Making a Deal in D.C.

By Thomas J.P. Harrington

Fortunately, The Price of Politics is not a story told by an idiot, but instead a catalogue of idiotic mishaps, miscommunications and mistakes from both sides of the political aisle. Woodward’s newest DC tell-all swamped the nation’s discussions in the lead-up to the election. The tortuous and twisted story took outsiders deep into the insides of Washington, to where the sausage was made. Or in the case of the debt negotiations in 2010, not made. Yet, given that its strong condemnation of both Republican Speaker of the House Boehner and Democratic President Obama resulted in neither political figures’ unseating, does this tome still have any relevance?

Yes, yes it does. In fact, it may be one of the most significant books to be released in the past four years. Why? Because it actually manages to depict one of the most mysterious and convoluted political figures of our time in an odd, but honest way. I’m speaking of course, of our recently re-elected President.

In The Price of Politics, Woodward attempts to present the first four years of the Obama Administration and thus demonstrate how the debt ceiling fiasco was born, debated and finally lost. For both sides. In it, it becomes clear that President Obama has been anything but consistent or constant. Rather, his character appears to vacillate and change with the environment surrounding him. As a result, I’ve tried to divide Woodward’s narrative into the three stages that the Obama Administration travelled through from 2008 to 2012.

Part I: The Candidate Triumphant

Woodward’s book begins with his first introduction to then-Senator Barack Obama at the Gridiron dinner. He was dazzled by Obama’s charm, his elegance and his articulation. But, Woodward tempers his praise and the ebullience surrounding Obama’s self-deprecating, but insubstantial palaver with a comparison to another Senator’s speech. In one brilliant passage, Woodward manages to present the difference between the charming future President Obama and the serious Senator Moynihan.

Moynihan, then 53, made some good jokes, but his theme was serious: what it means to be a Democrat. The soul of the party was to fight for equality and the little guy, he said. The party cared for the underdogs in America, the voiceless, powerless and those who got stepped on. It was a defining speech, and the buzz afterward was that Moynihan was going to be president. He wasn’t, of course. That was then, this was now. Obama had not once mentioned the party or high purpose. His speech, instead, was about Obama, his inexperience, and, in the full paradox of the moment, what he had not done. Two and a half years later, he was president-elect of the United States. 

After that far-from-complimentary introduction to the President, Woodward skips ahead to the halcyon days of the end of 2008 to the beginning of 2009. Well, halcyon at least for President Obama and the Democrats. Not so much for the rest of the country – and even the world. The stock market was collapsing, Europe was feeling the first tremors of what would become a years-long debacle, and of course nearly everyone was running around like a headless chicken. But the charming, articulate and self-deprecatory candidate was now President. At least Bush was gone, everyone reassured themselves. The real question was, however, how would Obama govern?

The answer lay in one of the first meetings between the newly elected President and the congressional leaders of both parties. At the first meeting, Obama had touted his willingness to compromise and find a bipartisan path. As a result, then-House Minority Whip Eric Cantor went to the drawing board with conservative members of the Republican caucus to write up a set of principles regarding the upcoming stimulus. President Obama glanced at the document and then after a brief sentence or two of trite bipartisan pablum, he laid down the law. “I can go it alone…Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now. Elections have consequences, and Eric, I won. So on that, I think I trump you.” A few months later as the debate over the stimulus bill raged, it became clear that bipartisanship was off the table. As Republicans attempted to alter the Democratic bill, Emanuel responded: “We have the votes. [Expletive deleted] ‘em.” And so began the first two years of the Obama Administration.

Part II: The Not-So-Great Negotiator

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, Mr. Emanuel turned out to be quite wrong indeed. After the debacle of the 2010 midterm elections where the GOP took back the House (thanks to a 9 point swing in the vote) and gained six seats in the Senate, President Obama just didn’t have the votes anymore. Pivoting, Obama began his attempts to charm his political opposition, but it was an empty and obviously calculated gesture. The President called the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, on his birthday to wish him well – and then dropped an invitation to a major summit with every congressional leader the next day. Insulted by the extremely late notice for a meeting that couldn’t fit into his already-packed schedule, Boehner had to refuse the offer along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. This miniscule miscommunication resulting in a political misfire may seem silly and unusual, but sadly it was only the first of many such occasions throughout the debt ceiling negotiations. 

As the countdown began, Obama deployed former Senator (and renowned smooth talker) Joe Biden to discuss the issues and identify spending cuts with a bevy of congressional leaders including the new House Majority Whip Cantor. The divide between the two parties quickly grew. Not only did the Republicans want spending cuts, but they needed entitlement cuts. Meanwhile, Democrats wanted to protect their beloved entitlement programs while cutting defense programs and raising more revenue. The Bush tax cuts for the top two percent were a favorite target of the left while the right pointed at the waste and growth in Medicare, food stamps and Medicaid.

Biden attempted to find common ground, to find those cuts that could be made. But these efforts were stymied by disagreement on both sides. Repeatedly, everyone made comparisons to the budget deals of Gingrich, Clinton, O’Neill and Reagan. But no one was ready to make the first leap. Not while the negotiations were still on. Democrats became frustrated with Biden’s continual attempts to compromise…but never with an end goal in sight. Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat stalwart who later would be appointed to the bipartisan Supercommittee designed to force Congress to make cuts, quickly grew frustrated with the White House. Woodward notes: “A growing feeling of incredulity came over Van Hollen. The administration didn’t seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn’t seem to be any core principles.” As always, the White House remained a mystery.

Divisions were not an exclusively Democratic problem. Woodward depicts the struggle between the newly elected Tea Party caucus and the Republican moderates. Boehner knew that he was walking a tightrope, balancing the different sides of his caucus. Tensions grew as Cantor became the new spokesman for the hard-line conservatives and rumors spread that he was seeking Boehner’s position. All of this division, distrust and turmoil loomed beneath the surface of the negotiations. Unfortunately, it took the White House to exacerbate the situation until it exploded. 

As those negotiations festered, President Obama unwittingly contributed to their demise by opening a secret backdoor set of negotiations with Speaker of the House Boehner. Unfortunately, Biden revealed the existence of the talks to Cantor in one of his patented gaffes. Fearing a political coup or a double cross by the White House, the Democrats, or even his own party, Cantor exited the stagnating talks. Now, all of the nation’s hopes landed squarely on the shoulders of Boehner and Obama.

The problem was that the big deal was just out of their reach. After their aides had spent months squabbling over minor details, the President and the Speaker had still not managed to nail down the major sticking points. Entitlements and revenue…it all came down to that. For months, the two leaders had left the basic framework up to their minions, but it had failed. They had to make the final decisions. But then, at the last moment, President Obama called Boehner and asked for more tax revenue. $400 billion more – not exactly chump change.

That was 50% higher than Boehner’s final offer, his so-called ceiling. And although three moderate GOP Senators had recently come out in favor of a similar revenue deal, Boehner knew that would never pass the House. So, the talks fell apart as Boehner switched to negotiations with the congressional Democrats. The President was furious. And his anger began the third phase in the White House.

Part III: The Campaigner-in-Chief

Out went old good Bill Daley and in came Jack Lew, former head of Office of Management and Budget. The Republicans had hated Lew. He was a hard-line negotiator and even worse, obnoxiously arrogant and combative. Was it any surprise how the President suddenly changed to the Campaigner-in-Chief?

Bipartisanship was out the window. Now, it was all about getting back the votes, getting the American people to hate Republicans. Why? Negotiating was clearly not President Obama’s strong point, so it was time to try a different tactic. Thus, out of the ashes of the debt ceiling negotiations, there rose the Obama re-election campaign platform. Simply put, it was anti-Congress and virulently anti-Republican.

The President took to using the upcoming expiration of the payroll tax cut as a bludgeon. Repeatedly, he damned the Republicans in the House and Senate while pronouncing, “Pass this bill.” Cantor, to his credit, saw the maelstrom approaching and urged the leadership to pass the bill and stop the pain. Unfortunately, they weren’t swift enough. As Congressional approval ratings plummeted, Obama surrounded himself with working men and women, embracing Main Street. How odd that Jack Lew, a former Citigroup executive who had short-sold during the housing collapse, would bring this profoundly populist message to the Obama Administration.

At the end of the day, Woodward’s book is just that: a collection of odd stories surrounding the mercurial man in the Oval Office. But this tome is less the story of a President, than it is of his handlers. It seems that President Obama changes to match his environment rather than the other way around. When Rahm Emanuel was Chief-of-Staff, the White House was a steamroller. The opposition either got out of the way or found themselves as thin as pancakes. After the 2010 elections and the departure of the foul-mouthed and short-tempered Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers, President Obama transitioned into a calm, technocratic negotiator. Not too dissimilar from good-old-boy William Daley, the recently arrived Chief of Staff.

Except Obama just isn’t that person. He just couldn’t seal the deal. So he transitioned to a full-scale broadside against the Republicans for 18 months in order to ensure his re-election. He intentionally fought tooth-and-nail to crush the opponent – tossing any hope of negotiation or bipartisanship to the wind. But now, we have a second term to look forward to. This time, though, President Obama has even fewer friends in Washington.

Going forward, the worrying thought is who will Barack Obama be for the next four years? Unfortunately, Woodward leaves the reader with no answers, only more questions. In that, his terse prose reflects the reality of our current situation. Still looming overhead, just as it did four years ago is the ultimate question: who did we just elect President? The campaigner, the negotiator, or the candidate?

Interview With Dirk Vandewalle

Editor’ s Note: Associate Professor of Government Dirk Vandewalle has spent nearly a quarter century studying Libya and the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi, writing two books on the subject and serv- ing as editor for two more. Recently, he served as an advisor in Libya, spending a number of months there as the country prepared for its first elections in over fifty years.

