Letters to the Editor

"—But Mot Forgotten "

To THE EDITOR:

I have been informed of Lt. Jack Brister's death in Tunisia towards the end of the April campaign.

He was my roommate and my best friend, but the loss is only in small part mine. His strenuous spirit and inexhaustible humanity sprang richly from the nourishment of Dartmouth, but it is not within the College itself to sense the emptiness that Brister leaves in the world.

He was a man who knew the common emotions, and knew them with the penetration and comprehension with which only great men feel. He was devoted, loyal and wild, capable of anything brave. Strong physically and spiritually, he had the stamina to try to the last the courage that ordinary men are merely stirred by.

Blister was more fully aware than any other fighter I have known of the great hazards of the present _ conflict and of participation in it, hazards political and moral, to social relationships and to individuals. He knew that victory is a chance to be taken. And yet he was able to participate in focused resolution and with humane compunction towards effecting war's necessary end.

Today, with that end far from accomplished, we can know that the pattern of humanity that we have to create will be far richer for Jack Brister's having lived abundantly among men, far poorer for his absence.

Fort Knox, Ky.

Fourth Freedom

To THE EDITOR:

Since the ALUMNI MAGAZINE has undertaken to rewrite the Four Freedoms in the May issue, may I recall a quotation from an address by the Chief of the New Deal "Utopians":

"The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world- wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world."

I appreciate that the writer was out to disinter the Poor House Dogma that the only reliable human motivation is a hungry stomach, but in view of the above quotation did he really have to go this far?

"There is room for debate concerning the unqualified validity of President Roosevelt's 'fourth freedom'—which is usually called 'freedom from fear.' "

I'm not surprised that well-fed college alumni callously take the negative in a "debate" against freedom from want, but I'm a little surprised when they oppose the FOURTH freedom—which is actually aimed at outlawing aggression!

(Boston Globe)Needham, Mass.

Oldest Grad, 102

To THE EDITOR:

Father (Zeeb Oilman '63— Ed.) is always very pleased when he hears from the members of Dartmouth College. It certainly is a credit to the College that it sends out men so thoughtful and kind to each other. These are trying times and loyalty comes close to the heart.

Will you kindly extend to President Hopkins and any other member of the College that sent my father greetings, Mr. Gilman's sincere gratitude for their kind wishes.

Thank you again for the fine message to Dad.

Redlands, California

No Cheap Degree

To THE EDITOR:

Probably most Dartmouth men, reading Dr. Cowley's stimulating discussion of the perils and opportunities confronting the independent colleges, will automatically set their own college experience against the attacks made by opponents of the four-year liberal arts program. Such an appraisal is certain to provide effective defenses against the detractors of the ideals for which the college stands: the enrichment of life, the broadening and deepening of thought, no matter what the professional channels in which that life or thought may be directed.

Unfortunately, however, there is a strong possibility that Dartmouth may suffer, not for its own faults, but those of other institutions purporting to provide the same general type of education. On May 22, the Commission on Liberal Education of the Association of American Colleges proposed eleven major reforms. Aside from those dealing specifically with the re-introduction of men of the armed forces into the colleges, most of these reforms have already been instituted at Dartmouth, during the past fifteen years or more. While this is a tribute to the vision of the College's administration, it is also an admission of the fact that the bulk of American liberal arts colleges have lagged behind their leaders. And if there is, as Dr. Cowley states, a widespread reaction against the four-year degree, will the leaders in liberal education be able to stand out against it?

The war's emphasis on technological training and on swift acquiring of certain specific instruction is not the only reason for alarm. Nor is the attack upon the bachelor's degree altogether to be ascribed to a "Germanophile" plot against "the symbol of the four-year literal college." The bachelor's degree has unfortunately become a symbol of much more—and much less—than the four-year liberal college.

Much the same fate has overtaken the master s degree (in case the universities should view their own achievements with undue pride) because it became a secondary school fetish, and there are signs that the doctor's degree, beloved of the universities as the sign manual of specialized research, is similarly being watered down in response to an increasing demand for the academic rewards it brings.

The war and its probable aftermath—a generation that will be anxious to take up the search for a livelihood as speedily as possible; colleges financially weakened; the appeal of industry for technical men; the prospect of compulsory military training on a long-term basis—will undoubtedly strengthen the hands of those who call for a twoyear residence requirement for the bachelor's degree. If this innovation is widely adopted by in- stitutions whose names command respect, can the four-year tradition endure? It has been possible for such colleges as Dartmouth to maintain their standards in the face of deterioration in other in- stitutions because the bachelor's degree demanded the same price in time, although not in effort, in virtually all colleges. A two-year degree will be a cheaper degree indeed. Gresham's law will operate against the older system.

It is this danger that makes Dr. Cowley's warning so impressive; that absolutely demands such a study of the bases of liberal education in America as he proposes. The recommendations of the Commission on Liberal Education do not meet this need. It must be determined to what extent the principles of liberal education are indeed generally applicable; to what extent they have been perverted by catering to degree-hunters; to what extent they can command public support. Dartmouth should continue to do its utmost, by influence and example, to sustain the level of the bachelor's degree.

But if it should prove that the weaker brethren of American education have let that symbol decay to a point from which it is im- possible to revive it in its old and valued sense, then Dartmouth should still present the content of a true liberal education, without short cuts or compromises, under a new ban- ner, if necessary. It is the ideal behind the symbol that is really important, and appeasement in the matter of basic educational standards is as futile and dangerous as appeasement in international politics.

New York Herald Tribune

Our Debt

To THE EDITOR: May I express my disapproval of one of the arguments of the author of the recent Alumni Fund pamphlet entitled, "A Part in Something that Shall Endure"?

The reasoning that Dartmouth alumni should contribute to the College in a time of crisis because of a "deeply buried instinct for immortality" that might be satisfied through the medium of the College seems selfish and trivial compared to a far stronger argument we are all acquainted with.

As Dartmouth alumni we should support the College because of our debt to it as individuals and as members of society, for what it has given to us in the past and for what it must continue to give to others like us in the future.

Philadelphia, Pa.