Letters to the Editor

The Newton Valedictory

TO THE EDITOR:

In the July issue you reprint one favorable and seven unfavorable letters concerning the 1968 valedictory address. I hope that the majority of alumni do not approve of the unfavorable comments. It would be sad if so many alumni had so gracelessly forgotten what they were supposed to have learned at Dartmouth - that the challenge of an idea is not met by vilification of the speaker and the institution he attends.

I do not know Mr. Newton, but unlike some of those alumni who attacked him, I took the trouble to read his speech. Certainly some of Mr. Newton's language was intemperate. But, then, so is the war in Vietnam. Mr. Newton's use of shocking language to comment upon what he regards as a shockingly immoral situation is understandable. Since when does a passionate disagreement with the nation's foreign policy, passionately expressed, constitute disloyalty?

Some of those who attacked Mr. Newton appear to recognize the existence of free speech in this country, but then define it out of existence. To one distinguished alumnus, free speech does not include any statement he believes reflects disloyalty. To another, free speech does not include any statement which he believes is irresponsible. But the issue is not whether Mr. Newton was exercising his Constitutional right of free speech, as misinterpreted by his attackers. Rather, I believe the issue is whether it is proper for a Valedictorian to make an address which bluntly expresses his opinion on one of the most serious and controversial problems of our time.

In my opinion, it is the Valedictorian's special right, privilege, and duty to have the courage to express his convictions and to stimulate serious thought and discussion on vital issues. And, of course, it should be a source of pride to all alumni that the College permits and encourages such open expression and discussion. Mr. Newton, unfortunately, did not express himself very diplomatically. Even more unfortunately, his remarks apparently so infuriated some alumni, that instead of responding to Mr. Newton's ideas, these alumni have personally attacked him and the College.

Let me urge those alumni who sympathize with the unfavorable letters regarding Mr. Newton's address first, to remember the fallacy of the ad hominem statement, and second, to reread John Stuart Mill's OnLiberty.

TO THE EDITOR:

Dartmouth's dismay at James Newton's refreshing valedictory address is, in itself, dismaying. It is a painful echo of Dartmouth's dismay in the past.

In the 30's Dartmouth was more dismayed with the attacks on its discriminatory admission system than it was with the malevolent marshalling of the Nazi forces. The Administration even suggested that antiSemitism in Germany might have been avoided had there been an enforced quota system that would have prevented the Jews from "overcrowding German universities and professions."

Some thirty years later Dartmouth was more dismayed by the student reaction to Wallace than to the racist policies he advocated.

Dartmouth's present dismay at what it terms the extremes of Mr. Newton's address unfortunately represents a continuation of what is termed the institutionalization of hypocrisy in which there is a great gap between creedal values and practices.

Senator Javits may have received a standing ovation, but his remarks were neither a rebuttal nor relevant. Mr. Newton spoke of justice and morality. The Honorable Senator discussed popular and unpopular wars ... conveniently forgetting the concept of the Nuremberg Trials that the Senator has embraced on so many occasions in the past. The Senator spoke of non-violence; overlooking the fact that the flag he waved was born in violence ... in a revolution led by men, who incidentally at that time, were attacked by the establishment as being longhaired and unbathed.

Actually Mr. Newton didn't prescribe violence but rather supported the type of involvement that the good Senator advocated. We fervently hope that Dartmouth and other colleges will at long last realize that involvement is more than merely maintaining the status quo.

TO THE EDITOR:

Having lived for many years as a frontline representative of the "establishment" against which college and secondary school young men push, I was not incensed by James Newton's valedictory address. In fact, I thought it was a sensitive, controlled statement by a young man of conscience.

Youth today is often outspoken, and often with justification. While deploring the methods of Columbia-type mobs for which there is no justification, it is with sincere conviction that I applaud youth's efforts generally to right the social injustices that have been tolerated too long in our society.

Without any fear whatsoever, indeed, with pleased anticipation, I look forward to seeing the social changes which this country of ours will undergo in the future.

Jean Piaget, the Swiss psychologist states that the "principal goal of education is to create men who are capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other generations have done ... to form minds which can be critical, can verify, and not accept everything they are ofeered."

It is often difficult for those of us over thirty to accept long hair when ours is gone; it is much more difficult to be told by youth that our beliefs and institutions are wanting. But instead of wringing our hands and calling for retribution when a young man says, in eiffect, that he does not believe in killing, shouldn't we all pause and think? Who among the Dartmouth fellowship really believes in killing? James Newton pricked the consciences of all of us, and it hurt. Serve our country? Of course we should, if and when it stands for the dignity and preservation of man. The four years I served in the Air Corps in World War II, I do not regret. I refuse, however, to castigate a young man for outspokenly berating his country when he thinks it is wrong. I'd like to meet James Newton. He has the courage not to accept his country "right or wrong." This a generation I keep hearing say, "We want more for our country than this." Thank God Dartmouth continues to free up the minds of young men so they can dream dreams of a better tomorrow.

Headmaster, Mount Hermon School

TO THE EDITOR:

The opinions stated in the letters of Ellis Briggs '21, Philip Peters '61, Dee Raney, Paul Miller '47, Albert Mayer '37, Lawrence Laster '64, Mrs. Lewis Kerlin '21, and George T. Rein '46 in the July issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE express very admirably the thoughts and sentiments of the alumni in this section and of myself. We are disgusted and angry men.

I am also deeply concerned over the ap- parent attempt by yourself and the editors of The Bulletin to condone the whole Commencement episode. Nowhere in either publication is the statement that the speech was in very poor taste and inexcusable before a gathering of parents and alumni on the Dart- mouth campus. I too ask how could such a speaker be chosen? Both you and The Bulletin pass the buck to the Committee on Commencement. Well, how could they choose a bearded character whose very appearance and probable previous utterances brand him as an unsuitable speaker for the Class of 1968?

You make a big thing out of academic freedom, but this Newton abused his freedom to the detriment of our college. If you or The Bulletin editors make excuses for the people that have created many unpleas- ant incidents at Dartmouth over the past year as well as the deplorable Commencement incident, you may be sure that the drum-beaters for the coming Capital Gifts Campaign will meet with a very cool reception." Many of us have worked in behalf of the College for many years, conducting meetings, talking with prospects and in general trying to create a favorable Dartmouth image.

