Letters to the Editor

The 1969 Valedictory

TO THE EDITOR:

"The Senior Valedictory" published in your July issue was an early version of my address. The speech I delivered differed from it in several particulars.

The most important is that I softened my references to the students who occupied Parkhurst. While I unequivocally reject their action, in the days before Commencement I became sympathetic to their plight at the hands of the College's judiciary system. Most of the arrested students had paid dearly for their offense, to the tune of 30 days in jail and substantial fines. Although many other students were involved in a blatant violation of the College's Guidelines on Dissent, those who eluded civil authorities were declared immune to College prosecution as well. The C.C.S.C. proceeded to try. rather summarily at that, those who had already faced one stern judge.

This course raises doubts about Dartmouth's intentions: by harassing the most committed protesters and ignoring the rest, does the College wish to protect dissent or the Alumni Fund?

Forest Hills, N. Y.

We regret that the valedictory text printedwas provided to the MAGAZINE, along withother Commencement texts, without anyword then or later that changes had beenmade in it.

TO THE EDITOR:

It was with a sense of pride and relief that I read Kenneth Paul's Valedictory Address. I am reassured that Dartmouth can produce men so keenly sensitive to the evils that beset today's society, who dare to indict proponents and opponents alike when they abandon the restraints of justice and decency and permit passion to displace logic and reason. Without so saying specifically, he discloses an idealism that seems almost to have disappeared from today's generation.

I hope the College, administration and students alike, will be duly impressed.

May I also endorse Dr. Raymond H. Baxter's complaint about the cavalier manner with which the recommendations of alumni interviewing committees are often treated by the Committee on Admissions. I have heard this complaint from enough alumni to make me believe it has some validity.

Alumni may not be fully aware of the problems the College has to solve; but they are interested in them.

South Orleans, Mass.

ROTC at Dartmouth

TO THE EDITOR:

I can understand the feeling of certain undergraduates regarding the war in Vietnam (though I feel their approach is about as far-sighted as the "America First" movement of 1940). I can also understand the antipathy towards the draft. What I cannot understand is the wish to eliminate ROTC.

Vietnam is not the only reason for having an Army, Navy and Air Force. If the Vietnam situation were settled tomorrow, there would still be the need of ROTC. To throw out ROTC as a protest gesture against the Vietnamese war is infantile. You might as well shut down West Point and Annapolis, too.

Those in favor of volunteer military service should be the first to welcome ROTC. After all, ROTC is volunteer and can only help achieve that goal.

And I resent the liberals who are so interested in civil rights ... their civil rights, while denying those same rights to others who wish to pursue a military career with a. liberal arts background. One may not like the military or its way of doing things, but just remember, without it, there would be no Dartmouth College where one has the right of lawful dissent.

I cannot help but recall what Greenberg said after he had done his job on Queeg. It went something like ... Where were all of you when the Queegs were on the front lines, holding on until the country could get ready to defend itself?

New Brunswick, N. J.

TO THE EDITOR:

The June issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE with its full report of the May events has only just reached this far-off outpost of the girdled earth. Admiration for the restrained firmness with which the College handled the seizure of Parkhurst, for this writer, is mixed with dismay at the presumably final decision reached concerning ROTC.

Has the College really decided that because many in the Hanover community oppose the Vietnam war, ROTC, as the most visible evidence of military activity on campus, must be abolished? Moral indignation over Vietnam is perhaps defensible, but a far more basic issue is involved here. Without being in full possession of all the details, it appears to me that in spirit, if not in fact, Dartmouth is abrogating its responsibility with regard to the basic fundamentals of U.S. national security - a matter which acquires particular meaning when viewed by an American living in this city. In my opinion, such a course is indefensible.

