A New and Effective Religious Organization

CHANGE AND REFORM were in the air on the Dartmouth campus last spring. A New Deal was touching student organizations. It was then that the Dartmouth Christian Association quietly passed away, leaving to a new organization, the Dartmouth Union, the task of building up a new, more vital approach to the problem of religion on the college campus.

This change becomes understandable when one glances briefly at some of the fundamental weaknesses developing in the last days of the Christian Association. In the first place its appeal to the student body had undergone and was undergoing a steady shrinkage. There could be no disagreement on that point, student interest in the Association was mild and restricted, to say the least. In the second place the group actively interested in the management of the Association was so constituted that if the old set-up had continued, it would have been necessary to dip into the freshman class for any leadership at all. From this angle alone, a change was imperative. Third, during the last few years the mechanical, routine aspects of the work had so come to absorb the time and attention of members that little energy was left for more important questions. Freshman orientation, lost and found bureau, financial drives—these were crowding out the religious side. Finally all of these weaknesses were accentuated and thrown into a new light during the leave of absence of the graduate secretary, when the Association was entirely under student management.

So it happened that the Alumni Committee, the supervisory body of the Christian Association, recommended a reorganization, effecting among other things, a liberalization of the purpose to provide a broad approach to religion, a change in name, and a sloughing off of routine duties. The Trustees approved of the plan and delegated to Dr. Roy Chamberlin as Director of Chapel, the responsibility for the project Dr. Chamberlin organized a commiftee of six faculty members and six student leaders. This committee met weekly from the latter part of April to the first part of June, studying the situation and setting UP what they felt to be the necessary machinery to effect their purpose. Their suggestions received the approval of the Trustees and the President at the June meeting. When this committee selected a student cabinet of six to be responsible for the next year's program, and the supervisory Dartmouth Union Council of the Chapel Director, three alumni, three faculty, and three of the undergraduate cabinet was established, the reorganization was complete and the program entered a new phase.

THE IMPLICATIONS and significance of the Dartmouth Union as organized by this committee may well be considered under four heads. First if the approach to religion were to be liberalized and broadened, certain basic principles were essentia]. That it would have to be made clear just what the Union was not, as well as what it was, trying to do, impressed itself upon the committee when they consulted a group of go student leaders. Any attempt to define religion or set up a creed was avoided as limiting the scope of the organization. The name Dartmouth Union was adopted to designate not only a union of all points of view and creeds, but a union of the efforts of community and campus. Avoiding any evidence of regimenting or organizing private religious life, its activity or its expression, the Union was to place its emphasis on the intellectual approach. This is perhaps best summed up in the statement of purpose: "the Dartmouth Union does believe that understanding of religious and moral values is a legitimate concern of college men; that interest in religion and morality includes interest in irreligion and immorality "

Turning to the technical side the responsibility for the freshman orientation program was shifted to the Green Key whose position was ideal for carrying out that task. All thought and consideration of a financial drive was dropped for at least the first year of the Union's organization. The deck was cleared of routine duties, leaving the Union free to devote its attention to more important matters. In the third place the committee set up a three point program to guide the first year's efforts; the furtherance of closer faculty-student relations, particularly by sponsoring informal student groups in faculty homes for good times and serious discussion; a series of discussion meetings with representatives of significant social and moral philosophies, to form a virtual course in comparative religion and comparative ethics; and supplying such social service needs as presented themselves. Finally the whole year's program was to be regarded as experimental, with revision and expansion to be made on the basis of the year's work.

This program has now been in operation for nearly six months. With Green Key managing the freshman feeds at Mel Adams' cabin, the Union undertook the responsibility for the programs at the feeds. With a view to initiating the student early to a realization of the student faculty contacts that were possible, a faculty member was invited to act as host and speaker for each group. No effort was made to organize the group or get over a point. It was an informal feed, an evening about the fire, with a faculty man, interesting for his own background of experience. When the rush of football season was out of the way, this faculty-student group idea was introduced into upper class circles. With one student acting as self-appointed manager for a group, and about 15 students composing the clientele, ten to twelve of the group meet usually once a week in the faculty home for a series of four or five discussions. A central theme in which both the students and the professor are interested is the unifying factor, and each week's group is apt to center on one phase of the question. As is to be expected the discussion often wanders far afield, usually however in a valuable manner, but the whole atmosphere of such a group indicates the seed of a very inspiring relationship. This project has not been extended to the extent that the Union had hoped; it has been tried enough to more than prove its worth.

THE RESPONSE to the "comparative religion series of discussions has been most gratifying. To date five widely varying points of view have been presented. Bill Simpson held the student interest throughout his three day stay in Hanover. His was the position of an idealist, ready to sacrifice everything to carrying out the highest calling that he saw. In January, the Union presented Charles Francis Potter, founder and' leader of the First Humanist Society of New York, who spoke on "Humanism—a Religion without God." Following Dr. Potter the Union took advantage of the presence of Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr as college preacher, to have that brilliant radical thinker discuss the implications of religion in modern society as it is now organized. Through the efforts of a prominent New York alumnus, the Union brought to Hanover for its fourth discussion, Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, prominent New York rabbi, the son of the founder of the Jewish reform movement in this country. Late in March to represent the Catholic faith, the Union secured the services of Professor Lord, a former teacher of history at Harvard, who was converted to Catholicism some ten years ago, and is now a professor at Brighton Theological Seminary. The final positions on the program are still being arranged. These will include at least one representative of orthodox Protestantism. SOME BRIEF mention should be made of the significance of the Dartmouth program and change in college religious work. At Princeton, Chicago, and Syracuse, where the Christian Association never was strong, a Dean of the Chapel has been installed with full responsibility for the religious program of the College, and he has set up more or less student organization with varying emphases. At the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell a United Religious Work Council combines religious workers of all faiths and subordinates the student organization. But in New England the lines of the traditional Christian Association have held firm, amid varying degrees of response. Dartmouth is the first of the New England colleges to face the campus situation, take stock, and instead of attempting to revamp the old machinery, make a radical change in name, statement of purpose, and method to meet new demands. It is for this reason that other colleges are watching the progress of Dartmouth plans to see what the final outcome will be.

It is not yet possible to present a final evaluation of the year's program. Faced with a specific problem, the Dartmouth Union is attempting to face it and build a program that will serve the religious interests of the campus as a whole, rather than those of any one group. Believing that the most important task is right here on the campus it has avoided distracting interests and hampering routine. It is not a final thing. The fundamental framework of the organization has been outlined: it will be revised in some aspects and the next year's program set in the light of this year's experience and inadequacies. In making the college religious organization effective for the temper of the times, the work of the Dartmouth Union is a distinct step forward.

Chairman, Dartmouth Union