Letters
"Better to Bend"
TO THE EDITOR:
It seems to me a pity that the friendship of a college group should be broken by dissensions that may embitter all the rest of life. So, although I am not a member of Sigma Phi Epilson, may I try to help in the disagreement that has arisen in this fraternity?
When there is a difference of opinion on some principle that is considered vital, any concession of either party is likely to be unsatisfactory to both parties; and yet it may be acceptable and helpful as a modus vivendi. So, I hope that some compromise not too unsatisfactory either to the local chapter or to the national organization may be found.
It is safe to assume that the situation has already been carefully considered and discussed. Nevertheless, if it is not too late, may I be pardoned if I suggest this simple solution for the time being? Could not both parties agree on acceptance for admission of a limited number of students now considered ineligible, for example a certain maximum percentage of the total local membership: thirty percent, twenty percent, or only ten?
It is evident that a transitional plan will have to be approved, which in the long run may even be the best solution ever attainable, if a permanent break is to be avoided; for one cannot enforce any change which the majority of those most affected refuse to accept.
It is better to bend than to break, I think. This opinion of mine has been formed by the experience of a long lifetime. The ability and the will to do this are the clue to a stable society and a happy and serene life.
New Brunswick, N. J.
Man's Aggressiveness
To THE EDITOR:
Dr. Gardner's excellent article, "Man's Aggressive Nature," in the February issue has cleared up a lot of smog heretofore clouding my meager conception of child psychology. It is a relief to know that "... the child is aggressive ... by natural endowment... because we are born with such tendencies." However, I wish Dr. Gardner had pursued one interesting idea a little further, and that is, the basic reason for the child's "inevitable aggressive behavior." Could it not be attributed to two microscopic, yet momentous, incidents in his prenatal life?
First, the spermatozoon which was responsible for his very conception and being had "the impulse ... to be aggressively curious, to explore." Certainly, without aggressive spermatozoa to fight upstream to impregnate the ova "we would probably have no people at all." To further pursue the thought, is it not possible that our tailed spermatozoic sponsors inherited this aggressive instinct to swim against the current, from the same finny ancestors as did the salmon who struggle against swift currents and seemingly insurmountable waterfalls to perpetuate their species?
Second, could not the normal child's inherited aggression be attributed in part to the battle of the chromosomes Cor, more precisely, the pairing and sparring of the genes) to determine the dominant inheritable characteristics of the new child? Dr. Gardner has said,
"All living tissue is basically aggressive." The winner in each pair of genes carrying opposing characteristics surely must be aggressive enough to demonstrate its dominance over the weaker gene and thus perpetuate its dominant characteristic.
The child's "aggression expressed in order to demonstrate superiority" could, therefore, be an echo of the struggle and strife - and aggression — of our genes and spermatozoa. What else?
Philadelphia, Pa.
Hard to Take
To THE EDITOR:
I want to register my dissent with the essentially "classical" Freudian view of man's nature presented by Dr. George E. Gardner in your February issue. The jump from what happens in the process of food taking to "the child is aggressive and destructive by natural endowment" is a hard one for me to take. I think Dr. Gardner throws around words like aggression, destruction, mutilation, etc., with considerable arbitrariness. It reminds me of the way some guy proved to me I wasn't in Hanover while we were standing in front of Baker. "Are you in New York?" he said. "No."
"Are you in Chicago?" "No." "Then you must be someplace else." "Right." "Well, if you're someplace else, you're not here." It's tricky but it isn't science.
Incidentally, contrary views of the source of man's aggression are widely held by workers in the field.
New York, N. Y.
The Story Set Straight
To THE EDITOR:
On page 69 of the February issue there was a brief note about a series of rocket films that will soon be released. Your information was based on a news story in the Dallas TimesHerald and since they distorted the facts in their story these same errors were carried over into your note. I very much appreciate the publicity but feel that I should correct the errors and give you the straight dope.
In order of occurrence, the corrections are:
I. I work for the Physical Science Laboratory at New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, not at the University of New Mexico.
2. The series of films is sponsored by the Educational Television and Radio Center at Ann Arbor, Michigan. This Center has as part of its responsibility the distribution of programs to educational television stations such as WGBH-TV which will soon be on the air in Boston. Funds for the Center are provided by the Fund for Adult Education which gets its money from the Ford Foundation.