To have all these disgusting incidents along with its attendant unfavorable publicity all over the country condoned and sloughed off by the college papers is sad indeed. Whose side are you on?

TO THE EDITOR:

I read with great interest the articulate and thoughtful if impassioned valedictory address by Mr. Newton, and with some dismay the rather intemperate letters of comment in the same issue of the MAGAZINE. I found distressing the accusations of cowardice, falsity, and treason, and the implication that it is the College's business to inculcate patriotism. Because of the format of the MAGAZINE, I read the letters before I read the address and was surprised that Mr. Briggs in particular elected to interpret Mr. Newton's remarks out of context. I was also surprised that the Editor, in applying the term "unreasonable" to some of Mr. Newton's remarks, was unnecessarily palliative of those who are incensed by points of view contrary to their own. While our involvement in the war in Vietnam is highly con- troversial and as such evokes strong feelings, it has become almost banal to observe that it is one of the most unpopular wars of all time. If Mr. Newton speaks for a "minority," it is surely not a very small minority. It would seem to me that he showed great courage and respect for truth in addressing himself to one of the most relevant tragedies of our time.

I congratulate the College for continuing to be a forum in which even the most controversial issues can be discussed without censorship and as such, all the more worthy of our support. For some to speak of withdrawing this support is blackmail of the shabbiest variety.

TO THE EDITOR

I am bored by an alumni magazine that will never admit anything went wrong in Hanover and always defends the College's Administration, Faculty and Staff.

I am annoyed with an alumni magazine that attacks alumni letter writers for writing letters "on the basis of sketchy and not entirely accurate newspaper accounts" when the magazine's own account of the happenings more than justifies the letters.

I disagree that Newton's speech which you term this "free and open exchange on a college campus" was "an example of what American higher education is all about."

In both college and law school I got high grades and tended to associate with those getting high grades . . . but even then I had the sense to realize that academic achievement is a very different quality from maturity. I even suspected there might be an inverse correlation. And I think the "Committee on Commencement," whoever they may be, should be comprised of people with enough sense to select a mature speaker.

It's not a question of "repugnant censorship" against "being true to its avowed purpose." Whether we like it or not, a valedictorian speaks as the representative of his class, a speaker selected by the school to speak for the class. Let's face it: the Committee pulled a boner. Or maybe it was a deliberate choice and their maturity needs checking.

I think Noel Perrin's article on the matter in The New Yorker of July 20th is far more interesting than the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. Or is that also "sketchy and not entirely accurate"?

TO THE EDITOR:

Perhaps the most important function of a college or university is the search for truth and the imparting of it to its students. Such a search involves the reevaluation and possible rejection of ancient taboos and beliefs. It can only take place in full flowering in the independent college; the state and religiously controlled institutions, by their very nature, are limited in such a search.

The pursuit of truth often requires listening to speakers and reading publications of an extremely unorthodox nature but only by such means can truth be discovered and taught.

The importance of the independent college to the continued advancement of society being granted, isn't there a responsibility on the conscientious citizen to support it? The sometime irritations because of excesses inherent in unlimited freedom of expression must be disregarded.

Truth can best be fostered on a campus which would tolerate the uncensored remarks of a Carmichael or a Wallace and even allow full freedom of expression to a graduating valedictorian. Given the value to society of the independent free college, can there be any justification for withholding support from it because of manifestations which may offend or disgust but which are concomitants of the search for truth?

Outside of sentiment and disregarding disagreements, possibly violent and often justified, with views expressed by indivdual students or members of the faculty or administration, a Dartmouth man has a duty to support his free college, where can be preserved the valid traditions of the past and new values established for the future.

TO THE EDITOR:

After reading the outraged letters from alumni in the July issue I turned to James Witten Newton's valedictory wondering what kind of intemperate radicalism I would find there. Instead I found a reasoned and conscientious statement, more temperate by far than many of the attacks launched against it. While I cannot agree with some of Newton's opinions, it is a good thing that young people today are speaking up about the injustices, dishonesty and lack of vision that have been so prevalent. The forceful and candid exchange of opinion represented by Newton and Senator Javits at the '68 Commencement is an essential ingredient of liberal education. Those who would throttle it are doing America no service.

TO THE EDITOR

It seems to me rather neo-sophomoric that grown men can get so excited about what a valedictory speaker has said as to fill your letters columns. I happen to disagree almost entirely with what the valedictorian said. I doubt if he speaks for his class - though he may very well speak for many of his generation. I know, as you pointed out, that his speech was badly reported, and as one who has been 30 years in the newspaper business, all I can say, quite honestly, is, "Sorry about that."

But to get back to the basic issue, this is what a valedictory speech is all about. It also is what a university community is all about. Learning is growing, and the chlorophyll of thinking is dissent.

In my junior year a mass meeting in either the Chapel or Webster Hall accepted almost unanimously the so-called Oxford pledge against any participation by the United States in any kind of war. Look at the list of our honored dead and of our classmates alive who have earned unusual credits for bravery.

Your valedictorian was guilty of bad taste. He may not have realized that he was speaking to the parents of boys who had died in an admittedly dubious war. I, for one, cannot countenance an assertation such as: "Thank God we are losing that war." But at least he was speaking his mind.

As one who has done a small amount of giving, raising funds for, and interviewing for Dartmouth, I should like to say: The young man has a right. Anyone who wants to deny him that right - or to damn the College for his thinking - should consult his own conscience.

TO THE EDITOR:

I am far more distressed that so many alumni so little understand the purposes of higher education or the attitudes of the current college generation than that a valedictory address would dare to transcend expected platitudes to address the real problems facing the student. National polls show that the of students, outside the South, in fact oppose our participation in the Vietnam War. What is really frightening is that any alumnus, whatever his personal views, should suggest that students do not have the right to tell us what they think.

Many alumni seem outraged also that students should dare to ask for any voice in the kind of education they're getting. Such alumni forget that colleges are offering a service in the market; the student, as a paying customer, has as much right to expect a meaningful and relevant education as a purchaser of goods to expect them to perform as advertised.

