t is an undeniable fact that Dartmouth has historically been a male-dominated sexist institution. And yet it is also undeniable that, finally, feminist voices are being listened to here. With the beginning of coeducation in ’72, women’s ideas began to make an impact. With the crucial help of dedicated feminist faculty and brave female students, Dartmouth is now a world away from the campus where men protested the entrance of women. It is crucial, though, that students attending the College today are aware of the struggles women on this campus have engaged in to make Dartmouth what it is presently.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF FEMINISM AND WOMEN’S ACTIVISM AT DARTMOUTH

Under pressure from the multitude of colleges and universities throughout the country that were going coed, and spurred on by the recent signing into law of Title IV, which prohibited sex discrimination in higher education, Dartmouth reluctantly admitted women into its Class of ’72. This first class included only 200 women, who made their way at Dartmouth that first year of coeducation among 3000 male students. This was a result of the quota system, which ensured that Dartmouth remained largely male: the ratio of men to women at the College was supposed to remain at 3:1. Needless to say, the women who initially entered Dartmouth were a marginalized minority. Administrators largely ignored the needs of women, and male students regarded them as invaders of their formerly idyllic New England campus. They were labeled “co-hogs,” ignored in classes taught by an almost exclusively male faculty, and made victims of sexual assaults that went largely unnoticed.

Women soon began to organize against the rampant sexism and hostility they encountered, helped by pioneering female professors such as Marysa Navarro, Brenda Silver, and Mary Kelley. The first true feminist activism on this campus occurred in ’76, when virtually all the women students enrolled at the time produced a play entitled, “You Laugh”, which challenged the misogynism that was rampant on campus. Women at Dartmouth, the first women’s organization for students at Dartmouth was formed out of the play experience. W.A.D. organized “Take Back the Night” rallies and marches, publicized anti-woman acts on campus and campaigned against the quota regarding female students. Some women protested the organization for its radical leanings and the implication that it represented all Dartmouth women. But indisputably, W.A.D. began a generation of feminist activism at Dartmouth that is still present today.

Another style of female organization was developing at Dartmouth in the late 70s. The first sorority, Sigma Kappa, was formed in ’76 as a purely social organization for women and for the first time, was offered exclusively for Dartmouth women. One of the original goals, and one that sororities still claim is relevant today, was the creation of “women’s space.” The first female students needed a refuge from the hyper-masculine, traditional and exclusive fraternity system that basically constituted the entire social scene at Dartmouth. The sorority system, however, soon proved itself to be little more than a feminized version of the fraternities, and with the support of the administration, the sororities were institutionalized. Feminist activists, whose goals were to challenge and change the Dartmouth community, soon went down a separate path than the sororities, who became explicitly social organizations with a stake in upholding the status quo. With the inception of a Women’s Studies program at Dartmouth in ’78, many feminist women found a place in the College that was uniquely supportive of them and their needs.

Women of color found little support in either the newly formed sorority system or in the small grassroots feminist organizations. The intersections of race, class and gender were largely ignored, and women of color found more support in organizations such as the AAm (Afro-America Society), where they gathered together informally as women to discuss gender and race. The larger movement of women at Dartmouth also largely ignored the experience and interests of lesbian women, who were almost entirely closeted and fearful of homophobic violence, although some women were involved in the then-predominantly male gay student association.

One landmark, if rare event, that reflected the anger of minority groups at the College was during Winter Carnival of ’79. After several grievous acts of misogynism and racism, W.A.D., the Native American’s at Dartmouth and the AAm joined together, painting the snow sculpture that year red, black and green, and covering it with women’s symbols. This act enraged many mainstream Dartmouth students, who failed to understand the very real problems women and minority students were facing. This rare cooperation between groups working for change at Dartmouth was short-lived, reflecting the general tendency of minorities and women’s groups here to work independently, often to the detriment of their own causes.

Nevertheless, by the beginning of the ’80s, major change had been accomplished: there was a Women’s Studies program, an end to the “quota” system and female controlled social space in the sororities. The Dartmouth tendency to idealize tradition, however, caused many men to continue to consider women students as temporary and as nuisances that interfered with their Dartmouth experience. With Reagan in office and some basic change instituted, women’s groups were exhausted and discouraged.

W.A.D. formally disbanded in ’82, and the conservative reaction grew strength at Dartmouth. The Dartmouth Review began in the early 80s, funded by powerful men in the New Right. It quickly formulated itself as a reaction against the “liberalizing forces” that had been destroying Dartmouth; coeducation, of course, was one of those forces.

The early 80s was a time of political apathy on campus, although the divestment struggles regarding South Africa were especially heated at Dartmouth. The Women’s Issues League (WIL), a radical feminist group, grew out of those struggles.

Women were deeply involved with the divestment struggle, including the formation of a shantytown in the middle of the Green. Stet, the first radical leftist publication on campus, was also begun during this period. Despite this activism, gender as a mode of analysis was largely ignored at the expense of class and race issues. Eventually, the women in the divestment movement challenged the lack of focus on gender issues, and their challenges instigated the eventual dissolution of the movement. Male radicals began to silence women’s voices and assume all leadership roles. As an alternative, women began turning to the Women’s Studies Program and the faculty.

A “Take Back the Night” march through Webster Avenue in ’87 served to remind the campus that women were not going to allow sexual assaults to go on unnoticed and ignored. This particular march was especially well attended since only shortly before a well-known feminist activist on campus had been attacked while walking down Frat Row. An even more radical group, Womyn to Overthrow Dartmyth, sought to engage the campus in discussion about gender by dumping bags of simulated bloodied tampons on Homecoming Weekend, right in front of the podium where then-President McLaughlin was speaking. Radical feminism took off at Dartmouth for a few years in the late 80s, spurred by righteous anger at the state of the campus. Of course, they encountered a serious backlash from the members of the Review, among others, but they also were successful in raising issues of gender that had remained beneath the surface at Dartmouth for a long time.

By the ’90s, women’s activism had begun to focus on specific issues such as sexual assault and the need for the administration to set sanctions for this crime. Additionall
y, the growing strength of the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender and Questioning/Queer) movement at Dartmouth and across the nation affected feminist action and thought. Issues of diversity also came to the forefront in the early 90s. The Review, in response to these growing movements, became more vehemently reactionary, intimidating faculty members and students alike. Feminism itself became a radical term, and women on campus began to move away from the use of the word. Instead, the Rape Education Action Committee (REACT) became the only women’s organization on campus in the 90s, and its focus was almost entirely on sexual assault at Dartmouth. Sororities provided a source of feminist organizing, although generally in reaction to fraternity behavior that bordered on the animalistic. The fact, however, that sororities were connected to the mainstream Dartmouth social system effectively prevented them from challenging much of the misogyny and homophobia that occurred.