Surely the Vietnam war will be terminated in the next few years, but the national defense requirement remains indefinitely. Dartmouth has provided a fine corps of military officers through the ROTC programs for the past generation. I am hopeful that future generations at Dartmouth will continue to volunteer for periods of service, thus fulfilling what to my way of thinking is a basic obligation of all able-bodied citizens. If Dartmouth no longer has a program for these individuals, it is shirking its responsibilities in a manner which appears to place expediency before sound principle and mature judgment. Rather than investigate coeducation, why is the special committee not devoting its attention to this far more important issue?

In my opinion, Dartmouth has made a major mistake in resolving the ROTC issue, the unfortunate ramifications of which will be with us for many years. We of the over-30 group are supposed to be more wedded to the older virtues — my country right or wrong, among others. In this connection I notice that, in June at least, the Alumni Fund was faltering (my information is always dated). My college may be wrong, but this is no time to retaliate from the pocketbook. I enclose a check. Webster's small college is not perfect, but it is the best we have.

American EmbassyMoscow, USSR

TO THE EDITOR:

The removal of ROTC from the Dartmouth campus is a very strange and ineffective way to oppose the war in SEA. Do we really think that the elimination of the 250 or so officers who are commissioned into the three services are going to induce the military or the administration to change its policy in SEA? The present facts of the world are that we must, however irrational it may be, have a significant military capability. If we did not, I have no doubt that all of Europe and much of the rest of the world would be another Czechoslovakia. Whether or not our military capability should be used in SEA, and in support of whom, is the question, not if there should be an ROTC program on college campuses.

Having spent two and one-half years in the Air Force since graduation, I firmly believe we need men of integrity and ability with a tolerance of opposing views and an appreciation of non-military diplomacy and of military restraint in the military. The warriors who love war and wish to show only their service's superiority and win promotion for themselves are not needed in the military. Unfortunately, there are too many such men. By removing ROTC from college campuses we force more of the military leaders to be educated and trained in military academies and schools, where these values are perpetuated much more than they are in colleges and universities. If we lose the influence of the liberal-arts educated men in the military we will only be pushing toward a more militaristic, aggressive defense establishment.

Have we so little confidence in ourselves that we need to protect Dartmouth students from the likes of ROTC Instructors and Officer Candidate School recruiters? Who are we afraid of?

APO, San Francisco

TO THE EDITOR:

In the Dartmouth Bulletin of May 7, I read the "Background of The ROTC Controversy."

While it all seems beautifully reasonable, I wonder if the faculty would consider "A reduction of course credit and eventual removal of all course credit for study" in sociology. Or, why not remove all course credit for studies in music or art?

X am constantly amazed at the lack of judgment of faculties all over the country in their complete inability to administer a college.

The net outcome of this anti-ROTC racket will be a professional class of trained army officers rather than having officers come from private colleges all over the country. The result of action of this sort is the exact opposite of what the faculty supposedly wants, indicating, again, their complete inability to see farther than their noses.

Getting the students' sentiment in regard to the course of studies in the College, to my mind, is the height of imbecility. Asking an undergraduate to determine what courses he should have in college is just like asking a kid in kindergarten how his mother and father should behave. He doesn't have the judgment or the background to make an intelligent decision.

To me, the whole ROTC controversy is an example of how easily faculties all over the country can be influenced by a liberal group that wants us to disarm. If I ever saw sheep, college faculties are today.

Dallas, Texas

TO THE EDITOR:

According to Dartmouth newsletters, Dartmouth administrators think that things are going very smoothly. When College representatives went to Washington to discuss the anti-ROTC situation with the Department of Defense, they found that DOD officials were very "understanding." The smooth withdrawal of ROTC from the Dartmouth campus was pictured as a sort of triumph over both SDS and the DOD.

According to the enclosed editorial, reprinted in "the 26 July Richmond Times-Dispatch, DOD probably said, "Good riddance."

Louisa, Va.

TO THE EDITOR:

Like a number of other recent contributors to this column, I am concerned about the decision of the College to remove ROTC from campus. I was a regular NROTC student at Dartmouth and I expect my continuing participation in the Naval Reserve firmly establishes me as a member of the "military industrial complex.

