HE CONTENDERS

Chuck Zodda ’09 did not get in his candidate statement. While he seemed like a nice guy when we interviewed him, he is unprepared for the role of VP. The elements of his platform he indicated, such as better payment for work-study jobs and improved senior housing, were adequate, but he did not appear to understand much about the actual implementation of his goals. Moreover, in some cases, his factual understanding of campus problems was simply incorrect.

Nafeesa Remtilla ’09 focused more on personality than policy in our interview. Her platform seems fit for the duty of an SA social chair, as she emphasized the need to make SA more “fun” as one of her major responsibilities as VP. This misses the point of what should attract people to Student Assembly: relevancy, accomplishments, influence. Still, the personal support she’s garnered through outreaching to people at SA will bolster her candidacy—currently, the number of people in her Facebook group (clearly a leading indicator) for VP just tops that of Bode’s group. However, students have credited her with not only being extremely well-liked, but also well-respected. We’re drawn to believe that her desire to seem extremely friendly, approachable, and welcoming belies her actual strength and insight, although we would have liked to see that come across more in her campaign. Her support for PANGEA (an SA initiative to bring together disparate organizations on campus for discussion and to find common ground, which actually seems to have potential as a success), and her perceptive understanding of often-underrepresented aspects of campus, form strengths of her campaign. She could potentially support a strong-willed president in forging connections between SA and campus, and facilitating interaction among other campus groups, freeing up the new president’s energies for broader projects.

Miesha Smith ’09 has the tough task of running from off-campus. We were able to interview her via phone, and in the SA debate she held the odd position of communicating by speakerphone. Her campaign is focused on slightly more substantive issues than Remtilla’s; nonetheless, her policy proposals still strike us as rather vague. She strongly communicated belief in SA’s effectiveness in their alternative social spaces endeavors, and alleged that any student would be able to attest to the success of Fieldstock, reacting intensely against the suggestion that it might not be viewed that way by many people. She thus came across as out-of-touch with campus opinion, and unwilling to be critical of SA, even more so than any of the other establishment candidates.

Far more than Cooper in the presidential race, Tay Stevenson ’10 has sold himself as a dissenting candidate. Like Cooper, Stevenson was on point in proposing the COSO-SA merge, and accurate in many of his analyses of SA’s ineffectiveness, its strict adherence to the status quo, and the need for SA leaders to acknowledge their own failures. He’s also fond of promising to beat his fists bloody against Parkhurst’s door to achieve his goals. (We think that the doors will probably win that match but we’d probably still go and watch.) In seriousness, current speeches aside, if elected we suspect that he wouldn’t be beating his fists bloody, but enjoying the fact that those doors to the administration will open to him. Thus, while we agree with his perspective on SA, much of his rhetoric comes across as insubstantial. He has made lobbying for SA overhaul and forcing administrative support his one-and-only goal, which puts him at a disadvantage. For any candidate, this would be a virtually impossible task, and Stevenson hasn’t proved that his political prowess and dedication are so far above-and-beyond that norm that he will actually succeed. In addition, the Vice Presidency will not afford him the required influence—as he recognizes, framing his campaign in terms of working with the elected SA president to accomplish his goal. What he seems not to have recognized, however, is that neither candidate will be equally dedicated to this goal. Bode is an establishment candidate, and even Cooper is not anti-establishment enough for Stevenson, given that he is concerned with things like GreenPrint.

THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL SUM-UP

As far as we can tell, the current vice president, Ian Tapu ’08, ran based on popularity—and carried Green to the presidency on his coattails (running as a slate, a friend commented at the time, will be Green’s best campaign decision). In this race, it looks like popularity and personality end up as the strongest considerations we were able to find. We wrote off Zodda as unprepared. Stevenson might have been a more serious contender had he played the game and made some campaign promises, but as we don’t see him managing to force the administration to overhaul Dartmouth’s student governance, even if idealistically that’s just what we’d like to see.

