Letters to the Editor
The '58 Valedictory Address
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE DARTMOUTH CLASS OF 1968:
On June 16, 1968, at the ceremony of your Commencement, a classmate of yours — speaking in your name and on your behalf — misrepresented the motives and objectives of the United States, gloated over its misfortunes, and counseled defiance of its call to service.
From the pine tree of this College, the valedictorian of the Class of 1968 vilified the Government of the land in which we live.
Some of your Class applauded. What you cheered was falsehood disseminated from the haven of academic freedom. Disloyalty masquerading as free speech.
Men of 1968:
The Honor Class attending your Commencement was the Class of 1918, whose undergraduate years coincided with World War I. On the tall grey granite slab at the entrance to Memorial Field are the names of twelve members of the Class of 1918 who did not attend the graduation exercises, half a century ago. Theirs was an earlier commitment. Other classmates of 1918 were absent from the Hanover Plain, wearing the uniform to escape which the valedictorian of 1968 would abandon his country.
No man from that Class of 1918 will witness the fiftieth anniversary of the Class of 1968. But in the nature of the procession of the college seasons, their places will be taken by a new Class of '18.
You of the Class of 1968 who attend the Dartmouth Commencement in June of the year 2018, may then be there as Honor Guests — the Fifty Year Class — facing a Valedictorian of the Class of 2018, chosen to speak in their name and on their behalf.
May that day, the 248th Commencement of Dartmouth College, be a day to erase the memory of June 16, 1968. May that day be a day not of humiliation and shame, as your Commencement was for me, but rather may it be a day of pride for American men, who are also men of Dartmouth.
Hanover, N. H.
TO THE EDITOR:
I am compelled to relay to you my feeling of complete revulsion over the enclosed article, which appeared on the front page of the June 17 Columbus Dispatch.
Excerpts from newspaper stories do not, of course, provide sufficient grounds to condemn indiscriminately. This particular one, however, most certainly leads me to seriously question the responsibility and integrity, not only of the individual involved in the case at hand, but also of the educational process and the intellectual environment of which he is both a product and a spokesman.
Each of us, as a citizen of the United States of America, has guaranteed to him the right of freedom of speech, along with numerous other rights — also guaranteed. The citizen of 1968 inherited not only the rights secured by those who passed before him, but also the responsibilities which bind these rights into the cloth of our national fabric.
There lurks in today's world a serious and menacing threat to the continued existence of these rights, and one of our most demanding responsibilities, as citizens of 1968, is to assist in their future preservation. Mr. Newton has grossly abused his right of freedom of speech, rejected his responsibility as a citizen of this country and as a representative of the College, and endangered the lives of countless numbers of citizens currently honoring their responsibility to assist in the preservation of our rights.
President Dickey once told Dartmouth men that their purpose at Dartmouth was learning. Learning not a trade, nor even a profession, but learning to be responsible and productive citizens in contemporary American society. I submit that the 1968 Dartmouth College valedictorian is an abject failure in the accomplishment of this purpose, and it therefore follows that the learning process which he represents is likewise a failure — and to a much larger and more shameful degree.
Columbus, O.
TO THE EDITOR:
I imagine you have heard from a number of alumni and others in regard to the Graduation Exercises at Dartmouth ten days ago, and I wanted to add my voice to those who approve of the spirit and content of these exercises.
The speeches and the class poem on Friday afternoon were articulate and concerned and direct, and James Newton's valedictory address on Sunday was extremely impressive. I had the feeling that graduating students this year have to confront such an agonizing question during their college years that they have developed an intense perception of things — so intense that what they are saying comes through more incisively and earnestly than the voices of their elders.
I realize that the College may come under some criticism for permitting this kind of expression at its graduation, but I was really very proud of my college for providing a platform for the kind of outspoken serious criticism of our society that I heard that weekend. I was also proud of the kind of atmosphere at the College that produced such criticism. On the strength of this, and in view of the possibility that the College may suffer some withdrawal of financial support from other quarters, I would like to say that I will try to increase my support next year.
West Hartford, Conn.
