The President Comments On the Cirrotta Tragedy

LATE IN AUGUST, in response to a letter of inquiry from Hilton C. Buley, New Hampshire~State Commissioner of Education, President Dickey made a lengthy statement concerning the death of Raymond J. Cirrotta '49. For the benefit of Dartmouth men, the ALUMNI MAGAZINE is glad to be able to print in full this exchange of correspondence, including a letter from A. H. Waisman, New York lawyer, which prompted Commissioner Buley to invite President Dickey's comments.

The correspondence follows:

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION State of New Hampshire

State House, Concord

August 23, 1949

Dr. John Dickey, President Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire

Dear Dr. Dickey:

A copy of a letter from Attorney A. H. Waisman relative to the Raymond J. Cirrotta case is enclosed for your information.

I shall appreciate very much your reaction and comments concerning the contents of this communication.

Sincerely yours,

/S/ HILTON C. BULEY

Commissioner of Education

(THE LETTER ENCLOSED)

A. H. & P. B. WAISMAN Counselors at Law 38 Park Row New York 7, N. Y.

August 17, 1949

COPY OF THE ORIGINAL

New Hampshire State Department of Education Concord, New Hampshire

Re: Raymond Joseph Cirrotta (dec'd)

Gentlemen:

I represent Mr. Vincent Cirrotta of 125 Canal Street, New York City, father of the late Raymond J. Cirrotta, who, until the time of his death on March 19, 1949, was a student at Dartmouth College and as a veteran under the G. I. Bill of RiShts.

Request is made for a re-examination of the G I status of said College, a review of your certification of said College to the Veterans Administration, that an investigation be conducted of the matters herein submitted and a hearing be had. As a basis for these, I submit the following information as given to me.

DATA

Raymond J. Cirrotta lived at a dormitory while attending Dartmouth College as a G. 1. student. On Friday night, March 18, 1949, some eight men (then students) went "looking" for Raymond. He was aroused from his sleep in his dormitory and received a fearful beating as a result of which he died about 5:00 a.m. on the 19th due to his injuries. Efforts of the hospital authorities to save his life were unsuccessful. Raymond was a good student, sober and industrious. He enjoyed good health, but was unable to survive because of the severity of the assault. I am informed that the police authorities were not notified until the 19th and I am also informed that there was some "counseling" of some or all of the alleged participants with dire results to the rights of the innocent decedent and his family. From press reports a Mr. Charles Widmayer, Director of the Dartmouth News Service, originally mentioned the episode as a "brawl.

Apparently, the college authorities announced an imminent crackdown on fraternity social activities and a ban on drinking in fraternity houses. Is this being done? . Dartmouth College suspended six of the students namely, Doxsee, Schreck, Felton, Fox, McCarthy and Peck. Although the newspapers, as early as March 1949 mentioned that there were eight students involved, Dartmouth College, apparently, did not suspend Eaves and Day until about June. It appears that they permitted these two men to attend classes until their later suspension.

The attorney for Doxsee, in March, gave out a statement that Cirrotta was sober but the group "was pretty well plastered." To put it in its mildest light, the prosecution authorities seem to be lacking in information. This may have been possible because of the original delay in learning of the assault. At any rate, Doxsee was the only one indicted and it was not until after his trial that the authorities issued a statement that another indictment would be sought in September.

