The Dartmouth 2/14/19

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2019

VOL. CLXXV NO. 134

PARTLY CLOUDY HIGH 36 LOW 27

The Dartmouth Staff

OPINION

FISHBEIN: ACTIVISTS, CANCEL ‘CANCELED’ PAGE 6

ADELBERG: DECLARE INDEPENDENCE PAGE 6

CHUN: WHY WE’RE HERE PAGE 7

ARTS

LEONARD COHEN’S ‘YOU WANT IT DARKER’ INSPIRES BEYOND THE GRAVE PAGE 7 FOLLOW US ON

TWITTER @thedartmouth COPYRIGHT © 2019 THE DARTMOUTH, INC.

D’Souza sparks protests

Students, professors recieve racist emails B y WALLY JOE COOK

This story was originall published online on Feb. 12 and updated on Feb. 13.

At least three Dartmouth professors and 18 students, nearly all people of color, have been targeted by a slew of emails that contain sexually explicit descriptions and racial slurs. The emails came from false email addresses and claimed to be from Dartmouth students.

Most of the emails reviewed by the Dartmouth were targeted at people of Asian ethnic descent, though students from many races were targeted. At least two of the

recipients of the racist emails have had Asian slurs written on their doors in the past year.

An investigation is ongoing, according to chief information security officer Steve Nyman, who declined to comment further.

The Dartmouth viewed over a dozen such emails from four fabricated email accounts, many of which cc’ed multiple students, and which came from either gmx.com accounts or yandex.com accounts. The earliest messages are dated from December.

One email, sent to a student SEE EMAILS PAGE 2

Dartmouth hopes to endow scholarships B y EMILY SUN The Dartmouth

When Aly Jeddy ’93 came to Dartmouth from Pakistan, he did so through an all-expenses paid plane ticket and a scholarship. As a senior partner in McKinsey & Company, Jeddy is now an active participant in the College’s campaign to increase its financial aid for students.

Jeddy is one of the alumni actively involved in the campaign.

HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE

MICHAEL LIN/THE DARTMOUTH SENIOR STAFF

Dinesh D’Souza ’83 lectured on “Fake History Debunked” in Filene Auditorium.

B y ABBY MIHALY AND CASSANDRA THOMAS The Dartmouth Staff

“I could not be more excited,” he said. “Frankly, every opportunity that I’ve ... received in [this] country [has] come from that start [with financial aid]. I am a huge believer in the ability to give ... financial aid to people [who] need it for a Dartmouth education.”

Last week, the College announced the launch of the SEE SCHOLARSHIP PAGE 5

On Monday evening, Dinesh D’Souza ’83 spoke at an event sponsored by the Dartmouth Republicans and the Young America Foundation. Over 200 people attended the event, and dozens of students and community members protested the speech through song, chants and signs. The event, part of Young America Foundation’s 10-campus “Dinesh D’Souza tour: Fake History Debunked,” took place in Filene Auditorium.

On the day of the

event, posters circulated around Dartmouth, publicizing past quotes from D’Souza such as “The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well,” and calling for community members to “tell [the Hanover Inn] to stop hosting visitors who use hate speech.”

D’Souza, originally from Mumbai, India, first came to the U.S. as an exchange student. At the College, he was an editor of The Dartmouth Review, where he was i nv o l v e d i n s e v e r a l controversial incidents, including outing several

gay classmates and overseeing the publication of an article against affirmative action written i n A f r i c an - A m e ri c a n Vernacular English, titled “Dis Sho Ain’t No Jive, Bro.” Since graduating from the College, D’Souza ha s p u bl i s h ed b o o k s and produced movies surrounding American c o n s e r vat i s m a n d i s considered an influential conservative thinker. In 2014, he pled guilty to violating campaign finance laws in a Senate election between his SEE D’SOUZA PAGE 5

War and Peace fellows explore geopolitics of Qatar B y CASSANDRA THOMAS The Dartmouth Staff

This past December was an unforgettable one for 10 students in the College’s War and Peace Fellows program.

During a trip to Qatar during winter break, the War and Peace fellows were able to explore geopolitics of the

Middle East through highspeed sand duning, peer into the propaganda espoused

by Al Jazeera through a first-hand tour of the news channel’s headquarters and further their understanding of U.S.-Qatari relations through conversations with statespeople such as former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer.

The War and Peace Fellows program allows students from various academic backgrounds to discuss a broad range of international-relations issues throughout the year.

Speakers who work on the issues firsthand are invited to have more intimate conversations and meetings with the fellows. The program

is punctuated by an annual trip to Washington, D.C. in the spring to give students an inside look into public policy making.

However, this year, Daniel Benjamin, director of the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding, worked with Qatari officials to sponsor a cost-free trip for 10 chosen fellows.

“The main objective was really for the students to become knowledgeable about the complex politics in the region [and] the importance of the countries [in the Middle East] whose economic and political weight is really pretty remarkable,” Benjamin said.

SEE WAR/PEACE PAGE 3

PAGE 2

THE DARTMOUTH NEWS

Hogan elected as microbiology fellow

and other junior researchers.

“She adapts to what each student needs,” she said. “She has 11 students Deborah Hogan, professor of and knows every project inside and out, microbiology and immunology at the and does not have to be reminded about Geisel School of Medicine, was elected any part of the project. She is willing to as a 2019 Fellow of the American meet outside of hours, such as 8pm, if Academy of Microbiology — the needed.” honorific leadership group within the Lewis and Harty both said that they American Society for Microbiology. viewed Hogan as a strong female role David Leib, chair of the department model in the field of microbiology. of microbiology and immunology Leib added that Hogan was an at Geisel who worked with Hogan example of an professor with strengths for almost ten years, across leadership, spoke highly of her. teaching, research “She contributes “She’s just topand mentorship. notch,” Leib said. a thoughtful Among scientific “She is a spectacular viewpoint that can excellence, originality, scientist,greatteacher, leadership, high make everybody great administrator ethical standards think about … she does it all.” and scholarly Fe l l o w s a r e problems in a achievement, one of recognized as the criteria for being leaders through a different way.” named a AAM fellow highly-selective, peer is creativity. Leib review process that commended Hogan’s -DAVID LEIB, CHAIR takes into account creative thinking and t h e i r s c i e n t i f i c OF THE DEPARTMENT ability to put forth a c h i e v e m e n t s OF MICROBIOLOGY a measured and and original alternative viewpoint. c o n t r i b u t i o n s , AND IMMUNOLOGY “She contributes a according to the AT GEISEL SCHOOL thoughtful viewpoint ASM. that can make OF MEDICINE In addition to everybody think her work as a Geisel about problems in professor, Hogan co-directs the Lung a different way,” he said. “She brings Biology COBRE Translational an unique approach to matters of Research Core at Dartmouth, and curriculum, policy, and science.” also serves as an associate editor for the Hogan emphasized the need for journal PLoS Pathogens. She was the creative thinking in science, and how recipient of the Dartmouth Graduate sharing her ideas with other scientists Faculty Mentoring Award in 2014, and was helpful for her research projects. received national recognition in 2016 as She added that some of her best a recipient of the Dr. Thomas Maciag ideas came while she was explaining COBRE Independence Award from microbiology to students. the National Institutes of Health.