The events of the past year or two show that Dartmouth is emerging from its "wilderness" isolation. That students are more concerned with the larger problems of society than transient details of campus life seems to me a most healthy development. On any objective basis, the Dartmouth faculty and students have never been of higher quality. They deserve our fullest support, and I am pleased to increase mine.

University of Washington

TO THE EDITOR:

Please add this to your comments on our latest Valedictorian.

It's not a question of free speech. It's a matter of how our undergraduates use these privileges after three or four years of training.

With this latest outrage, I am far beyond being thoroughly ashamed of what has happened to Dartmouth College since the library murals and up to the present junk at Hopkins Center and the enshrinement of Socialism in the college museum.

TO THE EDITOR:

I have just received the incredibly shock- ing issue (July) of your magazine and feel to add my name to the precompelled ponderance of alumni who expressed disgust and repulsion over the valedictory address of James Witten Newton.

Actually I am not so much angered at Mr. Newton — he seems like an extraordinarily frightened little man whose fears of having to cope with current domestic issues are as much in evidence as his hysterical tantrums over Vietnam - as I am with the College authorities for having permitted such a disgrace to happen in the first place.

You speak so glibly, in your Commentary and elsewhere, about freedoms of thought and speech, but where is your own sense of responsibility for letting this man get up and express such contempt for, and specifically advocate the flouting of law? Of what real difference is this and the recent conviction of my medical colleague Dr. Spock for conspiracy and treason. A valedictory address may seem to you like a much more private affair, but, to us on the outside, it is not only the College speaking but how the College has influenced a whole new generation of people.

But all this is acadmic. I personally have always had a deep affection for Dartmouth, and I do not wish this to be shaken; indeed, I do not. But these little embarrassing incidences that keep cropping up - like that Wallace fiasco last winter and now this contemptible little man chosen to be class valedictorian - give you moments of uneasiness. And the real problem is that I have three teen-age sons who are looking to me for advice about colleges. I am flabbergasted that I am having reservations about Dartmouth.

TO THE EDITOR:

I was dismayed to read some of the letters from alumni who have berated students and administration, and offered much gratuitous advice, following certain recent campus events.

It seems to me that of all the groups that comprise the College's constituency - administration, faculty, students, alumni - the latter, who are equipped neither with academic training nor with current campus experience, are the least qualified to impose their opinions on the College.

I was particularly shocked to read that a few alumni buttressed their criticism with threats to stop contributing to the Alumni Fund, a kind of infantile blackmail which is surely not part of the Dartmouth spirit.

If the College finds any noticeable drop in Alumni giving, it would be helpful to let the rest of us know so we can do our share to make it up.

TO THE EDITOR

This will possibly be my first publication in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE since the Undergraduate Chair articles of 1962-63. I notice in the July issue that letters on the 1968 Valedictorian address run 7 to 1 against James Newton's stand, and I wonder if this reflects general alumni opinion. I myself never felt prouder to be a Dartmouth graduate than when I read of Mr. Newton's impressive speech, which hurt like truth and encouraged like hope. I commend and support every word of it, and sincerely wish it may rouse more of the Dartmouth community to oppose, vocally and unremittingly, the stupidity, the dishonesty, and the futile, hideous and unforgivable carnage of which this nation is guilty in Vietnam. While the horror continues, it is at least cheering to think that Mr. Newton spoke very nearly for his generation as a whole: those who consider his views unrepresentative should read Noel Perrin's thoughtful article on Dartmouth seniors and the war in the July 20th NewYorker.

TO THE EDITOR:

It is a dark hour for our nation and for the College when freedom of speech is a right granted conditionally. Thank God the College itself felt compelled to maintain that right unconditionally lest it begin to erode.

It is too easy to say that rights exist; black Americans know that! Only when freedom of speech and dissent extend to the right to question the policies of our government and even suggest means of opposing them can we be sure that our country still deserves to be thought of as the last best hope of the free world.

I won't bother to quote Daniel Webster or President Dickey from James Newton's address. Both have contributed immeasurably to the pride that Dartmouth men can feel about their College; a pride that I find increased greatly by James Newton. For if it is remarkable that Dartmouth has such sons as Dickey and Webster, then it is astounding and a cause for great joy that a Dartmouth man, on his graduating from the College, can address himself to the problems of social injustice and moral stagnation that afflict our nation.

Lest it be said that James Newton is a traitor and does not love his country (as already has been said) let me quote his last paragraph: "My friends, we cannot win hearts and minds through brutal coercion, nor can we hide the ugly sight of social injustice beneath a wave of uniforms. The society we seek at home and the cooperative world we must have can come only through the commitment of our talents and our resources to the tasks of peaceful constructive change. We must make that commitment our own."

There are many in this nation who could agree in its entirety with James Newton's address. Many of those pepole are in positions of importance in the government and elsewhere. Indeed, it is no betrayal of one's nation and humanity when one decides that for their benefit one cannot agree with the policies of one's government.

In conclusion let me say this: Dartmouth, you've made me proud to be a Dartmouth man. James Newton, you've made me proud to be a Dartmouth man. My sincere and humble thanks.

TO THE EDITOR!

Academic freedom and intellectual honesty notwithstanding, anybody who would use a valedictory address as the vehicle for expounding their personal anti-American views is guilty, in my estimation, of incredibly poor judgment and very bad manners.

It's kind of hard to believe the young Mr. Newton represents the best that modern day Dartmouth has to offer.

TO THE EDITOR:

I was not surprised to read the many objections by Dartmouth alumni to James Newton's Commencement address. As a recent alumnus, I am glad to see that Dartmouth is trying to step out of the woods into the realities of the world our generation faces. Mr. Peters, in his letter, argues that President Dickey tells us that learning is our business, learning to be responsible and productive citizens in contemporary American Society. What Mr. Peters and others do not seem to realize is that contemporary society has changed and is changing constantly, and that many people in our generation do not want to be productive citizens strictly in the sense of making money, getting to be a bank vice president, or keeping up with the Joneses. Many of us feel that we can be more productive in the long run by promoting the so called "idealistic' goals of equal justice, equal opportunity, and freedom from oppression. While past generations have been hypocritically advocating these ideals for years, now Dartmouth men and others are actually doing something about this; witness the increasing number of students who join the Peace Corps and Vista, or the rising number of law students who work in legal-aid-for-the-poor programs during the summers, or the rising number of students who openly protest the U.S. war in Vietnam, or the increasing number of intelligent students who turn their backs to lucrative job offers from big business.

