<p>The Review is 25 years old this month, and the current issue is full of reminiscences and reprints from years past. I’ve been reading it for years–it really is one of the most entertaining and influential college papers ever. This article appears in the current issue and draws attention to the powerful influence of one professor in particular, the English department’s Jeffrey Hart. (also a syndicated columnist for many years). The Dartmouth Review has quite a history.</p>
<p>The John Steel referenced in the opening lines was an alum who ran successfully as a petition candidate for the Dartmouth Board of Trustees–sort of a “third party” candicacy, if you will.</p>
<p>I am surprised the Dartmouth Review has not collapsed under the pressure of rampant liberalistism controlling most universities. I figure it is just a matter of time.</p>
<p>I did not realize Dinesh DSouza was a Dartmouth grad. I have read some of his books. His analysis is brilliant. He backs up everything he says with detailed footnotes identifying his supporting materials.</p>
Actually, I think the Review has already weathered the worst over the years, and I predict that some time soon the administration will recognize that its most famous publication is in fact a treasure.</p>
<p>Gosh CGM, what’s the “put-down”? The word “rampant”? I suppose one could take issue with the quantification of rampant, but I really don’t see any value judgement at all in bigmain’s statement.</p>
<p>Why even bring it up? Rampant Liberalism? Okay, how is that not a putdown? And why even say anything? I could have send something about Rampant Conservatism, but I didn’t. </p>
<p>And, please, it was a value judgement, otherwise why not just say something good about the article and leave it at that. Instead, Bigman has to say something negative about liberals.</p>
Rampant liberalism is a true statement. Maybe you should address the poster’s argument instead of attacking him. Oh, I forgot – that’s how liberals argue.</p>
<p>Why did he even bring it up? What was the point except to disparage a group of people. The OP said nothing about it, the article was very nice, and suddenly, a poster has to insult a group of people. Nice and mature. Always got to get a dig in. And what did his comment have to do with anything about the OPs post?</p>
<p>Okay lets discuss Rampant Conservatism. Shall we? Nah, not worth my time.</p>
<p>PS- He attacked first. And I AM A LIBERAL AND PROUD OF IT.</p>
<p>Conservatives name call for no reason out of the blue. That is what conservatives do.</p>
<p>And they insinuate that being a LIBERAL is bad. It is not. </p>
<p>And please explain what Rampant Liberalism in? Oh yeah, we believe in the Constitution and fight for the Bill of RIghts. How awful of us.</p>
<p>Yes, there’s really no reason this has to degenerate into a flame war. I posted the original article because it was about something that interests me, not to make a particular point. As it happens, an important part of the Review’s history (its raison d’etre, actually) has been its battles with the Dartmouth administration, often over ideology, rampant or otherwise. It would be more fun to talk about those episodes and the characters involved than to have another one of those nasty, emotional CC battles :)</p>
Funny, I don’t see the word “citygirlsmom” anywhere in that post. A little sensitive aren’t we? A better criticism would have been to point out that the poster can’t spell liberalism. </p>
<p>
Using your logic, didn’t you just make an attack on conservatives? </p>
<p>The poster can speak for him/herself, but I suspect the point was that colleges are dominated by liberalism. All you have to do is look at faculty surveys to confirm liberal dominance. Do you disagree? If so, do you have any evidence to support your position?</p>