Merkel Leaves the College

Jim Merkel, the somewhat controversial head of sustainability, left the college in early August, The Dartmouth reports, complaining that he did not have time to pick raspberries and that he didn't need a job. The Review celebrates.

College Issue of NYT Mag

This weekend's edition of The New York Times Magazine, one of my favorite publications, is "The College Issue." Check it out.

What Were the Odds?

Dave Glovsky '08 wrote a very interesting opinion article about the availability of debate tickets to students in today's The Dartmouth. The tickets were allocated via a lottery, but like Dave, I know almost nobody who won tickets despite widespread participation. As the cameras span along the audience last night, you could see almost no students except College Dems leaders and Travis Green, the student body president, who were of course specially invited. So where did all the tickets go? How many tickets went to local residents, Dartmouth staff, and faculty, and how much tuition do they pay?

The Debates

I didn't get tickets for the debate itself, so I went to the watch party in Leede Arena. Afterwards, all the candidates except Hillary Clinton and John Edwards came to Leede to talk to us. Obama made the crowd go insane. I have a lot to say about the debates, but I'm tired and I have a 10a tomorrow, so I'll write more tomorrow.

We Have Work to Do, You and I

Convocation took place at 11:00 this morning. Compared to the previous two convocations, each of the respective speeches (student body president, guest speaker, and President Wright) was the best yet.

Travis Green, Dartmouth's new but already outstanding student body president, led the way with a speech that struck a very different tone than that of Noah Riner '06 and Tim Andreadis '07. The previous speeches were both prescriptive. Noah spoke about the need for character among Dartmouth students (infamously arguing for the importance of Jesus) and Tim discussed the need for action and awareness about sexual assault. Both speeches left a bitter taste in the minds of many. I remember listening to Noah's speech as a freshman and witnessing the sense of shock, both personal and all around the audience, as Noah said this line:

He gave His life for our sin so that we wouldn't have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love. The problem is me; the solution is God's love: Jesus on the cross, for us.

Tim's speech, on the other hand, wasn't offense or controversial in content at all, but seemed starkly out of place for convocation. Convocation is about the renewal of the academic year and the welcome of the new class, but Tim simply listed a series of statistics.

Travis, instead, gave a call-to-arms for freshmen to challenge their assumptions about themselves and to change and mold Dartmouth into the place they want it to be:

Class of 2011, it might not seem like it, but today, each of you has the same opportunity, along with a few advantages. Unlike those novices, you have a lot of people here to help. You also have two hundred forty attempts’ worth of experience to draw from. Unlike those white, male, preaching New Englanders and their founding Native American counterparts, you have potential friends from all walks of life, from all ranges of experience, and from all over the world.

Here, you’re freed from your past. Your roots are gone. You can choose which to grasp back on to, and what new ones to lay down. You don’t have to conform to what you were in high school. Jocks, nerds, goths, those segregations can disappear. You can make new friends, find new interests, reveal inner passions. Be who you want to be, while you make this College what you want it to be...

As [your Dartmouth spirit] grows, you will begin to answer questions integral to Dartmouth’s soul: Should there be a typical “Dartmouth man” and “Dartmouth woman”? Why do we have the cluster system? Does cutting-edge research enhance liberal arts teaching? Should Dartmouth value the Greek system? Does diversity matter to us? Is the D-Plan effective? Do athletics enhance the Dartmouth experience? What defines this Dartmouth? What defines your Dartmouth?

It was a very solid address and was warmly received. Rather than telling students what they should think or how they should act, he encouraged them to find the answers for questions about Dartmouth through personal exploration.

Bruce Duthu '80, a Vermont Law professor, a visiting professor at Dartmouth, and a former administrator of the college, spoke about the importance of humility and its connection to a liberal arts education. Though it sounds like a strange topic, it was a really great speech.

James Wright spoke eloquently about the role of affirmation action at Dartmouth. He began by discussing Dartmouth's historical commitment to diversity. The president then said that he agreed with the principle of race neutrality - that is, ideally people should not be considered or judged for better or worse on account of their race or heritage - but that Dartmouth and other colleges do not exist in a vacuum. Instead, affirmative action must exist to counteract fundamental differences in opportunity.

Wright then spoke about Robert Putnum's concept of social capital and its relation to diverse communities. He discussed a study which found that diverse communities actually have less social capital than homogeneous communities. But Wright refuted the study on the basis that a diverse communities is absolutely essential for the intellectual exploration that Dartmouth seeks to provide:

So, it is essential that we ask ourselves on this September morning whether all of this-the legal, constitutional, political, and cultural challenges of our time; the pessimism suggested by the Putnam research-whether all of this means that Dartmouth should back away from its historic principles and assumptions?

Having raised the question, I shall take the opportunity to provide an answer: No, to me it surely does not. This College's legacy and responsibility are richer than the cycles of politics. Our commitment to the nature of this learning community is older than the formation of this Republic.

The fundamental principle underlying this College and the liberal arts in general is to examine assumptions, to respond to new ideas, not stubbornly to hold to what we once thought to be true. The Putnam research makes more, rather than less, urgent our historic purpose. The appropriate response to these new findings cannot be to strive for homogeneous communities, which may, in the short term, have more social capital, but will surely not, in the long term, provide the intellectual excitement, the general stimulation, and the preparation for a lifetime of learning that Dartmouth seeks-as it has always sought to engender.

Wright ended his address with his usual closing phrase:

As has been my yearly custom, I would close this ceremony by reminding you, and myself, that now we turn enthusiastically to our task. We have work to do, you and I - and it is time to begin! Welcome to Dartmouth.

