To the Editor:

I am writing in response to the Christopher Pearson article regarding the freedom of speech movement (“Disabling Speech,” TDR, 9/28/99). Your article appeared to not support the notion of disabled individuals who elect to protest Singer by chaining themselves in front of a building. I applaud these individuals for doing so.

Choosing to protest through the method of chaining is their freedom of choice. It is better to do that, than to be like you—a spineless, coward, chicken-shit, wanna-be intellectual who would rather coy away then to stand up to some immoral, Nazi asshole philosopher, just for the sake of freedom of speech. It is sad and frightening to think that there is a professor out there who preaches ignorance and hate, who may possibly have influence over just one individual/student, who will then too carry out his message of filth—that disabled people are not wholly human beings.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Lenz
Employment Specialist for People with Disabilities

To the Editor:

Your July 22, 1999 editorial and articles concerning minority religions and “Princeton and Jewish Enrollment” were arresting and uncommonly informative. Particularly instructive was the fact that the Dartmouth Class of 1935 was 15-20 percent Jewish, and that today Jewish enrollment is approximately 10 percent, despite former president James Freedman’s constant rhetorical badgering.

For the record, I matriculated at the College in July 1945 and graduated in June 1949. Dartmouth students, notwithstanding the administration’s odious “quota” policy of the 1930s and early 1940s were, with few aberrations, not anti-Semitic. Moreover, in that post-World War II period, substantial efforts to eliminate fraternity membership barriers concerning Jews and blacks were constantly successful. Many who participated in those vigorous efforts understand the utter fecklessness of Freedman’s remark on February 2, 1996 to the Hillel Jewish Students’ Association that Dartmouth has a “reputation for anti-Semitism” and his unworthy statement to the Los Angeles Times in an infamous February 11, 1998 interview that he had “just been seething over the years that Dartmouth is seen as anti-Semitic.” Such disingenuous pronouncements demonstrate vividly his ignorance of Dartmouth social history in the post World War II period and the subsequent victorious effort to provide equal opportunity socially as well as in all other aspects of Dartmouth life. Your characterization of his fame “for grandstanding on Jewish issues” is directly on point. The lesser percentage of Jewish students at Dartmouth today (if that’s even a matter of academic crisis) arises from his years at Dartmouth. It’s time Freedman’s disgraceful dissembling on the “Jewish issue” was exposed, and you happily did it with precision.

Sincerely,
Judge Quentin Kopp ’49
Redwood City, CA

To the Editor:

The August editions of The Dartmouth Review had items about an aborted Hawaiian-style fraternity-sorority party (TDR, 8/16/99). I can’t imagine any possible objections to a traditional food-dance-song fun event. As one student said, a German-style “Oktoberfest” is enjoyed around the world and no one complains.

Spaghetti feeds, Danish and Swedish smorgasbords, Saturday New England suppers of beans and brown-bread, Chinese take-outs, sashimi and sushi, California health food, and Southern-style party foods are all part of the “melting pot” of American culture.

So what’s wrong with Hawaiian food? Imu pig, lomi-lomi salmon, poi and chicken with long rice are good—and good for you. Wild pigs on the big island of Hawaii were delicious if they had been feeding on wild guavas—but terrible if they had been feeding on ferns. So one does have to discriminate, but not on the basis of state or national customs.

Can’t Dartmouth lighten up? You can be good students and have some fun, too.

Sincerely,
Bob Bright ’36
Suisun, CA