Analyzing Dartmouth’s political donations

Bill Hamlen came to many erroneous conclusions after establishing — through his statistical analysis of political donations — that Dartmouth faculty are mainly Democrats (“All but a few political donations from Dartmouth go to Democrats”; April 23). He never mentions PACS and super PACS that do not ask for donors’ professional affiliation, so we have no way of collecting precise statistics about political donations made by anyone. Second, let’s not place all Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) under one homogeneous ideological umbrella. The slippage between “progressive” and “Democrat” is annoying. Similarly, are all Republicans religious fanatics? Third, he claims that Republican faculty choose to “self-censor” to “protect their careers,” yet he has no evidence to back this up. He interviews one faculty member who tried to be open about his Republican beliefs — although Hamlen wrote “conservative” which is not the same as “Republican.” There’s that slippage again. He sidetracks to claim that students showed “intellectual maturity” when asking about “internships and job opportunities” as proof that right-leaning faculty are shut-down the moment they open up about their political beliefs. Those of us with PhDs are trained to think critically, backing up claims with evidence resulting from serious research. That might explain why we tend to vote for the party that supports this approach to thinking and research. Meanwhile, he wants more “academic freedom and open discourse.” So yeah, we vote for the party which now more than ever embraces the very thing he is whining about: academic freedom and open discourse. His party is shutting those down. Books, word usage in scientific findings and professional fact-checking journalists are all being censored or silenced to put an end to debate. How’s that for “intellectual maturity?”

Annabelle Cone

Lebanon

History’s echoes

I’m a middle school math teacher. I have taught history and English as well. I began my career when Ronald Reagan was president. One thing I have learned from teaching history is that it doesn’t repeat itself, but it does echo. What I mean is events don’t repeat, but motivations and outcomes remain relatively constant.

With that in mind, here is my prediction for public education over the next few years (given what we are seeing with the dismantling of the federal department of education, the current administration’s row with Harvard University, the vilification of DEI, etc.) At some point in the near future, Donald Trump is going to declare that all federal dollars supporting public education programs in the country are going to be tied to the complete elimination of DEI curricula and the implementation of new patriotic history curricula as the standard for all schools. Yes, he will leave it to states and municipalities to enact and enforce, but the outcome will echo. Autocrats through history have used coercion, bribery and eventually brute force to control their citizens.

Right now, Trump needn’t call in the troops; he just has to cut off funding for schools that don’t teach his nationalistic propaganda. Over the next two to three years, public school systems, communities, are going to be rent by debates over how to serve all of their children without federal dollars and without teaching the propagandized version of American history — a mandated version that will arrive soon enough. As I have written prior, Trump is deftly utilizing the dictators’ playbook, and control of information and education is key to his further cementing of power. Just read your history.

Dan Weintraub

White River Junction