Letters to the Editor

John Masland

TO THE EDITOR:

It was with great regret that I read of the death of Prof. John Masland. While John had long since left Asian studies, when I was at Dartmouth he was a strong influence upon me in encouraging and guiding my own inchoate interest in contemporary Asian studies. Those of us who have worked with Professor Masland will always remember his kindness and enthusiasm.

The Asian Foundation

San Francisco, Calif.

That Valedictory

TO THE EDITOR:

Mr. Newton's valedictory and the storm which it has generated raise very fundamenness tal questions about Dartmouth's nature and purpose and equally significant questions about where this country is going and why. If Dartmouth is to justify its existence, it seems to me that the two groups of questions are inextricably related.

John Dickey has for years used the incredibly apt phrase "the liberating arts." That is what I think Dartmouth is about. Dartmouth does not exist to turn out lemmings, regardless of what position they may occupy on the political spectrum, which I have always regarded as a circle - because both the extreme right and the extreme left seem to come together in their intolerance of any other point of view.

Only after stating: "... I urge you to make the fullest use of the academic skills you have gained at Dartmouth College before you accept that governmental imperative. Study the history of the Vietnam war, and study its conduct. Study the impact it is having on Asian societies, on Asian attitudes toward America, and on America's conception of herself ...," did Mr. Newton go on to express his own apparently unspeakable conclusions which generated so much controversy - and which the public opinion polls indicate are held by a sizable segment of the population.

Whether or not one agrees with Mr. Newton's conclusions, I do not see how one can seriously quarrel with his eloquent plea that we analyze the situation. Hopefully, Dartmouth has well trained him and his cohorts to do just that. In a free society, presumably not everyone will come, or should come, to the same conclusion. Yet the fact that a Dartmouth valedictorian has reached a conclusion personally unacceptable to many generates a reaction not unlike that of the psychopathic phobia of the Russian government responding to what had happened in Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Newton and his contemporaries realize to a greater degree than perhaps any previous generation of Dartmouth men that the glorious words of our Constitution are empty words for millions in the richest land in the world. I have taken the time to discuss such matters with many of his contemporaries, both undergraduates and recent graduates; and I sincerely believe that these young men are dedicated to the ideals of our society, and to a much greater degree than most of us older alumni either were or are.

It seems to me that Dartmouth today, more than ever, both in terms of what is happening in Hanover with respect to undergraduates and in terms of alumni programs, including reunions and the articles which now appear in the pages of this MAGAZINE, is achieving its own ideals and those of this nation.

Yet, when someone's sensitivities are offended, there is a great hue and cry that the likes of Mr. Newton, the faculty, and the administration - like Socrates - should be given their respective cups of hemlock. I sometimes wonder whether those who raise the hue and cry are dedicated either to Dartmouth's ideals or to to those of this country.

I would be the last to hurl the epithet "coward" at Mr. Newton and those who share his views. I personally think it requires as much courage to face the slanders he must have known he would endure as it does to face bullets in Vietnam. I also cannot help but think that, if more of us older alumni and our contemporaries had had the courage to stick to our ideals, perhaps our nation today would not be facing the problems which it does and which threaten to tear it apart.

I say to Mr. Newton, whom I have never met, and to those like him who want so desperately to have this nation genuinely live up to its ideals, may you have the guts and perseverance to make a humane and meaningful rule of law come to pass not only in this country but in the world.

To the faculty and administration of Dartmouth, I say, keep teaching these young men the ideals and to seek solutions so that hopefully they will some day solve the problems we oldsters have so magnificently botched.

Philadelphia, Pa.

TO THE EDITOR:

Ugh - big stinkum at Wigwam, caused by papoose Newton who make too hot fire for thin-skinned braves long off reservation who forgetum own loose tongue when they in Wigwam. Many smoke signals sent up, some say OK, some just say bunkum, some wise like owl say letum talkum, others howl like jackal say no more wampum. Too bad big chief does not say to jackals stickum.

