The Dartmouth Mirror 3/1/17

MIR ROR 3.1.2017

PROHIBITION

WIEN: BASICALLY ANIMAL FARM | 3

BOOTLEGGERS & THE BOOM BOOM LODGE | 4-5

TWO YEARS OF MDF | 7 LUCY TANTUM/THE DARTMOUTH SENIOR STAFF

2 //MIRR OR

Editors’ Note

Forbidden fruit

The psychology of prohibition STORY

Breaking rules. Pushing boundaries. Taking big risks. These are all things that Mirror editors rarely do. We do not exactly live on the edge. No one would ever describe us as “badass.” Instead of engaging in prohibited acts, we like to smile bigger, jump higher, run faster, hug tighter, laugh louder and tell really bad jokes.

As the hours slowly passed by in layout, we all started daydreaming about skipping class, shrugging off our commitments and skipping out on that meeting with our major advisors. Mikey, our resident Louisianian, reminded us that today was Mardi Gras, and for a second, we hatched plans to fly down to New Orleans to join the party. We all wish we could be down South enjoying the sunshine, beignets and parades that are all fueled by beer and joie de vivre.

In an attempt to learn more about “risky behavior” and smother our hedonistic desire to hop on the next bus to Logan Airport, we chose to investigate prohibition, present and past.

To make Week Nine feel a little less daunting, live vicariously through our reporters. In this issue, travel back in time to Dartmouth in the 1920s, hear students’ reflections on Moving Dartmouth Forward two years after its implementation and learn about whether prohibiting something really heightens your desire for it. Go ahead, live a little.

follow @thedmirror 3.1.16 VOL. CLXXIV NO. 40 MIRROR EDITORS MICHAELA LEDOUX ALEXANDRA PATTILLO LUCY TANTUM EDITOR-IN-CHIEF RAY LU

PUBLISHER RACHEL DECHIARA

EXECUTIVE EDITOR ERIN LEE

By Chloe Jennings

If you’ve ever been in a position of power, you know that getting people to follow the rules is a complicated and often elusive pursuit. On one hand, rules are necessary to keep people in line. On the other hand, rules can backfire.

Too many rules might cause people to feel repressed and rebel; furthermore, strictly forbidding something seems to only make people want it more. So, what’s the deal? Do we need more rules or fewer? Should we take the Prohibition era of the 1920s as a warning against the threat of excessively tight control, or should we tighten the reigns to get people to comply?

A key factor for one’s motivation to break a rule is the potential consequences of breaking it.

Judith White, a Tuck School of Business professor and social psychologist, discussed the importance of enforceability.

White used the example of highway speeding. Everyone speeds on the highway, because you get there faster and you’re very unlikely to get caught (unless, of course, the speeding is egregious, or you happen to have the misfortune of passing a cop who hasn’t had his donut yet).

“People make rational decisions about whether to break a rule or not,” White said.

Rules can also be less effective if people feel that they have no say in the matter, according to psychological and brain sciences professor Thalia Wheatley.

“If you feel like your personal freedom has been threatened, then you react against that, and it can have a counterproductive effect,” Wheatley said. “If people feel that their choices, their freedoms, have been limited, it can backfire.”

The notion of the “forbidden fruit” is a legitimate psychological phenomenon, according to Wheatley.

“Anything that’s forbidden becomes more enticing,” Wheatley said. “If you want people

to avoid something, you want them to believe that they themselves are choosing to avoid it.”

This takes us to the next step — getting people to actually follow the rules. Social psychologists emphasize a number of factors that might affect compliance with rules, including culture, the relationship between the rule-maker and rule-follower and perceived input within the rule-making process, to name a few. White said that the key to a successful “prohibition” or other type of rule is to make people feel as though the rule-making process was fair.

“If people felt that the authority was just, and that they had made the decision in a fair way, and that they understood the reasons for it, then a prohibition of some sort might work,” White said.

Wheatley further stated that getting people to follow rules is an art.

“You have to make people feel like, ‘it’s up to you if you want to follow the rules,’” Wheatley said. “We’d like you to follow these rules, but at the end of the day, it’s up to you whether or not you agree with those rules.”

