Two years ago, when President Wright smugly announced an “end to the Greek system as we know it” over the boos and hisses of much of the student body, I was among the hundreds of concerned students who flooded the lawn in front of the Psi Upsilon house in protest. As a sister in one of Dartmouth’s sororities, I demanded that the administration respect our right to decide for ourselves what a quality social life should look like.

On Friday, April 6th, I joined a large number of concerned students rallying in front of Parkhurst Hall, demanding that the Trustees (in the borrowed words of Hillary Miller ’02) “stop beating the dead horse” and begin to actualize the intentions laid out in the Student Life Initiative two years ago. The time has passed for attempting to “fix” the Greek system—the sooner we realize it is irreparable and look past it, the sooner we will truly create a stronger Dartmouth.

My experience parallels that of many others; it took two terms of being off-campus for me to see the fundamental flaws in Dartmouth’s social scene. While away, I lived among friends, worked, volunteered, and even (gasp) partied. My friends and I didn’t meet every Wednesday night to tell stories about drunken blacked-out hookups, or spend time picking out little black outfits and glitter to go scraping men off the floors of fraternities to bring home with us.

After having such a great time off campus, I came back to Dartmouth and became increasingly dismayed with the life to which I had returned. Late one night, I began to feel sick with frustration and disgust. I couldn’t stop thinking about the incidents that had contributed to the loss of my self worth and the fact that other women must currently be experiencing the same, all in the name of a good time

At 4:00 AM, I decided to de-pledge from my sorority and began writing the letter I would send to my sisters to explain my decision. I fell asleep three hours later, exhausted, but with the knots and butterflies in my stomach finally at rest. I haven’t regretted my decision for a moment since.

When hearing stories such as mine, many assert that we, as individuals, should take greater responsibility for our own happiness and for the type of lives we lead.

If I got myself into “sketchy” situations by fraternity hopping and consuming inordinate quantities of alcohol, it’s my own damn fault, so they tell me. This is probably true. It is also true, however, that the organization of our communities has a tremendous effect upon the behavior that takes place within them, and it is far from easy to take a stand against entrenched cultural norms—as destructive as they may be.

Students enter Dartmouth with varying degrees of self-knowledge, and the greater community helps shape who we become. Some, in response to the popular lifestyle, become defiant and pursue a change in the culture. Far too many blindly join the culture and become people they themselves no longer recognize. Some even shout “Wah-hoo-wah, scalp those bitches” from their lawns, print misogynistic tee shirts, or publish newsletters detailing their sexual conquests.

Implicit in these actions is the belief that maintaining Dartmouth traditions is more important than respecting their peers. To varying degrees, we are all undeniably affected by the norms of the communities to which we belong.

The Greek system “as we know it” is a mess. There may indeed be positive aspects, but the system as a whole is overwhelmingly unhealthy for Dartmouth, and no one is exempt. In my three years here, nearly every fraternity on campus has been at the center of some controversy.

One fraternity president that I know is “challenged”, every week, to chug beer until he vomits as his brothers look on and cheer. At “Sink Night” of another fraternity this winter, pledges stood up and recounted their “worst hookup ever” along with the name of the woman who had been involved. Everyone I know has similar stories. I cringe to think of what goes on that doesn’t become public knowledge.

The Trustees were right on when they announced their disapproval of the Greek system two years ago, and they need to back up those words with action NOW. Several proposals have been put forth by various student groups, many of which meet the objectives declared by the Trustees; among other criteria, they don’t revolve around alcohol and they don’t segregate students by sex or race.

To my knowledge, these proposals have not been addressed. They are likely piled away in a corner while the Trustees think about how to craftily oust Greeks from campus with as little notice as possible. Nothing substantial has been accomplished in these last two years; instead of seeing REAL change, we’ve gotten “taps on wheels” and Poison Ivy. I think I speak for a great many students when I say that we expect, and deserve, better.

Students at the protest on April 6th had a lot of items on their agenda: socially responsible investment, more space for the arts, more co-educational social space, a greater commitment on behalf of the college to environmental issues, a Korean language program, and a more centrally located Women’s Resource Center, to name a few. Amidst this myriad of proposals, one thing is clear: tinkering with bits and pieces of Dartmouth’s social structure will no longer placate students who are committed to making Dartmouth a better place.

