Why can no one explain the ins and outs of all this alumni politics shtick in a way that a) makes clear what effects it will have on students and b) is not absolutely impenetrable?
I'm an English major. I just read Henry James's "Daisy Miller" last night. I read poststructuralist theory for fun. I have a long attention span and well-honed analytical skills.
But I tried, I really tried to get through Joe Malchow's meter-long post on the current situation of alumni affairs at Dartmouth. I can't do it. I can't finish it. I can't read for more than four lines without my mind wandering lonely as a cloud. And it's not, I feel, just Joe's writing, which I promised not to make fun of any more. I can't read the recent blurb in the D about it or any of the alumni blogs (Association of Alumni or AGTF—did I forget any?). And I have to work way too hard reading the Review already, just making sure they're not making fun of gays or women to tell what is actually going on in any of their reporting.
The problem, I think, is overuse of bromides. This is a fundamental tenet of Joe's writing style, but the D editorial is a mausoleum of meaninglessness. Can someone just tell me, straightforwardly, what will happen to students if x changes are accepted, and what will happen if y changes are rejected? Will anything happen?
I think it does need to be remarked upon that Dartblog, The Review, and The D depend to a fairly large extent upon alumni readership, and some of their writing seems to be targeted directly to alumni without any attempt to make it relevant to the student body. Is this such a case? Kissinger said that campus politics is the most vicious because the stakes are so small. Well, how about alumni politics?