Executive Editor Coleman Shear sat down with Professor Vandewalle following the September 11th murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and four other Americans.

The Dartmouth Review: After the embassy attack and anti-militia protests in Benghazi, do you
see the militias as responding to the outcry against them?

Professor Dirk Vandewalle: Certainly you have to distinguish between what are considered in Libya to be genuine militias, credited militias of people that have come out of the civil war, and rogue militias consisting of people that had absolutely nothing to do with the civil war at all, but have very opportunistically formed themselves in its wake and are trying to gain all kinds of concessions from the government.

What happened in Benghazi was actually done by one of the rogue militias and what we have seen is that the government in Libya doesn’t have enough capacity yet to bring all of these militias under control. It’s trying very hard to do so, but it’s a continuing struggle.

Meanwhile, we have these rogue groups out there trying to pursue their own agendas at the expense of the government. It really is a very confusing situation at this particular point in time and the government is trying to integrate the legitimate militias into the government side. They have done this in a number of ways: trying to incorporate them into the army, into the civil service police training, and so on.

On the other hand, it’s also very clear, par- ticularly with the killing of Ambassador Stevens, that the government is at this point determined to do away with these rogue militias. There is an enormous amount of convergence between the government and the Libyan people. This was just one demonstration; there have been several like it over the last two months. What the people of Libya are saying is, ‘look we want law and order, and these rogue militias really have no place, these militias that align themselves with radical Islam.’

TDR: Al-Qaeda and similar groups.

DV: Exactly, they really have no place in Libya.

TDR: We constantly hear about Al-Qaeda affiliated militia groups in places like Syria and Yemen. What is the key difference between the North African Muslims and Middle Eastern Arabs in their attitudes toward these groups?

DV: In a sense, what we see, particularly in Libya but also to some extent in Tunisia, is the emergence of this moderate Islamic Movement centered on Rashid Al-Ghannushi. It’s quite clear that these radical groups have much less traction in North Africa than they did in some of the other parts of the Middle East. That may have something to do with the fact that a lot of the leadership of the newly emerging governments in both Tunisia and in Libya has a good amount of legitimacy.

It’s quite different [than the Middle East] and we’ve seen now that in both Tunisia and Libya, and to some extent in Egypt, a civil society becoming quite sophisticated, politically, and is making its own demands, saying, ‘Look this is not us. This is not Islam, and certainly this is not the way we want to be seen by the outside world—as these kinds of radical fringe elements of the Islamic religion. There’s no room for them in North Africa.’

TDR: What role has the large Berber population in North Africa played? How have they affected the Arab Spring, despite it being largely an Arab event?

DV: This vocal minority, particularly in Tunisia, certainly in Morocco, and a little bit in Libya, has had an impact to the extent that there are people who can question the true identity of the modern state, in each case. We started to see in Libya, for example, that the Tuareg—the Berbers—are starting to demand concessions from the state and what they’re saying is, ‘We’re not this homogenous group that you expect us to be.’ These demands are very varied and do not always have to do with Islam, and in many ways go far beyond it. The political system is a bit different and these groups feel entitled to challenge the state, which I think it would be very difficult in other places, particularly Egypt.

TDR: Libya is a more ethnically unified country than many in the Islamic world, but do you still see the split between Tripolitania and Benghazi as playing a role in the politics of the country?

DV: Traditionally there has always been friction between the two provinces. Gaddafi played this up to exploit it for his own political purposes. Although I don’t want to underestimate the differences, they are not so big.

There is a Federalist movement in Cyrenaica that has been singularly unsuccessful. It is headed by Ahmed al-Senussi, the grandson of the former King, and all polling indicates that this group is not very successful. They have about 5,000 followers, but the point is also that they started a political party that has very little traction in Libya. Furthermore, it’s splitting even more.

The traditional division of east and west in Libya has really been exaggerated. If anything, the civil war has brought to light the fact that if Libyans re- ally want to move forward, they have to find some kind of solution. While there might be some kind of decentralization, the current leadership is against it. The kind of autonomy that the radical Federalist figures in Cyrenaica are asking for has gotten very little traction.

We also shouldn’t forget that the fact that both sides depend on the oil industry, and the infrastructure and the bureaucratic system that supports it. The effort to market oil has led to an integration of Libya that makes this Feder- alist movement a non-starter at this particular point of time.

TDR: How do you see the reentrance of Libya into the international community affecting global oil prices, particularly futures and spot prices?

DV: Initially a lot of people thought that, because of the civil war, there would be a major kind of dislocation that would take place. It turns out, for the kind of sweet oil that Europe wants in particular, the Saudis make a lot, so there was much less of an upheaval than anyone had expected.

My hunch is that, to a large extent, the pull mechanism is still provided by Saudi Arabia, which is really the sweet producer and will continue to be so for a while. The market is changing a little bit, but overall we have been looking at a steady ratcheting up in price, but nothing major or Earth-shaking over the couple of years or so.

TDR: How do you think the evolution of moderate Islamic parties will play out in North Africa? How will North Africa’ s relationship with the West be affected?

DV: So far what we’ve seen in Tunisia and Libya is that both countries, particularly Libya, have opted for a more personalistic interpretation of Islam—a much more moderate version—and these protests that we’ve seen in Benghazi are an indication that people are very clearly saying, ‘Look, we don’t want any radical vision of Islam.’

In a sense, a lot of Libyans go back to the Sufi model of Islam and the Samussiya movement in the 19th century. That played a major influence and was extended during the kingdom, so the population of North Africa is saying, We don’t want anybody, whether it is Islamists or a secular party, telling us what we should be doing. Civil societies are growing, we want to go our own way.’ We are going to see that North Africa could very well become the end of the radical Islamic.

What we’ve seen in the rest of the Arab World, and certainly what we’ve seen in Libya, is that Is- lamic parties don’t do well at all. I think over time they’ll do a little bit better, in part because they were so repressed under Gaddafi that they really had no organization to start with. They also had some pretty unsophisticated political programs for the election and so on, so I think they will improve their stand- ing, but it’s very clear to me they will not come to dominate the political landscape.

In many countries, particularly in North Africa, the radical Islamists really are a fringe. That is true both in Tunisia and in Libya. So far, I think that will be a major marker between North Africa and the Middle East. In North Africa, the overall political sentiment will be a bit more secular, although every political movement incorporates some Islamic elements, just not the kind of radical Islam that we’ve seen.

TDR: Right now it seems like Americans are seeing two very different images painted by the pundits on both sides. On one hand, we see the images of this Libyan outcry against the militias and extremism. On the other hand, we see the controversy over the recent film portraying the Prophet Mohammad, the mass protests, and the storming of the embassy. Which picture do you think is more accurate for the future of the Middle East and North Africa?

DV: In general, the more peaceful, more thoughtful interpretation is more likely. You shouldn’t take the example of what a few radicals are doing as the embodiment of Islam, just like you shouldn’t take what a few crackpots are doing in making a movie about Islam as being representative of Christians in the United States. My hunch is that Libyans and North Africans fall in between.

For all that has happened, these are relatively advanced political systems. They’ve had their traditional state building. They’ve had their na- tionalist struggles. This is not the tabula rasa. For that reason, we’ ll see that they’ re concerned about economic development and state building. Any kind of group, whether Islamic or non-Islamic, that does not accept that will be judged quite negatively by the population.

TDR: You’ve become one of the world’s foremost authorities on Libya. Are you currently working with the new Libyan government or the State Department on policy?

DV: I was the senior political advisor to the Carter Center for their electoral mission in Libya, which entailed providing political advice during the elections. Now the Carter Center will go back to into Libya and I will continue to provide them some expertise..

We’re now in a stage where people are starting to evaluate what is going on in Libya. Was our intervention good? Is this a credible government? Will Libya really become democracy or at least move towards a democracy in the Middle East? Libya is very interesting because all of the assumptions that we’ve had: that oil exporters are highly authoritar- ian, that they deny their populations a political voice, that they’re completely corrupted, and so on. The jury’s still out, but Libya may be the exception to those assumptions. It may become a good exa of responsible state building.

TDR: The exception to the resource curse.

DV: Exactly. That’s exactly what I’ve said in a couple of articles: it may very well be the exception to the resource curse. From that point of view, it’s very exciting.

I’m doing a lot of work now with think
tanks, government sources, and so on to evaluate. Obviously Libya still needs a lot
of work and will continue to need a lot of help. One of the really interesting things about Libya is that it has one of the very few governments that has realized that they need expertise, that they don’t know the answers, and they’re willing to take that expertise. I have, along with a number of organizations that I work with, been trying to bring that expertise to the Libyans.

TDR: There are still Gaddafi loyalists in the west and far south of the country, and clashes still occur. How did Gaddafi appeal to these regions of continued resistance?

DV: In the West we always like to paint leaders that we don’t like, or who seem irrational to us, in a particular fashion. The way we’ve always portrayed Gaddafi is: how could anybody really like this guy? How could anyone pledge political allegiance to him?

The fact is that he maintained a very carefully calibrated patronage system that benefited a lot of people including those allied to his tribes, people who lived in Bani Walid [in the west], people who, from a tribal point of view, were very important to Gaddafi. These people owed loyalty to Gaddafi and some of them are still quite loyal to him. To us, it may look very strange that you may pledge al- legiance or hold allegiance even now for a dictator who destroyed a lot of lives, but this whole patronage system has benefited some people. To them, Gaddafi was in many ways a credible figure. The fact that he was seen as anti-Western, standing up to the West, gave him a lot of credibility among some of his own people.