Although activism at Dartmouth on gender issues continued throughout the 90s, specific goals instead of general feminist concerns were usually the motivation. After the mid-90s, a core of feminist students committed to activism no longer existed as it had before. Women of color and white women did not come together as they on occasion had earlier, and lesbian women often found more support and need to act in GLBT efforts. Sisterhood, a black women’s group, formed in order to provide a support network for African American women. By the late 90s, women’s needs and interest in feminist organizing seemed to have dissolved.

While the radical acts of women students in the 80s are not reflective of feminist activism at Dartmouth today, that does not mean that gender-based activism has died at Dartmouth. Often, women at Dartmouth organize on a more spontaneous basis, in reaction to a misogynist act or event. The April 2001 Zeta Psi scandal, when this fraternity was found to be producing a misogynist, rape-praising newsletter, and the ensuing activism reveal a student body that is eager to protest when it sees the need to do so.

The Women of Color Collective, begun in 2001-2002 in collaboration with the Center for Women and Gender, addresses issues for women of color and is growing in popularity and influence.

Academically, most Dartmouth students report little gender prejudice, and by and large the faculty is supportive of female, male and other-gendered students alike. Socially, however, the College still has a way to go. Hillary Miller ’02, a campus activist, notes, “Socially, Dartmouth is an exciting place, especially since the [male to female] ratio is 50/50, but a lot of women still feel like they need to go into frat houses on the “buddy system” or feel unsafe at certain parties. A lot of queer students feel uncomfortable in certain parts of campus”. It is time for us, men and women of Dartmouth, to examine our misconceptions and prejudices regarding gender.

Women at Dartmouth have come a long way from the initial coed nightmares of the ’70s. Concerns about sexual assault and diversity are the focus of activists today. You, the women and men of the incoming class of 2006, will play a crucial role in the future of feminist activism at Dartmouth.

o ahead, declare a major in Women’s and Gender Studies: it’s the best way to scare men, worry your parents, confuse your friends, and convince everyone else you’re a lesbian. And of course, if you’re a man, it all becomes even more complicated.

Looking beyond this rampant stereotyping of feminism and women’s studies, Dartmouth’s Women’s and Gender Studies Program has had a mixed history. With renowned feminist scholars such as Brenda Silver, Mary Kelley and Marianne Hirsch on the faculty, feminists are undoubtedly prominent on this campus. However, since its beginning in ’79, the program has had to work with a laughably small budget, conservative backlash, and lack of support from many academic departments who continue to ignore feminist scholarship and academic innovation, hindering the Program’s goals and limiting student interest.

Women’s studies was born in the late ’60s out of the Second Wave feminist movement that was then just gathering momentum. As women took to the streets and to the courts to challenge sexual violence, economic discrimination and curtailed reproductive rights, newly inspired feminists to question the status of women in higher education. High-level administrators were almost exclusively male, and the curriculum at most universities ignored the contributions of women. Newly formed women’s studies programs began to examine traditional disciplines under a new light, using newly minted feminist theories and pedagogy to revolutionize the academy.

The National Women’s Studies Association formed in ’77 to support and link programs across the country. In its mission statement, the NWSA states, “Women’s studies owes its existence to the movement for the liberation of women; the feminist movement exists because women are oppressed.” The field of women’s studies was formed out of a political movement, and the politics of the field continue to affect its existence today.

Before women’s studies at Dartmouth, feminist scholars and students faced a largely male administration and a virtually all-male cadre of full professors. As was quite common throughout the early days of the feminist movement, women sought out women-only spaces for safety and support. The first sororities at Dartmouth, for instance, were formed in reaction to the hostile, male-dominated spaces of fraternities.

Similarly, women professors fought for their own space in the academy. The Feminist Inquiry faculty seminar excluded men from participating until ’95. Out of this seminar, begun in ’77, demands for a women’s studies program were born. Professor Ivy Schweitzer, of the English Department, explains, “the Feminist Inquiry Seminar was begun to create a ‘safe’ space, as it were, for faculty, who were mostly women, to present feminist work without the skepticism, intimidation and dismissiveness they often met from non-feminist or anti-feminist colleagues.” With the support of this core of feminist faculty members, and under pressure to match other campuses’ programs, the administration acceded. In ’79 the first courses were taught, in ’80 a modified major was introduced, and in ’92 a full major was instituted.

As expected, conservatives fought against these changes in university curriculum. They decried the new courses that focused on women’s literature and women’s history, and lamented what they perceived as a loss of focus on the serious concerns of a liberal arts education.

Reactionary student publications, including The Dartmouth Review, quickly joined the attack against women’s studies and other progressive changes to the academy in the ’70s. All of these concerns came to a head in the culture wars of the ’80s and ’90s, when academics took sides deriding or defending multiculturalism, feminism, and the role of politics in the classroom. Although the frenzy has died down, the place of women’s studies at Dartmouth and universities elsewhere remains vulnerable.

Sexism in the academy still exists and thrives, despite the best efforts of the conservative media to convince you otherwise. Even with the dedication of key feminist academics at Dartmouth, senior faculty at the College have been decidedly scornful of feminist scholarship at times. Professor Schweitzer recalls asking an eminent male scholar in the English Department to read a draft of a paper on Anne Bradstreet: “not only did he return it to me marked up in red pencil, as if I were a grammar school student, but he thought I needed to ‘give evidence’ to support the notion that English Renaissance social organization was largely male-dominated and patriarchal.” This sort of condescension towards feminist scholarship and theory continued well into the ’80s, even as conservatives in the media decried the “radical feminism” they saw as overrunning academia.

Having weathered the political sniping, women’s studies at Dartmouth is in many ways a success story: the introductory course in women’s studies is almost always filled to capacity, and every term roughly five to ten higher level courses are taught by dedicated and engaging faculty. Professors from most humanities departments teach women’s studies courses, and female faculty members have been incredibly supportive of the program. This year, for the first time, a tenure-track professor has been hired (in conjunction with the Geography Department) within Women’s and Gender Studies, which will finally allow the program teach core courses in-house.

For an interdisciplinary major, however, the program is unable to reach many students because departments on this campus continue to ignore feminist scholarship and women’s issues. Women’s Studies, because of its small budget, cannot pay for tenure-track positions in the sciences and social sciences. This forces the program to depend on interest among professors and departments’ willingness to allow their professors to teach outside the department. This policy leads to widely varying course offerings and an unbalanced curriculum.

Well over three-fourths of the courses offered through women’s studies or cross-listed with the program are in the humanities. This includes a large amount from the language departments, but not other fields where feminist thought has been particularly influential, including anthropology and economics. Students interested in the sciences or social sciences have little opportunity to be exposed to feminist scholarship and little incentive to major in a program without courses in their field of interest. Students who do major in Women’s Studies lose the interdisciplinary aspect of the major, taking almost exclusively courses in the humanities instead.

