LETTERS

From Guy P. Wallick '21, Alumni Council President

To THE EDITOR:

It seems desirable to reply to remarks made in the Hopkins Center discussion that concern the Alumni Council. This is a personal statement and not one resulting from formal action of the Council. I write as a member of the Council for the past three years, and its president this year.

The remarks on which I wish to comment are: (1) the inference that the administration wilfully withheld information from the alumni on the Hopkins Center plans and its concomitant, that the President is "denying to the alumni the right to a voice in College architectural matters," (2) that there is some sort of conspiracy to place upon the campus a structure completely out of keeping with Dartmouth tradition and environment, and (3) the Committee "should employ a plebiscite as to the merits of the outward aspects of the proposed Hopkins Memorial." As a matter for further comment is the answer to a question in one of the letters, "What is the Alumni Council's position on the Hopkins Center?"

Taking these in turn, with regard to the accusation in (1) the facts will show that the administration has gone to unusual lengths to keep the alumni fully and completely informed about the plans for the Hopkins Center. It is doubtful if any other institution in the country, in a like matter, has remotely approximated the full and continuous discussion that has been carried on with responsible alumni with respect to such planning. It is likewise reasonably certain that no previous building project at Dartmouth has ever had more exposure to alumni opinion in the course of its development. All interested organizations of alumni, including the Board of Trustees (who are all alumni of the College), the Alumni Council, the Development Council, the class and club officers associations, and numerous other regional associations, have been informed of the concept of and proposed plans for the Hopkins Center.

Speaking only about the Alumni Council: At its last four meetings, starting with the Minneapolis meeting in January 1956, President Dickey has personally addressed the Council on all matters concerning Dartmouth's Bicentennial, including plant planning. His discussions in this regard covered the need for the plant additions, the purposes to be served and, when known, the layout and architectural design and information on expected costs.

At no time during this period was there evidence that any significant information was being withheld. Architectural features were fully discussed and comment invited. It is doubtful if any member of the Council in attendance at any of the last four meetings can honestly say that anything was left undone to keep the Council completely informed on the current status of the various projects - particularly that of the Hopkins Center.

Surely any charge that the administration has failed to take representatives of the alumni body fully into its confidence cannot stand against the facts, which are accurately recorded in the minutes of the Council meetings and generally covered in subsesequent issues of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE.

Item (2) alluding to a conspiracy is so palpably the figment of someone's imagination that it is scarcely worthy of comment. All those who have important responsibilities with respect to the planning for the Hopkins Center are competent and conscientious people whose loyalty and devotion to Dartmouth are beyond question. Many are alumni who have labored untold hours and made sacrifices to be in attendance at numerous meetings. All have given their best effort and judgment in all aspects of the matter. The charge, to put it mildly, is utterly without substance and completely unsustainable.

The second part of this comment, that the proposed Hopkins Center is "a structure completely out of keeping with Dartmouth traditions and environment" is a statement of opinion about which there could be honest differences. I do not presume to judge the aesthetic values involved and, therefore, am not prepared to offer comment other "than to say that we heard a great deal of testimony supporting a contrary view about which there appeared to be no substantial disagreement.

Concerning item (3), that the Committee should employ a plebiscite to determine the merits of the architectural features of the Center, the most obvious reply to this is that Dartmouth, nor any other institution, could long maintain any semblance of dignity and order by leaving such matters to a referendum vote of its constituency. The determination of the amount and kind of plant facilities Dartmouth requires is the responsibility of the Board of Trustees. In it rests the sole authority for such decisions. While the amount and kind of facilities may be of great interest to alumni and their opinion quite valuable in such determinations, the utter futility of attempting to manage the business of the College by a polling process on every issue of major policy should be obvious to any reasonable person.

With reference to the last question, "What is the Alumni Council's position on the Hopkins Center," it should be made clear to all that the Council does not construe its function to be that of an approval agency for the acts or decisions of the College administration. It has responsibilities to both the administration and the alumni in matters of mutual interest, defined by the constitution of the Council, which provides, in part, that it is:

To act as a clearing house for alumni sentiment and the interchange of alumni ideas, and

To act as the official spokesman of alumni to the administration and as the avenue of approach by which the administration should have access to the alumni collectively.

Accordingly, as matters arise about which the College wishes to keep the alumni informed, to seek alumni opinion or to obtain alumni assistance, it has access to the Council either at its semiannual meetings or, in the interim, to the executive committee of the Council.

The College administrative authorities, however, have no obligation, expressed or implied, to seek the acquiescence of the Alumni Council with reference to any of its operations or official acts. As a matter of practice, they usually, if not invariably, keep the Council informed on all matters of major interest. The point is that the Council exercises no prerogatives of its own with reference to anything that is strictly College business. So when a question is raised as to the position of the Alumni Council on anything, such as the Hopkins Center, which is College business, it is unlikely that a formal position has been taken unless it has been sought by the College or there has been cause for the Council to initiate action of its own motion. And when the Council acts, either at the instigation of the College or on its own, it does so as the official representative body of the alumni and its position is taken as being the alumni viewpoint. The Council, acting in a liaison capacity, has functioned as a two-way communication channel between the College administration and the alumni body on virtually all matters having to do with the Bicentennial plans.

In direct answer to the question of the Council's position on the Hopkins Center plans: As the College has not sought a formal expression from the Council in regard to this matter and as there has been no contention, there has been no necessity for the Council to take a formal position and it therefore has not been done.

Each Council member is and has been free to express his views, privately or publicly. Discussion has taken place, both in meetings and without; questions have been asked and answered, presumably to the satisfaction of the questioner and to the Council as a whole.

While it cannot be stated unequivocably that each and every one involved in these Council discussions was or is in complete agreement with the Hopkins Center proposal, nonetheless, with equal candor, it can be stated that no Council member at any meeting has spoken adversely with respect to it.

But of there is any one thing that all alumni have in common, it is their avowed love for the place - called Dartmouth. Consequently, each alumnus is inclined to think of it in some way as his own possession, and is congenitally inclined to resist anything that is likely to change it as he knew it and loved it. This is completely understandable; but change it must, if each succeeding generation is to hold it in the same endearment as the ones that have gone before. A class in the late 20's would hardly have found in the Dartmouth of the 1870's a place of endearment. It would have been wholly uninteresting and woefully lacking in what they had a right to expect. They expected, and properly so, that the Dartmouth of their day would be in keeping with the times; i.e., that its progress had been much the same as in other institutions. So it will be with the upcoming classes of the 1970's — they will expect, and it is hoped that they will find their expectations fulfilled, a different and significantly better Dartmouth than that of today.

There is no question about the Hopkins Center being different from Dartmouth Hall, or Baker Library, or any number of other buildings on the campus. There is little disagreement, if any, about the eternal beauty of the former and the stately fitness of the latter. There is, apparently, in the minds of many, no question about the appropriateness of the new Hopkins Center in campus juxtaposition to these two sentimental stalwarts. With others there may be some doubt, and a few will continue to be unreconcilable.