Smith distinguished herself as more willing to exert pressure upon the administration, less worried than Remtilla, an extremely non-controversial figure, about seeming friendly. This would have been more attractive if she had been open to analyzing SA’s flaws—we’re concerned she’ll be very driven on behalf of endeavors viewed as unsuccessful by much of campus, and never admit to that. Furthermore, in working with the president, her style seems mismatched. Both Bode and Cooper spoke about meeting with administration in the lead-up to the election, emphasizing their desire to establish relationships and work with the College, and indicating that, while there are stubborn ones, many administrators and deans want to help. Since Dean Marty Redman spoke to DFP interviewers for an hour and a half during the Beta controversy about what he’d like to accomplish for students regarding social spaces, seeming sincere and happy for the opportunity to communicate to campus, we’re willing to accept that is an avenue the SA President could chose to work through. Smith’s tactic of pressuring the administration from the outside is not necessarily a less valid tactic, but since the SA President sets the lead, her more style will not mesh, and may create controversy.

We would like to see Remtilla live up to the respect students claim for her, and prove that her drive and dedication goes beyond that of a social chair. We also would have liked to see more substance in her platform. However, it is important that the SA president and vice president are able to work together well, and we expect that she will be happy to provide whatever help and support Bode or Cooper need, sharing their style of working with rather than against the administration. And since SA suffers from both recruitment and retention problems—frankly, an issue for any campus organization—it can’t hurt to have a popular, friendly vice president who wants to work on membership.

OCIAL SPACE

Our discourse, in casual conversation as well as in the pages of this publication and The D, is littered with certain phases: social spaces, alternative social spaces, gendered social spaces, etc. This suggests that the decisions making up our social lives are more complicated and less happy-go-lucky than one would assume at a school with a dancing keg mascot. The brief Beta uproar last term was in large part an outpouring of general harbored resentment over problems with social spaces on campus and the Greek system. Unsurprisingly, every SA candidate pledges to address these issues.

Presidential candidate Molly Bode ’09 cites prior experience working on the SA alternative social spaces initiative (ASS, for short?). While such involvement demonstrates experience and interest, we are concerned that Bode and VP candidates Nafeesa Remtilla ’09 and Miesha Smith ’09, who have worked on SA-led social events, may suffer from insularity, misreading student opinion, and overvaluing minimal work. They cite SA initiatives such as parties at Cutter Shabbazz or Fieldstock as successes, divorced from the reality that this is an opinion many students do not share. The fact that SA has actually labeled and advertised events as “alternative social spaces” parties demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding as to how to appeal to people; candidates should be capable looking critically at SA programs.

Bode’s opponent, Lee Cooper ’09, and VP candidate Tay Stevenson ’10 voiced the common skepticism regarding past SA attempts at creating viable social alternatives. Unimpressed with SA-sponsored parties, Cooper critiqued SA’s tendency to organize events without soliciting input from other groups from the start (“Co-sponsorship is not collaboration”). He pledged to bring campus organizations into the planning process, an element of his oft-repeated focus on communication. He further suggested that some of the new houses the College is purchasing could be temporarily leased by thriving student organizations, a set-up he says has been successful at other colleges. While we are unsure of the plan’s feasibility, we found it an intriguing proposition (DFP house, anyone?). On the other hand, Cooper appears overly satisfied with the opportunities offered by the current Greek system, focused on making it more inclusive rather than looking seriously at other options.