Like any artful process, there are different ways of going about effective rule-making.

“There are lots of ways to make people believe that they have a choice,” Wheatley said.

For example, Wheatley suggested that a rule-maker could make people feel as though their peers are all following the rule. Another strategy is to engage in a dialogue, thereby making people feel that they have a say.

Ultimately, it seems that giving people a sense of input in the decision-making process is the key ingredient to successful rule-making.

“Most of the time, people have to feel that their needs and their wishes were taken into account,” White said. “They want to feel like they’re being heard.”

So, the next time you’re trying to plan a group project, you should probably ask your partners what they think about it first.

MIRROR //3

’18 #1: “What’s an eating club?” ’18 #2: “It’s like a co-ed Greek house and a country club had a baby.”

’20: “I’ve been at the library all day and I look like a wet towel.”

’20: “I was running yesterday and I saw someone familiar running toward me, and now I can say I’ve seen Phil Hanlon’s knee caps.”

’19: “Give me a good caption, my kids are going to see this one day.”

’17: “My ex-boyfriend works for SpaceX, and they’re taking tourists to the moon ... Maybe we should get back together.”

Basically Animal Farm COLUMN

By Elise Wien

Hello! Welcome to week eight. (Nine? Eight.

Nine?)

It’s not that I have nothing to report from my room. It’s that a lot of the information is not of the nature that should be printed. When you live with people for four years, there is a proximity to their private lives that is at first unsettling, then comforting, then integrated, which is to say their private lives become so entangled with yours that you begin to take on parts of their personalities.

When my roommates and I talk, dress or gesture like one another, we call this “leaking,” as though are bodies are closed vessels that are breaking open at the seams and contaminating one another. Gross, right?

It’s fitting, then, that this week’s theme is prohibition. Continuing the legacy of writers who have dodged censors and skirted obscenity laws through coded language, I’ll try my best to recount the past week using allegory. And animals.

An experiment:

A bluebird, a robin and a sparrow live in a nest.

The bluebird gets an anal fissure in a tragic accident involving a neighbor’s nest, a potential egg and a tryst in the basement of a redwood. Robin and sparrow fear infection. NASA announces new planets. Robin and sparrow make a bunch of Uranus jokes.

The birds drink nectar and go for a flight around

the forest. They are not good at flying and they fall a bunch. They wake up with bruises, and one bird is late to her morning class with glitter on her face. The bird regrets nothing.

Three foxes live in a foxhole.

One fox finds the other fox’s fanfiction that she wrote in high school; the foxes sit in the foxhole reading it back to her. She buries down, down.

The fox experiences true embarrassment for the first time in its two years of living.

Three sea sponges live in a coral reef.

One sea sponge hadn’t gotten any in a long time.

Three porcupines live in a tree.

Two go to get their needles removed. The needle-removing opossum does a poor job and the porcupines are sore. Also the opossum has a dog in the facility, which seems like a health code violation. The opossum likes to gossip.

Three snails live in one shell.

One snail finished her classes a term early and may be kicked out of the shell because of a dire shortage of on-leaf housing.

Three worms live in a patch of soil, and they’re all very tired.

They all have work to do, but they want to burrow down, down into the warm dark dirt and rest. Just for a moment.

Approximately 4,300 termites live in a fallen pine tree. They all have a cold.

Three snakes live in a desert and their bellies never itch.

A mouse, a hamster and a gerbil live in a little hole in the wall. The hamster sends a regrettable text message.

Three bacteria live on a sponge.

One tries to think of what she’s feeling but she can’t identify an emotion outside of tired. Bacteria are working against a world hostile to them, or rather, 99.9 percent of them and the 0.01 percent is sad because everyone she knew and loved is dead.

Seven fireflies sit down to watch the Oscars and one breaks her spork eating Ben & Jerry’s directly from the pint.

Three rabbits live in a field and one of them is late, late, late.

Three antelopes live together, but only one runs seven miles.

Twenty-six trusty barnacles hang on to the side of a sinking ship.

Three turtles live in a shell. It seems a horrible accident has taken place.

One turtle snores a little, so the other two make her wear Breathe-Rite strips while she rests.