In conclusion, it is hard for me to conceive that anyone could find an area for major controversy with the administration who has seen the model and has been exposed, as have the Council and many others, to the full story and details of plan and design of the Hopkins Center, including its concept as a social-cultural focus, its advanced facilities for the creative arts, its much needed instructional features, its Alumni Hall, and is familiar with the persuasive fact that the proposed structure can be built at much less cost than one of traditional design, assuming that the latter could be done at all.

At the June 1956 Council meeting, the Executive Committee of the Council, at the behest of the administration, agreed to keep itself informed on the Hopkins Center plans at each stage of its development. This the Committee has done and will continue to do in the interest of the alumni and the best interests of Dartmouth.

President, Alumni Council

San Francisco

More on the Hopkins Center

Because of the volume of mail on the subject, the editors cannot hope to print everyletter in full. We are making extra spaceavailable in order to give alumni writerstheir say and to present at some length themost thoughtful statements. Where condensation has been necessary, we have takenpains to preserve the essential core of a man'spersonal view.

Now that alumni opinion has been sothoroughly represented in the July and October issues, the editors hope that Magazinereaders will give us a chance to catch upwith other important Dartmouth matters.

It seems from the "Letters" and "More Letters" in the July issue that all is not well with the Hopkins Center despite the promises of its "broad welcoming facade . . . nestling among the elms [Dutch Disease and all] . . . dappled with northern sunlight. . . illuminated at night. . . ." and the mention of what can happen at "the witching hour of some June evening." In other words, it seems that there are those who do not like what they are told they must expect.

Sometime last year I wrote to one of the Trustees, expressing my concern over what seemed to be a radical departure from the generally accepted style of architecture of the College in the plans for the Hopkins Center. The reply which I received was comprehensive and rather devastating in so far as my concept of architecture, or perhaps I should say, harmony in architecture is concerned. Nevertheless the reply, although not causing me to change my views, did convince me that it would be better to leave bad enough alone; that Dr. Dickey and his inspired group of - to me - young zealots had the bit in their joint and several teeth and if too much was said, what seemed to me to be illadvised might, if possible, be made even worse. . . .

So, after reading the July issue, I got out that of May but did not get beyond the front cover and made no study of the interior. Probably I should say that I am not an architect. What I first saw with my fading eyesight was what looked like a glorified turkey roost, glass enclosed, with an overhang reminiscent of the long south sides of those barns down in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, to the right of which were what looked like three attached greenhouses with snowcovered roofs. Toward the rear I got only as far as that part of the structure described by some as having the stark lines of a grain elevator and by others as barnlike.

In this connection I thought it was a pity that College Street was to be closed, otherwise, while the "ivy" is "sedately" clothing the east end - and strangely enough some of the proponents of the announced plan seem to rely quite strongly on this "ivy" - what a chance there would be to utilize some real advertising space! A generation or two ago the road sides of so many barns all over our countryside were painted black upon which, in yellow letters, sometimes six feet in height, the merits of Hood's Sarsaparilla (a different family, I think, from that of our Trustee of that name), Carter's. Little Liver Pills, Plymouth Rock Pants and many other items were portrayed. Again, on the north face of this part of the structure which is "only" sixty-eight feet above the Campus level, what a place for a still or moving Neon sign! As for legends to display, how about, "This Is The Thrill!" or "This Is So Exciting!" or "Now You Have Seen Everything." The first two are suggested because the" key words, "thrill" and "exciting" are used by some of the proponents who seem to have what is sometimes described as the artistic temperament.

For those who do not like the layout there is a feeble ray of hope for it is said that according to plans, "three rows of trees [will] stand between it ["the north end of the huilding] and the green." The .suggestion of "three" rows may seem to indicate a dicker of doubt in the minds of those who are responsible for the general plan, but if the planters can be persuaded to set the trees close together and the trees are of the tall growing variety and nothing happens to them, then in some 75 years no one on the "Green" will be able to see the building. And so it may come to pass that between the "ivy" and the "trees" much of the fear of today will have been allayed....

Lawrence, Mass.

To THE EDITOR:

I've been particularly interested in the Great Debate over plans for Hopkins Center because it happens that the company I work for at present (Corning Glass) has also employed architect Wallace Harrison to design some buildings. Nearly 20 million dollars worth, in fact, over the past six years.

I have a word of cheer for fellow-alumni: Mr. Harrison knows what he is doing. He knows, for example, that an expensive building is first of all a place where people work or play, not just a model for picture postcards.

He knows that if you try too hard to recapture the past, you're liable to end up with something that is only nondescript. He is a great respecter of traditions, so much so that he likes to make new ones. And he has the skill and vision to do so.

Now before someone from the class of '14 climbs down my throat, I'll admit that the architectural problems of a manufacturing company and those of a liberal arts college are not necessarily the same.

For one thing, the company must satisfy - or at least keep from open mutiny — only a board of directors, a few thousand employees and a labor union.

The College, on the other hand, must cope with all us emotional stockholders who drive up to Hanover in cars with curved windshields and return to split-level homes with picture windows, but resent a Dartmouth building that gives you a view of the green without craning your neck.

What's the matter with us —alumni schizophrenia?

Dartmouth is not a tourist shrine, frozen forever in one architectural pose. It's a living institution that must keep on creating to stay alive. Congratulations to the College for keeping its eyes on the future as well as on the past, and for choosing Wallace Harrison to help make the vision real.

Cannondale, Conn.

To THE EDITOR:

The critics of the architecture of the Hopkins Center do not visualize what they are asking for when they demand that it "match" the rest of the campus. This could be done by making the Hopkins Center a watereddown edition of either College Row or the Baker Group. Both of these are complete and self-contained architectural compositions. To add to them would detract from them; to put copies at the south end of the campus would he likely to caricature them.

In my student days I sometimes wandered in Vermont during the sugar season. The custom was to offer the visitor a saucer of maple syrup — and then a pickle. He could continue the consumption of syrup as long as the pickles held out. This principle applies to architecture. Any style of building will cloy if there is too much of it. On the Dartmouth campus are two delicious architectural pickles — Wilson Hall and Rollins Chapel. Both are good examples of what are now unpopular styles, hut they are self-contained, complete and excellent as far as they go. Actually, Wilson adds something to Reed by contrast, while Rollins gives Wheeler a decided lift. I hope both will be spared for years to come....

Dartmouth has been fortunate in its architecture. The only bad buildings were Hallgarten and Culver which were taken over from what is now the University of New Hampshire — and a fire finished Culver. The rest of our buildings are interesting in themselves and refreshing in their variety. The Hopkins Center will add a touch of color and modernity, but it will enhance rather than detract from the glories of Dartmouth, Reed, and Baker.