Despite her allegiance to defending the success of SA social space initiatives to date, Bode’s apparent involvement in a variety of “mainstream” and “alternative” social options on campus suggests another dimension to her candidacy. As KDE’s VP, she is clearly familiar with the status-quo Greek system, but she cites membership in Panarchy as another valuable social experience, and seems surprisingly well-known in many diverse segments of campus. Bode catered to our belief in the need for a viable coed social scene (“Equal Spaces,” Issue 8.6) by indicating that in discussion with coed houses already on campus, they agreed that there is a need for a “ragier” coed houses, which could have a larger campus presence. The current houses don’t provide a good fit for students interested in events that are now a part of the fraternity mainstream, such as regular dance parties and open basements with alcohol on weekends and Wednesdays, but in a gender-neutral context. Bode indicated a desire to promote under-recognized existing social scenes, like coed houses or Friday Night Rock, and to advertise the options available for organizations to receive SPEC funding and use venues like FUEL for events (and also use kegs—for 21+). Her strongest suggestion was to hold a “pre-rush” event, in which fraternities, sororities, coed Greek houses, affinity houses, and undergraduate societies would all be represented. This would give equal attention to those houses that often get short-changed by the norm of the freshman circuit and the frat/sorority rush process, since many students are simply unaware of the other opportunities available. And she suggested that student organizations could have their own floors, which seemed more feasible than getting us a whole DFP house.

COS REVIEW

If it weren’t for that pesky provision allowing alleged perpetrators of sexual assault to confront their accusers, virtually nobody on campus would have any concept of what the COS Review proposed. In any case, Bode’s proposal for a subcommittee to address this controversial element of the report is on target. Cooper hesitated in addressing the issue. He emphasized the delicate balance between respect for sexual assault victims and ensuring justice for the accused, admitting his own perspective is colored by knowledge of false accusations against male friends. The hesitation is most concerning. Even if her response was only to defer it to a subcommittee, Bode had at least clearly considered the issue previously, whereas Cooper seemed unprepared for the question and like he would prefer to sidestep the issue—a surprise given that sexual assault is one of the campus concerns which consistently receives the most attention and discussion. Beyond the scope of easy solutions, the problem of sexual assault is difficult to successfully address. However, the COS Review controversy is narrow enough that SA can, and should, actually determine a practical solution.

FINANCES

Dartmouth’s financial system—or at least, the part of it available to students—is unnecessarily fragmented, complicated and completely lacks transparency. Essentially, whichever students have the time and effort to pursue membership in Programming Board or COSO gain jurisdiction over a good deal of money, and power over organizations, without accountability. Few students understand how these opaque, convoluted funding processes work—the financial institutions which deal with Greek and affinity houses add another dimension to the labyrinth. We’d like to see the various financial arbiters all merged into SA and facilitated by democratically elected representatives, which would give our current relatively powerless Student Assembly some actual clout on campus. This would also help inspire students to actually care about ascertaining that it SA is responsible, transparent, and accountable—right now, students don’t even care that it lacks transparency, since it never appears to accomplish anything major, good or bad. Giving it financial authority would be an easy way to begin to alter students’ perceptions.

This ideal perhaps could happen one day over the rainbow, but a lack of institutional support renders it currently unfeasible. However, both Cooper and Stevenson recommended a more achievable first step: merging COSO and SA. This would serve that dual purpose of streamlining finances and placing power into elected representatives’ hands. It might even convince campus organizations of SA’s relevancy to their functioning, garnering it some of the interest it desperately needs. In contrast, Bode proposes the creation of a Governance Council comprised of representatives from all the current funding groups that oversee finances. While this plan appears more feasible, it is also an undesirable construction of additional inefficient, unaccountable bureaucracy. Nevertheless, perhaps closer collaboration will be a stepping stone for the administration to recognize the desirability of simply merging.

THE OTHER PRESIDENT

In their interviews, Bode and Cooper highlighted their plans to ensure a student voice in the selection of Dartmouth’s next president. The DFP agrees this should be a vital concern for the next SA President, but as their desires were essentially identical, we cannot distinguish between the candidates on this element of their platform. We can only remind whoever wins, and the Dartmouth student body, that President Wright’s successor will be aro
und much longer and have a greater influence on the College than this student president—unless the SA president ensures his or her legacy by gaining the ability to have a hand in the picking of that president. Cooper also strongly wanted to fight for a student on the Board of Trustees—while we highly endorse this in theory, it has been sought unsuccessfully many times before. Unless he has an especially innovative plan he hasn’t revealed, we don’t expect Cooper will be the one to break the cycle of failure, and are concerned it will be a distraction.

