Page 1 The Dartmouth Review March 12, 2011

Dartmouth’s Only Independent Newspaper

Volume 32, Issue 8October 15, 2012

The Hanover Review, Inc.P.O. Box 343

Hanover, NH 03755

The Dartmouth Review

Page 2 The Dartmouth Review March 12, 2011

“Best Practices,” Part 1 Editor’s Note: In introducing her major reforms, Dean Johnson made a claim of “best practices,” explaining that she was simply bringing Dartmouth policy up to the standards of our peer institutions. Dean Johnson neglected to specify which schools shared which practices, so The Dartmouth Review investigated the veracity of her claims.

School:Unit of

Observation:

Random Walkthroughs

by Campus Security?

Licensed bartenders

required for hard alcohol?

Emphasized ban on

punches?

Brown University

Columbia University

Cornell University

DartmouthCollege

Harvard University

Princeton University

Yale University

University ofPennsylvania

Greek House

Greek House

Greek House

Greek House

Greek House

Greek House

Final Club

Eating Club

N/A(No hard alcohol at registered events.)

N/A(No hard alcohol at registered events.)

a

a a a

a a

X

X X X

X X X

X X

X

XXX

XXX

March 12, 2011 The Dartmouth Review Page 3

On September 19th of this year, Dean of the Col-lege Charlotte Johnson formally introduced new “harm reduction” policies to the Dartmouth student body with a forum in Collis Common Ground. She claimed that the new policies—of which The Dartmouth Review has highlighted random Safety & Security walkthroughs of Greek houses, licensed bartenders required for hard liquor, and an emphasized ban on punch—are neither novel, nor over-regulatory. According to Dean Johnson, the new reforms were de-signed to raise Dartmouth’s standards to meet those of her peer institutions. Dean Johnson had even preselected a buzzword to match the flair of her poorly-rendered PowerPoint presentation: “best practices.” Ever suspicious of the Dean and her ill-intentioned crusade against Old Dartmouth, The Dartmouth Review investigated the veracity of her claims. Are Dean Johnson’s “best practices” reflected in the actual practices of the rest of the Ivy League? In a word, no. At no other school than Dartmouth are privately-owned houses subjected to random walk-throughs. Only at the University of Pennsylvania, where policies surrounding hard alcohol are ac-tually on a trend towards easing, are licensed bartenders required at fraternity parties. Off-duty dining services staff serve as bartenders for events on Yale campus, but a security officer indicated that such measures are not taken at fraternity houses. Internal documents obtained by The Dartmouth Review indicate that Dean Johnson’s list of peer institutions extends beyond the Ivy League. To that effect, her considerations include schools like Colby, Bowdoin, and Bates—institutions with under-graduate populations less than half that of Dartmouth and devoid of Greek life. To list those small colleges alongside Dartmouth in terms of social dynamic is specious at best. To consider their safety demands and concerns as comparable to those of Dartmouth is both unreason-able and dangerous. I was brought to the latter point in a conversation with Martin Mbugua, Media Relations Manager and Spokes-man for Princeton University. In an email pointing me to the alcohol policies of Princeton, Mr. Mbugua in-jected a particularly biting sentiment into an otherwise boilerplate message: “[Princeton’s] position is that each institution will make its own policy decisions based on what suits specific needs or concerns, and the types of

general comparisons yielded from contacting multiple institutions are not constructive.” The deep irony of Mr. Mbugua’s statement is that Dean Johnson has done precisely what he dismisses as “not constructive.” Because they are based on the policies of other institutions, Dean Johnson’s harm reduction practices are by necessity not rooted in the problems that face Dartmouth. The fact that they do not even accurately reflect the actual policies of the Ivy League only lends credence to the notion that her poorly-conceived plans are destined to further dete-riorate the relationship between the Greeks, Safety & Security, and the administration, replacing the goal of good will with the reality of suspicion and animosity. Furthermore, an investigation into the unintended consequences of policies similar to the Dean’s best

“practices” indicates that her poorly-conceived plans are destined to be more harmful than constructive. As recently as last month, multiple students at Bowdoin College were hos-pitalized for alcohol poisoning. The circumstances? Despite Bowdoin’s harsh alcohol policy (liquor is prohibited on campus), two students were drinking li-quor upstairs in a social house, out of the reach of campus security’s walkthroughs. Bow-doin’s example harps on an oft-stated fear in the Dartmouth community: that of drinking be-ing driven “underground” into unregulated, under-supervised areas. Such fears also draw atten-

tion to the University of Pennsylvania, where strict rules have driven social life off campus, not only into unofficial social houses and defunct fraternities, but physical plants separate from the official chapter houses occupied by University-recognized Greek organizations. Such realities provide for any number

of possible scenarios to make the average college administrator shake in his boots: unchecked alcohol abuse, dangerous hazing, and increased sexual as-sault, to name a few. Dean Johnson has presented a picture to the

College that is largely fallacious. Her new policies hamper life at Dartmouth by means that are, by-and-large, not instituted by the rest of the Ivy League; in fact, events at other schools make it reasonably clear that they are likely to either introduce new problems to the College or increase the severity of those already extant on campus. n

John Melvin • George A. MendozaFeatures Editors

Editorial

Subscribe: $40The Dartmouth Review

P.O. Box 343Hanover, N.H. 03755

603-643-4370

Contributions are

tax-deductible.www.dartreview.com

Benjamin M. RileyPresident

The DarTmouTh review is produced bi-weekly by Dart-mouth College undergraduates for Dartmouth students and alumni. It is published by the Hanover Review, Inc., a non-profit tax-deductible organization. Please send all inquiries to:

The Dartmouth ReviewP.O. Box 343

Hanover, N.H. 03755

FoundersGreg Fossedal, Gordon Haff,Benjamin Hart, Keeney Jones

“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win great tri-umphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”

—Theodore Roosevelt

Special Thanks to William F. Buckley, Jr.

Adam I.W. SchwartzmanEditor-in-Chief

The Review Advisory Board

Contributors

Mean-Spirited, Cruel and UglyLegal Counsel

The Editors of The DarTmouTh review welcome cor-respondence from readers concerning any subject, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on mate-rial published previously in The review. We reserve the right to edit all letters for clarity and length.Submit letters by mail or e-mail:

Adam.I.W.Schwartzman.13@dartmouth.edu

Ke DingSports Editor

Christina Chen, Alexandra Johnson, Blake S. Neff, Peter M. Hill, Georgia Travers, Harry Greenstone,

Melanie Wilcox, Paul Trethaway, Varun Ravishanker

“I read it...when I can get it.”

Cover photo by J. A. W. S.

Thomas L. Hauch • Rebecca HechtManaging Editors

Elizabeth A. Reynolds • Stuart A. AllanVice Presidents

Meghan HassettArts & Culture Editor

Coleman E. Shear • J.P. HarringtonExecutive Editors

William R.F. DuncanWeb Editor

Martin Anderson, Patrick Buchanan, Theodore Cooper-stein, Dinesh D’Souza, Michael Ellis, Robert Flanigan, John Fund, Kevin Robbins, Gordon Haff, Jeffrey Hart, Laura Ingraham, Mildred Fay Jefferson, William Lind, Steven Menashi, James Panero, Hugo Restall, Roland

Reynolds, Weston Sager, Emily Esfahani Smith, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Charles Dameron

TheDartmouth Review

“Best Practices,” Part I Page 2The Week in Review Pages 4 & 5Dean Johnson: Dangerously Misguided Page 6Wes Schaub: Inneffectually Obnoxious Page 7Ethics, Stem Cells, and the Nobel Prize Page 8Phi Delta Alpha Finds Coaching Success Page 9The Global Citizen Festival Pages 10 & 11Looper is a Smashing Success Page 11Last Word & Mixology Page 12

Adam I.W. Schwartzman

Dean Johnson has presented a picture to the College that is largely fallacious.

Her new policies hamper life at Dartmouth by means that are, by-and-large, not instituted by the rest of the Ivy League.

Chloe M. TeeterMedia Editor

Michael T. Haughey • Jay M. Keating IIIAssociate Editors

“Best Practices,” Part II

Page 4 The Dartmouth Review March 12, 2011

Stinson’s: Your Pong HQCups, Balls, Paddles, Accessories

(603) 643-6086 | www.stinsonsvillagestore.com

I didn’t know were questions, like ‘what are the books everyone should read in order to be considered an educated person?’ or ‘isn’t it immoral for a private corporation to do charity?’ These were things I had never thought about, and as I began to read and think, it dawned on me that I didn’t become a conservative. I always was, and was learning the vocabulary to express it. That’s when I began writing and speaking and thought I had a unique perspective, being Indian.” D’Souza goes on to discuss the surprising success of his new film, noting that “since those who see the movie seem to be overwhelmed by it, it’s really word of mouth and social media which has helped it go viral.” While most critics have given 2016: Obama’s America negative reviews, it has become the second-highest-grossing political documentary of all time, behind only Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, which D’Souza cites as a source of inspiration for his film.

