This article was originally published in Issue 6.1 and updated 2009.

Do This, Don’t Do That

Yes, we were once freshmen. And not only were we once the average freshmen, we were the ideal prototypical freshmen—drinking too much, studying too little, in some fruitless attempt to find our not-so-lost selves. So, as two people that lived life to its fullest (and hell, we still make freshmen mistakes), we thought that we would impart some “wisdom” from both our and our friends’ freshman careers.

Read the full story

This article was originally published in Issue 6.1 and updated in 2009.

Perhaps the Most Dangerous Games

I was fortunate enough to have trip leaders that taught my trippees and me to play pong. Not every ‘13 will be as lucky. Lucky is, however, a relative term. My first night on campus consisted of a pong reunion. Once I, a relatively naïve freshman who did not have the luxury of knowing anything about pong ahead of time (through an older sibling, Dimensions host, older friend, etc), was able to finally grasp the rules on the fateful Monday night, it was time for me to promptly go home, boot a little, and pass out.

We at the Free Press thought that it might be useful for you all to have a slightly better understanding of pong than we did going into the game. Remember though, knowing the rules and knowing how to play are two different things. Be patient, eventually it will all make sense. Until then, use those brains that got you into this fabulous Ivy League institution for something useful: studying pong rules.

Read the full story

es, I am an activist. I am also part of the Greek community. At Dartmouth, this duality can be both liberating and suffocating. As my extracurricular interests grew beyond the realm of my friends’ activities, it was refreshing to bring something new to dinner conversations, and to have a different population to reach out to when it came time to act. Nonetheless, I was frustrated by the lack of convergence between my Greek and activist interests, which barred me from devoting enough energy to either. Consequently, I consistently found myself torn and handicapped.

This experience is not just personal, however. I am saddened by the increasing alienation of the Greek community from activism on campus. Being Greek at Dartmouth carries a certain social weight that has become difficult to reconcile with everything else. And as such, many students seeking to remain actively involved with both their houses and their other interests find it more and more difficult to do so. As the Greek community becomes increasingly associated with the conservative alumni faction that is manipulating and undermining our home, they also become increasingly ostracized from the activist community—unnecessarily so. Greek should not, and does not, mean conservative.

With over 60% of our campus affiliated, it is clear that the Greek community should bear responsibility for maintaining a safe, open, and comfortable social environment for a majority. Many of the most powerful alums and the most influential student voices are members of the Greek community. Yet, the activists are the ones who spearhead change. More often than not, it is their successes that ensure everyone’s well-being.

By definition, activists act upon their ideals and doctrines. They rally, they provoke, they inspire. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. But they are the ones who start the dialogue. However, while pursuing their passions locally and abroad, many fail to bridge an immediate social divide. Without overcoming this dichotomy, neither the Greek community nor the activist community will reach their maximum potential.

Why have so many Greek houses not stepped up to participate in ongoing discourse about change? Why have they failed to demand accountability from each other and their own members? Why have the activists not tapped into the social network that dominates (and will continue to dominate) the campus? Why are the Greek community and the activist community becoming increasingly divided?

Perhaps the fault lies on both sides. As an activist, I have helped run many events where Greek sponsorship was not considered. Yet, within the Greek system, we continue to show little respect for our peers’ passions. Rather than choosing to care, or to be active, some have instead chosen to waste their energy berating their peers who do, masking convenient indifference as a critique of efficacy:

“Why don’t you just hold another candlelight vigil? That’ll do a lot of good.”

“Yes,” I should respond. “Yes! I will hold another vigil, panel, rally, table; anything to try to convince YOU to care.” However, I don’t respond when you degrade my passion and efforts. I don’t retaliate against your childish taunts as we chug a few more beers, poking fun at the devoted few who actually act upon their concerns.

I am saddened by our generation’s hesitance to care, and by the othering of those around us who have passion for change—a tactic adopted as a defense against being compelled to care. I will not claim that I am not also to blame, nor am I convinced that this phenomenon is entirely unique to our generation. But what I do believe is that it is particularly exaggerated within Dartmouth’s majestic green bubble. A lack of empathy and support for passion as it most naturally exists—raw, emotional, and powerful—has severely handicapped this institution.

This division does not have to exist. The skills I learned as an activist and those I learned as a member of a Greek house are not mutually exclusive. In the activist community, I could not have learned how to both manage a five-figure social budget and lead one hundred of my peers. In my sorority, I could not have learned how to hold a rally, or how to bring nationally recognized panelists to campus to speak on an international crisis. And, more importantly, these learned skills have contributed to my overall success in all endeavors.

You ask: why should you be saddened by an event halfway around the globe? Across the nation? Hell, why should you be upset about something that happens to one of your peers? Because it could happen to you. Activists understand this and furthermore their actions inherently affect us all. If not for the good of the world, what about the good of the college? Power to enact change on this campus is not a zero-sum game. To treat it as such holds us back. It is not only indolence that will keep Dartmouth in the current stalemate, but rather the increasing disrespect for passion. Disrespect for passion will continue to divide us to the point of unreachable compromise. No one wins.

Yet, as power games continue amongst trustees and students, Dartmouth becomes divided and hostile. Everyone’s agency has been limited by the increasingly negligent and unnecessary polarization that has been perpetuated on campus in our time here.

Old Dartmouth is dead. New Dartmouth will always be in the near future, it will always be what we envision for the freshmen of tomorrow. New Dartmouth, as the activists speak of it, can only and will only become the present if we work with the campus’s most influential voices—and these include Old Dartmouth with all its associations, most significantly the Greek community.

I sometimes wonder why we cannot simply show compassion for each other. Disrespect breaks down any ability for compromise and recognition of our peers as members of the same Dartmouth community. Only with working together, can we continue to propel Dartmouth forward as an elite institution, as the College on the Hill that you and I adore.

Yes. I will hold another candlelight vigil. I will continue to care. I leave this glorious home still as, or even more, fool-heartedly resilient and passionate about my activist causes than I was when we salty-dogged on Robo lawn in 2003. As an alumnas, I hope to use the Greek community for positive change: it has the potential to safeguard Dartmouth’s good qualities, despite its association with the bad ones.

I’m not sure who is to blame for the increasing division between Greek life and activism. I am certain that, unless each takes a more active role in working with the other, Dartmouth will continue to languish in our current state of division and we will all remain handicapped in our goals to change the world, our nation, and our Dartmouth.

Dear Old Dartmouth, why are you so divided? With a little respect for each other, you could go a lot further.

was fortunate enough to have trip leaders that taught my trippees and me to play pong. Not every ‘10 will be as lucky. Lucky is, however, a relative term. My first night on campus consisted of a pong reunion. Once I, a relatively naïve freshman who did not have the luxury of knowing anything about pong ahead of time (through an older sibling, Dimensions host, older friend, etc), was able to finally grasp the rules on the fateful Monday night, it was time for me to promptly go home, boot a little, and pass out.