COMMUNICATION

Both candidates recognized a serious need for better communication on the part of SA and promised to improve this through press releases, advertisements, and other methods of reaching out to campus—essentially, agreeing to define part of the president’s role as that of a public relations officer. As both candidates seem presentable capable of implementing communications initiatives of approximately the same caliber, it seems that the personality of the president will be more likely to determine their effectiveness, reducing this element of the race to a popularity contest. Bode appears better connected to numerous different groups, remarkably well-liked and respected by various segments of our diverse campus population. Bode further pledged to be available for office hours, where students would be able to find her in Collis or another campus hot-spot. Her critique of Green’s lack of visibility on campus allowed her to co-opt the anti-establishment role for a moment, edging out Cooper’s rhetoric. Cooper’s big communications gesture in this campaign would be his YouTube videos; unfortunately, we didn’t find that students were necessarily more likely to want to vote for him after viewing.

THE PRESIDENTIAL SUM-UP

We enjoyed our interview with Cooper, and there were some points where his analysis of SA and campus seemed right on target. In particular, a statement toward the end of the interview resonated with us: he pointed out that each term certain “issues” emerge on campus, and that we need to adopt the mindset of looking at things as “solvable problems” in order accomplish change. However, in the end he played the outsider, anti-establishment card without convincing us that he would enact real change within SA. If we’re going to be stuck with an organization essentially the same as it has been in past years, Bode emerges as the preferable candidate. In our interview with her, we were quite simply blown away by her depth of knowledge regarding SA, campus, and the College administration. With the exception of financial reform, in which we thought her plan fell short, and some concern over her overvaluing the success of SA social initiatives, her proposed policies met or exceeded those set forth by Cooper. In addition to the advantage of being better versed in how SA functions (the major benefit of being an establishment candidate), her involvement with a variety of campus niches, and the mutual respect and communication between them, leads us to believe she has the potential to keep perspective on the true needs of campus as SA President.

he DFP has interviewed each this year’s candidates for Student Assembly president and vice president, and their candidate statements fill the text of this online issue. However, before addressing the central issues of the campaign, it is necessary to comment on the surprise of SA elections occurring so early. While SA members knew by the end of last term that they would hold elections on April 8th and 9th, this decision was not communicated to the rest of campus. The handling of this alteration is yet another example of SA’s failure to communicate with campus and its lack of transparency; moreover, it biases the elections in favor of establishment candidates, whom (no surprise here) SA tends to prefer. Yes, the two candidates for SA president this year are particularly strong contenders, well liked and respected, which diminishes the incentive for challengers. Still, finding out about early elections on such short notice made it virtually impossible for potential outsider candidates to organize a campaign this term. (Remember, Molly Bode ’09 dropped out the presidential race last year, and has been planning this year’s campaign since.) With only a two-candidate presidential race, Bode and Lee Cooper ’09 are not challenged to defend their positions to the extent as candidates in previous elections, who faced four or five opponents. Additionally, since this is the only time of the year SA really enters the public spotlight and becomes a part of our daily discourse, it has wasted the limited opportunity to make use of that attention, promoting valuable dialogue and debates about its present and future.

As usual, SA candidates pledge a myriad of improvements. Current promises include mundane conveniences such as detergent in every laundry room and microwaves in Novack. While these changes would improve our daily lives by small increments, are these really the duties of student body president? It seems like someone with a less prestigious title than “President” could deal with soap. (If not, however, a certain Managing Editor pledges her vote to whoever will promise a constantly replenishing supply of Pantene Smooth & Sleek Conditioner in every bathroom.) Issues like a viable sustainability (read: pro-keg) policy are more significant, but we note that they’ve already appeared on current president Travis Green 08’s campaign platform. Since accomplishing these small changes requires little more than a touch of drive and a positive relationship with the college administration, which both candidates seem to have, they are not critically important aspects of the campaign.