Another factor taken into account Hogan said that she was very happy by the ASM is scientific excellence. to be recognized, and acknowledged Colleen Harty, another graduate the contributions of the people who student who works with Hogan, work with her. said that Hogan’s breadth and “It is a nice reflection of the depth of knowledge about different contributions of the post-docs and microorganisms is remarkable, and students and research technicians and described her as a “brilliant” scientist. undergrads.” Hogan said.

“As she presents ideas, she writes Kimberley Lewis, a graduate the ideas out and diagrams out the student who works with Hogan, projects and how they are connected described her as a mentor and leader to one another,” she said. “In this field to not only the people working in her especially, connections between great lab, but to people in her department ideas ... is super important.”

B y GRACE LEE The Dartmouth

CORRECTIONS Correction Appended (Feb. 13, 2019): An earlier version of the article “Carnival sculpture once again a College-organized project” previously misstated the source of funding for the snow sculpture last year and this year. The Sphinx Foundation funded the sculpture in 2018 and contributed a third in 2019.

The article “Dinesh D’Souza ‘83’s lecture at the College sparks protests” has been updated to correct a misspelling of Brian Drisdelle ’21’s name.

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2019

Investigation ongoing on sexual, racist emails sent to students, professors FROM EMAIL PAGE 1

with the subject “Back to work, slave,” read, “Hi [name redacted], Please stop slacking and get back to work, n—.”

Other racist attacks included calling various recipients “Jew lover[s],” “beanur[s]” or “yello.”

The first identified emails were sent to a member of a student dance group on Dec. 9 and 10. Earlier in September, a College staff member had emailed the club about damage to a wall in a practice room the club had used. On Dec. 9, a member of the team, who asked not to be identified due to privacy concerns, received an email referencing the damage.

The email appeared to be from Abdul Agboola ’19, though Agboola told The Dartmouth that he was not the sender.

“No having your period on the f— ing wall! [The College staff member] gonna fight you! Don’t give [name redacted] gonohhrea [sic]!” the email read.

A second email sent to the same student the next day read, “U hear me? Don’t touch the wall! Chi—s!

Hi, Don’t touch the wall! [redacted name], that means you! Ms. [redacted name], please please watch her! And make sure [redacted name] dont wank during prax.”

In an interview with The Dartmouth, Agboola said he was shocked when he learned about the emails falsely attributed to him.

He added that the perpetrator was aware of specific information about the recipients of the emails, as well as the fact that that he himself is black, which he said made him suspect that a Dartmouth community member composed the emails.

“How could this happen?” he said.

“I hope they get to the bottom of this.”

Another recipient of offensive emails, who also asked not to be named to maintain her privacy, echoed Agboola’s suspicions that a Dartmouth community member may be sending the emails. She said that the perpetrator knew her religious identity, who her friends were, her friends’ nicknames and other students’ preferred names, which are different from their email account names.

“It was really concerning that somebody had the time and the energy and — I don’t know if it’s anger or hatred? — to send these out, and they could be walking amongst us,” she said. “I don’t know what else they would do to people of color or other minorities on campus.”

She criticized the administration for taking too long to make a statement, considering how many people received similar messages.

The College first publicly

acknowledged the messages on Feb. sexual assault.

11 in a campus-wide email from “Hey [professor redacted], I see Nyman. you give [name redacted] a citation, “A few months ago, an unknown but did you account for the touching person sent racist email messages he did to me at homecoming?” the to students purporting to be from email read. another student,” Nyman’s email Another Dartmouth professor read. of color received two racially and “Today we are seeing similar sexually vulgar emails. fake messages sent to other students “Me and your white wife will f— in and one faculty the bushes before member. These having some Skyy “It was really messages are NOT Vodka! And we will originating from concerning that wear catsuits too!”

Dartmouth’s email somebody had the read one email. system and are An email with NOT authored by time and the energy the subject “Brown the student they are and — I don’t know and yellow secx” claiming to be.” targeted a student if it’s anger or Gillian Yue ’22, using explicit who was a recipient hatred? — to send sexual language. of a racist message, these out, and they “Hi [name said she forwarded redacted], My the message to her could be walking homie [name u n d e r g r a d u at e amongst us. I don’t redacted] talked advisor and an to me about how know what else Information, he did you good.

T e c h n o l o g y they would do to Hope you both and Consulting people of color or used a condom! investigator from A n y w a y, w a s other minorities on wondering if you, the College.

“I was pretty campus.” [name redacted], upset seeing the [name redacted], email, especially and me can have a since it wasn’t the -AN EMAIL RECIPIENT 4 way! Just trying to first one — two be innovative,” the similar emails were email read. sent to me in the Another email guise of another Dartmouth student sent to a Hispanic student targeted during winter break,” Yue wrote in him for his race. an email to The Dartmouth.

“Hey beanur [name redacted], Get Yue added that while she does not back to work before the wall gets put feel endangered by the emails, she up!” the email read. hopes the school can find the culprit College spokesperson Diana soon.

Lawrence wrote in an email statement Another recipient, who received an that the College notified the Hanover email on Feb. 8 and who also declined police department about the emails to be identified, said it involved “very and would be speaking with all of intimate personal information” that those who received emails or are only one or two people could know. otherwise connected to the incident.

He added that the other people copied “We find the language contained in on the message were very close to him, the emails abhorrent and antithetical including a professor. to our community values and Other emails were similarly standards,” Lawrence wrote. “This personal, often including references investigation is a high priority for the to recipients’ classmates, Greek college and we continue to pursue the organizations or significant others. matter actively.”

Multiple emails made accusations of She said that the College urges sexual impropriety. anyone with information that might “Hi Sir [name redacted], Congratz help them identify the person or on the citation in [professor redacted] people responsible to reach out, and class! I saw you starin at [name that any students who received such redacted] melons during class, and emails should forward them to help@ the best way to handle this is to talk dartmouth.edu. it out with her. So I’ve copied her on If you have received similar dis note so that she don’t complain emails and would like to share your of sexual harrassment and get scared story, please email The Dartmouth of brownskins… naive chi—s can be at editor@thedartmouth.com. If mean towards indians! I’m lookin out you have any information about the for you as a fellow black brother,” read perpetrators, please contact Safety one email. and Security at (603) 646-6000.