The Anthropology Department is one of the most egregious offenders. Not since ’97 has an Anthropology course been offered that has met the criteria to be cross-listed or considered a women’s studies’ topics course. Given that Anthopology is a discipline where feminist scholarship abounds, this is a gross omission. But no one can tell the department what to offer, and so this sexism continues.

The Economics Department, unsurprisingly, is another offender. The last Economics course that took issues relating to women and gender as a serious form of inquiry was in ’86. Given the amount of public debate regarding the role of women in the workforce, and the incredible changes brought about by the influx of women into the economy in the past 40 years, it seems that there is a vast amount of subject matter to draw on for fascinating and rigorous courses. Sadly, the Economics Department disagrees.

The Biology Department is no better. It is a no-brainer that women should be included in the curriculum of a college biology department. And yet, the last time a biology course was cross-listed with women’s s
tudies was in ’80. We weren’t even born yet, and they’d already given up on studying women in the biology department.

Of course, there are also departments on this campus who have never offered a women’s studies-related course, and probably never should—after all, what would a syllabus for a feminist physics course look like? Other departments, like Economics and Biology, have abundant subject matter for crosslisting but deliberately refuse to teach on the subject.

Sadly, the way the College is governed now, this silent but significant sexism continues unabated. Majors in women’s studies are left with lopsided course offerings, and the possibility for a truly interdisciplinary major is lost. Departments need to be funded well enough to offer a variety of courses and pressured from higher-ups in the college hierarchy to hire professors that can teach Women’s Studies courses. Students need to pressure departments and the administration. The Student Assembly can pursue this issue, and students can speak to professors and department chairs and demand to know the reasons for these curricular gaps.

The true goal of Second Wave feminism was not to create a marginalized academic discipline of women’s studies, the equivalent of a sorority in the male-dominated university. Instead, feminists sought to revolutionize the way academics in every discipline think about women, men, and gender, and the role gender plays in our lives and our scholarship. Without an administration to both allow and encourage departments to include feminist scholarship, and without students to protest curricular lacks, women’s studies on this campus will continue to suffer.

eminism at Dartmouth: where is it, and where is it headed? It is an undeniable fact that Dartmouth has historically been a male-dominated sexist institution. And yet it is also undeniable that, finally, feminist voices are being listened to here. With the beginning of coeducation in ’72, women’s ideas began to make an impact. With the crucial help of dedicated feminist faculty and brave female students, Dartmouth is now a world away from the campus where men protested the entrance of women. It is crucial, though, that students attending the College today are aware of the struggles women on this campus have engaged in to make Dartmouth what it is presently.

A Short History of Feminism and Women’s Activism At Dartmouth College

Under pressure from the multitude of colleges and universities throughout the country that were going coed, and spurred on by the recent signing into law of Title IV, which prohibited sex discrimination in higher education, Dartmouth reluctantly admitted women into its Class of ’72. This first class included only 200 women, who made their way at Dartmouth that first year of coeducation among 3000 male students. This was a result of the quota system, which ensured that Dartmouth remained largely male: the ratio of men to women at the College was supposed to remain at 3:1. Needless to say, the women who initially entered Dartmouth were a marginalized minority. Administrators largely ignored the needs of women, and male students regarded them as invaders of their formerly idyllic New England campus. They were labeled “co-hogs,” ignored in classes taught by an almost exclusively male faculty, and made victims of sexual assaults that went largely unnoticed.

Women soon began to organize against the rampant sexism and hostility they encountered, helped by pioneering female professors such as Marysa Navarro, Brenda Silver, and Mary Kelley. The first true feminist activism on this campus occurred in ’76, when virtually all the women students enrolled at the time produced a play entitled, “You Laugh”, which challenged the misogynism that was rampant on campus. Women at Dartmouth, the first women’s organization for students at Dartmouth was formed out of the play experience. W.A.D. organized “Take Back the Night” rallies and marches, publicized anti-woman acts on campus, and campaigned against the quota regarding female students. Some women protested the organization for its radical leanings and the implication that it represented all Dartmouth women. But indisputably, W.A.D. began a generation of feminist activism at Dartmouth that is still present today.

Another style of female organization was developing at Dartmouth in the late 70s. The first sorority, Sigma Kappa, was formed in ’76 as a purely social organization for women and for the first time, was offered exclusively for Dartmouth women. One of the original goals, and one that sororities still claim is relevant today, was the creation of “women’s space.” The first female students needed a refuge from the hyper-masculine, traditional and exclusive fraternity system that basically constituted the entire social scene at Dartmouth. The sorority system, however, soon proved itself to be little more than a feminized version of the fraternities, and with the support of the administration, the sororities were institutionalized. Feminist activists, whose goals were to challenge and change the Dartmouth community, soon went down a separate path than the sororities, who became explicitly social organizations with a stake in upholding the status quo. With the inception of a Women’s Studies program at Dartmouth in ’78, many feminist women found a place in the College that was uniquely supportive of them and their needs.

Women of color found little support in either the newly formed sorority system or in the small grassroots feminist organizations. The intersections of race, class and gender were largely ignored, and women of color found more support in organizations such as the AAm (Afro-America Society), where they gathered together informally as women to discuss gender and race issues. The larger movement of women at Dartmouth also largely ignored the experience and interests of lesbian women, who were almost totally in the closet and fearful of homophobic violence, although some women were involved in the then-predominantly male gay student association.

One landmark, if rare event, that reflected the anger of minority groups at the College was during Winter Carnival of ’79. After several grievous acts of misogynism and racism, W.A.D., the Native American’s at Dartmouth, and the AAm joined together, painting the snow sculpture that year red, black and green, and covering it with women’s symbols. This act enraged many mainstream Dartmouth students, who failed to understand the very real problems women and minority students were facing. This rare cooperation between groups working for change at Dartmouth was short-lived, reflecting the general tendency of minorities and women’s groups here to work independently, often to the detriment of their own causes.

Nevertheless, by the beginning of the ’80s, major change had been accomplished: there was a Women’s Studies program, an end to the “quota” system, and female controlled social space in the sororities. The Dartmouth tendency to idealize tradition, however, caused many men to continue to consider women students as temporary, and as nuisances that interfered with their Dartmouth experience. With Reagan in office and some basic change instituted, women’s groups were exhausted and discouraged.

W.A.D. formally disbanded in ’82, and the conservative reaction grew strength at Dartmouth. The Review began in the early 80s, funded by powerful men in the New Right, and it quickly formulated itself as a reaction against the “liberalizing forces” that had been destroying Dartmouth; coeducation, of course, was one of those forces.