We take exception to The Dartmouth Editorial Board’s advice that candidates focus on, “the little things that make students happier and more comfortable day in and day out.” As it happens, that was essentially the DFP Editorial Board’s argument last year. (We also said that was why we weren’t wasting money on a print SA Issue. We didn’t have to decide on so bold a statement this time: the early elections and lack of contenders kept filling a print issue from being possible.) We’ve decided this time around that being a pragmatic SA president does not mean being concerned with replacing paper clips with staplers—looking at the presidential candidates, we think they are overqualified for that. You don’t run a campaign on staples and laundry detergent—any relatively capable Dartmouth student could accomplish that, and we don’t think it improves our lives enough to make the annoyance of SA worthwhile. Being pragmatic means realistic, tangible plans for achieving significant reforms. It means structuring them so that “an Assembly president who is in office for less than a year” leaves a foundation for the next president to build upon—year after year, many of the same problems are raised, the same promises made, and she or he should not be starting from scratch. We’ve decided to suspend our skepticism, disillusionment, and general lack of interest in the current ineffectual workings of SA, in order to address the issues important to campus. We don’t think addressing these problems is completely inconceivable, even if it does expect more from SA than we have seen in the past.

he posters are hung, the debates unattended, and the Facebook group invitations sent. It’s Student Assembly election season again, and, as usual, no one on campus particularly cares. To be frank, this apathy is justified. As the purview of SA is so limited and its ability to catalyze major change on campus is so negligible, the DFP has chosen to withhold endorsement of any candidate.

SA is essentially a club that can (more or less effectively) handle issues that lightly affect the student body as a whole. Operating as a forum for minor grievances, it can be successful. Library hours, Greenprint stations, and Dash-compatible vending machines are the sort of concerns that fall within the scope of SA. Changes in these areas would have a small but non-negligible impact on many students. The issues that have larger impacts on smaller groups—LGBT rights and awareness, for instance—are more effectively handled by the groups that primarily focus on such issues—the Gay-Straight Alliance, to continue the example. The inability to purchase a vending machine Coke with your ID card is irritating, but will not inspire enough ire in any one group to instigate a concerted effort to make change. The correction of such small nuisances is the realm where SA can be effective, not on grand initiatives like eliminating sexual assault on campus. SA can reflect the existence of a serious concern and possibly incite discussion, but it has neither the infrastructure nor the competency to effect change in such areas.

Student governments may serve a more significant role on larger campuses where the administration is not so directly accessible. At large state schools, these organizations can serve as the main voice for a student body that is too unwieldy to be handled personally by administrators. However, at Dartmouth it is relatively easy for any aggrieved group to sit down with President Wright and the various deans to discuss problems. While this certainly does not mean that problems will be solved, it does severely limit issue-advocacy as a necessary function of SA.

SA is a necessity to alleviate minor annoyances, and with the Student Governance Review Task Force addressing the most egregious bureaucratic inefficiencies of the organization, the distinction between “reform” and “insider” candidates is essentially irrelevant. Furthermore, while structural reform may enable SA to more effectively make its case and persuade administrators, all the candidates are more or less on the same page. Reforms will roughly follow recommendations of the Task Force, addressing the distribution of funding (and power) through the Undergraduate Finance Council. No matter who is elected, the Assembly will continue to function.

Still, collective apathy notwithstanding, there probably is some benefit to having a slightly more effective SA rather than a thoroughly pointless one, or not having SA at all. Effectively leading SA requires basic managerial competence and an understanding of SA’s proper scope. We will delineate some of the pros and cons of each candidate to help you identify which candidate might best represent your interests, but beyond these (seemingly) minimal qualifications, it’s merely an issue of preference. To be honest, we’re pretty sure life will go on regardless.

