Letters to the Editor

The Indian's Demise

TO THE EDITOR:

And with the departure of the Indian cheerleader from Memorial Field, has Cooper also been removed from Baker's shelves?

Come now, Dartmouth.

New York, N.Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

I think Dartmouth alumni generally agree that most of the changes occurring at Dartmouth and other college campuses these days are beneficial and, frequently, long overdue. But to me at least the demise of the Dartmouth Indian adds nothing worth-while to the college. I suppose, though, that one could argue that the cost to the college is not great either - only a tradition of sentimental value.

But who can forget that Indian leading the cheers at every football game? Was he an object of ridicule? Not to me, who saw him at Princeton year after year in a hurricane, snowstorms and freezing weather while the Princeton Tiger cavorted bundled up in his pelt. I was proud of him and thought he was great. Later on as I got older, I noticed that he did slip on a coat occasionally but I never laughed at him. He was a face of Dartmouth and, as such, I loved him.

And what is gained by the decision to do away with him? The American Indians at Dartmouth and those who supported their effort must be able to imagine better ways of dramatizing their difficulties. Will they really gain a more favorable response to their cause by their actions here?

If the DCAC reached its decision because its collective judgment is that the Indian was an object of ridicule and derision to the student body and alumni, I cannot complain and will accept that judgment, even though I disagree with it. But if its decision resulted solely from the pressure brought to bear by those who wanted the Indian gone, I hope it will reconsider because I find the Indian's departure sad and would hate to think it was caused by a power play.

New Haven, Conn.

"That Brave Minority"

TO THE EDITOR:

How reasonable the path of Dartmouth in dealing with the "Parkhurst Raiders." How executive and Nixon-ish! What dedication to the past! What piety from the alumni! The upshot of which is that the only real leaders and men of the future on the campus have been repressed.

Dartmouth has been a sell-out for a long time. It is virtually a seminary for incipient businessmen, men who know how to go along with things, who study philosophy, art and golf for the same reason. Liberal education at Dartmouth does not mean free inquiry but prescribed inquiry, and so successful is its program that only a few on campus had the guts and conscience to actively protest the war and social inequity in America (ROTC is just a metaphor). And then that brave minority was disciplined by a process of senile paternalism and evil assimilation. Dartmouth didn't even have the courage to kick them out cleanly and take a stand, but responded politically.

Plain field, Vt.

A '17er Disagrees

TO THE EDITOR:

After reading the statements last June from the College and the Hanover Legal Aid Group (defending the protesting students' action), I was shocked that the studsnts who occupied Parkhurst Hall last May in protest against the horror of the war in Vietnam and ROTC at Dartmouth were given such long jail sentences and heavy fines. Neither the Governor (a Dartmouth graduate and Trustee) nor the College tried to shorten the sentences which even the prosecuting attorney thought too harsh. The scant time for the students' lawyer to prepare his case (two days, I believe) was unfair and the refusal, for a time, of a judge to allow the students their textbooks was inexcusable.

Again I was horrified to learn that the "jailbirds" were to be tried by the College after suffering imprisonment. Neither Cornell nor Chicago was so tough with the protesting students. Although the Dartmouth protesters received fairly light penalties at the hands of the College, they still suffered "double jeopardy." I think the College handled the affair as though in a panic.

I do not approve of some of the methods used by the students last May but believe their cause was just. It seems to me the College could have solved the matter without calling in the police from all over the state, some of whom tend to hate and envy the students. I do not approve of ROTC in institutions of higher learning, although I was an ROTC student back in 1917, and think the College could have phased it out before 1973, as asked by the students. The U.S. Government has since decided to end Army ROTC in June 1970, so the protesters have really won a moral victory.

I could not disagree more with my classmate, Ralph Sanborn '17 (Letters to the Editor, June 1969) about the situation. I too was a member of the misguided "Volunteer Generation" a graduate of the University of Chicago and the Field Artillery Officers Training Camp at Louisville, during World War I, when we fought to "Save the World for Democracy." Since then I have seen the futility of war especially the Korean War when nothing was decided and worse yet the undeclared war in Vietnam.

Neither do I agree with another classmate, Raymond Baxter '17 (Letters to the Editor, July 1969) who says, "Spend an hour in front of an Inn and watch what goes by. Please do not throw up on the daisies." Perhaps some of the long hairs might not approve of some of us old gray beards. It is folly, in our time, to judge a young man's character by his appearance. I have found, for instance, that many S.D.S. members and other student activists are extremely intelligent, decent fellows, here at Cornell.

I have always thought of Dartmouth as my Alma Mater, although I was a student there for only one year, and shall always have a tender spot in my heart for her, as do my wife, children and grandchildren. Attending the 50th Reunion of the class of 1917, I had a wonderful, relaxing time getting reacquainted with several classmates I hadn't seen for years, and had planned to attend the 200 th Anniversary in June as a 50-year alumnus. I cancelled my reservations in sorrow and anger; I should have been very unhappy in Hanover at that time.

Slaterville Springs, N.Y

Concerning Punishment

TO THE EDITOR:

I do not understand how the judiciary system at a college or university can "punish" students who have already received 30-day or x-dollar "punishments." If every agency and organization having relations with an individual student stripped the student of some privilege in order to hand out punishment, I can envision a student losing his driver's license for six months, not being able to vote for two elections, not being employed by anyone for six months, not being able to swim for three months in his local township's swimming pool, not being able to receive a passport for fifteen days, not being able to study because his draft board has some "punishment," and so on.

