Dartmouth must face its problems rather than avoid them and reinstate the swim test requirement.

This column was originally published on Jan. 17, 2023

First, the former head of the committee, in a statement to The Dartmouth, indicated that this requirement was created during a time when men training to serve in the military needed to know how to swim. A cool bit of Dartmouth trivia, to be sure, but this doesn’t explain why the test got the ax.

Next, the former chair indicated that this change would give students greater flexibility in PE credits and made clear that the decision was not meant to “devalue” the importance of knowing how to swim. I’m not convinced. Without the motivation of the test, students are unlikely to learn to swim and will undoubtedly be less safe as a result.

If the College truly cared about flexibility, it would combine this motivation with a focus on water safety and offer a wider range of swim classes. Currently on the timetable, there are 11 available spots in two time slots! It’s not hard to imagine how 11 spots could cause issues for a 4,500 strong undergraduate population. This isn’t a recent issue. A 2014 local NBC segment showed Dartmouth students struggling to get into a swim class in time to graduate due to limited spots.

The chair continued, saying that the swim test did not test swimming competency or increase water safety. Let me repeat this. They are claiming that the Dartmouth swim test doesn’t test swimming competency. That issue clearly lies within the College’s implementation and design of the test and its classes, not the test itself. If the administration is unhappy with the test, they should change it to better test swimming skills.

Finally, and most importantly, the former chair of the Committee on Instruction said that the swim test created a burden for some students to graduate, mostly students of color. This is true. Those who take swimming lessons before college are those who had enough free time, the money to pay for them and access to water. It follows that students from disadvantaged backgrounds would be most likely to have to take a swim class here at Dartmouth.

However, to borrow a phrase from Kellyanne Conway, this is clearly an “alternative fact.” The swim test does not actually present a burden, as the swim class could fulfill one of the required “wellness” credits for students. Therefore, it would not add to these students’ course loads. Not to mention, it teaches a life saving skill.

In the light of Dartmouth’s measly offering of swim classes, one could claim that the “burden” the administration speaks of is one of its own making.

Just as the D-Plan temporarily helped Dartmouth avoid a housing shortage, Dartmouth’s administration has once again used bogus reasons to avoid facing the problem. If Dartmouth wanted to be an open and equitable institution, it would ensure that students graduate with a complete education. That means realizing disparities both inside and outside of the classroom and taking steps to bridge them. Dartmouth, I’m glad to report, has identified one such disparity — the swim test disproportionately affects students of color. Its answer, however, is to run from the issue, not try to make the swim class and test more inclusive and comprehensive.

Some will ask why the swim test should be a requirement — students will learn how to swim if they want. It’s a fair question. However, by requiring the test, Dartmouth would place a strong emphasis on a life saving skill that some may otherwise be too nervous or busy to learn. Just as we mandate vaccinations, we must also mandate swim lessons for the simple reason that they both save lives.

The logical solution, and one that doesn’t avoid the issue, would be to reinstate the swim test requirement, adjust it to better test swimming competency and expand the availability of swim classes. Use student teachers if need be — there are plenty of certified lifeguards among the students, and I’m sure they would love a solid paycheck. Who wouldn’t, with the exorbitant cost of a Dartmouth education?

Stop the CCP’s Land Grab

This column was originally published on Jan. 19, 2023

Something is rotten in the state of Missouri. In just the last decade, China has snapped up over 40,000 acres of Missouri farmland. The state is emerging as one of several key battlegrounds in which the United States must face down the growing threat of the Chinese Communist Party. States across the country such as California, Texas, Florida and Virginia have all seen rising Chinese land ownership in recent years. With increasing amounts of American land in the hands of the CCP, who are currently waging economic warfare, industrial espionage and an antagonistic foreign policy against us, it’s time to confront this unfortunate reality.

Besides being a fundamental issue of control over our own food supply, there is another national security angle at work here. A number of Chinese purchases just so happen to be near military bases with classifed, cutting-edge technology. As Congress enters into its new legislative session, there is one issue it must consider: how to stop the nefarious creep of the CCP into America’s heartland.

These acquisition eforts are relatively recent in origin. Enter the Smithfeld Corporation, the largest pork producer in the world and an owner of over 40,000 acres of farmland in Missouri alone. In 2013, thanks to Smithfeld lobbying both Republican and Democrat state legislators, Missouri’s state legislature opened up 1% of its farmland to foreign ownership. Just two weeks after the state’s ban on foreign ownership was lifted, Smithfeld was bought by the WH Group, China’s largest pork producer. The WH Group is also owned by one of the richest men in China, Wan Long, a billionaire with ties to the upper echelons of the CCP. With the purchase of Smithfeld, China was estimated to own 1 out of every 4 pigs in the United States.