Jaromy Siporen

That said, there are two candidates who don’t merit serious consideration. Jaromy Siporen, though positioned as a “serious” candidate, shouldn’t be treated as one. His campaign seems to have been successful so far, but underneath the slightly-megalomaniacal banner of “Everything Changes” lays a platform of addressing grievances so trivial or outright inane he at first appears to be mocking SA. He is aware of the incongruence of trumpeting both radical reform and such minor goals, but is incapable of explaining or reconciling it. In addition to bravely speaking out against the Sunja sushi monopoly, Siporen speaks of SA’s responsibilities in “Student Initiatives” and “Advocacy,” but failed to clarify what these phrases mean, either in his Facebook group or his interview with the DFP.

Through SA-bashing, he attempts to tap into existing discontent, but can’t gloss over his three-years as Parliamentarian, ensuring the proper exercise of convoluted bureaucratic procedure. Finally, Siporen’s frat boy self-image leaves him painfully out of touch not only with the campus, but also, reality. When asked to name three pressing issues facing the Greek system and social scene at Dartmouth, Siporen mentioned keg policy, sustainability (read: keg) policy, and the “tension between the Webster Ave. and Wheelock St. frats.” As SA president, Jaromy’s inability to form a logically coherent plan would leave him pursuing bizarre goals, and doing so ineffectively.

Raj Koganti

Raj Koganti, though among the most earnest of candidates we interviewed, lacks experience in engaging administrators or managing organizations, and overestimates the scope of SA. He would have obvious difficulties in a leadership position that hinges on interpersonal communication. Furthermore, while Raj might be serious, his supporters seem inclined to view him as an anti-candidate in the vein of Paul Heintz ’06 or Janos Marton ’04. Raj, however, has no intention of making any larger statement on the relevance of SA, and while his platform contains intriguing ideas, his ability to enact any of them is questionable. Operating under the presumption that SA matters, however slightly, we can’t in good faith advocate a vote for Raj.

The remaining candidates are all capable of managing SA as an organization. Each could usher in the upcoming structural reforms, and would successfully address many of the same campus-wide minor grievances. The candidates differ in background, leadership style, and focus, but each would do a fine job in managing the organization.

Carlos Mejia

Carlos Mejia, member of neither SA nor a Greek house, has positioned himself as most in touch with the minority communities and the progressive community. Carlos’ platform includes typical concerns like library access and DDS policy, but his positions on diversity and sexual assault are drawing the most attention. Bringing attention to race issues might be desirable, and reforms like the expansion of the SAPA program are feasible, but the inclusion of “Principles of Community” on syllabi is a symbolic gesture of questionable value. Carlos sees increased face-to-face interaction with administrators as the key to more effective leverage of SA’s power. This highly top-down leadership may grate with general membership, however. While Carlos may have chosen appropriate areas of focus for his agenda, in some cases, he overestimates the organization’s political capital and the realistic scope of reforms.

Nova Robinson

Unlike the other candidates, Nova Robinson has largely eschewed mentioning specific goals and has instead focused on the course of SA reform. Nova’s experience with a broad array of campus groups (most relevantly COSO), her open-minded approach to the reform process, and her interest in increasing transparency and accountability undoubtedly suggest a better SA. Some of Nova’s best ideas, and those that distinguish herself from other candidates, we learned of only through our interview with her. The specific course of reform, the use of online referenda, and her willingness to use SA’s limited leverage more aggressively were all promising. However, Nova’s failure to articulate the specifics of her platform and her reluctance to discuss smaller goals casts doubt on her ability to affect any of these changes as SA president.

Travis Green

Travis Green has taken the opposite tack, not mentioning reform beyond his support of the Governance Review Task Force, focusing instead on addressing the keg policy, sprucing up Novack, placing cou
rse syllabi online, and creating a centralized events calendar. Green has done a remarkable job reaching out to outside organizations and interests, hoping to increase SA’s relevance and visibility by incorporating a more diverse range of concerns. Green has closely observed the failures of past SA administrations, and in reaching out to disparate groups and engaging issues like sexual assault, he has avoided many of the negative connotations of being an SA “insider.” However, his relative inattention to the specifics of reform suggest that, while Green may himself run SA very effectively, the organization itself will be in the same position of lacking direction and credibility come the next election.

