Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!zehntel!ihnp4!mit-eddie!rpk
From: rpk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Krajewski)
Newsgroups: net.college
Subject: Re: ``Dartmouth on Trial''
Message-ID: <1976@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-May-84 19:58:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1976
Posted: Mon May 28 19:58:05 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 06:42:21 EDT
References: <539@dual.UUCP> <1955@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 57


	From: lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney)
	Message-ID: <1955@mit-eddie.UUCP>
	Date: Sun, 27-May-84 14:30:39 EDT

	From: fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair)

	For the uninitiated, the Review is one of a spreading number
	of independent voices on college capmuses that the liberal academic
	establishment regards as heretical.

	-----

	For the uninitiated, the Review is a reactionary William F.
	Buckleyesque rag which gained national notoriety a while back for
	publishing a racist article criticizing some welfare program by
	using a stereotypical "nigger" (dumb, lazy, etc.) talking about the
	issue using a caricature of black ghetto language.

This is certainly true, but it is not the issue.  Even if the Review had
never published such an article, they would have come under the same
duress.  Why is it OK for some groups to be required to answer their
differences of opinion before the usual process of discussion in public
forums ?  In the incident which provoked this discussion, the Review had
done nothing wrong, or worse, Buckleyesque.

There is another issue which is not entirely legal in nature.  It would
seem that Dartmouth does not have to nurture acdemic variety by law, since
they are a private organisation.  Certainly there are other private and
religous institutions of higher learning that are just as close-minded in
their overall makeup as Dartmouth is alleged to be in its.  Why should a
college support academic freedom ?  After all, doesn't it seem to be a lot
more tranquil if you do not have to constantly argue with Marxists,
Baptists, monetarists, anarchists, socialists, capitalists, Hegelians,
existentialists, hippies, punks, old cronies, the Tri-lateral commission,
nerds, jocks, and other assorted flotsam and jetsam ?  But I digress.  The
implication is that intellectually, conservatism at Dartmouth is not
allowed an equal footing with, say corporate or grass-roots liberalism.
What is it like at Dartmouth ?  The Boston Globe article on the Review seemed
a bit equivocal on the climate.  Maybe everybody else just loves to gripe
about how badly they get treated by everybody else.

To give you an example of how convoluted the question can be, take
philosophy at Harvard.  The chairman of the department is Robert Nozick, a
Brooklynite whose {\it Anarchy, State and Utopia} is a libertarian tour de
force.  Another biggie in the department is John Rawls, of almost
aristocratic origins, whose redistributive theory of justice is very
influential.  Harvard is seen as a bastion of liberalism, and here we have
a non-liberal in an important ideological position.  But then again, Rawls
tends to be more popular with the students in the philosophy department.
It is safe to say that Rawls brand of justice is more popular with young
intellectuals than Nozick's, so how did Nozick get where he is ?
-- 
``Bob'' (Robert P. Krajewski)
ARPA:		RpK@MC
MIT Local:	RpK@OZ
UUCP:		genradbo!miteddie!rpk
	or	genradbo!miteddie!mitvax!rpk