The early 80s was a time of political apathy on campus, although the divestment struggles regarding South Africa were especially heated at Dartmouth, and the Women’s Issues League (WIL), a radical feminist group, grew out of those struggles.

Women were deeply involved with the divestment struggle, including the formation of a shantytown in the middle of the Green. Stet, the first radical leftist publication on campus, was also begun during this period. Despite this activism, gender as a mode of analysis was largely ignored at the expense of class and race issues. Eventually, the women in the divestment movement challenged the lack of focus on gender issues, and their challenges instigated the eventual dissolution of the movement. Male radicals began to silence women’s voices and assume all leadership roles. As an alternative, women began turning to the Women’s Studies Program and the faculty.

A “Take Back the Night” march through Webster Avenue in ’87 served to remind the campus that women were not going to allow sexual assaults to go on unnoticed and ignored. This particular march was especially well attended since only shortly before, a well-known feminist activist on campus had been attacked while walking down Frat Row. An even more radical group, Womyn to Overthrow Dartmyth, sought to engage the campus in discussion about gender by dumping bags of simulated bloodied tampons on Homecoming Weekend, right in front of the podium where then-President McLaughlin was speaking. Radical feminism took off at Dartmouth for a few years in the late 80s, spurred by righteous anger at the state of the campus. Of course, they encountered a serious backlash from the members of the Review, among others, but they also were successful in raising issues of gender that had remained beneath the surface at Dartmouth for a long time.

By the ’90s, women’s activism had begun to focus on specific issues such as sexual assaul
t and the need for the administration to set sanctions for this crime. Additionally, the growing strength of the GLBTQ (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transgender and Questioning) movement at Dartmouth and across the nation affected feminist action and thought. Issues of diversity also came to the forefront in the early 90s. The Review, in response to these growing movements, became more vehemently reactionary, intimidating faculty members and students alike. Feminism itself became a radical term, and women on campus began to move away from the use of the word. Instead, the Rape Education Action Committee (REACT) became the only women’s organization on campus in the 90s, and its focus was almost entirely on sexual assault at Dartmouth. Sororities provided a source of feminist organizing, although generally in reaction to fraternity behavior that bordered on the animalistic. The fact, however, that sororities were connected to the mainstream Dartmouth social system effectively prevented them from challenging much of the misogyny and homophobia that occurred.

Although activism at Dartmouth on gender issues continued throughout the 90s, specific goals instead of general feminist concerns were usually the motivation. After the mid-90s, a core of feminist students committed to activism no longer existed as it had before. Women of color and white women did not come together as they on occasion had earlier, and lesbian women often found more support and need to act in GLBT efforts. Sisterhood, a black women’s group, while providing a support network for African American women, did little political activism. By the late 90s, women’s needs and interest in feminist organizing seemed to have dissolved.

While the radical acts of women students in the 80s are not reflective of feminist activism at Dartmouth today, that does not mean that gender-based activism has died at Dartmouth. Often, women at Dartmouth organize on a more spontaneous basis, in reaction to a misogynist act or event. The April 2001 Zeta Psi scandal, and the ensuing activism reveal a student body that is eager to protest when it sees the need to do so.

The Women of Color Collective, begun in 2001-2002 in collaboration with the Women’s Resource Center, addresses issues for women of color and is growing in popularity and influence.

Academically, most Dartmouth students report little gender prejudice, and by and large the faculty is supportive of female, male and other-gendered students alike. Socially, however, the College still has a way to go. Hillary Miller ’02, a campus activist, notes, “Socially, Dartmouth is an exciting place, especially since the [male to female] ratio is 50/50, but a lot of women still feel like they need to go into frat houses on the “buddy system” or feel unsafe at certain parties. A lot of queer students feel uncomfortable in certain parts of campus”. It is time for us, men and women of Dartmouth, to examine our misconceptions and prejudices regarding gender.

Women at Dartmouth have come a long way from the initial coed nightmares of the ’70s. Concerns about sexual assault and diversity are the focus of activists today. You, the women and men of the incoming class of 2006, will play a crucial role in the future of feminist activism at Dartmouth.

"Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, Thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought is great and swift and free."

-Bertrand Russell

You, the members of the Class of 2006, are about to embark upon the intellectual adventure of your lives. Each of you is facing the beginning of four years of study and activity: intense study and activity in an equally intense community of fellow students. Beginnings are scary times, and beginning college is in some ways the scariest beginning there can be. And yet the opportunities are also enormous.

This First Year Issue of the Dartmouth Free Press is two-fold: to introduce you to the plethora of progressive student activities, communities and activism that exist on this campus, presenting an image of Dartmouth that is not always found in the guidebooks and admissions literature. Our second goal is to encourage, even exhort you, to understand the political nature of this campus, and to get involved. Whether you are on the left or the right, or are undecided, Dartmouth’s political life depends on the exchange of ideas and the activism of its students.

As first year students, one of the most challenging tasks is to find a community here. Do not settle for the first people you run into during Orientation, and do not succumb to the easy mindlessness of the Greek system unless that is your conscious and careful decision.

Perhaps you did not come to Dartmouth to fight political battles. Many people do not. But there are many students here who do commit themselves and their time to progressive and liberal activism and discussion. Don’t think they don’t exist.

As first year students, do not limit your options too quickly after matriculation. In their articles in this issue, Kristin Foery and Katie Greenwood offer visions and descriptions of alternative communities at the College, but there are many other ways to opt out of Greek life and the powerful apathy that characterizes it. Do not be afraid to challenge mainstream Dartmouth culture.

Realize that Dartmouth is, first and foremost, an aged institution with a sometimes-suffocating sense of tradition. Do not let this scare you. Earlier classes’ minds and efforts have already changed the nature of this institution in meaningful and sometimes astounding ways. It is possible to change Dartmouth. Still, beware of the legacy of powerful institutions here.

Remember that Dartmouth is here, now, for you. Your minds and your efforts will ensure that this school does not drown in tradition and convention. Tim Waligore, in his article on the Review and the Indian symbol, provides a warning reminder of the power of blindly reactionary movements on this campus when no one speaks out in protest. Karsten Barde and Charlie White offer a positive counterbalance to this word of warning: read their articles to learn about the latest developments in progressive activism and action on this campus.

Question everything. You are here at Dartmouth for good reason: do not doubt your ability to challenge how life works in Hanover. Question DOC trips, question the College’s investment choices, question frat parties, question the administration, question town and state politics. An explosion in liberal and progressive activity at Dartmouth in the past few years has caused numerous political organizations to blossom. Get involved with the campus Green Party, the Women of Color Collective, the Student Assembly, and the Organic Farm. Learn how to create a sustainable living community. The possibilities are there for the choosing.