Party At The End Of The World, Bro

Respected Dartmouth alumnus Andrew Lohse released a proposal this week for a new book, Party at the End of the World. Mr. Lohse writes that the book will be “a coming of age memoir detailing my experi-ences at Dartmouth and specifically chronicling my felix culpa from high achieving, straight-laced public school student who cast aspersion on peers who drank or so much as dabbled once with marijuana, to coked-out moral nihilist undergoing and performing Abu Ghraib-style feats of hazing, facing felony charges for cocaine possession and witness tampering, and ultimately hitting rock bottom – being charged with drunkenly assaulting a College security officer.”

Certainly sounds like good reading: a sheltered teen encounters the freedom of college and finally ex-poses himself as a self-destructive social climber. This is a characterization, of course, with which Mr. Lohse seems uncomfortable. He writes, “I was raised as a model of upright moral behavior and academic ambition, a wholesome young man in pursuit of what seemed to be the American dream of upward class mobility. Needless to say, I was ill-prepared to face my induction into the dark heart of that elite class, and my ultimate moral outrage made me both persona non grata to Dartmouth and prodigal son to my middle class suburban roots.” Throughout the proposal, Mr. Lohse seems to be balancing two competing storylines: the first, in which he does a bunch of jaw-dropping stuff in frat basements while being, like, a total fratstar; and the second, in which we skip to the end and he’s too morally righteous for the whole thing. In his “Comparison Titles” section, Mr. Lohse laughably includes both I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell (by the “infamous” Tucker Max) and J.D. Salinger’s classic, The Catcher in the Rye. Mr. Lohse works tirelessly to portray himself as a whistle-blower, but it is difficult not to read between the lines. He gives the impression of someone who desperately needs attention, someone whose life fell apart and was left with no choice but to cry foul. He styles himself a legitimate reformer, but the only thing he really seems to be interested in is deflecting blame for his own “felix culpa.” Open discussion of the fraternity system’s short-comings is always a good thing. But this cocaine ad-dict turned “prodigal son” supplies more masturbatory self-indulgence than solemn calls for reform in his book proposal. Besides, Mr. Lohse seems far more concerned with portraying himself as the victim of a supposedly destructive and dehumanizing system than accepting responsibility for his self-admittedly abominable actions.

The Week in ReviewBig Bird Strikes Again

Wednesday’s presidential debate not only re-invig-orated the Romney campaign, but it most likely cost President Obama a few advisors as well. While Obama spent the tenure of the debate trying to paint Romney as a friend of the wealthy, Romney cleared the air of such misrepresentations, promised not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans, and ultimately laid out a roadmap for how he would guide the country out of the trillion-dollar deficit. The Republican candidate promised to get America back to work by bolstering small business, eliminating “ObamaCare,” closing corporate loopholes, reducing the size of the federal government, and creating nearly four million jobs as a result of North American energy independence. Obama took a very different approach and promised to balance the budget by raising taxes on households earning more than $250,000, creating jobs with public works spending, and encouraging green energy. The debate reached its climax after Obama criticized Romney for aiding oil and gas companies. Romney quickly retorted that the $90 billion in aid to failed green energy companies amounts to “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.” “Ninety billion—that would have hired two million teachers,’’ he said. In summation, Mitt Romney’s performance on Wednesday night put a halt to the traction that Obama has gained in the polls recently, and according to a Rasmussen poll based entirely on interviews conducted after the debate, Romney now leads Obama by two points. While it proved challenging to focus on the candidates amid the display of trending tweets—“ I have to admit they’re both pretty handsome. I’m wait-ing for the swimsuit competition to decide. #debates,” among others—nearly all polls agree on the same thing: Romney dominated Obama. Gallup even went so far as to claim that Romney had the largest victory in a debate for any candidate ever measured. Democrats and Republicans both agreed that Romney beat Obama handsomely. After months of slanderous negative ads, America finally got to meet Mitt Romney - and they liked what they saw. Even if he threatened Big Bird, Romney won the night. Now, President Obama will have to scramble to catch up.

D’Souza Praises TDR in NYT

Last week, The Dartmouth Review alumnus Dinesh D’Souza ’83 discussed his controversial documentary 2016: Obama’s America, among other topics, with the New York Times blog India Ink. In his interview, D’Souza comments on his time at Dartmouth, telling the Times: “I met a group of young conservative students who had answers to questions

“I hear their pledges have to take wine tasting with Wes.”

-Col. James Donovan ‘39

March 12, 2011 The Dartmouth Review Page 5

The Week in Review

Stepping Out with Capitol Steps

Right in midst of election-season hype, Dartmouth’s Hopkins Center, in conjunction with the Rockefeller Center, presented two showings of America’s most hi-larious political satire group. Both performances quickly sold out. Coming from humble roots, the Capitol Steps began in the office of Senator Charles Percy on a lively Christmas Eve in 1981. Over the past 3 decades, the Capitol steps have recorded 32 albums and performed for 5 U.S. Presidents. The original plan was to simply stage a nativity play, but it turns out that the Senators couldn’t find 3 wise men or a virgin among them so the performers had to improvise. Largely Senate Staffers, the Capitol Steps ambi-tiously set out to satirize the very people who employed them. Needless to say, the new career options they ex-plored that night soon became very permanent. Expand-ing with each new presidency, the Capitol Steps have come to encompass the Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama years. Standing before a chaotic group of Democrats, Republicans, and independents on the fence alike, the group performed for a diverse political audience and surely doled out jabs to every position alike. From the start, the mood was set; “in the event that any cellphones go off during the performance, their owners would promptly be shipped to Missouri to serve as Todd Akin’s Press Secretary.” Unsurprisingly, no one sought out a career change that night and the show continued smoothly. Beginning with a few easy jabs at Washington culture in general, the cast freely made the case for “progress, the opposite of Congress.” From there, the crew burst out into song for a few musical numbers before reverting back to individual monologues and shorts. A few choice tidbits featured quotes from faux-President Obama such as: “Is there a way to answer questions in a way that offends no one? Yes and no.” At the same time, Governor Romney was lampooned by saying such things as “In polls, some voters have indicated that they don’t like my personality. I don’t agree with that kind of discrimination, especially since I have no personality.” At the same time, the political press was satirized along with the ridiculous nature of politics in America with a segment featuring the Capitol Steps’ versions of Jim Lehrer, the moderator of the first Presidential debate, and President Obama. Lehrer asked “Finally to end with our most impor-tant issue of the night - why did the chicken cross the road?” President Obama replied in a rather monotonic and rambling explication “Really, it’s not so important to consider why the chicken crossed the road than to consider how it crossed the road. If there’s one thing to take away, it’s that the chicken didn’t build the road it crossed.” Even as the jabs came one after another, the merriment

of the group could not be lost and the audience was wholeheartedly with them all the way. Though some parodies were lost on the few Dartmouth students scat-tered through the audience, the crowd of mainly aging baby-boomers ate the performance right up. Covering everything from the events of 3 decades past to today, the Capitol Steps took full advantage of political ste-reotypes and personalities to add a little twist of truth to every laugh, giggle, or snort. From start to finish, there was not a single idle moment as the Capitol Steps wholly enraptured the audience. Truly, this is a group that puts the ‘mock’ in ‘democracy’.

Conservatives Are Prettier, Study Shows

A UCLA study confirms what everyone here at The Dartmouth Review has known for some time: conserva-tive women are prettier. It’s just a fact! Researchers at UCLA surveyed American politicians and analyzed their features and voting records. According to the survey, “the more feminine their features, the more conservative their voting records. They also found the reverse—that women with more masculine facial features tended to be Democrats.” Female Republican’s facial features tended to have a higher correlation with their ideology than their colleagues in the Democratic Party. The researchers also presented the photos to indi-viduals and asked them to identify the politicians as either Republican or Democrat based simply upon the photos. Participants looked at the 434 faces of politicians and identified the Republican women correctly 98% of the time. So, not only are Republican women more attractive - but this is at least subconsciously known to the public. These findings should come as a surprise to no one. Have you seen Fox News? Apparently there is an entire website dedicated to Fox News anchors – “they bring you the news… we bring you the views.” A fascinating portrait of the two political parties and how beauty, sometimes, is more than just skin deep. Unfortunately, the same findings did not hold true to the same extent for male Republican politicians. But, maybe the survey just didn’t weight Romney’s chin heavily enough.