Perhaps you could solicit an article from a government faculty member at Dartmouth pertaining to this issue.

Syracuse, N.Y.

ROTC Aid

TO THE EDITOR:

Those who would put an immediate end to the ROTC programs at Dartmouth may still triumph. Ironically, it may be the Department of Defense which terminates Dartmouth ROTC altogether, perhaps before 1973, perhaps before next fall.

If the Department of Defense elects to end ROTC at Dartmouth prior to 1973, what accommodations will be made for the incoming freshmen who have been accepted on ROTC scholarships and who have by this time committed themselves to such a course? Will the College be as generous with its own financial aid? Or will these intelligent, far-sighted young men be forced, for lack of funds, to turn elsewhere for an education?

It is my opinion that the faculty decision of May 5 concerning ROTC is narrowminded, shortsighted - and perhaps, pre- sumptuous: if Dartmouth has no use for ROTC beyond 1973, it may turn out that the Department of Defense has no use for Dartmouth - effective immediately.

Saratoga Springs, N.Y.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Navy and Air Force ROTC men on scholarship will have no problem. The Trustees have accepted responsibility for Army ROTC sophomores with demonstrable need who elect not to transfer elsewhere for advanced ROTC training after this year.

Meeting the "New Left"

TO THE EDITOR:

We have been interested in the many published letters to the editor in your issues since the Communist Party New Left took over control of Parkhurst Hall and bodily evicted officers of our College administration. We commend President Dickey for his ready and decisive leadership to restore order. At the same time we feel some observations from two or three near-50-year graduates may be appropriate - particularly for a new look to the future of liberal education.

Reference is made to a portion of the letter of Lt. Donald J. Clausing '68, of Fort Knox. On page 10 of the June 1969 issue he wrote, "Let us unite in our rededication to our basic belief in the search of Truth, regardless of what form it takes." We quite agree and adopt these words as our text.

We believe a great - if not the greatest heritage we have from the College comes from her traditions of freedom and guidance in American Christian economics.

Recent discussions in the public press over "New Left" activities upon college campuses leave no doubt but that these disorders have been Communist inspired.

We believe a liberal arts college, in its endeavor to discuss and expound the truth, today has a vital duty to disseminate knowledge of Communism. It is essential that such knowledge be based upon facts. The schemes of riots and disorders of the "New Left" obviously are aimed in large part to endanger and damage the freedom of our colleges and national security. One certain cause for them is an apathy due to ignorance of the true nature of Communism.

We assume, but do not know, how complete a collection of the literature on the deceits and slavery of Communism are now available at Baker Library. In particular, for current instruction, one may read and study: Study in Communism by J. Edgar Hoover, On Communism by J. Edgar Hoover, You Can Trust the Communists (tobe Communists) by Dr. Fred Schwarz, and Textbooks of the Campus Study Institute, San Diego, Calif. Furthermore, the above named books contain extensive bibliogra-phies of the subject.

We would welcome some brief exposition in your columns of the extent of information and actual-fact material upon the deceits and untruths of Communist propaganda that are now being provided at the College to students and faculty and to alumni.

If none is being provided in some systematic manner, we believe the time has come for the College to introduce courses, as is being done at other colleges, based upon the true facts of Communism as it is operating in America and Russia today. Such a course could be made compulsory or given special weight.

We remember that, once, we were required to take certain courses to the exclusion of some we much desired, to be given a rounded education. We would suggest that a full knowledge of the Communists' false ideologies and brutal practices would serve as a benign and vital part of a well-rounded American education today. Is it not a duty of both government and education to keep people honestly informed?...

The United States is now the major target for attack by the forces of the World Communist movement. Today, Communist spies operating against American free enterprise constitute the most massive offensive of this type ever conducted by one nation against another in the history of international relations. Are these facts adequately disclosed to college bodies today?

Since Dartmouth now intends to abandon a portion of the ROTC Program, which was essentially for our common defense, there could be no more fitting substitute than a massive disclosure of the true facts of Communism from reliable American sources such as Mr. Hoover and Dr. Schwarz.

Augusta, Maine

Mason, N.H.

Bradford, N.H.

Mark Hopkins for Today

TO THE EDITOR:

Enclosed please find a copy of an excerpt from Mark Hopkins' inaugural address at Williams College in 1836. There appears to be some relevancy between his remarks and the recent events in Hanover.

I now proceed to make some remarks on College government. In regard to this, the principles on which we are to proceed are very simple. As in a community, so in a college, government ought always to be regarded, not as an end, but as a means to a further end. The end of a college being educational, there should be no regulation or restraint which is not subservient to that; and when it becomes necessary to enforce those that are thus subservient, it would be treason to the cause of education not to do it at any sacrifice. If it should be necessary for this purpose to send away the half or the whole of a class, it must be done without hesitation. It is, however, always unfortunate when much comes to be said or thought about government. There should be among young men an ardor of study, a sense of propriety and self-respect, a strength of moral principle which would render government unnecessary, and cause everything to move on as it ought, spontaneously. That college is in the best state in which the least government is necessary.

To the Dartmouth administration, I can only add my "well done," and to the faculty I can only ask what the hell's going on?

Bedford, Mass.