The Dartmouth 05/10/2019

VOL. CLXXVI NO. 35

RAINY HIGH 57 LOW 45

OPINION

VERBUM ULTIMUM: DIFFICULT MATTERS PAGE 4

ZAMAN: IN DEFENSE OF ILHAN OMAR PAGE 4

ARTS

CLOWNACROBAT DELIVERS A QUIRKY AND HEARTFELT SOLO PERFORMANCE PAGE 7

SPORTS

PUCKS IN DEEP: DON’T BET AGAINST HOLLAND AND THE OILERS PAGE 8 FOLLOW US ON

TWITTER

@thedartmouth

COPYRIGHT © 2019 THE DARTMOUTH, INC.

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2019

HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hanlon responds to College receives $7 million gift for concerns raised about global health equity program PBS department B y Cassandra Thomas The Dartmouth Staff

Ye s t e r d a y, C o l l e g e President Phil Hanlon responded to a letter from the Student and Presidential Committee on Sexual Assault calling on the College to put the psychological and brain sciences department into receivership and begin a new investigation of the department.

In a letter sent on May 3, SPCSA condemned the “faculty and leaders in the department who continuously failed to intervene, enabling harm to persist, still hold powerful positions within the PBS department.”

They advocated that the department be put into receivership — a form of academic guardianship SEE PBS PAGE 3

2020 Democratic candidate Yang talks UBI, climate change B y ZACHARY BENJAMIN

The Dartmouth Senior Staff

“If you’re here today, you’ve heard that there’s an Asian man running for president who wants to give everyone $1,000 a month.”

So spoke Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang from the lawn of Beta Alpha Omega fraternity on Thursday evening, drawing a crowd of approximately 100 students and community members. His appearance,

sponsored by the Dartmouth College Democrats, focused on themes of rising inequality and the loss of low-skilled jobs, issues that are central to his campaign.

Ya n g i s o n e o f 2 1 Democrats currently seeking the party’s nomination. The 44-year-old entrepreneur has centered his campaign around three issues: a universal basic income of $12,000 per year, Medicare for All and what he SEE YANG PAGE 5

MICHAEL LIN/THE DARTMOUTH SENIOR STAFF

The new funding will support the Center for Global Health Equity.

B y Emily Sun The Dartmouth Staff

The John Sloan Dickey Center for Inter national Under standing and th e Geisel School of Medicine recently received a $7 million gift from a combination of four anonymous families.

This donation, part of the College’s ongoing Call to Lead capital campaign, will support faculty development and expand student global health equity programs domestically and internationally in partner areas such as Tanzania and Kosovo. These donations will be used to increase the number of undergraduate students and partners involved in off-

campus learning experiences, the Global Health Policy Lab and internships, according to Geisel dean Duane Compton.

Compton said the donation will provide support for the school’s Center for Global Health Equity.

“This is intended to build on what we’ve already got within the existing Center for Global Health Equity here at Geisel and specifically to build on that in a way that provides opportunities for global health experiences mostly for undergraduate students,” Compton said.

“It’s really creating a more ‘One Dartmouth’ view of those programs.”

“One Dartmouth” is a goal devised between Geisel

and the Dickey Center to further strengthen the links between programs that involve both institutions in order to achieve better coordination and alignment, Compton said.

According to Geisel associate dean for global health Lisa Adams, working together can help centralize projects, partnerships and ways of preparing students before their overseas travels to participate in internships and other programs. This would help everyone involved with the Center for Global Health Equity, including the College’s faculty, overseas partners, staff and students, SEE GEISEL PAGE 3

PAGE 2

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2019

THE DARTMOUTH NEWS

Herman Cain speaks to small crowd on capitalism, socialism B y KYLE MULLINS

The Dartmouth Staff

Herman Cain, a businessman, for mer chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, gave a sparsely-attended talk about economics on Thursday evening to roughly 25 students and community members.

In the talk, which was sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation and the Dartmouth College Republicans and titled “Capitalism vs. Socialism: The Battle to Save the American Dream,” Cain attacked “creeping socialism” and warned that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), are advocating policies similar to those that led to economic collapse in Venezuela.

College Republicans outgoing chair man Josh K auderer ’19 introduced Cain, saying that he was there to “deflate the myth that is democratic socialism.” He walked the audience through Cain’s business experience, expressed a desire for a “marketplace of ideas” and said that Cain’s newest radio show, “The Herman Cain Show,” gets nearly a half million listens per episode.

Cain began his talk by imploring conservatives to make their voices heard, saying that he “dares” those who disagree with him to “silence” him.

“Don’t be silenced,” he told the audience. “Then you’re playing into their hands.”

He attacked the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate field, saying that every candidate has “at least one” socialist idea. Cain also said there is “no such thing” as democratic socialism, calling it “communism-lite.”

“Once you start infusing socialist

ideas little by little, you have what’s called the creep effect,” Cain said, adding that countries that currently follow socialist policies suffered a “death of a thousand cuts.”