Too many braves longtime away forgetum wise Sachem Hopkins say he would welcome Lenin to speakum because it might clear cobwebs from mind. Tepee made for papooses. Big Chief & Council merely guide. Let papooses howl, by making loud noise maybe lungs and mind develop. Papoose of today brave of tomorrow and must learn that every year a new one, same old corn won't grow, new seeds needed.

Keep Wigwam flap open, let papooses build many hot fires. After all top of tepee open to let out heatum and smokum, also sometimes Big Chief's hocum.

Meriden, Conn.

TO THE EDITOR:

I presume the time will eventually come when the deluge of letters to the editor resulting from the valedictory incident will taper off. I sincerely hope so. I cannot however, resist the impulse to prolong it a bit by presenting the following statistical summary of the comments which appear in the October issue:

'40 &Prior '41-59 '60-68 Total % Favorable 10 11 16 37 58.8 Critical 9 6 — 15 23.7 "Neutral" 3 4 4 11 17.5 Total 22 21 20 63 100.0

I have excluded from the above the lone faculty comment. I have, however, included as a necessary adjunct to our alumni thinking, that of Mrs. Richard Peabody '30 whose attitude incidentally I deplore. The designation "neutral" in the summary includes those who were both critical and commendatory or merely philosophical regarding the contents of Newton's address.

I am interested in the almost equal distribution of letter writers among the classes - approximately one third each in the older, middle and younger age groups of alumni. Does this represent a sum total of all letters received or is it due merely to judicious editorial selectivity?

If we are to conclude that the 63 letter writers are representative of alumni thinking generally Newton will have done a fine thing. This I do not believe. It would of course be impractical and undesirable to take an alumni vote on the question. In my opinion, however, there is a huge majority of loyal if inarticulate alumni both young and old who both resent and are deeply concerned that this kind of an incident should occur. In my humble opinion this brilliant young man is badly mixed up - emotionally and sociologically.

Francestown, N. H.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The letters printed in the October issue were selected from approximately 100 received, in fair proportion to total pros and cons and also with concern for the spread of classes represented by those writing. Considering that the midpoint of all alumni is now the Class of 1945, a correlation between class years and the views expressed in letters to the D.A.M. does not argue for Mr. Dodge's "huge majority."

TO THE EDITOR:

I have turned to your letters column for answers to important questions ever since those days, not so long ago, when it was swollen with denunciations of the then new Hopkins Center. Without exception, as I remember it, letters made the point, never properly refuted by the administration, that the building's architecture was interesting! therefore out of place in Hanover. What am I to think now? That alumni can't make up their minds any more? One searches through letters about the Newton affair for an answer - maybe that Newton was interesting, therefore out of place in Hanover - but finds only argument. There's a letter from Mr. H. Hormel Jr. '35, who points out that after all "academic achievement is a very different quality from maturity. even suspected there might be an inverse correlation." Which does sound right as rain, when you think about it. Doesn't Governor Wallace make the same point?

But then comes a letter from Buck Zuckerman '52, also concerned with maturity, who speaks of the "emotional immaturity" which "defines the perfect patriot." He's not talking of Newton, you understand, but of Newton's critics. Is Zuckerman an academic achiever, hence immature? Not at all. In Hanover my friend Buck passed the time maturely stoning students accused of reading books, and even today the fellow writes movies for a living, utterly indifferent to what the neighbors think.

So who's right? What's a man to believe? Do keep publishing those letters and let's get to the bottom of this.

New York, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

From following the controversy of Commencement '68, it seems evident that Dartmouth's administration senses the duty the College has to the exercise of fundamental democratic principles, that Dartmouth graduates such as James Newton feel it not entirely futile to invoke those principles in the name of humanity and that the Dartmouth alumni support an honest and sincere expression of beliefs such as occurred last June.