Missouri is not the only victim of Chinese expansion, nor is this an issue limited to red states in the middle of the country. Between 2009 and 2019, 48 states saw a rise in foreign ownership of farm and forest land in the United States. Overseas owners bought 13 million acres of American land, increasing their share by 60% during this time. In August of 2022, both chambers of California’s state legislature unanimously passed a bill to prevent foreign entities from buying agricultural land in California. Despite this, the bill was ultimately vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom over a technicality. But when Republicans and Democrats unanimously agree on anything — in California of all places — this is a sure sign of the concerns surrounding China’s mounting infuence held by Americans across the country.

High-profle politicians of all stripes see the writing on the wall. Just last week in Virginia, Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin called for the state legislature to send him a bill prohibiting foreign entities tied to the CPP from purchasing farmland. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis is poised to ask state lawmakers to ban China from buying farmland as well. In July of 2021, the then-Chair of the House Appropriations Agriculture-FDA Subcommittee, Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) said that Congress must make sure America does not “have our space invaded by potential adversaries, particularly in the economic realm.” Finally, in July of 2022, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) introduced the Farmland Security Act, which would require the USDA to report on the impact of foreign investment in U.S. agriculture. The bill was signed into law as part of the latest omnibus spending package passed this December. It would seem common sense for the USDA to report on foreign investment in agriculture. To a limited extent, it already does — and such data is available thanks to the Agriculture Foreign Investment Disclosure Act that was passed in 1978. However, its database, run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, relies largely on volunteer reporting. This leads to signifcant gaps between what is listed in the database and the reality on the ground. But, errors and all, the database is still the only comprehensive source of the amount of American land sold to foreign ownership. Grassley and others have noted they will be keeping an eye on the USDA during this current legislative session to ensure that the goals of the Farmland Security Act are being met. Increasing oversight is a good start, but passing legislation — such as Senator Grassley’s planned bill that would prevent Chinese abuse of federal land subsidies — would be an even better step in the right direction. Additionally, land purchases near key military infrastructure further compromise our national security. Last month, the Committee on Foreign Investment permitted a Chinese company whose chairman has been praised as a model laborer by the CCP to build a corn mill in Grand Forks, Nebraska. The plan had attracted so much scrutiny in the frst place because the site is only 12 miles from an Air Force base home to some of the most sensitive military drone technology in the nation. Nor is this the frst time that such a purchase has been made near sensitive infrastructure. The committee must be investigated, and perhaps even overhauled, to prevent a clear and obvious lapse in judgment like this from reoccurring.

Finally, Congress should pass legislation similar to what has already been enacted in Iowa, which bans any foreign entity from owning farmland in the state. However, since friendly nations such as Canada or the Netherlands have extensive American land holdings, Congress should only target hostile nations such as China by barring any person or entity linked to the Chinese Communist Party from owning American farmland. This is ambitious, but it is the common sense move that will protect America’s livelihoods, food supply and national security.

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. For any content that an author or artist submits and that The Dartmouth agrees to publish, the author or artist grants The Dartmouth a royaltyfree, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide and exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish and create derivative works from such content. KAMI ARABIAN, NATALIE DOKKEN & THOMAS LANE, Opinion Editors MEGHAN POWERS & CARIS WHITE, Mirror Editors WILL ENNIS & STEPHANIE SOWA, Sports Editors DANIELLE MULLER & ELEANOR SCHIFINO, Arts Editor CAROLINE KRAMER & ANGELINA SCARLOTTA, Photo Editors PHILIP SURENDRAN, Data Visualization Editor LUCY HANDY Design Editor GRANT PINKSTON Templating Editor TOMMY CORRADO, Multimedia Editors FARAH LINDSEY-ALMADANI, Engagement Editor NINA SLOAN, Crossword Editor LEVI PORT, Podcast Editor EMILY LU, Editor-in-Chief DIVYA CHUNDURU & SAMUEL WINCHESTER Strategy Directors MEHAK BATRA Development Director RACHEL ORLOWSKI Digital Media & Analytics Director BRIAN WANG Finance & Sales Director EMMA JOHNSON Director of Software PRODUCTION EDITORS BUSINESS DIRECTORS AMY PARK, Publisher LAUREN ADLER & ANDREW SASSER, News Executive Editors THOMAS BROWN, CASSIE MONTEMAYOR THOMAS, JACOB STRIER Managing Editors MIA RUSSO, Production Executive Editor