The loss of NROTC at Dartmouth will make only a small dent in the flow of new officers into the Navy. There were 54 NROTC units in this country before the recent protest wave, and the five or six that have so far dropped out of the program have been the most expensive for the Navy to maintain and not. the best in terms of retention of career Naval officers. The lost officer output can be easily made up by redistributing Dartmouth's NROTC quotas among the other colleges and universities that have retained the program or by approving any of the 100 or so applications for new NROTC units that have been submitted to the Department of Defense.

In short, it is not the loss to the Navy that concerns me, although I like to think that all of us who entered the Naval Service from Dartmouth brought some contribution to it that might otherwise have been missed. On the contrary, it is the loss to Dartmouth that bothers me.

I am not talking about the quarter of a million dollars in tuition and student aid that will be lost, nor the highly qualified men that will not be able to attend Dartmouth without some equivalent aid. I am talking about the changed atmosphere on campus.

I recently spent a week in Hanover talking with old friends and meeting a few new ones. It is not possible to get an unimpeachable reading of campus "climate" in such a short time, of course, but I did get some mighty strong impressions.

The first impression was that the campus has turned so strongly liberal (to use a common but imprecise term) that impassionate discourse on such things as this country's vital interests in Southeast Asia or why this country should be involved in South Vietnam is nearly impossible. The social pressures within the student body and perhaps within the faculty seem to have been particularly extreme this past spring, making it impossible for those of different persuasion to be clearly heard. And there seemed to be few of different persuasion left on campus. ...

Few people in this country have the time or, unfortunately, the inclination to become thoroughly informed on all aspects of this country's foreign policy. Most of us have little enough time to read the morning paper, and even this is hardly the way to obtain a clear and unbiased look at our involvement in foreign affairs. However, it does not seem ridiculous to expect such things to be studied and analyzed from all angles in our centers of learning, on the campuses of our colleges and universities. This has not been done at Dartmouth. It is time that Dartmouth shot some vitamins into its international relations program so that every student (and perhaps a good percentage of the faculty) would know as much about why our country does the things it does as they think they know about why it ought to do something entirely different.

The power that the SDS has focussed on Dartmouth during the past year has been immense. SDS leadership has been brilliant and effective. But there appears to have been no positive leadership from either the Administration or the Board of Trustees to balance this SDS power. For instance, I was unable during my brief visit to Hanover to find any evidence of real leadership in the ROTC matter from either the President or the Board of Trustees. The matter was left entirely to the faculty. The change in faculty position from a three-year study to a three-year termination of ROTC programs was voted before the occupation of Parkhurst. The members of the faculty with whom I spoke had various reasons for their action, but a partial consensus was that fear of violence coupled with an unwillingness to accept courses and faculty members selected by the Department of Defense instead of the Dartmouth faculty itself was what swung the tide. The Board of Trustees has apparently delegated such decisions to the faculty, for it did not modify that action. ...

In my opinion, Dartmouth is at the crossroads. It has a new Dean, it is looking for a new President, and the Board of Trustees is in the habit of exercising a minimum of control over nonmonetary college affairs. At this critical time, when the College has less experienced leadership posture at the top than ever before, it is faced by immensely concentrated forces for disruption from below. If the College is to scatter the forces of disruption, it will have to refine and concentrate its own power so that administrative decisions are no longer made by faculty committees selected by other faculty committees where authority is concentrated and responsibility is divided.

Cdr., USNR (R)

San Leandro, Calif.

Parkhurst Aftermath

TO THE EDITOR:

I know that the College felt smugly satisfied by its handling of the Siege of Parkhurst. Yes, the action taken there was far less bloody in its results than many actions elsewhere. Sending in an overwhelmingly large police force from two states was done without the use of clubs and with only a minimum of disabling gas. The protesters were removed without serious injury. We are all glad of this.

