Letters

Student Drinking

To THE EDITOR: Many Dartmouth alumni must have been intrigued with the reasoning so carefully wrought in the series of editorials in TheDartmouth entitled "Progress." These purported to justify the policy of the College since 1934 in permitting the use of liquor on the campus, in dormitories and fraternity houses, and to warn the undergraduates of the growing urgency of a situation which involves the good name of the College, and which demands from him the exercise of proper restraint and moderation, or, his departure from these gleaming, dreaming walls.

It is hardly necessary to commend the editor for his honest effort to define the problem and to indicate a solution, or to compliment him upon the logical sequence of his arguments, but to some of us, the reasoning starts out on an entirely fallacious premise, and leads from one forced conclusion to another, the culmination finally being that the Dartmouth undergraduate must either go to bed when he gets drunk, or go home to mother,—no other alternative is suggested.

Early in his first editorial of the series, the editor states: "We will be especially concerned with the way that thirst is quenched along the way." The thinking alumnus may well ask himself: "Why shouldn't the College (and the editor) be concerned with why the thirst is quenched at all, rather than the way it is quenched?" The implication of this question is that perhaps there is no thirst at all, except a synthetic thirst, induced by the inveterate propensity of all juveniles to imitate older people and to envy their prerogatives, and to emancipate themselves from all restraint at too early an age, and further induced by the mistaken attitude of the College authorities, who in their desire to cultivate self-reliance and self-control, have only cultivated license. The chief objection to college students drinking is the same objection to very young girls smoking cigarettes; both adopt habits which seem to them glamorous and to be somehow part of adulthood and maturity; in neither case is there any chemical need or genuine taste for liquor or tobacco. In fact, there is often a violent distaste for them which must be overcome through the exercise of repeated indulgence.

I will debate with any prohibitionist or WCTU member that liquor has a definite place in civilized living, and has a beneficial and relaxing effect upon many people who use it moderately and at a certain age. But I will debate with anyone, on the other hand, that the undergraduate, unless he is an alcoholic by accident or heredity, or some unusual circumstance, has no need nor taste for liquor, realizes practically no enjoyment from its use, cannot afford to buy it, and would be mentally and physically better off without it. All this The Dartmouth editorial disregards. On the contrary it extols the policy of the College in continuing "the substantial progress it has made in recent years toward educating the students to individual responsibility and self-control."

The alumni ask "What progress?" The progress that in 1949, fifteen years after the College entered upon its new policy of permitting juveniles to decide such questions for themselves, has resulted in the more or less wanton killing of a student at the hands of other students who had been drinking, but who had no apparent intention of killing a man, a thought which must be very comforting to the family of the dead man and to the families of other undergraduates.

The writer sees little difference in the present situation and that which prevailed in the '20's, during Prohibition, when drunkenness was rife, because it was the smart and manly thing to defy the law, get drunk, and pretend that you liked it. The Dartmouth is correct in stating that it is a "regrettable but inescapable reality that a portion of the public press and of society interprets the behavior of standards of the colleges largely or exclusively by the occasional, individual, sensational departures from the restraint of law " And that applies not only to colleges, Mr. Editor, but to big league baseball teams, the armed services, and all organized groups. The sooner the College faces up to the fact that this is an "inescapable reality" the better for the reputation of the College.

The extension of areas of self-control, extolled by The Dartmouth, in the case of an essentially adolescent student body, or juvenile, if you will, is well-intentioned, and in the case of veterans who have been exposed to experiences beyond their capacity for adjustment,—almost inevitable, but it is no more logical and no more endowed with the possibility of achievement, than permitting children to play with matches. It would be an excellent thing if the children, who must someday live in a society replete with matches, pocket lighters, etc., would learn to control themselves and not light the matches, or at least not light them where gasoline fumes are thickest, but the fact is that children will still be prone to burn the house down, and the fact that their intentions are playful will not rebuild the house nor make its charred remains more attractive.

The final fallacy upon which The Dartmouth attempts to build a case is the assumption that "categorical prohibitions, particularly of liquor, are unenforceable and somewhat unrealistic in the light of Dartmouth's pretext to educate for a society in which the choice between drinking and not has by and large been left to the individual rather than decided for him by the law."