I may never have much money to give to Dartmouth, but I am not worried about that, I will give what I can. I would rather give knowledge and awareness to someone who was less aware of the world around him. Maybe we should all take our attention from maintaining reputations and seeing how many dollars we can collect and turn our efforts to letting students express themselves and find themselves so that they will be better prepared to enter into a society which they do not see as being universally just.

TO THE EDITOR:

Having read both James Newton's valedictory address and the subsequent irate alumni letters in July's magazine, I feel compelled to criticize both Mr. Newton and the over-reactive alumni.

I criticize Mr. Newton for using his position as valedictorian to represent his own views as those of his Class. A valedictory address, I feel, should be in some way representative of the feelings of the majority of the senior class. I cannot feel that the majority or even a small minority of the Class of '68 agrees with Mr. Newton's extremism of belief, although some certainly may agree with the tone of his beliefs. Thus, I feel Mr. Newton, although certainly entitled to his beliefs, picked an improper place and moment to voice them.

However, I must criticize the alumni writers also. To voice such stringent criticism of the school (and often on fragmentary evidence) because of the remarks of one student is ridiculous. To say that one will not give to the College, or help the College in any way because of the extreme statements of one year's valedictorian shows either an over-emotional reaction or just a lack of common sense.

Finally, I would like to compliment Presiv Dickey and the College administration for allowing the valedictorian freedom of speech, no matter how that speech might affect the alumni and others. To disagree with Mr. Mayer's letter in the July magazine, I feel it took real courage not to try to censor the speech. It is this type of enlightened college administration rather than the old autocratic, heavy-handed type at Columbia which will eventually lead to orderly progress on the nation's campuses.

TO THE EDITOR:

As a retiring member of the faculty I sat on the commencement platform while James Newton delivered the controversial Senior Valedictory. For the benefit of your readers who admit confusion on this issue I present this question: If Mr. Newton's speech was as reprehensible as some of your correspondents seem to think, what were the Nürnberg trials all about?

More Views (In Part)

• An egocentric and selfish individual, by reasons of favors granted him because of high scholarship, was able to take advantage of a captive audience to set forth his personal opinions. He spoke only for himself, not for his classmates, not for the College. The entire valedictory was inappropriate. ... Accidents will happen but in my opinion too many "accidents" have happened under the present administration.

• The most disturbing aspect of the graduation exercises this past June was the fact that a part of the Class of 1968 gave a standing ovation to a traitor of their country ... who urged them to be slackers, sugv among other means to that end "escape to a country of greater freedom in the north."

• Shocked by the address of the valedictorian at Commencement, my class of 1918 has sent out a questionnaire as to whether the young man should be repudiated. I voted No. Forty-eight years of college teaching has revealed to me the truism that Youth is ever obnoxious in expressing extreme views violently. Good for him, he will learn hypocrisy - or if you prefer, tact - in sufficient time.. . .

I regret that the valedictorian went to extremes. As a middle-of-the-roader I am much more conservative. If peace came tomorrow, we shall be just about where we were. We are fighting an unrighteous war, on the wrong side, in a country where we don't belong. We lost the war before it began.

• To those who had the misfortune to hear his words, my heartfelt sympathy. Especially the parents of the large number of fine young men who represent the real Dartmouth in the Class of '68.

I find the commentary of the editor "CEW" as revolting as the speech. Dartmouth needs a housecleaning....

• No one can quarrel with James Newton's airing his views when he joins in a private discussion with classmates and friends. But when he speaks as valedictorian at the College commencement, he represents something outside of himself. Academic freedom is not an absolute. It is circumscribed by considerations of common decency, the libel laws, etc. Mr. Newton's diatribe was in execrably bad taste among other things.

• It's too bad the senior valedictory had to drop to the level of a regimental flute player ridiculing the cooks. It will be to everyone's advantage if James Newton learns to cook before he tootles again. This could also well apply to the more articulate faculty members of the departments of the softer sciences.

• Knowing my college to be a prime instrument for sophisticating The Establishment's heirs-apparent ("pre-eminence in all things is an elite concept"), I find the Class of '68 superior to its conditioning and hopefully in a position to make up for the mistakes committed by my class (among other classes of 30-plus around the country).

What did my generation of "educated men" do that was so wrong? We ignored what we learned from the Great Depression, but more importantly, we ignored what we learned from playing footsy with dedicated anti-communists like Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Franco, Chiang, Rhee, Peron, Batista, McCarthy (Joe) and Dulles (both). We have permitted their heirs-apparent to pipe us down the road to decadence....

Thanks to men like James Newton, the new Indians will make new mistakes in avoiding ours, but the worst of them cannot be as anti-American as ours. However, I doubt that, no matter how few or how mild their mistakes, they can prevent us WASPs from becoming a down-trodden minority group.

• I wish to express my thanks to you for publishing this address. My only regret is that I was not present to hear it given. I have been married to a Dartmouth man for over 30 years and am proud to be a Dartmouth wife. Today I am even prouder of Dartmouth, for if she can produce a man like James Newton, then at long last there is hope for America. It is one thing to feel as Mr. Newton does - but to have the moral courage to stand up and state his beliefs to such a group on graduation day takes guts. ... To the "spoiled" people at Commencement who booed James Newton and to Mr. Albert Mayer '37, who has made his last gift to Dartmouth, I want to say that I will do everything possible to help my husband increase his gift to Dartmouth in '69.

• Informed and articulate comment should be an important part of a journal such as the DAM and it is good to see more letters in your pages. However, I am distressed that most of the letters were so critical of Mr. Newton. One might expect, I suppose, to hear from some alumni who are so old, so ill-informed, and so chauvinistic as to be unable to appreciate his point of view. But one wonders why so few have written to praise him - opposition to the war is surely much more widespread in this country, and at Dartmouth, than one might have guessed from your commentary.... My thanks to Mr. Newton for his courageous words and to you for printing them. And may we have more thoughtful commentaries from your readers.