He did not shy away from openly mocking prominent Democrats, at one point speaking in a high, squeaky voice to poke fun at OcasioCortez’s signature “Green New Deal” proposal and saying that she had “too many names.”

Cain used the blackboards in the classroom to create acronyms for capitalism, which he said stood for “Competition, Aspirations, Performance, Ideas, [Low] Taxes, Attention to detail, Laws, Initiative, Strateg y [and] Money,” and socialism, which he said stood for “State controls everything, Ownership discouraged, Complacency, Individuals don’t m a t t e r, A s s e t s s e i z e d , L i e s, Inefficient, Socialism sucks [and] Misery for all.”

He emphasized the economic b e n e f i t s o f c a p i t a l i s m wh i l e explaining the acronyms, stating that capitalism leads to lower prices, rewards performance and incentivizes the creation of ideas.

“In a capitalistic system, you can dream big, because if you dream big, you can pursue big things,” Cain said. “You don’t have the government trying to tell you, ‘Well, go ahead and dream big, but we’re going to take it away from you.’”

He cited the nationalization of the oil company Citgo in Venezuela as an example of a government seizing assets, incorrectly claiming that former Venezuelan president H u g o C h avez to o k over th e corporation. Citgo was nationalized in 1976, 15 years before Chavez came to power.

Before walking the audience through the socialism acronym, Cain said that he didn’t mind if “this next section [offended] somebody.”

CORRECTIONS We welcome corrections. If you believe there is a factual error in a story, please email editor@thedartmouth.com.

ELSA ERICKSEN/THE DARTMOUTH STAFF

Cain spoke to a small audience yesterday about his thoughts on the difference between capitalism and socialism.

“When people get offended when you try to tell them the truth, they are trying to silence you,” Cain said.

When he reached the “Lies” letter of the socialism acronym, Cain commented on U.S. House o f Re p re s e n t at i ve s Ju d i c i a r y committee chairman Jerry Nadler’s (D-NY) efforts to subpoena the unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 election.

“Legally, [Attorney General William Barr] cannot give a totally redacted document to Congress or he will have broken the law,” Cain said. “And now, Jerry Nadler is calling it a constitutional crisis — because the attorney general will not break the law! … That is a lie.”

Cain credited his success in business to capitalism and his own hard work. Cain vehemently dismissed any suggestion that he faced discrimination on account of his race, declaring that “in the

corporate world, your performance is more important than your color or your gender.”

“But that is not what the media wants you to believe,” Cain said.

Concluding the talk, Cain told the students in the audience to ensure that they have a “dream.”

“You’re going to have some zigs, you’re going to have some zags, you’re going to have some setbacks, but if you’ve got a dream, you know where you’re headed,” Cain said.

During the question-andanswer session, Cain was asked why democratic socialism seemed to be on the rise in the United States and among members of the Democratic party. He responded by pulling “TruthCards” — index cards that contained a variety of economic statistics and conservative talking points — out of his jacket pocket and stated that “they can’t refute the facts” as members of the College Republicans passed out the cards to the audience.

Cain was asked by Joseph

Chavez ’20 whether infrastructure projects like highways, dams and water pipes are “socialist.” He responded that “it’s not a socialist idea if everybody benefits equally.”

The problem, Cain said, was that some people “mislead the public.”

“Now they’re promoting ‘health care is a fundamental right,’” Cain said. “No, it’s not. Is a Cadillac in every garage a fundamental right?”

Chavez said that he enjoyed the event, saying that it was “refreshing” to hear ideas from someone with a different political philosophy than his own.

Jeff Rounsaville, a resident of Grantham, NH, said that he appreciated Cain’s emphasis on the idea that “[socialism] has never worked.”

“Pretty much down the line, everything that [Cain] said were things that I think are true,” Rounsaville said.

Incoming chair man of the C o l l e g e Re p u bl i c a n s D a n i e l Bring ’21 said that the event was inspirational and energetic.

“That’s always something we like to experience,” he said.

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2019

PAGE 3

THE DARTMOUTH NEWS

Student and alumni groups call for PBS department receivership FROM PBS PAGE 1

whereby an outside administrator is designated to run a department — and that the department be reinvestigated. In his email response, Hanlon called attention to the recent creation of the Campus Climate and Culture Initiative and actions taken by the College once the allegations were made as evidence that the College has taken steps to mitigate sexual misconduct. He wrote that in April 2017, PBS chair David Bucci and director of graduate students Thalia Wheatley immediately contacted the Title IX office when the allegations were brought to their attention. He encouraged the activist groups to “appreciate the work of many concer ned administrators, faculty and staff in the PBS department, led by chair Dave Bucci, who are actively pursuing significant measures to ensure that students have a safe environment in which to learn, research and grow.”

The demand for PBS receivership was a response to two new anonymous plaintiffs joining a $70 million class action lawsuit against Dartmouth alleging that the College neglected to take action against sexual misconduct

perpetrated by three professors in the PBS department. On May 3, the Dartmouth Community against Gender Harassment and Sexual Violence, a cross-generational group of Dartmouth community members, sent an email to the administration criticizing what they perceived as insufficient action and advocated for receivership.