Let’s All Feel a Little More Entitled

Last week, two videos indicating precisely what’s wrong with America surfaced on the Internet. Both were shot at a campaign rally for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in Bedford, Ohio, by an amateur filmmaker who then posted his footage on YouTube. In the first, pro-Obama protesters between chant-ing slogans like “Romney go home!” and “We don’t need no bad economy!” unabashedly reveal that they are being paid $11 an hour by the Service Employees

International Union (SEIU) to picket outside the event. So much for corporations buying the election, what about unions buying protestors? The Mainstream Media has yet to comment on the affair. The second, more disconcerting video, features a woman explaining why she plans on voting for President Obama in November. The results were shocking. When asked why she’s supporting the President, the woman eloquently responds, “Everybody in Cleve-land, low minority, got Obama phone. Keep Obama in president, you know? He gave us a phone!” Oh, did he now? And her thoughts on Romney? Just as eloquent: “He sucks! Bad!” This viral video prompted an investigation into the process of obtaining a free so-called “Obama phone” and caused many to doubt the existence of such a program.After all, it didn’t have the most reliable of spokeswomen. Yet, she ended up being far more accurate than she at first appeared. As it turns out, there is, in fact, a program that distributes free cell phones to qualifying participants in our country. Funded by the Universal Service Fund (a collection of the monthly fees tacked onto cell phone bills), the Lifeline program was founded by President Reagan in 1984 and expanded under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush to include the subsidization of cell phones in addition to landlines. Hardly a partisan effort by the President, although he has certainly expanded it. Under President Obama, the number of people with Lifeline accounts has grown from 7.1 million in 2008 to 12.5 million today and the annual cost of the program has increased from $772 million in 2008 to $1.6 billion today. The President’s “Truth Team” moved quickly to distance itself from the program and the “Obama phone” woman, posting on Twitter: “FACT: Discounted phone services are provided through telecom companies, ‘the President has nothing to do with it,’” which makes the above video even more disturbing. Its reflection of the sense of entitlement that is cur-rently sweeping through America is noteworthy and alarming. This woman is voting for President Obama not because she supports his opinions on the economy, foreign policy, or social issues but because she wants more government-funded benefits, including the phone she believes Obama himself gave her. Whether his cam-paign will agree that he did or not is besides the point. The point is that this election should be and is about more than one measly phone entitlement. In this video, we find a very cynical and sad view of America, even if it is accurate for some. Forget about the astronomical amount of debt our country is currently holding and the millions of Americans out of work, as long as this woman has her free cell phone, in her mind everything is fine. Someone should let her know that there’s still no such thing as a free lunch…or phone.

The Dartmouth Rabble Rabble

Earlier this week, a band of rogue progressives banded together to found the newest far-left paper that will supposedly respond to our biweekly issues. Of course, we’ve already started taking over/under bets on how long this one will last. The Dartmouth Radical, unfortunately, appears not only to be extremely left-wing and dare-we-say-it, radical, but also destructive. Articles in the first issue featured grammati-cal mistakes and disturbing allegations about large multi-national corporations including Goldman Sachs controlling the United States elections and the world in general. In a year where even centrist magazines like The Economist are warning that anti-Wall Street fervor is bordering on anti-Semitism, that’s troubling. On a lighter note, it featured the usual pabulum from Dartmouth’s resident loony Professor Rickford (famous for calling the Tea Party proto-fascist and generally mis-construing history) as well as a poem that could best be described as something that would appear as filler in an early Maya Angelou work. For our colleagues at The Dartmouth Radical, that was not a compliment. We look forward to future issues - it was the best laugh we’ve had in years. n

“Oh, look! There goes the old school.”

-Col. James Donovan ‘39

Page 6 The Dartmouth Review March 12, 2011

Dean Johnson: Dangerously Misguided

Mr. Harrington is a junior at the College and Executive Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

By J.P. Harrington

Newly arrived Dean Johnson, fresh from her widely reviled and booed tenure at Colgate University, fired a warning shot across the bow of the Dartmouth Greek system this summer. Choosing to make her move while the organizations’ full-time officers were off-campus, Dean Johnson demonstrated that she at least has some political smarts. Instituting new policies while the seniors who had at least a shred of experience with the Kafka-esque bureaucracy of The College were off-campus was a shrewd move although disingenuous and disturbing. Unfortunately for those of us who love Dartmouth tradi-tion and care about student safety, this summer revealed only one thing, that Dean Johnson is not only radical, but also somewhat competent. Now, what does this mean? It means that she stands a chance at not only passing these reforms despite the nearly unanimous protest of the student body, but eventually destroying the Greek system and all of the traditions that make Dartmouth different from any other College or Uni-versity in the world. Yes, that does sound extreme. But these new crusading administrators are extreme people. These administra-tors are the types of people who when they think of ‘hazing,’ they think of pledges voluntarily wearing hats. Yes, hats with their house’ letters on them. I’m not just talking about Alpha Chi Alpha’s infamous sirens, but Alpha Xi Delta’s hats for new members as well. This is apparently the great danger of hazing under the administration’s preferred broad and hazy definition of ‘buffoonery.’ But this isn’t just about defending the traditions of a few select groups on campus. This is about the tradi-tions of the whole College on the Hill, and everything that the student body and the alumni hold dear. After all, it was Wes Schaub who recently admitted that the bonfire was hazing in his opinion. What next? Are we supposed to actually agree with articles published in slightly-more-reputable-than-Hustler music magazines that DOC First Year Trips are hazing? Where can I file an anonymous complaint against DDS for hazing me by forcing me to stand awkwardly in absurdly long lines for mediocre food? If that doesn’t count as buffoonery, I don’t know what does. Although I’ll be the first to admit that GLOS Director Schaub’s experience with buffoonery probably far outweighs my own. By my own estimate, the difference should be about 29 years. I may appear to be straying from the point, but let me be clear. Wes Schaub and Charlotte Johnson have the same purpose and goal: the slow, but sure destruc-tion of all that Dartmouth stands for. These so-called reforms are just the other edge of the sword that Wes Schaub swung at the Greek System last fall. The motto for this fall? “They’re back!” But this isn’t a Poltergeist remake, this is real life. Let’s take a look at these proposed reforms that Dean Johnson has been touting as the answer to all of Dartmouth’s problems. People assume that Dean Johnson isn’t listening. That she simply understands. I’m sorry, but that’s just not the only option. There remains the possibil-ity that Dean Johnson is an intelligent and capable woman. She may fully understand that the reforms she is proposing could have immensely negative con-sequences for the student body, raising the risk for tragedies such as alcohol poisoning, sexual assaults, and other misdeeds. In that case, of course, she just doesn’t care. So, you can’t have it both ways. She’s either incompetent or radical. At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter which. If you’re standing in front of a runaway car that isn’t slowing down, it doesn’t really matter whether the driver is blind or psychotic. But what are these actual reforms? There are admit-tedly a few reasonable ones that will lead to success. Increased education for new members of Greek Letter Organizations. Why not? I support that. So does everyone else. Let’s set that aside along with the new and clearer definition of hazing which will also allow immunity for hazing. Instead, we should concentrate our attention and our criticism (hopefully constructive) on the more absurd and bizarre proposals that follow. First off, the new policies regarding Safety &

Security. At every forum, the administration and the students have both extolled the current relationship between students (whether Greek or not) and Safety & Security. Without a hint of irony, the administration or their lackeys usually follow this up with a proposal to change that policy in a way that will fundamentally place students in opposition to Safety & Security. Apparently the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” has not yet hit the bureaucrats over at Parkhurst. Or perhaps, yet again, they just don’t care. It doesn’t seem that criticism levied against this from students who fear the intrusion of S&S officers has had any effect. I’ve heard from members of fraternities, sororities, and co-eds alike that they are all afraid of running into S&S officers in states of undress. One would hope that the administration were more sensitive to the wishes of students or their fears of sexual harassment, but it appears that would be even more foolish than even this policy. This isn’t the end of Dean Johnson’s meddling

with Safety & Security, unfortunately. She also hopes to introduce a new hotline application that has a GPS locator which can immediately be used to trigger an anonymous tip to S&S.

Now, this might seem like a good idea, if you’ve never stepped outside of Parkhurst into the real world, or in this case, Webster Ave. On Webster Ave, it has long been common practice (not by this columnist, but by others), to pull the fire alarms at other houses. This juvenile practice just got easier thanks to Dean Johnson. One simple press of a button on your iPhone during a dance party and here come S&S, tires squealing as they rush to the rescue of students. The party gets shut down as S&S searches every room for the GPS signal, hoping to find the issue before it’s too late. In the mean time, the party moves across the street as the miscreants hoped. It’s silly not to assume that this system won’t be exploited. The Blue Light system already is, why wouldn’t a system that is designed so that students cannot face recrimination for reporting be even more exploited? This isn’t a reform that will endanger the student body as much as it will erode the effectiveness of Safety & Security, waste valuable resources and of course further destroy the currently strong relation-ship between the student body and S&S. Now, let’s move on to Dean Johnson’s propos-als for alcohol policy and punishment. Dean Johnson is going to emphasize and enforce a ban on ‘punches’ or other common source alcohol mixtures. Now, is this necessarily a bad idea? No, but it needs to be coupled with a relaxation of the keg policy. Cans are more environmentally destructive, harder to con-trol and dispense alcohol quicker. Banning kegs did not reduce binge drinking, but instead encouraged it. Anyone who has ever had to pump 22 cups of beer out of a keg for one game of tree could have told Dean Johnson this, of course. But it appears that the Dean isn’t interested in encouraging safe and reasonable consumption of alcohol. Unlike our dearly departed President Kim who admitted that Dartmouth lived in the real world where students would always find alcohol, Dean Johnson seems to be under the impression that Prohibition worked. In the future at Dartmouth, hard alcohol will only be served by licensed caterers. Originally, the phrase was for licensed bartenders, but that was changed after it was discovered that New Hampshire does not offer licensing for bartenders. Let’s explore these particular policies further. Dean Johnson is with one hand banning punches and adding the necessity for licensed caterers while with the other expanding the punishment for violations of the alcohol policy and hazing policy. It’s easy to see where these policies will lead. In fact, this is why President Kim