I have considerable additional data concerning which I shall be pleased to confer with your investigator. I believe it only fair, on behalf or my client, to request an investigation of the following: 1 As to the existence of bars for the dispensing or possible sale of alcoholic beverages in fraternity houses proximating the property ot the College? 2 What steps, if any, were taken subsequent to March 20, 1949 to correct these conditions? 3 "What courses or lectures were conducted at the College for cultural or character building? 4. What supervision is taken by the College as to the molding of character and morality of the students? , . , 5. When was the College or any of its authorities informed of the assault on the late Raymond J. Cirrotta? ... , , 6 When were the police or Public Authorities notified by the College as to the assault? 7 Was notification of the Police or Pubhc Authorities withheld for any time by the College or anyone acting on its behalf? 8 Did the Dean or the President of the College ' inform any of the alleged participants not to make any statements to the Police or the Public Authorities ? 9. If this advice was so given, to these alleged participants, was it coupled with any action by the College or the College authorities in not promptly notifying the police or public authorities? 10. The connection, status and compensation ot one Mr. Charles Widmayer, alleged publicity man for the College? 11. Why was a publicity release given by Mr. Widmayer on behalf of the College characterizing the occurrence as a "brawl"? 12. What conference or conferences were had between the College authorities and said Mr. Widmayer, and did the College Authorities direct Mr. Widmayer to issue this type of publicity ? 13 What further publicity or corrections were thereafter issued by Mr. Widmayer at any time to give further light on the occurrence? 14 What investigation did the College authorities make as to the actual facts of the occurrence to Raymond J. Cirrotta? 15. Why was College action withheld until June with reference to George L. Day and George J. Eaves? 16. Do the College authorities expressly claim that prior to June 1949 they had no knowledge or notice regarding the connection of Eaves and Day with the occurrence? 17. Under what circumstances and from what source of information did the College authorities learn about Eaves and Day for the first time? 18. Did the College grant Eaves and Day full scholastic credit for the Spring 1949 semester?

Dartmouth College has been in existence for many years. However, there are certain definite inalienable rights that accrue to a student, particularly one who is trying to secure a belated education under the G. I. Bill of Rights. A College's duty goes far beyond the mere furnishing of classrooms and instructors. If remedial steps are necessary, they should be drastically undertaken to secure these inalienable rights. If a College refuses, is unable, or unwilling to shoulder its duty as a real Alma Mater, then its G. I. status might be suspended until the proper corrections are made. As I understand, you are the Certifying Agency to the Veterans Administration and have the power over said certification in respect to the Colleg.

It is almost needless to say what the horrible effect this unfortunate episode has had upon the Cirrotta family through the loss of their only son and brother.

May I have your cooperation? Respectfully yours,

/S/ A. H. WAISMAN

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE Hanover, N. H.

THE PRESIDENT

August twenty-fifth 1949

Dear Mr. Buley: Thank you kindly for your August 23 letter transmitting the copy of the letter from A. H. Waisman, a New York attorney, relative to the death of Raymond J. Cirrotta. You ask for my reaction and comments concerning this communication, and I indeed welcome the opportunity to give them to you.

I am sure it is not necessary for one in my position to tell you that any tragedy in a student body is a matter of the deepest and most genuine concern to all those identified with the institution, the individual students concerned, and, of course, the parents of those students. I know I need not also tell you that quite frequently the burdens of responsibility require that those of us in these positions try to see these things calmly and wholly and in true perspective, while at the same time we understand and sympathize with those who inevitably are overwhelmed by the personal aspects of such tragedies.

There is one other general comment which I think it is important to make at the outset about this particular matter. Ordinarily, the tragedies which institutions of this sort know from time to time do not involve criminal proceedings along with the responsibilities and restraints introduced into any situation where the primary interest of the state in the administration of criminal justice must be recognized and scrupulously respected.

From the moment when I learned of this happening—about 8:30 or thereabouts on the morning of March 19 when I reached my home in Hanover on returning from an outof-town trip—l determined that the College would follow three basic policies in respect to this matter:

First and immediately, we would take the initiative in making a public statement of the essential, uncontroverted facts then known

to us concerning the matter; Secondly, we would not engage in speculation or characterization as to questions of fact which were not known to us to be established and uncontroverted fact;

Thirdly, that the interest of the public authorities charged with the administration of criminal justice was paramount to all other interests in this matter and that whatever was said and done by the College in the matter, whatever the provocation, it would scrupulously respect this responsibility.