Mt. Vernon, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

Loyalty to "traditions" seems to characterize much of the criticism that is being leveled at plans for the Hopkins Center, but just what are these Dartmouth "traditions," anyway?

If they are architectural, would it not be consistent for us to construct all our buildings after the style of the original Dartmouth Hall? If they are social, do they stem from the days of the "sweatshirt democracy"? If they are cultural, where do we find justification for professional instructors for painting, woodcraft, dramatics, music, and the like?

Most Dartmouth men would have difficulty explaining just what our famed "traditions" are. And we must admit that there was a time, around the turn of the century, when some Dartmouth traditions were not exactly a credit to the College.

Almost without our noting it a new Dartmouth tradition has been in the making Tucker prepared the ground for it' Hopkins cleared the atmosphere; and Dickey has charted new trails and led the College toward new horizons while some tradition-bound educators were chatting contentedly around their campfires.

This outlook and this policy have been with us long enough to have earned a place among the most cherished of our traditions. Can we not begin to take pride in Dartmouth's traditional courage in reaching out beyond ideas that have become conventional and therefore noncontroversial? Has it not become traditional for Dartmouth to sense the challenge of changing times and prepare itself to meet it?

Let's be realistic rather than nostalgic in evaluating our traditions. May I suggest a new criterion: Traditions should be our guide but not our aim.

East Greenwich, R. I.

To THE EDITOR

Some months ago, I objected to the modernistic dormitories which were being erected, as being out of tune with Dartmouth. Now comes Hopkins Center.

I have discussed the architectural rendering of this excellent addition to the College with old and young grads and find 95% uniformity of opinion that this glass and steel structure, facing the beautiful library and Webster Hall, will destroy the atmosphere of the campus.

There is no objection to the physical layout. On the contrary, everyone realizes the manifold advantages of the new Center. But why the necessity for the hideous north elevation, when a softer treatment, in conformity with the Dartmouth we all love, could be substituted?

I have been a poor predictor in the past, but I venture to try once more and say that this Center, if built facing the campus as now contemplated, will be the butt of more criticism than anything Dartmouth has done since its founding.

Sterling, Va.

To THE EDITOR:

I think all Dartmouth men would agree that the College's architectural setting which a young man experiences for four years is an integral part of the curriculum. I know all will agree that Dartmouth Row is tops for its era. But, are we to constrain our curriculum to the 18th Century only? If so, the Music Department for one had better limit themselves to Bach and Mozart and forget about Strauss and Gershwin.

What kind of a Dartmouth do the traditionalists foresee - looking ahead one, two and three centuries? Will they agree' that modern architecture (and of course we mean the best of modern architecture) is here to stay? I am confident that it is, and further that it will be considered representative of the 20th Century. If this is so, how can we ignore it? Instead, let's attempt to match the perfection of Dartmouth Row in any and all contemporary design. This I think Mr Harrison has done.

The Hopkins Center Building Committee is thinking boldly, in terms not merely of rooms, but of a large campus, a wellrounded curriculum and a distant future The old traditions won't fail. If Dartmouth Hall burns again, we'll build it again!

Brooklyn, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

"We are suffering from a severe case of cultural indigestion." So spoke Professor Packard to one of his Art classes some twelve years ago. Truer words, I fear, could never be spoken concerning the sentiments of some alumni in regard to the proposed Hop kins Center.

After carefully digesting the various appraisals made of the Center in the Alumni Magazine, I am sure that the common denominator of the controversy is entirely one of association. Whereas one will associate the proposed structure as a twentieth-century monster set amongst the gems of yesterday, another will view it as a true expression of our times and needs blending harmoniously with the same from the past. I think that the aesthetic success of any building can be measured best by the degree with which it can be associated with the purpose for which it is intended, the setting within which it is a part and an individual's interpretation of the manner in which it performs this function. Is not part of the aesthetic quality of Old Dartmouth Row its association with a past era of academic classroom life and its ability to perform that same function today in the same simple and serene way? Its architecture was vital to that function then and because of this honesty it is beautiful today.

In contrast we have Baker Library which has balance and beauty of form but aesthetically will fail the appraisal of time because its form cannot honestly be associated with its primary function of housing books.

Mr. Harrison is a master of interpretation and association. He has not only created a design which magnificently portrays the creative arts for which it is intended but has also associated it through materials and an honesty of form with its surroundings of Dartmouth's living past.

Might we then all invest a little in the future, mix it with an understanding of the past and become enlightened to the antidote for "cultural indigestion."

Bloomfield, Conn.

To THE EDITOR:

The internal purposes and functions of the proposed Hopkins Center were detailed admirably in the May issue, and I thoroughly approve them. BUT, the externalia? Quellehorreur!

"Amorphous" (lacking in normal organization or shapeliness; of anomalous character or form) is my best descriptive adjective. To see that hunch-backed heap, prominently on the rim of the campus, grinning like a gargoylish basilisk at Baker, would make me reach for dramamine.

A few years before I started my four unforgettable years in Hanover, Rollins Chapel was built - a modern architectural gem at that time. Now . . .? Doctor Tucker terminated his Presidency when my class graduated - his crowning achievement!

Ernest Martin Hopkins - solid, squarebuilt, of symmetrical mind - deserves a better-looking tribute than this discordant, sacrilegious profanation of the scene remembered by thousands of the most loyal alumni in this country. . . .

Of course I realize that I've gone to seed and am just hanging on the limb like many other sentimental seniles; still there are younger graduates who accept my view....

Bradford, Vt.

To THE EDITOR:

I would like to go on record as being strongly favorable to the proposed plan. It seems to me that it will serve its purpose far more successfully than anything that could be designed in the "traditional" architecture of the College. I would say that the present plan offers very much what the College needs - both expanded facilities and an architec- tural design which does them full justice.

New York, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

There is only one sensible way to build anything, and that is in the best manner of the present time. The results may be disconcerting at times but in the long run a more interesting and inclusive record of the past will be preserved. I should like to see the ideals of each generation preserved and this can be done only if every artist and every builder is encouraged to work in the best manner possible to him.

Many crimes have been committed in the name of Georgian, and some of them on the Hanover scene. The general effect has been good but the buildings are undistinguished. Furthermore this particular mold of form cannot be forever preserved. You have to break through eventually.

Lookout Mountain, Tenn.

TO THE EDITOR

I would like to add my voice to the many alumni who are disappointed and upset to see the planned Center for Dartmouth. Last week I was in Hanover and I tried to visualize from the Commons how the proposed building would fit the campus. In my feeling, after looking at wonderful Dartmouth Row in white and black on the hill, it would be most unfortunate to build the proposed building. Why not add a Center in the spirit of Dartmouth Row?

Please try to consider our feelings as alumni. We want the College to prosper and build, but in the tradition going back to 1789 which has been so meaningful right up to date. As a college professor myself I want the best of education and facilities, but please keep Dartmouth Row's tradition bright!