avoided these types of policies for so long at his short tenure at Dartmouth. Restricting the flow of alcohol while increasing the punishment for those few drops that escape Safety & Security will create an underground culture of drinking on campus. Now, while some may point out that nearly all drinking on campus is quite lit-erally underground and in basements, that is an entirely different matter. Most drinking on campus takes place in public spaces. These public spaces have open doors – anyone can walk in and observe exactly what is going on. Friends can help other friends who drink too much. Brothers can cut off brothers or guests who have overindulged. Students who are in danger can be immediately helped and turned over to Safety & Security without fear or reprisal. This is a unique culture and fundamentally different from so many other colleges where students pre-game dangerously in their dorms and then head out to fraternities or bars or clubs. At the end of the day, there is significantly less hard alcohol consumption on this campus than at nearly any other college in America. I’ll give you BYU, but I’ll argue just about anywhere else. The fact of the matter is, our system has been working. We are also somewhat unique in America in that we have not had a death due to alcohol poisoning on campus. And I pray that we never have that awful experience. But these policies will make that horrible possibility more probable. How? Driving drinking underground and out of the public sphere. Forcing students to move towards consuming hard alcohol in private, without bystanders. There’s no point in having bystander in-tervention training if there will be no bystanders in the future. There’s no point in having a Good Samaritan policy or an anonymous tip app for S&S if everyone is deathly afraid of being caught with hard alcohol. The system will collapse and fall apart. Not to mention that I’ve heard multiple female students express concern at forums and discussions that this will lead to heavier drinking in private rooms where sexual assault is more prevalent. Neither of these outcomes is acceptable. I had the unfortunate experience to attend a forum over the summer discussing these policies where it quickly became clear that the driving force behind these policies was to repair the College’s public relations

after a rather scandalous winter and spring term. A student in attendance at that forum made the statement that if these policies helped patch the College’s reputation and thereby the reputation of his diploma that he would accept the policies. I resoundingly reject that belief. No amount of faux good will from the supposed public is worth a single tenth of a percentage point increase in the risk of a Dartmouth student suffering sexual assault, rape, or even death. Not even a hun-dredth. That sentiment is sickening and shameful. This isn’t just about us, but about the generations of Dartmouth students

who will have to con-tinue on under these new restrictions both on hazing and binge

drinking. Poor policies are poor policies, no matter their context or reason. This crusade against the Greek system is all about good headlines. Well, Dean Johnson, I’d just like to ask you one question. What if the headline is “Dartmouth Student Dies in Own Room Due to Alcohol Poisoning Under New Policies”? Is that a headline you want to read? At the end of the day, I don’t really care what your answer is. Or what Wes Schaub thinks hazing is or isn’t. These policies are ridiculous and unlike Wes’ preoccupa-tions with the bonfire and all other Dartmouth traditions, they are dangerous. Either Dean Johnson sees that or she doesn’t. Either she’s incompetent or she just doesn’t care about student safety, you can’t have it both ways. So, the real question is for the alumni. Aren’t those both good reasons to fire her? If not, how about protecting Dartmouth College’s traditions–and students? n

–The ever-vigilant Dean Johnson rides ‘cross the Green, decimating any student fun, independence,

and old schoolery that lies in her path.–

Dean Johnson may fully understand that the reforms she is proposing could have im-

mensely negative consequences for the student body, raising the risk for tragedies such as alcohol poisoning, sexual assaults, and other misdeeds.

March 12, 2011 The Dartmouth Review Page 7

Wes Schaub: Ineffectually Obnoxious

Mssrs. Randolph, Poplar, Molehill, and Molehill are sophomores at the College and sat through Wes Schaub’s mandatory meeting.

By Romeo Randolph III, W. D. Poplar, Jacques Molehill, and Jeremiah Molehill

“I’m the first person to say it but yes, I do believe the homecoming bonfire is hazing.” Wes said as his small, slightly underweight dog ran around the room. Wes Schaub is a lover of dogs, a hater of traditions, and the director of Greek Letter Organizations and Societies for Dartmouth College. He has held multiple mandatory meetings this fall for all 15’s who wish to go Greek. At one such meeting, Wes briefly let his mask drop and revealed just how radically different he is from the rest of Dartmouth. What else can we expect from someone who isn’t an alumni? As the quote suggests, the purpose of these meetings was to instill the most liber-al and broad definition of hazing in the minds of prospective Greeks. To briefly summa-rize Wes’ long-winded speeches, anything pledges are asked to do which the other mem-bers of the fraternity do not do is now con-sidered hazing. Wes is uninterested in whether or not the intent is ma-licious. He is uninter-ested in whether or not the pledges undertake the action voluntarily. He is even uninterested in the action itself. The only criteria used to determine whether or not an action is hazing is who undertakes the action. And so, the act of freshmen running around the homecom-ing bonfire while being cheered on by upper-classmen is hazing. Mr. Schaub spent 22 years as Director of Greek Life at Case Western Uni-versity, a university comparable in size to Dartmouth, but with nearly half as many participants in Greek life on campus. He was hired in 2011 and came in guns a-blazin’ ready to tackle excessive alcohol consumption and sexual assault, serious problems at both Dartmouth and Case Western. In his view, he’s been here before. Well, not here at Dartmouth, where alumni have such a large influence on the affairs of this tiny little campus in New England. He hasn’t been to a college where so much of the student body’s experience rests on par-ticipation in a fraternity or sorority or the events put on by each Greek Letter Organization. By no means is it everything, but alumni sure do love the Greek system, and so do the students. In his meetings with prospective Greeks, Wes first wasted students’ precious time by advocating against hazing. In an effort to convince students that hazing does not lead to bonding or stronger character, he com-pared hazing to child abuse and domestic violence. He compared the relationship between consenting adults (pledges and the organization) to child abuse and domestic violence, two of the most horrendous deeds ever conceived by humanity. Dartmouth is diverse and the incredible insensitivity of that comparison definitely caused pain to any number of students who have witnessed or been involved in child abuse or do-mestic violence. His awkward wording also seemed to imply that being through trauma of that nature makes you weaker both morally and as a person in general. Of the many absurdities during Wes’ little meeting, this was far and away the most stupid and offensive. We at The Dartmouth Review hope that it was just an honest mistake, but we are inclined to be less gener-ous towards Wes as his behavior grows ever odder and more offensive.

Wes also spent much of the meeting’s time defin-ing three different levels of hazing. These levels refer to the severity of the hazing, but while Wes seems to love pedantically describing the levels, they do not appear to have any significance. He does not men-tion college policy regarding the levels and judging from the unprofessional and unofficial nature of his PowerPoint presentation, he created these levels in the early hours of the morning before his first meeting. Wes seemed out of his depth throughout the entire pre-sentation, especially when he was forced to answer the questions of students. “He was really flustered,” says

Emily Uniman ’15 after she asked him if the bonfire should be considered haz-ing, “partly because everyone else in the room was laugh-ing and clapping, but also because he didn’t know what to say and then he finally said that he agreed with me and that he thinks the bonfire is hazing and shouldn’t exist, that we should get rid of it.” Schaub got lost in his essen-tial argument. He does not understand the implications of what he says and does. This most fun-damental misun-derstanding stems from his ignorance of what the College is and what it stands for. Furthermore, his weak-willed, uneasy response ex-hibits his incompe-tence as a leader and a communicator. After calling the re-vered bonfire “haz-ing,” other students

asked questions about specific incidents of

hazing. Instead of addressing the questions and clari-fying himself, Uniman recalls that he “disregarded a bunch of us and moved on with the presentation.” Schaub then had the nerve to kick out a student for whispering to his neighbor. Unfortunately, this student was asking the person sitting next to him about some of the policies Schaub was proposing. Since Schaub would not have answered the student’s question any-way, it is mind-boggling what this student should have done. Would the administration actually prefer to leave the student body in the dark? Will actual student input – not a non-existent “silent majority” – ever actually help shape policies? Wes comes off exactly how you would expect someone with no prior experience at Dartmouth to come off. He is offensively incompetent as well as simply offensive. He seems to think his job is to protect some of the brightest minds in the world from one another. He is ungrammati-cal, unpolished, and has no idea how to use PowerPoint. He is not qualified to advise an elite body of students to say nothing of setting policy and punishment regarding their actions. I left the meeting thinking that I would have trouble donating money to an administration that had placed such offensive and incompetent idiots in its upper tier. Wes means to change Dartmouth’s identity and not for the better. He and Dean Johnson have made it abundantly clear that the students are powerless to stop them. The alumni and the board need to make a statement, probably a monetary one, in order to stop their extremism. Schaub put his foot down last year when he or-dered all of Alpha Chi Alpha’s pledges to cease and desist the wearing of their signature pledge sirens, bright red hats with letters emblazoned across the