Dartmouth is an intellectual community. Professors are our greatest resource here. Engage with them: don’t leave class every day, running to the door. Chat with them and find out what your professors care about. There is a great network of professors here with strong political affiliations and convictions. Take advantage of that: read our professor’s guide to get a head start, and plan your classes around your professors. They can make your Dartmouth experience. Try classes in programs with little funding and support from the College, but lots of dedication and support from professors. Programs like Women’s and Gender Studies, Education, African and African American Studies, War and Peace Studies, and Geography are both intimate and friendly, besides being academically challenging and politically inspiring.

Do not reject the idea that politics will be always play a part of your life at Dartmouth. Politics, for better or worse, are embedded in this and all institutions and here to stay. Realize, that your social and academic decisions are political ones. Do not be blind to the systems that you endorse by your support.

Finally, enjoy yourselves: find what you love and do not be afraid to follow your passions, even if they leave you on the outside of traditional Dartmouth student life. We are, above all, a community of thinkers, and as Russell Bertrand says, thinking, by its very nature, challenges the status quo. Do not be afraid to think. Better yet, think and then put your thoughts into action. Dartmouth is the place and now is the time.

Best of luck!

Laura Dellatorre and Karsten Barde

Editors, Dartmouth Free Press

ith all the hype at Dartmouth about the concept of community, I am continually surprised by the lack of meaningful communities here at the College. While we all undoubtedly comprise an academic community, and the Greek system does provide some students with exclusive, single-sex social communities, there is a significant lack of community and support for progressive students on this campus.

In the fall of ’99, I entered a Dartmouth without the Dartmouth Free Press, without the Green Party, and with a decidedly lack-luster Young Democrats organization constituting the basis of a liberal community on campus. While identity-based groups such as MOSAIC and the Dartmouth Rainbow Alliance both existed and actively participated in campus politics, the options for many liberal students with a more general agenda at Dartmouth were decidedly limited. I vividly remember my frustration with trying to find fellow students who shared similar concerns.

Especially difficult for me to accept was the utter lack of an explicitly feminist and activist organization on campus. Naively, I expected that sort of group would be a fixture on campuses nationwide, and certainly would be present at Dartmouth. I remember well a meeting of a group at the Rockefeller Center, Women in Politics. I attended mistakenly hoping to discover a feminist-minded organization with a political agenda on campus and beyond. Instead, I discovered a group of women whose main purpose in meeting was to decide what big-profile woman politico to invite next to campus. I left disappointed and frustrated. I did not want to join a Greek house, and yet the political communities at Dartmouth were so unappealing that the alternative, sticking it out as an “independent”, seemed nearly as bad.

My experience is not unlike many Dartmouth first-year students who also come to Hanover hoping to find political activism and open-minded political debate. Instead, like myself, they find a campus deadlocked by the apathy bred in part by the Greek system and in part by the vituperative rants the Review passes off as political writing. It is not an encouraging environment, and the entry into college life is of course not the easiest experience to begin with. Faced with these already sizable challenges, it makes sense that students with liberal political aspirations can get off-track, confused and isolated. I myself spent over a year trying to create a sense of community for myself, running into a fair number of dead ends and failed organizations before finally helping found this publication and, more recently, discovering Foley House.

The past two years have been eventful ones for liberals (and conservatives) at Dartmouth. The inception of the Free Press finally gave progressive students a chance to speak out in their own publication. The growth and activism of the Green Party in the past year is another major development, as well as the creation of the Women of Color Collective. These are all promising developments, events that Dartmouth not that long ago would not have been able to support. Whether this change is a result of different admissions practices, or the effect of the SLI on prospective students, I think there is a significant increase in the numbers of liberal and activist students on this campus. A few years ago, Dartmouth was simply a much more apathetic and apolitical place. Still, I would argue that until the Greek system releases its stranglehold on social life on this campus, students who are not comfortable with simply accepting the status quo will continue to find a campus that is oftentimes downright hostile to them.

By saying the Greek system stifles liberal community on campus, I do not mean to deny that being a progressive is incompatible with being a member of a Greek house. Plenty of liberals, sometimes very active ones, are members of the Greek system. But I want to point out that the Greek system as a whole is a structure that, because of its wealth (Greek houses are the richest student organizations on campus) and domination of social and residential life on this campus, has a vested interest in the status quo. A large number of Greek members are chiefly concerned with protecting their houses’ interests on campus, and they do not often look beyond that loyalty. Thus, when anyone challenges the system, angry and defensive Greeks often attempt to silence that voice, refusing the possibility that change is anything but negative. Katie Greenwood’s brave challenge to sorority rush is a case in point: by bringing attention to a system that is at best superficial and silly, Greenwood suffered incredible harassment, in the form of near-constant hate mail, for months.

Co-existing with a conservative system that claims a near majority of students on campus is a serious challenge for progressive students at Dartmouth. There are nowhere near enough options for students who do not want to make the Greek life their life. However, for a variety of reasons, liberal students are finally beginning to reclaim a position on this campus that is far more unified than before. For one, as I mentioned above, political activism is on the rise.

The growing popularity of Foley House, a cooperative and environmentally conscious affinity-house, signifies a reevaluation and rejection of Greek houses and blind conservatism on the part of many students. Just a few years ago, Foley was a well-kept secret amongst students who wanted to escape the Greek system. Today, applications to the house are often rejected simply because there is no longer enough room for everyone. Amarna, Panarchy and other affinity housesalso provide clear alternatives to Greek life. Still, these houses are a startlingly small alternative to the twenty-five sororities and fraternities on this campus, and until Greek houses no longer have the power to determine the student political agenda, progressive students will continue to fight an uphill battle.

I think all this makes it more than evident why Dartmouth can be accused of being a conservative campus, and why liberal efforts on this campus are so stunted and lackluster. It is not at all a matter of conviction on the part of campus activists. Instead, Dartmouth lacks a cohesive liberal community that is essential for concerted and meaningful political activism. Until we have community, we will continue to work individually and oftentimes redundantly, unknowingly redoing the work our predecessors did perhaps just a few years earlier. w

ho would have thought? Rosie O’Donnell has single-handedly instigated a flurry of interest over the issue of gay adoption, an issue that has long been a crucial cause for gay activists and a point of contention for conservatives. Is Rosie leading the cause forward? The reality is that the American public woke up to the reality that gay adoption makes sense long before talk show hosts started championing the cause.

According to an April 2002 ABC News survey, for the first time a plurality of Americans support the idea of gay adoption. Supporters of same-sex adoption now outnumber opponents, if only slightly, for the first time in 10 years of polling on the subject. Forty-seven percent think gay couples should be legally permitted to adopt while 42 percent disagree.

This represents an incredible shift in opinion. Only eight years ago, the number of those that disagreed was as high as 65 percent. These statistics are surely heartening to gay activists and civil rights defenders around the country. But more than that, they signify a sea change in the social perception of gays and their place in the community.