But no matter who you vote for, things will be all right. Despite the high political drama of last term’s impeachment hearings, campus life continued as normal. The same will be true next year, too. So consider your options, check out the candidate statements we posted on the site, and, come this Monday and Tuesday, cast your vote. Or not. It really doesn’t matter that much anyways.

s many people in the Dartmouth Class of 2008 class have recently realized, Sophomore Summer doesn’t rock as hard as advertised. Classes are just as difficult. Nobody makes new friends. Rooms are hot and sticky. The College we’ve grown to love and idealize starts to feel old—and we feel old too. We’re halfway through our college careers, and we start to wonder why we’re here in the heat, taking the easiest classes we can, just so that we can play the same old game of pong in a basement. Isn’t it time to take stock of who we are at Dartmouth? Is this what we imagined college to be like? Are we the people we wanted to become when we applied to this school?

Let me lead this process of self-evaluation by example:

Besides all the wonders I’ve learned about the Geology of New England doing cut-and-paste work that would offend a third-grader, the most worthwhile result of my being here this term is the realization that I don’t like this campus as much as I thought I did. With fewer people around, I can see a little bit more clearly how much our system of social organization fails us intellectually and emotionally.

I came here hoping to find out more about myself. I hoped I’d be able to confidently assert my opinions, do so in any circumstance, and do so in a way that at the very least engendered respect. Instead I came here, was presented with a relatively homogenous choice of identities to fit into, and feebly tried to discover myself while not fitting a mold. I assumed the problem was my inability to fit the mold, not the mold itself, or the existence of such vehicles for conformity. Even within social organizations that claim to be anti-conformist, students quickly adapt in order to gain acceptance. The best things about Dartmouth for me are those I entered into when I was too naïve to have a clue about popular perception here. Before I knew that Dartmouth was apathetic and hostile to activism, I successfully organized events and campaigns and helped get out the vote. But then I learned what everyone wanted to tell me: “It’s college, man, so hang out, get wasted, and don’t talk about lame personal or intellectual shit that would ruin a good time.”

This attempt to extend a kind of high school senioritis and deserved respite to a college setting dumbs down our day-to-day existence. Everybody is ready, like eager freshmen, to go with the flow instead of cultivating their own unique interests. Our pack mentality and high school style cliquishness seems to indicate a collective subconscious hazing ritual of eager entry and disappointment, followed by an attempt to rebuild our shattered confidences through perpetuation of the “Dartmouth is perfect” myth. Our social set-up suppresses intellectualism and diversity of both opinion and culture. And while the two years ahead may be incredibly edifying for those of us who have figured out who we are and where we fit in, it almost seems too late to affect anything larger than ourselves. By the time we realize what’s wrong, we’ve either invested too much of ourselves in the problem to leave it behind or compromised ourselves so much that we can’t realize anything at all.

God knows nothing raises the ire of Dartmouth students more than a challenge to the status quo, to our alleged comfort in this system, to the old boys club. But are we so defensive because our need to feel accepted leaves us tentative and insecure?

Statements of profound realization are expected to include some kind of helpful, forward-pointing, uplifting conclusion. I have none—only questions that need answering. I do know that the next two years don’t have to mimic the wanton alcohol abuse and superficial socializing of the first two. But to drag ourselves out of this ditch, we have to recognize that we’re down there to begin with. If we keep adhering to old patterns—whether from habit or from a misguided attempt to justify past actions—shit isn’t going to get any better. Instead of growing into the people we’ve always wanted to become, we will be stunted as drunken, emotionally-constipated schoolchildren wasting unfulfilling days at investment banking firms and frigid nights between the sheets with a spouse we’re too selfish to connect with. Fuck that. We can do better. Two years left. The ball’s in our court.