Shortly after, SPCSA sent an email to the administration adding on to DCGHSV’s demands, writing that “the entire PBS department must be re-investigated for complicity in years of sexual violence and abuses of power.”

SPCSA and DCGHSV have been pressuring the administration to take serious action since the lawsuit was announced on Nov. 15, 2018.

However, the emergence of the new litigants on May 1 has “catalyzed” DCGHSV to double down on their demands, according to Diana Whitney ’95, a leader of DCGHSV. The letter DCGHSV sent to top Dartmouth officials was also sent to national news outlets and politicians such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ’88 (D-NY) and Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ).

Whitney described putting the

PETER CHARALAMBOUS/THE DARTMOUTH SENIOR STAFF

Moore Hall houses the psychological and brain sciences department.

PBS department into receivership as an “accountability act.” At various points in Dartmouth’s history, departments such as studio art, French and Spanish have been sent into receivership, according to Whitney.

DCGHSV ’s letter also called for

Program will support faculty development, international programs FROM GEISEL PAGE 1

Adams added.

“It makes perfect sense for a small-enough institution,” Adams said. “There’s no need to for us to be in a fragmented way. We have aligned missions, so I think that this opportunity presents a chance for us to really all get together and achieve [the missions].”

According to Dickey Center associate director Melody Brown Burkins, the Center for Global Health Equity has seen an increasing interest in global health in past years. For example, she said, while the Global Health Fellowship

Program initially started off with a small number of fellows, the size of the program grew to 80 fellows within a year. She added that the new donation would help the program keep up with the rising demand from students.

Global health equity programs at the College emphasize the ways that healthcare systems and delivery are different in other countries compared to the United States, which offers students a better understanding at how societies around the world treat their populations, Compton said. Many students have become involved with programs dealing with the

direct access, actions and impact of healthcare at different locations around the world, an example being opening the first pediatric HIV clinic in Tanzania, according to Compton and Adams.

“What I would love to see is students, regardless of what they’re studying at Dartmouth, understand the important roles that health plays in everyone’s lives and how health equity is connected to so many other points,” Adams said. “There’s just so many ways health is impacted by all these social determinants.

At a minimum, [I want to] have an understanding for that for all our students.”

leaders in the PBS department to step down. DCGHSV pointed out that “while department chairs and deans may claim not to have known about years of harm done to at least nine students, we insist that it was their job to know.” Specifically, Whitney said she would like to see the removal of Bucci, who sat as the endowed chair of the PBS department throughout allegations of sexual misconduct by professors Todd Heatherton, William Kelley and Paul Whalen.

“He is still there; nothing has changed,” Whitney said. “[It’s] business as usual.”

Whitney expressed disappointment on behalf of SPCSA and DCGHSV regarding the discrepancy between the administration’s outward support of progressive sexual misconduct policy and the “reality” that many survivors of sexual violence have been failed by the College.

“We really wanted them to see the discrepancy between the optics [of] what they’re saying, [what] they’re doing and the reality of literally nothing having been done about the failings in the PBS department,” Whitney said.

PAGE 4

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2019

THE DARTMOUTH OPINION

VERBUM ULTIMUM THE DARTMOUTH EDITORIAL BOARD

STAFF COLUMNIST RANIYAN ZAMAN ’22

Verbum Ultimum: Difficult Matters

In Defense of Ilhan Omar

Recent investigations have left more questions than answers.

Last week, the College announced that its workplace misconduct investigation into two administrators of The Dartmouth Institute had concluded. The investigation, which began nine months ago, resulted in Elliott Fisher, a nationally known expert in health policy, being removed as director of TDI and losing his endowed professorship title while being allowed to stay on as a member of the faculty. Meanwhile, Adam Keller, another TDI administrator, resigned from his position.

The next day, two former Dartmouth students joined an ongoing $70 million federal class action lawsuit alleging that College officials knew of and failed to act on allegations that three former psychological and brain sciences professors — Todd Heatherton, William Kelley and Paul Whalen — sexually harassed and assaulted students and turned the department into a “21st century Animal House.” The two women, whose identities have been kept anonymous, brought forth additional allegations of sexual harassment and assault to an already long list of complaints from the seven other plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

These two stories are completely separate from one another, and we are not implying that they are in any way connected. However, these incidents — both of which involve investigations by the College into workplace misconduct — raise serious and concerning questions about the methods by which the investigations were conducted and the conclusions that were reached.

Internal investigations by private institutions are inherently difficult to pass judgement on. We understand that these investigations are private and typically involve information not intended to be released to the public. We also understand

that, in many cases, information should be kept private to protect those who served as sources for investigators.

However, the conclusions of the TDI and PBS investigations raise more questions than answers.

While the investigations have officially ended, we believe the College has a responsibility to answer lingering questions, both in the interest of transparency and building trust. If there is a lack of trust, it is inherently difficult to move forward and fix the problems at hand.

In the case of the TDI investigation, we are confused as to why Fisher — who has been demoted, stripped of his title and forced to move his office to a building across the street from TDI’s main offices — is still a member of the Dartmouth faculty.