TDR: There has been a lot of debate in the media as to whether Gaddafi’s apparent irrationality was an intentional portrayal to cultivate fear in the west. Do you think he was acting, or had actually become so erratic?

DV: I always describe it like this: Gaddafi lived in nickel chamber. That is, if you’ve been the dictator for that long, no one can tell you the real truth in anymore. In a sense, you’ve become a demigod in your own country. Every word you
 it’ s written down in articles in the newspapers. You’re the ultimate authority. So no one can say anymore that the emperor looks naked.

What happened to Gaddafi was the self-reverential attitude that we started to see. That kind of narcissism was a reflection of the fact that he lived for several years now, the last twenty years or so, in a very self-reverential and closed world. Frankly, I think he believed everything he said and no one could oppose him. You hear what you want to hear and no one else can say that what you’re doing is not correct, so you build your own world around it. That is essentially what Gaddafi became.

TDR: Did you ever visit Libya during the Gaddafi period?

DV: Yes, I visited Libya all the way back. I started serious research in Libya in 1986 and I’ve been there every single year, several times a year, since.

TDR: How were you able to get in?

DV: I got in because I had a Belgian passport. There was an embargo from the United States, and then from the United Nations, but I could go in as a Belgian, so I was the only researcher there for almost fifteen years.

TDR: What did you notice about the country during its under Gaddafi? What was the experience like?

DV: I truly would describe Gaddafi’s Libya as almost totalitarian. Once you were inside, everyone assumed that you were legitimate, because how else would you be able to get into the country? It was relatively easy to do research and talk to people.
I was never followed or anything; I didn’t have a minder, but the atmosphere in the country was really scary. People were very scared about talking publicly. It took very, very long to develop personal friends I could talk to in private. People were constantly looking over their shoulder and the whole system, even down to the every day life of people, was dominated by this political system and by Gaddafi.

As it got into the 1980s and 1990s there was an incredible secret security organization with an informer literally on every block, in every city, and in every village in Libya. People were very closely watched. It was very difficult to develop any personal contacts. It took a long time before I was able to work myself into that society.

TDR: What is a final message you can tell our readers about the future of Libya, North Africa, and the Middle East?

DV: Particularly looking at Libya, there may be some sign for optimism. Even after prolonged periods of dictatorship, and despite all the efforts by this very vicious regime to annihilate any kind of organized political interest and to fracture civil society, we may be moving toward a real political system. It may not be perfect, and it certainly will take a lot longer until it resembles a modern democracy, but I think there is optimism for countries like that. Part of that optimism should also be the realization, as the Libyan’s perfectly realize, that there is a lot of expertise needed. The West can and should play a positive role in helping these countries along.

TDR: Thank you very much for your time Professor Vandewalle.

DV: You’re very welcome, thanks.

--Coleman E. Shear

Dartmouth Murderer Seeks Case Reconsideration

The recent United States Supreme Court ruling in the Miller v. Alabama case regarding mandatory life-without-parole sentences issued to juveniles will directly impact Dartmouth. After the 5-4 split decision, convicted murderer Robert Tulloch seeks relief under the ruling.

Tulloch was sentenced in April 2002 along with accomplice James Parker for the murder of Dartmouth professors Half and Susanne Zantop in January of 2001. The tale is well documented in Andrew Patti’s book Judgment Ridge: The True Story Behind the Dartmouth Murders.

Patti reports that the 17-year-old Tulloch’s and 16-year-old Parker’s first attempt at robbery and murder happened in the summer of 2000. The two boys arrived at Andrew Patti’s house late at night and knocked on the door with the intention of murdering all the inhabitants. Patti, suspicious of the late night knocking, refused to allow Tulloch entrance. Upon seeing Patti armed with a Glock pistol, Tulloch and Parker fled the scene. Patti, upon trying to call the police, discovered his phone line cut and a makeshift grave outside his home.

Fast forward to January. Tulloch and Parker arrive at the Zantop residence and gain entrance posing as students doing a school survey. After threatening both professors for their PIN numbers, Tulloch repeatedly stabbed Half Zantop in the face and chest. He then commanded Parker to slit Susanne’s throat, stabbing her in the face and body as she expired.

Both were caught on the run and tried in court. Parker made a plea bargain with the state in return for his testimony against Tulloch. He pled guilty to second-degree
 murder and wa s
sentenced to a
 minimum of 25
 years in prison
with possibility
of parole after 16
years. Tulloch’s
public defender, 
Richard Guerriero, unsuccessfully attempted to
 argue an insanity 
defense. During
 the sentencing,
 Parker wept un
controllably and 
apologized for his 
crimes. Tulloch
 showed no emotion and made no
 statement.

Enter the Supreme Court. On
 June 25th, our 
highest court decided that mandatory life sentences for crimes 
committed by juveniles are in violation of the 8th amendment. More specifically, the use of a mandatory life sentence for minors falls under “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The 5-4 split on the Miller v. Alabama decision predictably fell on partisan lines with the liberal bloc overcoming the conservative. Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote for the majority, claimed the mandatory life sentencing without possibility of parole for children violates the ban of cruel and unusual punishment forbidden in the constitution. Kagan’s opinion was heavily based on the Roper v. Simmons case that banned capital punishment for minors. Chief Justice Roberts, in the dissenting opinion, correctly noted that the Roper case rationale was that the death penalty for minors is unnecessary because life imprisonment is an available alternative.

Following the decision, Tulloch contacted Guerriero who requested to be reappointed to represent Tulloch. Tulloch seeks retroactive consideration of his case, given the court’s decision.

This development does not imply that Tulloch will be soon released, or released at all. First, it is not clear the courts will retroactively apply the new amendment to Tulloch’s sentencing. Guerriero has only requested a hearing to discuss and consider the matter at hand. Second, the Supreme Court ruling simply bans mandatory life-without-parole sentencing for minors. If Tulloch’s case does reach the courts, a judge may simply decide that he does indeed deserve the life-without-parole sentence.

These points would bring about the same result. No harm no foul. Tulloch likely remains in jail for the rest of his life.

However, wherever there is discretion there is always a gray area. Imagine a scenario in which the wrong judge with the wrong sentiment handles the case. It is then very plausible that Tulloch’s sentence could be reduced to a life sentence with a possibility of parole. It’s even plausible that, given Tulloch’s juvenile status at the time of the crime, his sentence could be reduced to a finite jail sentence with a shorter eligibility time for parole.

Now stop imagining. We live in a world where Casey Anthony can “lose” her child for over a month and go off partying in local clubs while her daughter is missing and later found dead in the woods. Not to mention she can walk off free, declared innocent by the discretion of a jury. We live in a world where Willie Horton can stab a compliant gas station attendant 19 times and receive a “life sentence without parole.” What then? Horton is released into society on a weekend furlough program where he beats, stabs, and binds a man and proceeds to rape the man’s fiancé twice in front of him. All of these events, which I am sure many had to read once over to believe, came rom the discretion of our court system.

A proposition: as to Robert Tulloch’s mental state, the mere four months that separated him from legal adulthood were completely inconsequential. Tulloch is a cold-blooded murderer who robbed the Dartmouth community of two beloved professors. Andrew Patti’s Glock and the hard work of investigators and police officers across the country are the only reason Tulloch’s death count was limited to two.

Now, no matter how small the chance, it is possible that Robert Tulloch will set foot in our society again.

--John C. Melvin

An Interview with Nate Fick '99

By Adam I. W. Schwartzman

The Dartmouth Review: In what capacity have you been involved with the College since graduation? 

Nate Fick: I’ve ben on the Board of Visitors of the Rockefeller Center since 2006 or 2007. Rocky had a big impact on my life—I went to see a talk there in the late ‘90s when a journalist named Tom Ricks, who was then the Wall Street Journal’s Pentagon correspondent, came up to campus and talked about the Marines. Attending his talk when I was an undergraduate was actually one of the things that led me to join the Marines after graduation. Rocky played such a pivotal role in my life that when I had the chance to stay involved as an alum, I jumped at the chance.

TDR: You’ve highlighted administrative transparency as an essential component of Dartmouth. As a trustee, what steps are you interested in taking to ensure such transparency?

Fick: I run a small company right with about 50 employees and a 15-person Board of Directors. When I was in the Marines, I ran military organizations of between 50 and 100 people. I’ve always found that better policies resulted from a more inclusive process and you got more buy in when people knew what was going on. I think its human nature. We want to be included in decision-making, we want to understand what’s happening, and I think transparency makes for better decisions and results that stick. As philosophi cal principle, I think its something that’s part of good management and good leadership. In terms of what you can do, from the standpoint of a trustee, frequent interaction with all of the different constituent groups on campus is important: students, faculty, administrators. I respect that there are decisions that have to be made within the privacy of the boardroom—that’s just part of governance—but my hope is that I can be a very present and very engaged member of the Board, whether it’s giving out my personal email address or my personal phone number, just making myself available to students. I want to be free and willing to engage with people anytime.

TDR: Are you concerned about President Kim’s departure?

Fick: I’m not concerned about President Kim’s departure. I had been looking forward to working with him, frankly, and I have met with him a couple of times throughout [the trustee election] process. His nomination to lead the World Bank surprised me, but I think—and this is going to sound like a cliché—I’ve gone through enough leadership transitions to know that no single person is ever indispensible. Even when you have a respected and valued leader move on, that open seat represents an opportunity. I think we need to focus now on filling the president’s seat with the best candidate we can find and I think we’re going to attract a lot of great candidates.

TDR: What qualifications are important to filling that role?