TO THE EDITOR:
I would like to express my sympathy to the parents whose sons are so ungrateful for the opportunity of education as to participate in and applaud the disgraceful exhibition at Commencement. Also to the Dartmouth faculty and administration who have not taught the most important lessons of humility and self-discipline in their classes.
Returning to Cleveland by plane recently I sat next to a young Army officer en route to his second tour of duty in Vietnam. He is an engineer and an intelligent educated man. A husband and father of two children, he is not ashamed to love and serve his country and to be loyal. I wish Dartmouth could claim him and his like.
With a valedictorian like James Newton and a class who would cheer his anti-United States remarks, it is difficult to believe in Dartmouth Undying.
(Mrs. Omar Ranney '28)
Lakewood, Ohio
TO THE EDITOR:
I graduated from Dartmouth 21 years ago and this is the first time I've felt compelled to write a letter of protest. Maybe I'm not qualified to write such a letter as I don't have a beard or long hair, I bathe everyday, believe in the sanctity of marriage, feel our judiciary system should settle disputes, am proud of the fact I'm an American, and feel that college students should be subjected to some basic disciplines in their formative years.
I might preface my "protests" by saying that I have seen a great part of this world, but still do not consider myself sophisticated, and am what you would call a very liberal Republican.
I just recently read Loeb's editorial in the Manchester Union re. the NROTC dispute, and although I have never been a proponent of his philosophy, I became doubly disturbed after reading the article concerning this subject in the last ALUMNI MAGAZINE.
The enclosed article from the Jacksonville Journal concerning the Valedictory Address of James W. Newton '68 was the last straw. What in hell is going on up there?
I am not very proud .of the fact that I am a Dartmouth alumnus and I doubt very much that I would consider matriculating my son at Dartmouth were he "lucky" enough to be accepted.
Maybe it's about time some of us old guys began protesting ... about ultra-liberal college administrations that act as if they were running for political office . .. about these same administrations who are reluctant to take a stand and reflect the thinking of the large majority of students simply because they are not vocal enough . . . about Boards of Trustees who do not exercise their prerogatives of counselling and advising the administrators in areas where they are obviously negligent.
I close this dissertation by stating that I am for progress and change — but in an orderly fashion. Let's consider the 2000-odd students at Dartmouth who object to the events that recently happened. Let's consider their aims and aspirations. Let's not formulate rulings laid down by the militant minority. Let's not forget that if the College is to survive as a leading institution of learning, it needs the financial support of the alumni much more than the antagonistic, quasi-intellectual, immature and, in many cases, the red-tinted philosophies of a minority student group.
"Old Timers" — from the Class of '68 back — let's hear from you. I think you have as much to say about how Dartmouth is run as do those hecklers depicted in the last ALUMNI MAGAZINE.
Jacksonville, Fla.
TO THE EDITOR:
Yesterday a happy occasion came to an abrupt end while I sat unbelievingly at my son's graduation in Hanover and heard the valedictorian state, "Thank God we are losing the war," and then urge his classmates to do anything from becoming conscientious objectors to "escaping to a friendly country" to avoid serving their own. I have made my last gift to the College, have served as assistant Class Agent for the last time, have interviewed my last applicant for admission until we have a President of the College who will have the guts to disavow not freedom of speech but outright treason from any bearded wonder occupying the same platform.
Springfield, Mass.
TO THE EDITOR:
As I read the attached UPI press release, I too thanked God. I thanked Him for allowing me to associate with Dartmouth men who believe in America, who are fighting in Vietnam today, and who gave their lives for this country.
I thank God that I have known these men and not those that have brought discredit to my country and to my college.
Cincinnati, O.
TO THE EDITOR:
There could never be an alumnus more dedicated to admiration of, and faith in, the teachings of Dartmouth College than my husband. Red Kerlin. He contributed his energy and his money unstintingly to the annual funds, believing that the College was turning out fine young Americans. I have continued the contributions in his memory.
Our son, of whom his father would be so proud, is now in the thick of the fighting in Vietnam. So I am shocked and horrified that the outstanding student and, evidently, a majority of the graduates, are cowards and traitors. Such ungrateful monsters after all we have provided.
None of us wants war, especially we anxiety-ridden mothers, but the decision of the majority must rule, and we have to support our country in her principles and commitments, whether it's pleasant and easy, or just the opposite.
