth unable to write and speak coherently. While my class had Freshman English (Chaucer, The Dartmouth Bible, etc.), I do not recall that the College assumed that my classmates and I were unable to read and write at a college level without fundamental, remedial courses.

Last December I attended the Chicago Alumni Association Annual Christmas Luncheon. (I attend occasionally from year to year depending on my schedule and interest.) The primary purpose of the luncheon seems to be to introduce prospective Dartmouth applicants and their parents to the College and local alumni. This year the program consisted, among other events, of introducing the local Early Acceptance students and hearing “why we love Dartmouth” speeches from four current students.

I was appalled at the uniform lack of speaking ability by the student presenters. Their speeches were rambling, too long for what each one had to say, full of “and uhs” and “you knows,” and otherwise poor examples of what students are learning at a prestigious school. The obvious lack of interest in good speaking by the administrative and faculty, represented by the loss of the only Professor of Speech, was apparent. Whoever organized the luncheon owed the College a duty to at least prepare the speakers sufficiently to avoid embarrassing Dartmouth before high school students applying for admission and their parents.

From my limited contact with the College - primarily through the Review and blurbs from the College - it seems to me that there is more emphasis on computer skills and “feeling good” than on acquiring the basic educational skills of “learning to learn” that will be important in lifelong careers.

John C. Palmer, Jr. ’56.

Too Late

Sirs—

I want to address a current journalistic issue that I know is troubling many of you. This is the matter of the controversial cartoons, originally published in a Danish newspaper, that depict Mohammed and Muslim beliefs*or at least, Islamic extremism*in a mocking manner. Several CN member papers have printed the cartoons or are intending to print them, and I want to make clear our position on this issue as others of you consider this issue.

We will support you completely if you print these cartoons. The Collegiate Network supports the right of free speech, at least within proper bounds, and we believe that printing the cartoons in question falls into the category of protected speech. This is true even more so since the cartoons have become a story in themselves. Printing the cartoons simply to offend Muslims, though constitutional, may not be commendable. However, the cartoons themselves have become a story, and seeing the cartoons is important to understanding the story. We do suggest that if you publish them, you contextualize the cartoons, perhaps in an accompanying editorial, so as not to be open to the charge of needless provocation.

You should, of course, use prudence in deciding whether to print these cartoons. Again, having the right to print the cartoons does not mean that one ought to print them, as such a decision may be irresponsible as well as uncivil. Doubtless, there will be a heated reaction on your campuses to their publication, and, as we have seen, violence on the part of the offended is a real possibility. You know your campus climate best. To print the cartoons in your paper may require heroic bravery, and it is no shame to refrain from printing them because of (legitimate) fear of the consequences.

Best wishes,
Steve Klugewicz
Executive Director, The Collegiate Network

Letters to the Editor

Article Tools

Related Articles