Letters to the Editor

The Wallace Affair

TO THE EDITOR:

After viewing television and reading various news reports, I believe it is the responsibility of the College to report the facts on the Wallace episode.

Personally, I am sad and ashamed that our school has been disgraced by the inexcusable and untimely actions of the participating undergraduates. It should have been perfectly obvious that this type action would deny Wallace his constitutional rights. The freedoms these students pretend to embrace have been denied to the speaker because his viewpoints conflict with theirs on such grave matters as Vietnam and civil rights. In the final analysis what could have been a victory for freedom and justice was turned into a defeat by a group of young men who seem to be dedicated to violence and bitterness. Extremists will use this incident as evidence that violence and injustice are penetrating the environs of our academic institutions.

If our College is to be a training ground for tomorrow's leaders, I believe it is necessary to pursue more than scholastic excellence. There are certain virtues such as patience, understanding, and self control. When combined with intelligence and initiative they will strengthen our society. Let's do less protesting and get on with the job of building constructive forces that will solve mankind's ills.

Woolrich, Pa.

TO THE EDITOR:

Naturally, we were very upset when we read about the treatment of Governor Wallace in Hanover by Dartmouth students.

The contrast between the action of conservatives and leftwingers is remarkable. Dartmouth has had a number of out-and-out communist speakers, and, as far as I know, there has been no incident of this kind. They were allowed to speak their piece and depart.

The idea of intimidating people with physical violence, I thought, was left to thugs and tough union organizers, not to supposed gentlemen.

Dartmouth may have improved in the amount of knowledge it imparts to its students, but, if this is an example of the principles it instills in its students, the Dartmouth of 50 or 100 years ago was immeasurably better.

In my own time, I firmly believe that had any group attempted to do this sort of thing to a person visiting the college the decent students in the college would have prevented it.

I regret to see what I definitely consider a deterioration in the caliber of the student body.

Dallas, Texas

TO THE EDITOR:

No doubt your desk is already groaning under the weight of mail relative to the reception afforded to the ex-Governor of Alabama at Dartmouth. Depending upon the particular persuasion of each writer, I suppose that the reactions run the gamut from shock to satisfaction.

Much will probably be said about the effect on the accepted image of Dartmouth, and probably a lot more verbiage will be devoted to assessing and assigning the blame for the type of demonstration that took place.

It seems to me that this time we have heard the wrong "Vox Clamantis in Deserto" - and from, of all places, the actions of men who undertook to sit in judgment in a place commemorating Daniel Webster! We have become more or less accustomed to this type of thing in areas where people live in misery and want, but I believe that few of us will accept with sympathy a similar demonstration by individuals supposedly learning ways and means to achieve a more equitable social structure - under law.

Perhaps the main concern should not be either the image of Dartmouth or the placing of blame. Perhaps it just reduces itself to determining what has happened to the doctrine of fair play, as interpreted by the undergraduate mind. Freedom of speech, freedom of action, or freedom of expression? These do not mean unbridled license, which leads to mob rule, or untold damage to the majority by the minority.

I believe that for most Dartmouth men, as for me, our pride in the College remains undiminished, but we know that she has been sorely wounded. Let us hope that we will not see it happen again.

Doylestown, Pa.

TO THE EDITOR

I can hear them now - the alumni, '06 and '36 and '66, stampeding to their mailboxes to condemn the reception given George C. Wallace in Hanover a few weeks ago. Indeed, I am so much the product of my own education that I disparaged it myself at first. Even now, all reports indicate a purely disruptive action by a small, unruly band of extremists with little respect for the democratic traditions of tolerance and free discussion.

But I've been away from Hanover five years now, time enough for second thoughts, and in my second thoughts about the Wallace business I must admit I am more than a little elated. For all its vaunted progressivism, Dartmouth has been emerging as a bastion of the conservative in education, not because of what has been happening there, but because of what hasn't. It's good to see a little action.

Again, I can hear the stampede of responses - constructive action, constructive action, constructive action. I know about the Peace Corps programs, all those young Eleazar Wheelocks vowing to teach the In-dians in the wilderness of the world. I know Hanover boasts an Ess-Dee-Ess and a Wy-Ay-Eff. But I am sure the same grey pall looms over it all. The academic spirit, the spirit of objective inquiry, still prevails.