But we are not all glad that any such action was taken. Whatever damage might have been done had the students been allowed to remain for a long period would hardly have compared to what our country is doing every moment in Vietnam. Damage of the first sort is deplored by all, damage of the second sort is condoned by all but a few, or at least only a few protest against it strongly and constantly. This is an intolerable dislocation of any sense of reasonable balance.

I wish myself that student protests were more directly in the name of the iniquitous war in Vietnam but I understand that protests against ROTC are aimed ultimately at that war. Such understanding, had it existed, might have made the College more hesitant to surrender its authority over its students to the harsh, uncomprehending power of the state and the courts.

No one my age who cares about the future of his country approves every move made by infuriated youth. But it must be made clear to President Dickey and to others in similar positions that there are many of us far beyond the years of youth who care mightily about the issues that bring about such confrontations.

The protesters are almost all young people who are sickened by the society in which they live because it condones practices and controls they consider abominable. They feel that nothing but violent protest will gain them a hearing. They see the indifference, indeed the frequent cooperation, of their elders in the face of national policies, political and economic, that underwrite destruction and slaughter abroad. They see the neglect of those problems that disrupt our country at home and compared to which the disruptions they cause are small indeed. Above all, they rightly feel they must strongly, constantly and violently protest our brutal policy in Vietnam. There, in the disgraced name of democracy and freedom, we continue to support an unpopular, corrupt minority regime in the southern part of what should be one nation. All this we do in violation of our pledges made at Geneva fifteen years ago.

If the adult leaders of this country, above all those who stand in positions designed to counsel youth, do not denounce these policies, how can the young respect those leaders? I wish with all my heart that it had been President Dickey among the heads of our best-known colleges who had dared to do this. By taking such a course in the face of whatever opposition his name would have been remembered as one whose counsel showed understanding, wisdom and true patriotism.

Norwich, Vt.

TO THE EDITOR:

I am writing about the June hearings for the students who violated the campus guidelines and drove College officials from their offices in Parkhurst Hall. The alumni and friends of Dartmouth have been given accurate information about this event and the consequences for the students and others who defied court orders to leave the building that night. Your readers should also know something about the spirit and activities of these defiers when they returned to the campus and were given an opportunity to explain their behavior to a special committee.

A few of the hearings were closed but open ones were held in the Gilman Laboratory lecture room. Attracted by the commotion of non-scientists lounging in the lobby of our building and cavorting in the hearing room between sessions, I sat with the audience for parts of three hearings. We faced the committee of faculty and students. Their patience and quiet, serious attention to every detail were in sharp contrast with the sneering and jeering faces of most of the audience — the organized group of convicted students and their friends.

Some of the students had already been heard by the committee and given mild punishment of short-term probation. They all knew that nothing serious would happen to those yet to be heard but they showed their attitude toward the College by cooperating to put on a noisy show at every opening in the hearings. They seemed to be joyful without a sign of remorse. They jeered at the committee chairman as he asked for evidence and gave opportunities for statements of extenuating circumstances. They cheered on and on after each man before the committee had disclaimed doing wrong because he had only acted in the light of a morality higher than the campus code. They insulted the committee repeatedly, questioned its authority to act, and showed their contempt at one time by backing a man with a kangaroo head-and-shoulders mask who hopped across in front of the committee in the midst of a hearing.

Everything said and done by this small group of atypical Dartmouth men, with the enthusiastic support of faculty advisers who assisted in attempts to harass the work of the committee, indicates that the group will continue the disruption of the College to the best of its ability next year. The alumni body will probably see news items of protests and gripes about supposed grievances at Dartmouth. The organizers who avoided arrest in Parkhurst will be free to do more than talk. The campus would be a happier place if all these dissatisfied students were separated or transferred but the many hundreds of other students can stand it — they are too busy getting their education to protest the presence of radical pacifists.