One email sent to a professor alleged that a student committed Alexa Green contributed reporting.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2019

PAGE 3

THE DARTMOUTH NEWS

War and Peace fellows visit Qatar, attend Doha Forum FROM WAR/PEACE PAGE 1

The trip coincided with a tense political situation between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on one side and Qatar on the other. The blockade between these two entities gave the students an exceptional academic experience, according to government professor Benjamin Valentino, who led the trip. Valentino added that the fellows arrived at a crucial moment in Middle Eastern politics.

“I do think that the trip allowed the students to see not just Qatari politics, but [also] Middle Eastern politics in a different light,” he said. “It’s one thing to read about the conflict between Qatar and its neighbors — the Saudis and the Emiratis primarily — but when you go and talk to Qataris … you can see the emotional reactions that Qataris had to being essentially outcast from the other Gulf states …

That’s the kind of experience you can only get by visiting a place.”

For many fellows, the trip to Qatar illustrated principles and ideas taught inside the classroom in a high-stakes, real-world setting. Priya Sankar ’19 said she was able to apply her knowledge as a government and economics major to assess the oil state.

“I’m really interested in Israeli politics, so learning about geopolitics

in the Middle East was something that I valued, especially because I don’t usually get to engage with Middle Eastern or energy politics,” Sankar said.

Unlike other fellows, Karla Rosas ’20 had already been to Qatar before as part of her military service.

Rosas noted, however, that the “living situations” she experienced during her two trips to Qatar were incomparable.

“I went to Qatar briefly [before] … and I thought [this trip] was going to be similar to my experience in the military, but it was not,” Rosas said.

“It was quite the opposite. At the time when I went [a few years ago], I stayed in transient tents ... which was not the best living situation. When we went to Qatar this time, we got the royal treatment. It was just incredible how hospitable and how well the Qatari government treated us.”

Rosas’ amazement at the group’s experience was echoed by Paulomi Rao ’19, who said she is interested in stepping outside of the typical Eurocentric policy lens. Rao and Rosas recalled being treated to cappuccinos while their passports were being processed, transported in caravans of BMWs and invited to coffee with international ambassadors.

“The activities we went on were absurd,” Rao said. “We went sand

duning [and] we went to the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, which was basically just FIFA telling us how [amazing] they were.”

The academic pinnacle of the trip for the fellows was attending the Doha Forum. According to Valentino, the Doha Forum is a conference that brings together people working on issues relevant to the Middle East from all around the world.

“It was a great opportunity to see the world in a way that Dartmouth doesn’t really often allow you to,” Rao said. “Usually we see things through a very academic perspective, whether through articles, literature or debates.

The trip itself was just hands-on, experiential learning.”

Benjamin, Rao, Rosas, Sankar and Valentino all expressed their gratitude for the opportunity to travel to Qatar.

According to Valentino, the trip embodies Dartmouth’s commitment to undergraduate education.

“These are the kinds of activities that just don’t happen, even at ... other schools that we consider our peers or competitors,” he said. “The ability for undergraduates to have this kind of experience — as opposed to graduate students or even faculty — is, I think, almost unheard of at any other place.”

Rao is a former member of The Dartmouth staff.

COURTESY OF BENJAMIN VALENTINO

War and Peace fellows pose in front of the vibrant city skyline in Qatar.

PAGE 4

DARTMOUTHEVENTS

THE DARTMOUTH EVENTS

THAT TIME OF YEAR

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2019

CAROLINE COOK ’21

TODAY

8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Art Exhibit: Explore the White Line Woodcut Print, featuring the work of artist Marilyn Syme, OSHER@Dartmouth Office, 7 Lebanon St, Suite 107

4:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.

Poems for Camilla and Other Truths (Greece Under Water), with Rachel Hadas, sponsored by Leslie Center for the Humanities, Carpenter 013

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

Film: “If Beale Street Could Talk,” directed by Barry Jenkins, Black Family Visual Arts Center, Loew Auditorium

TOMORROW 12:15 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Mindfulness in the Museum, led by a member of Dartmouth’s Mindfulness Practice Group, Hood Museum of Art

4:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.

Lecture: The Trans/National Shaping of Post-Revolutionary Mexican Visual Culture, with Ignacio Sánchez Prado, Horacio Legrás, Adela Pineda Franco and Sergio Delgado-Moya, Carpenter 13

7:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Dartmouth Women’s Basketball vs. the University of Pennsylvania, Leede Arena

ADVERTISING For advertising information, 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 01999931

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2019

D’Souza lectures, sparking protests FROM D’SOUZA PAGE 1

friend from college, Wendy Long ’82, and Kirsten Gillibrand ’88.

President Donald Trump pardoned D’Souza in 2018.

At the event on Monday, College Republicans president Josh Kauderer ’19 introduced D’Souza by welcoming him back to Hanover on behalf of the group. Kauderer said he was “grateful” that D’Souza was willing to speak at Dartmouth despite the “hostile environment” toward prominent conservative alumni. He also emphasized the College Republicans’ belief in a freedom to express one’s opinion.

Department of Safety and Security director Keysi Montás was present at the event along with three other Safety and Security officers stationed around Filene Auditorium “making sure the crowd was moving” and that everyone remained safe.

After a short introduction video, D’Souza took the stage and spoke about issues he believes to be most important in contemporary American politics, centering on the idea of “walls” — including Trump’s proposed wall along the country’s southern border — as well as walls in a more figurative sense of the word, including identity and who is included inside or outside the wall.

D’Souza acknowledged the dissenters at the start of his address and said he “would be happy to engage those ideas in the question and answer session.”

He discussed what he called “a broken immigration system.”

D’Souza said that his route to the U.S. cost much more than those crossing through the southern border.

“Quite frankly, we don’t have a Rio Grande that we can come thrashing across or a ditch that we can tunnel under to get to America,” D’Souza said.

He claimed that Trump does not “hate immigrants” but instead “hates illegals.” He said that those crossing illegally into the country are taking advantage of other immigrants seeking a legal path to the U.S. D’Souza also spoke about American exceptionalism, claiming that not all cultures are equal. He added that coming to the U.S. provided him with not only material prosperity, but also a chance to escape his destiny.

The question and answer section focused on free speech and the significance of having D’Souza on campus.

O n e a u d i e n c e m e m b e r ’s question criticized D’Souza’s approach of addressing many topics briefly rather than going into depth in any one topic. D’Souza

PAGE 5

THE DARTMOUTH NEWS

responded by saying that he hopes his lecture serves as an introduction to his ideas and that interested students can read his books or watch his YouTube videos for more in-depth discussion.

Members of the College Republicans executive board Daniel Bring ’21 and Charles Schneider ’22 noted that from the perspective of the College Republicans, D’Souza’s speech was not meant to be polarizing or controversial.

“On our side of the aisle, D’Souza is a well-respected, wellregarded individual,” Bring said.

“When we are selecting speakers for the benefit of our members, we don’t really take into account ... the views that we already think are echoed more than enough on Dartmouth’s campus.”