That spirit is invaluable, of course, but it has a tendency to subvert itself, until dispassion itself becomes a passion. I know that's what happened to me at Dartmouth, and from the tone of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE I gather it's still happening. In another school, the complexity of an urban environment or a steady influx of students from relatively radical families might provide a potent cross-current, but Dartmouth's remoteness and its stolid political traditions only reinforce the academic tendency. The result is a body of scholars and ex-scholars committed for the most part to moderation, not as method but as ideology. And if I learned one thing at Dartmouth, it is that no ideology is sufficient to the facts of the real world.

So however ill-conceived and ill-spirited the Wallace ruckus was, I am glad it happened. Undoubtedly, it will send a majority of students shuddering to the stacks or the keg and an even larger majority of alumni shuddering to the easy chair, but it's a sign of life. Perhaps a few will be awakened to action of their own. Perhaps a few will realize that reasonableness is not always enough, that our society can produce men of good will until they become men of ill will, and that it is the rule of will and not of reason that emerges in a time of crisis. George Wallace, whatever his urbane pretensions, is counting on all the surlies on the other side of the fence. Let us be occasionally surly as well. There are times when fire is an effective way to fight fire. I am pleased to see a few flames rising from Hanover.

New York, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR

It was with deep shame that I read the front-page headline of the May 4 issue of the Miami Herald attached, concerning the Wallace episode. Most of us of President Hopkins' era and before will strongly defend the present administration following his lead in permitting the students to hear all sides of issues, and allowing the Stokely Carmichaels and the Wallaces to speak on campus. As undergraduates we heard William Z. Foster and other similar controversial figures, but on no occasion did the students conduct themselves other than as tolerant gentlemen.

At the same time as this disgraceful outburst, I received a mailing from our Alumni Fund Committee titled, "Why I Teach at Dartmouth." The article by Professor Bien was most enlightening. Personally I hope Dartmouth never becomes a university and will always remain a "small" college. As for his statement "no one of the younger faculty cares about Dartmouth's tradition any more," if this is the feeling of any large segment of the faculty, and perhaps the administration, and I assume it must be or his remarks would not have been published, it is small wonder that there was such an outbreak as occurred last week. If this is the Dartmouth to be, I for one am grateful to the Alumni Fund Committee for permitting me a preview. If I interpret it correctly, what I see, I don't like, and it will be most difficult for me to continue to wholeheartedly support in good conscience this institution that has meant so much to me over the past 46 years.

Perhaps my present thinking would have been mollified somewhat, if I had heard anywhere that disciplinary action had been taken against the participants in this uncalled-for affair. If action was taken, the alumni want to know what was done.

Boca Raton, Fla.

TO THE EDITOR

I am sure that I find George Wallace and what he stands for as unpalatable as does any undergraduate. However, because I expect more from Dartmouth and its students than from those associated with racism, I react to Wallace's reception in Hanover with something beyond disgust. Perhaps concern with the new computer system has precluded instruction in the concept of free speech. More important, are Dartmouth men now so unsophisticated as to willfully play into the hands of the enemy by creating sympathy for him? May 3, the date of the emergence of Green Pantherism, will be a sad date in Dartmouth history; one that no amount of football victories or winter carnival publicity will entirely overcome.

St. Louis, Mo.

TO THE EDITOR

Even if they hadn't heard the story in its aboriginal form, I had thought that intelligent youths, by the time they were in college, had absorbed the basic idea of the cliche about the politician who said to a group of reporters, "Print anything you want about me, boys - just spell my name right."

Obviously I was wrong. For Dartmouth students, by their behavior May 3, gave George Wallace bigger headlines and more air-time than he could have hoped for in his happiest dream.

They gave him also, in a few hours, what politicians must normally work long to get, and some never do - an image with appeal for the average voter. At Hanover, Wallace was cast in the role of: (a) Underdog (one man set upon by scores, the very essence of heroic myth); (b) A man of courage (one TV commentator said, "Like the boxer he once was, he returned again to the stage"); (c) A reasonable man (there he was, whom most of the public had thought of as intolerant and arbitrary, saying from the lighted screen, "... perhaps you will understand me better and I will understand you," and being howled down by students, hitherto regarded as leaders toward a more liberal future, but now starkly revealed as believers in suppression of unpopular opinion and prey to lynch passions).

If those who played a part in this episode did so oblivious of its inevitable effects, they are astonishingly naive. If they were led into the affair by people who, for some reason or other, want to portray Wallace as a victim of prejudice, they are dupes. Either explanation marks them as uneducated.