We at the Free Press thought that it might be useful for you all to have a slightly better understanding of pong than we did going into the game. Be patient, eventually it will all make sense. Until then, use those brains that got you into this fabulous Ivy League institution for something useful: studying pong rules.

The history of pong is unclear. There is no official story; however, in combining various house legends a brief history of pong unravels itself. Pong started in the fifties as slam pong with two cups. The paddles had handles and the game was much faster. Eventually, the game morphed into what we know today. Starting in the early eighties, houses developed their own games such as tree, ship, and death. Pong rules vary house by house. However, there are a few basic concepts that are universal on this campus.

The paddle

The pong paddle is nothing more than a regular ping-pong paddle with the handle broken off. People break the handles off in different ways. My favorite method is holding the paddle on a flat surface (i.e. the benches that line various basements) with the handle hanging off and then stepping off the handle, breaking it just at the jointing. People have various preferences based on the amount of sand paper that they like on the paddle’s face. Some people enjoy brand new paddles while others enjoy more well-worn paddles. But there does seem to be a consensus on the fact that a paddle without any sand paper is all-bad. Paddles over time start to split—try to avoid playing with a split paddle. They are just no good.

The ball

Balls on this campus are pretty generic. When looking for a ball look in crevices, cupboards, under tables, in the ceiling, basically anywhere bizarre where members of the house will brilliantly think of hiding the ball. In truth, most of the time, the hiding spots are pretty obvious. Most pong players are willing to play with just about anything that is not cracked or broken. A pong ball that is broken will start to bounce oddly. Balls and cracks tend to go hand in hand at the end of the night. More often than not, a broken pong ball is lit on fire and then thrown onto the ground. Don’t worry, the fire self-exterminates.

The table

Pong tables vary in size house by house. Methods of construction are also variable as some houses build in the legs on their tables and others opt for the more economical version- stolen trash cans from dorms or a slightly more upscale saw horse contraption. Dividers (the “net”) vary as well—they can include wood, broom handles, or even, occasionally, people (not recommended, but hilarious if tried… passed out people serve best—they move the least).

The game

Typically, two teams of two participate in the game, one at either side of the table. Each team tries to make the other team drink their entire formation through a series of hits and sinks. There are often two games played in a game of pong- the game on the table and the game between two perhaps already drunk and definitely sexually frustrated college students as one partner will try, sometimes fruitlessly, to win more than just the game of pong.

The formation

Formations vary by house and game. Generally they consist of 8 oz plastic cups filled about 5/6 of the way full with Keystone Light. A game of shrub is seven cups; a game of tree is eleven cups. One places each formation in the center of each end of the table, determined by sight, markings on the table, or an arms length measurement. Shrub and tree are the two most common games on campus. Each is set up with the cup or two in the middle of the last row of the formation, placed set up a pong paddle’s width from the back of the table, with the stem behind it and the rest of the formation in front.

The serve

Now that we have covered equipment and set up, it is time to address the art of play… pong play. How a serve is determined varies house by house, some houses serve Beirut-style to determine which team serves. In this manner, each team takes turns throwing the ball. When one team misses the cups and their opponent had hit the cups, the “loser” serves. At other houses where pong is considered more of a “gentleman’s game” one team will just say “we’ll go first.” There are various styles of serves, but as a freshman you will most likely just start with the generic bounce, and serve the ball to the opponent in the opposite corner of the table. And with the serve, the game begins. There are a few catches with the serve. Generally, you have three tries to hit the table. If you miss three times, drink a half. If you hit the opponents’ cups on a serve, drink a half and serve again. If you sink the opponents’ cups, depending on the house, you will drink a half or whole and serve again.

The play

Pong play then continues, serve to serve. Each partner takes turns hitting the ball until: one, a cup is hit or two, the ball is not hit because someone missed the ball (oh! embarrassing!) or because the ball missed the table. If the ball hits a cup and you don’t save it, drink a half and replace the cup. If the ball sinks (lands inside of) the cup, you drink half and your partner drinks half and toss the cup…preferably in a trash can but in the state of disrepair that most Dartmouth basements exist in, the floor serves as a functioning trash can as well. If the ball misses the table, the person who hit the bad shot serves. If you miss the ball you serve. Play continues to alternate hit to hit, partner to partner, until the game is stopped for one of two reasons: either someone has to serve or drink.

The hit & the save

ARCH! ARCH! ARCH! That’s all I have to say. Hit high. Be high. If your ball is low, lows vary house by house, your opponents will call your ball low and you will have to serve again.

The save is the one time where you can hit a ball low in a return. A save is when a ball hits the cups and you hit the ball back, essentially saving your team from drinking. The save must hit the other side of the table. Save rules vary house by house, the next two pages for more detail.

Social

A variant of pong, normally played when there are an odd number of people in a basement and the normal pong scene is simply not appropriate. Social follows generic pong rules except all rules are more lax. Each person plays for themselves with their own formation and paddle. The point is not only to hit all of your multiple opponents cups but also to just keep the ball going. Slight variations exist in social: often times, if the ball misses the table you can slam it into a player. If this happens, then the hit person has to drink a half. However, if they catch the ball the “hitter” has to drink a half.

ister Dianna Ortiz came to speak at Dartmouth on Thursday, April 6, about her experiences as a victim of torture in Guatemala in’89. She was there as a missionary with the Ursuline order of nuns, teaching in an indigenous-populated village. After being abducted and interrogated, Sister Ortiz was burned with cigarettes, repeatedly raped, and endured many other horrors, including being forced to aid in the torturing of another prisoner. Although she suffered amnesia and still grapples with the painful memories she has regained, Sister Ortiz has chosen to speak out. The organization she founded, Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International, provides survivors themselves with a voice in the fight to end torture. Just before her speech at Dartmouth, she spoke with the Free Press about her beliefs and work.

DFP: Could you tell us about what was happening in Guatemala—what you were doing there, and what were the political circumstances that led to your torture?

Sister Dianna Ortiz: I went to Guatemala in’87. At that time, a civilian president had been elected, so I think there was this belief that the civil war in Guatemala had tapered off, and that the human rights violations were no longer as extensive as they had been in the past. And when I went, I think that I had that image in my mind as well. But when I arrived in Guatemala, it was evident there was a great deal of political violence$mdash;$mdash;and a lot of silence, and I couldn’t understand why people were silent and not out there denouncing the atrocities being committed by their government, but now I understand. I [was in] San Miguel, a small town with an indigenous community, a very poor area [and] a lot of violence had occurred in that section of the country.

