To the Editor:

Concerning your recent article on Microsoft's antitrust violations ("U.S. v. Consumers," TDR, 10/16/00), I'm certainly not qualified to argue with your assessment of the validity of antitrust legislation overall. One thing I will dispute, however, is the assertion that Microsoft has never harmed consumers.

The argument posited on this point by Mr. Clark is based on an error of logic. The mocking contention of those who side with Microsoft is that were it not for Microsoft, we would be in the dark ages; we'd be using typewriters and carbon paper instead of snazzy word processors with talking paper-clips. In the words of Mr. Clark, "Anyone who has looked at the computer software industry over the past twenty years would be hard pressed to claim that the consumer has been hurt."

The logical error is equating "harming consumers" with "making no progress whatsoever." This is absurd. It is quite possible to harm consumers while the industry continues to progress, if a company's direct efforts are impeding that progress. And indeed, Microsoft has harmed consumers by systematically impeding the progress of the software industry. Progress still happens, of course, but it often happens in spite of Microsoft, not because of them.

Rather than argue the browser issue, which is unfortunately complicated by the incompetence of Netscape, I'll refer to an issue with which I'm more familiar. A colleague of mine, Allen Akin, a former employee of Silicon Graphics, Inc., wrote a thoughtful assessment of Microsoft's impediment of the computer graphics industry, available at http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html. Admittedly, it wasn't a factor in the court case, but it's an even more obvious instance of Microsoft's own (perceived) corporate interests harming consumers and holding back the industry. No isolated incident, it serves as a singularly clear example of a practice for which Microsoft is notorious.

Sincerely,
Brian Sharp '01
Hanover, New Hampshire

To the Editor:

As an attendee to the talk given by Ms. Yvette Schneider ("Rainbow Intolerance," TDR, 10/2/00), I would like to express my disgust. That probably was a statement that most members of the Dartmouth community would have supported before the event was held. But instead, I am disgusted by the Dartmouth community.

As a straight atheist, the controversy over "queer and Christian" is immaterial to me. I cannot ignore, however, the poor behavior of many attending the event. Ms. Schneider gave one of the most benign talks I can recall on any topic, doing nothing more than recounting her own personal experiences. The material was in no way proscriptive, merely a descriptive account of her own life and times. Nevertheless, during the nominal question-and-answer session following the lecture, a long string of hateful tirades was hurled at the speaker. After the questions fully degenerated into a shouting match--not between Ms. Schneider and her opponents but between vainglorious attendees--the speaker left the podium in disgust.

I apologized to the event coordinator after the clamor had died down. I can only hope that the Dartmouth Review readership will share my embarrassment over this debacle. One sign displayed in protest of the event read, "Straight, not narrow." I was glad for this clarification, because on second glance, indeed both the pot and the kettle were black.

Sincerely,
Michael Napolitano '03
Hanover, New Hampshire

To the Editor:

I wanted to send along a copy of a note I recently wrote to the Alumni Fund after receiving my annual solicitation. My hope is that you print it for your readers and that it will provoke others to get involved in the efforts to curb the Student Life Initiative at Dartmouth, or shall I say the cloaked ruse to eliminate the Greek System:

"Unfortunately, I cannot donate money to the Alumni Fund until the era of political correctness and social engineering is over at Dartmouth. I was extremely saddened after receiving the most recent report on the Student Life Initiative from the Board of Trustees and Pres. Wright--or shall we say 'Right?' He and the Trustees are quite wrong in terms of the direction they are leading Dartmouth. Do they want to make the students into a bunch of wimps?

"They talk of 'world culture initiatives,' 'a Common House,' and the reduction of 'selective, residential, single-sex organizations,' yet they mention nothing about the elimination of other special interest housing such as the AAm, the Hillel House, and the Native American House. They can purport that these are inclusive, but we all know that is phooey. You cannot have inclusiveness if you allow for separation.

"Moreover, they talk about creating 'residential clusters,' for the purposes of 'affirming a single community.' Perhaps I misread that statement (in the report), but it seems to be an oxymoron. By the way, why do we need this? What are New Hamp, the River, the New Dorms, the Gold Coast, etc.? Are they not clusters? (They were when I was at Dartmouth.)

"If Dartmouth is truly in the business of developing leaders of tomorrow, establishing an idealistic, utopian society will not help. The world is tough and leaders have to understand that fact. A relentless pursuit for the elimination of the Greek System will not teach leaders anything."

Sincerely,
Matt Brzica '93
Ithaca, New York

To the Editor:

Hopefully this letter will simply state what I and so many of my fellow alumni believe. The past and current efforts of the College to act in loco parentis, to "protect" you from free exchange of ideas and opinions, to make sure no one hurts your precious feelings (under penalty of censure, fine, or expulsion), do nothing to prepare you for the real world. You are at Dartmouth because you are the best of the best. The real world acknowledges this, but for some insidious reason the administration would prefer you feel shamed by this realization. Don't. Listen to all sides. Make up your own mind. Never let the "politically correct" determine your opinion. Good luck to you all. We will be waiting for you.

Sincerely,
Eamonn Brady '85
New York, New York