• As valedictorian of the Class of 1936 I am proud of Dartmouth and James Newton of the Class of '68 for the brilliant valedictory address he gave at commencement. I think he expressed the feelings of many young people as well as many of us of the previous generation.

The continuation of the vicious Vietnam war and the failure to meet the problems of the blacks and the cities put our society in grave jeopardy. Mr. Newton's call for involvement in these problems by the Class of '68 expresses the highest American ideals.

• After reading your A Commentary in connection with the Newton valedictory address, I can only conclude that there should be a thorough reappraisal of the objectives and the makeup of the Committee on Commencement. If the chosen speaker is to be "accorded the same freedom as any other Commencement speaker," the selection should be an extremely careful one. Certainly the Committee should have had some indication of Newton's thinking, and if it didn't, it doesn't seem it could have made a very careful examination of his background.

• It is not very complicated. Freedom of speech is essential, but the preservation of the freedom of speech rests upon the speaker's realization that his speech cannot threaten the freedom of other speakers.

• We may be proud, once again, to be a part of the College which has endorsed James Newton's right to speak. In so doing Dartmouth fulfills the promise of the Liberal Arts College. She has kept the faith and backed the Class of 1968 in its first resolve to assume the responsibility for which it spent four years preparing. The ugly expression of disapproval during the valedictorv served to underscore the very need for this right to speak.

Dartmouth has provided a forum for verbal protest in this year when violent protest is the style. She has provided the climate in which the integrity of the former defeats the falsehood of the latter and in which the life of Dartmouth College is assured.

• The administration of the College should be commended for selecting the best qualified speaker, allowing him to speak his mind, and refusing to turn the graduation exercises into a debate. When Dartmouth ceases to nourish freedom of thought and expression, even to the extent shown by the valedictory speaker, she will have abdicated her proper role.

I did not agree with the entire content of the valedictory. On balance, however, there was more evidence of intelligence, maturity, and sincere concern for this country in the address than in the majority of the alumni letters on the subject. The speaker's judgment may or may not have been faulty, but I find no reason to question his motives.

• I wonder how many of these critical letter-writers realized that Mr. Newton's Quaker background made him "speak truth to power"? George Fox founded Quakerism in the middle of the 17th century. In 1661 he told King Charles II, "We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons for any pretence or end whatever." This Quaker Peace Testimony was held for over 300 years, so if Mr. Newton were to have spoken differently, he would not have been true to his faith.... He will act as witness, even though he knows he may be scorned, misunderstood, jailed, or simply ignored.

I am proud of James Newton and the College administration that allowed him to speak.

• I feel obliged to express to you my feelings of concern not as much over the contents of the valedictory address, which in itself was bad enough, but more over the fact that our admissions policy allows such events to occur. I feel sure that our goal continues to be one of developing productive and responsible citizens, and citizens that can furnish leadership to the American society. It is obvious that the worth of the product of a Dartmouth education will reflect in a measure the quality of the candidates accepted. I would therefore strongly suggest that our present method of screening candidates for admission be studiously evaluated, and another likely candidate for reexamination may well be the standards, both ethical and moral, used in determining the qualifications of a candidate.

• First of all, please know that I am very, very proud of Dartmouth College for not panicking, so to speak, at Jim Newton's very strong language, for allowing him to say freely what he had to say, for reporting it so coolly, and generally for demonstrating its commitment to freedom of speech, even hard talk, perhaps unpalatable speech. This commitment, indeed in the Hopkins tradition, is what makes Dartmouth not a good college but a great college.

Newton's speech was brilliantly capable and strong, and at a couple of points offensive to many.... Therein lies part of the point: young people are feeling more and more that they must use shocking language to a world that otherwise will not listen to them. Apparently he has not gone to Canada, and that too is another point to consider.

We must be prepared to engage in some pretty gutty discussion, and sort out the difference between advocacy and act.

• I can't stay out of the present controversy, so here is my brief valedictory to the Class of '68:

Don't lose your sense of history. Your country's record includes splendid achievement as well as tragic failure; wisdom as well as stupidity. And the balance is in its favor. Like Dartmouth College, it has survived two centuries of war, depression and error and emerged stronger because of them.

The issue today is simpler than you may think. Your country is in trouble; it has become far more deeply involved in Vietnam than it ever expected or wanted to be. It needs your help, as it needed the help of my classmates shortly after commencement 27 years ago.

For those of you who believe with James Newton that this is the time to turn your backs on America, I have a suggestion. Little men, with your beards and sandals and pat phrases, by all means go to that "country of greater freedom up north", or any other place where you can find a haven. However high your grades in psychology and political science, you have missed something important. You are not worthy of America or of Dartmouth.

• Some Pittsburgh alumni met together recently, and discussed the controversy generated by the valedictory address. Those who had read the full texts of the addresses agreed that the sense of the words in full context did not support the interpretations put on them by the news media.

However distorted the news accounts may have been, the fact is that the strong protest of the valedictorian against the American position in the Vietnam war and his counsel to his classmates, not to serve, followed by Senator Javits' thoughtful urging of the graduates to involve themselves in our political system, were dramatically juxtaposed at a critical time. The College should be praised for its part in presenting this intense and sincere drama. . . .

As an alumnus who saw a son graduate with the Class of 1968, I was proud to have him one of a class whose academic distinctions are exceedingly high. I happen to agree with much that was said by his classmate, Mr. Newton. My misgivings about the advice to "go North" have even been reduced to some degree by the recollection that in 1941 and 1942 many who felt compelled to join the war against Germany went North to do so because of one or another impediment to doing so at home. Recognizing that many sincere alumni may disagree with an equation of the idealism of those days with that of the Class of 1968, I nevertheless urge that all respect the College's vital influence in broadcasting voices which cry out in the wilderness.

This was an historic Commencement. I feel that the College deserves my active support as a free institution.

• In the poll of the Class of 1942 it was revealed that the orientation of the class was somewhere to the right of Louis XIV. Since I assumed that this was not unrepresentative of the alumni body, I expected that there would be written rebuttals of the valedictory address. I had not realized, however, that Dartmouth had failed so many alumni that they would be unwilling to listen to students of this century. If colleges or universities cannot examine dispassionately all points of view, they are dead. The unwarranted vilification of the valedictorian, the arguments ad hominem, or I should say against the beard, are sorry proof of Dartmouth's failure to educate some of its sons.