Fick: President Kim was a non-traditional candidate. He brought with him a background that was different from most university presidents. He’s also younger than most university presidents. It would be easy for us as a community to be gun shy about non-traditional or young candidates who, because of the stage in their career, are going to move onto something else eventually. I don’t think we should shy away from them. We should still look at the non-traditional, young candidates. Beyond that, you need someone with impeccable academic credentials. You need someone who is a capable manager and has demonstrated leadership ability. Management and leadership are two different things: you manage an organization, but you lead people. There are people who are great managers but not very good leaders and there are people who are good leaders but not very good managers. We need to hold out and find someone’s who’s both.

TDR: Does that involve looking internally, externally, or both?

Fick: Both. Drawing on my own experience—I’m doing a leadership search in my company right now—we’re looking both internally and externally because both kinds of candidates are valuable for different reasons. Internal candidates know the culture, they’ve come up in the organization, and they’re lower risk in a lot of ways because they’re more known to you. It also sends a valuable signal to demonstrate that you can promote from within and that upward mobility exists inside a company or university, but at the same time you shouldn’t limit yourself. Dartmouth is a respected enough institution that the world is our body of candidates. Bringing someone in from the outside injects a fresh perspective, new energy, and new enthusiasm. At the beginning of the process we should consider both internal and external candidates. 

TDR: Now to switch gears a little bit, you said in your statement to the Association of Alumni that you wanted to embrace traditions while innovating constantly, what did you mean by that?

Fick: I guess I’m shaped in that regard by time in the Marines. I don’t want to overdraw the comparison between the Marines and Dartmouth, but they’re about the same age. They were founded within six years of each other and they’re both organizations that pride themselves on their history and they draw a lot of their strength from their traditions and their culture. At the same time, if they’re going to win in what they do, if Dartmouth is going to win in what we do—in recruiting, retaining and educating the best students—and the Marine Corps is going to win the nation’s battles, it requires innovation. So, your tradition has to be a source of strength, it can’t be something that holds you back. And you have to simultaneously do both. You can’t lose sight of what made you great, but you can’t rest on your laurels, either. Doing something a certain way just because it’s the way you’ve always done it, in my book, isn’t a good enough reason. There’s inevitably a balance there you got to strike.

TDR: In that spirit, what traditions do you hold as the most important personally, and what do you hold as most important for Dartmouth? 

Fick: I’m a big fan of the D-plan. My sophomore summer meant a lot to me. It was one of the great bonding experiences of my life. One of Dartmouth’s defining competitive advantages is its geography, its place in Hanover, and everything that has to do with being in Hanover. The traditions having to do with Mount Moosilauke, freshman trips, and, getting back to the D-plan again, having an entire class up there in relative isolation for a summer, those things mean a ton. They make Dartmouth different from any other school. There isn’t any other school that brings world-class reputation, faculty and facilities to a remote location in Northern New England. So, I think that we need to play off that strength.

TDR: What about the Greek system?

Fick: I’m a fan of the Greek system. I know a lot of my social life at Dartmouth revolved around the Greek system. People are going to naturally associate and the efforts to ban or end the Greek system when I was an undergraduate were misguided. All you’re going to do is drive that activity off campus. You’re better off recognizing that adults—and students over 18 are adults—are free to associate. Obviously there are elements of it that need a little bit of oversight. Again, I was a member of an organization, the Marines, where there are rites of passage, rites of organization, and they actually have a valuable place in forming cohesion and building teams and building relationships. Then again, you’ve got to be attentive. They can cost a lot, and if you’re not using good judgment, you’re going to end up causing a lot of problems and hurting people. I think that gets back to that tension between tradition and innovation, and recognizing that traditions matter, but at the same time, you need to be careful that they evolve in the ways that our norms and our society evolve.

TDR: I’d like to tie that thought to something you just mentioned and also wrote about in your statement, which is the importance of attracting good talent to Dartmouth, whether it’s students, faculty, or administration. Do you think that goal is undermined by the recent hazing controversy?

Fick: I think that press matters and attention matters. In the same way that one student’s experience may not, in any way, reflect the experience of the broader student body, winning a football championship, for example, doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to have a better experience at school because of the positive press that surrounds something like a high profile athletic victory. Dartmouth has to be really careful about how it is portrayed in the public mind. We do have this negative stereotype that we continue to adhere and play into the whole “Animal House” image, and it’s a cheap, easy trope for journalists to use. It’s an easy laugh line and it’s an easy metaphor to build a story around. I think it has negative repercussions and I think that it influences some of the college counselors, some of the high school teachers, coaches, some of the parents. It does matter, and I think we have to be careful about our public narratives and be conscious of our public image.

TDR: One thing you’ve mentioned in relation to both Dartmouth and the Marine Corps is “cultivating habits of the mind.” What do you—as a Classics and Government Major—think of that principle in light of your background and in light of Dartmouth’s commitment to the Liberal Arts.

Fick: I was a classics and government double major, and I have a deep, visceral belief in the value of a liberal arts education. The cliché is that the whole point of an education isn’t to teach you the facts; it’s to teach you how to think and to ground you in an intellectual tradition, to give you a framework with which to assimilate new ideas and think about new information. I haven’t encountered anything that beats a classical liberal arts education at doing that. I think that one of the great things about Dartmouth is its commitment to undergraduate teaching, its commitment to the undergraduate experience, and its commitment to a broad-based liberal arts education. I don’t think that that education and undergraduate commitment are mutually exclusive factors. I actually think that these two things are very closely tied, and are increasingly closely tied. Have you read the Steve Jobs biography by any chance? By Walter Isaacson?

TDR: No, I haven’t gotten a chance to yet.

Fick: One of things that really struck me in that book was Jobs’ sense that where he wanted to be was a nexus of the liberal arts, science, and technology. He wanted to combine technology and aesthetics in a way that would transform how human beings interact with technology and how they would access ideas. He makes a very compelling case in that book that science and the arts are not at diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum; they’re actually related. So, when Dartmouth invests in its hard science programs and invests in research, I actually that that strengthens the liberal arts curriculum.

TDR: So, I take it that you’re not wary of that trend towards the hard sciences?

Fick: I’m not, because I think that Dartmouth is strong enough to accommodate both. The old laugh line for decades has been “Don’t turn Dartmouth into Harvard!” I spent time at Harvard in graduate school, and I’d agree with that—don’t turn Dartmouth into Harvard. But I don’t think that strengthening our science programs and providing greater resources for research poses any risk of turning us into Harvard. The difference between Dartmouth and Harvard is not primarily one of research and science; it’s a difference of culture. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to losing that defining culture that makes Dartmouth special.

TDR: We’re winding down here, but is there anything that you want to jump in on immediately as a trustee? Something at the forefront of your mind?

Fick: I guess there are two things. One is something that is very near and dear to me, and one that is more a factor of circumstances. The factor of circumstances is the presidential search. I think that we all are going to find ourselves involved in a search for Dartmouth’s next leader, and that’s going to have be a top priority from Day 1. The second thing has been very much on my mind through this whole process and is one of things that Jim Wright did a great job of: encouraging veterans, especially wounded veterans, to continue their education, and to do it at Dartmouth. A Marine I served with is among those guys who came to Dartmouth and graduated after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think that’s important. It’s important to Dartmouth and it’s important to our whole society. I think that’s a moral obligation, and it’s something that I’d like to be attentive to as a new trustee.

TDR: Thank you very much for your time, Nate

Presidential Search: Who's Next?

By J.P. Harrington

What do we need in our next president? The best place to begin is with the clear failures of this president – and how best to remedy the mess he left us in. The first clear qualification for the next president is a simple one, but important, particularly since it seemed to have been ignored in the selection of Dr. Kim. Our next president needs to want to be the president of the College.

It seems shocking that I have to even state what should be obvious – but after the past three years, it needed to be said. How many times did I see Dr. Kim walking around campus in three years? Never. Even when I attended a lunch with Dr. Kim and about ten other students, I was struck not by his care for Dartmouth nor by his intellect, but instead by his lack of engagement with the students. His face dull, Dr. Kim uttered a few platitudes about change, never forgetting to tout his seemingly interminable list of committees meant to eventually bring change, but never truly engaged with the students. The other students passionately clamored for reform, for understanding, for changing the Greek system, but all they got was a half-hearted politically vague promise for some sort of eventual reform. Perhaps another committee.

Yet, when I would later see president Kim at a fundraiser in my home state of Colorado, I could barely recognize him. His face was beaming. It was a smile a minute as he gripped the hands of potential donors and parents and extolled the liberal arts system. The speech was brilliant – everything I wanted to hear from the president of my college. The problem was: I’d heard it all before. It was the same promises and fancy phrases of his matriculation speech. Nothing had changed in over a year.

This time, the trustees need to select a candidate that truly wants to be President of Dartmouth College. Not just president of some prestigious school that can catapault him to an international position. Not just president for three years and then the next job title. No, we need someone who is devoted to Dartmouth. And that’s why we need an alum. We need someone who has been to Dartmouth, loves Dartmouth and bleeds green. Not crimson or brown.

There are many arguments for a president who is a Dartmouth alum, but the two most pressing are our culture and our prestige. Dartmouth has a unique culture. Even the most humble among us must agree upon that. We’re isolated in the middle of New Hampshire, we’re insular, and we even have our own language. Who doesn’t remember going home for Thanksgiving or Christmas break only to discover that words like ‘A-side’ or ‘grim’ or ‘facetime’ were about as foreign to our old friends as that obscure foreign language we had just decided to study in college? That culture, beloved as it is by us, is different from the generic collegial culture. We need someone who understands and embraces that difference. As odd as it may have appeared in attack pieces published in leftwing news sources of debatable merit, our culture is ours – and we still love it. We need someone who will defend it as ardently as we students do. Someone who experienced that culture firsthand.