Oneonta, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

I wish to express complete approval of the Hopkins Center design, both exterior and interior. Personally, I believe that the modern style planned is beautifully adapted to blend with the present buildings as well as serve the functional demands of the buildings. To insist upon a Georgian style would be to make the same type of mistake that Princeton and Yale campuses exemplify. My heartiest congratulations and thanks to the committee for their superb job.

Indianapolis, Ind.

To THE EDITOR:

I noticed that some of the dissenters regarding the Hopkins Center architecture hinted that many alumni would end their loyalty to the College, especially when the Alumni Fund campaign rolls around, unless the administration repents. I question whether real Dartmouth loyalty is based upon an "agree-with-me-or-else" idea.

It seems to me that more important than architecture is the matter of building educated men with the best facilities and faculty possible.

Sameness in architecture is not necessarily the criterion for the best in education. Nor would originality in variety necessarily hinder the liberating arts.

Maybe we should follow the recommendation of a speaker at Dartmouth's latest Commencement that, when one disagrees strongly, let him say to himself: "I think I am right, but I know I may be wrong."

West Orange, N. J.

To THE EDITOR

It seems to me to be a self-evident fact that Dartmouth College is in the most embarrassing position it has ever been in as far as living up to its stated purpose: a wellrounded education, a liberal one. The opposition to its plans for a contemporary structure on its campus, from the alumni, as large as it is, certainly indicates that she has most assuredly neglected their education in this department. Dartmouth College is one of the backward colleges as far as contemporary design goes. The widespread opposition to the fine plans is the strongest reason for the construction of the building.

Warner, N. H.

To THE EDITOR:

Let the old moss backs rave! The Hopkins Center is a major achievement tor the College. Our trustees have wisely chosen one of the finest architectural firms in the country — a firm large enough to include many points of view, and some of the brightest, liveliest minds in the field of design. The firm has doubtless consulted with the College faculty on all intimate working details of a practical nature and the result appears to be a college building that is a handsome addition to the Hanover plain - no doubt will become, like Dartmouth Hall - a campus showplace.

Other colleges and schools - Harvard, Yale, Vassar, Andover to name a very few, yes, even Princeton - have in recent years constructed their new buildings in our contemporary manner. Surely all schools face this same problem of the old, irate alumni who make themselves heard.... It doesn't do any harm. Go on with the project.

New York, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

Here is my complete and enthusiastic approval of the Hopkins Center, in concept and design. Professor Lathrop has made such a sensitive (and sensible) explanation of the reasons for selecting the design that there is little to add to it. Dartmouth traditionally is free-thinking and liberal. It is a college which is a leader in modern liberal arts education. This building will be a reflection of all these things that Dartmouth upholds in the educational field.

As an Architect, my thinking is in accord with Harrison's. Today our scope of design is practically limitless. We can plan whatever we need from within, and express it in simple beauty from without. The disciplined use of glass and brick in this building is just that. Wake up, fellow alumni; shelve your reactionary aspersions to Butterfield, Bissell, Bartlett and Rollins! You make no mistake in accepting truth and beauty. Eleazar's design of Dartmouth was contemporary and it was truthful and beautiful. Anything else would not have lasted. Here is our chance, two hundred years later.

Newburgh, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

Let me state at the outset that I think the plan is beautiful, the functional design magnificent, for other places, but don't let this type of architecture come to the Dartmouth scene until Dartmouth Row and Baker Library crumble. Then we can start all over again with such architecture as this new functional design. It just doesn't fit now. We have had some misfits before, so let's not do it again.

I don't mean that the design must be exactly in the tradition of Dartmouth Row or Baker Library, but it could come closer to living with them and that it must because of proximity. It will probably be the argument of those who want the Hopkins Center plan to remain as is, that functionally it cannot be reconciled to any other design. This I don't believe. There can still be plenty of glass, patios, studios, theaters, etc., with a little more traditional design. Think it over.

Staunton, Va.

To THE EDITOR:

It may well be that those who generally approve the Hopkins Center project as presented in the Alumni Magazine assume that it is a fait accompli and therefore have not taken the opportunity of writing you about it. On the contrary, those who have some criticism may have been more articulate in this matter.

I would like to state that at any period of time contemporary building materials must be used to their best advantage for the purposes and functions for which a building is required. To me the exterior arrangement of the Hopkins Center as proposed is merely a reflection of a well-planned and functional interior that to my eye is as attractive as any exterior architecture that may have been functional at the time it was built. To me there is nothing sacred in Hanover about copying early Georgian architecture which was functional and proper in the fireplace era before the availability of steel, reinforced concrete and glass.... I approve of the present plans for the Center.

Springfield, Vt.

To THE EDITOR:

In numerous discussions with other alumni, both in the Detroit area and around the country, one question and one opinion have always been respectively asked and expressed. The question: Whether the Hopkins Center as now contemplated isn't, to a large extent, a collection of luxury items and, if so, whether its cost could not be better utilized to provide facilities much more urgently needed at this time? Others are much better qualified to answer this than I. It is a fair question, however, and it is being asked.

The opinion (and it has been unanimous and emphatic wherever I have heard the subject discussed): The proposed architecture of the Center is out of keeping with and repulsive to its surroundings. This is a very much watered-down version of the opinions I have heard expressed on the subject, and with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is modern - yes. In another location, such as the Eastland Shopping Center in Detroit (with which I had a little to do), it would be most impressive. But in Hanover, especially next to the Inn and facing the campus, it is a monstrosity. A corollary question is whether this feeling, widely held, will have a detrimental effect on the fund-raising drive. There are many who think this might be so.

Detroit, Mich.

To THE EDITOR:

Little can be added to what has already been put forth in opposition to the proposed design for the Hopkins Center. Therefore I can only endorse and second these critics so they will know they are not voices crying in the wilderness.

Please add my name to what I hope is a long list of alumni who request a major change and not a few small compromises in the present plans for this building.

New York, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

In reference to the Hopkins Center, it is my opinion that the contemporary plan which has been presented by the ALUMNI MAGAZINE is excellent. It is in keeping with the eclectic architecture of Dartmouth and the present trends of the College. Please go ahead!

Belle Harbor, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

When a young minister was asked if he thought unmarried girls should use contraceptives he said that controversy indicates validity on both sides. I have learned that this idea is an important ingredient in the working philosophy of scout leaders, politicians and architects. In the Hopkins Center situation we see controversy born not of significant disagreement but rather of two opposing and articulate points of view gathering the support of many inarticulate persons. In such an either-or situation the values and purposes we cherish are often damaged while both points of view are poorly represented.