I suppose it was naive of me to expect the alumni to listen to the Class of '68. Most of our alienation from youth "exists only because no one will really listen to them (unless they riot). I hope Mr. Newton will keep on telling it as it is.

• I am glad that the tradition of free expression prevailed at Dartmouth's commencement. Certainly the valedictorian's words went down hard, or went unheeded, by many of his listeners, especially those of older generations. But editor Charles Widmayer explains very well the assumptions and reasoning which put a speaker on his own, free to use the platform to say something he believes in.

Many of the alumni apparently would prefer a recorded valedictory address, done sometime in the past when grads dutifully marched off the platform and did what their elders expected of them.

• The New York Times quotes 1968 Valedictorian James W. Newton as saying,.. thank God, we are losing that war." We understand (from a spokesman for President Dickey) that Newton "urged his classmates to refuse to fight."

Our dictionary defines SEDITION as "language or conduct directed against public order and the tranquility of the State ... the incitement of such disorder, tending towardtreason...." No wonder Newton also recommended flight to Canada. If Congress had called a spade a spade, he'd be a candidate for a noose.

• Let it be known that this alumnus for one is proud that James Newton's valedictory was delivered at Dartmouth.

Contrary to the fulminations of my fellow alumni in the July ALUMNI MAGAZINE, there are many unbearded, adult, loyal Americans (including, I suspect, many Dartmouth men) who feel, as James Newton feels, that this is a war their country deserves to lose. We believe this not in hate or disrespect but in sadness and shame that our country ever became involved in so misguided a venture and so gross a betrayal of its ideals. If we do not speak out so openly or forthrightly as James Newton, it is not only because we lack a forum but also because, worn down by experience, our idealism is perhaps not so fine-edged. . . .

Dartmouth owes no one an apology that James Newton spoke out as he did. It is all to the College's credit not only that he spoke but also that Dartmouth is graduatingdare I say still graduating? - men of such courage and ideals.

• I certainly enjoyed those letters that dealt with James Newton's valedictory address. As political and social satire, they compared favorably with Jules Feiffer's cartoons, the Three Penny Opera, Doctor Strangelove, Alice in Wonderland, and the collected musings of H.L. Hunt.

My appreciation was all the greater, for I know how difficult it is for the professional satirist to find that subtle blend of intellectual arrogance, emotional immaturity, and outraged morality that defines the perfect patriot.

Particularly effective was Mr. Briggs' suggestion that Mr. Newton had dishonored our dead. I think we might carry this theory a step further by forcing an immediate halt to medical and scientific research in cancer so that those who have already succumbed to the disease shall not have died in vain.

Mr. Peters' approach was equally intriguing. His idea that the most active menace to the rights of free speech and opinion is in the very exercise of those rights is a concept that, for the very symmetry of its construction, merits our close attention.

• Mr. Newton's beliefs obliged him to speak out, and he apparently did so with dignity and restraint. His action forms an exemplary contrast to the actions of certain students in the shameful Wallace incident.

It's too bad so many alumni don't recognize an authentic vox clamantis when they hear it, even when the message is a version of the original. The best known vox, of course, also fell victim to a government which, lacking moral courage, sought honor in honoring a fatuous commitment (Mark 6: 17-28).

If offended alumni will read the Declaration of Independence, they will be introduced to the idea that government exists to serve a higher law, and that men owe their loyalty primarily to that higher law. Mr. Newton spoke in that American tradition; and this much of Dartmouth is proud of him.

• Having read lames W. Newton's valedictory address in your July issue, I wish to register my emphatic agreement with his remarks on the war and the draft. The Vietnam war is indeed "a colossal stupidity, a vast international atrocity," and the draft which supports it ought to be resisted.

Apparently there are some who are shocked by Mr. Newton's comment, "thank God, we are losing that war." I would suggest that such persons might do well to reexamine their own hierarchy of values. To me, this remark of Mr. Newton's reflects genuine maturity and sincere conviction, in keeping with the highest traditions of Christian conscience and American patriotism.

• I was not surprised to find in the recent ALUMNI MAGAZINE letters protesting James Newton's valedictory address; after all, as Milton said, "Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making." If the College can provide a forum for the expression of conflicting views, it is going about its proper business and deserves the generous support of its alumni. It seems to me that the College is to be commended for its courageous support of the principles of academic freedom.

• As one of the growing number of alumni who are writing letters to the editor "for the first time," let me say that the last two issues of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE have been most interesting and gratifying. The articles in the previous issue about the increasing activities of the black students were dramatic evidence that Dartmouth is attracting thinking Negroes and allowing and provoking them to participate in a meaningful way in the current black revolution. Mr. Newton's valedictory address, printed in the Commencement Issue, was quite a shocker, but a happy one. I, too, have been worried that "our location in the wilderness, for all its virtues, may have shielded us from some of the main currents of life in our society."

Though I support Mr. Newton in his main theses, that is not the point. I was part of the Silent Generation that went to Dartmouth in the mid-fifties - and silent we were! While our silence certainly wasn't engendered at Dartmouth, neither was it challenged. I have been afraid that the "voice crying in the wilderness" was only relevant there. Recent events on the Dartmouth campus have thankfully put those fears to rest.

• Congratulations: to Valedictorian James Newton for baring his conscience this Commencement; to the Commencement Committee for its wisdom in naming Mr. Newton as Valedictorian; to the College for this example of pure freedom of speech: and, yes, to those distressed letter-writers, for their forbearance in the face of reason, who have proved once again that the euphemistic "my country right or wrong" with all its pretensions was not buried for all time by Nazi Germany.

As Mr. Newton quoted the Kerner Report, the President of the College, and Daniel Webster, I would like to quote a friend of Dartmouth (Harvard, 1837): "Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed, and in such desperate enterprises? If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away." - Henry David Thoreau.

• Where was I when the Class of 1959 was soliciting funds for the 1968 Alumni Fund? I was with the Marines in the I Corps Area of South Vietnam. Right or wrong, we're over there and our servicemen in that part of the world need our support. Dartmouth has always contributed to that support in the past and many of her young men are continuing to do so today. ...