These policies continue in effect. In this connection you may be interested in the verbatim text of the public announcement which was made by the College on its own initiative that morning. I inclose a copy. (Note: See May 1949 issue of DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE.) That announcement contains, so far as I know, all the essential, unvarnished facts which were known to us as facts at that moment. This statement was issued as a College press release and not as a signed statement, and I think that this resulted in some initial misunderstanding on the part of some people who were not aware of the actual steps taken by the College to bring the matter to the attention of the newspapers and the public in the first instance. At the time that announcement was made, the students known to College authorities to have been involved in the affair had already been indefinitely suspended by the Dean of the College and they were, in fact, in the hands of the public authorities for questioning. It is perhaps understandable but unfortunate that a few persons have not realized that the effective control of the College with respect to these men itself was suspended with their suspension from college, and that a proper regard for the interest of the public authori- ties in this matter precluded any further at- tempt by the College to interrogate these men. This fact will continue to be a basic limitation on the ability of the College authorities to know as much about some aspects of an affair of this sort as they would otherwise certainly seek to know.

I think that what 1 have already said will make it clear to you that neither as a practical matter nor as a matter of propriety can I attempt to answer or to argue all the implications and statements made in the Waisman communication to you. And again, in order to avoid even the remotest possibility of being misunderstood, I want to make very clear that anything I may say in this letter is not intended to suggest that X have ever regarded this matter as other than the tragedy which it is, and that I have never by word or thought condoned the ignoble conduct of those who caused it.

The Waisman letter refers to "a fearl til beating" and "the severity of the assault." Since these are questions of fact which may be relevant to future court proceedings, I shall express no opinion on these characterizations beyond saying that they may well give rise to impressions which would not be borne out by any evidence which has so far come to my attention from responsible sources.

Throughout the communication which you passed on to me, much is sought to be made of the use of the word "brawl" in the press accounts, and it is suggested that this characterization was made by a College press officer. It is clear from the official press release inclosed that no such characterization was used in that statement, and I am informed by the press officer in question that he not only did not use it himself but he was distinctly disturbed, as I most certainly was, to see the word used in certain headlines.

The communication also states that "apparently, the College authorities announced an imminent crack-down on fraternity social activities and a ban on drinking in fraternity houses." Although there was one completely unfounded press story to that effect, the fact is that the College has made no such announcement. There is no need to tell you or any other well-informed person familiar with the problems of student conduct on college campuses that the abuse of alcohol always has been a problem. The nature and the extent of the problem have varied from time to time and from place to place, but it can never be, I am afraid, entirely eliminated from a community of young men so long as the problem remains in society generally. I might hazard a guess that it is a problem which has been present in aggravated form on many campuses in recent years in connection with the somewhat unusual age level and habits of the large group of veterans in college. However, it is by no means to be explained solely on that basis. I think I can say to you with solid assurance that, at least within my observation, the problem has been appreciably less serious during the past year or two than it was immediately following the war, and I am told by those who observed it that it is certainly less serious than it was immediately prior to the war. However that may be, it continues to be a problem, and the only solid satisfaction comes from what I believe to be the fact; namely, that good progress has been made and is being made to reduce and keep it at a minimum.

In this connection you will be interested to know that the Undergraduate Council, established here at Dartmouth several years ago, has demonstrated a thoroughly responsible attitude in its handling of cases involving student misconduct on this score. Incidentally, one not unimportant aspect of the tragedy involved in Raymond Cirrotta s death was the fact that it occurred during a year when the Undergraduate Council has made real progress in cooperating with College authorities on the handling of problems of student conduct.

I need hardly add that I personally-and every other responsible officer of the College —have spared no effort to see to it that any further progress which can be made in the light of this tragedy is made. This is not the place to go into the complicated problems of wisdom and practicality which face the colleges in dealing with these matters, but believe me, we have not and we will not pass over any approaches to progress in this field which in the light of experience here and on other comparable campuses promise to be helpful. As is the case on many other campuses, the moderate use of alcoholic beverages is not prohibited here in the fraternity houses or the college dormitories so long as public laws are observed and socially responsible conduct is maintained at all times. Like every other human regulation and law, this college rule is violated by individuals from time to time, but in so far as we can prevent it, it will not be violated with impunity. As of possible interest, I am enclosing a copy of a report made by a committee which reviewed the rules and regulations of the College here shortly after the war.