DFP: What were they trying to accomplish by torturing you, a nun?

SDO: That has been a question that I have asked for years… The people began to talk about some of the injustices that they were facing, and I remember from time to time the military would come to the village and then just pull young kids, young boys, off the streets, then take them to do forced military service. And the parents, the families would come to us and ask for assistance. We [the nuns] were familiar with some of the constitution of Guatemala, and that was a violation in terms of their rights, and so that could be one of the reasons. I was basically teaching children, and teaching them that they had basic rights, and when the children were adults, to recognize that they had basic rights and have the courage to speak out against the injustices. Maybe that’s one of the reasons, I don’t know.

DFP: Anti-torture activists often make the case that torture does not extract accurate and useful information, because victims will usually say anything to make the torture stop. So instead of getting actionable intelligence, the torturers get false confessions, incriminations of innocent people, and fabricated tactical information. Obviously, as a survivor of torture, you have a uniquely informed perspective on this. Does torture produce useful information, or can governments ever gain anything by using torture?

SDO: I don’t believe so. No. Torture doesn’t work… Under torture, a person will admit to anything, disclose anything, even if it’s false. Any information obtained under torture is not reliable.

DFP: Why do you feel there has been a lack of public knowledge about this practice?

SDO: I would not say it’s a lack of knowledge; I would say it’s denial, indifference, fear. Since 9/11, people around the country want to do whatever is necessary to protect our borders, and I’m not saying that we should not defend ourselves—it’s important to protect ourselves—but violence only begets violence, and torture is not the solution to this so-called War on Terror.

DFP: Do you think that the War on Terror can be successfully accomplished without torture?

SDO: I do. I believe in dialogue.

DFP: What is your response to those who argue that the destruction of one life is worth discovering information that will save thousands from a terrorist attack?

SDO: Torture can never be justified. Who is to say this person has a right to live, and this person doesn’t? It’s zero tolerance for torture, under any circumstance.

DFP: What is your position on the interrogations at Guantánamo Bay? In your view, do any of the questioning tactics used there constitute torture?

SDO: It is torture. Period. People may not often see interrogation as a form of torture, but it is a form of torture. I don’t want to go back to my experience, but I think about when I was detained, and my torture began with the interrogation. And the good cop/bad cop image. The use of instruments in my situation — cigarettes were used as part of the interrogation — so when I hear the word interrogation, I immediately identify it with torture. I would say a majority of survivors also identify interrogation with the beginning of their torture.

DFP: Do you feel that it is just as wrong as torture as it is employed elsewhere? Or is it different, lesser, or somehow justifiable?

SDO: It’s similar. For instance, this concept of refining torture—saying that torture really isn’t torture. For instance, right now they talk about waterboarding, shackling, [IRFing], and they say it’s not torture.

DFP: Do you think the U.S. needs to reassess its definition of torture?

SDO: I don’t believe so. There already is a definition. It’s almost like opening a Pandora’s Box—we could say we’d need to redefine every law that exists.

DFP: You’re the director of Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International (TASSC), an anti-torture group “founded by and for torture survivors.” Could you tell us about your organization, its mission, and successes?

SDO: Our organization is comprised of torture survivors from around the world. Our main objective is to work towards the abolition of torture. We believe the voices of survivors are [some of the most] important voices in the campaign to end torture. I’m not sure I would call this a success, [but] when TASSC first started, we were a pocket of six people, and [soon] were over 200, and that doesn’t include family members. I say that I question that that really is a success, because I think it really reveals the severity of the problem of torture in today’s world.

DFP: What obstacles does TASSC encounter when working to achieve its goals?

SDO: Well, first of all, I think that sometimes people look at torture survivors as fragile, unstable; and I would not say that we’re not fragile. We are, but there’s also resilience. We are committed to working towards the abolition of torture, not for any political reason. We believe that no one should be subjected to torture. In my dealings with our numbers, I have never heard survivors wish torture on their torturers.

Another obstacle is people often say to us that we’re not being realistic, that it’s impossible to abolish torture. We are of the belief that it is possible. We may not see the abolition of torture in our lifetime, but maybe the next generation. I often think of a friend of mine who was involved in the Civil Rights movement, and he often says to me: when he was a child, and he saw his parents working to bring about change during the Civil Rights movement, that he always questioned if it was going to make a difference. And today, when he looks back, he sees the accomplishments. It’s not perfect, but the idea is to plant a seed. The seed begins to germinate, and hopefully produces good fruit, in this case, the abolition of torture. Maybe it will be just one government to say they will not use torture, but this is a success.

DFP: Obviously your experience drove you to become an energetic anti-torture advocate. How else did it affect your life?

SDO
: Torture has tainted every part of my life. Just earlier, the tape recorder [used by the DFP interviewers to record interviews] took me back to Guatemala. Even asking questions, that takes me back. I identify questions with interrogations, so I have to say to myself, Dianna, you’re not there, you’re here.

I’m not the same person I was. I was a teacher. I hope that someday…well, I feel that I am probably more aware of the injustices, the oppression that exists in the world, and I am sad to say that such an experience as torture opened my eyes to the reality. I have more compassion for people who suffer various types of trouble, never comparing pain, accepting people [as] they are.

DFP: How do most survivors of torture cope?

SDO: I don’t think there is a definite one answer for that. Each person deals with his or her torture the best way that he or she can. I think that we share a common language… we sometimes refer to our survival skills as “transitional survival skills,” for instance, to leave the light on at night, drinking coffee, staying away from people and sites where perhaps cigarettes are being used. Some people get involved in human rights. I think that has been the case with a number of our members. Some go out and speak. It takes an emotional toll for folks. There are some survivors who don’t even want to deal with it, and try to live as normal a life as possible. Then there are those who do take their lives.

DFP: How can we better empower other torture survivors to speak out?

SDO: Providing forums, I think, is one way. We do believe that the voices of survivors are vital in this campaign to abolish torture. Empowering survivors means also treating them like they’re human, and not feeling sorry for them. Sometimes there’s a tendency for that. We always say we don’t want sympathy—we want people to wake up. See the world through our eyes, even though I don’t believe that is possible. To see that torture is the plague of the 21st century.

DFP: Why do you speak out?

SDO: I believe that it is my moral obligation to speak about the issue of torture, about what I witnessed and experienced, but I also made a promise to those who were with me in the torture chamber that if I survived I would speak, and tell the world exactly what I had witnessed in the clandestine prison. So I am committed to that promise, every day I renew that commitment. Sometimes I feel like I’m not sure I can do it today.