Kentfield, Calif.
Proposal No. 52
TO THE EDITOR:
The ALUMNI MAGAZINE for May reports that the Alumni Council has received 51 proposals for improving Dartmouth's alumni relations.
May I add No. 52 to this list?
I suggest that the method of choosing alumni trustees be changed from selection by a relatively small number of alumni to competitive election by the entire alumni body.
Dartmouth might well follow the pro- cedure in force at Brown University, where the Alumni Association nominates four candidates for each alumni trustee vacancy. Individual alumni, alumni clubs, and class organizations are encouraged to submit names to the Association, which selects by vote the four candidates.
A ballot (specimen enclosed) is mailed to every holder of an earned Brown degree and to every former student in the undergraduate college. There is thus a choice among four prominent Brown alumni, and the candidate who receives the largest number of individual alumni votes is, of course, elected.
In my opinion, the introduction of a similar procedure at Dartmouth would give our alumni a real sense of participation in the future of the College, and tend to allay the feeling that the College's interest in them is limited to fund-raising.
Cornish, N. H.
Gamble on Negroes Urged
TO THE EDITOR:
I read regularly in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE and in my class newsletter of Dartmouth's efforts to attract "qualified" Negro students. I noted in the May 13 New York Times that Dartmouth could find only 49 Negroes to accept for the class of 1972 and that only 28 of these accepted the college. According to the admissions office, the difficulty is that there are too few "qualified" Negroes, that the ones Dartmouth accepted were also accepted by other Ivy League schools and that Dartmouth's location away from an urban area is a handicap in recruiting.
The College seems to work on the assumption that Negroes who wish to enter Dartmouth should meet the same standards, or nearly the same standards, as typical white students and that Dartmouth's efforts should be channeled into recruiting the few Negroes at the top and into such part-time and summer programs as ABC to raise a small number of Negroes to these high standards. It occurs to me that this assumption may be a misguided one. Perhaps Dartmouth could make a substantial contribution to education and to society by markedly lowering its qualifications for black students and by accepting a truly significant number, say a quarter or a third or even more of the student body.
I loved Dartmouth. It meant more to my growth than any other experience I have had. But I wonder whether, by educating almost exclusively middle-class whites like me, Dartmouth is performing its best possible service to society. The fact is that the country is no better off because I went to Dartmouth. Had I not gone to Dartmouth, I still would have obtained a college education, probably not as good an education as I received at Dartmouth but an education just the same. Yet, there are hundreds of thousands of young Negroes in the country — many of whom graduate from high school with barely the ability to read because their schools are so pitiful — who could turn a Dartmouth experience into a major contribution to mankind.
Maybe it's more important to teach algebra to a kid from Harlem than calculus to a kid from Scarsdale. Maybe advanced reading would be more valuable to some students than comparative literature is to today's white students. Maybe it would be better to take a couple of dozen would-be Negro doctors into the two-year medical school (even if Harvard won't accept them for the last two years) rather than to expand the school to four years for white students.
Dartmouth's reputation for academic excellence might suffer. But its reputation as a moving force in society would be magnified many times over.
Dartmouth was founded 200 years ago to educate a minority group. There's another voice crying in the wilderness now. No one else is listening. It's in Dartmouth's tradition to hear it.
Washington, D. C.
Admissions Director Replies
TO THE EDITOR:
I am glad to see in advance a copy of Mr. Rosenbaum's letter and appreciate the opportunity briefly to comment concurrently with its publication.
Unhappily, a responsible discussion of the black student at Dartmouth and of the simplified conclusions drawn by Mr. Rosenbaum (from what we here, and several of my Ivy League colleagues, felt were distorted implications in the New York Times report) cannot be conducted adequately within the space limitations of a letter to the editor.
In this brief space I can only say that Dartmouth, so far as I know from thirty years of close association with the admissions process and from what I know of its history, has always held out a welcoming hand to Negroes and other so-called "disadvantaged" groups, albeit historically the numbers of such students enrolled have been small. And, in my experience, the College has always been willing to take "risks" in such cases. In fact, in these past few years had "risks" not been taken, the number of Negro students on this campus might be half as many as there now are.