Emeritus Professor of Botany

Hanover, N. H.

TO THE EDITOR:

The actions and consequences of the student seizure at Dartmouth depress me. I feel this on three different grounds: from the students, the administration, and the alumni.

The student takeover may be questioned on its choice of action, and on the motivation for that action. Basically, the action, even though it is not wrong in itself, was out of proportion to the problem it was protesting. In many other schools the problems are of a more serious concern, i.e., ill-considered, university expansion, or biologic warfare'research.

What is most depressing about those hours was the almost predictable over-reaction of the administration. I would have hoped that Dartmouth's leaders might have learned something from the numerous examples of campus actions in past months. How disappointing it is that President Dickey et al. had so little foresight that they prepared for a takeover by a court injunction rather than by a mechanism of communication with the concerned students. As a result, the students in the building were not jailed on the basis of the legality of their occupying the building, but on the illegality of defying a court injunction. This ex parte injunction, the only way an injunction can be delivered without both parties being present, resulted in a contempt of court against which the students were denied the right to present a defense on the merits of their own position. The administration showed a complete lack of good faith in resorting to this extraordinary remedy against its own students. The University of Pennsylvania, where I am presently a medical student, took as its major goal discussion with the students, when it was faced with the same situation; few felt that punishment was the action of choice. The result was understanding, agreement, and respect — something that cannot be said about Dartmouth.

It is also predictable, I suppose, that so few alumni would appreciate the basis for the actions at Dartmouth and elsewhere: a breakdown of communication between administration and students. I think it unreasonable to expect that hasty obtainment of court injunctions or the calling of police will stop students from confronting administrations. Alumni should realize that punishment is no answer to the problem. Punishment has a habit of polarizing the antagonists and solving very little.

Philadelphia, Pa.

TO THE EDITOR:

I enjoy reading the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. On page 26 of the June issue you show a picture of a State trooper bringing out a leader of the building takeover.

The question I would like to ask: Would you hire a man with a background like this? Where is he going to get a job? He will want to take over the company that employs him.

I don't want him. Do you?

A '55 Father

New Brunswick, N. J.

Coeducation

TO THE EDITOR:

For 200 years Dartmouth has been justly proud of the loyalty of her alumni, but I'm worried about what may happen to the Dartmouth Spirit. In fact she has been the envy of the collegiate world. No college has a finer percentage record of alumni support each year during our Alumni Fund drive. Our class reunions are so successful that we must allocate different dates to accommodate the enthusiastic classmates who attend.

The Dartmouth Spirit is fabulous!

Many have tried to analyze this strong hold Dartmouth has on her sons. "Place" has often been cited as a main contributor. It is, of course, a very important factor, with a beautiful location along the Connecticut River, but this to me is only one of Dartmouth's charms. The pride of being a Dartmouth Man develops over four years of fellowship with other Dartmouth Men. The life-long friendships established on the campus make us Dartmouth Men. All our traditions stress this point.

To get a modern education must men attend class with women at the next desk? In my day the girls sure looked good when they arrived for Football Houseparties, Winter Carnival or Junior Prom, but it was always good to return to normal when they left town. My contemporaries all lived through our undergraduate days without daily contact with girls. We managed to find faithful wives to marry after the so-called ordeal of four undersexed years in Hanover. In fact, when more mature, we seemed to use better judgment. There are fewer divorces among our older alumni than among the newer group who practice sex at a younger age.

I have talked with many Dartmouth men and I find that all those I've talked with hops we won't follow Harvard, Yale and Princeton in the headlong dash to coeducation. There are plenty of coeducational colleges for those who cannot learn without a girl at their side. Do these big coeducational factories win the loyalty of their alumni as Dartmouth does?

We need at least one men's college in this country to be proud of and I hope Dartmouth will be that one.

Won't it be sad if our Alma Mater is changed from:

Men of Dartmouth give a rouse For the College on the hill to Boys and girls of Dartmouth give a rouse For the College on the Pill.