I respect the right to dissent for it serves a valuable and important function in the mechanics of a Republic. But it has to be responsible dissent or it fails in its purpose. To have graduate of Dartmouth fill the papers with his nonsensical utterings while Americans are dying in a strange land is beyond my comprehension. I will not contribute to anything which fosters such irresponsibleness.

• I received today the Commencement and Reunion Issue with its freshet of angry letters from alumni (surprisingly the young as well as the old) condemning the College, its administration and faculty, the Class of 1968 and anyone else in sight for the outspoken Senior Valedictory. I feel that it is necessary to speak out in favor of all those reproached. Apparently lip service is exactly what a large number of alumni would have the College pay to freedom of speech — "say what you like as long as it is something I agree with, or so innocuous that I don't care."

I have been troubled for several years by a feeling that Dartmouth was succumbing to the temptation to remain a rather smug bastion of the values and policies which an angry world challenges every day. But no place that is willing to risk such a confrontation with its conservative wing can be all that bad.

• Please pass on to Mr. Newton my deep appreciation for his great courage.

• Like the Liberal who feels compelled to preface his speeches with the assurance that he is not a Communist or the liberal theologian who must frequently proclaim his adherence to the Apostle's Creed, I would like to assure the reader that I disagree with substantial portions of Mr. Newton's address. Above all, I object to his exhortation to his class to resist the draft.

After I have affirmed my orthodoxy, however, I would like to state that I was far more shocked by the reactions of some of the alumni to the valedictory than I was by the address itself. A few of these letters have reminded me of an unpleasant fact that I have attempted to suppress in my idealism concerning Dartmouth and her sons. The unpleasant fact is that too many alumni, in spite of their Dartmouth educations (I should hope), have little sympathy for or interest in the concept of a college or university as an institution dedicated to free inquiry. Such alumni would apparently substitute indoctrination for education. However, truth, unlike baloney, does not come in neat little packages to be sliced off for the student who hungers for it. The kind of inquiry involved in education implies controversy, and the freedom to err. It is to Dartmouth's credit that she has accorded this freedom to Mr. Newton.

• Re. "A Commentary" on the 1968 Valedictory address, may I express my extreme regret that the "party line" of the College administration as presumably expressed therein was not one of absolute and unequivocal support of the right and, indeed, propriety of the address given by Mr. Newton. None of the speech struck me as unreasonably extreme (and if any had I would classify the obtuse alumni criticism in the published letters as, on the same scale, indescribably unreasonable), and why should not personal views (or even "intensely" personal) be expressed on such an occasion? One might suppose, for example, that the capacity to make and express valid and perceptive personal views was one of the reasons for considering the class valedictorian as a candidate for commencement speaker.

I do appreciate the qualified and limited support expressed for Mr. Newton's right to make such a statement; I only wish that it had not been felt necessary to equivocate and qualify the same.

• I would like to express my support for the policy of the College to grant the valedictory speaker the same freedom from censorship granted to other commencement speakers. I applaud the spirited exchange between Senator Javits and James Newton which took place at this year's Commencement. I feel that a passionate concern for the well-being of mankind characterized the speeches of both men....

I feel that our hope for a peaceful and prosperous world depends greatly on our ability to overcome our fear of opinions which challenge the ideas we hold dear. If, indeed, these ideas have a sound basis, they will withstand criticism and will be strengthened by it. However, we cannot presume that one culture, one political institution, one individual, has the answer to all of humanity's problems. Each unique individual has something of worth to say to us. How can we hear it if we haven't the courage to listen?

• While certainly in basic sympathy, I found portions of Mr. Newton's address simplistic and tinged with self-pity, hardly startling faults in a college senior. Comparatively, though, it was a masterpiece. At least Mr. Newton honored his education and his audience with some concrete arguments. All he got in response were petty complaints and gratuitous comparisons....

If Mr. Newton is anything like me - and I suspect he is — he has grown a bit wary of the old give-and-take, let's-talk-this-out pap that is so much a part of liberal education and corporate democracy. For that reason, it is doubly interesting that Mr. Newton should discourse rationally while his opponents scream like lunatics. It indicates that the Left has no monopoly on paranoia. Of course, this is not a new discovery __ George Wallace has staked his career on it. But the paranoia is unjustified. I would like to assure all men of Dartmouth that in the foreseeable future, no U.S. President will wear a beard. The country will remain in the hands of stodgy barbarians much like themselves, while traitors and cowards like Mr. Newton suffer so that the world can be a little better for those who have had the bad luck to reach maturity without four years in the Ivy League.

• There were not enough letters in the last issue commending James Newton '68 for his courageous speech.

The procession of the multitude of gradnates wearing white arm bands followed by Mr. Newton's fine rhetoric brought home to me the fact that an important dent has been made in the apathetic non-involvement so prevalent on the Campus five years ago.

I cannot agree with Mr. Newton that we are losing the war because I am unable to interpret intelligently the sparse facts available to me. Nevertheless, I can emphatically support his claim that "the Vietnam war is a colossal stupidity, a vast international atrocity, and an expensive lesson in the futility of modern aggressive imperialism."

I cannot support the ruthless invalidation of a living culture by any means and certainly not by violent extermination. The essential form of the present-day American political structure, due to its basic foundation on a land owner's constitution and subsequent generally unchallenged development, is an invalidating one. This invalidating process is ubiquitous throughout our American system, as we are now sorrowfully beginning to learn, and the Vietnam eruption is only its most violent focus. Active resistance is now necessary for the preservation of our human and humane humanity.

• This country - let alone Dartmouth needs more James Newtons. The times and the issues before us require young men and women with the energy, devotion and commitment to sustain America's slimming chances to build an honest and open society. Newton picked the quiet, polite forum of the Commencement to state views that, in spite of the offended senses of his critics, are held strongly throughout this country by people who have the time to care that we have abdicated both at home and abroad any claim to having contributions to make to civilization.

It is indeed unpleasant when good folks' sense of propriety is assaulted on a serene Hanover afternoon by a young man who certainly was not gloating, Ambassador Briggs, over this country's misfortunes. He said what has to be said today. And people had better listen, learn, and act. Let them also suffer the right of free speech to a Dartmouth son loyal and courageous enough to speak when so many have been silent.