DFP: Thank you very much, Sister.

oday, twenty-one years after “that night,” 120,000 gas‑affected people remain chronically ill and in need of regular medical attention. Gas survivors suffered damage to their lungs, brains, kidneys, and muscles, as well as gastro‑intestinal, reproductive, neurological and immune systems. Common symptoms range from chronic breathing problems to giddiness, weakness, eye problems, obstructive airways disease, cancer, tuberculosis, and mental illness.

On December 2nd,’84, a Union Carbide Chemical Plant leaked 27 tons of the toxic gas methyl isocyanate (MIC) into the city of Bhopal, India. The gas leak, known as the “Hiroshima of the chemical industry,” remains the worst industrial disaster in human history. At least 3,000 people died immediately, and an estimated 20,000 people have died since the event. More than 120,000 people still suffer from blindness, breathing problems, reproductive issues, and other ailments caused by the accident. Dow Chemical, who bought Union Carbide, has steadfastly refused to clean up the site, provide safe drinking water, or accept responsibility.

“We are Flowers, We are not Flames,” a photo exhibit by Raghu Rai and Maude Dorr, documents both the horror of the disaster and the perseverance and determination of those who survived and demand justice, corporate accountability, and their basic human right to an environment free of chemical poisons. Amnesty International, in collaboration with Project Bangladesh, brought the photos to Collis Commonground on Monday, April 3 for an “opening day.” The event included a lunch and discussion with Professors Jennifer Fluri and Bill Roebuck. They explored the dynamics of the Bhopal disaster, human rights, and corporate accountability. The photos have since been moved to the first floor of Baker-Berry Library to be on rotation until April 15.

As students browsed the photos they were asked to consider the issues of corporate accountability, human rights, and broader issues of globalization. Is it just that an American-owned company (the plant was 50.5% owned by Dow Chemical in America) set up a sub-standard, and consequently unsafe, American plant in India?

Absolutely not.

However, a rogue student claiming to represent the Monsters of Malmesbury (which has a facebook group over 60 people strong, but sent a lone ’09 representative) believed otherwise. After some immature and rude tactics the student even handed out fliers at the door, but spent too much time arguing with event organizers to address most of the event attendees. The Monsters of Malmesbury claim to represent several beliefs including “the problem is not with poor people, but with poor people who do not have the will or desire to get out of poverty and, of course, with the middle-and-upper-middle class individuals who believe that the poor people have the right to their drug habits and scores of illegitimate children subsidized by the government.” They also seem to believe that “aid to the Third world [sic]…is utterly undesirable to empower others. Power is a zero-sum game. When someone gains power, we lose power. As an Americans [sic] we should be ecstatic that we enjoy hegemony, but instead, there are many of us$mdash;many here at Dartmouth$mdash;who are embarrassed of the fact.”

Power is not a zero-sum game. Aid to the third world does not inherently take away our power; instead, aid in such a crisis would help the United States’ ever-worsening reputation and thus increase our leverage in global politics, especially if our own country faces such a crisis. Chemical spills are not unheard of in the U.S., nor are other disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and terrorist attacks. In a global world, we can not maintain this idea of sole American hegemony because the fact is, it doesn’t exist. We depend on other countries, they depend upon us, and instability in other countries threatens our livelihood.

But perhaps the most important question that our dear rogue ’09 friend asked was, “What has Amnesty International and Project Bangladesh done for Bhopal?”

First and foremost, the exhibit educated Dartmouth students about an ongoing disaster. The problem with Bhopal is that due to the lack of accountability in’84, another generation has been poisoned. In Annu Nagar, 1,350 people use water from contaminated hand pumps, and a recent study found that one out of every two people suffers from symptoms associated with the disaster. The most common were abdominal pain followed by giddiness, pain in the chest, headache, and fever. Also, of teenage females between ages 13 and 15, 43% had not begun menstruating. The Bhopal accident has continued to destroy an entire population and unless further accountability is demanded, the chemicals will continue to leak into the soil, contaminate the water supply, and kill innocent people.

Currently, the average compensation for injury (awarded in Indian courts) has amounted to around 14 cents per survivor per day for this disaster. In India, this is enough for about two cups of tea.

Documents gained from the U.S. from a Freedom of Information Act request suggest that there was a high-level State Department collusion to shelter Warren Anderson, the former Chairman of Union Carbide, from India’s request for extradition. The information reveals that Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Lawrence Eagleburger, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohoe, and lawyers for Warren Anderson and Union Carbide conspired to protect Anderson from standing trial in India for his role in the deaths of the 20,000 Indian citizens. India’s request for extradition was denied and they have yet to reapply.

This is a serious miscarriage of justice, as the negligence of Union Carbide is simply unquestionable. As part of cost-cutting measures, the company had reduced trainings from six months to 15 days and fired the supervisor on the night shift. On the night of the disaster, the flare tower was disconnected and the vent gas scrubber was out of caustic soda. This was inadequate to contain the unsafe volume of gas. Not to mention, the water curtain was not high enough, the pressure valve was not working, the runoff tank already contained MIC, and the mandatory refrigeration for the MIC unit was turned off to save money.

The final question that was posed to the audience by organizer, Tara Seethaler, was: what can we do? There are several answers to this—the first would be to combat the kind of ignorance that the “monsters” displayed. Continuing to pursue events such as the Bhopal photo exhibit is the first step to demanding accountability and ensuring that events like the disaster in Bhopal don’t go unnoticed. If you haven’t seen the exhibit, wander through the first floor of Baker-Berry Library and look at the photos that will be on rotation for the next week and a half. The second step would be to ensure not only that Dartmouth College is not invested in Dow Chemical (we are not), but to also make sure that the company is listed as one that we cannot invest in until certain demands are met. Finally, the last step would be to continue to place pressure on the Indian government through political, social, and economic pressures.

ould you send me back? With or without my baby?” a woman’s sign read at the protests in Los Angeles. With thousands marching across the country, immigration reform is upon us.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) stated “This legislation is a defining moment in the history of the United States of America.” It is also an extremely divisive moment—the current immigration legislation has split not only the Republican but also the Democratic Party, breaking down the normally stagnant party lines reinforced under the Bush administration.

There are a few points that both parties have actually been able to agree upon. First, that some sort of immigration reform is necessary. America needs to get better about controlling its borders, regardless of the legal limitations placed upon those who do manage to enter without documentation. Almost every immigration proposal before Congress has called for more Border Patrol agents, more jail cells and detention centers, and new technology to help employers discern the legal status of immigrant jobseekers.

Second, most participants in the immigration debate can agree that U.S. economic interests must be maintained. There is an ongoing debate about what these economic interests are exactly, but most people agree that some sort of labor supply must be ensured. Kicking everyone out of the country and locking ourselves in is no solution, and thankfully, both the Democrats and Republicans recognize this.