New York Times Gets Fooled

This is old news, but I just saw the correction now (though I saw it in the original article):

An article last Saturday about Dartmouth College's governance structure incorrectly described a Web site congratulating Todd J. Zywicki, a trustee, for meeting with members of the Phrygians, a secret society, and discussing possible actions against the college administration. It was a hoax site, not an official Phrygian site. Mr. Zywicki says he met several times with the Phrygians, but did not discuss actions against the administration.

I can't believe that the Times a) fell for it, b) didn't check to make sure it was legit. What sort of secret society would not only have a website but put a photo of their members on it? I've heard that this is the work of the Jacko, but I don't think its been confirmed.

Gearing Up for the Debates

Dartmouth is getting ready for its Democratic presidential debate, which will take place from 9-11 pm on Wednesday, and will be broadcast on MSNBC. Until the "candidate forums," which have been frequent in this election season, this is one of only six debates officially sponsored by the Democratic Party. Students (as well as faculty, staff, and local residents) were eligible to win tickets via a lottery. Apparently, there was an overwhelming response, and I've barely know anyone who has won tickets. To deal with the overflow, there is a watch party taking place in Leede Arean. In order to prepare for the debates, Dartmouth has formed an army of student volunteers - approximately 200 students.

A new friend for the Etats-Unis

When I first read about Nicolas Sarkozy, several years ago, I was interested. He struck me as an innovator and an ascendant leader. But as the French presidential election approached last April, I became extremely disillusioned. I saw him a right-wing demagogue, a radical and more dangerous version of Rudy Giuliani. I was also working in a legislative office with two Columbia grad students from France who thought that Sarkozy's election was apocalyptic.

But in the past few months, I have really been shocked and stunned by Sarkozy's performance - pleasantly surprised. Rather than being Mussolini incarnate, he's been the cool new kid on the block, the next Tony Blair.

Sarkozy has radically changed Franco-American relations overnight. France has suddenly changed from being one of our biggest critics to being one of our closest allies, particularly on the highly difficult subject of Iran. Surely some fellow liberals would accuse Sarkozy of being fundamentally pro-Bush rather than pro-American. But Sarkozy's overtures have gone far beyond Bush. Rather, he believes in America, the way immigrants often do, the way we are taught to in elementary school. And that is a radical change. I have no doubt that Chirac thought America sucked. Although I disagree with Bush's foreign policy goals (read: Iraq), the United States will always be more effective with the support of our allies. If the French government being pro-American means that they are simultaneously pro-Bush, well, I could care less.

In a new interview with The New York Times, Sarkozy spoke vividly about what he sees as the shared common values between the United States and France:

You know from the way we celebrate the [Normandy] landings that the French people are with the Americans, and the American flag is popular in France. I have said, moreover, that relations between France and the United States go well beyond the personality of Mr. Sarkozy and Mr. Bush. There are people who will come after me, and who will come after Mr. Bush. And I see myself in the historic tradition of [French military leaders during the U.S. Revolution] [the count of] Rochambeau and [the Marquis of] Lafayette. At the time, there were 20 million Frenchmen and four million Americans. And it was the genius of Louis XVI to understand that this young, American democracy had to be helped. France was there. With Lafayette and Rochambeau. Rochambeau refused to receive the sword from the British — he gave it to [George] Washington in a magnificent gesture. Lafayette is a great figure in French history because he was the godfather of relations between the United States and France. We have never been at war. We have always helped each other. We have always helped each other. I don’t see why we should see ourselves as enemy nations. It makes no sense.

So maybe the problems we’ve had stem from the fact that we are both countries which believe — and not all countries believe this — that our values are universal. For my part, I think that the French and the United States are much more alike than they think. Much more. It is rare to find countries in the world that think their ideas are universal. The Germans don’t, nor do the Spanish and the Italians. Nor do the Chinese. They think themselves to be universal for themselves, I mean within their empire. In the United States and France, we think our ideas are destined to illuminate the world. And perhaps that is the source of the competition between us. It’s perhaps the fact that we are alike.

Sarkozy frames himself as a pragmatist and he has acted as such as president. He appointed Bernard Kouchner, long time Socialist politician and founder of Médecins Sans Frontières, as foreign minister, a very bold and surprising move. He also nominated Dominique Strauss-Kahn, runner up in the Socialist Party presidential primaries, as head of the International Monetary Fund. Sarkozy wasn't forced to appoint Socialists because of some power arrangement deal or the like. He apparently did it because he felt they were most qualified, something that is truly remarkable.

Although I don't know much about France's domestic situation, he seems to be doing good work. Though my natural inclination is to support the labor or socialist candidate in foreign elections, France is so far to the left of the United States in terms of socialization. Does their economy work? Doubtful. So what Sarkozy wants to do domestically is extremely sensible.

In the end, Sarkozy is fundamentally a Clintonite or a Blairite, a believer that he can dramaticly rewrite France's political environment. What I truly admired about Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair (in the early days) was their ability to free people from their assumptions about government and politics. It is this quality that I also see in Barack Obama and Mike Bloomberg. They all bring a revolutionary spirit. I'm from New York City, and I have been constantly impressed by the Bloomberg administration. Even when Bloomberg makes mistakes, he shows a verve that Giuliani only had for locking up homeless people. He has completely changed the way New Yorkers think about the potential for city governance.

And so that is what I see in Nicolas Sarkozy, a man set out to change France and the world. Once again, I might have misread this complex character, but I certainly hope not. As he said in the above quote, Sarkozy believes that our countries' ideas are "destined to illuminate the world." That is a powerful thought.