What, exactly, could someone have done that would merit such a contradictory punishment? If what he did was so bad as to lead to the aforementioned disciplinary actions, why should he still be allowed to interact with Dartmouth faculty and students?

And why did the investigation, which focused on just two individuals, last nine months?

The questions associated with the PBS investigation are even more complicated. That investigation, too, took several months. The College’s Title IX investigation of the matter began in the spring of 2017, and the three professors did not officially resign — or “retire” in Heatherton’s case — until June and July 2018 when a College committee recommended that their positions be terminated. The College first publicly confirmed to The Dartmouth on Oct. 25, 2017 that the three professors had been placed on leave for “serious misconduct.”

SEE EDITORIAL BOARD PAGE 6

6175 ROBINSON HALL, HANOVER N.H. 03755 • (603) 646-2600

DEBORA HYEMIN HAN, Editor-in-Chief ALEX FREDMAN, Executive Editor PETER CHARALAMBOUS, Managing Editor PRODUCTION EDITORS TYLER MALBREAUX & MATTHEW MAGANN, Opinion Editors NIKHITA HINGORANI & KYLEE SIBILIA, Mirror Editors LUKE GITTER, JUSTIN KRAMER & LILI STERN, Sports Editors LEX KANG & JORDAN MCDONALD, Arts Editors LILY JOHNSON, Dartbeat Editor DIVYA KOPALLE & MICHAEL LIN, Photo Editors

AIDAN SHEINBERG, Publisher JULIAN NATHAN, Executive Editor ANTHONY ROBLES, Managing Editor BUSINESS DIRECTORS JONNY FRIED & RAIDEN MEYER, Advertising Directors VINAY REDDY, Marketing & Communications Director HIMADRI NARASIMHAMURTHY & KAI SHERWIN, Product Development Directors ALBERT CHEN & ELEANOR NIEDERMAYER, Strategy Directors ERIC ZHANG, Technology Director

SAMANTHA BURACK & BELLA JACOBY, Design Editors HATTIE NEWTON, Templating Editor JESS CAMPANILE, Multimedia Editor

ISSUE PETER CHARALAMBOUS AND ANTHONY ROBLES SUBMISSIONS: We welcome letters and guest columns. All submissions must include the author’s name and affiliation with Dartmouth College, and should not exceed 250 words for letters or 700 words for columns. The Dartmouth reserves the right to edit all material before publication. All material submitted becomes property of The Dartmouth. Please email submissions to editor@thedartmouth.com.

We should stand by Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Just last fall, Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was elected as the representative of Minnesota’s 5th district.

Since then, she has faced a relentless storm of personal attacks and death threats, and has featured in one controversy after another.

Scandals and personal attacks are nothing new for anyone in politics, but the level of vitriol directed at Omar, a Somali-born refugee who moved to the U.S. as a teenager, seems to be especially extreme. Unfortunately, as Omar stands up for herself, politicians too often deliberately stoke fury towards her or idly stand by.

Perhaps Omar is controversial. But that’s because she has the courage to speak the uncomfortable and necessary truths that many politicians avoid, drawing attention to the aspects of society that too many others turn a blind eye to. I’ll focus here on one prominent instance of that: Omar’s remarks in February regarding the immense lobbying power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

On Twitter, she critiqued AIPAC for using its resources to leverage political support for Israel.

AIPAC’s influence is a truth that few American politicians have been willing to highlight, and Omar’s choice to emphasize the issue did not deserve the controversy it incited.

Omar’s position isn’t so far outside the mainstream. Former congressman Brian Baird has questioned why AIPAC was so often prioritized above the well-being of the United States, while former congressman Jim Moran expressed doubt that AIPAC represented “the mainstream of American Jewish thinking.”

They’re not wrong. In an op-ed for The Nation, activist Ady Barkan recounts his experience as a staffer on a political campaign, remembering how “checks arrived promptly in the mail” soon after the campaign adopted AIPAC’s stances on a few key issues.

Yet when Omar criticized AIPAC, critics immediately attacked her, skewing the meaning of her tweets to claim that she was perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish monetary influence. Certainly, Omar’s tweet should have been better phrased. And any notion that “Jewish money” corrupts politics or other institutions is both false and dangerous. At the same time, however, there’s no detangling AIPAC — which is by no means representative of the Jewish people — from its considerable lobbying power. And American Jews are increasingly uncomfortable with Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration and Israel’s policies, which AIPAC tends to support.

Omar’s tweet could have used more diplomatic language, but it hardly merits condemnation.

Both political parties have shamefully overreacted to Omar’s tweet. Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump — whose own declaration that there were “very fine people” among alt-right and neo-Nazi marchers in Charlottesville veered into anti-Semitism — called on Omar to resign. That’s perhaps to be expected. But Democrats have also failed Omar. Rather than defend Omar and her positions, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) instead offered a statement condemning anti-Semitism, and in doing so, validated all those who said that Omar’s statements were anti-Semitic.