Finally, the issue of amnesty has also proven controversial. Only a minority of conservatives, however outspoken, suggests that we should throw out all eleven million illegal immigrants here now. However, legislators have not yet been able to reach a consensus on what rights and other legal privileges undocumented immigrants deserve. It is apparent that immigration reform in the United States must ultimately consider these three issues$mdash;border control, labor and the economy, and illegal immigrants’ rights.

In the most liberal of circles it is suggested that border control should be totally de-emphasized, and instead illegal immigration should be controlled by instituting a worker ID system. Barring the extreme nature of that suggestion, de-emphasizing a clearly ineffective border would allow the United States to more aggressively target those who should not be here and more successfully control immigration. The United States border with Mexico stretches 1,951 miles; its border with Canada extends 5,522 miles. Much of this expanse is unmonitored and unfortified. The House bill passed in December, HR 4437, focused heavily upon border security.

On the issue of border security, President Bush splits with his party, strongly pushing a guest worker program that would allow more free movement between Mexico and the United States. HR 4437, however, did not include a guest worker program. A guest worker program would keep businesses happy, and at the same time, would please many socially conscious Americans by providing social services for immigrant workers. Business interests, specifically the agriculture, construction, hotel and restaurant industries, don’t want to disrupt their steady supply of cheap labor. That’s why four of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s 10 Republicans joined all the Democrats in voting for the guest worker program. However, cheap labor comes at a price.

With the influx of illegal immigrants comes an influx of their culture and needs. Social conservatives have argued that illegal immigration has begun an uncontrollable change in this country’s demographics and culture, threatening its values. They have forgotten that this country is a nation of immigrants. Only one percent of our population, at best, can claim to be American Indian or Alaskan native. Additionally, probably no one can claim to have directly descended from our “forefathers” without any immigrant blood infused.

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) reminded his party of the toll on families of immigration enforcement. He stood on the Senate floor and shared a story few people had heard before. At the height of World War II, federal agents were in Albuquerque looking for Italian sympathizers. His mother (of four) and local PTA president just happened to be an illegal immigrant and vanished before his tear-filled eyes with the agents. Other senators have similarly close connections to the issue: Senator Arlen Specter’s (R-PA) parents came from Russia, Senator Jon Kyl’s (R-AZ) grandparents immigrated from the Netherlands, and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) fled Cuba at age 15.

The question plaguing the Senate has been what to do with the 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has been juggling his party’s various factions. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Mel Martinez (R-FL) recently proposed that the immigrants should be divided into categories that would allow those with significant ties to or time in the United States a better chance of staying. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Kyl favor a proposal that would require illegal immigrants to leave the country before being eligible for a temporary worker program. This program would not lead to citizenship. Also suggested have been programs that mandate illegal immigrants go to a point of entry (points of entry include international airports) and submit paperwork before being issued some type of non-immigrant visa.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill offering those in the United States illegally a chance to stay and earn citizenship. The Judiciary Committee’s end product, sponsored by Specter, would allow illegal immigrants to stay here and earn citizenship, and it would also create a guest worker program. Illegal immigrants would first apply for a conditional non-immigrant visa that would last six years. After that period, they could apply for legal permanent residence (a green card if they pay $2,000 in fines, pay all back taxes, stay employed, pass a criminal background check, and demonstrate an effort to learn English and American history). Since a green card holder must wait five years to apply for citizenship, these people would be eligible for citizenship potentially after 11 years, although they would then have to get in line behind those people already waiting legally.

Meanwhile, the question of illegal immigrant rights remains on the table. Regardless of how a person enters the United States, especially with tighter border control, this should not be an issue; once they enter the United States, it is inhumane to deny them basic human services—education and emergency health care, among other rights. The United States, if it does decide to aggressively harass illegal immigrants, absolutely cannot set a policy that allows or encourages social providers to actively discriminate against a certain population. That is not their job, and American policy should provide for American citizens’ well-being to the extent that this is not necessary.

HR 4437, if signed into law, would criminalize the act of aiding an illegal immigrant. Again, with proper immigration procedure, this should not be so significant an issue. This clause is just a way for certain Republicans to attack left-leaning activists unnecessarily instead of pursuing effective immigration policy. Many injustices are occurring under the spirit of this provision. For example, two students in Arizona are currently about to stand trial for helping an illegal immigrant who was trying to enter the United States. Thousands of people die every year crossing the desert into Arizona. Various organizations have been established not to help these immigrants cross the border per se, but to provide for them the most basic medical services. No matter the race or nationality of a person, they should not be unnecessarily dying on American soil. A young man crossing the desert was in desperate need of medical attention, and two trained students decided to evacuate him to med
ical care. They were all apprehended by the Border Patrol and the students were arrested.

Further injustices are on the horizon. The proposed legislation threatens asylum seekers needing protection. The current drafts of legislation focus too heavily on harsh enforcement of penalties for improper entry. Congress has failed to recognize the special situation of asylum seekers and refugees$mdash;$mdash;particularly with asylum seekers who must flee a persecuting government, governmental actor, or someone the government refuses to control. The last thing that most of these people want or even can do is approach their very persecutors and ask for the “proper” documents.

With the current legislation, they would be prosecuted in the United States for using illegal documents to escape, which is often the only way they can. This criminal conviction most likely makes the asylum seeker ineligible for protection, which would resulting in deportation back to the country they were fleeing. The additional penalties at border points would put many asylum seekers into jail before they had the chance to explain their fear of persecution. They arrive scared, confused, and often unable to articulate their need for asylum because of shame, embarrassment, cultural confusion, or a language barrier. Being in jail makes it harder to make a claim for protection, harder to find an attorney, harder to locate an interpreter, and harder to get medical care.

The United States is—and should be—reviewing its immigration policies. However, in this debate, we must make sure that we protect some of the most vulnerable people in the world and allow for some movement in and out of our country. Instead of persecuting people already here, Congress should focus on increasing the standard of living for every person living in (and in most immigrant workers’ cases, contributing to the prosperity of) America, citizen or not. With slightly stricter border controls, greater allowances for asylum seekers and refugees, and a guest worker program, the threat of exploitation of social services by non-tax paying residents will decrease and immigrants will be better able to positively contribute to America’s ever-changing culture—a culture of immigrants.

s I sit here in the real world, outside of the Dartmouth College bubble, interacting with “real” people of mature age (okay, they’re old dudes), I wonder about the frivolousness of my column. Women around the world are murdered, raped, tortured, and deprived of basic human rights, simply because they are a different sex than the people in charge. I am lucky to live in the United States, a country where women have (at least legally) made huge strides towards equality, and gender inequality is no longer strictly institutionalized.