One would hope they are not also uneducable, and that they will in time gain ability rationally to relate ends and means.

New York, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR!

The George Wallace demonstration invites some questions:

Is Dartmouth truly a liberal college? Will not the student body listen to a spokesman, no matter how repugnant his views may be to a minority or a majority? Is there only one side to the "liberalism" of today? Must those who defend their own dissent howl down the dissent of others?

George Wallace has little appeal to me, or to any intelligent and educated person. However, the "states' rights" philosophy he preaches has certain values in relation to the individual's rights and freedom of choice.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt declared his "Four Freedoms" he neglected to wrap them up in the greatest freedom of all - Freedom of Choice. The self-styled "liberals" of this century may prove to be the most frightening reactionaries in history. They move constantly toward a system in which every human activity is hemmed in by "Thou shalt do this" and 'Thou shalt not do that." A never-ending succession of laws, largely at the national level, tend to deny to the individual his freedom of choice.

I do not remember reading that Stokely Carmichael was howled down. He is an apostle of violence, far more than even George Wallace. But those who reject the "Black Power" concept did not resort to violence. They dissented by staying away or by listening quietly to what this violent man had to say.

George Wallace was invited to Hanover by your newspaper. I recall that William Jennings Bryan spoke to the student body late in 1923, in the opening shot of his antievolution battle that ended so tragically at Dayton, Tennessee. Most of us who heard "The Golden Voice" disagreed with him on evolution, politics, cheap money and all the other demagogic causes he professed. But we listened to him quietly and argued with him politely. We dissented but did not disrupt.

I don't know whether Wallace or Carmichael is "a voice crying in the wilderness" but Daniel Webster no doubt would disapprove of both. He might add that Dartmouth "is a small college but there are those who would make it appear smaller."

Bronxville, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

I cannot accept or endorse the recent behavior of some of the students at Dartmouth which has been so widely publicized. It is too true that when we in the Mid-West merited or perhaps needed praiseworthy publicity for Dartmouth that we did not get it. Now that ex-Governor George Wallace was received in Hanover with the lowest type of gutter behavior, totally unbecoming of the teachings of Dartmouth as we alumni knew those teachings, then under those circumstance we get the very best coverage and the worst possible adverse publicity. We can only hope that such low-level conduct was confined to a very small group of unthinking, unscrupulous beings who were miscast as Dartmouth students in the first place.

I can recall that in my day Dartmouth College was sometimes criticized for being too liberal a college. We did have many controversial figures on our platforms. We had Calvin Coolidge, we had Norman Thomas, William Jennings Bryan, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and I.W.W. advocates. We even had Carl Sandburg before he became famous for his Lincoln writings, while he was doodling away his time with blankety, blank verse.

We had conformists and non-conformists in the decades gone by, but it was expected by the time we reached Dartmouth that our manners had been so inculcated within us that we had respect for the person of the man who was the guest of the College, even if we did not see eye to eye with his ideas.

In fact we were taught that it was a part of a liberal education to be able to hear all sides of a controversial question, and thereby be better able to judge for yourself.

To pre-judge a guest, and to misbehave as a few so-called students did in front of the world to Mr. Wallace, this atrocious misconduct should only serve to excite the scorn, the ostracism, and the isolation of these few recalcitrants by the great majority of the student body.

In the mawkish world we live in today it is vitally important that we keep the better traditions of Dartmouth, and do not allow a few pseudo-intellectual boors to disturb the status quo of her good manners!

Milwaukee, Wis.

TO THE EDITOR

For nearly 200 years Dartmouth has declared that it is "vox clamantis in deserto." The emphasis has usually been on "in deserto" and recent events at the College suggest that today "vox clamantis" has been altogether forgotten. As a 1960 graduate I can attest to the fact that the change has been recent for during my years at Dartmouth the voices of Dartmouth students often cried out. When William F. Buckley spoke at the Great Issues Course he was greeted by a largely hostile audience which expressed its hostility in the intensity and depth of questioning to which the speaker was subjected. Many of today's students, apparently lacking the ability to articulate, found it necessary to resort to catcalls, assaults, and mob violence in order to register their hostility to George Wallace. Such action is by no means a "vox clamantis" but is the very antithesis of that concept. It represents the Dartmouth students' conformity to the all-too-prevalent practice of the use of violence as a means of expression....

