Wednesday, February 04, 2009

More Anti-Greek Conspiracies?

Following the recent Judicial Affairs hearings regarding misconduct at off-campus formal events, three Greek organizations have been put on probation for a period spanning Winter Carnival. One of these organizations, Sigma Delt, has the fortune of a former daily dartmouth op-ed editor as a third party advocate. This advocate, Christian Kiely '09, wrote an article in the op-ed section detailing the missing side of the daily rag's administration-friendly story. If it weren't for his stint as editor, I wonder if his piece would have been published in the D considering its sentiment against the administration.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

These things will happen as long as the customers (students) of the College are smarter than the employees. Don't hold your breath, but be thankful that you get to leave after four years.

Anonymous said...

Interesting observation.

Back in the old days when a private school education was only for the affluent elite of New England, the faculty and staff came in large measure from the same socio-economic class, and families, as the students, so there was some evenness in background and ability.

With an arguably-more meritocratic environment today, this situation is no longer. Faculty and students are selected based upon accomplishment. The challenge is in administrative staff. Without the resources of family wealth, the best go where the money is... which is not being a big fish in the small pond that is Dartmouth's mid-level administration.

Yes, the students are in general smarter; no wonder the administrative types act as they do.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of privilege, the D reports on the new DMS plans, influenced in part by the following:

"The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation Jan. 27 report, “Revisiting the Medical School Educational Mission at a Time of Expansion,” calls for medical schools focus more on attracting students from more diverse socioeconomic backgrounds..."

This seems to be more diversity simply for its political correctness. Is not a more-important goal to attract students who desire, post-graduation, to serve those with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, regardless of where the students themselves originate?

Special affirmative action to help a miniority person become a physician helps that one invividual. Pro-active encouragement that physicians, regardless of race, place a higher priority on the Hippocratic oath than a country-club membership helps all.

Anonymous said...

"If it weren't for his stint as editor, I wonder if his piece would have been published in the D considering its sentiment against the administration."

Oh, please. There's no evidence that The D is some pro-administration rag. And it's common sense that their reputation is enhanced by sticking it to the administration, not the other way around. Is the Review really that insecure that it needs to slip in an anti-Daily D (from whom it gets most of its content) comment in every blog post?

Not a Review Schill said...

"There's no evidence that The D is some pro-administration rag."

There are many such examples.

Consider just one: that Will Schpero, whose reporting of the alumni governance debates presented both sides of the story in a neutral way, did not get the editorship role he deserved.

The D "sticks it" to the Administration to a point, when popular to do so, but collapses in the face of administrative intimidation. Follow the money... where does its no-cost space come from?

Anonymous said...

Don't host formals at college owned properties. End of story.

TriDelt said...

Even if you host formals at non-college owned properties (like TriDelt did), then the College admins can still discipline you. And severely too, as they did with TriDelt. Officially, TriDelt was charged with "disorderly conduct," and received one term of social probation and three terms of formal probation.

Anonymous said...

Please explain what social probation and formal probation entail.

Anonymous said...

social probation = no tails or any social event with alcohol served (including joint events with fraternities)

formal probation = no off-campus formals

Anonymous said...

Two points:

1. Failure to get "the editorship role he deserved" does not a scandal make. Could we perhaps assume that there were probably 30 different factors at play in determining who became editor? And why exactly would those who chose the editor in chief care whether the successors were pro- or anti-administration? What benefits would they possibly derive, for themselves or for the paper?

2. The D does in fact pay the College for its office space. It's hard to imagine a scenario in which the College could actually exert any real financial force on The D. And even trying to do so would be disastrous PR for Dartmouth.

Anonymous said...

the d gets enormous offices at highly subsidized costs. sadly, however, i don't think the financial incentive is what makes the d's reporting and editorial opinions a joke. the d is a publication managed and written by dartmouth's intellectual bottom-feeders. anyone who has had a class with many of the most prominent byline names can attest to this, they seriously are (for the most part) shockingly stupid. i don't know what it is about the d and repelling people with intelligence, the independent doesn't seem to be having any problems attracting smart people...

Anonymous said...

I do not know about their relative intellectual ability, but do recall some of the D staffers and opinion writers being "interviewed" (read subjected to an intimidating meeting) by members of the alumni relations office, for not always toeing the party line.

Anonymous said...

The top editors of the D also get stipends, paid for by the College.

Anonymous said...

I heard the stipends came from the paper's own advertising revenue. One guesses the waters between College and student bookkeeping are very muddy. This is certainly the case in other Dartmouth student organizations having independent revenues that are kept and tracked by the College.

Christine S. Tian said...

"The top editors of the D also get stipends, paid for by the College."

That's definitely not true. Any stipend that a D editor does receive, if at all, is paid for by surplus advertising revenue. Again, it's not even confirmed that editors consistently receive stipends at all.

Any college paper has its quality control issues, but the D plays a vital role on campus in keeping students informed, and I say this as a Review editor.

Anonymous said...

The majority of the D's advertisements are for College programs or events. Anon@7:16, while overgeneralizing, is more or less correct.

Anonymous said...

Both The Dartmouth and the dartmouth review have biases, and both tend to align with the philosophies or positions of their funders even though they are not paid to print anything. Why is this a surprise? The D is far more open about its funding anyway.

Anonymous said...

One would hope that a newspaper would align with a philosophy of journalism, to follow a story from the facts and report neutrally, saving opinions for the editorial page. The D takes a bad lesson from the NYTimes, sometimes confusing the op-ed and front pages.

Anonymous said...

No, the dartmouth review takes a bad lesson from The Wall Street Journal. The Journal's parity editorials were so factually errant that it was like they had been written by reviewers.

Anonymous said...

Duh... editorials are Opinions!!! How people Feel as well as Think about things... Which may or may not be based upon facts.

We were talking about the Front pages.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Schpero's coverage of the lawsuit was biased. He just repeated the Review's ideas that there was such a thing as parity and that alumni elect the trustees.

Anonymous said...

We need more journalists who obsess over trivial technicalities.

WOW GOLD said...

fox news is the gold standard

Anonymous said...

"He just repeated...that there was such a thing as parity and that alumni elect the trustees."

Anon 9:30-Scott Meacham: Go Away.

We know the Board elects trustees. You seem incapable of understanding that alumni have a related-but-different election of "trustees," being those individuals they wish to be the "nominees." Schpero's reporting was correct, not biased. To claim he was on the side of the Review and the outsiders is absurd.

Anonymous said...

I disagree. Having a caricature of alumni loyalists is a good thing for the others here.

alumnus/a said...

Alumni have a related-but-different election of "trustees," being those individuals they wish to be the "nominees."

Someone - Meachum? - please explain what anonymous 3:05 is "trying" to say. Is this like "separate but equal"?

Anonymous said...

Is there any word on who's been censoring the Review's archives? The technology guy promised to get to the bottom of it and restore the damage last year but that's starting to seem like an empty promise.

Journalistic ethics, Review style. They get you coming and going.