front. This year, in light of Andrew Lohse’s allega-tions that, among other things, pledges were forced to wade in a now infamous and fictitious kiddie pool, Schaub and Dean Johnson have started their “harm reduction policies.” Under the new policies, Alpha Chi pledges will still not be allowed to wear their sirens, and other houses will be affected as well. Psi Upsilon pledges will not be allowed to wear their signature construction worker uniforms (unis). Alpha Delta pledges will not be allowed to grow moustaches or carry lunchboxes around campus. Even Theta Delta Chi pledges will not be able to wear their stylish jorts without participation from the entire brotherhood. Sororities will no longer have their pledges wear those blue ribbons in their hair, fanny packs around their waist, or flair to class. Thank God, too, because we were all secretly offended by all of those things. So secret in fact, that according to Dean Johnson, “a silent majority of students who are 110% behind [the new harm reduction policies]…say it to [her]” and “not necessarily publically.” Well, we trust her. Although her math seems a little shaky, even for a non-Dartmouth grad. That Wes does not understand the importance of the Dartmouth Homecoming tradition—the tradition of a new generation of Dartmouth students ceremoniously running around a bonfire to signify their entrance into the Dartmouth community, the Dartmouth family, re-ally—truly shows that he is not on the same page as the community as a whole. Schaub must then believe that the bonfire is a sort of hazing into happiness, that with every turn around the fire our Stockholm Syndrome takes further hold, and the student body accepts our mutual delusion. Schaub displays a complete misun-derstanding of Dartmouth. He fails to recognize the Dartmouth commitment to tradition. The policy causing the most stir in the Greek com-munity is the unannounced walkthroughs. Fraternities and sororities have insisted that common areas inside these organization’s houses do not constitute public space. They are private residences, maintained by the student leaders living there—but mostly by pledges. One laughable provision is requiring licensed bartend-ers at tails, formals, and other events with hard liquor and spirits. This inclusion, which presents basically no hindrance at all for social events, will likely be used as a filler concession, where the Administration and Wes Schaub will be able to say they compromised on the most important issue, one where students engage in unregulated consumption of hard alcohol, when in reality students regulate themselves and are generally responsible. With this these administrators can claim that they got the short stick in only adding the random walkthroughs at two houses a night. This policy, which is more reminiscent of the SS than of S&S, is still destructive and not acceptable. If the administration only manages to implement one or two poor policies instead of several, then we have not won. That is not a victory for the student body. Only the elimination of every single one of these bad ideas will be a victory. What the administration fails to realize is that they have created a classic case of good intentions gone wrong. Hazing by their definition will always

take place, so by eliminat-ing public hazing, it will just move to more pri-vate, unregulated spaces. Whereas the subtle, pub-lic forms of “hazing” are generally lighthearted and fun, hazing behind closed doors can be much more traumatic and dangerous. I’m sure that Mr. Schaub would agree that it is better to dance and sing around

the library in a fairy outfit than it is to drink until attrition. Shame on Wes Schaub, Charlotte Johnson, and the Administration for implementing these ex-treme measures over the summer, when a majority of the student body was not on campus, and for do-ing so without real consultation of the students the policies will most affect. Every current, former and aspiring member of Greek organizations should take note and be warned: the Administration is looking for an organization to nail to the wall. They need an example, someone to crucify and torture. Because this isn’t just a set of new policies for them. This is a crusade by Wes Schaub and Charlotte Johnson against Dartmouth, the Greek System, and you. n

–Will the Homecoming Bonfire be the next tradition on the chopping block?–

Schaub does not understand the im-plications of what he says and does.

This most fundamental misunderstand-ing stems from his ignorance of what the College is and what it stands for. Furthermore, his weak-willed, uneasy response exhibits his incompetence as a leader and a communicator.

Page 8 The Dartmouth Review March 12, 2011

Ethics, Stem Cells and the Nobel Prize

Mr. Melvin is a junior at the College and Features Editor at The Dartmouth Review.

By John Melvin

Two researchers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work that has rewrit-ten the textbook on molecular biology. Professor John Gurdon of Cambridge University and Doctor Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University were awarded the prize this past Monday. Any competent AP biology student could tell you the one rule associated with the human cell life cycle: once a cell has been differentiated, it is stuck in its specialized state for the remainder of its life. Every cell in the human body once existed as a stem cell or an unspecialized cell that can turn into any type of cell in your body. Put these facts together, and you see that once a stem cell has turned into a liver cell or a heart cell, it is stuck as that cell type for the rest of its life. In the future, the differentiated cell can only reproduce to make more of its own cell type. Until now. Dr. Yamanaka recently has shown that adult cells can be taken from the body and turned into pluripotent stem cells in a laboratory dish. The experi-ments were originally conducted on mouse cells, but were shown in 2007 to be just as successful on human tissues. Yamanaka took his induced stem cells and showed that they could turn into different types of tissue. What does all this mean? He can take some of your skin cells, turn them into stem cells, and then turn those stem cells into new nerve cells or kidney cells. Skin cells = Brain cells? Who would’ve thought that this type of alchemy was possible? Dr. Yamanaka has essentially found the Philosopher’s Stone of biology. The implications of this new discovery are massive on many different fronts. The potential for new therapies to treat all kinds of disease from cancer to diabetes to brain disease are obviously the first to come to mind. But this discovery also rids the need for science and research to clash with ethics, an issue close to this writer’s heart. The long back and forth between scientific researchers and ethicists over stem cell research reaches all the way back to the 1960’s. Back in 1961, Dr. James Till and Dr. Ernest McCull-och accidentally discov-ered the existence of stem cells while researching cancer. Ever since, there has been a long raging fight between science and ethics over the use of stem cells. There are two types of stem cells. The first are called pluripotent stem cells, most bountifully found in fetal tissues. These stem cells have unlimited regeneration potential and can liter-ally turn into any type of cell in your body. “Adult” or multipotent stem cells are the second type. Unlike pluripotent stem cells, these cells are limited in the number of types of cells they can differentiate into. Pluripotent or “embryonic” stem cells can only be found in fetuses. Multipotent stem cells can be found in each and every one of us. They are plentiful in bone marrow, where they are used to create new blood cells, and can be extracted from umbilical cord blood. The ethical debate stems (what a pun) from the

origin of each cell. Research on pluripotent stem cells requires the destruction of a human fetus to obtain the necessary cells for culture. Multipotent stem cells are in each and every one of right now, and can be extracted fairly easily by today’s standards. Many argue for the use of embryonic stem cells because their potential to turn into other cells is unlimited, unlike adult stem cells. In 1974, Congress banned the use of federal fund-ing for stem cell research. Presi-dent Reagan would later cut all funding to the Ethical Advisory Board, essen-tially placing a moratorium on federal funding for stem cell re-search. 1990 saw President Bush veto the legis-lature’s attempt to remove the moratorium on federal funding. The Clinton Ad-ministration re-versed the moratorium via executive order, again ap-proving federal funding for the research. The back and forth would continue on in 2001 with President George W. Bush again banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Most recently, President Obama reinstituted federal funding for embryonic stem cells in 2009. The debate has raged on for over 50 years and has been closely linked with abortion. Many pro-life advo-cates have pointed to the lack of success that treatments with embryonic stem cells have produced. Today, there are still no FDA approved treatments that use pluripotent stem cells. On the other hand, adult stem cells have been an extremely effective treatment for leukemia and other

bone/blood related cancers. Embryonic stem cell therapies have had a lack of success for the same reason that organ transplants cannot work indefinitely. Kidney transplants, by far the most successful organ transplantation to date, last an average of 12 years. This is because, even though the kidney is fully functional, it lacks the necessary identification proteins that the original kidney had. The body’s im-mune system eventually identifies the transplant tissue as foreign, and begins to attack the transplant as if it

was a virus or foreign bacteria. For instance, we can give patients brand new pan-creatic cells that produce insulin needed to regulate blood sugar. However, the body will reject the cells eventually unless the identification proteins on the cell are entirely correct. How correct those ID proteins will be depends on how genetically close the donor is to the recipient.

Herein lies the beauty of the recent discovery. If we can take your skin cells and turn them back into plurip-otent stem cells, these new stem cells will still have your cor-rect ID proteins. We could create a brand new kid-ney for a patient that doesn’t have a risk of getting rejected by your immune system. Scientists can es-

sentially perfectly replace your old kidney with a new one. Type 1 diabetes is caused by your immune system incorrectly identifying your kidney cells that produce insulin as foreign. With new treatments, we could potentially those destroyed cells perfectly. The therapeutic benefits of the new discovery are truly amazing. The discovery also solves the ethical debate over stem cell research. No longer do we need to destroy human fetuses in order to obtain pluripotent stem cells. We can take any cell and turn back the clock so that it is again a stem cell. Gurdon was awarded the prize for his work in the 1960’s when he proved that an adult frog cell’s nucleus

can be used to clone new tadpoles. If the adult cell has been programmed irrevocably to its function, it never would have been able to produce all the new cells necessary to clone a new tadpole. The egg cell containing the new nucleus was able to reprogram itself back into a stem cell that was able to produce all the new cells. Using Gurdon’s work as a base, Dr. Yamanaka was able to identify and use four transcription factors to reprogram adult human cells back into stem cells. Most shocking perhaps is how these two men ar-rived where they are today. Gurdon’s headmaster from high school called his ambitions to become a scientist “completely ridiculous.” His headmaster went on to add, “If he can’t learn simple biological facts he would have no chance of doing the work of a specialist, and it would be a sheer waste of time, both on his part and of those who would have to teach him.” Yamanaka was a surgeon in the making. He then gave up because he decided he was not talented enough. He went on to complete postdoctoral training before beginning his research. These two men make

one think twice when Professor Kohn drops his famous catchphrase, “never go into a career in finance.” Who knows how many future Michael Milkens Professor Kohn has dissuaded? Much still stands unknown about the capability of scientists to manipulate adult cells back into stem cells. Is it cost effective? How effective will implementation be in various therapies? But one thing stands for sure. With a biological “dogma” proven incorrect, many doors long since closed need to be reopened. n

—Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University—

—Sir John Gurdon of Cambridge University—

www.dartreview.com

March 12, 2011 The Dartmouth Review Page 9

Phi Delta Alpha Finds Coaching Success

Mr. Ravishanker is a junior at the College and a con-tributor to The Dartmouth Review.