Only the most desperate searchers for security could hope to find it achieved in renewed effort to give the Hopkins Center a Georgian exterior. When one of the most highly skilled exponents of this art, one of whose greatest accomplishments is Baker Library, was commissioned to make the try some years ago the reaction of students and alumni shook the foundations of Dartmouth Hall. In the face of this experience it is difficult to imagine any large number of intelligent people endorsing such a program again unless the only alternative is unsatisfactory to them and they know of no other way to express themselves.

Perhaps this is a validity which should be examined by the Board of Trustees and their architect. Perhaps the ALUMNI MAGAZINE should try to become more effective toward raising the level of architectural criticism by sustaining a policy of both enlightening its readers as to the specific problems involved in building design and providing a forum for the exchange of ideas. Perhaps, when meaning can be found in building form, the need for both eclectic and modern taste will know some restraint. Perhaps, some day, Dartmouth will be able to build a good building.

New Haven, Conn.

To THE EDITOR:

I might begin by explaining that I am a practicing Architect, not "World Famous," and have hesitated to express my views for two reasons. First, it is not considered good taste for one Architect to criticize another, but in this instance it is not out of place to express my opinions as an Alumnus. Second, it is necessary to know the facts before one can really make an adequate criticism of a project. Having read all the articles in the May issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, I felt that they were aimed at "Salesmanship," and that in some instances there was an over-enthusiastic appreciation of the building because it was "different." . . .

The program for the building as stated by President Dickey is an ambitious one, and the plan, if it followed the program and did not precede it, does an excellent job of solving that problem. I presume that some of the alumni in their criticism of the project have actually been criticizing this program rather than the structure which intends to house the program. Assuming that we agree with the objectives of the program, the plan of the Center is a very admirable one and I find that my criticisms would lie mainly of a specific nature such as, "Where do you park your car for the concert?" . . .

There has been a tendency among present day architects to force their structures in an effort to be different. Apparently there is a feeling abroad that if a structure is different and exciting, it is good architecture. Experience has shown this to be a hazardous way of bidding for lasting fame. The architect for the Center has not fallen prey to the mere desire to be different in form or in structure but has kept his structure as simple and straight-forward as the* plan would permit. I also feel that the architect has endeavored and has succeeded in preventing his building from becoming as barren and as cold as many examples of contemporary architecture are. . . .

I have little sympathy for those critics who bring Dartmouth Row and Baker Library into the controversy. If Dartmouth Row is great architecture, and we all seem to agree that it is, then we reed have no fear about the Hopkins Center intruding upon that greatness. Rather, if time shows that the Hopkins Center does not live up to the greatness of its forebears we can have nothing but pity that it should attempt to exist among more illustrious examples. The greatness of any architecture has never been dimmed because of the commonness that has grown up around it. But there is nothing common about the Hopkins Center. It is an honest and forthright structure, speaking elegantly and with restraint in the distinguishing phrases of our life today.

Princeton, Mass.

To THE EDITOR:

I cast my vote for Georgian. Our campus is already a hodge-podge of architectural styles which badly distracts from the pleasant serenity and beauty of Dartmouth Row. I would consider it a shame to further mar our campus, and especially Dartmouth Row, by adding to the confusion of our campus architecture instead of adding to its harmony.

I should like to see a building of Georgian facade and general structure - and yet encompassing all the light, space, and working room of the modern know-how inside. I have seen this done successfully in Baltimore in many of the new churches and schools being erected now. I like modern design very much, but when I think of Dartmouth College and Dartmouth Row, I should like even more to see the stately Georgian style preserved. And especially since it can be preserved at no cost to modern working conditions inside, if planned diligently.

Pikesville, Md,

To THE EDITOR:

I wish to thank Professor Lathrop for voicing my own sentiments on the Hopkins Center so perfectly.

Dartmouth College's central purpose, unlike Williamsburg, Virginia, is not to recreate life as it was in 1770 but to prepare men for the challenges of life in the twentieth century. The curriculum as well as the teaching methods have changed markedly from the day Dartmouth Hall was built to the present to accomplish this end. In fact, the interiors of the buildings themselves have been modernized to keep step with the changing times. Only the outside skins of the buildings have been made to look as if they were built almost two hundred years ago. I would not change the appearance of authentic 18th and 19th century buildings for anything, but to continue to build in a style which developed from building techniques and uses outmoded today, or at least to try to give the effect of that style by simply adding a few Georgian motifs for the sake of harmony, seems quite false to me. . . .

I feel that Mr. Harrison's design for the Hopkins Center fills the bill. It is a handsome building which from its modest position to the left of the College Row will contribute greatly, taking its part in shaping a modern college life for men who will be confronted with a modern world.

Holyoke, Mass.

To THE EDITOR:

I would like to say a few words about the Hopkins Center. First, jerry Lathrop's article in the July issue, "Hopkins Center and Dartmouth Hall," is definitive and should nail the thing down. It is an excellent article. It, and it alone, should have accompanied the Sample sketches in the earlier issue. It was the gunk and gobbledygook written or suggested by the Madison Avenue boys, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the puerile Madison Avenue approach, that made the Alumni sick. And that, in turn, led some of them to sound off on Architect Harrison.

Second, I am wondering out loud - this is not even a suggestion because I don't presume to know about such matters - I am wondering if the Center could be brick painted white. White in modern painting is used most effectively and also it might be a tie in with Dartmouth Row. I say might because I really don't know.

Third, my only criticism of the plan has already been voiced. This idea that student artists should paint in public is for the birds — or the Agora of Athens. In this day and age of subjectivity in art any serious professional or amateur would prefer to compose privately. This is something I think I do know about.

Uniontown, Pa.

To THE EDITOR:

The new Hopkins Center as proposed in the May issue of the DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE is certainly a masterful approach to an age-old problem that has plagued not only Dartmouth, but the whole American community as well. Too long now the creative aspects of life have been hidden away and segregated from the everyday affairs of the citizen. What Dartmouth is trying to do today is to make art, music, theatre and the crafts a regular part of the everyday life of the student - the benefits of which he will take out with him to a civilian live which, I am sure, will be much enriched by this association.

There is something very healthy about this attitude in Dartmouth's new contribution. It says that creativity does not belong in some dingy sky-lit cell, or a cellar or an attic. It says that the writer and craftsman will be no longer considered as a stay-by-himself, but will become a vital part of our communities. It also says that arts belong in life with our science, our work, athletics, and the great out-of-doors which is so much part of the Dartmouth tradition.

Consequently since the design of the new center is based largely on the aforesaid premises, I would not disagree with its general conception. In its final form the building as designed by Mr. Harrison and his firm will, I feel, be very successful, and the use of any design but contemporary would make us traitors to our age. There is nothing basically incongruous between traditional and contemporary architecture. Mr. Harrison, I am sure, well knows this and has come up with a solution that will conflict neither with the bastard Romanesque of Wilson Museum nor pure Georgian of Dartmouth Hall. The simplicity of these new structures can walk hand in hand with both.

Bowling Green, Va.