They can hear what she says when she sleeps and it’s unsettling that they have more of an insight into her brain than she does. When it’s time for them to go to bed they pull into the shell and talk about the hare.

Three shrimp live on the seafloor and two of them swim to Hawaii.

The allegory has slipped away, it seems, the allegory slips away.

Three ants live in an anthill, and one of them gets caught in a drop of molasses. Though she can carry 2,000 times her body weight, she finds herself moving slowly, slowly.

Three spiders live in a web and one of them shows up with a massive hickey.

The carp stands at the door and wishes she had thumbs.

4// MIRROR

Bootle The Boom B

STORY

By Lucy Tantum

Prohibition

It is just after one o’clock in the morning when one Dartmouth student kills another over a quart of whiskey.

The year is 1920, and the 18th Amendment, which prohibits the sale, transport and consumption of alcohol in the United States, has been in effect since January. It is June 18 — almost graduation day — and an underground alcohol market has already emerged at the College.

Robert T. Meads is a junior and a notorious bootlegger. He smuggles whiskey across the Canadian border, buying it for $2.75 a quart and selling it to students for $20. He is also an avid shooter, and when he was a freshman, he shot and killed a fellow student in Sanborn Hall by accident.

Henry E. Maroney is a senior and a well-liked student. He served in the Navy; he is one of the best boxers at the school; he is a brother of Theta Delta Chi fraternity and a member of Sphinx senior society.

One night, Maroney, accompanied by some friends, visits Meads’ first-f loor room in North Massachusetts Hall to buy a quart of whiskey. He later returns wanting more but doesn’t have enough money for a full quart. Maroney tries to bargain, but Meads does not want to negotiate.

The two men argue. Maroney grabs the whiskey bottle and jumps out the window. He runs away as Meads fires four shots, missing all of them. One shot hits a tree.

Meads does not give up, and an hour later, he sneaks into Maroney’s upstairs bedroom in TDX. Maroney walks in to find the bootlegger sitting at his desk. Neither man says a word. Maroney walks toward Meads; Meads rises to his feet and shoots Maroney through the heart, killing him instantly.

Meads leaves TDX and goes to a friend’s room in North Fayerweather, where he fabricates a story, saying that he has been in a fight and needs to leave town. He boards a train bound for Boston, Massachusetts but is soon caught at Canaan, New Hampshire and brought back to Hanover to face justice.

Eventually, Meads pleads guilty to manslaughter but denies murder charges, saying that he only intended to shoot Maroney in the arm. He is convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to prison. He dies in a Concord psychiatric ward in October of 1965. *****

The fatal encounter between Maroney and Mead also provided an extreme example of the effects of Prohibit

The fallout from Maroney’s death sparked debate father purported that Dartmouth was host to numerous bo “extensive rum running by students,” according to a June 1

However, the accusations of rampant crime were

“I have the names of only three men who were en at your institution,” Grafton County Solicitor John Newma young men, including Robert T. Meads, who had knowledg

Moreover, a good deal of illicit activity was chalke students.

“Conditions in Hanover were nothing other than Post editorial disclaimer said. “We hope it will go no farthe

Bootleggers and rum-runners were not necessaril alcohol, as they have long been known to do.

“For Dartmouth students who like their liquor, an miles to Montreal, that oasis of a somewhat dry United Sta “Hanover itself is wet, but only moderately so.”

The alcohol in Hanover was “watered or bad,” ac changed. Taking a trip north was the preferred option.

Some townspeople manufactured alcohol and sol more,” according to the Boston Evening Globe.

During celebrations such as Winter Carnival, it w

“The local bootleggers and girls see to that,” the B the uptick in alcohol availability during big weekends. “T

MIR ROR //5

eggers & Boom Lodge

n at Dartmouth

ds gave TDX its nickname, “The Boom Boom Lodge.” It tion on Dartmouth’s campus. e over the prevalence of alcohol at the College. Meads’ ootleggers and widespread immorality, and others alleged 1925 New York Times article. largely unsubstantiated. ngaged in and knew about the traffic in intoxicating liquors an wrote in an October 1920 letter. “I mean by this three dge of the smuggling for consumption and distribution.” ed up to the behavior that was to be expected of college

n what might be expected in any college town,” a Boston er.” ly rampant in Hanover. But students found ways to get

nd there are those who do, it is a pleasant jaunt of 150 ates,” an April 1923 Boston Evening Globe article said.

ccording to the article — obviously, not much has

ld it for $11 a quart, “a profit of 99 to 100 percent or

was especially easy to find alcohol on campus.