By Varun Ravishanker

While the fraternity man of lore may be characterized by rampant alcohol abuse and other unsavory actities, there are affiliated students at Dartmouth College that spend their time giving back to the campus and community. This type of philanthropy in the Greek system seems to be the rule rather than the exception. The numerous events around campus held by Greek organi-zations only begin to scratch the surface of what affiliated students on campus do to give back, and it is often a function of their affiliation that drives students to help in the first place. This is certainly the case with “The Little Riggers,” a ragtag group of Hanover Middle grade students coached by five brothers of Dartmouth’s Phi Delta Alpha fraternity. The coaches, all members of the class of 2014 (and includ-ing the Review’s own Features Editor John “John Boy” Melvin), volunteered to head the youth soccer team at the onset of the fall term. When they aren’t going to class or studying, these Phi Delta boys hold regular practices multiple times a week, running drills and instilling the fundamentals of the game, as well as managing the team during several games throughout the term. The coaches have noted that they genuinely enjoy being members of the team and do not consider the responsibility taxing. The young athletes on the team, which is officially known as the Hanover Maroon Crush, are unaware of the affectionate nickname bestowed on them by their coaches. “I don’t think they know they’re the Little Riggers, we just kind of call them that,” Coach Melvin said. The name arises from a similar rec-reational league baseball team coached by other Phi Delta members Sam Lewis ‘13, Scott O’ Brien ‘12 and George Helding ‘14. With many of the players carrying their talents from the baseball diamond to the soccer pitch, Lewis noted that it seemed natural to keep the team name. The Little Riggers have not lost yet this season, and with a 4-0-1 record they are looking to be a powerhouse in their league. “They’re doing incredibly well,” Coach Alex Welton said. “They’re much, much better than most teams. Before [Friday], we won every game by a commanding margin. The last two games were tougher.” The team jumped out to three wins to start the season, winning 4-1 and 5-2 before really hitting their stride with a 10-1 win in their third game. This past Friday, the players had to battle for the first time this season. Fortunately, they managed to break through late in the game to get the tight win. “Friday we played Lebanon, our bitter rivals, and we snuck away with a 2-1 victory,” Coach Sam Bauer said. The Riggers had some trouble maintaining the high level of play from earlier in the season, but the coaches noted that the Lebanon team offered a much higher level of competition than the other teams they had faced in the season. The Little Rigers finally met their match on Saturday when they failed to win for the first time this season. They struggled out of the gates, falling into a deep hole early in the game against Plainfield before sparking a comeback. “We were down 3-1 and then came back to score two goals and tie it three all,” Coach Bauer said. “One of the scores was a 45 yard goal off of a free kick, which was epic.” With the score tied late in the contest, the Riggers started to press on offense, looking for one last goal to keep their winning streak alive. Their chance finally came in the final seconds of the game. “We were pour-ing it on at the end of the game and with less than ten seconds we played a through ball in. The kid got the ball on the 6 yard line as time expired, but he missed the kick, so we settled for a tie,” Bauer said. “It was really awesome that we came back and we

missed a break away, but it was the first time they had been down all season and it was pretty impressive that they came back,” Coach Melvin said. “I’m very pleased that they didn’t put their heads down, but did something about it.”

The Riggers will get another shot at the Plain-field team in an upcoming league tournament, where the Riggers look to be in prime position for a deep run. “We have a tourna-ment coming up and we’ll

get another crack at yesterday’s team,” Bauer said. The team coaches have noted that their brother-hood and close friendship provided for a strong work-ing environment, which has obviously translated into victory. “Obviously we’re all brothers so we’re best friends and we work very well together. No one really has an ego attached to being the dominant coach so it’s pretty democratic in terms of ideas,” Coach Welton said. Even at the highest lev-els of play, power struggles and coaching discrepancies have been known to cripple teams. Fortunately, no such incidents have plagued the Riggers or impacted their success. The coaches have managed their relative authori-ties well, allowing them to play to their strengths when

coaching practices and games. “During practice, we like to run and work on the fundamentals, such as passing,” Coach Nelson Santry said. “The team leaves the hard fitness up to Santry and Melvin, according to Welton. “Melvin and Santry

are definitely the ‘bad cops’ when it comes to running the kids, while the rest of us are the ‘good cops,’” he said. The others sometimes take a more hands on ap-proach to teaching the kids soccer technique. “Nelson is probably the best soccer play out of us so he plays a lot with the kids, as do Bauer and [Dan] Bernhard,” said Welton. With five coaches, each one is able to focus on certain things with the kids, which makes for a very effective practice strategy.

The coaches have an essentially equal level of au-thority when it comes to practices and games, but with the administrative parts of the job, the team defers to Melvin as the head coach. Melvin is responsible for contacting parents about games and practice schedules. The stresses of a term at Dartmouth can be enough to stress many students out even without extra activi-ties, but the coaches choose to put in the extra time to ensure that their Little Riggers will be winners. “[The time commitment] can be challenging, but since we have five coaches its more manageable,” Melvin said. “It’s worth it because seeing our team succeed makes all the time and effort worth it. It’s very fulfilling.” Santy echoed that sentiment “I live a very balanced life so it’s fine. It’s eight hours a week, which is not too bad of a time commitment,” he said. When it comes down to it, the coaches can only do so much before it is up to the players, and the Little Rig-gers have some talent on their squad. “They’re getting

pretty good and they’re learning strategy,” Wel-ton said. He also noted that though they are only in middle school, the players have shown a lot of

initiative and dedication. “They’re surprisingly mature for their age,” he said. ”I was expecting it to be much more of a hassle to get them to do what we say, but they have been good so far.” The ability of the Little Riggers to listen has really paid off in the development they’ve seen. “They’ve improved a lot. They’re working hard and it’s showing off in the results,” Santry said. The parents have also been pleased with the per-formance of their children. They have been actively supporting the team coaches and have praised them for their prowess in leading the youngsters this season. “The parents love us actually. They have this image of us as idealized Ivy League students and since the team has been successful and the kids are excited about the games I’m sure the parents are very happy so far,” Welton said. The Little Riggers are certainly primed to succeed as their season continues under the coaching of these five Dartmouth students. In teaching these kids how to play soccer, they note that it is the enjoyment and mo-tivation to have the kids succeed that keeps the coaches motivated. With the great success they’ve already had and with only more victories to come, it seems like these guys and the Little Riggers may just be the perfect match. n

The young athletes on the team, which is of-ficially known as the Hanover Maroon Crush,

are unaware of the affectionate nickname bestowed on them by their coaches. “I don’t think they know they’re the Little Riggers, we just kind of call them that,” Coach Melvin said. The name arises from a similar recreational league baseball team coached by other Phi Delta members.

The coaches have an essentially equal level of authority when it comes to

practices and games, but with the admin-istrative parts of the job, the team defers to Melvin as the head coach.

The Little Riggers have not lost yet this season, and with a 4-0-1 record they are looking to be a

powerhouse in their league. “They’re doing incred-ibly well,” Coach Alex Welton said. “They’re much, much better than most teams. Before [Friday], we won every game by a commanding margin.”

Page 10 The Dartmouth Review March 12, 2011

The Global Citizen Festival

Ms. Hassett is a sophomore at the College and Arts & Culture Editor of The Dartmouth Review.