Although there are gray zones of judgment, there is a significant difference between a "calculated risk" and an "irresponsible gamble" where the probability of failure at Dartmouth — as opposed to that in some lesser competition — suggests that admission would be a gross injustice to the individual and to the greater cause to which that individual's educational development would be pertinent.
It may categorically be stated that the Admissions and Financial Aid Offices at Dartmouth were seeking out ways of attracting and helping Negro students long before the waves of public awareness and conscience gave birth to greater and more successful efforts, short though these are of meeting the challenge.
The Admissions Office cannot select students if they do not apply. And, in trying to assess "probability of success" we have to be governed by the existing academic standards of the College and such special programs as may be available to bolster the questionably prepared.
Much is being done to improve and expand Dartmouth's efforts on both these fronts, some of which are inevitably bound to be controversial and none of which, I have to conclude realistically, will be so immediately and dramatically successful as to satisfy everyone concerned about this national problem. But, many people will keep trying.
Director of Admissions
Hanover, N. H.
For Orderly Change
TO THE EDITOR:
I am one who believes that when you have confidence in management, you leave the responsibility for decision up to them without interference. However, in times of stress those making decisions sometimes need words of encouragement as well as criticism, to know that there are people who share their convictions.
I was impressed with Dean Seymour's recent memorandum on the ROTC situation at Dartmouth. On the other hand, I was distressed by the editorial in The Dartmouth indicating that eventually the College might abrogate its contract with ROTC.
Apropos of that I am enclosing an editorial by Carl T. Rowan, with which I am in complete sympathy. I recognize the need for change and reform, but I also recognize the importance of maintaining law and order, and exercising pressure through constituted channels.
I compare a college to a business. A business has its investors, its management, its employees, and its customers. The college too has its investors — those who endow it; its management, namely, its trustees and administrators; its employees, namely, its faculty; and finally as customers, its students.
In business the marketplace eventually sets the guidelines for service, value and conduct. In the final analysis if customers aren't satisfied they have the option and exercise it to go elsewhere. The same option is open to students. Like customers, they can make their complaints known and bargain for improvement. However, if they exercise their option by looting or taking over the store, there is no alternative but to invoke the full power of the law. But in either case, resorting to the appropriation of property, violence or threat of violence, justifies the full sanction of the law. It is a rather simple and perhaps naive comparison, but I do think it is appropriate and probably better expressed by Mr. Rowan's editorial.
I feel that at this time, as one of those who have confidence in Dartmouth as expressed in a material way, I have the right and the responsibility to encourage the administration to continue to stand firm for those values that it taught me when I was a student. I do trust that this will be the case, and that the College's responsibility to the country and the government will not be jeopardized by a few misguided students.
Chicago, Ill.
A Firm Hand Recommended
TO THE EDITOR:
Like many thousands of suburbanite, middle-aged American men who have not had direct cause to become involved in the social unrest which is stirring the land, I have observed with concern but have remained silent. However, the recent student rebellions on the campuses of our colleges and universities pose direct threats against institutions and standards for which I have immediate personal interest, and I believe it is now incumbent upon the nation's large body of alumni to state their views. Our colleges have been calling upon us year after year since our graduation for financial contributions, recruiting aid, and other forms of support; now I think we should make clear what we expect from our alma maters.
So far, Dartmouth has successfully avoided any major incidents, although the Wallace reception and the threats to the ROTC ceremonies indicate incipient trouble. The permissiveness on other campuses may well encourage the minority of student rebels and activists at Dartmouth to seek some form of action or power by means of force and violence.
It is my hope and desire that the administration and officials at Dartmouth College will be prepared with policies and plans that will prevent and avoid causes of any student unrest and rebellion against college authority. Furthermore, I would expect that the college will not tolerate any violation of college regulations or civil law by individuals or groups of students — regardless of their complaints or objectives.
Should any individual or group of undergraduates resort to physical force or seize and damage college or private property, in order to seek any concessions, controls, or goals, the offending students should be immediately expelled and/or criminally prosecuted as appropriate.