To THE EDITOR:

I must admit that I have not seen the architect's model of the Hopkins Center, which seems to he the suggested solution to most of the criticism. However, I cannot understand how a model or the "blending color of the brick," nor "the inclusion of a generous corner of the Inn," can magically blend the proposed design into the beauty and harmony of the present buildings that front on the campus.

The words most often used, I find, in defense of the proposed design are "exciting," "functional," and "contemporary." Nowhere are found the words "beauty" or "harmony."

The stately, unfading charm of the dominating Baker group and Dartmouth Row has always given me a feeling of warm pride in the appearance of the campus. Certainly architects could house the planned facilities in something more harmonious, if they would. Sadly, it is my conclusion that the committee has been sold a bill of goods (more suited to the M.I.T. campus or a contemporary elementary school), to the detriment of Dartmouth.

Needham, Mass.

To THE EDITOR:

Although I fully appreciate, and in many ways agree with, the alumni who would prefer a new piece of architecture to conform with what has already been constructed adjacent to it, near to it or even visible from it, I also feel that if the new piece of architecture is "good" it can also conform, in its own contemporary period, to the architecture of an earlier period that stands around it

Personally I'd find this world a pretty sorry place in which to live, devoid of excitement and interest, if all man's "good" handiwork were of the same design or pattern. Nature itself is not composed of one order of design. I would not be unhappy if Hopkins Center were Georgian Colonial so long as it were well designed and planned to meet its functions, nor would I be antipathetic to a well designed contemporary piece of architecture that performed the same purpose and was closely related in feeling and in mood to what stood around it.

Incidentally, where were the alumni when the Richardsonian chapel and Bissell and the Museum were built within sight of Dartmouth Row? Where were they when Commons and Robinson were constructed opposite Dartmouth Row?

For conformity of variety, and there is such a thing, witness Copley Square in Boston. How cleverly and artistically McKim, Mead and White's Public Library, Richardson's Trinity Church, the Sheraton Plaza Hotel and even the Old South Church conform or live well together even though their designs and periods are different.

The Hopkins Center, to me, is an exciting piece of contemporary architecture, and whatever you do, as long as the building gets along well with its neighbors I am all for it - and it can, without necessarily being of the same period.

Henniker, N. H.

To THE EDITOR:

Let's call a spade a spade. The Hopkins Center is not going to "harmonize" with all buildings on the campus, and certainly not with Dartmouth Row. Harmonizing in this case seems to connote a series of consonances as in music. All visitors to the campus will comment on the abrupt shift from one architecture to another. This will be at the tip of everyone's tongue.

Do Dartmouth graduates go into the world thinking that all will be harmony? Who can expect so much harmony after two or three years of earning a living and marriage, et cetera? Is every town expected to preserve one architecture throughout its centuries of existence? Why the devil should We all revere the jolly Dartmouth Row to the extent that we cannot tolerate anything which reveals it to be a thing of the past, for the past, done in the past? The attitude is simply this: since the world is changing, at least leave my Dartmouth campus alone. But Dartmouth could not long survive such a brittle status quo. In fact, the Roman Empire was unable to.

Therefore, the problem is not "harmony" with Dartmouth Row, but the quality of the contemporary architecture. Does it look like a grain elevator, and if so, does it appear as an interesting one? This is a legitimate problem to consider. I hope the very best effort, at the highest level of intelligence, was put into the deliberation. There is where you stand or fall. . .

One more point. It is out of the question to destroy everything old to install everything new for complete "harmony." Besides, it would be sickeningly dull and stupid. We should think of the Dartmouth campus a little more as a city which has to clear out slums, which finds it worthwhile to erect mighty monuments from time to time, and spans time with a variety of sometimes clashing architecture. It is a continual effort. It is for lis to find it rewarding. Here is where the devil takes the hindmost! I would say that the Hopkins Center is in "harmony" with something much more important than the tender Dartmouth Row. It is harmonious with courses like Great Issues, with the huge effort to put Liberal Arts Education on a sure footing in a world which threatens to ignore its virtues, and with the best intentions we can muster in the face of a completely unpredictable near future.

La Puente, Calif.

To THE EDITOR:

I would like to express my approval of all aspects of the Hopkins Center as proposed. As all who are familiar with the College know, this Center has long been needed and the closer it comes to being a reality, the more anxious many of us are to see it become a functioning part of the Dartmouth campus.

I personally am most pleased that the exterior style chosen is Modern. Unfortunately, the public frequently frowns upon a contemporary approach to architectural design, and until they are sufficiently educated to appreciate this style, projects of this nature will continue to meet criticism. I feel certain that the Center as designed by Mr. Harrison will be a truly wonderful addition to the campus - an addition of which all Dartmouth will be pleased and proud.

Syracuse, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

Re: Hopkins Center — No!

I presume that with the updating will also come others, viz:

Men of Dartmouth give a rouse For the Cow Barn on the Hill!

Waukegan, Ill.

To THE EDITOR:

Hopkins Center is a modern contribution to higher learning and therefore should reflect its timeliness in its physical form. Anything but contemporary architecture would be a contradiction to the function of the structure. Furthermore, the appearance of a modern building on the campus would be quite refreshing and its simplicity should make it a good foil for the existing buildings.

More than that, it's an opportunity for Dartmouth to physically display its progressiveness. President Dickey's policies of curriculum have always been in this vein, so let's by all means have a building that typifies this Dartmouth feeling.

New York, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

I have the impression that much of the adverse criticism of the Hopkins Center has come from our older alumni who have been out of college for many years. This group seems to have lost contact with the "context of our times." They seem to be deeply concerned with traditions of Dartmouth life, and argue that Mr. Harrison's design disregards these traditions. I am 100% for tradition; it's a treasure and perhaps a luxury and I am not willing to relinquish it readily either. . . .It is not a question of whether we are destroying the old traditions with the construction of Hopkins Center, but rather, are we enhancing and enriching the ideas (traditions) for which Dartmouth stands? I deeply believe that the Center greatly adds to rather than detracts from Dartmouth life. Life at Dartmouth has taught me to draw from past experiences (sound traditions), and to turn these into "living" tools. Mr. Harrison has done this with his concept of Hopkins Center. He has captured the Dartmouth spirit and used it in his living and functional building. Rather than a static monument, it will lie a breathing, living structure that advocates the ever continual search for the truth. . . .

The old traditions haven't failed; they've just been energized to fit contemporary life at Dartmouth!

New Britain, Conn.

To THE EDITOR:

It was good news to learn in the May issue that the long-needed social and creative art center would finally be built. However it was indeed sad news to see the sketches, plans, and models of the Center, which is dedicated to creative arts but is so completely out of harmony with the architectural beauty of most of the other buildings of the College. As is usually the case, the building committee had no member with wide architectural or building experience; even a layman should see that the buildings are as unsuited to the north country as a Bikini bathing suit, but they lack the latter's excuse of showing off good lines.

