More on God and Man At Dartmouth:

The other day I posted on the Convocation speech given by Dartmouth Student Assembly President Noah Riner and the campus reaction, including a column by William F. Buckley.

Doug Lederman at Inside Higher Ed has an excellent and insightful round-up of the affair, including a follow-up interview with Mr. Riner. Some interesting Comments there too by students and professors from around the country (although not as good as the Comments by VC readers to my first post, of course). Meanwhile, the Washington Times has posted a piece that includes the full text of the speech. (HT: Michael Ellis at the Dartmouth Review).

For what it is worth, I am increasingly finding Inside Higher Ed to be must-reading for goings-on in the academy. This is the third time in about a week or so that I have linked to a Doug Lederman story over there.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. More on God and Man At Dartmouth:
  2. God and Man at Dartmouth:
In the original post on the subject, attribution was not given to the author of the blog post at
9.30.2005 11:50am
Zywicki (mail):
Forgive me, you are exactly right--somehow in writing/editing the post I inadvertently deleted the reference to FIRE. My apologies and it has been corrected.
9.30.2005 12:32pm
Zywicki (mail):
P.S.: That's why the original post reads in a grammatically incorrect manner!
9.30.2005 12:33pm
Disappointing how Mr. Buckley omits part of the religious reference in Mr. Riner's speech. Coincidence? Given Mr. Buckley's presentation and interpretation I don't think so.
Especially ironic since the topic is character.
It happens to be just that part which indeed amounts to proselytising and I regard the words as a bad choice for a convocation address.
9.30.2005 1:31pm
Did you change your mind about the speech? This was clearly nothing more than a sermon. It was a classic, "We are all depraved, and that's why we need Jesus." The difference between rapists and all of us is just a matter of degree? Ummm, I don't think so.

Through all his talk about "character," he offered one single statement on what he thought it was: "Character has a lot to do with sacrifice, laying our personal interests down for something bigger. The best example of this is Jesus." So the ultimate character comes down to religious martyrdom? That's all he can say about it?

I mean, this is fine, if he's strying to start a religious debate. But for welcoming comments? Can anyone really not see why people would have been offended by this speech? I think the real story here is how conservatives will try to turn anything into some sort of religious persecution.
9.30.2005 6:17pm