But what did the violence and rudeness prove? They proved that George Wallace's view was too sound to be destroyed by reason and logic and therefore more drastic measures were required; that a college student has a closed mind and does not listen to nor tolerate any view which differs from his own; that freedom of expression is limited to those few who express the views approved by the listeners. Conversely, what would have been lost if the students had listened to George Wallace, questioned his position and then, if a demonstration was deemed desirable, silently and lawfully assembled outside after the speech with appropriate signs?

It might be argued that such a protest would be less dramatic and create less publicity. Considering the nature of the publicity which was generated, the anti-Wallace cause would have been far better off without it. In addition, because of the frequent violent demonstrations in the United States these days, a reasonable and non-violent protest would have been unique and likely to get a great deal of publicity. If the students had expressed themselves in a reasonable, non-violent manner it would have been a sign to George Wallace and his ilk that we are not ready for the demagogues to run our lives and that we are still capable of saying no to such men in a calm and firm voice and without fear.

Washington, D. C.

TO THE EDITOR

Like many other alumni, I assume, I was disturbed by the newspaper reports of the "Wallace incident" on the Hanover Plain. Obviously, the administration and the student body had given Wallace the only kind of reception that could create for him the climate in which he prospers.

I have followed with interest the statements that have come from Hanover since the incident and was particularly interested in the Class Agent's bulletin which gave in detail Dr. Seymour's talk at "Wet Down" and the telegram which he had sent the previous evening to Mr. Wallace. At least there was dignity in this statement and in his wire. This is more than can be said for the statement issued by President Dickey which, in my opinion, showed little understanding or respect for the student body.

Normally I am not a writer of "letters to the editor" but because as an alumnus I have been concerned about this matter, I felt that other alumni would like to share in a letter I received from a freshman:

"... The other thing concerns the Wallace affair. As you know, the papers quickly made the event national news. Many ideas have been expressed concerning the image of Dartmouth, the treatment of the students who demonstrated, Wallace himself, etc. Letters from alumni have been predominantly against the demonstration and expressions of shame for the College. Some have demanded the expulsion of the students. I think the issue is more complex than those alumni believe, and they have been vary rash in their condemnation. The circumstances around the disturbance are these: In 1963 before the presidential campaign, Wallace spoke in the field house. He received a warm welcome, the students were courteous, and he received, I believe, a standing ovation. This is not hard to believe since Dartmouth is and has been a conservative campus and since Wallace is such a clever speaker. The Dartmouth S.D.S. and Afro-American Society did not want this to happen again. Furthermore Wallace set up his program so that there would be a minimum amount of questions and so that he could easily talk around the burning issue, race. All the questions had to be put on paper. In effect he removed possibly the only means in which someone could contradict his gross generalizations and silenced the Negroes' expression of their contempt for the man. In that this demonstration was the first of its kind at Dartmouth, the students were unsure of how to express themselves when robbed of direct confrontation and how to demonstrate effectively.

"The atmosphere was very emotional, for cameramen were everywhere and Wallace played upon the passions of people because that is the only way he can get support. He is after all a politician. To the Negroes in the audience, he was the symbol of their enslavement, and it was impossible for them to be silent. It may have been unfortunate that they acted the way they did because it accomplished nothing. It neither discredited his ideas nor humiliated him. It seems to have given him the emotional and irrational audience he desired and national attention. The students' actions were shameful only in this respect.

"The only shame felt is that of alumni, for most of the students here realize what a difficult situation it was. We are here to learn and this experience was part of it. The students are examining what happened in detail and will profit from it. It was unfortunate, yes; but shameful, no. I had to express this for too many of the alumni have failed to examine the situation carefully, and I thought you would be interested."

The degree of maturity shown in this letter is unusual for a freshman. Its implications should be appreciated by all of those who are concerned about what Dartmouth is doing and how Dartmouth is doing it.

Bethel, Conn.

Dartmouth Radio Pioneer

TO THE EDITOR

I read with a good deal of interest and nostalgia the article in the March 1967 issue, "Student Radio in the Twenties," by Timothy H. Brooks '64. I searched in vain for the name of Roger Carlton '23, a very close friend of mine in College who, I am sure records show, was the real "sparkplug in the beginning of radio at Hanover. Rog was definitely a pioneer in radio and electronics, and television, and I well remember his visit with me here in Burlington and explaining what he could see in the future.

Rog passed away at an early age, just at the beginning of his marvelous career and foresight in his chosen field, and I did not want this moment to pass without bringing it to someone's attention so that just credit should be given him for his early work.

Burlington, Vt.