Bring and Schneider said that the College Republicans anticipated the protest and that they thought it would be impossible to find a speaker who would not draw opposition.

“As the Dartmouth College Republicans, we know that we’re a minority on campus in terms of political beliefs,” Schneider said. “We come into it with that expectation.”

Kauderer said in his introduction to D’Souza’s speech that the College Republicans recognized the right to protest, but that any person making it impossible for D’Souza to speak would face disciplinary consequences.

A g roup of 12 protester s gathered in the hallway signing protest anthems and carrying signs with messages like “Warning: fascist on campus,” “Fags against fascists” and “No platfor m 4 hate.” At various intervals, a few protesters entered the hall where D’Souza spoke and carried the signs through the crowd.

Some students made distracting noises during the speech, such as loudly tearing plastic wrapping off of water bottles. A pair of students draped in gay pride attire walked to the front of the room and passionately kissed while D’Souza spoke.

Ellie Gonzalez ’19 used protest to convey dissatisfaction in the College Republicans for bringing a speaker who has “acted with malicious intent towards queer people,” expressing determination to express frustration in a public, attention-drawing way.

“Our right to exist is not up for debate, and until they get on board with that, I’m going to show up to every event in my gayest outfit and protest any way I damn well please,” Gonzalez said.

During a later interruption by the protesters, D’Souza paused his remarks and joked with the

audience.

“I guess this is what they call hate speech,” he said. “I’ve got to be more careful. You’d think I’d have been slinging insults since I came in here.”

D’Souza strayed from his speech a second time to address the protesters, saying they were “not willing to do the intellectual work” and “too lazy” to properly debate him.

Catherine Rocchi ’19 came to the event as a silent protester and expressed exasperation in the fact that the College Republicans chose a conservative figure who was as controversial as D’Souza.

“Someone like Dinesh D’Souza is not going to change anyone’s mind,” Rocchi said. “What he’s saying is absolutely ridiculous.”

She said she did not think the College Republicans brought him to Dartmouth with the hope of “winning people over or stimulating a real intellectual discussion,” but instead wanted “to make a splash.”

In contrast to promoting free speech like the College Republicans aimed to do, Rocchi felt that D’Souza’s event did little to promote a debate and instead incited feelings of anger and frustration.

Mariana Peñaloza ’22 described feeling angry and disappointed when the College Republicans announced that D’Souza was speaking on campus “because they do it as a trigger rather than actually wanting to have a political conversation.”

College Republicans member Brian Drisdelle ’21 said he was frustrated by the “lazy” and “childish” nature of the protests.

“In all honesty, I hope that people sort of stop with the craziness,” Drisdelle said. “I can’t stop them from doing anything, it seems to be the way the trend is going, but you would think intellectuals would have a little more integrity than screaming like children outside [the] door.”

Students used more dramatic attention-drawing methods of protest to emphasize that D’Souza could “really make some people on campus feel unsafe,” according to Rocchi.

“Some people probably wanted to make the College Republicans feel as though as they shouldn’t bring such extreme, incendiary speakers to campus anymore, since this is becoming a pattern since [David Horowitz spoke on campus] back in the fall,” she said.

Montás expressed satisfaction at how the talk turned out.

“Everybody said their piece and everybody I think had a dialogue, as contentious as it could be,” Montás said.

College aims for 102 additional scholarships FROM SCHOLY PAGE 1

“250 for Dartmouth’s 250” project.

This initiative, in honor of the College’s 250th anniversary, calls for alumni to donate a total of 250 endowed scholarships to students in need of financial aid by the end of the year as a way to celebrate the milestone of the College’s founding. Endowed scholarships are established by donors and invested with the College’s endowment, thus ensuring that they retain their value in perpetuity. These scholarships would contribute directly to Dartmouth students and continue Dartmouth’s tradition of need-blind admissions.

Though alumni have already committed enough donations to fund 148 endowed scholarships, the College is now aiming for 102 additional scholarships of $100,000 or more to hit the ultimate goal of 250 by the end of 2019.

“I think of all of the initiatives in [the Call to Lead] campaign, this is the one I am most excited [about] because I know Dartmouth alumni are generally excited to support this,” said Ellie Loughlin ’89, trustee and co-chair for the Call to Lead campaign.

The Call to Lead campaign — which has already raised almost $2 billion — is aiming to raise at least $500 million for financial aid, with endowed scholarships comprising a large component of this objective.

Loughlin added that since financial

aid occupies a large presence in the capital campaign, one of the best ways for people to get involved is to donate to an endowed scholarship fund.

“Financial aid is the best way to ensure that Dartmouth can educate the best students, the most talented, diverse and qualified pool of students who apply,” she said. “By having the best financial aid program, we’re able to just offer them the opportunity to study at Dartmouth and we know that it will continue from there.”

In an effort to increase the number of donors, the project has been publicizing the importance of financial aid for current and future Dartmouth students and communicating to potential donors the difference that an endowed scholarship could make in a student’s life, according to Loughlin.

College spokesperson Diana Lawrence wrote in an email statement that the endowed scholarships will “provide vital assistance to firstgeneration and low-income students” as well as “create a more level playing field” for all Dartmouth students.

“What I see in this campaign is that the things I love the most about Dartmouth are actually getting better,” Loughlin said. “I think what inspires me is that Dartmouth is a really incredible place. Our reputation is going to continue to get better and our students who are there are stronger and stronger each year, so it’s exciting to be a part of it. It’s an honor to get the support for them.”

SNOW IN THE WOODS

MICHAEL LIN/THE DARTMOUTH SENIOR STAFF

Snow covers the porch of House Center B after a week of warm weather.

PAGE 6

CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST MARIANA PEÑALOZA ’22

STAFF COLUMNIST STEVEN CHUN ’19

Consider Your Words

A Return to Education

Ignorance isn’t an excuse anymore.

I can’t speak anymore — not without people attaching the same searing comment, like a parasite, after every point I make. It’s rattled in my brain since my first term here as a freshman.

The “Feisty Latina.” Sometimes “spicy,” if they’re feeling unconventional.

I spent my first term looking for safe spaces on campus and non-threatening people to be friends with. I thought I found them. While I was having dinner with some of these friends, they spewed trigger words like “illegal” immigration, reverse racism and overused welfare. I felt uncomfortable.

I was the only woman at the table. I was the only minority at the table. I was having dinner with privileged, affluent and predominantly white students who never understood what those inaccurate words meant — that these phrases were created to undermine people like me.

I tried to explain this. Immigration is not illegal. Racism feeds on existing white supremacy and colonization indoctrinated even when white people are the minority. Income disparity directly targets black and brown communities because of racism and creates an unbreakable cycle. And that’s when he said, “I know you’re a feisty Latina, but relax.”