Boston Evening Globe wrote regarding the reasons behind The students hate to waste good liquor in Hanover except

during Carnival.”

Ernest Martin Hopkins, who was president of the College from 1916 to 1945, grappled with the best approaches to enforcing the Prohibition laws in an unruly student population.

Hopkins sought to prevent alcohol consumption without exerting excessive control over students. A 1920 Boston Post article describes his goal to “put [Dartmouth] men upon their honor and … encourage a development free from an atmosphere of espionage or minute personal supervision.”

In April 1923, Dartmouth and other colleges made efforts to control drinking on their campuses.

Dartmouth passed a rule that any student caught intoxicated would be expelled. A Philadelphia Evening Ledger article described the result as “miraculous.”

“At the recent Winter Carnival,” the article said, “drinking was reduced to a minimum.”

Just a few years later, however, Prohibition began to lose support around the nation. A June 1926 poll of students published in The Dartmouth revealed that most did not support the Volstead Law, the law that carried out the intent of the 18th Amendment. Just 319 of the polled students were in favor of the law, compared to 810 against.

In 1930, a poll of 24 students at 14 colleges revealed, somewhat unsurprisingly, that most students not just opposed Prohibition but actively flaunted the law. Thirteen of the 14 colleges voted overwhelmingly against the dry laws, with the only exception being University of Pennsylvania.

Indeed, by 1930, Prohibition was losing support, and Hopkins condemned it that year.

“[Hopkins] had hoped for good results, but sees only more liquor drunk and a powerful underworld created,” a December 1930 New York Times article said. “Great areas which used to be wholly dry are now saturated, not only with alcoholic liquors, but with a spirit of complete abandon in regard to the control or use of these.”

Three years later, in December of 1933, the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st, and alcohol was allowed in Hanover again. Thirteen years had passed since Henry Maroney had been shot over a bootlegged bottle of whiskey.

Research compiled from Rauner Special Collections Library.

ALEXANDRA PATTILLO/THE DARTMOUTH SENIOR STAFF

6// MIRROR

MDF-approved alternatives to your favorite drinks STORY

By Alexandra Pattillo and Lucy Tantum

Moving Dartmouth Forward’s hard alcohol ban left some of us missing the drinks that fall above the 30-proof limit.

Luckily, The Mirror is here to help you out. Here, we’ve compiled some alternatives to hard alcohol drinks. We’ll expect to see all of these at tails this weekend.

Rum and coke

Coca-Cola

Shotgunning Keystone

Shots

Craft beer

Nice whiskey

Batch

Fireball

Mik e Har ’s d Lem ona de

hard Angry Orc er cid cinnamon

MIRR OR //7

Two years of Moving Dartmouth Forward STORY

By Andrew Sosanya

On Jan. 29, 2015, College President Phil Hanlon presented the “Moving Dartmouth Forward” initiative, his plan that implemented policy changes on campus. MDF changes included the implementation of the new housing communities, a hard alcohol ban and a fouryear sexual assault prevention program, among others. Two years later, what has changed?

When the hard alcohol ban was introduced, the ban received mixed reactions around campus. Nowadays, some students say that it didn’t really affect them. William Paja ’16 explained that it is like the hard alcohol ban never really existed.

“I don’t think [MDF] was prohibitive of people drinking hard alcohol at all on campus,” Paja said. “You just did it less publicly.”

In a survey conducted by The Dartmouth in March 2016, 85 percent of respondents said they had consumed hard alcohol since the ban’s implementation.

Christian Guinchard ’17, a brother of Theta Delta Chi fraternity, said that before MDF, the fraternity scene was more risk-free at Dartmouth. When he rushed TDX just before MDF was implemented, he felt that the brothers and the atmosphere were more relaxed.