• The letter from Mr. Briggs does not do justice to him as a distinguished diplomat. He says that Mr. Newton's Valedictory Address was "falsehood disseminated from the haven of academic freedom. Disloyalty masquerading as free speech." With the exception of Newton's extreme views on the subject of Vietnam, which were clearly made as a matter of personal opinion, I believe that most of what he said would find ready agreement by the great majority of thinking, concerned Americans. He rightly and accurately assesses the most pressing problems in our country today - racism, urban and minority unrest —in terms of the hopelessness of solving them while engaged in an unwise and contradictory war in Asia which is wasting our vast resources and manpower. ...

The other letter on which I would like to comment came from Mr. Homer T. Gregory '34, a former high school teacher of mine in New Haven. When he quotes Sidney Hook as saying that the college should be neutral so that there will be there an environment conducive to obtaining the truth, he goes on to imply that the only freedom the students are to enjoy in this neutrality is to leave if they don't like the administrative policy. This, to me, is foolishness of a high order. The truth is not found by passively accepting that which comes from books, professors, administration or government officials. To wait until "after college discipline has been completed" to become actively involved in the search for truth is in my view a perversion of that search, undermining the whole purpose of education.

• My reaction to the Commencement speeches of Senator Javits and James W. Newton, and to the letters of outrage in this month's ALUMNI MAGAZINE, was one of both happiness and sadness. It makes me proud to see that men of Dartmouth are at last becoming aware of, and involving themselves in, the pressing problems of our society — problems which cause many of us to question the basic values of that society. My congratulations go out to Mr. Newton for his frank criticism of a nation whose people cling to symbols without substance....

To my older fellow Dartmouth men, I can only say this: the dissent emanating from your College and your sons is not a result of any loss of patriotic feeling, or of irresponsibility, or of disrespect for you; on the contrary, it is the positive result of a new, broader definition of patriotism, not only to our country, but to our fellow man, be he black, white or yellow. It is the result of a feeling that we are all responsible for the smoldering ghettos of America and Vietnam. Finally, it is the result of respect where respect is due. You have created the society we are inheriting. If we disagree with its basic values about life and love and war, respect our intelligence and our sincerity about changing our society. That there can be no social order without social justice applies to both the black ghettos and Vietnam. If we doubt your words and reject your symbols at times, listen to our criticisms, study the contexts of each critical problem, whether it is World War II, Vietnam or urban disorders, and then ask yourselves if we are as brazen and irresponsible as you seem to think.

• It was with great disappointment that I read Mr. Briggs' letter in the July issue. The attitude which says "My country right or wrong, but my country wrong" simply will not do in a nation that has the potential to destroy the world several times over. I would contend that an attitude such as that is dangerous and above all most unpatriotic. I believe a patriot is one who protects, supports, and defends his country. The United States of America is not military and economic hegemony in Southeast Asia. It is justice, humanity, and equality. The highest patriot in this country defends those ideals, exhorts others to do likewise, and is willing to lay down his life to protect those ideals. That is what Mr. Newton's speech was about: protecting those ideals....

It seems that either you must state that the war is just and good, and continue it; or you must state that it is a mistake and leave. If you admit that this war is an error, then how can you be of service to your country by helping to continue the conflict? To say that you can is absurd. If you drive your Cadillac into a tree at 60 m.p.h., you do not accelerate in the hope that the tree will disappear

• I would like to add my voice to the seeming minority of alumni who were impressed by Mr. Newton's address, and who applaud its sentiments....

Commencement should be an entering. James Newton, whom I know to be an unusually thoughtful and gentle person, has entered the world with admirable vigor and maturity, and has asked his classmates to do the same. Alumni who are concerned for the College's product - hopefully inventive and useful citizens and leaders - should wish that James' classmates heed his example, even if they do not follow his directives.

• I was dismayed but not surprised to read the reaction of alumni to James Newton's memorable valedictory address; I was especially disturbed to note Charles E. Widmayer's "commentary" concerning the matter, for it reflected in all its violent mediocrity the College's continuing failure to make meaningful discriminating comment on important issues, and its continuing policy in its pablum-publications to minimize controversy in an attempt to coddle its consensus-seeking alumni. . . .

Mr. Newton says that despite what the system tells us about constitutional change, each individual really has only one effective vote, and that's with his body. The only way to "unvote" the Tragedy of the Johnsons, Humphreys, Rockefellers, Nixons and Kennedys, is to simply say NO. The time has come when they have called a war, and none shall come.

Let us take up our own call and say YES to life. The War in Vietnam is Wrong! So we won't go. To rebuild the cities, the institutions, the quality of life in America is Right! So we will. It's that simple!

President, Class of '67

• It is not surprising to see that most of those attacking the valedictory address of James Newton do not take issue with his views nor do they challenge his arguments. Instead, they almost uniformly express a belief in freedom of speech, But.... They echo the plea of Flag and Country and talk about disloyalty to the United States. They cry treason. They mention discredit to the College.

Why do all these writers insist upon hiding behind slogans? The speech by James Newton represents a very eloquent and courageous attempt to set out the dilemmas that face this graduating class and the entire American society. If one disagrees with his views, he should come up with a defense of the war in Vietnam and the American treatment of minorities, or at the very least should spell out different alternatives for draftable males who are opposed to the war.

• I was aware that James Newton's valedictory address would provoke some adverse reaction, but I was shocked at the vituperation in some of the letters in the July issue. Especially upsetting was the one accusing the Class of '68 of being full of traitors and cowards. As a member of that class I firmly believe that there is no group of Americans who are more concerned with the future of our nation than we. But the men of '68 are also a highly intelligent and thoughtful group, who question their obligation to kill and perhaps be killed for something which they know to be morally wrong, and not in the best interests of their country. The members of the Class of '68 will not accept "My country right or wrong" as the German people did 25 years ago...

No, the Class of '68 is not riddled with traitors and cowards, but with the best citizens this country has. The men of '68 represent America's hope to get back on the right track.

Because of the heavy volume of mail about the 1968 valedictory, we can print only a selection of letters in full and must resort to excerpts from others. In the selection range of views expressed, in rough proportion to the total pros and cons.