Immediately, my identity became their favorite justification for ignoring my experiences and opinions. I was talked at, not talked to. I can’t ignore this, but can I forgive it? Can I forgive willful ignorance? No. I can’t. I won’t.

I grew up around ignorant people, but I don’t blame them. I lived in Hialeah, Florida and went to school in Opa Locka and North Miami, but understood I was fortunate. I had teachers and mentors who told me to transfer to magnet schools independent of my zip code, which I did about three times. This meant I went to the one of the few well-resourced schools around impoverished neighborhoods. But racism and income inequality robbed the other minority students of resources they needed to wage war against ignorance. What teachers could help them navigate underfunded education systems? What support did they have besides themselves? Yet with them, my identity was never vilified, reduced and fetishized. Their ignorance was a product of circumstance: of being black, brown, Latinx and poor.

Coming to Dartmouth, every conversation I have becomes political. People wonder about my opinion, only to radicalize ideas I never thought

were radical and question an identity I never used to have to explain. I’m tired of excusing the attempts to silence my dissent and subversion; my presence here does both. I’m fighting in unknown terrain — where the privileged have the territorial advantage. My words are non-violent and my responses are reactive. Why, then, am I demonized and painted as destructive? I ran out of excuses for those whose comments disparage me, but I shouldn’t have to excuse the comments that feed into stereotypes and share a dalliance with micro-dehumanization. Do your research. Learn about worlds outside of the parochial Dartmouth bubble. Eduroam not working doesn’t validate the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes that reinforce bigoted narratives. I understand — as a first-generation, low-income minority — that coming to Dartmouth doesn’t break down all barriers, but ignorance is not a viable excuse.

The label — feisty Latina — feels like a sick joke.

I’m the punchline necessary for comedic relief when talking about serious, controversial issues.

In and outside the classroom, the juxtaposition between the epithet feisty Latina and the eloquent, yet passionate, (white) student belittles my political power while elevating their perspective. Beyond the insidious stratification of my ideas and making them irredeemable, the use of the label as men’s trademark flirtatious rhetoric towards me is not sexy. I’m asked to speak Spanish on command, like a party trick, when people notice I speak English with an accent. I say I’m Colombian and Peruvian, and people wonder about “Narcos” or joke about substance abuse. I talk about my family, and somehow I always have to explain that the term “anchor baby” is inappropriate.

Criticizing immigration and foreign policy renders me synonymous to “illegality.” It proves to me that people don’t try to see me beyond Latina. Yes, my identity shapes my experiences. But shouldn’t people want to see beyond that label? Understand my experiences? Not stereotype them and impose them onto other Latinxs or impose other Latinx experiences onto me?

Consider what minority students on a campus that was never meant for them feel when they hear stereotypes as your truths. Actively participate and engage in conversations that highlight minority voices rather than dismiss them. Facing oppression is not new for me, but there is no reason I should continue to put up with it.

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

ZACHARY BENJAMIN, Editor-in-Chief IOANA SOLOMON, Executive Editor ALEXA GREEN, Managing Editor PRODUCTION EDITORS MATTHEW BROWN & LUCY LI, Opinion Editors NIKHITA HINGORANI & CAROLYN ZHOU Mirror Editors MARK CUI, ALEX FREDMAN & EVAN MORGAN, Sports Editors JOYCE LEE & LEX KANG, Arts Editors CAROLYN SILVERSTEIN, Dartbeat Editor DIVYA KOPALLE & MICHAEL LIN, Photo Editors

VINAY REDDY, Interim Publisher AMANDA ZHOU, Executive Editor SONIA QIN, Managing Editor BUSINESS DIRECTORS BRIAN SCHOENFELD & HEEJU KIM, Advertising Directors SARAH KOVAN & CHRISTINA WULFF, Marketing & Communications Directors CAYLA PLOTCH, Product Development Director BHARATH KATRAGADDA & JAY ZHOU, Strategy Directors ERIC ZHANG, Technology Director

BELLA JACOBY & SUNNY TANG, Design Editors HATTIE NEWTON, Templating Editor

ISSUE

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2019

THE DARTMOUTH OPINION

LAYOUT: Abby Mihaly, Emily Sun

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.

What a grade inflation report reveals about Dartmouth’s view of education.

Four years ago, Dartmouth formed the Ad Hoc Committee on Grading Practices and Grade Inflation, and to quote Douglas Adams, “This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” Of course, the rationale seems both simple and unimpeachable: Dartmouth gives a lot of As, and if we keep going about it this way, soon everyone will have an A (and if that happens, Dartmouth isn’t doing its job). I added the part in parentheses because it’s an implicit assumption of Dartmouth’s approach toward education, and because I want the reader to read it in a stuffy bureaucratic voice that undermines it as a normative assumption about what Dartmouth’s job is. A giver of welldistributed grades is a terrible way to think about a college education.

I bring up this committee and its aims not because I care much about the issue of grade inflation, but because I’m interested in what a proposal to combat grade inflation reveals about the way Dartmouth views the value of education.

A close reading of the 2015 AHCPG report reveals an unsurprising focus: diligent, rigorous coursework. This author claims that focus isn’t as well grounded in research as one would think.

Now, let’s be clear — I love class. An hour or two with a truly engaging professor, not too early in the morning, and provided some coffee, is absolutely part of a college day well spent. Also the Committee’s reasoning given the data is quite excellent. However, in interrogating the method of grading, the Committee fails to give sufficient consideration to the purpose of grading, and by extension, the purpose of college. Unfortunately, that is not an easy purpose to define. In economics, there are two ways to view college: The first is that one goes to college to get an education — education being loosely defined, yet monotonically good. The second is that one goes to college to signal value to future employers — which is both quite depressing and well supported (the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics was given to three economists who essentially established this idea).

But, the idea is still fairly simple. If we ignore, for a moment, the possibility that college is simply a fancy plume in a complex mating ritual with the labor market, then people go to college because they get something out of it.

No matter what you might hear, that “something” is not well defined. However, the AHCGPG report seems to think it is. The report concludes with these words: “Too many Dartmouth students have too many activities outside of their classes ... Students need to refocus and understand that they are at Dartmouth to get an education. They have access to world-class faculty, and they need to make the most of their coursework. Extracurricular activities should be just that extra — what they do in their spare time and not their primary focus.” Dartmouth students are indeed here to get an education, but we should not make the mistake of conflating classroom performance with educational return.

There is every reason — or at least as much reason — to believe that extracurricular activities, from socializing, to mountaineering, to activism, to artistic performance, to even — God forbid — writing for a newspaper, constitute a substantial, if not majority, share of the educational returns from college. If there is one document that

has guided my college experience, it has been sociologist Andrew Abbott’s 2002 University of Chicago “Aims of Education” speech. In it, he argues, “No one has ever taken a thousand bright, ambitious young people like yourselves and sent them not to college but instead to some other, equally challenging, intellectual environment that did not involve classroom instruction, courses, curricula, and so on.” There simply isn’t enough evidence to make the causal claim that classwork is indeed why we go to college.