I have considerable confidence in the mature judgment of the Dartmouth staff and faculty and in their ability to ran Dartmouth College in a business-like manner true to its long traditions as a liberal college of the first order. Normal channels of communications with the students should be kept open, but I do not think that Dartmouth College or any other institution of higher learning in this country should permit its responsibilities to be usurped by callow youths who may resort to force and violence in order to attain their objectives — despite the possible merits of their causes.
Colonel, U. S. Marine Corps, Ret.
Atlanta, Ga.
"No Voice or Choice"
TO THE EDITOR:
Recent letters in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE express my thinking. However, I believe they need to be expressed more firmly. The total body of knowledge has expanded three or four times in the past thirty to fifty years. Yet the undergraduate spends considerably less time in actual study and more of his time is directed toward his amusement.
He can't go to class because he can't find a place to park his car. His social life is unsatisfactory because he has to put his girl out of his room by midnight. And those who are bored with cars and gals should have LSD nights. They should not be disturbed, since it's their life.
And in the meantime the College administration apparently listens to great debate about what rights the undergraduate has in running the College. For "my money" he has no right or responsibility in this area.
It is long past the hour for listening and it is "high time" the administration told the undergraduates in no uncertain terms that they have no voice or choiee in the running of Dartmouth College. Their choice is but one — if you don't like it, leave! And their leave-taking could not be soon enough for me.
The same goes for the rich, generous, in- dulgent parent who supports and defends his rebellious son's conduct. Give the parent his money back and send both on their way. Their money, no matter how great, does not carry the right to compromise Dartmouth's purpose.... If these problems can't be solved quickly (not more than one school year) then Dartmouth College should be liquidated and given a decent burial, so that the continuing abuse will not mar the sacred memory of all the "Sons of Dartmouth" who through great self-sacrifice have made for a great institution.
Atlanta, Ga.
Challenging the Status Quo
X0 THE EDITOR:
Contrary to my classmate Bruce Booth who expressed opposition to the Dartmouth Experimental College in the June 1968 letters column, I heartily endorse this and other similar programs at Dartmouth.
It is unfortunate that the "merits of our free enterprise system" cited by Mr. Booth have never become apparent to the large sroup of Americans who are just now recovering their dignity and attempting to collect a long overdue debt from society. In the words of John Gardner, "the characteristic of our age is the tension between released human aspirations and sluggish human institutions." I believe that recent social unrest indicates that the future of our country depends upon changing existing institutions.
I am proud that Dartmouth is challenging the institutional status quo by providing a dialogue which can hopefully result in necessary democratic social change. Therefore, I would urge Bruce Booth to contribute to these excellent efforts rather than reducing his alumni gift to "a token amount."
Marblehead, Mass.
Two Replies to Cmdr. Stafford
TO THE EDITOR:
In response to the letter of Commander Edward Stafford '42, defending the use of "effective weapons" in Vietnam:
1. Cmdr. Stafford claims that "No helo gunner in his right mind would hose down a rice paddy on the chance that the enemy might be there." Every single reference I've seen, however, indicates that this is exactly why helicopters (and other airborne gunners) do "hose down" an area. In fact, we're really hosing down all of Vietnam, turning it into one big "free fire" zone.
Of course the U.S. Command has, from time to time, paid lip service to the ideal of sparing civilians, but the rule obviously remains "when in doubt, zap the gooks." Only when "errors" produce embarrassing headlines does the military react. But after the publicity dies down, it's business as usual. Thus, following eight bombing "mistakes" against "friendly villages" in the summer of 1966, it was reported in TheNew York Times that "After some consideration Washington has decided to issue no directives putting specific restrictions on the use of air sorties in the South." And so on.
2. "Contrary to all the outcries napalm is not used against villages .. . but against dug-in enemy positions," says Cmdr. Stafford. Cmdr. Stafford to the contrary, there are literally scores of reports, available to anyone willing to open his eyes, that napalm is used on villages in South Vietnam, extensively and often without warning. See, to cite only one example, chapters ix, x, and xiv of In the Name of America, compiled mainly from American press sources by Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam (and obtainable from Room 547, 475 Riverside Drive, New York 10027). Here Cmdr. Stafford can find at least 26 instances of napalm on villages (let alone countless incidents of cannon and rocket fire, fragmentation and general purpose bombs).
