In Keeping With This Month's Cover Story, The Review Barks Up Dartmouth's Tree.

IN PAST ISSUES we the editor have used this space to conduct a debate with our schizophrenic editorial self. This time, however, we found an issue we agree on.

EARLY THIS PAST spring the U.S. Postal Service delivered to Jessica Porter '83 a copy of The Dartmouth Review's "Special All-Alumni Issue" with the fanciful headline "Freedman's Ouster." We suspect that, like most alumni, Jessica did not spend much time with the paper. If she had, she would have found more headlines claiming that Dartmouth's president is "Running Scared" and in the "Center of storm." And Jessica would have seen the following reasons for Freedman's imminent demise:

That the faculty are debating curriculum reform.

That as part of the reform they are considering a Western-civilization requirement and a thesis requirement.

That the College in the first five months of its Capital Campaign raised only $ 161 million, just one-third of its five-year goal.

That $10 million of the campaign has been earmarked for athletics.

That, as proof of the paper's three-year-old claims that the College plans to "double the size of the student body," the College is replacing its old steam pipes.

And that "the only potential problem" with former Education Secretary William Bennett replacing Freedman as Dartmouth's president "is the possibility for a Bennett Presidency of the United States."

Jessica Porter did not appear to be moved by any of this strange combination of spin, Jeanne-Dixon-style prognostication, and outright fabrication. Since she was very young she has had more or less the same response to all newspapers, and that one not very flattering.

But then she has never had the benefit of a Dartmouth education, despite her class numerals. Jessica Porter is a dog. A beloved family member of a College officer (we've changed the dog's name), hers is on the list of names the Review stole from the College's alumni directory. Since the use of private mailing lists like Dartmouth's is both unethical and illegal Jessica's name was planted to catch any business or cause that might make unwarranted use of the list.

But maybe the Review did not mistake Jessica for an alumna. Maybe it knew she was a dog. It appears, after all, to have pitched its latest issue at about her level. The Review and its mentors are clearly not interested in a factual debate about higher education. They are waging a classic negative political campaign. As this Presidential primary season proves, facts are unimportant in smearing an opponent. Weird predictions and outright lies become political "truths" if repeated often enough. The Review and its backers understand that they could lose every argument, every court case, and still win in the political arena. Students, faculty, and alumni can never fight back effectively because Dartmouth is not a political organization.

It is ironic that among the Review's charges is that Dartmouth is becoming "politicized" from the left. While there are a few faculty who preach political doctrines, and even express these opinions in the classroom, the only organized politicking is from the right, and from the outside.

In its saturation bombing against Dartmouth's president, The Review is doing collateral damage to the institution we all love.

Onealumnafound itfetching.