Now, it’s often said that while the details of coursework fade, the general cognitive skills remain. Abbott disagrees: “There is no consistent evidence for a substantial net effect (say a 20 percent or more positive effect) of college instruction on oral communication skills, written communication skills, general reflective judgment, or intellectual flexibility, although there is moderate evidence for some kind of minor effect in all these areas.” Yet, college is a formative four years. We are volatile hormone sacs whose experiences here will be deeply ingrained into our psyche. As such, the things we do extra curriculum might very well be some of the few things we retain.

I will submit that the hard sciences and other fields for which post-college pursuits require vast amounts of technical domain knowledge may see a larger share of their educational return in coursework, but still not all. I also do not mean to suggest that the purpose of college lies entirely in its effects on one’s worldly life post-grad. The value system I have cultivated at Dartmouth, the mistakes I’ve made and the way this place has guided my natural maturation will be lessons greater in gravity and longevity than nearly any of those in Silsby or Sudikoff.

And yet, the grading strategies suggested by AHCGPG reflect this narrow view of education.

They cite a compelling study out of the University of California, San Diego demonstrating that students actually put in fewer hours per week when they expect a higher grade and vice-versa. The study’s specification is airtight, but it measures the relationship between expected grades and hours worked — not the relationship between grading standards and educational impact. Referencing said study implies that a student who spends more hours on coursework is a better educated student.

My favorite saying in economics is that “revealed preference does not lie.” In countless surprising ways, the choices human beings make, while seemingly flawed, tend to be based on fairly accurate valuations of each choice.

So, if intelligent, motivated college students are spending so many hours, of their own volition, on extracurriculars rather than coursework, it is because they are optimizing their education.

So really, I don’t have a qualm with tackling grade inflation. The AHCGPG is almost certainly right that it’s highly unlikely that over half of all grades for a year should be A- or above. But it’s certainly wrong if it thinks that doing A quality work is the sole goal of college — or even the greatest source of a college education’s worth.

Grades are only valuable in what they can do to point students toward a richer educational experience. Dartmouth does a disservice to its students if it sacrifices the richness of life here in the name of academic rigor. There’s simply too much to learn.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2019

PAGE 7

THE DARTMOUTH OPINION

STAFF COLUMNIST STEVEN ADELBERG ’21

STAFF COLUMNIST DAN FISHBEIN ’19

Declare Independence

Cancel “Canceled”

Why Howard Schultz should make an independent run for president.

The 2020 presidential election is rapidly approaching. President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign war chest grows to over $100 million; meanwhile, more and more Democrats are announcing their campaigns to replace him.

America is not ready for another round of the polarizing, tribalistic turf war that increasingly defines this country’s presidential politics.

Tensions still run deep from the toxic 2016 elections, and little suggests that the entrenched party elite on either side of the aisle will jostle for power in 2020 with any more civility than last time.

The American people deserve better than another unfair ultimatum between two morally bankrupt party establishments that prove all too eager to sacrifice principle for power.

No American should tolerate a Democratic National Committee that weaponizes identity politics for virtue signaling, only to do little more than wring their hands over blackface when it threatens their command over Virginia. Nor should any decent voter support the Republican leadership that espouse a constitutionalist free market worldview only to stand by the megalomaniac-in-chief who threatens it most when he can give them a boost in the midterms.

The American experiment is not a game that exists for the self-gratification of 21st-century oligarchs: America is a principled stand against all odds that governance by and for the people can ensure life, liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness for all.

If neither party can pretend to represent what it truly means to be an American, then average Americans shouldn’t help them maintain their charade. Americans must be bold if they hope to restore consent of the governed and elect leadership that reflects the national character. Just as the colonists of old needed the Founding Fathers to declare independence from a useless ruling class across the Atlantic, the American people need strong leadership to launch a 2020 electoral revolt against the feckless political class of today. We need a proven leader who is not afraid to stand on his conscience against the odds to fight for an ideal: we need Howard Schultz to launch his independent campaign for President of the United States.

An independent run for president in 2020 is possible because it is necessary: too many Americans on both sides of the aisle feel disillusioned and disenfranchised by an unaccountable political system that rewards radicalism and keeps the unscrupulous in power.

Only 20 percent of Americans approve of Congress, only 41 percent approve of President Trump and only 45 percent approve of the Democratic Party. These distressingly low crude barometers of public support for the political system only begin to scratch the surface of the dissatisfaction America feels toward its political system. Sizeable segments of the electorate could be mobilized at the ballot box by an independent movement that presents itself as a viable alternative to the status quo — in the spirit of free choice, these millions of Americans deserve their own candidate that can express their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

An independent candidate would

not necessarily be a spoiler because the dissatisfaction with America’s fraught politics stretches across both sides of the aisle — an independent revolt against today’s two-party system does not have to be a partisan maneuver.

With 39 percent of the electorate, independents are already the nation’s largest voting bloc by party affiliation: this base alone is more than enough to mount a competitive bid for president. Republican support of President Trump is also likely overstated; many of the #NeverTrump Republicans who now back Trump may do so simply because they fear the Democratic alternative more. Even still, an NPR analysis shows that only 83 percent of Republicans approve of Trump — those who do not would be likely to back a centrist alternative that does not carry Trump’s political baggage.

Combined with the center-left voters that an independent candidate may pull from a fractious Democratic Party, an independent could attract a broad bipartisan coalition in 2020, like French President Emmanuel Macron’s winning coalition of 2017 or Ross Perot’s competitive independent campaign of 1992. These outsider candidacies were not “spoilers” that threw the election to an unpopular candidate: they were competitive bids for president that permanently altered the course of national politics.

Howard Schultz is well-positioned to make this bid for president: he already has the resources, contacts, credentials and persona to mount a successful independent bid. He is a self-made business magnate who rose from the projects of Brooklyn to build his sociallyconscious Starbucks Corporation to greatness.

Schultz can bring clarity and a can-do attitude to a political world where voters still search for an honest politician. His American Dream life story can also have broad appeal in this time of economic uncertainty. Schultz’s $3.5 billion net worth combined with his contacts as a CEO and former Democratic donor could easily seed the billion-dollar war chest he must build to win the presidency. His unique message of delivering better social programs to those who need them most by fighting federal waste and balancing the federal budget can resonate with broad swathes of voters who see the human cost of America’s inefficient political system.

America needs Howard Schultz to make an independent bid for president in 2020. Both Democrats and Republicans are too beholden to the status quo to make the change that the United States needs. America needs to unite behind real reforms that reflect America’s founding values: only an independent can make the bipartisan stand on principle that this country needs. Independence is hard — it is not easy to voice one’s conscience on the campaign trail or at the ballot box without the assured backing of the American people. But when the social order is as morally bankrupt as it was in 1776 and as irredeemable as it is today in 2019, integrity and progress demand that Americans declare independence from the old to make room for the new. The future beckons — only time will tell if America can seize this opportunity to restore the integrity of the American experiment in life, liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness.