As one of our newest congresswomen, a woman of color and the recipient of an alarming amount of death threats, Omar needs all the support she can get from her party. Instead, Democrats continually marginalize her as a radical other — an experience all too common for women of color. It’s worth noting that while Moran generated controversy by criticizing AIPAC, he never seemed to experience the kind of outrageous treatment that Omar did — probably because he’s not as vulnerable.

Make no mistake; I am not making a false equivalence between the Republicans’ outright vilification of Omar and the communities she represents and the Democrats’ weak or nonexistent attempts to quench the flames. The Republican reaction is clearly worse. However, the Democrats’ response seems hypocritical.

The party is all too eager to embrace diversity on a surface-level when it means trumpeting diversity numbers after midterm elections but seems unwilling to do the heavy lifting that comes with actually honoring different perspectives.

No doubt, many congressional Democrats are reluctant to defend Omar in part because they believe that she alienates their more moderate constituents. It is entirely possible, and even expected, that those closer to the center might not agree with Ilhan Omar’s policies. But the Democratic Party should ask itself why it is pandering to a whiter, more moderate base at the expense of those with more marginalized identities, particularly people of color. While they’re at it, they should consider how well that strategy has worked out for them so far. Both parties must do better when it comes to Ilhan Omar. If Democrats truly embrace her and what she represents, it might just help a party that has lost its way to reorient itself around new perspectives and principles.

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2019

PAGE 5

THE DARTMOUTH NEWS

Yang, with low name recognition, has centered campaign on UBI FROM YANG PAGE 1

terms “human-centered capitalism,” which places human welfare as the primary goal of a market-based economy. While his polling currently averages less than one percent nationwide, Yang has nevertheless attracted a vocal, if small, group of supporters dubbed the “Yang Gang” on Reddit and other social media sites.

For the first half of the event, Yang outlined his goals and the rationales behind them. He spoke about the rise of automation, which he said has already decimated the manufacturing industry and threatens to decimate the service, trucking and retail industries, among others.

“We’re in the midst of the greatest economic and technological transformation in the history of our country,” Yang said. “And Donald Trump became president because we’d automated away four million manufacturing jobs in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri [and] Iowa.”

Re-training workers in failing industries is not sufficient to solve the problem of automation, Yang said.

He pointed to the manufacturing industry, claiming that around half of the workers who have lost their jobs to automation did not re-enter the workforce, and that a significant portion of that population ended up using disability benefits or became suicidal. In spite of this, he asserted that current politicians in Washington, D.C. have not provided adequate answers to the crisis.

Yang’s proposed solution is a universal basic income, dubbed the Freedom Dividend, which would provide $1,000 a month to all Americans. His campaign website says the program would be funded by a value-added tax, as well as by increased economic growth and reduced spending on other services.

Yang believes the Freedom Dividend would allow people to perform work they find meaningful and cushion the country against the threat of automation. He spoke about the importance of eliminating structural barriers to collecting tax

revenues from large technology companies. He also said that he would seek to promote different measures of national well-being, rather than the country’s Gross Domestic Product, that are more relevant to the lives of everyday Americans, such as measures of wealth inequality or education levels.

“It’s our job to create a society that actually works for Americans,” Yang said.

Following his speech, Yang fielded questions from the audience.

Multiple students asked about Yang’s perspective on climate change, with one student expressing surprise that the topic is not higher on Yang’s list of campaign issues.

Yang said that he takes the issue of climate change very seriously — in an interview with The Dartmouth following the event, he described it as the largest issue facing the next generation. To the audience, he spoke in favor of rejoining the Paris Agreement, implementing a carbon fee and dividend, and investing “hundreds of billions of dollars” to develop sustainable infrastructure.

He also emphasized the connection between economic insecurity and climate change, positing that people cannot afford to worry about climate change if they also cannot afford to pay their bills.

One student asked Yang how he plans to deal with the most popular Democratic candidates, such as former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Yang said that as more people begin to pay attention to the primaries, his name recognition will only grow, which he said will allow him to attract more supporters because of his campaign positions.

Questioned on how he would convince Congress to approve the Freedom Dividend, Yang said that his election as president would serve as a kind of national mandate that Congress would not seek to oppose.

He also cited bipartisan support for his proposal, based on endorsements for universal basic income from conservative economist Milton Friedman and the state of Alaska, which pays its citizens a regular

dividend from its oil revenues.

In response to another question about how he would appeal to black voters, Yang said that he believes the Freedom Dividend would help him appeal to them, as the benefits of the program align with many black voters’ interests. He also cited Martin Luther King Jr.’s support of a universal basic income as a possible source of appeal.

In an interview with members of the press following the event, Yang spoke about how the Freedom Dividend would coexist with existing social services. While he acknowledged that over time, the Freedom Dividend might be able to replace the need for some of these programs, he pointed out that it would be disruptive and difficult to immediately replace social services with universal basic income.

Thomas DeSantis ’19 said that he enjoyed the event more than he thought he would. He noted that many of Yang’s policies make intuitive sense and pointed out that while Yang positions himself as one

ELSA ERICKSEN/THE DARTMOUTH STAFF

Yang spoke to a crowd of students outside of Beta Alpha Omega fraternity.

of the more intellectual candidates in the race, his style is also quite conversational and casual.