3. In the summer of 1954, Viking XI, a Naval Research Laboratory rocket fired at White Sands Proving Ground, set an altitude record for single stage rockets of 158 miles. Previous missiles had reached altitudes in the neighborhood of 135 miles. In 1949, a two stage combination of a Wac Corporal mounted on the nose of a V-2 reached a height of 250 miles. An earth satellite missile which would remain at altitude as it circled the earth presents a more difficult problem since it must still possess a very high speed after it reaches the desired altitude.
4. A first earth satellite missile might (not probably) be about the size of a basketball. This would be only the portion arriving at the orbit. The rocket combination required to get it up there would be much larger. A satellite of this size might be able to provide sufficient data to make it worthwhile and there is little doubt that it could be done with present techniques. A larger satellite would be desirable but the size of the rocket necessary to establish a satellite in an orbit increases much faster than the payload (satellite) weight.
I would like to add also that I'll be happy to provide further details to anyone interested.
State College, N. M.
Low in Spirits
TO THE EDITOR:
A friend who is a trustee of a Gotham institution of higher learning has sent me, a little maliciously, I thought, a clipping from the Herald Tribune of January 24, in which the writer castigates Dartmouth for its method of governing its athletics. From it I learned that two-thirds of the votes in the Athletic Council are cast by undergraduates and alumni, and that the other three votes are cast by faculty members, while the administrative officers are frozen out altogether!
Such a plan, in my undergraduate days, would surely have resulted in chaos. I shudder to think what would have happened in the 90's, with undergraduates teaming up with that group of alumni who were paying $100 per month each to the leading pitcher and catcher of the '92 baseball team to prevent one of them from migrating to another college. (This was told me by a graduate of the class of '63, who acted as paymaster.)
Of course, I must admit that the men whom I taught in Dartmouth (classes of '39-'50) were far ahead, in judgment, maturity of thought and discretion of the group who were in college with me, or shortly afterwards, in my postgraduate days. Also, with the Selective Process picking better and better men each year (the top 25% of 3,000 applicants), no doubt the present undergraduates are perfectly capable of selecting an excellent coach.
However, after explaining that the athletic show is run by the alumni and undergraduates, the HT writer turns to attack the administrative officers, who, as he just explained, had no vote in the matter whatsoever! This is very unfair, for there can be no responsibility without accompanying authority.
Having reconciled myself to the dismissal of Messrs. McLaughry, Piepul and Dell Isola, I consoled myself with the thought of how I was going to gloat over my Yale, Princeton and Cornell friends all through next fall's season, for I had just read, in the Bulletin, of the wonderful record of 46 victories in six years achieved by our new coaching staff. Think of it: seven and a half wins every year! Just as I was composing a letter to two Princeton pals of mine, my eye fell upon another paragraph. It added, in a nonchalant manner, that, of course, "Dartmouth's athletic policy remains unchanged, as does its admissions policy and its financial aid policy.
I collapsed, like a punctured balloon. If you expect to fashion a silk purse, you have to pay the price for silk. Given the kind or material that one sees in Rose Bowl games nowadays: 225-pound tackles, hard as nails, ruthless as tigers, fast as a 9.6 second sprinter, and a coach can win enough games to make his reputation.
How unjust we are to our fine new staff! They can no longer rely on sympathetic cooperation from faculty and administration. Yet we expect them to win seven and a half games per season.
Last fall we played Holy Cross, Colgate, Army and Navy, teams which had been built up by spring practice and by recruiting of enthusiastic alumni.
To meet such opponents with no better material than will enter Dartmouth because of love for the fellowship with friends and teachers, the compensations for athletic fame in the joy of living in a real college community, and to expect to win seven and a half games per season, is unrealistic, to say the least. Do our new coaches realize the situation? I hope that they have been given five-year contracts. They will need such protection, I fear.
We once had a coach who made a business out of a sport. But how the boys hated to play for him! They told me so. I am low in spirits. We have lost our Tuss and John and Milt, and we have gained - ?
Honolulu, Hawaii