It should be pointed out, further, that through June 1967 the U.S. Air Force had dumped over 100,000 tons of napalm on South Vietnam. For the period since then, the Pentagon refuses to release figures (A.P., March 18, 1968). Does this look like the "selective" use of napalm promised us by our military authorities?
3. As for Cmdr. Stafford's praise of Forward Air Controllers as men who take extreme risks to avoid hitting anything except legitimate military targets, I can only suggest that he — and others — read Jonathan Schell's latest book, The Military Half (in Vintage paperback). An eye-witness account by a reporter who spent over a month on various FAC missions, this book is the most crushing one yet on our deliberate destruction and/or uprooting of the Vietnamese peasantry — known to be the political and social base of the National Liberation Front. . . .
4. The United States "has in fact broken all historical precedent in the restraints it has imposed on its own combatant forces .. .," the Commander informs us. As of last December, our "restraint" had already produced these statistics: (a) more total bomb tonnage dropped on North and South Vietnam than on all of Europe during World War II; (b) 100 pounds of explosives for every living person in North and South Vietnam; (c) 12 tons of bombs for every square mile of territory in both countries (New York Post, Dec. 5, 1967; C.B.S. News, Jan. 15, 1968). Of course we haven't used nuclear weapons. Are we to be congratulated for "restraint" on that account?
5. Dismissing one's own crimes by referring to enemy atrocities is a device that has been employed by every aggressor nation in history. All the more so by the United States, which blocked unifying elections in Vietnam in 1956 (we knew we'd lose) and has since intervened massively in a civil war in which our own Saigon puppets admit and plead openly that they are incapable of "competing politically" (in their own words) with the Communists! So, to avert political defeat we resort to military means — the classic pattern of aggression. Cmdr. Stafford himself skirts the issue by speaking of enemy "capabilities," and, although he fails to realize it, that seals the case. Our capabilities — not theirs — are carried out via napalm, CBU "anti-personnel bombs," rapid-fire miniguns, gases, chemical defoliation of vegetation and food-producing areas, and B-52 "saturation" raids. All of them, especially the B-52, are by their very nature instruments that cannot discriminate between soldier and civilian. Even in the hands of the best-intentioned warriors, they come close to being weapons of mass murder.
Bryn Mawr, Pa.
TO THE EDITOR:
Commander Stafford '42 writes (June) on Vietnam as an "active duty historian with full access to the facts and with personal experience in the area." While I cannot claim "full access" to the facts (Commander Stafford is a rare historian) I do write about Vietnam and have been there several times.
Restraint is the central point of Commander Stafford's letter. Like General Westmoreland, he comes very close to the "stab- in-the-back" theory so fashionable among German generals after World War I. It is very comforting of course; how else can we explain our lack of success against a country of undernourished runts in black pyjamas. This is a dangerous twist of interpretation, used in the past to explain American policy failures elsewhere, especially China. It leaves intact the illusion of omnipotence, and lays blame for failure on bungling, not on the policy itself. Fortunately, not everyone sees things this way: several Convocations ago John Dickey pointed out that the only thing worse than the Bay of Pigs debacle would have been a successful invasion. The same holds for Vietnam.
Let us now turn to some of Commander Stafford's claims "Napalm is not used against villages." Rubbish! In 1965 I saw it dropped on villages while a passenger in FAC planes whose pilots didn't even know why their targets were selected. In one such village the inhabitants stood looking up at the sky while the bombs were falling on them. In 1967, I flew over the so-called Iron Triangle (an American term, used to give an impression of a fortress to a rural landscape) where many villages had been napalmed. Others like Ben Sue were simply bull-dozed flat.
The newspapers are full of this; so is TV. I suggest to your readers that they get TheMilitary Half (Random House, 1968) by Jonathan Schell; he spent weeks in Quang Ngai watching the systematic destruction of 40% of the villages in a province of 600,000. One FAC spotter told Schell "We do destroy villages and we have to." The "brave and competent men" Commander Stafford describes even had a little song:
"Strafe the town and kill the people, Drop napalm in the square, Get out early every Sunday And catch them at their morning prayer."