So long as these are a part of the Dartmouth tradition we owe to her our greatest support and affection.

Exeter, N. H.

Reassured and Back In

TO THE EDITOR:

I am glad to see (in the June issue) that Dartmouth students are calling upon the College to make a variety of changes, most of which, in my view, are highly desirable. Parietal supervision, for one thing, should have been abandoned long ago. I don't think it was sensible or justified when I was in college; I'm sure it is not today. Students must demand such change, however, because for the college it is always easier to drift in the status quo.

The same is true of the ROTC business, although here, it seems to me, the faculty has more direct responsibility; I would be more pleased if the move to abolish ROTC had been initiated by the faculty The arguments for retaining ROTC seem to boil down to two: Students have the right to have it available, and national security is enhanced by its existence. The first argument does not seem very strong to me. I don't see why students have a right to military training at Dartmouth any more than they have a right to any other particular form of vocational-technical training. The second argument reverses the truth: in my view, the most serious danger to our nation (and by "nation" I mean our institutions of freedom and equitable due process —in short, our civilization) derives from the ever-growing power and domination of military men and the industries which serve them. Militaristic thinking has come to dominate our foreign policy, despite the obvious stupidity, sterility, and bankruptcy of this thinking.... In any case, military thinking and military training are antithetical to qualities of thought and spirit which ought to be central to any liberal arts institution....

I note that some alumni are so disturbed by student activism that they are stopping their contributions to the Alumni Fund. My own contributions declined steadily over the last several years, and last year I cut them out entirely. I wasn't "mad" at the College, but what I could see going on there did not seem nearly as vital and relevant as what was going on elsewhere; and having rather limited resources, I channeled what I could afford to give into organizations which seemed to be engaged in the action. The June issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE suggests that Dartmouth may not be quite so disengaged as I imagined. So, if the Neanderthals are pulling out, I guess people like me have good reason to come back in. I am mailing my contribution today.

Seattle, Wash.

Praise for Alumni College

TO THE EDITOR:

Home from Dartmouth Alumni College, I sense that I have stood off in space and had a look at our times. That look confirms the worldwide extent of the moral upheaval, of the political change, of the ferment of religions, all sparked largely by the young. Those who cling to the old are dismayed but those who see a prelude to a new era to come anticipate most interesting years ahead.

Professors Bond, Ehrmann, Prosser, and Mr. Greenleaf, the "kept revolutionary" of the Telephone Company, stand as great teachers beside Professors Richardson, Adams, Keyes, and Hull of half a century ago.

Students caught up in the whirlwind of change raise problems which cannot be solved by sanctions alone. Dartmouth has managed its share of the campus ruckus with commendable restraint and wisdom.

My respect for Dartmouth's alumni is greater than it was and the intelligence of their wives and widows shows them to have been men of superior judgment.

Out of the "Gloom and Doom" that we studied comes a better founded hope for our children and their issue.

Springfield, Mass.

More on Vietnam

TO THE EDITOR:

If it is not too late, I would like to refer to the letter by Robert J. Misch '25, in which he describes the sophisticated weaponry and the brutal and cruel manner of using it by our forces in Vietnam.

I want to go on record as saying that Mr. Misch's letter made my heart sing, with approval, despite the annoyance and irritation that it apparently caused to Stanley W. White '21, who is glad that his son in Vietnam enjoys the benefits of this superiority in arms, and also to Commander (USN) Edward P. Stafford '42, who stoutly defends the uses of napalm, mini-guns, cluster bombs, and describes careful precautions to avoid injury to innocents, but who seems to know that these arguments fall on unsympathetic or critical ears so that he ends up by crying that enemy propaganda has sold us on a double standard whereby all his actions are accepted and all ours are condemned! Smart people, these Viet Cong, though not so smart as that, I feel sure! But even if you substitute "atrocities" for "actions," there is considerable truth in Commander Stafford's conclusion and there is a great deal of simple disgust for America in the world today.