Aidan Low ’21 said that Yang spoke eloquently and that he

believed Yang’s focus on the threat of automation on jobs was a more practical focus than the concerns voiced by many other Democratic candidates.

PAGE 6

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2019

THE DARTMOUTH EVENTS

DARTMOUTHEVENTS TODAY 12:15 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Mindfulness: “Mindfulness in the Museum,” sponsored by the the Hood Museum of Art, Hood Museum of Art.

7:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.

Film: “Captain Marvel,” sponsored by the the Hopkins Center for the Arts, Loew Auditorium, Visual Arts Center.

9:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m.

Viewing: “Public Astronomical Observing,” sponsored by the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Shattuck Observatory.

TOMORROW 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.

Tour: “Hood Highlights Tour,” sponsored by the the Hood Museum of Art, Hood Museum of Art.

7:00 p.m. - 9:15 p.m.

Film: “They Shall Not Grow Old,” sponsored by the the Hopkins Center for the Arts, Loew Auditorium, Visual Arts Center.

FROM EDITORIAL BOARD PAGE 4

One question about this investigation that remains unanswered relates to its origins. After The Dartmouth reported that the three professors were on leave, the New Hampshire attorney general’s office announced it was initiating a criminal investigation of the professors — directly stating that the article in The Dartmouth was the impetus for investigators to open the case. If the College had sufficient evidence of sexual misconduct by the professors to put them on leave, why had it not informed law enforcement officials?

Nearly a year after the conclusion of the PBS investigation, new questions have arisen. The very existence of the lawsuit, which asserts that College officials for over 16 years were aware of the sexual misconduct allegations against the three professors but did nothing to act on them, raises many questions. In response to an inquiry from The Dartmouth, College spokesperson Diana Lawrence wrote that the two new accusers added to the lawsuit were never addressed in the College’s Title IX investigation. One of the women alleges that she informed the then-chair of the PBS department of the professors’ conduct in 2004. That raises

the question: Why didn’t the College’s investigation include the claims made by these two women?

To be clear, we are not claiming that the College acted inappropriately in the course of conducting the two investigations. We would like to believe that College officials did the best they could to address what are extraordinarily difficult matters. But there is no way for us to know unless the College takes an active role in being more transparent about the nature and conclusions of these investigations.

The College’s first public statement about the PBS investigation was a message from College President Phil Hanlon on Oct. 31, 2017 — months after the College’s Title IX investigation had begun. The issue here is not that the information itself was kept private, but that the College took so long to inform campus that something was going on. In regards to the TDI investigation, Hanlon has yet to make a public statement to the Dartmouth community explaining what has happened.

Transparency is more than answering questions when they are asked — it involves taking an active role in addressing concerns the community may have,

which is essential so that the Dartmouth community can solve those problems. In a time when the very nature of truth is under attack, transparency on the part of our institutions is more important than ever. We do not demand that the College tell the Dartmouth community every detail it knows about these incidents, but we do urge the College to take initiative and address the lingering questions that these difficult investigations have left us to grapple with.

The editorial board consists of opinion staff columnists, the opinion editors, both executive editors and the editor-in-chief.

ADVERTISING For advertising infor mation, please call (603) 646-2600 or email info@ thedartmouth.com. The advertising deadline is noon, two days before publication. We reserve the right to refuse any advertisement. Opinions expressed in advertisements do not necessarily reflect those of The Dartmouth, Inc. or its officers, employees and agents.

The Dartmouth, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation chartered in the state of New Hampshire. USPS 148-540 ISSN 0199-9931

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2019

PAGE 7

THE DARTMOUTH ARTS

Clown-acrobat delivers a quirky and heartfelt solo performance B y elizabeth garrison The Dartmouth Staff

At some point, every person has felt pressure to live up to some kind of expectation to fulfill a role and project an external image of ourselves to others.

Acrobats are no exception to this human experience. In his solo show, “Patinoire,” clown-acrobat Patrick Léonard breaks the illusion that circus performers are larger than life by revealing the human element behind creating an act. Léonard gives the audience an intimate glimpse into the physical and emotional challenges a performer faces when they put themselves in a vulnerable position in front of an audience. By giving us a look into his mind, he provides the audience with valuable insight into our own lives.

Last Wednesday and Thursday, Léonard performed “Patinoire” in Spaulding Auditorium at the Hopkins Center. Before Thursday’s show, Léonard anxiously paced in the lobby as audience members entered the theater.

Despite the fact that Léonard has toured “Patinoire” across North America and Europe over the past five years, the naïve observer would have assumed that this was his first time on stage.

With his disheveled hair and jittery mannerisms, Léonard looked terrified as he frantically checked over a list.

This image was not exactly what came to mind when I had originally pictured what the co-founder of Montreal’s renowned Les 7 Doigts de la Main (The Seven Fingers) circus would look like before a show.