“On campus, you have this vibe that College wants to antagonize fraternities in any way they can,” Guinchard said.

Partly as a result of MDF’s goal of fostering a “safer and healthier campus environment,” according to the MDF website, stricter regulation

of social events and alcohol can create lesser known inconveniences. Guinchard explained that the limit on how many registered cases of alcohol allowed per night is one such hassle.

According to Isaiah Matthews ’17, individuals just buy hard alcohol themselves instead of the using a house’s funds. He explained that banning hard alcohol has made fraternities and sororities more cautious and more selective of who they let into their spaces.

“Before, I felt there were more open events, where now you might see brothers-only events or invite-only situations,” Matthews said. “In the past, [cocktail] events were generally more open and more well-attended.”

This year, the housing communities have provided students with a different social scene than fraternities and sororities.

Imani Graham ’17 says she thinks that housing communities are a good idea, but unlike Yale University, which has a similar residential system, Dartmouth’s infrastructure is not a good fit for the house system.

“I feel that Dartmouth is trying to put a system on a place it wasn’t built for,” Graham said.

Graham is also frustrated that her new oncampus housing options are limited and she is unable to live in one of the newer, more spacious dorms on campus, Fahey-McLane.

“It has ruined my plans for where I wanted to live,” Graham said. “I wanted the ‘McLane Mansion,’ but now that’s impossible.”

For the ’20s, the six-week frat ban, although not directly part of Moving Dartmouth Forward, has implicitly worked in tandem with the new housing communities. For some, the frat ban allowed freshmen to explore many other facets of Dartmouth life that weren’t contained in a frat basement.

Jamie Park ’20, South House representative for the Student Assembly senate, explained that the frat ban helped her enjoy freshman fall and explore other social scenes like Late Night at Collis.

“It was good that freshmen were forced to hang out with each other and go to events together,” Park said.

Julian Bonorris ’17, a member of Bones Gate, is quite involved with Allen House. He said that among their events, his favorite events are the talks with professors.

“They’ve put effort into making the housing system an attractive outlet for students,” Bonorris said.

As South House senator, Park stated that the housing communities offer a good alternative for students who do not want to partake in the drinking scene on campus.

“The housing communities allow students to have a social outlet without feeling left out,” Park said.

One of MDF’s goals was to create a more inclusive and diverse environment on campus.

However, over the past two years, the College saw events like the Black Lives Matter library protests and campus unrest after English professor Aimee Bahng’s denial of tenure.

Chrissy Ragin ’17 said she believes that MDF is failing to address the issues of diversity it promised to remedy. “[MDF] was like a social Band-Aid that they put on [the issues] with nothing really behind it,” Ragin said.

One academic focus that MDF has built on recently is providing more academic resources to enhance lear ning outside the classroom, such as the E.E. Just program, which supports students traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields from matriculation to graduation. Yusuf Olokoba ’20 stated that the program has helped him tremendously by giving him a community to support his academic endeavors. “ I t ’s g i ve n m e a foundation,” Olokoba said.

“It’s the full package.”

Moving Dartmouth Forward offered widespread changes to the Dartmouth community. Reactions to such changes have been mixed, and time will continue to show the plan’s far-reaching impacts.

#TRENDING

GRASS

We’re hoping this means that it’s spring, but we don’t want to jinx it.

MEME GROUP “Wot in tarnation” are all of these ’20s posting about?

MARDI GRAS FOOD

We almost forgot we were on light-side Foco and not Bourbon Street.

BAD FACETIME

Week Nine means using a dinner swipe at Novack and seeing everyone.

DORM ENTROPY

Throwback to when we made our beds.

MIDTERMS, STILL Seriously.

8// MIRROR

Treat yourself to a Golden Monkey By: Clara Guo The following email was sent on Friday afternoon to the entire figure skating team: This is a reminder that dry policy begins tonight at 11:59 p.m. As a team, we are committed to not engaging in alcohol (or drug) use until the completion of next weekend’s competition. This policy will be upheld by the whole team, even those skaters who are not competing next weekend.