As I am sure you know, these problems are not solved by dramatic "crack-downs" except as they are directed at specific individuals or groups. Although the activities of fraternities come in for justifiable criticism from college administrators and while I am by no means well satisfied with many aspects of the system, I must also say in honesty that fraternities as a whole bring many positive values to the College and I know of no evidence which would warrant a general condemnation of the fraternities on the basis of this episode.

The communication inquires about the action of the College with respect to the two students who were suspended subsequent to the suspension of the other six men involved in the affair. The answer is that the College did not have knowledge that these men were involved in the affair until the time of their suspension. One of these two men, I understand, was under suspicion immediately after the happening, but he denied his connection with it; the College possessed no evidence to the contrary, and apparently the same was true of the public authorities. The Dean has informed me that some hours prior to the time when the trial of the indicted student, Doxsee, was to open, the last of May, these other two students came to him for the first time to admit that they had been members of the group. At that time they tendered their resignations to the College. These resignations, which would have permitted the men to leave in good standing, were not accepted; instead, the Committee on Administration, when the case was brought before the Committee, placed these men under the same disciplinary disposition as all the other men involved in the affair, namely, indefinite suspension.

It may be of interest to you and helpful to those who have not had occasion to think very seriously about this disciplinary disposition to know why this particular action was taken. The Committee on Administration felt that it ought not to take any action which would influence or prejudice the independent handling of this matter by those charged with the administration of criminal justice. At the same time, it was manifest that these men could not be permitted under the circumstances to remain as members in good standing of the student body. Accordingly, the same type of disciplinary disposition was decided upon, as I believe, is not uncommon in businesses, the government, or the armed services under similar circumstances. I had hoped and expected that the Committee on Administration would be in a position to dispose of these matters by taking full and final action after the conclusion of the court proceedings last June. However, at that time the public authorities indicated that there might be further proceedings with respect to another individual in the group, and accordingly, the Committee on Administration took the only possible course open to it and further postponed its final disposition of the case so far as the College is concerned.

If I may, I shall comment finally on two aspects of the matter which have been widely misrepresented in certain press accounts and concerning which the communication in question makes certain statements and inquiries. First, the facts with respect to the time that the College learned of this happening and the steps taken thereafter, including the notifying of the public authorities, are as follows (I quote from a letter written recently by the Executive Officer of the College):

"The altercation occurred in Raymond Cirrotta's dormitory room between 10:15 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. March 18, as closely as it has been possible to compute the time. No representative of the College was aware of the fight while it was occurring. Subsequent inquiry revealed that even other students present on the same floor were unaware of it. Only one student who was not involved and who resided across the hall had any knowledge that a fight had taken place. He was not aware at the time that Cirrotta had suffered serious injuries. Cirrotta's roommate, who had been absent from the dormitory at the time returned to his room around 11:00 p.m. and found Cirrotta in pain. He telephoned a doctor. The doctor telephoned to the Captain of the College Police to bring Cirrotta to Dick's House (the College infirmary) in his police car.

"This call reached the Captain at 11:35 p.m. and marks the first instant at which any authority of the College had information that a fight had taken place and that someone had been injured. The Captain, who is also a deputy of the Precinct police, took Cirrotta from his room and reached the infirmary with him at 11:55 p.m. The Captain notified the Assistant Dean of the College at 12:00 midnight and together they undertook an immediate investigation. By 12:30 on March 19 when they called the Dean of the College, they had obtained the identification of four of the students who were involved. When the Dean arrived at the infirmary at about 12:45 a.m., he made an immediate attempt to reach Cirrotta's parents by telephone. He was unsuccessful in this but did reach a friend of the Cirrotta family in Linden, New Jersey. (Through this channel three telephone reports on Raymond Cirrotta's condition were made during the ensuing hours.) By 2:00 a.m. all of the men then known to have been involved had been assembled at the infirmary. At 2:05 a.m. the Captain called the Precinct police station and two members of the Precinct police appeared at the infirmary at 2:10 a.m. At 5:05 a.m. Raymond Cirrotta died.