Taos, New Mexico

TO THE EDITOR:

If Mr. Dodes '67 had such a terrible ordeal attending an all-male school, why did he not go elsewhere? And were the local girls really that far beneath his station that they were not to be considered? For him to have stayed four years in such a Hell must show some degree of masochism. As for the coed issue, from this alumnus a very hearty "NO."

Bellefonte, Pa.

TO THE EDITOR:

Title VII of the most recent civil rights act declares that no job discrimination may exist because of sex. By extending the spirit of this decree, we see that Dartmouth, by remaining an anachronistic "men only" institution, is also violating civil rights and practicing discrimination in education. Further, it is betraying one of the basic objectives of education: preparing students for the world in which they will live — a world in which even the government envisions men and women competing on an equal basis.

For this reason, if I had to choose my college all over again, I would not go to Dartmouth. I am sure a growing number share my viewpoint. If coeducation does not begin _ immediately on a top-priority basis, coming generations will find Dartmouth an irrelevant institution — certain disaster for a college. Only the reactionary or the perverted would want to attend.

Los Angeles, Calif.

The Afro-Am Agreement

TO THE EDITOR:

Usually letters of this kind are written to the editor because of great pleasure or great displeasure with current happenings or events at Hanover. This falls into both categories.

At the outset, my sincere praise for the manner in which the SDS matter was handled. It was efficient and firm but temperate. It is idle now to conjecture whether the prior use of disciplinary actions (expulsion and suspension) would have eliminated the necessity of arrests. It is to be hoped that these two disciplines will be judiciously administered in spite of the spurious claim of double jeopardy or softness on the part of the Committee.

The so-called decisions in response to the multitude of Afro-American "demands" are an entirely different matter. I read in the May issue with disbelief and utter dismay of the "agreement hammered out" and approved by the full faculty at its April 16 meeting. An official of the College recently remarked to me with great pride that there was not a single black in the SDS episode. This I can understand. The prior agreement reached with the Afro-American Society was no agreement — it was complete surrender under pressure on practically every major issue involved, and the creation of double standards for the Negro in not one or two, but three, vital ways that can only result in dividing Dartmouth into two separate and antagonistic camps.

First, an agreement was made to lower admission standards so far as the Negro is concerned, even though they would not otherwise be acceptable. Corollary to this — agreed to lower the standards of performance requirements for Negroes so admitted. The agreement even indicated a willingness on the part of the College to consider changes in its disciplinary rules and procedures as applied to Negroes. The faculty, by some hocus pocus of reasoning, suggested that an Afro-American Center, exclusively for Negroes, might be set up through the subterfuge of a "private independent corporation," erroneously feeling, apparently, that this would get around the Civil Rights Act and the long established rules of the College with respect to discrimination by fraternities and clubs. This Act and these rules are not one-way streets — they apply regardless of race, color or creed. An Afro-American Society, as such, has no place at Dartmouth or anywhere else, and the College is doing itself no favor — and certainly not the Afro-American — by characterizing and treating him as a second-rate citizen at the outset as well as throughout his college career.

Detroit, Mich.

The Dartmouth faculty has made clearits position that special adjustments in admission procedures for some black studentsdo not carry with them any lowering of expected standards of performance in academic work, and to this end the faculty iscommitted to extra tutoring as necessary.The "demand" for a separate judiciary committee for black students was not granted,but judiciary reforms were promised.

Who Really Pays

TO THE EDITOR:

I was interested in the statement of Mr. Alan F. Gordon '69, a student moderate as quoted in The Undergraduate Chair. He states, "According to my calculations, student tuition payments for 1968-69 total just under $7 million and that seems to me to be sufficient reason for giving students a share in the decision-making process at the institution." "

I get a real kick out of that one, but disagree with it completely. According to MY calculations that $7 million in most cases is not even seen by the student (moderate or otherwise) and comes to the College in the form of a check from the students' parents. A percentage of the tuition comes in the form of scholarships — either from the good old U.S. Government or from interested Dartmouth clubs, trust funds, etc. A percentage comes from students who work their way through Dartmouth. It might well be fair for these students to have a say in policy-making but, believe me, that would be a small percentage of the total.