Aside from the fact that the choice mentioned in the above quotation is one which is ordinarily not made by men until they have reached years of discretion, it is a choice which is not quite so free as TheDartmouth believes. The choice will be tram' meled by a number of factors, such as a man's family, his wife and her predilections, the society in which he moves, the nature of his business, his health, etc. Although, as TheDartmouth says, "it is generally considered proper to drink in moderation in the home," the average family man will not offer his son of college age alcoholic drinks if he can gracefully avoid it, at least not until he is 21 and then with many misgivings. There are many family men who debate long and earnestly whether it is better to eliminate liquor from the home entirely, as an example to the children, or to use it in order to show them that it can be used in a civilized man ner. But family drinking in the home, and under home discipline is certainly not the same thing as drinking in a college dormitory or fraternity house, where in spite of the idealistic nature of the College's aspirations of self-control, there is little or no self-control, and what control there is is exerted by the College authorities or by fraternity committees who fear they may lose the precious privilege of proving they are men who can take a drink without making a face while doing it.

The Dartmouth's statement that college men do not drink too much, but that they drink badly, is so much rhetoric. If they drink at all, they probably drink too much. If they drink badly they are drinking too much. If they are stimulated to beat up other students or only to throw bottles on the lawns and talk in a loud voice, they are drinking too much and they are drinking badly.

Just so this protest will contain a concrete suggestion, mine is to outlaw the use of hard liquor by students, as well as its possession on college premises. I would not restrict the sale of beer in Hanover. If any undergraduate has to have hard liquor, let the Dean furnish him with a list of colleges in cities where he can get it, and suggest that he go there.

Chevy Chase, Md.

A Local Foundation

To THE EDITOR: It is a pleasure to endorse generally the remarks of C. A. Edson '14, which appeared in the DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE for May, relative to the conversion of The Atlantic Pact into an Atlantic Union, or a Union of the Free, as one means of combating Marxism. There are a few points, however, in which his plan of action seems to the writer to lack the necessary clarity and force.

One major error which we are making in seeking to combat Marxism is dignifying it with the name Communism.

Communism is a general term for forms of social organization which are intended to serve the interests of communities rather than to accent the rights of individuals. It emphasizes the obligations of individuals to the particular societies in which they find themselves. Prior to its misapplication to the violence of the French Revolution and its purloining by Marx, it generally was applied to communities of religious folk, who associated themselves productively upon a mutual basis to serve each other and the welfare of mankind, and to promulgate their faith in God, as many such communities still do.

Marxism, on the other hand, is a confused political dogma, which, through the medium of the brain of Marx, who has been called "the prince of muddleheads," was concocted from unsound economic theories based upon faulty definitions mixed with the materialistic, tyrannical, brutal philosophy and tactics of Prussian militarism. If we can keep the derivation of Marxism constantly before the people, there is not much doubt that they will repudiate it.

Another error into which we fall is believing that freedom can be handed down to the world from an international constitutional convention. Neither Versailles, Dumbarton Oaks, San Francisco, nor any of the conclaves that came before them have produced much permanent freedom. Even our own Federal Constitution leaves much to be desired upon the score of enforcing economic freedom and civil liberties, try as we may to make it do so. One only has to see the new postage meter slogan of the Massachusetts Department of Corporations and Taxation, which reads: "Avoid Penalties. Buy Your Cigarettes From Massachusetts Retailers," to realize that we need a whole flock of John Marshalls to exercise our eternal vigilance to prevent the United States from being Balkanized while we shout for international freedom.

Economic freedom, as set forth in the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," is dependent upon freedom of access to natural resources. That is in large measure dependent upon our methods of public revenue collection. These methods continually have been getting farther and farther from payment for benefits received, farther and farther from simplicity, local control and justice, more and more annoying, confusing, cumbersome and expensive, as well as less and less likely to promote ease of access to natural resources. To add another layer of bureaucratic superstructure to our present type of tax gathering is not a cheering prospect for taxpayers who must pay the cost of these additional bureaucrats with toil, sweat, and worry. Adding such a superstructure without consequent and contemporaneous simplification of our system of revenue collection, would in itself be something of a threat to freedom, for then the only escape from such tax gathering might well be to emigrate to Marxist-held territory, where access to natural resources is compulsory, perhaps at the expense of all individual freedom or of life itself.

