Letters

Sunday Night Chapel

To THE EDITOR:

I have always felt that the mid-nineties classes at Dartmouth were unusually fortunate in that their time in college included both the old Dartmouth and the new. It helps to a greater appreciation of the changes that have come to pass. We of that decade lived in the compulsory chapel era, when the student body was so small in numbers that this requirement that chapel be compulsory imposed no physical difficulties, but chiefly moral ones. It got the students out of bed to attend services at some unholy hour like 7:50 a.m., which was useful; but it was alleged with much reason that no religious benefit was involved, save perhaps for the devout few who needed no repentance, and left the others in no mood to start the day right.

This changed abruptly when President Tucker took over, and the religious aspect of the chapel service became a matter to reckon with. He was the embodiment of Christian nobility—and looked it. The mere sight of him in the pulpit was an inspiration, and in addition what he had to say was invariably worth listening to.

As I look back on it, I decline to draw less distinction between the daily morning chapel and the Sunday evening vespers, which I note many have stressed, chiefly because the Sunday night chapel had always been popular. Ramrod Fundamentalist though he was, President Bartlett allowed himself sufficient latitude at the Sunday vespers to interest the less godly undergraduate by incursions into other fields. His Sunday topics in my day ranged from a discussion of a disputed translation of a genitive-absolute in the account of the Last Supper, to a vivid consideration of the Webster-Parkman murder trial as an illustration of the fact that your sin will find you out. Few of us cut the Sunday evening service, even in the closing days of the old Dartmouth.

Still less, of course, in the first days of the new, for Dr. Tucker's brief talks were classics of their kind and the hour was favorable alike to those who were religiously and devoutly disposed and to those who were not. We were the more ready to be impressed. I imagine the memory of those Sunday evening vespers in the Tucker era is the most precious that the Dartmouth men of that day will cherish all their lives. But it was almost equally so at the daily morning gatherings, which kept on until seating problems were added to others, compelling their abandonment—and many there be who still regret the change.

It is well that this aspect of Dr. Tucker's service to Dartmouth be emphasized; for it was spiritual and inspirational, and we are too likely to over-stress the material in this super-scientific age. The new Dartmouth arose out of his inspiration and is being nobly carried forward by able successors, both physically and educationally. Let us not forget, however, the spiritual element involved which Dr. Tucker so impressively embodied, for it is the vital component in the Dartmouth spirit. Plus fa change, ptus c'est lameme chose. The world is standing in the need of prayer, and is more than ever in need to evaluate the natural in the light of the supernatural, the real in the terms of the unreal. This President Tucker fully sensed, and for this he labored.

Lowell, Mass.

Commends Tucker Series

To THE EDITOR:

I should like to commend you for the excellent selections from Dr. Tucker which I have read in the last two issues of the ALUMNIMAGAZINE. I sincerely hope that this feature gains the response which it surely deserves.

Laramie, Wyo.

Denounces Faculty Letter

To THE EDITOR:

Before the disgraceful "Letter To California," signed by 158 members of the Dartmouth teaching staff, be relegated to the limbo of shameful and "ought-to-be-forgotten" things, I feel it incumbent on me—both as a Dartmouth man and as a long resident of California—to make my reaction thereon of record. My resentment toward that letter is by no means superficial, as will be seen. To quote from that letter, the 158 members:

"Observed with deep concern the recent action taken by the Regents o£ the University of California in dismissing members of the faculty" for refusal—in plain words—to sign the anti-communist oath, however much the 158 camouflaged the issue with talk of academic tenure. To continue the quotation:

"Denial of an enlightened policy of tenure and repudiation of the principal of self determination and responsibility of a university or college faculty are actions which we consider unfortunate and dangerous. For the sake of academic freedom in the University of California and in all American universities and colleges, we hope that the academic senate will defend vigorously its traditional principles and policies and that the Regents of the University of California may be prevailed upon to reconsider an action which can do tremendous harm to American higher education.". ..

By what queer process of logic can anyone enunciate that the signing of an anti-communist oath "can do tremendous harm to American higher education." The principal harm done to American higher educationand this has been my observation for more than a half century—has been done by the teachers themselves. We—innocent bystanders and patriots—have seen several generations of children from loyal families sent to schools and colleges only to come home communists, preachers of violence, aggression, bloodshed. It has taken many hours of counter-teaching by parents—including myself—to purify our own children of the despicable tenets they were deliberately taught by their professors and the text-books most of which have been cunningly slanted by the teaching fraternity itself.

At first it was not communism, but pacifism under the guise of religion and brotherly love, criminal pounding-swords-to-plowshares preachments which cast us naked to our enemies in World War I, then, spiked by subversivists and communists, to the atrocities of World War II, and now the disasters of World War III. Personally I know of no university or college instructor who has tried to prevent these disasters, none of them who nave taught that "God fights on the side ofthose with the most Infantry."

Talk of "Academic Freedom" as well as "Constitutional Rights" has an incongruous sound at this time when our Armed Forces are undergoing upward of 30,000 casualties in Korea, from Chinese communists. "In California, the phrase 'Academic Freedom' has been divorced from its original meaning and now serves as a shield for those who nurture and breed communism," declares Dr. Hubert Eaton of William Jewell College. He adds: "Communism's last stronghold in America is in the large universities.". ..

I well realize the bitter animosity which this patriotic letter will rouse even against the courage of him who dared write it, the bickering, the contradictions, the ridicule, the threats. But nowhere have I suggested that the 158 signers of the outrageous "Letter to California" are communists. If so, they could scarcely be occupying trusted positions at Dartmouth—l hope, for which college my loyalty has never been questioned. But there's a "dupe-ism" of which I've written much, infiltrating now into virtually every section of our great nation.

The DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE features the 158 signers, though not by name. I am much more vitally interested in knowing how many instructors declined to sign the outrageous letter. To them belongs the real glory of duty well done, but concerning them the D.A.M. maintains profound silence. Perhaps there were none; if so, I do the D.A.M. an injustice. But if there exists a single one who declined, out of loyalty to the land in which he makes his living and whose protection fie enjoys, to sign the outrageous "Letter to California," I'd like to know his name. He will-I feel sure—be proud to stand and join me in the pledge which we—the oldtime Infantrymen of the U. S. Army, used to take every day while in service:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the nation for which it stands..

El Monte, Calif.

One Reason Why

To THE EDITOR:

In your lead editorial of the December issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE I note you are unable to explain to others why the alumni program ticks. Possibly this episode heard at a college function will help:

ist Harvard Man: "You know those WahHoo-Wah boys?"

2nd Harvard Man: "Yea—what about 'em?" ist Harvard Man: "Oh, they always shake hands as though they meant it!"

Philadelphia, Pa.

Fan Mail

To THE EDITOR:

In response to your invitation to your readers contained in the lead editorial in the December issue I can add a thought in explanation of the Dartmouth Spirit. Your magazine. ...

As a cover to cover reader for over twenty years, I speak with authority. You literally pull your graduates toward the College. Your photographs set before the older graduate additions to the Hanover scene so that he "recognizes" new buildings instead of feeling lost when he makes that inevitable trip to Hanover! Or if success does not come his way, and visits aren't possible, you have the gatherings in local communities....

I must, in this connection, cite an anecdote. My father, Arthur A. Adams '94, was attending an Alumni Council meeting. Over cocktails my mother tackled President Hopkins with the problem for Dartmouth men to whom only daughters were born. Was there any possibility that Dartmouth might someday admit women? "Mrs. Adams," he replied with stern dignity, "Dartmouth will never be coeducational."

Longmeadow, Mass.