I have embraced my freedom as a woman in this country, and yet sitting here watching “suits” race in and out of this DC coffee house I am plagued with guilt. Many of these people have dedicated their lives to fighting for what they believe in—be they Republican or Democrat, NGO affiliates or lobbyists. And I have embraced my status as a woman how? By writing a sex column.

At first this statement sounds absurd, and then I realize that yes—writing a sex column is a significant statement of female rights. Not only am I a female columnist, but I am writing about a topic considered taboo and improper for a woman. I am a woman writing about women taking control of their sex lives, both physically and emotionally, in order to achieve some happiness. This active assertion of control utilizes my perspective as a woman, encouraging other females to engage in an important dialogue.

My column has been called too feminist and anti-feminist. At their core, sex columns are about embracing the ability for women to openly discuss, think, and act in their sex lives to benefit their own welfare. This is a right many women do not have though. As integral as dialogue is to achieving equality, it is not the entire solution.

The Treaty for the Rights of Women, officially known as the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), has languished in the U.S. Senate for over 20 years. CEDAW was the first document to comprehensively address women’s rights within political, cultural, economic, social, and family spheres. The United Nations officially adopted it in’79 and President Carter signed the Treaty in’80.

As is perplexingly often the case with international law in this country, the United States Senate has yet to ratify the treaty, despite the nation’s central role in drafting it. More specifically, the United States Senate has yet to even vote on the treaty. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee discussed CEDAW twice, in’94 and 2002. Each time, it was voted favorably out of committee, most recently by a 12-7 bipartisan vote. Yet, the Senate has failed to ratify the treaty, and without a significant constituent or administrative push, highly unlikely from Bush, CEDAW never will be ratified. While some assume that this failure to ratify the treaty over past 25 years must be justified, there is simply no logically sound argument for the Senate’s inaction.

The main argument against the treaty is that it supposedly supports abortion by promoting access to “family planning.” This misconception could explain why the Bush administration, ever eager to please the religious right, did not continue the Clinton administration’s push for ratification. These fears are not true though, as the treaty intentionally does not address the issue of abortion. The treaty has been ratified by nations that have banned abortion, including Burkina Faso, Rwanda, and Ireland. Even the U.S. State Department writes that the Treaty is “abortion neutral,” which was officially acknowledged by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in’94.

The religious right might also be concerned that the Treaty would destroy traditional families by redefining “family” and the roles of women and men. CEDAW does not seek to regulate family life. It urges governments “to adopt education and public information programs…[to] eliminate prejudices and current practices that hinder the full operation of the principle of the social equality of women.” There is no reason to think that a traditional family must exclude this objective.

Another argument centers on the loss of U.S. sovereignty to international bodies. However, this is a misunderstanding of how international law works. Despite language “mandating” various changes, the Treaty grants no enforcement authority to the United Nations or any other body. Countries can also express “reservations, understandings, and declarations” where domestic laws diverge from the treaty, and U.S. law generally complies with the treaty. Additionally, treaties adopted in the United States are non-self-executing, meaning that legislation to implement any treaty provision would have to be congressionally approved like any other bill. While the bill would not change any U.S. laws, it would give the United States far more leverage in the international community regarding women’s rights issues than it has now.

Some have also suggested that the courts would be overwhelmed with frivolous lawsuits under the Treaty. The Treaty does not define discrimination so broadly that courts would be burdened with frivolous lawsuits, because U.S. law would not be altered.

Also, CEDAW would not mandate legalization of same-sex marriages. Its terms are aimed only at sex-based discrimination against women.

The last common misconception about CEDAW is that it would require legalization of prostitution. This belief is based on a misinterpretation of the CEDAW Committee’s statements. The Committee has called for the decriminalization of prostitution in specific countries where prostitution and trafficking in women and children are rampant, not in all countries. Empirical evidence proves that regulation would allow victimized women to come forward without fear of reprisal for treatment for HIV/AIDS and other STDs, increase access to health care and education, and better enable prosecution of trafficking and sex slavery practices.

There are many other misinterpretations of CEDAW, but these are the most baseless and incendiary ones that have hobbled the Senate’s ability to do what it should. A more pressing concern is the precedent the United States sets by not ratifying CEDAW. The‘1 countries that have ratified the treaty span every continent, ethnicity, level of development, and form of government on this planet.

Still, the United States has yet to ratify CEDAW. The U.S. joins a very small group of countries such as Somalia, Iran, and Sudan that have held out on ratification. CEDAW has helped women around the world gain rightful access to education, seek inheritance and property titles, operate businesses, and advocate for health care services. It has helped women and girls fight domestic and sexual violence, trafficking and slavery, honor killings, bride burnings, rape, and assault. It has encouraged the development of citizenship rights in Botswana and Japan, inheritance rights in the Tanzania, and property rights and political participation in Costa Rica. It has fostered domestic violence laws in Turkey, Nepal, South Africa, and the Republic of Korea and anti-trafficking laws in Ukraine and Moldova. It has positively impacted the legal systems in Uganda, Colombia, Brazil, and South Africa.

Ratification of CEDAW in the United States would have an impact both internationally and domestically. Internationally, with U.S. ratification, CEDAW would be a stronger instrument for women in other countries to achieve full protection and realization of their rights. The U.S. cannot be responsible for all the world’s problems, but our influence and support are important for those who want to work to better their own lives, and the recognition of basic human rights is the foundation of progress. Without our ratification, other governments can easily ignore the mandate and their obligations to it. Women around the world need U.S. leadership.

In our own coun
try, where a woman is beaten every 9 seconds, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. While our country has made significant efforts to protect women from this kind of abuse, more needs to be done.

Fortunately, we as voters, can take an aggressive role in getting CEDAW ratified. Senator John Sununu (R-NH) is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and should be held accountable to New Hampshire constituent concerns. Please call him at (202) 224-2841 or email him at mailbox@sununu.senate.gov and urge him to put a statement on the Congressional Record calling for the ratification of CEDAW.

CEDAW could make an even more significant impact at achieving equal rights for women across the world, and our refusal to ratify it legitimizes the far more discriminatory, abusive, and violent practices of other nations. Without a significant push from the American population, the treaty will languish in Congress while more women suffer. Ø

ondoms are the most common form of birth control used, and yet many people find the decision to use them daunting. When do you tell your partner to cover up? What kind do you buy? Whose responsibility is it to buy the condoms? Is there one that gives both partners equal amounts of pleasure?

In an attempt at collecting data from as many random Dartmouth sources as possible, I have come to the following conclusions.

“Glove-up” in cold weather: The varieties

“Trojan heated shared pleasure. I love it, and you never need lube.”

“Thinner is better. I haven’t tried the ribbed thing, but I hear that it gets you very sore if the guy takes a while to get off.”