The aim of modern architecture is functionalism. The indiscriminate use of glass in these buildings violates all principles of functionalism and good architecture. The draftsman made the error of covering the north and south elevations of the auditorium with windows. When he discovered his error, instead of erasing the windows, he compounded the error by adding interior walls to shut out the light from the windows that have no artistic or useful function. This draftsman cares not that he uses two walls where one will serve nor does he care that the heat loss from the glass is over double a solid wall construction. The glass hole which cuts up the center of the Top of the Hop is about as functional as a hole in the head. . . .

Berlin, Conn.

To THE EDITOR:

. . .As a graduate of the class of '55, I would like to offer a counter protest to those who feel that the past is better than the present or the future. We say that Dartmouth is a great college in a great country, yet many of what we consider to be quite backward countries are leaping ahead of us in building monuments to a new spirit rather than seeking refuge in some old security symbol of the past.

I believe that the "Voice crying in the wilderness" is the voice of the future and not the timid voice of those who wish to go backwards rather than forwards. I sincerely hope that I am not proven wrong.

Gloucester, Mass.

To THE EDITOR:

This is to cast an affirmative ballot for a contemporary approach to the design of the new Hopkins Center.

A recurring thought, and perhaps thus a fairly cogent one, is that there are already several architectural styles surrounding the same Common of which this structure will become a part. Superficially this may be taken as an apology, but I believe the implications go far deeper, for a building is basically an idea, or a collection of ideas, which are more or less directly integrated with the general thought developed during a given historical period (which, it should be remembered, is really only a dimension in time for the convenience of historians). There is, admittedly, some precedent for an eclectic approach to design as one makes the circuit about the Common, but the buildings which are the most striking rely the least on this lack of conviction. I should like to believe that the ideas and ideals of our time are sufficiently strong and sufficiently valid to be expressed for future generations in the additions we make to the college plant. As a matter of fact, to reduce this design to a question of style or mode is to admit to a considerable barrenness of spirit and superficiality of planning which would compromise the whole project. If we cannot look to our institutions of higher learning for this conviction and decisiveness, then perhaps we have a true barometer to the nature of our age and its position in time (history). . . .

Concord, Mass.

To THE EDITOR:

Living here in California during the past 13 years, I have not been in close touch with conditions at Dartmouth, nor in contact with large alumni groups. But on a recent extended trip through New England, including two days at Hanover, I discussed the situation with a substantial number of Dartmouth men. The large majority are greatly disappointed, to put it mildly, by the Hopkins Center plans. Moreover they share the serious concern, which I have felt for some years, that the present college administration and faculty thinking give evidence of trends so far to the left as definitely to threaten the standing and future prestige of Dartmouth. A minority evinced from guarded approval to vague dissatisfaction, but pointed out the futility of trying to do anything about it. These seem to fear that they must accept what one might term inevitable concession to present day so-called "liberalism." . . .

Not expert in such matters, I leave to others so qualified any elaboration on the inappropriateness of such a modern architectural novelty adjacent to Dartmouth Row and other campus buildings. For my part, I know that such an ultra-functional and utterly incongruous addition to the campus would ruin for me the unique beauty of the present Hanover setting. This type of structure, if built in Hanover at all, should be quite removed from Dartmouth Row and its vicinity.

My second objection relates to the impact which the admitted so-called "workshop" aspect of the proposed Center would have on the sort of liberal education which I had assumed to be the chief objective of Dartmouth. There appears to be, underlying this project, the idea that the average student will be expected to devote a major portion of his time to theatrical and other extra-curricular activities for which such generous provision is planned. Of course such things have their proper place, but can they not be over emphasized at the expense of some of the fundamental values of a classical education? Is it the intent to convert Dartmouth into a kind of glorified Pasadena Playhouse?

Los Angeles, Calif.

To THE EDITOR:

I want to take a moment to write a belated word of appreciation and support for the efforts of the Building Committee, and for Mr. Harrison's design for the Hopkins Center. The presentation in the May issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE was extremely well done.

The modern design will, I feel, enhance our most attractive campus. In particular, it offers a pleasing contrast to the lovely Old Row. At the same time, it represents a spirit or tradition indicated in the Old Row; it stems from the same sense of elegant grace and economy which appears in the genuine Georgian design.

I am gratified to see the College take a bold forward step in introducing such attractive contemporary work on the main campus. I think it would have been entirely unrepresentative of the College, its program and its traditions to return to a theme of architectural imitation and monotony which characterizes so many campuses across the nation.

Doylestown, Pa

To THE EDITOR:

The plan of Hopkins Center seems well conceived, and uses the ground available to good purpose. It seems, further, a pecuniary sacrifice of the development of the College, from an endemic point of view; either the Center or the campus will prove an anachronism. In my opinion, the integrity of the entire scene, already spoiled by Rollins Chapel, will further deteriorate; the campus will look desultory. If Georgian grace be the present motif - I say Georgian grace, and may it continue.

Detroit, Mich.

TO THE EDITOR:

. . . The way I look at it is that to build anything but a modern building will spoil the wonderful buildings that are already there (some of them, that is). I have visited colleges from Connecticut to California and have seen how thoroughly boring one style of architecture can be. More than once I have been shown a new student center, or science building, or even an art building and asked what I thought of this magnificent structure done in the old college style. You can well guess my polite but dubious answer. I usually can't tell which is the new building and then have to be convinced by going inside and viewing the modern interior. No, this new structure, properly set back from the street and constructed of the traditional red brick and white trim will in no way detract from Old Dartmouth Row. It will indicate by its architecture when it was built and why and what its use is. It is unmistakably a center for all students to come to, to relax in, and to enjoy. I am sure that if all the functions of this building were set behind a false front of Georgian, regardless of how nicely it has served for many of the College buildings, one couldn't help but feel that he was being fooled every time he looked at it.

I have only two objections to the Center. One is the large lump of building which houses the stage material and seems to jut above all the rest of the structure. It seems that this will be rather ugly when the elms are not in bloom. ... My second objection is a minor but none the less real one. This whole program to increase the students exposure to the Arts and thereby his interest is an excellent one. Let's hope more and more students will stop by and try their hand at art as well as study it in the classroom. However, the studios are so open to public gaze that the beginner or dabbler will feel that people are staring through glass at him and will feel timid about making experiments.

FPO, San Francisco

To THE EDITOR:

This past spring I returned to Hanover for Class Reunion and was able to see the model of the Hopkins Center as projected. I also talked with members of the Art Department about the project. Realizing that the members of the Department favor a contemporary approach, I would nevertheless like to register a dissenting view. I personally feel that the design is a good one, but I would much prefer a more traditional exterior for the Center, one which would more closely resemble the exterior design of Dartmouth Hall and Baker Library. I was very favorably impressed with the new movie theater which I thought harmonized well with Dartmouth architecture in general. My own feeling is that any new building which is erected around the College green should be a Georgian style building. I personally favor a contemporary approach to the problems of architectural design, but feel that in Hanover a very special effort should be made to preserve a unity of style.