Dry Policy is a reminder to maintain our physical and mental well being as we prepare for our first competition, and it is an important way to express our support and dedication to ourselves and each other. We cannot expect ourselves to perform our best unless we treat our bodies as the athletes we are.

Any violation of dry policy will result in a meeting with the coach and captains to discuss the responsibility to the team, and transgressors may be asked to take a leave of absence. Breaking dry policy may also jeopardize involvement in future team events, competition starts, team social activities or officer positions.

The Friday night countdown always begins early.

Every few minutes, I make a habit of checking the time on my Fitbit. 11:04 p.m. 11:17 p.m. 11:35 p.m.

11:50 p.m. At 11:57 p.m., I throw out my drink and announce to my friends that I am now, officially, dry.

On Saturday night, I forego tails in favor of Netflix-and-chill-by-myself-in-pajamas.

“Do I want pizza?” I ask out loud.

“Treat yourself,” my roommate responds.

Vehemently.

And so I do. I order a small sausage pizza from EBAs (instead of my usual small Hawaiian) and eat three-quarters of it. The last slice, I leave on my roommate’s desk for when she returns.

I’m not sure if this is what our coach meant by “maintaining our physical well being.” Any major meal past 10 p.m. is something I’ve been taught to avoid, especially when that meal occurs less than four hours after dinner (and definitely when there is only a week to go before I have to compete a long program).

But my roommate is right. “Treat yourself ” because, sometimes, we forget to do so.

On any other Saturday night, I would have popped open a beer­— most likely one of the several Stella Artois in our fridge — because pizza and beer enjoyed together is a hallmark of American culture. But, alas, we are dry, and so I relish the comfort of stringy cheese with only water by my side.

I don’t remember the first time I drank a Stella.

Was it at home? Maybe — my dad loves Stellas (and pilsners and sometimes Heinekens). Recently, I bought a six-pack of Golden Monkey Belgian-Style Tripel.

The Victory Brewing Company’s website describes

the beer as follows: “Nose is loaded with Belgian yeast character. Banana, clove, isoamyl. Body is equally fruity with light earthy hop character. Boozy with a dry finish.” Apparently, we’re supposed to: “Serve at 45° F. Tilt bottle slowly into glass making certain that pour is sufficiently vigorous to raise a foamy head. Try to avoid pouring the last dregs as the yeast sediment is not the most favorable part of this beer. Savor the experience slowly as the ale warms.”

I’m a beer person, but I am far removed from the level of expertise needed to tease apart the tasting and serving notes. (Who actually knows what “isoamyl” tastes like??) The first time I had a Golden Monkey was when I was in Chicago, Illinois junior fall for a neuroscience conference.

My friend who handed me the beer told me one thing and one thing only: Golden Monkeys are 9.5 percent.

I suppose, however, that I can try to adhere to the last serving suggestion: “Savor the experience slowly.” But how slowly is too slow? How warm is too warm? What if I don’t have the time to appreciate every sip? I suppose the answer to that last question is quite simple: if I don’t have the time, don’t drink the beer.

Last week, when I was in New York for West Point’s 100th Night, Eric and I stopped by The Pantry Specialty Coffee Roaster and Craft Beer Bottle Shop. We ordered two pour-overs of singleorigin Burundi and debated buying a large bottle of craft beer.

The barista, upon hearing our conversation, remarked, “A few West Point students dropped by less than an hour ago. One was bold enough to ask for a drink at 11 a.m. but saw that we only offered craft beers. No Keystone or ‘Natty’ Lights. He was taken aback. Pretty disappointed actually. Said the beers were too fancy, and he didn’t know how to drink fancy.”

I wanted to laugh at the absurdity of the statement — how could one possibly choose cheap, watery beer over one infused with unique flavor? Has college taught us to appreciate the cheap, the convenient over the “fancy”?

I wondered, mostly, if we have forgotten how to “savor the experiences.”

At the end of our competitive season in April, I’m going to treat myself to pizza and beer. I haven’t decided which beer I’m going to drink yet, but I’ve heard that Evil Twin Brewing’s “Even More Jesus” is delectably dark, infused with notes of coffee. It’s a beer to be savored.

MIKEY LEDOUX/ THE DARTMOUTH SENIOR STAFF