“ ‘Her pleasure,’ from Trojan. A little ribbing is nice, but the ones that are ribbed all the way up become bread knives after about ten minutes.”

“Stick with Trojans.”

“HATE the ‘very sensitive’ Trojan ones—they’re fucking weird.”

“Stop using condoms. Make babies.”

“I usually go with Trojans.”

“Trojans in the purple wrapper. Every time, without fail.”

It appears that in the condom department, the universally accepted condom is the Trojan. Whether this is simply the effect of good marketing or Trojan actually making better condoms, Trojan has definitely discovered the perfect secret to preventing population growth—condoms that people will use and like!

Despite the fact that the “ribbed” condoms are designed for “her pleasure,” their success is definitely case by case. Yes, they feel nice for a little while, but unless you are a speed demon (which, let’s face it, no girl wants), the female might end up in more pain than pleasure. The art lies in finding a condom that has just the right amount of texture and combining it with the right series of moves. Frankly, if you’re depending on ribbing to deliver the maximum amount of pleasure, perhaps you should work on some Kegels of your own (yes, they do exist for men). Ribbing is nice to mix things up, but it shouldn’t be relied on for pleasure—extended use might cause more pain than it’s worth.

The “her pleasure” condoms from Trojan may be the best invention since birth control. Not only are they conveniently located next to the feminine products at the drug store, there are four different kinds, specifically designed for women. I know, I know…as a man you’re probably thinking, “It’s embarrassing enough to buy condoms, let alone to be seen buying condoms in the FEMININE PRODUCT aisle!” Plus they’re expensive. Most men resign themselves to sticking with condoms that fit and that they enjoy. More often than not, she’ll be fine with them. But for a real treat, surprise her with a “her pleasure.” Most likely, you’ll also enjoy hours of pleasure afterwards.

To shop or not to shop

Whose obligation is it to buy the condoms in a relationship? Clearly, both partners have a vested interest in using condoms, but, whose responsibility is it to go out and get them?

My first impulse is the man. I (or the female) am assuming far more responsibility in the sexual encounter, because if pregnancy occurs it is ultimately my body that bears the burden. Around here, if you are sleeping with someone and it’s “just a hook-up,” the chances of the woman telling the man about the pregnancy are pretty slim, even though she alone bears the risk of conception. Additionally (come on guys), most college age women invest in some form of prescription birth control. Women already pay for birth control every month. In purely financial means, it generally breaks even if the male pays for condoms and the female for pills.

Then again, if the woman bears the physical responsibility, isn’t it her job to protect her own body? Yes. In a random hook-up where you are just after sex, it’s definitely your job to make sure you are protected. You aren’t in a relationship with this guy, and he might not carry condoms. If you want sex that badly, carry a condom!

In a monogamous relationship, both partners should probably just keep their own stash at their independent places. That said, men, women are often TOTALLY clueless as to what kind of condom to buy for you. Trust me, we have some idea, but we don’t know if you need extra-large or extra-thin.

In condom-buying, communication is key. Women who prefer ribbed should communicate this to their partners, and men who prefer a special kind should also make sure that their partner knows. There is no reason that a lack of communication should lead to a lack of protection. And guys, monogamous or not, be conscious of the fact that your girlfriend is already shelling out some funds for birth control pills, and maybe help her maintain her stash as well.

The ultimate risk

Many women I know choose to use a condom with a man that they are just sleeping with, but when it comes to a monogamous relationship they are willing to take the chance for the sake of some other motive. At what point in a relationship should you quit using a condom?

I would like to say, “Never! Use protection always! Unless you’re married or want a child with this person, better safe than sorry! And those vicious STDs! What if he has an STD!? AHHH!”

Remember the main uses of condoms are twofold: first, to prevent conception and second, to protect both partners from sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Playing the devil’s advocate, if you are sleeping with someone, you are willing to accept that small increase in risk of pregnancy that happens when you cease condom use but keep birth control pills. As many couples in a monogamous relationship argue, sex feels better without a condom.

Very few men or women would argue with that. However, in a monogamous relationship, there is the additional security that if pregnancy occurs, the opposite partner would be informed and equally responsible. There is some sense of long term responsibility, a sense which is very different from a one night romp in the hay. And by a certain point in a relationship, both partners should have been tested, and can be assured of each other’s clean bill of health.

So at what point should a couple quit using condoms? First of all, this depends on whether or not another form of birth control is being used. Absolutely do not stop using condoms if it is your only form of birth control (and if it is, for heaven’s sake explore other options; with “typical” use, 15% of women who use condoms will get pregnant in the first year, according to Planned Parenthood). However, if the female is on birth control, many couples quit using condoms for pleasure and intimacy reasons, provided that they both feel safe in the long term possibilities of their relationship.

Dr. Gordon Gallup of the State University of New York published a controversial study, which found that women who had sex without a condom were quantifiably happier than women who had protected sex. Additionally, those women became more depressed when their relationships ended. Dr. Gallup concluded that some women actually become chemically dependent on semen. It is important to note that semen contains sixty percent of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recommended daily dose of Vitamin C, so perhaps it’s only a matter of an herbal “sperm” supplement.

Depressed or not, unless you are prepared for the emotional and physical repercussions of having a child or terminating a pregnancy, think twice—or more—before you decide to “un-glove” your partner.

“Covering” Campus

Many colleges give away condoms 24 hours a day for free. Why doesn’t Dartmouth? Is Dartmouth College promoting unsafe sexual habits by not distributing free condoms?

Absolutely not. First of all, there is no generic p
erfect condom. Each person and each couple have different needs. Second, the College forces us to think about the fact that we’re having sex by making us buy our own condoms. Third, there are many risks with just putting out condoms 24/7 in places where no student feels ownership, i.e., vandalism.

The problem with having condoms available for free 24/7 is that no one person feels personally responsible, and in some morbid joke some idiot could throw in expired condoms, punch holes in the condoms available, or by some other means tamper with the condoms. At this point, the condoms are useless, but many students might not realize they’ve been tampered with until it is too late. It makes more sense to be personally responsible for your own condoms.

However, Health Services does allow for organizations to buy 1,000 condoms at a subsidized cost. They pay half of the price and it ultimately costs the organization about $30. This is a very responsible way for the college to promote safe sex. This method allows students to assume responsibility for their own sex education through organizational control. (If interested in this program blitz Molly St. Sauveur.)

Condoms are available at CVS, Topside, Wal-Mart, the Co-op, various dorm vending machines, and Dick’s House. Dick’s house has a surprisingly large variety for such a small selection of other products. CVS has the largest selection in Hanover, and Topside—well, Topside has left many a student in very embarrassing situations.

