THE UNDERGRADUATE CHAIR

IT'S been said that the Dartmouth student body without an issue is like a baby without a toy; and somehow this comparison seems to be painfully true. In the past few weeks students have been "playing" with two such "toys." The first issue at hand is that of a proposed honor system at Dartmouth; the other, restricted to the playful seniors, is that of the validity of the Great Issues Course.

On Thursday, October 19, students read in The Dartmouth that the faculty had unanimously approved a motion to establish a student-devised honor system at Dartmouth. The reasoning for doing so involved such things as the belief that Dartmouth "has an educational responsibility to its students in the area of personal honesty," and that "moral sensitivity develops or is sustained only when the individual is given moral responsibility." It was perhaps an unfortunate move on the part of the faculty to delegate the devising of the honor system to the students themselves.

For the next few weeks nearly every issue of The Dartmouth carried at least one article or letter to the editor on the subject of the honor system. Polls were conducted among the students. Palaeopitus drew up a questionnaire for the entire student body which asked - or was to ask - each student if he felt capable of upholding the faculty's confidence in him. Then the IDC decided the questionnaire's wording was too vague and refused to circulate it. And finally the question was left in the hands of the UGC Academic Committee. Since then not a whisper has been heard on the subject, and the game seems, for the moment at least, to have subsided. Perhaps this is good.

Dartmouth needs an honor system. Once established it would provide an atmosphere conducive to academic honesty and maturity. Many members of the faculty whose undergraduate days were spent in honor system institutions bear witness to this fact. What Dartmouth does not need is an issue on the question of establishing such an honor system, in other words, a toy for the students to play with.

To understand why this is true all that need be done is to examine how this issue was treated by students. Naturally there was a divergence of opinion; some thought it would work, others disagreed, and each supported his opinion by his own judgment of the honesty of those fellow students he had come to know at Dartmouth, not the entire student body. Sadly enough, the opinions voiced most vehemently were those of disfavor, and strangely enough, few favorable opinions were offered as intensely to offset them. The result: one could hardly avoid forming the idea that Dartmouth students were unable to justify the faculty's vote of confidence. Or one might say, the toy was broken and sent to committee to be set together again.

The playful students won their game of stone throwing, without realizing - as they seldom do - that they were throwing the stones at themselves. The most potent stone used by those in disfavor was one straight from "The Untouchables"; i.e., an honor system depends on students' reporting the practiced dishonesty of others. This means that buddy will have to report buddy. But, in true "Untouchables" spirit, squealing is bad, and therefore will not be condoned by Dartmouth students. Result: the honor system will fail.

Note here the absence of any opinion as to whether the system as such is good or bad. The concern was basically over whether or not the system will work. The arguments against its possible success were all similar to the one stated. And no offering was made to effectively destroy these arguments.

Not all the students on campus played with this toy. Actually, many couldn't have cared less if the system were established or not. These were the men whose moral sensitivity had already been developed, men who would take tests honestly under any system. These were the men whose integrity was supported by the faculty vote, and whose assistance was needed to prepare the way for an honor system at Dartmouth. These were the men who were able to support the honor system, but who did not.

The final result of the game is that at this point no one really knows if Dartmouth will have its honor system. Because it is needed, it will probably come; because it was so treated in the past few weeks, it will undoubtedly come scarred.

MEANWHILE, the Dartmouth seniors were playing their own little game, this one called "Are you serious?" The game revolves about the Great Issues Course which, if conscientiously taken, would require an average of about four or five hours per week for each senior. At present, however, the grand old class for the most part seems unwilling to devote ]that much time - indeed, in some cases, almost none—to the course. There exists in the class a pervasive apathy for dealing with great issues. And the question now becomes, why is this so?

The Great Issues Course was established by President Dickey in 1947 to give seniors an opportunity to draw on their liberal arts background in dealing with problems of the times. It was to give the class an opportunity to rub against some of the greatest minds and/or reputations in the world. And this year, almost to a man, the seniors agree that this is good and worthwhile. So the present apathy does not derive from a disagreement with the objectives of the course. The Class of 1962 is willing, indeed sometimes eager, to take advantage of an opportunity such as the one presented to them in this course. Why then does this curious apathy exist?

The core of the problem lies in a basic disagreement between the seniors and the directors of the course as to how the great issues are to be dealt with, especially in terms of the emotionality that is to be present in the discussions. The administrators seem to feel that these great issues are the greatest gifts the College can offer the seniors, that the opportunities presented should inspire such enthusiasm for their own sake as to completely override even the possibility of a senior's thinking that anything else could be as important. The atmosphere created in the course, the attitude they hope to cultivate in each student, is one characterized by intense, emotional, subjective participation stimulated by a constant preoccupation with the urgent importance and significance of these monumental issues.

And so the seniors ask: "Are you serious?" The standard senior opinion is "Please come down to earth! This could be a good course if taken in stride. Until you do, we'll wait apathetically; we have no choice, the course is compulsory."

And while no change in the spirit of the course seems likely in the near future, the seniors are playing their silly little games with GI, justifying their casualness by referring to the "mistaken" attitude of the administrators.

That either group has a completely correct attitude in doubtful. The painful fact is that neither side is trying to understand the other. The resulting situation finds the course directors trying to pull the proverbial stubborn donkey into their way of thinking, thus far meeting with little success. Perhaps a little cooperation on both sides will go a long way toward making GI a better and more useful course.

Peter Knight '62 (r), in Syria this termon a Dartmouth Internship from the Government Department, poses on a rooftopin Dokki with a fellah. He recently sentback to the College an eye-witness account of the revolution in Syria.