To end bigotry, learning social impact skills means much more than “protest.”

When convicted illegal campaign contributor Dinesh D’Souza ’83 tweeted Tuesday morning about his lecture at Dartmouth Monday night, he had little to say about the content of his “A World Without Walls” speech. Perhaps D’Souza — who started his career as provocateur by outing gay classmates while editor of The Dartmouth Review and has since gone on in his numerous books and movies to make abhorrent statements that do not merit repetition — felt as though his followers already knew what his brand of hatred had to say about the border. More likely, though, D’Souza saw an opportunity to stir up his base. “...the campus leftists yelled, chanted, obstructed, & even cried!” D’Souza wrote.

“Despite the best efforts of these little fascistsin-training, the event went on ...” Fox News reporter Heather Childs parroted this idea in her coverage of D’Souza’s visit, claiming on Twitter and television that protestors had “harassed” and “verbally attacked” him.

Neither D’Souza, the College Republicans nor the activists deviated much from the script of alt-right “resistance” that observers of politics in 2019 should by now feel familiar with. D’Souza called Dartmouth a “hostile environment,” not far from David Horowitz criticizing “the hatred” the College showed him during his October visit. The College Republicans claimed that their invitation for D’Souza to speak demonstrated their commitment to defending “free speech.”

Not too long ago, Tucker Carlson theorized that “an axis of left-wing corporate power, academia, media and lawmakers have all aligned to curb your right to speak freely”; in fact, he or some other Fox News talking head might be calling for a defense of “free speech” this very moment. Unfortunately, the sign wavers and chanters — and, just as with Horowitz, the public kissers — again demonstrated that as long as people like D’Souza want money and infamy and Republican students want to feel victimized, the “social justice warriors” will let the Right indulge this persecution fantasy through these theatrical “protests.”

The protesters of far-right provocateurs should stop giving them what they really want, this same-old outrage that sells well in conservative tabloids. If students want to take action against hatred, they can still do so, but they must choose different means. An effective Left would give the Right what they claim to want but should fear: willingness to “engage those ideas,” in D’Souza’s words.

Such engagement need not take the form of an actual debate. It remains to be seen whether campus agitators like D’Souza would oblige a strenuous question and answer session.

Perhaps D’Souza and his far-right friends have deluded themselves into thinking they’d win, as evidenced by College Republicans executives’ description of D’Souza as a “well-respected, well-regarded individual.” If these executives wanted an actual debate rather than a race bait, maybe they could call up Condoleezza Rice or David Brooks to represent the best of what their side has to offer. Between now

and then, though, when it comes to D’Souza and others making blindfolded whiffle bat swings at polemics, students need not feel that they themselves must debunk the junk.

This should come as good news to students who might, justifiably, feel targeted by vitriolic viewpoints and do not wish to hear D’Souza’s dehumanizing words (although, according to another D’Souza tweet, a “vast majority” of those who called him “racist” were white).

Would-be protesters can stay home, because professors have already done this homework.

Academic reviewers have called D’Souza’s work “a parody of scholarship,” “out of context” and “a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia.” Maybe Republicans would call that liberal bias. Then it would become clear which side obstructs truth.

To make their ideas really win, Leftist students don’t need to argue with their opposition — they need to get to work. The data shows that certain social conditions foster the sort of white nationalism people like D’Souza seize upon. The 2016 American National Election Survey asked respondents to rate how strongly they felt toward the importance of their whiteness, white solidarity and feelings of white victimization. The people who felt these three categories were “very” or “extremely important” had a strong correlation with not having a college degree, being unemployed or making a household income under $30,000.

As Dartmouth students, many of us will go on to have an outsized contribution on our society and our world. I do not mean to say that Dartmouth students can simply descend from this Ivy tower and wave their magic degrees to make everyone equal. But facts prove that white nationalism stems from low education and poverty. Facts prove that to combat these real problems, defunded public schools need teachers and administrators, and a broken economy needs equitable policymakers. Facts prove that to combat the effects of racism and inequality that result in part from white nationalism, urban hospitals need doctors, and incarcerated people need effective lawyers. All these jobs require a stellar skillset, for which Dartmouth provides one of the best training grounds.

If students want to continue to protest with flashy signs, chants or hookup partners, they have every right to do so. Safety and Security will make sure that students don’t get hurt, D’Souza will make fun of them and College Republicans will feel like they have proved a point. We have seen this process play out time and time again. In my four years here, Milo Yiannapolous has come, Horowitz has come, D’Souza has come. More will keep on coming, and students will keep on protesting.

We don’t need to see more protests that fuel these provocateurs’ fire. What we need to see more of is a generation of committed young people blessed with an opportunity to learn how to solve problems do their best to prepare themselves for future battle against the unjust and inequitable socioeconomic structures that haunt America today. What we need is to give D’Souza his engagement of ideas.

PAGE 8

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2019

THE DARTMOUTH ARTS

Leonard Cohen’s ‘You Want it Darker’ inspires beyond the grave B y madison Wislon The Dartmouth Staff

We are so concerned with what is new and exciting in music that we often forget the artists we’ve lost, the artists that even from the grave figure prominently in our collective imagination. Big names have died in the last few years — Tom Petty, David Bowie, Aretha Franklin — and it feels like time is running out for the musicians who inspired popular music today.

Leonard Cohen is one such artist.

Cohen passed away in November 2016 at 83, but still inspires people with his not-quite-music-notquite-spoken-word pieces years later.

Cohen is well known for his hits like “Suzanne” and “Hallelujah,” but I’ve always felt deeply connected to his final album, “You Want it Darker.”

Released 19 days before Cohen’s death, there’s a cheerful sadness running through the work. I remember listening to “You Want it Darker” while running in the New Hampshire forest, wondering if Cohen believed in God or despised him, or both. The artist had died a year before, but I felt his presence through his music. I wondered at

my own relationship to God, life and death. I think it’s telling that a teenage girl, struggling to adjust to college and a new way of life, could find solace in the final work of a dead man. I’m not sure if it’s Cohen’s reckoning with faith and God or his disaffection with mortality that makes the message so universal. How should we examine the final work of a man who knew he was going to die?

Cohen wrote and produced the album in his living room, crippled by constant spinal fractures and unable to leave his home . Death was imminent. While the work is gloomy, it isn’t depressing or fatalistic. He meditates on God and death with a characteristic wry humor unique to someone who knew death was coming.