To Mr. White - The Viet Cong does indeed "know his terrain" because it is his own homeland where he and his ancestors have lived for a thousand years. And it does not necessarily follow that the man who lives in a muddy tunnel is the only wily, tough, dirty, or even murderous opponent, rather than the man who lives in clean, comfortable barracks, warm and dry at night, with the best of foods, sports, music, television, and Bob Hope and Carol Channing to entertain him.

And to Commander Stafford - There are over a million dead civilians, men, women and children, in South Vietnam. If the enemy systematically murdered 35,000 of them, who murdered the others? I lived three years in Vietnam, both South and North, and I was never able to distinguish between a North or South Vietnamese, or between a Communist and other Vietnamese. Do you suppose your Marines can? Or that they care very much?

Commander Stafford says, "The minigun was designed and used primarily for the breaking up of Vietcong night attacks on friendly villagers and outposts. It has been very successful and very many allied and U.S. soldiers (sic) are around today because of it."

Does not Commander Stafford mean to say, "Very many friendly villagers are around today because of it"? If the weapon was designed and is used primarily to protect friendly villagers, we would not expect U.S. soldiers to be the chief beneficiaries.

Commander Stafford goes on to say, "No helo gunner in his right mind would hose down a rice paddy." Unfortunately for this argument, only shortly after his letter an American force did exactly that. They killed 271, and wounded some 1700, of timorous, cowering South Vietnamese peasants, hiding in a rice paddy, in deadly fear of their American allies and protectors, who were showering death upon them, as a result of some misunderstanding. The Pentagon apologized, and said it was the second largest disaster of its kind. As to the third, fourth, fifth, and other disasters, no mention was made.

I think, in fact, Commander Stafford's statement should be paraphrased "No South Vietnamese peasant in his right mind should hide from his American allies in a paddy field, as he is likely to be 'hosed down' on suspicion of being a communist."

Barcelona, Spain

TO THE EDITOR:

In his letter to the ALUMNI MAGAZINE (lune issue) eulogizing American weapons in Vietnam and regretting "restraints" in their usage, Commander Edward P. Stafford of the U.S. Navy raises some questions of interest.

Speaking as "an active duty historian with full access to the facts," Commander Stafford exults, "Thank God we have developed effective weapons of which the 'mini gun,' napalm and the family of cluster bomb units are examples." While not incurious about the Deity's reaction to that note of gratitude, I must profess more interest in the title the Commander confers upon himself. Is he simply stating that as an American soldier he is currently making history? Or does he mean he is authoring some historical work on Vietnam under the Navy's aegis? In either case, one deduces he is not without a certain prejudice.

Nor is the Commander's claim to "personal (not secondhand) experience in the area" proof of objectivity. Several of the books I have written have dealt in part with the operations of the German Army in World War II, but I can cite no instance of a German officer on active duty decrying the Nazi brand of warfare. And if U.S. military methods in Vietnam happen to resemble those of the Nazi Wehrmacht, an American officer imbued with nationalistic fervor might be disinclined to publicize that similarity.

The central issue is one about which Commander Stafford remains singularly silent for an historian of any sort. That is: what is the nature of the war we are waging in Vietnam? Is it a war keeping commitments to an ally, in defense of democracy and against aggression? Or is it a war of intervention and aggression, supporting a puppet dictatorship against a popular revolt? If the war is in the first category, Commander Stafford's views might merit a hearing. If the war is in the second, his accolade to American weapons becomes conscienceless propaganda in a barbarous cause.

One question helps clarify the issue: if the South Vietnamese Government and its war effort have popular support, why has the United States had to pour more than half a million men into Vietnam to prosecutethe war and keep the regime in power? (If the regime is indeed democratic, one must concede a slight oddness in its being headed by men like General Ky, who has stated, "People ask me who my heroes are. I have only one - Adolf Hitler.")...