And while we’re on the topic of the current press surrounding our college on a hill, it’s necessary to stress that we can’t select another prestige-seeking candidate. We are currently in the midst of a firestorm of public opinion – that much is obvious. While now is neither the time nor the place to comment on that specific issue, it is clear that we need a president who is willing to withstand the public pressure to force some sort of unnecessary, irrational, and impractical supposed solution upon the student body. If we’re not careful, the dreaded Student Life Initiative may rise from the grave to stumble over to Webster Avenue. That’s why the next President of Dartmouth College needs to be an alum. An alum who loves this college more than themselves or their future career will stand firm to public opinion and choose the correct path forward. Not the correct path forward for themselves, but for the College.

But what exactly is that path forward? Well, allow me to make a few proposals. We need a president with business acumen. Someone who has run a real business efficiently, as opposed to a series of non-profits or even worse, other educational institutions. Why? Dartmouth needs to be set on a firm footing financially. We’ve still only made about 85% of the cuts that Kim introduced and DDS needs to be reformed substantially. We’ve allowed the SEIU to dictate the meal plans of students which has resulted in a system with less meal times, less good food, and less choice. Not to mention higher prices. As students attempt to flee the meal plan, expect an exodus off-campus that will threaten our precious culture and a corresponding decline in food quality as less and less students buy into the system. We need someone who can come in and allow free competition. More small vendors like KAF. A return to the a la carte system. An increase in efficiency – and the courage to fight unions for the benefit of students. Perhaps someone with experience in the world that works, to borrow a phrase from former Speaker of the House Gingrich, can understand that we the students are the College’s consumers. And the consumer is always right.

Finally, we also need a president who embraces the fact that Dartmouth is a college. We don’t call ourselves the College on the hill for nothing. Dartmouth isn’t a university and never should be. Our most recent president seemed to forget that at times. While he extolled the liberal arts system with his mouth, both his hands were pushing Dartmouth in a very distinct direction. In all my life, I’ve never heard of something that sounded so distinctly non-liberal artsy as The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science. In fact, I’m not entirely certain I would ever have heard of such a so-called field if it had not been for Dr. Kim. At least he taught me one thing in three years. Despite the joking attitude I have maintained towards this rather ridiculous expansion of the College’s offerings, it is a serious and troubling point.

Dartmouth is the last remaining bastion in the Ivy League of a liberal arts education. It’s what makes us difference. Small classes, interaction with professors, and interdisciplinary learning. We can’t compete with Harvard or Columbia in terms of research. And we shouldn’t. We offer a completely different product – and we need a President who can understand that. Perhaps someone who has been involved in a business can understand that we need to remain in our wheelhouse.

So, which alums could possibly fulfill this dual role of CEO and president of a liberal arts college? I can propose three: Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, and Dinesh D’Souza.

Let’s begin with Mr. Paulson, the former Treasury Secretary and CEO of Goldman Sachs. Now on the face of it, I’m convinced that a certain contingent at the College will immediately begin protests at the very mention of Paulson’s name for the position. No doubt, these small, but loud protests would draw from the Occupy Dartmouth movement along with a few other centers of liberal ideology around campus, perhaps even the semi-dormant People’s Coalition. While I can at the very least praise the Occupiers for their longevity and devotion to their cause, I unfortunately cannot do the same for their abilities at fact-checking, debate or even making a logical argument. In a no-doubt vain hope to stave off the unwashed masses that would carry signs at these protests, I would just like to tout a few pieces of his record.

First of all, Paulson would embrace the liberal arts atmosphere of the College. Contrary to popular belief, Paulson wasn’t an Economics major. Instead, he was an English major – who later became the head of Goldman Sachs. Now, if that doesn’t speak worlds about the value of a liberal arts education, I don’t know what does. At the same time, Paulson was also a very successful offensive lineman who would win an All-American honorable mention (along with an All-Ivy and All-East award). Perhaps he could bring a much-need touch of experience to our lagging football team? At the same time, Paulson was a member of the Greek system and wouldn’t rush to end it merely to gain points with the loud, but marginal cohort of anti-Greeks on campus. Not to mention that Paulson would bring a much-need dollop of prestige to the College. His acceptance of the Presidency would reinforce the fact that we have a devoted alumni base – that every Dartmouth student loves Dartmouth and that even in its time of trouble, our most famous alumni will still step forward.

The same could be said of current Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner. It’s known that he will not remain a member of the Obama administration – and so we must wonder what his future plans are. While he lacks Paulson’s business experience, Geithner has spent a great deal of time in the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve and could strengthen our economics department. At the same time, Geithner himself is a Government and Asian Studies double major. Again, another alumni who strongly believes in liberal arts – and without the baggage of working under George W. Bush or at Goldman Sachs, his selection would brook less protest from the Occupiers, etc.

Now, let’s turn to my last and no doubt, most controversial nomination: Dinesh D’Souza. He’s an English major who has published several best-selling books, has experience leading educational institutions, and has demonstrated his devotion to Dartmouth, continually returning to provide lectures. The firebrand academic, who is often more cool-headed than his opponents would prefer to acknowledge, has much more experience in the education sector than either Paulson or Geithner. D’Souza is a former editor of The Dartmouth Review, a former ad- visor to the Reagan administration, and at the moment the President of a private college at The King’s College in New York City. This small college focuses on liberal arts almost exclusively, offering majors in PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Education) and MCA (Media, Culture and the Arts). D’Souza would have learned at King’s not only how to build a college around the study of liberal arts, but how to balance a budget without the massive amounts of resources of Dartmouth College. Nominating D’Souza would no doubt lead to protests among those who did not share his political philosophy – but that shouldn’t disqualify him as a candidate. In fact, aren’t colleges supposed to present all sides and theories to encourage thoughtful debate?

So, we have several choices from our alumni who could lead the College in a new direction away from the bureaucratic, university, and disengaged approach of Dr. Kim. All three of them care about the College. They all three have relevant experience and would bring a hint of prestige to our currently troubled school. Finally, we can be assured that none of them will bow to the popular press and attempt to impose radical, unnecessary, and ridiculous change on the student body simply to silence a PR nightmare or garner political approval for their next job. We need someone who is a loyal son of old Dartmouth and who will love her till death.

Presidential Search: Who’s Next?

What do we need in our next president? The best place to begin is with the clear failures of this president – and how best to remedy the mess he left us in. The first clear qualification for the next president is a simple one, but important, particularly since it seemed to have been ignored in the selection of Dr. Kim. Our next president needs to want to be the president of the College.

It seems shocking that I have to even state what should be obvious – but after the past three years, it needed to be said. How many times did I see Dr. Kim walking around campus in three years? Never. Even when I attended a lunch with Dr. Kim and about ten other students, I was struck not by his care for Dartmouth nor by his intellect, but instead by his lack of engagement with the students. His face dull, Dr. Kim uttered a few platitudes about change, never forgetting to tout his seemingly interminable list of committees meant to eventually bring change, but never truly engaged with the students. The other students passionately clamored for reform, for understanding, for changing the Greek system, but all they got was a half-hearted politically vague promise for some sort of eventual reform. Per- haps another committee.

Yet, when I would later see president
Kim at a fundraiser in my home state of Colorado, I could barely recognize him. His face was beaming. It was a smile a minute as he gripped the hands of potential donors and parents and extolled the liberal arts system. The speech was brilliant – everything I wanted to hear from the president of my college. The problem was: I’d heard it all before. It was the same promises and fancy phrases of his matriculation speech. Nothing had changed in over a year.

This time, the trustees need to select a candidate that truly wants to be President of Dartmouth College. Not just president of some prestigious school that can catapault him to an international position. Not just president for three years and then the next job title. No, we need someone who is devoted to Dartmouth. And that’s why we need an alum. We need someone who has been to Dartmouth, loves Dartmouth and bleeds green. Not crimson or brown.

There are many arguments for a president who is a Dartmouth alum, but the two most pressing are our culture and our prestige. Dartmouth has a unique culture. Even the most humble among us must agree upon that. We’re isolated in the middle of New Hampshire, we’re insular, and we even have our own language. Who doesn’t remember going home for Thanksgiving or Christmas break only to discover that words like ‘A-side’ or ‘grim’ or ‘facetime’ were about as foreign to our old friends as that obscure foreign language we had just decided to study in college? That culture, beloved as it is by us, is different from the generic collegial culture. We need someone who understands and embraces that difference. As odd
as it may have appeared in attack
pieces published in leftwing news
sources of debatable merit, our
culture is ours – and we still love it.
We need someone who will defend
it as ardently as we students do.
Someone who experienced that
culture firsthand.

And while we’re on the topic
of the current press surrounding
our college on a hill, it’s necessary
to stress that we can’t select an-
other prestige-seeking candidate.
We are currently in the midst of a
firestorm of public opinion – that
much is obvious. While now is
neither the time nor the place to
comment on that specific issue, it
is clear that we need a president
who is willing to withstand the public pressure
to force some sort of unnecessary, irrational, and impractical supposed solution upon the student body. If we’re not careful, the dreaded Student Life Initiative may rise from the grave to stumble over to Webster Avenue. That’s why the next President of Dartmouth College needs to be an alum. An alum who loves this college more than themselves or their future career will stand firm to public opinion and choose the correct path forward. Not the correct path forward for themselves, but for the College.