Maybe we've reached the point in history where the parents who work for some years to lay enough money aside so that their sons can go to Dartmouth are now the forgotten generation, but I doubt it. As t say, I got quite a kick out of Mr. Gordon's idea but I disagree completely.

Maybe that makes me a dissenter — nonviolent, that is.

Brewster, Mass.

TO THE EDITOR:

Mr. Chris Kern '69, in the June "Undergraduate Chair" quotes Mr. Alan F. Gordon '69 as writing in The Dartmouth, "According to my calculations, student tuition payments for 1968-69 total just under $7 million and that seems to me to be sufficient reason for giving students a share in the decision-making process at the institution."

May I respectfully suggest to Mr. Gordon that it was possibly the Parents of those students who paid "just under $7 million," so that would seem to me to be a sufficient reason for giving them a share in the decison-making process at the institution.

(Mrs. Edward C. Hewitt '25)

Elizabeth, N. J.

An Oversight

TO THE EDITOR:

With a Penn grad for a wife, the family closely followed the results at the IRA in Syracuse last spring. It was heartening to see the exceptional reporting on crew in both the Dartmouth and University of Penn alumni magazines. In your article the eight oarsmen were singled out but — who was the Dartmouth coxswain? As we all know, an eight-oared shell can not navigate the course without the guidance of the "littlefellow" in the stern. As the Dartmouth coxswain at Henley, England in 1955, I would appreciate it if credit was given where credit is due!

Poughkeepsie, N. Y.

No Communication

TO THE EDITOR:

Readers of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE should be aware of the following:

(1) During the Commencement proceedings some 40 seniors and graduate students stood with their backs turned as Governor Nelson Rockefeller received his honorary degree, and later as he delivered the Commencement Address.

(2) The following week I, having been one of those demonstrating, sent to the Governor an explanation of my actions.

(3) Copies of the letter were sent to both The New York Times and DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE.

(4) To this date (30 July) I have received no reply from the Governor; in my letter I asked him to respond.

(5) The editor of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE decided not to make use of my explanation, remarking that it would not fit in the abbreviated July issue.

(6) Which leads me to ask of Dartmouth alumni the following questions:

Are you interested in my attempt to communicate the reasons behind my participation in the Rockefeller demonstration? Doesn't the ALUMNI MAGAZINE owe its readers more in the way of journalistic responsibility, to present both sides of an issue, especially when such information is willingly offered to the editors?

Gentlemen, it is a small magazine; but there are those who say it fails to communicate.

Hanover, N. H.

Editor's Note: The statement in questionwas much too long for the letters section;and beyond that, we lack the space to printall of our own mail, much less the carbonsof letters addressed to others.

"Just A Memory"

TO THE EDITOR:

Returning to my 30th reunion I felt that there is a new college, one estranged from the one I once knew. After seeing a sculpture for the war dead in the Hanover Inn pavilion patio and the meaningless swashes of color on the walls of the Hopkins Center lounge I fully expect someday to see a pile of junk sculpture in the center of the campus with a plaque of gold saying "Dartmouth Spirit."

I was very disappointed in the lack of Dartmouth in the new Hanover Inn and cocktail lounge. No paintings or photos of Dartmouth. Gone were the old murals of Paul Sample.

The "new Dartmouth" fails to grab me. A coed Dartmouth will make the estrangement complete. The uniqueness of Dartmouth is just a fond memory.

Palm Beach, Fla.

Mr. Fletcher's point is well taken. Thecoxswain, who may not row but who isvery essential, was Richard H. Feins '69 ofManchester, N. H.