In general, the concept of gays forming families and living “regular” lives has been much harder for the public to understand than the more two-dimensional homosexual characters on TV. Even today, the issue of gay civil unions is a hotly-contested one. While only Florida and Utah specifically prohibit gay adoption, gay marriage is forbidden in all states except Vermont, where same-sex civil unions were recently legalized.

Gay adoption is illegal still only in Utah and Florida, where the remnants of Anita Bryant’s anti-gay crusading live on in strict laws against gays adopting children. When the original Florida anti-gay adoption bill was passed, one of its sponsors in the State Senate told a local newspaper that the new law was intended to send this message to lesbians and gay men: “[w]e are really tired of you. We wish you’d go back in the closet.” Politicians may be more politically correct today, but their policies have changed little.

The ACLU is currently appealing the seemingly homophobic and discriminatory statute in Florida, using the case of a young boy in the care of two committed gay parents. The child has lived with the couple since he was two months old, officially as a foster child. The state of Florida is now trying to seek other adoptive parents for the child and remove him from his current home. Although national opinion may be changing, the courtroom has not proven hospitable. In ’97, in the most recent state court case regarding the law, a county judge refused to rule the gay adoption ban unconstitutional, saying, “If the state legislature chooses to allow children to languish in foster care. . . instead of opening the doors to homosexual households, it has that authority.” Clearly, Florida and Floridians still have much to do and think about.

Despite the situation in Florida, however, gay adoption is gaining official and organizational approval throughout the country. The American Psychological Association recently reported that children growing up with gay parents are not adversely affected by the experience.

The Child Welfare League of America, the nation’s oldest children’s advocacy organization, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children, have both said that gays and lesbians seeking to adopt should be evaluated in no different a manner than heterosexual applicants.

In this widespread and diverse social debate, Rosie—every soccer mom’s pal,—has become the focal point. The media’s furor over Rosie’s public statement that she was homosexual has implied that her efforts regarding gay adoption have been the unique reason for the growing number of gay adoption supporters. This could not be farther from the truth.

In reality, the American public has been increasingly sympathetic to the idea of gay adoption since long before Rosie O’Donnell landed her talk-show spot. More than that, Rosie might have done more harm than good in her gay rights advocacy. Rosie’s much-hyped defense of gay rights amounted in reality to a tame and almost apologetic stand on the issue.

Besides stating that she hopes that her children grow up straight, she also remarked, “I’m not asking that people accept homosexuality.” If this attitude is not against the heart of the gay rights movement, it is hard to imagine what is. Rosie does not even preach tolerance, which is the first step to accepting homosexuals’ basic humanity and their accompanying right to rear children.

Maybe mainstream America needs an apologetic lesbian to fully accept the idea of gay adoption, but I do not think so. Thanks, but no thanks, Rosie.

o both the dismay and secret satisfaction of Europe, the events of September 11th proved the United States vulnerable to terrorist attack. While French President Jacques Chirac offered official condolences to the people of America, there was spontaneous cheering in the streets of Paris as news of the attacks spread. And throughout Western Europe, the outpouring of sympathy for the victims of the attacks is now being tempered by a wariness of American military objectives in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Leaders such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, however, are also well aware of the possibilities that the current situation in Afghanistan holds for European NATO members. For the first time, a real opportunity to establish a post-Cold War Euro-American multilateralism has presented itself. An alliance considered by some to be directionless and anachronistic has been given new life by the events of September 11th and the global changes that have ensued. With British and European troops in Afghanistan, and Tony Blair’s noticeably active role in the American military campaign, the Europeans are seizing a chance for increased control of the international stage.

However, the people of Western Europe are far from accepting the military involvement that these political opportunities would require. While Schroeder, Chirac and Blair seek involvement in a conflict that could well continue for years, thus ensuring European control in the new century, the citizens of their nations are vociferously protesting the war. Demonstrations were held in Spain and Greece, and over 10,000 people filled Amsterdam’s central square, the Dam, on September 30th, in the largest peace action in the Netherlands since the ’80s.

The concern many Europeans possess in regards to American military action in Afghanistan is nowhere more evident than in the anti-war movement. The movement, found in various forms throughout much of Western Europe, is especially active in the United Kingdom. On November‘th, a mammoth anti-war rally was held in Trafalgar Square in London, which attracted over 15,000 protestors, according to conservative counts. Organized by peace activists, leftist socialist groups, and Muslim political organizations in London, the rally made national and international news.

In Germany, the divisions between coalition supporters and anti-war proponents are deepening. According to a survey of the German people last week, 57% are against the bombings in Afghanistan because humanitarian aid cannot reach the Afghan people. Serious divisions are emerging in Germany’s ruling Social Democrat/Green Party coalition over the war in Afghanistan. Ten of the 16 Green Party state leaders have called for a suspension of military action, and Social Democrats angry at the state of affairs in Afghanistan are also supporting a withdrawal.

In Ireland, peace activists have organized rallies, lectures, and are continually picketing college campuses and downtown Dublin. The Amnesty International chapter at Trinity College, the Worker’s Solidarity Movement, and other socialist and left-wing organizations support the anti-war movement in Ireland. On November 3rd, 3,000 individuals joined in an anti-war protest in Parnell Square in Dublin. Considering the size of the Irish population, and the size of Dublin (less than a million people), this number is fairly impressive.

A Gallup poll of public sentiment regarding the issue suggests that much of the Continent shares similar views. In Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, Norway and Switzerland, the vast majority of individuals interviewed did not support the idea that the United States should initiate a military attack on a country suspected of harboring terrorists. Instead, most respondents supported the idea of extradition and trial for terrorist suspects. While Europe’s leaders are professing support for American military action, Europe’s citizens are more cautious.

Without doubt, there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the Western European response to the events of September 11th and the ensuing military conflict. Although Europe’s leaders are eager to grasp the opportunity for greater influence in international politics by supporting the United States, the people of Western Europe are far more wary. Only time will tell how the coalition will fare, but it behooves the United States to realize that even its greatest supporters cannot be taken for granted.

he Women’s Studies Program at Dartmouth is a uniquely situated academic program at Dartmouth. Founded in ’78, it is the first Women’s Studies program in the Ivy League. The program offers well over fifty different courses, and students can major, minor or obtain a certificate in the field. Women’s Studies is an interdisciplinary program, and while it seeks to explore the experience and status of women in all disciplines, it does so with an explicitly feminist analysis as its motivation. The faculty who teach in the program come from departments as varied as English, Government, and Psychology. However, the program does not yet have its own faculty that focuses exclusively on Women’s Studies.

Although the interdisciplinary aspect is crucial to Women’s Studies, a lack of funding in general prevents the program from expanding into a larger space and employing tenure-track Women’s Studies faculty that could eventually transform the program into a full-fledged academic department. Fortunately, plans are in the works regarding possible joint-appointments in Women’s Studies that could truly enrich the program and extend its reach to many more students.