But what exactly is that path forward? Well, allow me to make a few proposals. We need a president with business acumen. Someone who has run a real business efficiently, as opposed to a series of non-profits or even worse, other educational institutions. Why? Dartmouth needs to be set on a firm footing financially. We’ve still only made about 85% of the cuts that Kim introduced and DDS needs to be reformed substantially. We’ve allowed the SEIU to dictate the meal plans of students which has resulted in a system with less meal times, less good food, and less choice. Not to mention higher prices. As students attempt to flee the meal plan, expect an exodus off-campus that will threaten our precious culture and a corresponding decline in food quality as less and less students buy in to the system. We need someone who can come in and allow free competition. More small vendors like KAF. A return to the a la carte system. An increase in efficiency – and the courage to fight unions for the benefit of students. Perhaps someone with experience in the world that works, to borrow a phrase from former Speaker of the House Gingrich, can understand that we the students are the College’s consumers. And the consumer is always right.

Finally, we also need a president who
embraces the fact that Dartmouth is a college. We don’t call ourselves the College
on the hill for nothing. Dartmouth isn’t a
university and never should be. Our most
recent president seemed to forget that at
times. While he extolled the liberal arts
system with his mouth, both his hands
were pushing Dartmouth in a very distinct
direction. In all my life, I’ve never heard
of something that sounded so distinctly
non-liberal artsy as The Dartmouth Center
for Health Care Delivery Science. In fact,
I’m not entirely certain I would ever have
heard of such a so-called field if it had
not been for Dr. Kim. At least he taught
me one thing in three years. Despite the joking attitude I have maintained towards this rather ridiculous expansion of the College’s offerings, it is a serious and troubling point.

Dartmouth is the last remaining bastion in the Ivy League of a liberal arts education. It’s what makes us difference. Small classes, interaction with professors, and interdisciplinary learning. We can’t compete with Harvard or Columbia in terms of re- search. And we shouldn’t. We offer a completely different product – and we need a President who can understand that. Perhaps someone who has been involved in a business can understand that we need to remain in our wheelhouse.

So, which alums could possibly fulfill this dual role of CEO and president of a liberal arts college? I can propose three: Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, and Dinesh D’Souza.
Let’s begin with Mr. Paulson, the former Treasury Secretary and CEO of Goldman Sachs. Now on the face of it, I’m convinced that a certain contingent at the College will immediately begin protests at the very mention of Paulson’s name for the position. No doubt, these small, but loud protests would draw from the Occupy Dartmouth movement along with a few other centers of liberal ideology around campus, perhaps even the semi-dormant People’s Coalition. While I can at the very least praise the Occupiers for their longevity and devotion to their cause, I unfortunately cannot do the same for their abilities at fact checking, debate or even making a logical argument. In a no-doubt vain hope to stave off the unwashed masses that would carry signs at these protests, I would just like to tout a few pieces of his record.

First of all, Paulson would embrace the liberal arts atmosphere of the College. Contrary to popular belief, Paulson wasn’t an Economics major. Instead, he was an English major – who later became the head of Goldman Sachs. Now, if that doesn’t speak worlds about the value of a liberal arts education, I don’t know what does. At the same time, Paulson was also a very successful offensive lineman who would win an All-American honorable mention (along with an All-Ivy and All-East award). Perhaps he could bring a much-need touch of experience to our lagging football team? At the same time, Paulson was a member of the Greek system and wouldn’t rush to end it merely to gain points with the loud, but marginal cohort of anti-Greeks on campus. Not to mention that Paulson would bring a much-need dollop of prestige to the College. His acceptance of the Presidency would reinforce the fact that we have a devoted alumni base – that every Dartmouth student loves Dartmouth and that even in its time of trouble, our most famous alumni will still step forward.

The same could be said of current Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner. It’s known that he will not remain a member of the Obama administration – and so we must wonder what his future plans are. While he lacks Paulson’s business experience, Geithner has spent a great deal of time in the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve and could strengthen our economics department. At the same time, Geithner himself is a Government and Asian Studies double major. Again, another alumni who strongly believes in liberal arts – and without the baggage of working under George W. Bush or at Goldman Sachs, his selection would brook less protest from the Occupiers, etc.

Now, let’s turn to my last and no doubt, most controversial nomination: Dinesh D’Souza. He’s an English major who has published several best-selling books, has experience leading educational institutions, and has demonstrated his devotion to Dartmouth, continually returning to provide lectures. The firebrand academic, who is often more cool-headed than his opponents would prefer to acknowledge, has much more experience in the education sector than either Paulson or Geithner. D’Souza is a former editor of The Dartmouth Review, a former ad- visor to the Reagan administration, and at the moment the President of a private college at The King’s College in New York City. This small college focuses on liberal arts almost exclusively, offering majors in PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Education) and MCA (Media, Culture and the Arts). D’Souza would have learned at King’s not only how to build a college around the study of liberal arts, but how to balance a budget without the massive amounts of resources of Dartmouth College. Nominating D’Souza would no doubt lead to protests among those who did not share his political philosophy – but that shouldn’t disqualify him as a candidate. In fact, aren’t colleges supposed to present all sides and theories to encourage thoughtful debate?
So, we have several choices from our alumni who could lead the College in a new direction away from the bureaucratic, university, and disengaged approach of Dr. Kim. All three of them care about the College. They all three have relevant experience and would bring a hint of prestige to our currently troubled school. Finally, we can be assured that none of them will bow to the popular press and attempt to impose radical, unnecessary, and ridiculous change on the student body simply to silence a PR nightmare or garner political approval for their next job. We need someone who is a loyal son of old Dartmouth and who will love her till death.

 --J.P. Harrington

Dartmouth Psycho

By Joseph Rago '05

I know, you know, we all know all about the College’s work-hard, play-hard, murder-hard ethos. Yes, the fraternities are the center of the campus universe, engender a culture of narcissism and entitlement, and inspire crime rates rivaling those of lower Manhattan, circa the 1980s. Yes, these bastions of heteronormative oppression and white-male privilege condone hazing, substance abuse, anti-intellectualism, and murder. Yes, the violence that is at the heart of Dartmouth experience would be unacceptable anywhere else, but here, it’s just the way things are.

If I make the College sound like a place that would only appeal to a sociopath, oddly enough, it kind of grew on me. For the record, it no longer appeals to me today, in the unlikely event you haven’t heard. I now realize that I lost my dignity when I joined a Dartmouth fraternity, even my humanity, as did the countless people I murdered.

Yet who among us is fearless enough to defy Greekthink, no matter how unpopular his views might make him among his peers? Who will pop the Dartmouth bubble and make the students think, I mean really think, perhaps for the first time in their lives? Who will be the one to blow the whistle on Dartmouth’s murder culture, once and for all? Me, that’s who, reporting for duty.

In recent months I have trashed the College’s character and reputation in dozens of publications nationwide. Last week my anti-Dartmouth campaign culminated in 9,000-word tirade in that crown jewel of American journalism Rolling Stone, by Janet Reitman, last seen spinning the fake Duke lacrosse rape fiasco into a fable of racist depravity.

My penchant for unabridged truth-telling has ruffled a few feathers. I was prepared for some blowback, though honestly, I’m surprised. See, I’m not one of those people who abandons his beliefs the moment they are no longer convenient, like that guy who quit Goldman Sachs in the New York Times because his bonus was too small. I did admire the million-dollar book contract he landed. But that only goes to show that good things come to those who make lurid accusations in the most obnoxious and self-aggrandizing ways they can imagine. In my case call it Alma Matricide, with malice aforethought.

          * * *

When I fell off the turnip truck as a freshman, just a small-town boy from Anytown, U.S.A., I took the idea of creating an identity really seriously. By that I mean I was most concerned with finding and fitting into groups. I’ll admit it was a little disconcerting at first when kids mysteriously disappeared from frat basements and turned up days later stabbed, strangled, or drowned in the Connecticut River, though soon enough I got to climbing the greasy pole. Your status at the College, after all, is measured by how much you hang out, your sex exploits, and your cumulative body count.

Navigating this finely calibrated hierarchy could be daunting. One afternoon I recited my randy anecdotes about the girlfriends I’ve sated, in particular this really hot skanky cheerleader. In retrospect it was a mistake to do so at a Women and Gender Studies mixer. Another early misstep was mentioning an adolescent hit-and-run rampage, which seemed to shock all and sundry. Hard guys apparently consider vehicular manslaughter Mickey Mouse murder.

I rushed the house I did because I heard it had the hardest pledge term on campus. I won over most of the brotherhood because I am a handsome kid with tousled brown hair and a polite, almost self-effacing manner. I heard though the grapevine that certain elements in the house wanted to ding me——me of all people——mainly because they were perturbed by my habit of lurking behind shrubbery while brandishing sharp objects. A sophomore bumping off a brother normally would be a faux pas, but I did it on the sly, boring the holdouts to death with my cultural commentary.

On Sink Night my pledge brothers and I lined up in the chapter room known, somewhat ominously, as the “execution chamber.” A long silence was broken by a sharp report and I turned to see a poisoned dart protruding from the neck of the fellow next to me, before he slumped bonelessly to the floor. Within seconds other pledges joined him. From the gloom emerged the pledge master, holding a blowgun in one hand and a traditional fraternity murdering stick in the other. Its rich patina from decades of accumulated viscera flickered in the tea lights. “Tonight we murdered at random,” he explained. “From now on you’ll be murdered for cause.” I adjusted my collar nervously.

The abuses I witnessed since that evening could fill a motion-picture treatment (fingers crossed). In order to become a brother, I was forced to drop a quick six from goblets made of human skulls. The pledges were commanded to swim in a kiddie pool filled with organs and disarticulated limbs. Alongside the vomit-omelets——a playful but mysterious little dish——we were served, well, the Bloodiest Mary I’ve ever had. Basement practices such as “pulling the trigger” took on a whole new meaning. The upperclassmen made us play pong using a corpse as the median. Their demands on us were so unremitting that I could barely commit my extracurricular side-murders. We were forced to swallow nails, gravel, and broken glass until some of us ended up in the morgue. Sure, we could have refused these orders, but the peer pressure to murder or be murdered was too extreme for most to resist: It was the only way we could gain social acceptance. By Hell Night, only a handful of us were still breathing.