The student body has clearly started to think beyond “fixing” the Greek system, and I think it’s time the Trustees do, too.

November 16-25, two other Dartmouth students and I had the opportunity to join 220 other American students in attending COP6, the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change, in The Hague, Netherlands. The "Student Climate Summit" was organized by Greenpeace USA to exert pressure on the U.S. delegates counter to the anti-environmental influence of the business/industrial lobby.

Under negotiation was the Kyoto Protocol, a ’97 international treaty on global warming, which set specific emissions reduction targets for the world’s developed nations. The treaty has yet to enter into force $mdash; it needs to be ratified by either 55% of signatory parties, or enough countries to include 55% of total worldwide emissions. Neither stipulation has been met. Bill Clinton signed the treaty in ’97, but the U.S. Senate has yet to ratify and many other countries are waiting to see what happens on behalf of the next U.S. administration before ratifying themselves. Comprising only 4% of the world’s population, the U.S. contributes nearly a quarter of global CO 2 emissions. The purpose of COP6 was to finalize specific mechanisms within the treaty about how targets could be reached, and how stiffly countries would be penalized for failing to reach their designated targets.

The first heavily disputed issue was that of "carbon sinks". Trees are known to store carbon, and it has been generally agreed that countries will be able to meet at least part of their target by initiating large-scale forestry projects. Countries such as the U.S. and Canada (who, coincidentally, have the most open space available for planting trees) are proponents of meeting the majority of their targets with carbon sinks (the U.S. actually had a plan on the table that included enough forestation to allow a 30% net increase in domestic emissions). Smaller countries (especially EU states) would like to keep sink credits to a minimum. According to Robert Watson, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a 2500+ international scientific panel that advises the UN, it makes no difference HOW the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is lowered, so long as it is. Environmental groups and the EU like to point out, however, that using forests as the primary method of reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is problematic. There is no guarantee that trees planted to sequester carbon will not succumb to forest fires or that trees will not begin to release stored carbon as they grow older. Because of this, allowing for widespread use of carbon sinks also sets up a perverse incentive to cut down old growth forests in favor of young tree plantations, which would create different environmental problems in regard to biodiversity. There is also the moral issue of undermining the spirit of the treaty, which many think was meant to encourage substantial changes to truly reduce global warming in the long run as opposed to finding "quick-fix" loopholes around actually decreasing emissions.

A second issue of contention regarded the clean development mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM allows developed countries to assist developing countries in setting up clean energy sources, and count that country’s emissions reductions toward their own target. If implemented well, the CDM could substantially assist developing countries while decreasing worldwide CO2 emissions.

The U.S., Australia, and Japan were pushing heavily for nuclear power to be included in the CDM. The EU and others (including the citizens of the U.S. and Australia, who have overwhelmingly made it clear to lawmakers that they oppose nuclear power in their own countries) do not consider nuclear energy to be "clean" and were therefore opposed to it being included in the CDM. Not only does nuclear power carry with it the huge potential for meltdown and consequent ecological catastrophe, it is much more expensive than most other fossil and renewable sources. When the cost of the historically inevitable decommissioning of a nuclear power plant is included in the figures, the cost of nuclear energy is nearly 1.5 times that of comparable renewable technologies.

Members of the Student Climate Summit were able to choose their own methods of activism at the conference, and it was truly amazing to see so many shift from being scraggly tree huggers to well-tailored lobbyists. A large number chose to meet with delegates from the U.S. and other countries to speak eloquently on behalf of the environment, while others worked with the Greenpeace International media team in organizing press conferences. Still others chose direct action, both inside the conference center handing out candy with quotes about the potential for destruction due to global warming, and outside, managing a successful banner-drop on the building across the street (a police station, no less) that read, "DON’T LET US D(R)OWN". Most decided to do a bit of both, choosing to switch roles as the week progressed. With 225 students working on just about every imaginable front, our impact on the conference was tremendous. No one there was unaware of our presence, and many delegates thought our diligence, passion, and intelligent and creative tactics helped to liven up a typically dry and impersonal process.