At the beginning of “Patinoire,”

Léonard challenged my expectations by asking the audience members to leave their assigned seats and move closer towards the stage. Throughout the performance, Léonard encouraged the audience to break out of the traditional role of passive spectators. He spoke directly to audience members and at times would climb off the stage to join the audience. At one point, Léonard pulled someone on stage, handed him a pair of Chinese juggling sticks and left him there alone, looking confused. After a few moments of awkward silence, the people still sitting in the audience began to call out words of encouragement as the man slowly started to let loose and dance around the stage. The audience broke out into applause.

When Léonard returned to the stage, he proclaimed, “Even when you don’t

know what you are doing, it doesn’t matter if everyone loves and supports each other.”

I thought this message was a poignant and powerful reminder that there is no shame in asking for help. Later, Léonard went on to perform many unusual feats throughout the rest of the show, such as precariously stacking audio equipment into a tall tower and climbing on top of it, but what I found to be the most compelling part of the performance was the final act.

During most of the show, the back curtain had been closed and Léonard would unexpectedly disappear behind it, leaving the audience staring blankly at an empty stage. Each time this happened, he was gone longer and longer, creating more suspense. After each pause, Léonard would return

from behind the curtain as if nothing had happened, but the sense of unease never went away. Throughout the show, Léonard kept promising a spectacular final act, and when the curtain finally opened during his finale, it revealed a towering slide that reached the ceiling where he sat at the top. When he slid down the slide, the audience members gasped, shocked at the startling speed he was moving with. As he took his bows, “Y.M.C.A.” played and the audience members danced and sang along, sharing a heartfelt moment. Instead of going backstage, Léonard walked out of the theater with the audience, stopping to give people hugs along the way.

I left the theater feeling inspired.

Léonard’s performance reminded me of the value in vulnerability and the resulting human connection.

Weekend Picks Three things you should see this weekend

+ dance

+ live music

+ film

Sugarplum Student Dance Showcase

Barbary Coast Jazz Ensemble

Us

Friday, 8 p.m. at Moore Theater in the Hopkins Center

Saturday, 8 p.m. at Spaulding Auditorium in the Hopkins Center

Saturday, 7 p.m. at Spaulding Auditorium in the Hopkins Center

Sugarplum, an audition-based, student-led dance group focused on contemporary and jazz dance, is holding its seventh annual showcase this weekend. Founded in 2009, this year marks Sugarplum’s tenth anniversary and a long history of talented dancers — former Sugarplum dancers have gone on to be featured on television shows like “Glee” and “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” as well as the movie “Love, Simon.”

This Saturday, the Hopkins Center Ensemble Barbary Coast will be holding its final concert of the year as part of its long-standing tradition of dedicating their final show to starring its graduating senior members.

Each of the eight graduating seniors will be performing his or her own “feature” number, regardless of genre, style or the ensemble size needed. Come witness a broad range of music!

“Us” is a critically-acclaimed film directed

by Jordan Peele, known for his first featurelength film “Get Out,” the winner of 2018’s best original screenplay Academy Award.

A socially provocative, well-made horror film, “Us” is about much more than classic horror gimmicks or its star-studded cast and crew; humor, horror and symbolism come together in this narrative reflecting the American class divide.

SPORTS SPORTS Pucks in Deep

with Sam Stockton ’19 Pucks in Deep: Don’t Bet Against Holland and the Oilers On Tuesday mor ning, the Edmonton Oilers introduced Ken Holland as their new general manager and president of hockey operations. Holland comes to Edmonton having served as Red Wings’ GM since 1997. In Detroit, he captured 10 Central Division crowns, four Presidents’ Trophies and three Stanley Cups. He oversaw the bulk of an incredible 25-year stretch in which the Wings made the postseason every year.

Yet upon arriving in Alberta, he has found skepticism waiting for him.

Since reaching the Stanley Cup Final in 2006, the Oilers have won the draft lottery four times and qualified for the postseason just once. The injection of championship pedigree ought to be welcome in a franchise with just one serious flirtation with contention since the 1989-90 Oilers provided closure to their fans by winning a fifth Stanley Cup — this time without Wayne Gretzky. And yet, a closer look at Holland’s resume leaves Oiler fans anything but certain about the future of their team.

The Oilers represent a fascinating case study in asset management.

The team finished 35-38-9, good for 25th in the league. After years of mediocrity and culture problems

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2019

THE DARTMOUTH SPORTS

PAGE 8

(more on this in a moment), the Oilers would seem to be a prime candidate for a true rebuild — sell off assets, tank for a season or two, and build toward contention over the course of some sort of five-year plan. However, the Oilers are uniquely ill-equipped to due so — a fact that likely inspires hope and terror in their fan base.

Simply put, the Oilers cannot execute a rebuild because of their 22-year-old captain.

Connor McDavid, whose tenure in Edmonton seems to have left him grizzled at a young age, is widely considered the most talented player in the world. It’s not just that McDavid is the league’s fastest skater.

The man known around Rogers Place as McJesus’ particular gift is not just his speed but his ability to make plays with the puck while operating at top speed. His rookie season was the only time the 2015 number one overall draft choice failed to eclipse 100 points, and that was only because he missed almost half the season to a broken clavicle. (His 48 points in 45 games was good for a 106-point pace.) He is so good that a team with him down the middle could never truly tank.