At last we were initiated, and since we had discarded any remnants of ourselves as individuals, right then and there I smothered the social chair with a throw pillow to affirm my new communal identity. As I descended into the gaping maw of frat life, my nights were soon consumed by binge murdering and other ritualistic high-risk murdering behaviors. I introduced hemlock to our champagne formal. As a prank, I submitted a torso instead of a term paper. I developed an illicit drug habit. I returned some videotapes. It’s true what they say: There really is nothing to do in Hanover but party and murder.

This one time, I wanted to shoot pool not people, so I retired to the billiards room and cut out some monster lines on a composite. There was a knock at the door. “Wait a sec,” I yelled. “I’m signifying my elitism.” Then this one brother burst in and called the cops. Who knows how he managed to evade the tractor beam of brotocol and bromocide and retain a shred of probity, the point is that I was hosed. It turns out that felony possession and witness tampering are not among the baptismal rites of the new power elite.

I was Parkhursted. I lost the Fisher Account that I had secured through corporate recruiting. The medical school turned down my standing offer to donate my brain to science as an unused specimen. It was so unfair, so hypocritical. The 1% gets away with murder, yet when I murder, I am the victim, in addition to my actual victim.

I needed a new identity, fast. My high-school classmates voted me most likely to nominate myself for a Nobel Prize in literature, so I started to write a generational tale in the manner of Scott Fitzgerald and Jay McInerney. And Bret Easton Ellis, why the hell not. My memoir will be a lyrical meditation on coming of age, haunted by a sense of loss. Publishers and literary agents will swoon over the tell-all chapters where I deconstruct the mystique of “the Ivy League frat boy” and disclose the casual, matter-of-fact way otherwise well-adjusted, high-achieving gentlemen become homicidal maniacs.

I handed over a dossier of my fraternity’s dysfunctions to the College establishment and described my crimes in graphic detail. I named names. I told them about the murdering stick, the kiddie pool, the human-skull goblets, the throw pillow, and Paul Allen. But they only looked at me like I was some troubled young man whose credibility and motives were open to question. One more teaching moment in Dartmouth’s lax “murderers will be murderers” discipline! I went berserk. I threw my Keystone in the dean’s face, stormed out, and, in an existential act of rebellion, bludgeoned an S&S officer to death with a plastic folding chair.

The Hanover police followed up with an investigation, despite the fact that the population of the Upper Valley had not plunged by a third or more due to murders, as I had claimed. I tipped them off about my fraternity’s plan to enact a bacchanal and sacrifice a virgin, but when an undercover team staked out the altar, no one showed. Don’t the powers that be understand that the cover-up is worse than the crime?

I could never get justice behind closed doors. I showed the crusading female journalist where all the bodies are buried. I found an elderly blogger who was so credulous that he would circulate any claim, no matter how far-fetched, even from an admitted murderer, so long as it made Jim Kim look bad.

In order to stop the killing, the system needs systematic reform. But the College cannot come to terms with the horror show because the fraternities enforce a code of silence. Undoubtedly my nuke-frat-row plan will also encounter resistance from some of the most reactionary fringes on campus, such as the student body. Two-thirds of the kids eligible to join a fraternity or sorority do, as generations did before them.

My critics concede that no institution is perfect, but note that the Greek system’s popularity wouldn’t be reaching modern heights if everyone was getting murdered all the time. It’s no mystery, they add: College students tend to like fun, and fraternities tend to be fun. Another part of it is that strong friendship is more important at Dartmouth than at other schools; and because Dartmouth people tend to care about each other, they generally have the moral sense and basic decency not to go on killing sprees, let alone perpetuate the other atrocities I say they do. Omerta!

          * * *

Then one day——maybe this is the psychosis talking——I looked around and saw that the College was beautiful, more beautiful than any place has any right to be. The nearby woods and hillsides were awash in green and gold, the sky was pale blue, almost white, and the breeze carried the smell of the elms and the pine boughs. Dartmouth’s culture was more beautiful still. Everybody around me was in high spirits, and everything about the old school inclined toward joy. The Baker bells struck the hour and played “Twilight Song”:

Brothers while the shadows deepen

While we stand here heart to heart,

Let us promise one another

In the silence ere we part.

We will make our lives successful,

We will keep our hands from shame

For the sake of dear old Dartmouth,

And the honor of her name.

For the dear old college home, boys,

For the happy, happy days;

For our glorious Alma Mater,

Shake the campus with her praise.

In that moment I couldn’t help but wonder at how extraordinarily lucky I was, stupefied that as a Dartmouth undergraduate I had the opportunities and the time to do virtually anything I desired. It was my choice.

So here’s what I chose. I chose to crucify myself in the center in the green, and made my martyrdom complete. “There are no more barriers to cross,” I said to no one in particular. “All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it I have now surpassed. My pain is constant and sharp, and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape.” It is a small College, but there are those that hate it.

A Lohsing Battle

By Blake S. Neff
Like a molasses tsunami (look it up), Janet Reitman’s exposé of Dartmouth in Rolling Stone came with plenty of forewarning but was nevertheless unstoppable and unavoidable, not to mention inextricably linked with alcohol. Reitman had been spotted all around campus weeks beforehand conducting interviews, while her main source Andrew Lohse had already tipped his hand with his infamous January editorial.

When the April 12 issue hit newsstands, then, there was very little that was surprising about it. Lohse’s major hazing accusations were repeated at greater length. His tale was fleshed out with juicy gossip and misleading anecdotes to complete an anti-1% narrative conducive to Rolling Stone’s audience. The article quickly drew over twelve thousand Facebook likes and was linked from sites such as Business Insider, Jezebel, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. While legions of Dartmouth students and alumni lost no time coming to the school’s defense in the article’s comments section or in their own articles over at Slate and the New York Daily News, needless to say the damage has been done. Thousands will read Reitman’s article and come away with a very negative impression without ever giving a glance to less notable responses which might rebut it.

This is distinctly unfortunate, because like most Rolling Stone pieces Reitman’s article is journalism so yellow it’s surprising it didn’t reignite the Spanish-American War. Beyond the framing story about Lohse and his hazing accusations (more on that later), the article is a cobbled together mess of anecdotes, innuendos, and generalizations that don’t stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Dartmouth’s hostility to “social and political progress” (which Reitman equates with banning frats) is demonstrated by the College being “one of the last Ivies to admit women,” which is a rather biased way of saying the College went fully coed before either Columbia or Harvard and trailed Brown by a single year. The Dartmouth Review’s destruction of illegal and unsightly protest shanties on the Dartmouth Green back in the 1980’s, meanwhile, is used to imply campus sympathy for apartheid. Reitman even makes a strange glancing remark about the college president having a three-story house.  

Becca Rothfeld ’14 alleges that “no one wants to discuss [hazing] – just like they don't want to talk about racism, sexism, homophobia, classism." I sincerely wonder if Ms. Rothfeld actually goes to the same school I do, because as far as I can tell Dartmouth never shuts up about those things. Whether it’s PRIDE Week or the annual performance of The Fallopian Filibusters, Dartmouth doesn’t really lack for opportunities for students to indulge in their hatred of –isms. Even hazing was already a major issues last fall due to the College’s ham-fisted “safety regulations” and the probations handed down to AD and TDX. The idea of Dartmouth being a cloistered hivemind is simply indefensible.
Reitman’s absurd unfairness is most evident in her description of Dartmouth Trips. She quotes Nathan Gusdorf ’12, who bafflingly describes the Trips process as being “hazed into happiness,” and uncritically allows Lohse to describe a bizarre alternate reality where Trips are an insidious plot to enforce the ideological homogeneity that Dartmouth is the best place in the universe and anybody who disagrees probably suffers from a mental disorder.  That’s quite the claim to make against a program which the vast majority of students seem to view merely as a deeply enjoyable way to make new friends and feel welcome in their first days living away from home. One gets the feeling that Lohse and Gusdorf might consider just about anything to be hazing, from getting potty trained to watching the State of the Union address to associating with Andrew Lohse.

In Reitman’s universe, Dartmouth is a school for men, future one percenters who pay their dues in hazing humiliations as a right of passage into the halls of the American elite. Frankly, if Reitman had bothered to take a narrow tack here, she might have produced something useful. While some of Lohse’s extreme allegations (such as the famed Kiddie Pool of Bodily Emissions) are probably false, there is ample evidence that more mundane accusations regarding “vomlets,” “ass beers,” and the like are true. Moreover, there’s quite a lot to be said for the idea that students voluntarily put up with all of this due to a combination of negative peer pressure and the belief that being in the right frat is essential to early career success. However, Reitman knows that scandal sells, and observing the pointlessly self-destructive nature of a few students at a handful of frats just doesn’t sell magazines in the same way reducing Dartmouth to a machine which exchanges puke for banking jobs does. Reitman essentially writes the rest of the school out of existence. Sororities are mentioned a grand total of three times, and the co-ed houses once. The hundreds of students in every class who graduate without affiliating at all may as well live on the moon for all that they matter in the story. Plenty of these students manage to have friends, have fun, and yes, get a good job without having to debase themselves by eating vomlets or drinking milk until they puke. By ignoring what amounts to a majority of the school and turning Dartmouth into an obvious caricature, Reitman robs her piece of any real value or integrity.