Much of the press in the United States has suggested COP6 was a flop because no agreement was reached. I think most environmentalists would agree that the outcome was disappointing to say the least, but there was an equal amount of relief that an agreement lacking environmental integrity was not the end result. An environmentally sound treaty may have been the most preferable outcome, but having a signed treaty with no strong environmental commitment is no better. Although it is a setback for negotiations to be behind schedule, it is definitely better for the environment that the EU and others stayed strong in their opposition to the weakened treaty preferred by the United States delegation.

here are a number of things I am fed up with in American politics, not the least of which is the Democratic and Republican parties’ tight grip on political power. Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to expect a third party to suddenly come to the forefront and win the majority. Because of this, I have had to accept that my vote for Ralph Nader will probably not elect the next president of the United States.

If, however, we visionaries were to listen to the naysayers who think one should only vote for a person who is likely to win, no third party would ever become a viable alternative.

Voting for Ralph Nader sends a message to the powers that be that we are ready for change, in addition to bringing us one step closer to a more open party system. As exciting and important as it may be to vote for a viable candidate, or to vote against a harmful candidate, it is infinitely more important to me that I cast my vote for the candidate who most closely represents my views. Many people seem to have forgotten this concept, but if I remember correctly, it is the method one is supposed to use when deciding for whom to vote. Ralph Nader is the candidate that my conscience has chosen.

The highlight of Nader’s platform is his commitment to campaign finance reform. The Democrats and Republicans have each offered a decent amount of prattle on the topic, but Nader is the only candidate who has proven his commitment to the concept by refusing to accept "soft money." Despite this self-imposed handicap, he is well on his way to raising five million dollars. This is no small feat given the fact that legally, individuals are only allowed to donate $1000 per candidate.

In addition to this centerpiece, Nader has some fantastic ideas on how to improve the democratic process in this country.

He would institute same-day voter registration to bring more people to the polls, open the presidential debates to candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to actually win, gear our system toward proportional representation and away from the current "winner takes all" state of affairs, and introduce non-binding referenda on salient issues to increase leaders’ awareness of public opinion.

Nader would also like to see the presidential election take the form of instant runoff voting, in which voters rank their top choices. If no candidate were to gain 50 percent of the vote after counting everyone’s first choice, officials would tally the second choices, and so on, until a candidate gained the majority. This would eliminate the fear some have of "wasting" their vote, and it would allow citizens to feel comfortable voting for their first choice.

The environment is my main area of interest, and Nader is by far the only candidate to represent my views. He has a comprehensive plan for combating global warming, something even "environmentalist" Al Gore lacks.

Nader would require that genetically modified foods be labeled and tested for safety by the FDA & USDA.

He is also the only candidate to advocate U.S. withdrawal from the WTO in order to renegotiate crucial trade treaties and ensure that corporate interests do not drown public health and environmental concerns.

In addition, Nader is pro-choice. He wants to bring the U.S. in step with the rest of the industrialized world by instituting a national health care system– a plan all but abandoned by Al Gore, whose goals for health care in the U.S. extend little beyond his proposal that Medicare cover prescription drugs.

Nader plans to decrease the military budget, which, according to Ronald Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of Defense, Lawrence Korb, could be cut by 20 percent without jeopardizing our national security. Nader also has reasonable views on gun control–he is pushing for the banning of certain weapons, licensing of gun owners and mandatory trigger locks.

Like many progressives, I would prefer to see Al Gore in the White House before George Bush. If Bush wins, however, I will feel neither guilt nor regret about my vote for Ralph Nader.

I am not responsible for Al Gore’s weak positions on key issues that are of importance to millions of Americans, and I resent the insinuation that I ought to vote against my conscience to help him make up for it. If Gore can’t earn the votes he needs to beat out the competition, he doesn’t deserve to be our next president.

The best thing about living in America is that if we don’t like things, we have the power to change them. If we all wait for Nader to carry 30 percent of the vote before finally voting for him, he will never do it. But if progressives vote for the candidate they believe in the most, he will certainly come a lot closer.