Since the simplification of our methods of raising public revenue must start at the local level, where the tendency now is in the direction of greater complexity, the place to lay the foundations of a union of the free is locally. The pattern for the structure of international freedom will have to be drawn up by its real friends and applied from the bottom up, not from the top down, by methods now or to be made constitutionally both free and legal.

This requires a peoples organization with singleness of purpose for freedom in its fiscal policy as well as in its political and social goals. The writer knows of no such organization.

Harvard, Mass.

Praise for Alumni

To THE EDITOR: As the father of a member of the Class of 1951, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the Dartmouth Alumni Association for the hospitable reception accorded the parents and other guests at the Dad Vail Regatta at Poughkeepsie, New York, on Saturday, May si, 1949.

Mr. Henry B. Seaver, 1911, President of the Mid-Hudson Dartmouth Alumni Club, not only made arrangements for the comfort and entertainment of the Dartmouth rooters, but also provided for the members of the crew the night before the race. The necessary instructions to the crews as to the equipment they would need failed to reach Hanover in time, with the result that 29 beds but no blankets were available on a very cold, wet night. Henry B. Seaver stepped in and arranged for blankets and quarters for the entire group.

With men like Mr. Seaver giving so unselfishly of their time and showing such fine loyalty and spirit for their college, I am proud of the fact that my son is a Dartmouth man.

New York, N. Y.

Reassured

To THE EDITOR: I am more than pleased at having read the Hook lecture printed at length a few issues past. I was beginning to wonder, if too much so-called liberalism in the guise of intellectual integrity was present at Hanover, especially since the news attributed Dartmouth support to Dr. Rideout at Durham. I do not want the Green to become pink!

Frequently laymen feel that our universities lead in the dissemination of utterly unfounded ideologies calculated to keep students awake at lectures and make publicity for instructors in the tabloids. This has other than humorous aspects. We parents expect our tender offspring to be guided with some regard to reality and not to be exposed to a lot of ideological theory which bears no relationship to the "sow's ear." A teacher should first of all possess good common sense and secondarily the retentive capacity necessary to scholarly attainment. A capacity for accurate and realistic appraisal is most important for a foundation upon which to build. These lambs at your feet often have little in the way of a foundation inculcated in their homes. The conclusions they reach from such as social science courses need to be directed. We see repeated examples of apparently plausible material which did not have proper direction or had willful misdirection. Those who had adverse opportunities are better fitted by realism than many of those who have come from favored circumstances.

I was glad to read the definite conclusions set forth by Prof. Hook. That is constructive and timely leadership. Communism is present now and here to a sinister degree. There is no time to temporize with it here or abroad. It is brazen treachery and should forfeit citizenship with its right of civil justice and become subject to courtmartial only. We must remember that we profess to be democratic and believe in the self determination of peoples. What goes on in Russia is Russia's business; what goes on here is our business. If I recall correctly, at our insistence Russia pledged abstention from further propaganda as far back as the Locarno Treaty. A knowledge of the Communist faith would have made it apparent that this or any future pledge was valueless. Subsequent history has shown that only after she has put her house in order should Russia be allowed to sit with the United Nations.

The foregoing does not mean the necessity for war. It does mean that so far as Communism is concerned we should fight only a defensive war with all parties forewarned to expect no punches drawn and no rehabilitation. The aftermath should be the cost of war and should not be lightened to enable bigger and better wars! Prof. Hook has drawn us the picture of a job crying to be done here. This does not spring of large, broad ideas nor is it of global scope except that it would strengthen the world in any faith it may have that we mean what we propagandize. Our greatest power lies in our example, not in what influence we think we can purchase. Our example is the truly democratic way. We encourage foreign resistance to the insidious spread of Communism with talk and sweetly permit our vitals to be gnawed away by influences of which such statesmen as Prof. Hook make us aware. It is gratifying indeed to get a first-hand picture of Dartmouth's efforts to bring a true picture of this menace to our student body thru the Great Issues Course. I wish I might sit in on the course. As a substitute I am retiring with a copy of Beard's Republic and wondering if by any chance it may be required reading at Hanover and I am still one of the boys.

It was a smart idea to publish in full this lecture and let some of us skeptics read that Dartmouth is no cell of Communist indoctrination.

Northwood Ridge, N. H.