Given its manifest flaws, it’s hardly surprising that Reitman’s article provoked rage or derision not just from fraternity brothers but also from the vast majority of the school at large, including the co-eds and independents who often have little attachment to the existing social structure. Even Dartblog’s firebrand Joe Asch, who writes almost constantly and loves attacking modern Dartmouth the way SAE apparently loves vomit, has been remarkably taciturn in his response, perhaps in recognition of how Reitman has overreached.
If it’s heartening to see that most Dartmouth students will defend their alma mater from a gross hatchet job, in the grand scheme of things this might be the worst possible outcome. Dartmouth students are largely powerless to halt any damage Reitman has done to the school’s reputation or the value of their degrees, so the only way for this to all turn out better would be if it could somehow lead to positive change at Dartmouth. Dartmouth does have houses which engage in gross or dangerous hazing which cannot be entirely excused by its voluntary nature, and the hook-up culture itself is far from healthy even before one touches on the matter of sexual assault. By publishing a shoddy hit-piece which introduced few substantive criticisms while encouraging the Dartmouth student body to close ranks, though, Reitman has actually helped ensure that no substantive discussion or change will occur regarding these topics, which will be to the detriment of everybody except Reitman and Rolling Stone.
At the least, much of Dartmouth can at least take solace in the fact that Reitman’s partner in crime used Rolling Stone as a forum to immolate himself in front of millions of people. Dartmouth might look bad, but Mr. Lohse fares even worse. Reitman puts a great deal of focus on Lohse and his story comprises the narrative core.  This is all the worse for Lohse, because the longer the spotlight shines on him the more he emerges as a character who is by turns baffling, repulsive, and pitiable. It seems strange that Reitman would so dramatically discredit her primary source, but on the other hand this is Rolling Stone, after all, where characters far worse than Lohse may be lionized if they are sufficiently left-wing or at least have sold a few million records. The article’s online comments page has numerous people praising Lohse’s “bravery,” so perhaps Rolling Stone and its readership is simply off in its own little world.

That Lohse comes off so badly is especially notable as it occurs despite Reitman’s clear bias towards her subject. Besides groan-inducing descriptions of Lohse’s hair, eyes, and “sweet-faced demeanor,” Reitman often subtly slants descriptions in Lohse’s favor. When describing the backlash against Lohse on The Dartmouth’s online comments page, she puts in scare quotes the accusation that Lohse is a “criminal,” as though this is merely some opinion of a student body angry that its vomlet-gobbling days are over. Of course, as the article itself reveals several pages later, this is too generous. Lohse is literally a criminal, and if putting the term in quotes is necessary then I certainly hope Ms. Reitman will not object if I henceforth refer to her as a “journalist.”
Reitman similarly leaves out certain facts which might further impugn his already shaky credibility. While Lohse’s three-month stint at The Dartmouth Review is mentioned, she doesn’t mention the fact that Lohse quit because the paper refused to let him review a book promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories, or his embarrassing “An Ex-Reviewer Speaks Out” article for the Dartmouth Free Press, which firmly established Lohse’s reputation as a chronic backstabber with lines describing his former colleagues as people who “walk hunched-over like homo erectus mumbling gibberish.”

Fortunately, Reitman does mention other instances of Lohse’s natural vindictiveness. After burning his bridges at the Review, it didn’t take long for him to move on to his fraternity. His decision to turn on SAE is plainly driven by anger over his drug conviction, which he regards as “hypocrisy” because his drug use “wasn’t harming other people.” Aside from plainly not understanding the meaning of hypocrisy, Lohse isn’t even speaking truthfully, considering the brother who reported Lohse suffered witness intimidation and destruction of property.

In contrast to negative impression created by an objective look at known events, the hype Lohse gives himself sounds like a greatest hits collection of 20th century cultural icons. At one point, he describes himself as seeking to write a memoir, a “generational tale...part Bright Lights, Big City, part The Sun Also Rises, and part This Side of Paradise” (hopefully, he learns the meaning of words like ‘hypocrisy’ before writing it) Evidently, Lohse fancies himself as Jay Gatsby. But hold on a minute, later it turns out that Lohse traveled in Asia and experience a profound spiritual awakening that changed him completely, so he’s actually the Dalai Lama (or at least Steven Seagal). Following his return to Dartmouth, he claims to have set out on a lonely quest to change SAE.
“I saw myself as a reformer” changing SAE from the inside, claimed Lohse. Apparently, Lohse is actually Mikhail Gorbachev.

But wait! It seems that Lohse’s spiritual awakening and reformist attitude wasn’t enough to suppress his inner rebel. Apparently, the best path to reform at Dartmouth is by assaulting an S&S officer with a folding chair, an act Lohse characterizes as an “existential act of rebellion.” Perhaps Lohse was actually Cool Hand Luke all along.

Joking aside, the sad reality of Andrew Lohse is that of a man who repeatedly burns his bridges only to lash out at his former friends, behavior exacerbated by substance abuse, a desire for attention, and a refusal to ever be at fault. Lohse’s delusions of grandeur have made him co-opt a left-wing magazine and its 1.5 million subscribers in an act of petty vengeance. He has shown himself a dishonest rakehell, a maltreater of women, and a sot.

Dartmouth dismisses him at its peril.

As easy as it is to mock Lohse, or loathe him, it would be a mistake to simply grumble about how he has enabled Rolling Stone to defame Lone Pine Land. For all of its unjustified hyperbole, Reitman’s hit piece has ample content which is completely true and still disturbing to many outside readers. A summary of the article at Business Insider describing the “most shocking parts” gave just as much attention to Dartmouth’s over-the-top binge drinking as it did to culinary innovations and exotic aquatics. Dartmouth’s culture of alcoholic excess is so pervasive that even drier students are largely used to it, which can blind many to just how unhealthy it all is. Practices like boot and rally, where one induces vomiting in order to go on drinking, are enormously stupid, and nominal “games” like Thunderdome aren’t much better.
In fact, at the macro level, Dartmouth’s drinking is not simply dangerous but suicidal. With so much binge drinking going on, highlighted by dozens of Good Sam calls every year, it is almost a statistical inevitability that eventually a student will die through a tragic combination of excess and negligence, and this student might have the nerve to have good character references or even a friend. When it comes the fraternity system might be destroyed with it.

Many will dismiss this line of argument by saying that excessive drinking is a part of every college that isn’t Brigham Young, and they’d be right. That doesn’t matter. Drinking at Dartmouth is equated with the fraternities and vice versa, and as the recent open letter signed by over a hundred faculty members reminded everybody the Greek system has no shortage of enemies. Not every assault on the Greek system will conveniently self-destruct as Lohse has.

Dartmouth’s Greek houses have a long history and are an integral part of the school, and despite their flaws most students greatly appreciate them. It would be a shame for them to be extirpated from campus, but such a fate will be increasingly likely if the houses are unable to avoid dangerous or disgusting behavior. Andrew Lohse and Janet Reitman have humiliated the College, but their antics are mostly just a warning shot. A constructive response might salvage some good from this entire sad affair, and ensure that the Andrew Lohse’s of the future don’t do far worse.

SmartChoice: A Freshman's Perspective

By James M. Keating and Nicholas P. Desatnick

It’s 11:45 on Saturday morning. You roll out of bed and are still “tired” from the night before. After grabbing a bottle of water, you meet up with your floor-mates and decide to get some breakfast. At 12:02, you swipe into Foco and fashion a bowl of Frosted Flakes, only to ruin it with a blast of skim-milk from the one nozzle that is still stocked. You wolf down your light breakfast and return to your dorm. Determined to make a dent in your Gov homework, you lie down on your bed and start reading, but wake up two hours later with the packet stuck to your forehead. You roll out of bed and feel a pang of hunger, so you and your roommate decide to grab a burger and Coke from the Hop. After trekking across the Green and waiting in a not-so-long line for the grill, you and your buddy make your way to the register with your fare. One after the other, you are both told that because you had eaten your breakfast during the lunch period, you are ineligible for a meal swipe and must use your DBA instead. You protest this effrontery vociferously, but find that your overtures of reason fall on deaf ears. With a sigh, you pay for your lunch with your DBA and watch one of your 20-weekly meal swipes go to waste. Welcome to life with SmartChoice.

The new meal program, first announced in March of 2011 to “provide the widest range of options” for on-campus dining, has proven to do everything but. Ever since its inception, student complaints have been widespread and manifold, particularly amongst members of the Class of 2015. Under a rule instated by the College, all freshmen are required to purchase the 20-meal-a-week dining option, a stipulation that many find as unsavory as the food at Foco’s vegetarian station.

Click to read more ...

Blitzmail Blitzed by Blitz-2-Blitz

By Christina Chen

Why Microsoft?

Blitzmail is commonly referred to as an “ancient” piece of technology, incomparable to today’s cutting-edge programs, so fancily styled that an e-mail sender even has the power to bold text. But despite its flaws, the program is simple, easy to use, and a quaint beloved Dartmouth institution, so ingrained in our culture that even Conan O’Brien paid his respects during his Commencement speech.

Therefore, undergraduate attitude towards the Administration’s decision to replace Blitzmail with Microsoft Online Services (MOS) has ranged widely. Some are relieved that the antiquated system is no more, some grumble about Microsoft’s user-unfriendliness, and others claim conspiracy theories of illegal payments or administrative affiliations to Microsoft.           

“I don’t like how the presentation is so limiting,” says John Guo ’13. He points at the left column of his browser page, where only a paltry sum of e-mails can be seen without scrolling.

Blitzmail excelled at sending short messages, lots of them, and rapidly (excepting campus blitzes that is) . Microsoft e-mail in comparison seems significantly less convenient. Because of this cumbersomeness, Guo predicts that MOS will dramatically alter Dartmouth’s social life as students become disinclined to the methods of furious e-mail publicity.

Click to read more ...