By Meghan K. Hassett

On Saturday, September 29th, sixty-thousand peo-ple gathered together on the Great Lawn in Central Park for the Global Citizen Festival. Artists like K’Naan, Band of Horses, The Black Keys, Foo Fighters, and Neil Young with Crazy Horse (as well as a surprise appearance by John Legend) shared the stage along with activist speakers for the “largest syndicated charity concert in online and broadcast TV history,” according to the Festival’s website. Speeches by activists like Selena Go-mez, Olivia Wilde, Katie Couric, and Katharine McPhee spreading the message of fighting to end poverty were interspersed with the musical acts. As the world’s leaders congregated in New York for the UN General Assembly, these bands and the “global citizens” in the audience came together for an advocacy concert that, according to the webpage, had a mission to “urge leaders and fellow citizens to do more to help end extreme poverty.” Interestingly, tickets had to be won, not purchased, by reading and shar-ing information on global issues like child mortality, malaria, clean water, polio, and preserving resources. By leveraging to-day’s social media culture they made the concert more about awareness and activ-ism than donations. Each act of global citizenship was re-warded with points towards a ticket to this incredible day of music. For example, watching or sharing a video on an issue related to poverty was one point, buy-ing Fairtrade prod-ucts was three, and calling a represen-t a t i v e i n C o n g r e s s w a s t e n . The sense of solidarity and genuine interest from the crowd at the concert was incredible; everyone donned their bright orange wristbands proclaiming “1.4 Billion Reasons” with just as much pride as their Nirvana or Neil Young t-shirts. Though I don’t know

how many concertgoers are going to now more actively fight for the 1.4 billion people subsisting on under $1.50 per day after all is said and done, I can say that the sense of community was incredible. Leaders engaged people with speeches on international NGO’s and the monu-mental impacts their work had in developing areas. When John Legend took the stage to sing John Lennon’s “Imagine,” the performance meant more

than just a classic song about peace, love, and communism that Lennon advocated for forty years ago. When played after a moving speech about child mortality and the work we need to do to give every child a chance to live past the age of five, the song took on a different meaning and urged us to actively help change the rules that trap people in broken systems. The crowd sang along

softly, a few near tears. To be fair, I was tearing up just from the excitement of hearing John Legend. The concert was powerful, both in music and in purpose. The audience and performers rocked harder than others I’d seen at many previous concerts; the excitement was there because not only were they a part of a “free” five hour rock’n’roll show with some of the biggest names out today, but because they were also a part of this massive global citizenship movement.

The goals of the concert were to celebrate progress already made, secure fi-nancial commitments for tackling extreme poverty and disease, and mobilize thousands of ambassadors for change. Many speak-ers declared our potential to end poverty in this very generation. The concert was an initiative of the Global Poverty Project, who teamed up with Gold-en Voice to support Rotary International Earth Insti-tute, US Fund for Unicef, Pencils of Promise, Ma-laria No More, Half the

Sky, World Vision, Global Partnership for Education, World Food Program USA, and Earth Day Network. The concert started off with K’Naan, a Somali civil war refugee, who was a perfect choice to start off the show. He performed hip hop songs heavily influenced by his African heritage, and his melodic rapping got the crowd grooving to themes of freedom and conflict. He ended his set with “Wavin’ Flag,” which became an international hit after being used as one of the 2010 FIFA World Cup anthem, but he

stripped it down and re-personalized it for us, giving details about his life: “We moved to Harlem/ till the I.N.S. gave us a problem.” Following K’Naan, the Band of Horses also performed a few songs with a very different sound; “Funeral” was a wonderful moment

in the concert, the slow build was well done. Band of Horses’ grassy rock charmed the crowd, though most of the audience was eagerly awaiting the next act. The Black Keys performed a tight, flawless set, with the whole crowd nodding and singing along to all of Auerbach’s riffs. They actually played almost twice as long as the Foo Fighters, but nobody minded because the entire audience was spellbound. The big hits like Howlin’ For You, Tighten Up, Lonely Boy, and Gold on the Ceiling had such raw energy; The Black Keys are truly an incredible live band. Little Black Submarines, which my friend aptly described as “The Black Keys’ Stairway to Heaven,” was as-tounding—Dan Auerbach first played it as a solo, bluesy, fingerpicking tune, and then the whole band jumped in to pound away at the song. The groove was consistently captivating throughout the entire set; Strange Times and Run Right Back were maddeningly good as Auerbach’s rough and sultry vocals moaned over addictively bluesy riffs and Patrick Carney’s drums socked away at the beat. The Black Keys closed with “I Got Mine,” and all of the 60,000-per-son crowd clapped along to the furious breakdown. In the next act theFoo Fighters certainly rocked the hardest; Dave Grohl jumped around the stage

howling and headbanging furiously to some of the band’s greatest hits as well as tunes from their latest EP Wasting Light, including “Walk,” “These Days,” and “Arlandria.” Grohl opened with a solo “Times Like These”, introducing his set with a mellow sound before exploding into the rest of the songs, which was very cool to hear. My friend cried openly dur-ing “My Hero.” “Learn to Fly” and “Best of You” were mind-blowingly powerful, especially after Dave Grohl announced to us that this event was the perfect time to hit their peak and not play for a really long time. Grohl said, “We don’t have any shows after this. This is where we play as many songs as we can in a short period of time, because, honestly, I don’t

When John Legend took the stage to sing John Lennon’s “Imagine,” the perfor-

mance meant more than just a classic song about peace, love, and communism that Lennon advocated for forty years ago. When played after a moving speech about child mortality and the work we need to do to give every child a chance to live past the age of five, the song took on a different meaning and urged us to ac-tively help change the rules that trap people in broken systems. The crowd sang along softly, a few near tears.

Neil Young did not disappoint. It was his first appearance with

Crazy Horse since 2004, and his voice soared clean and clear as his band droned and thumped away.

The crowd begged for one more song, but Dave Grohl said, “I wish we could play all night, but I’d rather see Neil Young.”Interestingly, tickets had to be won,

not purchased, by reading and shar-ing information on global issues like child mortality, malaria, clean water, polio, and preserving resources. By leveraging today’s social media cul-ture they made the concert more about awareness and activism than donations.

Write for

The Dartmouth Review

Mondays at 6:30

Blitz rig@dartmouth.edu for more information

(or just to talk)

March 12, 2011 The Dartmouth Review Page 11

know when we’re gonna do it again.” The crowd was stunned, but it made for an even more intense show as both band and audience savored every moment and became even more psyched about the show. As the crowd clapped along to “Arlandria,” Grohl grinned and said, “If you had any idea how f***ing beautiful that looks from up here…” The Foo Fighters’ lyrics were also perfect for the Festival, with their blend of fury and frustration and yearning optimism. Their grungy sound left over from Grohl’s days as Nirvana’s drummer are paired with wonderful crowd-friendly melodies. Their last song, “Everlong,” was magic. After the second chorus the band dropped out leaving just those gripping guitar chords. When the band built back up again, a wave of emotion swept through the crowd as it set in that not only are these guys beyond spectacular but that we are at what is po-tentially their very last live show. While sitting atop the shoulders of a fellow Dartmouth student in order to see Grohl performing the last song of the show (and my personal favorite) I realized just how large and passionate the entire crowd was. It was truly a thing of beauty. The crowd begged for one more song, but Dave Grohl said, “I wish we could play all night, but I’d rather see Neil Young.” Neil Young did not disappoint. It was his first appearance with Crazy Horse since 2004, and his voice soared clean and clear as his band droned and thumped away. His lead guitar was mesmerizing; Young played pure, precise melo-dies while scratching away at intense solos. Young and his bandmates jammed in the center of the stage, so close together that their heads nearly touched. They were so close that the sound was soaked in feedback and distortion with “Powderfinger” put-ting so many so-called rockers to shame. Young is

sixty-six years old and jams harder than most modern artists. “Walk Like a Giant” was a great choice for the Global Citizen Festival with its talk of 1960s idealism: “We were ready to save the world/Then the weather changed and the white got stained and it fell apart/And it breaks my heart to think about how close we came.” But Young urged us to walk like a giant ending the song with dozens of big thumping footprints, blasting us all with the closing chord. Naturally, Neil Young finished his scorching set with “Rockin’ in the Free World.” He announced, “We’re joining forces up here for you.” Dave Grohl, K’Naan, Band of Horses, and Dan Auerbach then

joined Crazy Horse for a ten-minute epic finale. That was true musical history. Young’s Les Paul screamed and squealed violently while Grohl and Auerbach slammed on powerchords. The song wasn’t simply celebratory; the verses describe dire conditions, and then the ironically positive chorus is a message to not be a complacent “free world” but to work hard to fix global problems. The multi-guitar blowout really drove home the message; as the crowd exited Central

Park, spontaneous voices yelled out the chorus. While music was the primary attraction, it was nice to see that leaders from Haiti, India, and Somalia were applauded like the musicians. However, during the break between The Black Keys and Foo Fight-ers, a Dave Grohl chant started up in the middle of a woman speaking about UNICEF. I do think that the movement behind the music only enhanced the musical experience, rather than leaving us with a deep sense of global activism. But we did all leave the concert feeling really good about ourselves. The Global Poverty Project and this benefit show were the brainchild of 29-year old Aussie humani-

tarian Hugh Evana, who was previously a leader of the Oaktree Foundation and an ambassador for World Vision. Evans told Rolling Stone magazine that he was hope-ful about the musical approach to activism, saying, “Music and movements go hand-in-hand: from ending the slave trade in the 1800s through the freedom chant against apartheid in South Africa, music has been a key part of social change, and that’s still so true today. It gives us an outlet to ex-press that which we care about in the most meaningful and passionate of ways, which is the whole point of the Global Festival: it’s equitable, so anyone can get involved in uniting so many people and non-profits around one cause. It’s become a lot bigger

than any of us have ever dreamed.” Though I doubt this show created 60,000 die-hard activists, it is certainly a night no one will forget. The Global Citizen Festival made musical history and was also a big step in getting people involved in what’s going on around the world. I am proud to say I was able to experience all of that excitement and those incredible vibes from musicians, leaders, and fellow concert-goers. n