No one apologizes for Vietcong murder and atrocities. I have seen them and been sickened by them. But if quantity makes any qualitative difference, America is the champion. For responsible confirmation of American-caused human suffering I commend readers to Senator Edward Kennedy's speech at Harvard Medical School (January 25, 1968) following his trip to hospitals and refugee camps. I have visited civilian hospitals, too. It is no surprise that the Saigon briefers who provide statistics for everything else somehow go blank when the subject of civilian casualties arises.
The New York Times (June 11) carried an account of the war by Ton That Thien, Minister of Information in the Saigon government. "Our peasants will remember their cratered rice fields, and defoliated forests, devastated by an alien airforce that seems at war with the very land of Vietnam. . . . While saving Vietnam, a half million American soldiers are suffocating it with their fantastic wealth, their gadgetry, their promiscuous virility and their destructive innocence."
Shortly before Dien Bien Phu fell to General Giap's forces, in 1954 Robert Guillain, one of France's most distinguished newsmen, recently returned from the encampment, wrote: "The commander-in-chief has just explained everything to us dogmatically and I, a humble journalist, would stake my life on it that he is either making a terrible mistake or lying to us. I would be ready to swear that the situation he has described has nothing in common with reality."
Assistant Professor of Chinese Language and Literature
Hanover, N. H.
"Intellectual Flatulence"
TO THE EDITOR:
Congratulations to Edward P. Stafford '42. His letter in the lune issue is a good answer to the sign carriers on the cover. Most of their complaining is the result of intellectual flatulence caused by an ill chosen and badly digested diet of misinformation.
Rochester, Minn.
A Defense of ROTC
TO THE EDITOR:
The Bulletin of the College and the ALUMNI MAGAZINE have recently reported that the Executive Committee of the Faculty has initiated a study of "the compatibility of the ROTC programs with the educational objectives of the College." This study is of intense interest to me because I was an NROTC (Regular) student in the Class of 1951. In fact, without the NROTC program I would never have been able to be a part of the Dartmouth community at all.
In the excellent article on the problem by Chris Kern '69 in the lune issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, one demand is to make the (NROTC) program entirely extracurricular. How this might be accomplished while still qualifying for the Naval requirements of the "Regular" NROTC program was not suggested, and I have grave doubts that it could be accomplished without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I am presently a Commander in the Naval Reserve on inactive duty. (I'm a city planner by trade, and thus considered pretty liberal by most standards.) My Naval responsibilities include administrative guid- ance of the training of most of the inactive enlisted Reservists (other than air) on the east side of San Francisco Bay. The Navy has many fine academic programs, but when a young man really has unusual promise, and we catch him early enough, we urge him to apply for the NROTC program. To my knowledge, it is the finest scholarship available in the United States today leading to a liberal arts education. If Dartmouth were to reject it, she would reject with it a number of highly qualified men who would not be able to participate in the Dartmouth Experience without that assistance.
The charge that ROTC does not deserve to be "institutionalized" by the College suggests that somehow it unduly limits the academic freedom of the ROTC volunteer or of other Dartmouth students. This was by no means my experience at Dartmouth. In fact, I took six courses instead of five (on the old semester system) on my own initiative, and the Navy obligingly paid the additional tuition. To my knowledge, none of my NROTC classmates was ever forced to limit his academic program (or extracurricular program, for that matter) as a result of membership in the NROTC.
Neither of the brief references to this Committee study detailed the reasons that have caused the ROTC programs to be under suspicion of being incompatible with the other educational objectives of the College. Reaching into my own past, I can find none. And I must confess to a degree of consternation that this Committee study was apparently triggered by protesters who are not themselves in any of the ROTC programs and whose personal educational programs and objectives are not imperiled by them.
San Leandro, Calif.
A Role of Neutrality
TO THE EDITOR:
Sidney Hook, department of philosophy at New York University, has written that the role of the college should be one of neutrality in order to establish an environment conducive to the search of truth. Dartmouth students chose Dartmouth of their own free will. They are free to leave at any time if things do not please their untutored minds.
The time for active involvement is after college discipline has been completed.
Hamden, Conn.