Because of its feminist motivation and accompanying demands for systemic change at Dartmouth and beyond, Women’s Studies has always had a politicized character. In part because of that political nature, the fight to create the Program was an arduous one. Without the dedication of professors such as Brenda Silver, Marysa Navarro, Lynn Higgins, Marianne Hirsch, and Mary Kelley, as well as the tireless work and support of Program Coordinator Anne Brooks, Women’s Studies at Dartmouth would not be what it is today.

Students who take classes in the program now enjoy personalized classroom experiences, plenty of discussion, accessible and supportive professors, and challenging academic material. Hillary Miller ‘02, a Drama major modified with Women’s Studies, describes the importance of taking classes that emphasize social and political analysis based on gender: “There are loads of incredible men and women doing many incredible things, regardless of gender…still, just like in the larger political sphere, there are things to make yourself aware of and to learn about, and unless people start taking those courses and doing that reading, it won’t start changing.” Change is what Women’s Studies is all about; whether it is academic tradition or students’ lives.

eminism at Dartmouth: where is it, and where is it headed? It is an undeniable fact that Dartmouth has historically been a male-dominated sexist institution. And yet it is also undeniable that, finally, feminist voices are being listened to here. With the beginning of coeducation in ’72, women’s ideas began to make an impact. With the crucial help of dedicated feminist faculty and brave female students, Dartmouth is now a world away from the campus where men protested the entrance of women. It is crucial, though, that students attending the College today are aware of the struggles women on this campus have engaged in to make Dartmouth what it is presently.

A Short History of Feminism and Women’s Activism At Dartmouth College

Under pressure from the multitude of colleges and universities throughout the country that were going coed, and spurred on by the recent signing into law of Title IV, which prohibited sex discrimination in higher education, Dartmouth reluctantly admitted women into its Class of ’72. This first class included only 200 women, who made their way at Dartmouth that first year of coeducation among 3000 male students. This was a result of the quota system, which ensured that Dartmouth remained largely male: the ratio of men to women at the College was supposed to remain at 3:1. Needless to say, the women who initially entered Dartmouth were a marginalized minority. Administrators largely ignored the needs of women, and male students regarded them as invaders of their formerly idyllic New England campus. They were labeled “co-hogs,” ignored in classes taught by an almost exclusively male faculty, and made victims of sexual assaults that went largely unnoticed.

Women soon began to organize against the rampant sexism and hostility they encountered, helped by pioneering female professors such as Marysa Navarro, Brenda Silver, and Mary Kelley. The first true feminist activism on this campus occurred in ’76, when virtually all the women students enrolled at the time produced a play entitled, “You Laugh”, which challenged the misogynism that was rampant on campus. Women at Dartmouth, the first women’s organization for students at Dartmouth was formed out of the play experience. W.A.D. organized “Take Back the Night” rallies and marches, publicized anti-woman acts on campus, and campaigned against the quota regarding female students. Some women protested the organization for its radical leanings and the implication that it represented all Dartmouth women. But indisputably, W.A.D. began a generation of feminist activism at Dartmouth that is still present today.

Another style of female organization was developing at Dartmouth in the late 70s. The first sorority, Sigma Kappa, was formed in ’76 as a purely social organization for women and for the first time, was offered exclusively for Dartmouth women. One of the original goals, and one that sororities still claim is relevant today, was the creation of “women’s space.” The first female students needed a refuge from the hyper-masculine, traditional and exclusive fraternity system that basically constituted the entire social scene at Dartmouth. The sorority system, however, soon proved itself to be little more than a feminized version of the fraternities, and with the support of the administration, the sororities were institutionalized. Feminist activists, whose goals were to challenge and change the Dartmouth community, soon went down a separate path than the sororities, who became explicitly social organizations with a stake in upholding the status quo. With the inception of a Women’s Studies program at Dartmouth in ’78, many feminist women found a place in the College that was uniquely supportive of them and their needs.

Women of color found little support in either the newly formed sorority system or in the small grassroots feminist organizations. The intersections of race, class and gender were largely ignored, and women of color found more support in organizations such as the AAm (Afro-America Society), where they gathered together informally as women to discuss gender and race issues. The larger movement of women at Dartmouth also largely ignored the experience and interests of lesbian women, who were almost totally in the closet and fearful of homophobic violence, although some women were involved in the then-predominantly male gay student association.

One landmark, if rare event, that reflected the anger of minority groups at the College was during Winter Carnival of ’79. After several grievous acts of misogynism and racism, W.A.D., the Native American’s at Dartmouth, and the AAm joined together, painting the snow sculpture that year red, black and green, and covering it with women’s symbols. This act enraged many mainstream Dartmouth students, who failed to understand the very real problems women and minority students were facing. This rare cooperation between groups working for change at Dartmouth was short-lived, reflecting the general tendency of minorities and women’s groups here to work independently, often to the detriment of their own causes.

Nevertheless, by the beginning of the ’80s, major change had been accomplished: there was a Women’s Studies program, an end to the “quota” system, and female controlled social space in the sororities. The Dartmouth tendency to idealize tradition, however, caused many men to continue to consider women students as temporary, and as nuisances that interfered with their Dartmouth experience. With Reagan in office and some basic change instituted, women’s groups were exhausted and discouraged. W.A.D. formally disbanded in ’82, and the conservative reaction grew strength at Dartmouth. The Review began in the early 80s, funded by powerful men in the New Right, and it quickly formulated itself as a reaction against the “liberalizing forces” that had been destroying Dartmouth; coeducation, of course, was one of those forces.

The early 80s was a time of political apathy on campus, although the divestment struggles regarding South Africa were especially heated at Dartmouth, and the Women’s Issues League (WIL), a radical feminist group, grew out of those struggles.

Women were deeply involved with the divestment struggle, including the formation of a shantytown in the middle of the Green. Stet, the first radical leftist publication on campus was also begun during this period. Despite this activism, gender as a mode of analysis was largely ignored at the expense of class and race issues. Eventually, the women in the divestment movement challenged the lack of focus on gender issues, and their challenges instigated the eventual dissolution of the movement. Male radicals began to silence women’s voices and assume all leadership roles. As an alternative, women began turning to the Women’s Studies Program and the faculty.

A “Take Back the Night” march through Webster Avenue in ’87 served to remind the campus that women were not going to allow sexual assaults to go on unnoticed and ignored. This particular march was especially well attended since only shortly before, a well-known feminist activist on campus had been attacked while walking down Frat Row. An even more radical group, Womyn to Overthrow Dartmyth, sought to engage the campus in discussion about gender by dumping bags of simulated bloodied tampons on Homecoming Weekend, right in front of the podium where then-President McLaughlin was speaking. Radical feminism took off at Dartmouth for a few years in the late 80s, spurred by righteous anger at the state of the campus. Of course, they encountered a serious backlash from the members of The Review, among others, but they also were successful in raising issues of gender that had remained beneath the surface at Dartmouth for a long time.