By J.P. Harrington This is not your typical bad guy chases good guy story. Or even good guy chases bad guy. In fact, I’m still not sure who exactly is the bad guy or the good guy here. Maybe it’s because they’re the same guy. This is how your brain will feel after watching Looper, a time-travel science fiction action/thriller. Or as one of the characters puts it in a rather succinct fashion: “This time travel stuff, just fries your brain like an egg…” The good news is – you will enjoy it. Let’s back up a moment. What is a looper? A looper is a hitman who kills people from the future. Thirty years in the future, time travel is possible, but illegal. So, obviously, crime syndicates start sending ‘unwanted’ people back in time to get wasted by loopers. But why the odd name? It’s simple. Every looper eventually has his ‘loop closed.’ This de-lightful phrase is a euphemism for when the looper has to kill their own future selves. After killing their thirty years older selves, the loopers receive a big payoff and a sweet farewell from the crime syndicate. Enjoy the next thirty years of your life. So, that’s what a looper is. Are you confused yet? No? That’s good. Now let’s throw a few more twists at you. You see, Young Joe’s just a regular looper who kills people for money which pays for drugs, French lessons and eventually a way out of this city. He drives past the poor and starving mobs that fill the city without much of a hint of remorse. He’s not a very nice guy to say the least. Then, one day, he has to close his own loop. The problem is – his future self has been killing for the past thirty years for hire. He’s had a little more practice than the young ‘un who’s meant to kill him. Old Joe beats the armed Young Joe in a thrilling sequence and thus begins the chase section of the film that fea-tures gangsters chasing both Joes who are chasing each other. Now, this is a very spoiler-free and very simpli-fied version of the twisty and fascinating plot, but it will suffice for a quick introduction. Now, is “Looper”

worth watching to find out the rest of the plot? The critics clearly think so. It has received nearly universal acclaim as not only a genre movie, but a great piece of cinema. While I would be hesitant to call Looper a modern classic, I can certainly say that it is effective, efficient and entertaining. Not to mention there’s a few touching scenes along the way which explore larger themes of morality. “Looper” features some of the most powerful scenes in recent film and far more than the average genre movie

or blockbuster. The matter-of-fact way in which Young Joe’s assassinations are portrayed brilliantly depicts how even the most shocking and disturbing events become routine upon repetition. In one of the movie’s best scenes, another looper fails to kill his future self but is captured by the mob as he tries to escape along with his older self. Only the older ex-looper gets away, but not for long. In a brilliant exploitation of the concept of time travel, the mob’s doctor begins cutting off parts of the fugitive’s younger self. People throughout the audience gasped during the tense sequence as limbs, noses, and teeth began to just disappear from the older self’s body. It was shocking, unnerving and unique. That sequence may sound a little gory, but while “Looper” is R-rated, it is far from a gore-fest. Nearly all blood is spilled off-screen or done so in a tasteful fashion. This is more Terminator than Saw. In fact,

“Looper” shares a lot in common with James Cameron’s The Terminator. It’s a lean and efficient thriller with big-ger questions about determinism and morality weaved through it. Yet, unlike Terminator’s titular machine, Looper is filled with realistic and emotional characters that seem to leap off the screen. Each of the actors gets a chance to shine in this more-than-just-guns-and-karate-chops action movie. There’s a beautiful scene where Bruce Willis as Old Joe cries over his own murderous deeds while leaning against a

concrete pylon in a slowly decaying city. Joseph Gordon-Levitt gets to show off his acting chops as Young Joe evolves from a selfish killer who could have fit in with Patrick Bateman to a stoic father figure who comforts a frightened little boy hid-ing in a corn field. Both the actors who portray Joe give nuanced and complex performances to a character that could have easily become a one-dimensional anti-hero in any number of typical Hol-lywood films. Each of the smaller roles is just about perfect as well. Jeff Daniels turns in a stunningly frightening performance as a soft-spoken, fatherly, and psychopathic mob boss. The development of his charac-ter is disconcerting and troubling, which made his eventual outbursts of violence

even more effective. Emily Blunt and Piper Perabo play beautiful mothers who are devoted to their children and determined to protect them. Yet, each of their back-stories is littered with detail and emotional wreckage as well. There are no stereotypes in this movie. No hookers with hearts of gold and no perfect little children. “Looper” is well-worth watching. Its characters and plot are fascinating and mesh brilliantly. The cinema-tography is beautiful and horrifying at times. There are certain scenes that will continue playing and replaying in your mind after you leave the theater. It’s not a must-see, but be warned. If you wait, you will have something spoiled from this movie. There are so many important plot points that I cannot predict what will specifically be spoiled for you – but I can guarantee that you do not want to know any of the plot before you sit down in the theater. n

The Global Citizen Festival

“Looper” is a Smashing Success

The concert was powerful, both in music and in purpose. The audience and performers rocked harder than oth-

ers I’d seen at many previous concerts; the excitement was there because not only were they a part of a “free” five hour rock’n’roll show with some of the biggest names out today, but because they were also a part of this massive global citi-zenship movement. The goals of the concert were to celebrate progress already made, secure financial commitments for tackling extreme poverty and disease, and mobilize thou-sands of ambassadors for change. Many speakers declared our potential to end poverty in this very generation.

Mr. Harrington is a junior at the College and Executive Editor of The Dartmouth Review.

—Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe hunting down his future self.—

March 12, 2011 The Dartmouth Review Page 12

EBAS.comEBAS (proper noun):

Everything But Anchovies, a Hanover

culinary institution which delivers pizza, chicken sandwiches and other local delicacies until

2:10 A.M. every night. The ultimate in

performance fuel.

603-643-6135

Barrett’s MixologyBy P. W. Trethaway

Scotch snobs often turn their well-attuned noses up at blended scotch in favor of a single malt, which is understandable I sup-pose. It’s like potato chip connoisseurs who prefer small batch kettle cooked to generic mass produced chips, when sometimes all you want are some damned Ruffles ridges. We all know that they taste phenomenal with french onion dip, and those ridges give the chip real structural integrity. But I digress. Most of the time we are simply consumed by general apathy and we just want a drink, regardless of brand or type. Japanese author Haruki Murakami often writes about drinking and the libation he references most is Cutty Sark scotch. One of Murakami’s protagonists goes to the bar and the bar-tender asks what kind of scotch he wants. He immediately orders a Cutty Sark. As he tells it, “I really didn’t care which brand of scotch he served me, but Cutty Sark was the first thing that came to mind.” Murakami’s characters often inhabit a magically surreal, dreamlike state, simultaneously living in the real world and an ethereal other world. The first time I dipped my beak in the old Cutty Sark, I was fully set on trying the brand, and time and time again it pops into my head when I think about scotch. I don’t necessarily intend to order it, but it happens. For those of you who also feel caught in a liminal state be-tween dream and reality, and who don’t really care which brand of scotch you’re served, I hope Cutty Sark comes to mind for you as well, you’ll be in for an adventure.

gordon haff ’s

the last word.

Compiled by Stuart A. Allan

Three fingers Cutty Sark scotch whisky

Add water to taste.Serve over ice.

Smooth & Simple

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy.

–Franz Kafka

The disease which inflicts bureaucracy and what they usually die from is routine.

–John Stuart Mill

Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.

–Mary McCarthy

If you are going to sin, sin against God, not the bu-reaucracy. God will forgive you but the bureaucracy won’t.

–Hyman Rickover

Bureaucracies are inherently antidemocratic. Bu-reaucrats derive their power from their position in the structure, not from their relations with the people they are supposed to serve. The people are not masters of the bureaucracy, but its clients.

–Alan Keyes

Bureaucracy gives birth to itself and then expects maternity benefits.

–Dale Dauten

Bureaucracy destroys initiative. There is little that bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better results than the old routines. Improvements always make those at the top of the heap look inept. Who enjoys appearing inept?

–Frank Herbert, Heretics of Dune

Bureaucrats are the only people in the world who can say absolutely nothing and mean it.

—James H. Borent Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God.

—Thomas Jefferson

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

–C.S. Lewis

There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.

—Walt Whitman

You miss one hundred percent of the shots you never take.

—Wayne Gretsky

Tyrants are seldom free; the cares and the instruments of their tyranny enslave them.

–George Santayana. The faith that stand on authority is not faith.

–Ralph Waldo Emerson

Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.

–Thomas Huxley

To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself..

–Albert Einstein

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer inter-ested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

–Carl Sagan

No one is an unjust villain in his own mind. Even - perhaps even especially - those who are the worst of us. Some of the cruelest tyrants in history were motivated by noble ideals, or made choices that they would call ‘hard but necessary steps’ for the good of their nation. We’re all the hero of our own story.

—Jim Butcher

Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind.

—Ayn Rand

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

–Thomas Jefferson

Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind.

—Ayn Rand

The weaker the man in authority...the stronger his insistence that all his privileges be acknowledged.

–Austin O’Malley

When the people fear the government, there is tyr-anny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

–Thomas Jefferson

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.–Sir Winston Churchill