I am not much impressed by the catalogue of horrors Commander Stafford attributes to the Vietcong as evidence of their lack of "restraint" in the war. It is commonly known that the Vietcong has had to rely on the support and cooperation of the population tionto wage guerilla warfare; and that for this reason — if none other - they have cultivated the friendship of the population, while U.S. armed forces have caused the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties. Also, one recalls that when guerilla forces in Nazi-occupied countries took harsh measures against the German invaders and native collaborationists, we did not deplore their actions but hailed them as patriotic.

Commander Stafford discreetly fails to say how far we should go in lifting "restraints" in our military operations in Vietnam. Does he advocate using nuclear weapons? Such, indeed, is the logical direction of his thesis. His claim that "restraints" have probably caused "our failure to obtain a military victory toryby now" is a sickly alibi for the setbacks our armed forces, despite their immense material resources, have suffered. A U.S. "victory" is likely only through the extermination of the great mass of the Vietnamese, against whom we are at war. To some military minds that might seem an ideal solution; but I believe that neither the conscience nor the power of decent mankind will permit it.

Glen Ellen, Calif.

TO THE EDITOR:

Having been in Vietnam for the last seven months I was out of touch with recent events at Dartmouth and was therefore subject to a considerable shock when I commenced reading the recent editions of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE.

I find that the ROTC programs, without which I would not have been able to attend Dartmouth, and which are so vital to the foundations of our national defense, are now in jeopardy at the College. Students who believe in unlimited freedoms for themselves have launchd a determined campaign to eliminate the freedom of choice for others.

I find that students, draft dodgers, baby doctors, and Assistant Professors of Chinese Language and Literature are now the acknowledged experts on how the war in Viet- nam is being fought. And I find a commencement speaker for my college openly advocating treason and praying for my death as well as the deaths of fellow Americans in Vietnam....

The war in Vietnam, like any war, is not a black and white affair. Innocent people as well as the guilty do die and I seriously doubt if anyone is ecstatic when this happens. As long as war exists, however, this will continue to happen. Our Commencement speaker and Mr. Mirsky and Mr. DuBoff appear to see the solution as (1) the deaths of Americans still serving in Vietnam and the eventual loss of the war combined with the refusal of American men in the future to serve in the Armed Forces or (2) the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Southeast Asia and the clearing of a free path for Communist troops to go wherever they desire in the world.

Perhaps these are solutions. For fifteen or twenty years, with luck, the U.S. can return to a policy of military isolationism. No deaths will be on our hands and when Communist forces move into other nations we can comment on how enlightened and liberal we are being about our hands-off policy. Eventually, however, when our own cities begin to be bombed and our own innocent people are being killed we're going to have to make a reappraisal of our policies much as the British did in 1939. This time it may very likely be too late, however, and we will die an enlightened and liberal nation scorning the realities of the world for an idealism that our children will never see.

I hated every minute that I was in Vietnam ... somehow the fantastic wealth and promiscuous virility mentioned in Mr. Mirsky's letter escaped me, and I found only long hours of work and death and destruction. It was quite obvious, however, that it was the continual flow of North Vietnamese troops and supplies into South Vietnam and not the reverse that was the reason for the apparently endless struggle there. I think it is time that we took another look at who are the actual aggressors in this war before we become lost in our "enlightened and liberal" outlook again....

Stoneham, Mass.

The Real Record

TO THE EDITOR:

What's this about the '68 baseball team setting an unqualified all-time record of 20-11? Jeff Tesreau's 1925 team - led by three great players: Edwards, Bjorkman, and Harris - had no trouble-with either Harvard or Yale! Including the southern trip, their record was pretty close to 23-5 as I recall. More power to Tony Lupien and his five teams but don't forget the era of the taped ball!

Cambridge, Mass.

Mr. Biddle was Financial Adviser to thegovernments of Vietnam, Cambodia, andLaos from 1951 to 1954.