By the ’90s, women’s activism had begun to focus on specific issues such as sexual assault and
the need for the administration to set sanctions for this crime. Additionally, the growing strength of the GLBTQ (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transgender and Questioning) movement at Dartmouth and across the nation affected feminist action and thought. Issues of diversity also came to the forefront in the early 90s. The Review, in response to these growing movements, became more vehemently reactionary, intimidating faculty members and students alike. Feminism itself became a radical term, and women on campus began to move away from the use of the word. Instead, the Rape Education Action Committee (REACT) became the only women’s organization on campus in the 90s, and its focus was almost entirely on sexual assault at Dartmouth. Sororities provided a source of feminist organizing, although generally in reaction to fraternity behavior that bordered on the animalistic. The fact, however, that sororities were connected to the mainstream Dartmouth social system effectively prevented them from challenging much of the misogyny and homophobia that occurred.

Although activism at Dartmouth on gender issues continued throughout the 90s, specific goals instead of general feminist concerns were usually the motivation. After the mid-90s, a core of feminist students committed to activism no longer existed as it had before. Women of color and white women did not come together as they on occasion had earlier, and lesbian women often found more support and need to act in GLBT efforts. Sisterhood, a black women’s group, while providing a support network for African American women, did little political activism. By the late 90s, women’s needs and interest in feminist organizing seemed to have dissolved.

While the radical acts of women students in the 80s are not reflective of feminist activism at Dartmouth today, that does not mean that gender-based activism has died at Dartmouth. Often, women at Dartmouth organize on a more spontaneous basis, in reaction to a misogynist act or event. The recent Zeta Psi scandal, and the ensuing activism reveal a student body that is eager to protest when it sees the need to do so.

The Women’s Council, a small but hardy organization that strives to provide a resource for feminist activism and organizing, was begun in the fall of ’99 and continues to be a presence on the campus today.

Academically, most Dartmouth students report little gender prejudice, and by and large the faculty is incredibly supportive of female, male and other-gendered students alike. Socially, however, the College still has a way to go. Hillary Miller ‘02, a campus activist, notes, “Socially Dartmouth is an exciting place, especially since the [male to female] ratio is 50/50, but a lot of women still feel like they need to go into frat houses on the “buddy system” or feel unsafe at certain parties. A lot of queer students feel uncomfortable in certain parts of campus”. It is time for us, men and women of Dartmouth, to examine our misconceptions and prejudices regarding gender, and to challenge them.

Women at Dartmouth have come a long way from the initial coed nightmares in the ’70s. Concerns about sexual assault and diversity are the focus of activists today. You, the women and men of the incoming class of 2005, will play a crucial role in the future of feminist activism at Dartmouth.

ew dare to say it: Dartmouth first-year trips do not include everyone. Whereas we always hear about the roughly 90% of students that go, rarely do most consider those who do not. Dartmouth Outing Club trips are the first Dartmouth experience for many: close friendships are made and students first form images of what it means to be part of Dartmouth. Sadly enough, the process of segregation in our community has already begun. Should the first bonding experience of the Dartmouth community happen in the woods, where certain communities disproportionately choose not to go?

While DOC trips are idealized as a common introduction to the College, the reality is disconcerting. According to the DOC’s own statistics from last year, 29.51% of African American students decided not to go on a trip, while just 15% of non-Hispanic whites declined to go. Hispanic/Latino and Native American students also had considerably lower rates of participation, with almost half (47.83%) of Native Americans deciding not to go last year. Although statistics are not available documenting a correlation between economic status and DOC trips participation, it does not seem far-fetched to postulate a relationship. After all, outdoor activities cost money, often a considerable amount.

Why do some groups participate at lower rates than others? Some students look to be challenged at Dartmouth in the classroom, not in the woods. Students who have never camped, hiked, or been involved in outdoor activities because of economic or other considerations may not be very comfortable starting off their Dartmouth careers in such a way. Although this may not be true across the board, this discomfort is significant enough that we must address it.

Many students of color and students from low-income backgrounds are often at a disadvantage from the very beginning of their Dartmouth career, given that the DOC trips emphasize historically white and upper-class activities such as hiking, camping, and canoeing. Though some students feel compelled to participate in a trip, after that initial experience many students (disproportionately racial minorities) lose all contact with the DOC. How can outdoor activities serve as a unifying experience when these activities are favored by only particular segments of the Dartmouth population?

A lack of diversity in Dartmouth’s introductory experience prevents students from meeting a diverse group of students as they begin at Dartmouth. Also, it prevents students who feel uncomfortable in the outdoors for a variety of reasons from creating bonds with other members of their class. Dean of Admissions Karl Furstenberg stated the importance of initial Dartmouth experiences for students in a Free Press interview: “When people first arrive, they seem uninitiated: they’re different. Then they become Dartmouth students. Their trip, homecoming, the bonfire, all these things do have an effect, they become Dartmouthized, if that’s a word. Influence of the culture here is very powerful.”

The Dartmouth community should care that some students, especially students of color and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, feel uncomfortable and excluded from this process of acculturation. As the rest of the campus forms and becomes a part of Dartmouth, these students can become outsiders on their own campus.

First-year trips should continue; they are a unique and wonderful part of Dartmouth’s tradition. The true question regards options, options other than simply outdoors trips. Students from different backgrounds, who may not be entirely comfortable or excited about 4 days of hiking, canoeing, or biking, do not have the option of another introduction to Dartmouth. Instead, they lose out on the friendships and connections that others gain in these 4 short but vital days. Students should not be punished or made to feel as if they do not fit into Dartmouth simply because they do not fit into the outdoors. Just because Dartmouth is in a rural setting does not demand that all students need to love the outdoors. After all, as an Ivy League institution, the school has much more to offer above and beyond its setting.

Why can’t Dartmouth offer community service, or other theme-oriented projects as an alternative? 40% of students also participate in community service through the Tucker Foundation at some point while on campus. Why not make a service experience serve as introduction to Dartmouth as well? The College is composed of a diverse group of individuals. The College must offer a diverse group of introductory experiences. Some may argue that this will cause self-segregation among the varieties of trips. It seems a small price to pay to ensure that all students feel included and welcomed into the Dartmouth community, regardless of interest in the outdoors.

Whether or not one agrees with these recommendations specifically, discussion regarding the significance and implications of the DOC trips needs to begin on this campus. It is wrong that the all-important introductory experience to the school is not inclusive of all students.