Consider yourself warned—at Topside, condoms go off DASH. If you do not have DASH, you must have cash. If you do not have cash, you are left awkwardly arguing with the cashier as a line builds up of people watching the tool try to buy condoms. For some, this is more embarrassing than that high school dream where you show up to class naked. Said one student concerning DDS’s DASH policy, “They (condoms) should go off DBA if toothpaste does because DDS says it is for “needs,” and I personally have my sexual needs.” Amen!

So remember, communication is crucial in deciding condom type. Guys, acknowledge that your girl pays for birth control but girls, if it’s a random hookup, assume some responsibility yourself. For heaven’s sake, even in a monogamous relationship use some sort of protection, although the truth is that there is some emotional downfall to a condom. And finally, don’t forget that Topside uses DASH, not DBA!

Take the walk down to CVS, buy some of the “her pleasure” Trojans, and enjoy good, safe sex.

began researching this column by trying to discern exactly what percentage of the Dartmouth body is actually “single” compared to “in a relationship” and perhaps how many are smart asses in claiming “it’s complicated.” Facebook (as in facebook.com, dear H-Po and The Dartmouth) was no help.

Advanced search for people that are “single” produced over 500 results. Great. Thanks a lot. I then proceeded to attempt to search my friend group, assuming that it is a pretty diverse group of friends (hell, I’ve only rejected one friend request in my lifetime). Facebook doesn’t have this feature. At that point, I gave up.

Instead, based on an informal interview of my closest girlfriends, I will suggest that about 15%-30% of the Dartmouth population is “in a relationship” so to speak. If only 15-30% are “in a relationship” what in the world is the other 70-85% of the Dartmouth College population doing? You cannot tell me that the rest of the students are celibate, sitting at home with a chastity belt locked around their waist, saving themselves until marriage (no offense to those of you that are. Good job!).

Enter the hook-up. The perfect way for the Dartmouth student to avoid the emotional pitfalls of the D-plan, pong, the Greek scene, and passive students who are frankly too busy to pay attention to a relationship but still have certain needs. We’re at our sexual peak, after all!

The hook-up clearly exists beyond the Dartmouth College realm. That said, the hook-up culture is facilitated by the constant social movement perpetuated by D-plan. Rare is the match whose D-plans perfectly coincide, where one person won’t be gone shortly and the couple will not have to spend three, six, nine, or sometimes even twelve months apart. Dartmouth College hook-ups follow odd trajectories. It is as though we use the hook-up as the “real world’s” dating stage.

Rare is the Dartmouth relationship that doesn’t begin with a hook-up, be it a sloppy drunken kiss or something dryer. What happened to good old-fashioned courtship?

Dartmouth Courtship

Illustrated…Date 1:

Guy: Would you like to play pong?

Girl: Haha. I’m not supposed to be

drinking tonight, but this is my

fourth game so I’m not going to

be very good.

Guy: It’s OK. I’m super sweet.

We’ll be fine.

(Pong game continues. Girl is as awful as she suggests, guy and girl golden shrub but thankfully they are not at a house with penalty beers.)

Girl: I (hiccup) think (hiccup)

I should go home.

Guy: Let me walk you home to make

sure you don’t get picked up,

you seem really drunk.

More often than not, date number one is repeated to the point of a broken record. “Hey, come over and play pong tonight… let me walk you home.” But when is a hook-up a hook-up? When is it just the kiss?

The technical aspects of a hook-up are crucial in defining the level of intimacy. Physical and emotional aspects must be considered on a case-by-case basis in order to establish, was that a hook-up? Or just a kiss? Or something in between?

My old standard was below the belt action. Was there touching down below? If so, definitely a hook-up. More recently, from an esteemed friend, I heard the “horizontal” definition. Were your bodies horizontal for more than a minute? Definitely a hook-up. Passionate making out on the steps of Dartmouth Hall in the rain? Not a hook-up – vertical clothed bodies equals romantic moment.

Allow me to illustrate (again).

“Dear Ms. Strack, I just hooked up with a long term friend of mine. But I’m not sure if it was a hook-up or not. See, we know each other well but all we did was kiss. But the kiss, well, it took my breath away. He’s been acting just like normal lately, almost as though nothing happened. Then again, I met him after meetings and he was on his sixth game of pong. He tends to kiss me on my cheek, could he have maybe just slipped? Was it a hook-up? Sincerely, clearly lying to myself.”

Dear clearly lying to myself,

First of all, how long have you had feelings for your friend? If he’s a long term friend, you must have had these feelings for a while. A kiss while your friend is blacked out when he means to kiss you on the cheek and you subconsciously turn your head suggests that he does not have feelings for you but you do for him. Definitely NOT a hook-up.

“Clearly lying to myself’s” question brings up a crucial point—if a party does not remember the night, was it a hook-up? Well, fortunately or not this is a moment totally up to your discretion. Best bet, try to decipher from the other party what happened. If it was just a hook-up and you don’t plan on ever doing more than turning your head when you see them, chalk it up to a wild night, say you were both too drunk to do anything, and protect both yourself and the other person. Although it might be best to send a courtesy blitz, just to be polite. We do go to a small school after all, and unless they’re a total rando you’re bound to run into each other again.

“Dear Ms. Strack, I was hanging out last night and this guy found out that I had never been down to the river. He decided that I just “HAD” to see the river, and we went down to the river. Needless to say, we ended up naked making out until dawn and the crazy crew kids started to come back down to the river. We scrambled for our clothing, I was able to find everything but my underwear. Since there was no real purposeful touching down south, was it a hook-up? Technically we weren’t horizontal since the riverbank slopes down. Sincerely, wanna-be crunchy.”

Dear wanna-be crunchy,

Definitely a hook-up! The slope down to the river does not negate the fact that you were NAKED together. Naked = hook-up, touching or not.

P.S.: I found your underwear and strung it up the flagpole on the green. Black lace thong, awfully racy for a Thursday night!

Alas, perhaps the horizontal definition is not as clear-cut as it sounds. So allow me to say this as a disclaimer: naked equals hook-up; I don’t care if you’re vertical, horizontal, or upside down (hell, you never know).

Many girls at Dartmouth dislike the hook-up scene. Is it degrading towards women? Does exploiting your body for a night of unemotional physical pleasure signify some deeper self-esteem problem?

I firmly believe that the nature of the hook-up, and whether it is healthy for one’s personal life or not, has much more to do with how a person views the hook-up. Are you being honest with yourself about what your partner actually wants and desires? Are you forcing the relationship to a place that it is not meant to be?

A hook-up can be fun and physically fulfilling for a night. Rarely is a permanent hook-up-only relationship fulfilling, but there is nothing to prevent you from a few pleasure filled nights while you continue your search for Mr. Right, or someone to fill more than just a few.