"In short, it will be noted that from the moment in the middle of the night that the College authorities knew there had been a fight and that a student had been injured, they took immediate steps (a) to give medical assistance to the injured student, (b) to identify the students involved, (c) to notify the parents, and (d) three hours before the injured student died to notify the Precinct police of the happening."

Finally, the query is raised in the Waisman letter as to whether the individuals involved in this matter were informed by the President or the Dean "not to make any statements to the Police or the Public Authorities."

As for myself, I have had no communication whatsoever with the individuals involved in the afEair, at the time or subsequently. Recently, I had occasion to see one of the counsel representing several of the individuals at his request, and I previously replied to letters received from counsel, but never, directly or indirectly, have I in any way intimated to them or to any one else any counsel as to their conduct or course of action toward the public authorities in this affair. I have advised all others who had any personal knowledge of this affair and who spoke to me about it to take the initiative in making all their information available to the public authorities and counsel for the individuals involved.

The Dean of the College is absent from the country at this time on vacation, but I can tell you that he informed me before leaving that he never made any such statement to the individuals concerned. As you will have noted from above, the Dean and his assistant, in line with normal practise, sought immediately to learn the identification of the men involved in the affair. It is worth noting in this connection that the identification of these men was secured by the Dean at that time from a student who was the only eye witness to the happening. The men known to this student were summoned to the infirmary by the Dean, and he sought to learn from them what were the facts of the happening.

I have already given above a chronological outline of the essential steps which were taken by the College authorities at this time. As I understand it, the Dean stated to the students in question at about the time of Raymond Cirrotta's death at 5:00 a.m. that they must recognize that they were now involved in a very serious situation involving presumably a charge of homicide, and that they should be careful that anything they said was the truth, and that they might well want to have the advice of counsel in connection with any statements they made. I cannot give the precise words which were used by him in this connection, but my understanding is that the substance of it was the sort of advice which might be expected to be given to any individual in similar circumstances, and that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Dean to do anything other than to make clear to these men the realities of their situation until they could have professional and parental counsel. I am sure that any fair-minded and disinterested person who was familiar with all the circumstances would feel that the Dean did his utmost on this occasion to fulfill the urgent and heavy responsibilities which were his in the difficult and unfamiliar .situation confronting him.

In this general connection 1 might say that the Dean personally went to New Jersey to represent the College at the funeral of Raymond Cirrotta and at that time he made himself available to the family to supply in person all information known to him about any aspect of the matter.

It hardly seems necessary to say it, but some journalistic comment on this unhappy event has been so irresponsible as to imply that the College has intervened in some manner to influence the judgment of those charged with the administration of criminal justice. I want to be most categorical about this and to say that not only have we not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought to intervene or to exert an influence in these matters, but we have affirmatively done our utmost to avoid giving even an appearance of it. It has been and is our feeling that this is a matter where the primary interest of the courts and public authorities must be scrupulously respected, and that nothing but the most unfortunate consequences for all, including our system of justice, will follow from disregard of this consideration on the part of any of us, whatever our immediate personal interest or views may be.

With your understanding, I shall not attempt in this letter to deal with inquiries in the Waisman communication about the general program of a liberal arts college. In the event that you believe he would be genuinely interested in the subject, I am sending you under separate cover a complete catalogue of the College which gives a full description of the program.

May I simply say to you again that I have written you at this length because I welcome an opportunity to make a statement to a responsible person such as yourself on aspects of this tragedy which have been so widely misinterpreted and misunderstood.

Sincerely yours,

ALUMN! COUNCILLOR: Robert W. Pierce '25 of Miami, Fla., who was elected representative of District V in the balloting which closed June 10.