Washington, D. C.

To THE EDITOR:

Under the verbiage of the letters on the proposed Hopkins Center lies the old traditional-modern feud which is becoming very tiresome. I should think that Dartmouth men would wish for excellence in architecture rather than some particular style. If Ammie B. Young, the architect of Thornton, Wentworth and Reed Halls, were still around and I were a member of the building committee, I would not hesitate to employ him to design the new buildings on the Dartmouth campus. But since he has been dead a number of years, I would look around and try to find designers of equal renown in our own day. . . . None is working in the neoGeorgian or neo-classical modes. It seems clear to me that until some creative artist is discovered in the revival movements of the present, Dartmouth should choose from the wide variety of personal styles represented under the term "modern architecture" in selecting the facades and interior appointments of future buildings. Certainly architectural quality is a more desirable attribute than that details should resemble those of Dartmouth, Reed or Baker.

Los Angeles, Calif.

To THE EDITOR:

As a former architectural student at Dartmouth, and inbred with the free ideas of modern architecture, I would like to express my heartiest support of the present design for the Hopkins Center. To me, it expresses the basic truths that Dartmouth stands for and has taught its students over the years. Its design carries out those same ideals.

As all institutions of learning seek to prepare their students for living and improving the present-day world, so should they themselves be prepared for that same coexistence. To build in Georgian would be to regress in time two centuries; when in essence we must be ever progressive. I heartily endorse the present plans and fervently hope that when I am able to return to the Dartmouth campus in the future, I will see the Center constructed as a symbol to our modern society.

San Clemente, Calif.

To THE EDITOR:

Modern design is dictated among other things by the capabilities of the building materials used. Thus it makes sense. It does not try to imitate other styles which were evolved for other materials. This technique appeals to the stronger, more mature and truth-searching mind. This would, I hope, fit Dartmouth character.

As to the argument that the proposed exterior treatment of the Hopkins Center would not fit in an otherwise Georgian campus, I am not in agreement. Since modern design attempts to express the materials used for construction, and express the function of the building rather than imitate an eclectic style other than Georgian, it would not "swear" but would complement the other buildings. For this reason, the resulting effect cannot be the same as, for instance, that of Rollins Chapel.

I hope you will adhere to the architect's original plans for the Hopkins Center.

Marblehead, Mass,

To THE EDITOR:

I have just returned from Hanover with a chip on my shoulder in regard to the proposed Hopkins Center - a name which I revere.

A man doesn't have to be old or oldfashioned to want to see his college stand for what it is - a traditional New England College.

Even since my day I have heard that Webster Hall might have to be torn down and replaced with a building which more nearly conformed to our architectural pattern. Ye Gods, what have we in the proposed United Nations building which is to confront - I should say affront - the famous Dartmouth Row.

It seems to me that the proposed building would blend with the surrounding scene about as a Picasso would blend with a Rembrandt, or potato soup would mix with a Martini, or perhaps as a log cabin would appear on Fifth Avenue. Each has its place but not together.

If we are to change our buildings to conform with contemporary designs as they may appear from time to time, Dartmouth will have no physical character whatever.

Would it not be possible to have this building designed with a facade in keeping with our traditional architecture without losing the advantages within?

If not, could it not be given a location of its own where it would not have to continually fight with our other campus buildings? I sincerely hope for one or the other.

Newton Center, Mass.

To THE EDITOR:

This letter is prompted by the arrival of the propaganda piece that is the May ALUMNI MAGAZINE, added to an accumulation of several years of uneasy questions about the direction in which Dartmouth appears to be moving.

To my mind, that mass of glittering glass with Quonset huts tacked to the rear would not be particularly attractive in any setting, but to place it next to Dartmouth Row is desecration. A more inappropriate neighborhood for this unpleasing piece of modern architecture and a less fitting tribute to Prexy Hopkins is hard to imagine. Seven million dollars to promote, among other things, "togetherness." As for the cause of the Muses, would they not be better served by using such a sum to improve the financial status of our faculty and to attract outstanding teachers to Hanover?

A second question - what is the policy of this administration with respect to the size of Dartmouth? As I understand it, the student body, undergraduates and graduates, now approaches 3,000, where in pre-war it was, I believe, around 2,200 - a one-third increase in a little more than a decade. Quality and bigness often do not go hand in hand. I am aware of the wave of increased student population that is hitting our colleges. I am unconvinced that all the small and medium-sized liberal arts colleges in our country should feel themselves under a "social obligation" to double their size to accommodate it. Is it the policy of this administration to so alter the size of Dartmouth that the values of the type of institution we have had are destroyed? Is there not something to be said for the unique contributions that may be made to society by the small and medium-sized liberal arts colleges? . . .

A third question - what is the thinking of this administration with respect to the size of classes? I have always had - and still hold to - the quaint notion that small classes are one of the hallmarks of a first-class liberal arts college. According to an article in the April ALUMNI MAGAZINE, there is a move afoot to find ways and means of increasing the student-teacher ratio — in other words, of increasing the average class size. Certainly, we can't close our eyes to new ideas and methods, but the tone of this article, combined with other plans for expansion, makes me uneasy. . . .

A fourth question concerns the Dartmouth policy on admissions - and believe me there are more than a few brother alumni that share my questions on this one. I know full well that it's a damn tough assignment to select the chosen few from the many who apply, and there are bound to be toes stepped on and howls of criticism. But I have seen enough, and heard enough, to believe there is a justified basis for some of these howls. The standard comeback is "yes, they were good, but those we chose were even better." Well, I've seen and heard of some that were chosen that were prize queer ones to say it charitably. I think there is a blind and undeviating over-emphasis on high marks, and an insufficient weight to all-round intelligence and balance - and, I might add, athletic accomplishment. (We could use a couple of good half backs.) . . .

And fifth - and maybe most important what of the quality of our faculty? My impression is that we don't have our relative share of outstanding teachers and scholars. I note that Dartmouth is not ranked in the first ten colleges in the opinion (for what it is worth) of the writer of a recent Chicago Tribune article. My recollections of college, so far as they bear on its educational aspects, center around certain individual teachers - men who caught you by their enthusiasm, their individual reactions to life, their depth and scholarship, and so fanned the spark of intellectual curiosity and made it flicker, if only dimly and momentarily. . . . Is Dartmouth putting emphasis on the individual teachers or on "Organization Men"? I hope the former, but I just don't know. I suggest the administration read an article by Professor Perry Miller of Harvard in the Fall 1956 25th Anniversary number of TheAmerican Scholar - "The Plight of the Lone Wolf." Get us a few Perry Millers instead of a new all-glass art center.