In today’s National Hockey League, rosters are built primarily down the middle. The league’s best teams boast elite talent at the center position. Nicklas Backstrom, Evgeny Kuznetsov. Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin. Brayden Point, Steven Stamkos. Sebastian Aho, Eric Staal. The Oilers are unique in that they have tremendous talent at center, yet still struggle to score goals. Behind McDavid, the Oilers can offer Leon Draisaitl, whose 50goal breakout campaign showed that he is a star-caliber player whether playing alongside his captain or not.

Then there is Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, himself a former number one pick overall, whose 69-point season would make him one of the league’s most

dangerous third-line centermen.

On defense, the Oilers are certainly not exceptional, but the combination of Oskar Klefbom, Adam Larsson and Andrej Sekera ought to make it at least passable.

Plus, the Oilers have Evan Bouchard waiting in the wings. Bouchard spent the regular season playing for the London Knights of the Ontario Hockey League before joining Edmonton’s American Hockey League affiliate — the Bakersfield Condors — once his season in London wrapped up. The 10thoverall pick in the 2018 draft is generally considered one of the top defense prospects in the sport.

What is perhaps most amazing about the Oilers is that they seem to lack the league’s most abundant resource: wingers. In today’s NHL, centermen are the most prized commodity, while top teams must be able to replace the wingers alongside them. When a team runs up against the salary cap, wingers are the first to go. The thinking here is that strong centers will effectively drive play to the point that the wingers alongside them can change and production will remain.

Every off-season, veteran free-agent wingers are available for low prices, and yet, the Oilers cannot seem to find adequate support for their stars. As a result, they tend to move Draisaitl, Nugent-Hopkins or both to McDavid’s wings, inexplicably unable to find adequate role players to complement each of what should be a dynamic triumvirate of centers.

To make matters worse, the Oilers are hamstrung by a number of terrible contracts. They owe Milan Lucic, a player whose skills were perfectly suited to the NHL game eight years ago, $6 million per year until 2023. They owe Kris Russell $4 million per year until 2021. Despite being nowhere near serious Stanley Cup contention, they do not even

have half a million dollars in cap space.

The most urgent problem is that McDavid seems to be running out of patience with Edmonton’s process. In an early April media scrum, he described his frustration level as “really high,” adding that “We want to play in the playoffs as a team. I personally want to play in the playoffs. I’m not happy about it.

It’s going to be a long summer.” If the Oilers cannot put together some semblance of a cogent plan in the next season or two, the team will likely be faced with a trade request from the NHL’s fastest rising star, which would likely be a PR disaster from which there could be no recovery.

With all this in mind, why are Oilers fans and the NHL public at large skeptical of Holland’s arrival?

Arguably, the only team with a worse salary-cap situation than the Edmonton team Holland inherits is the Detroit team he leaves behind.

Holland appeared brilliant in the early part of his tenure in Detroit, before the NHL adopted a salary cap. His 2002 Stanley Cup winner featured nine hall-of-famers with another likely to join them in Pavel Datsyuk. As that tenure wore on, Holland made a habit of signing long-term deals to homegrown depth players — a surefire way to drive a mediocre team into salary-cap hell.

Critics point out that Holland’s last championship appearance came in 2008, a seeming eternity in professional sports years. By all accounts, today’s NHL game hardly resembles the one played in 2008, and things only went south from there for Holland’s Wings.

So, given the circumstances, should Oilers fans do anything other than panic and pull their hair out?

I would say no. While Holland could certainly benefit from bringing about a cap expert, his track record should be enough to command

respect throughout Edmonton’s facility. With that respect, Holland can and should demand an overhaul to the organization’s way of thinking.

For years, the Oilers have epitomized the NHL’s “old boys’ club” mentality.

Their organization has been run by Oiler alums with minimal acumen for managing a hockey team; the sole prerequisite for running the team was having played for it in its glory days of the ’80s.

Holland is the best person the Oilers could have found to institute a culture that demands a winning culture, the kind that fueled Detroit’s 25-year run of making the playoffs.

Beyond this cultural change, the Red Wings built their team by exploiting the league’s collective failure to recognize the talent available to it by way of Europe.

In the cap era, exploiting inefficiencies is the name of the game. If this Ken Holland — the one who established a culture in which anything short of excellence was unacceptable and who identified the sport’s greatest inefficiency — comes to Edmonton, then the Oilers might just be able to salvage their present mess. As long as McDavid sticks around, this team will never be too far from contention. Upon entering the building, much of the heavy lifting has already been done; several key pieces of a potential championship core are in place.

For Holland, the challenge will be developing a supporting cast around the world’s best player to rapidly propel them to playoff contention.

This postseason shows that any team can undergo a rapid transformation into contention in a short period of time, especially if they have a superstar to work with. After all, is it so hard to imagine that the best player in the world could carry a slightly improved version of this roster into the playoffs as soon as next season?

I wouldn’t bet against it.