Letters
"The New Look"
To THE EDITOR:
Let me congratulate the Board of Trustees for their decision to accept the excellent plans of Campbell and Aldrich for the new dormitories. I hope you will be able to present the interior details and floor plans of the buildings soon. If they are as well conceived as the exterior, Hanover may at last have a group of new buildings worthy to rank with Reed, Thornton, Wentworth and Dartmouth Halls.
As a four-year resident of Crosby House where men were men and met the flora and fauna that inhabited the cans on an even basis I was appalled last year when it was suggested that Dartmouth dormitories have social rooms and, worse yet, faculty residents. The only non-student who ever ventured into Crosby was Buck Whitney and he only came to make the beds, sweep the beer cans off the stairs and play a little touch football in the hall.
The results of the experiment in Cutter Hall and the description of the new dorms have won me over completely. Perhaps dorm life can be part of the educational process even though not, mayhem and vandalism are replaced by gentler social and intellectual contests.
An indication of the new look to come on the Hanover Plain was evident last fall when the model of the new faculty apartments designed by Ted Hunter '38 and his wife were published. If the Hopkins Center emerges from the drawing boards as refreshing and as handsome as the new dorms and apartments, Dartmouth's physical plant will at last reflect the vigor and vision of her teaching and leadership.
Yonkers, N.Y.
"This Discordant Note"
The following letter, addressed to President Dickey, is printed with the permission of Mr. Kingsley. It states the position of some alumni who have expressed their disapproval of the new dormitories announced in our March issue.
DEAR PRESIDENT DICKEY
I have not been so emotionally disturbed for a great many years as I was last night when I saw the architect's sketch of the proposed new dormitories in the March issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE.
No one can know how many dollars Dartmouth College has failed to receive from alumni and others because of the Orozco murals in Baker Library, but I suspect that it might be a great many. It is probably fortunate that we will never know.
I think that the construction of the new dormitories may prove a more costly mistake than the Orozco murals. Aside from their stark rectangular ugliness, even in the pseudotropical setting of nonindigenous trees, these buildings are objectionable in view of the fact that they destroy the overall harmony of architecture which Mr. Larson for so many years sought to Establish. In the interests of this harmony, Butterfield was destroyed, and I believe that it is, or at least was, planned to tear down both Bissell and Wilson.
There is no virtue in adopting a purely functional type of architecture simply because it is modern. Butterfield was modern in its day, but it lacked the intrinsic beauty which would have made it an enduring monument to its designer. Likewise, I consider the new dormitories lack any recommendation except utility, modernity, and perhaps low cost. If the low cost should result in estranging donors to the Alumni Fund, it may prove to be extremely poor economy.
As for utility, modernity, and economy of construction, these features may well be paramount in an office building or a warehouse or a factory, but a dormitory is a place where men live, and its exterior should be gracious and possess charm of line and color. A rectangular building has no more beauty than a rectangular woman, and without beauty affection is inspired only by good works.
I have heard you say that possibly the explanation of the love that Dartmouth men have for their alma mater is based upon the factor of location, because other colleges which do not inspire such loyalty have every feature that Dartmouth has except that of location.
Mere topography, hills, trees, rivers, and valleys do not alone comprise the charm of Dartmouth's location. The charm lies in the harmony of its buildings in the scenic setting of Hanover. This harmony is something which Mr. Larson understood and which I believe has fostered the spirit which has made the Dartmouth Alumni Fund unique. The construction of the new dormitories in the type of architecture planned will be like the introduction of a pig in a flock of sheep. This discordant note can add nothing to foster the Dartmouth spirit, and may well weaken it. Rather than have another Butterfield to be torn down, would it not be better to forego this experiment in modernity?
There is virtue in consistency. There is weakness in inconsistency. I believe that the word "Ivy" as applied to Dartmouth is not used in a disparaging sense but rather in an enviously complimentary sense. I believe that our traditionalism is respected, and I cannot see why we should depart from it. I do not think that such departure will gain us the respect of those who do not now respect us and for whose respect we should have little concern, but I do think that such departure will cause us to lose the respect of those who admire consistency.
I cannot understand how a body of men as devoted to Dartmouth and her traditions and who are as hard-headed as our Trustees are supposed to be could have voted the funds to construct four dormitories so obviously out of tune with the established architectural tradition of the College.
It is hard for me to imagine that the virtues of the interior arrangements of the new dormitories cannot be preserved in an exterior more harmonious with such traditions, and I urge that thought be given to such an alternative.
Bethpage, N.Y.
The Intramural Facts
To THE EDITOR
May I call attention to a statement appearing in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE from which erroneous conclusions may be drawn.
On page 28 of the March issue in the review of the report on athletics to the Alumni Council, the chairman of the Dartmouth College Athletic Council, Mr. Sumner D. Kilmarx, is quoted as having said: "Sizable deficits in the D.C.A.C. financial operations will continue to be the price of having an intramural program and an intercollegiate program properly related to the educational purposes of the College." The obvious conclusions to be drawn from that statement are, first, that the intramural program is a part of the D.C.A.C. program, and secondly, it is supported by funds from the D.C.A.C.
The facts which I believe should be made quite clear are that neither of these conclusions is true. The administration of the intramural athletic program is and always has been a function of the Physical Education Department and not a part of the D.C.A.C. activities. In fact, the D.C.A.C. divorced any connection it may have had when several years ago it voted to discontinue the awarding of the traditional bar D managerial insignia to the senior student managers of the intramural department.
The intramural program is supported from funds which come from the College and not the D.C.A.C., and appears as an item in the budget of the Physical Education Department. In the year 1954-55 the budget was $4,000 and $3,646 of that amount was spent. For the current year, 1955-56, $4,000 has again been estimated as the cost for this program. This sum includes the cost of all medals and trophies awarded, student officials, a very nominal sum paid to the senior intramural managers, and the equipment issued for use in the dormitory and fraternity competitions. It also includes the cost of such items as marking the fields, erecting goal posts, backstops, etc.; as well as a rental fee of $600 to $700 to the D.C.A.C. for the use of the hockey rink for the intramural hockey competitions. With some 1800 to 2000 different students participating each year in intramural competitions, this program costs the College approximately $2.00 per participant.
I am sure that either Mr. Kilmarx made an honest mistake in his statement or that the reporter reviewing the meeting misquoted him. Nevertheless, in fairness to the Physical Education Department and its intramural program, I believe that the above information should be noted and clearly understood to avoid the implications of the statement as printed in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE.
Hanover, N.H.
A Flap?
To THE EDITOR
Last evening, after returning from a flick which was the greatest, I read your hoo-boo in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. It really psyched me UP.
What is this ipsy-pipsy business? Never heard of it. And this "See you around the quad." That is a University of Chicago phrase I brought back from there last year. I doubt that our students use it, as they seldom quote a Dean!
I see students every once in awhile as you know. They would flip if they read your article. What a flap it would make. If a Dartmouth student ever used the term "See you later alligator," I'd be surprised. I've been to a lot of blasts around here, and that phrase just isn't.
Shape up, boy.
Hanover, N.H.
Mr. Pemberton, who wrote the April article on student lingo, replies: "I am amazed that Dean Kiendl is so psyched up over my article. He is definitely out of it — a loser, in oilier words. Either he has been misled by a bunch of squares or simply lias forgotten that even for a Dean life on this quad can be ipsy-pipsy."