In the title and opening track, “You Want it Darker,” Cohen juxtaposes a Gregorian chantlike opening with choral rapture (“Heneni, heneni”). The song meditates on the human versus the divine, where if God is “magnified, sanctified” then the human is “vilified, crucified.” Cohen establishes a series of binaries, symbolized by the see-saw between gloomy chant and raucous violin.

This is the “paradox”: humans will never achieve perfection, except maybe in death. Perhaps this is why Cohen is “ready, My Lord” — ready for death and ready to find clarity.

“Treaty” shows that Cohen is not entirely at peace with his God — “I’m angry and I’m tired all the time” — he wishes there were a treaty, some way to simplify faith and love. I wonder if he yearned for clarity but knew he would not find it.

In “On the Level,” Cohen croons, “I was fighting with temptation, but I didn’t want to win.” His relationship with God feels hedonistic yet real, a fervent celebration of faith. Cohen rejoices in his own flaws and exchanges puritanical self-hatred for selfacceptance. Seeing death always on the horizon brought Cohen to terms with human mortality and frailty and showed him some truth about life that those who listen to his music can only paw at. Then he says, “They ought to give my heart a medal for getting over you.” At first I thought “you” was a woman.

Then I thought, is “you” God? Or perfection? There is beauty in not knowing.

“ L e a v i n g T h e Ta b l e ” contemplates the kind of clearheaded apathy that comes with old age and a life lived fully.

In a New Yorker interview a month before his death, Cohen said, “At a certain point ... you have a chance to put your house in order.” I believe Cohen was not only talking about his family, but his own self — now he had the time to sort through himself and put himself in order. Yet, in “If I Didn’t Have Your Love,” he realizes that life has no meaning without faith. For my generation, steeped in nihilism, this message is particularly potent.

“Traveling Light” is somewhat humorous and joyful, shedding a heavy burden and enjoying the community of fellow travelers.

Like the rest of the album, we can interpret this in many ways — has Cohen lost his religion? His ties to mortality? — but the beauty of this work is its mutability, that each time I listen I find some new meaning. “It Seemed the Better Way” again speaks of faith but with a removed weariness. Cohen writes with a self-aware confusion — is he a slave to God, or liberated by it?

Are atheism and nihilism freeing,

or simply another form of chains?

The work is full of contradictions that I still grapple with, years after first listening.

The whole album is like a short journey following Cohen putting his own house in order before moving on to a new adventure.

However, Cohen’s death brings up some questions: is it right to interpret “You Want it Darker” under the lens of Cohen’s death?

Or should we ignore this fact and listen to the work divorced from its artist? Art will always outlast the artist. How do we listen to music after the creator is gone?

When Marianne Ihlen, Cohen’s longtime lover and friend, was on her deathbed, Cohen wrote in a final letter: “Know that I am so close behind you that if you stretch out your hand, I think you can reach mine. ” Those who listen to Cohen’s final work feel his hand stretching, too. Cohen’s looming mortality has always defined his music, but far from the “godfather of gloom” of common description, his sense of his own mortality is romantic and comforting. Perhaps death is not so scary, but rather feels like a hand reaching out to welcome us into the next stage.

‘Roma’ captures the mudanity of daily life but lacks emotion B y Veronica Winham The Dartmouth

As a film-goer, I watch movies to escape reality — to dive into a fantasy and feel immersed in a new environment. All of this is accomplished by the trademarks of a film: action, dialogue and acting. It’s clear from the movies that often win at the box office that most audiences also appreciate similarly exciting, enthralling films.

Yet among the films most critically lauded this year is Alfonso Cuarón’s semi-autobiographical film “Roma.”

As a film, Roma is not the most exciting, nor the most interesting.

There’s so much in this movie that forces the viewer to confront a brutal reality, rather than escaping into another world. I personally found it hard to sit through over two hours of this film, which juxtaposes the difficult issues of sexism, poverty and racism in a stark storyline where monumental events are interspersed with images of the protagonist, Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio) , living her daily

life as an indigenous live-in maid for a middle-class family in Mexico City. There are parts of this film where viewers watch Cleo fulfill her daily chores, from washing dishes to doing the laundry — nothing more, nothing less. Cuarón puts in these scenes to build the world around Cleo and confront the viewer with the monotony of her life, yet while watching Cleo, I couldn’t help but feel the supreme boredom inherent in the scene. This is most likely the boredom she also feels in her life, a boredom that she alleviates with brief outings with her friends and boyfriend, Fermin.

These scenes of daily life are increasingly jolted by events such as a pregnancy, an affair, a student protest and the threat of drowning — it mimics that patterns of real life, where unexpected life events sometimes jolt our own daily routines.

Yet while I understand this choice, I did not enjoy it. It’s hard to say that I was especially engaged and interested while watching Cleo sweep or clean

the house, especially for great lengths of time. The slow-pace of the film and the overall minimal dialogue might help add to the rather bleak atmosphere and the overall mood — again to reinforce the idea that Cleo feels this sense of stupor all of the time. But I must admit, it’s not enjoyable as a viewer.

Cleo is undoubtedly the core of this film; she is the perspective through whom we see the world around her. Yet as a viewer, one often feels frustrated as she is often rendered mute and powerless in her interactions with her boyfriend and the family she works for. Her expressions are sometimes all the viewer has to go by to see her inner life; she is sometimes rendered as almost a background character, someone standing by while the action takes place around her. This clearly works as a depiction of how someone in her position — an indigenous person, a maid, a woman — might feel they must act at all times, yet I could feel myself feeling more

disconnected as the film continued.

In the beginning, I could empathize with the emotions she would have been feeling, but it began to feel as though, instead of empathizing, I was feeling the emotions that Cleo should feel – horror, anger, sadness, despair – for her. Eventually, I turned off these feelings and moved through the rest of the movie just as removed and unconnected as Cleo.

I understand that this may be to force viewers to confront the fact that Cleo is most likely numb to many of the things that happen to her; her role as a background figure, as a marginalized character overwhelms any emotions that she might feel. However, as audience member, I find it important to live vicariously through characters. Her lack of emotion, even in a private space, made it difficult to connect and understand Cleo as a full person. In the effort to make viewers confront the reality of Cleo’s identity, I wonder if Cuarón took away an element of Cleo’s humanity and complexity as

a person.

Much of the movie industry relies on the fact that people watch movies to escape from their daily and mundane lives; Roma defies this entirely and does not provide any sort of escape. While it is clear that this film is an intensely personal piece to the director, and portrays a character who would normally be unacknowledged in a regular Hollywood production, it was difficult for me to make it to the end of this film. I can’t say that it was enjoyable to feel the kind of bleak numbness and frustration that is compounded by the black-and-white imagery, the lack of dialogue and the subtle acting.

In some regards, I think the film might have packed a larger punch as a short film, rather than a feature length piece. My opinion of this film might be controversial, considering Roma is up for 10 Academy Award nominations, but for viewers who are like me and do not normally enjoy art house films, I can’t recommend you watch this movie.