Letters to the Editor
The Shockley Incident
TO THE EDITOR:
I find the action of Dartmouth students in not allowing Dr. Shockley, Nobel laureate, to read his paper in Hanover intolerable and indefensible. I assume he was invited to the campus. Therefore he was certainly entitled to a hearing of his views, however one regards them. Dean Brewster had a duty to do more than ask the students to listen; his position as a college official carries with it the obligation to subserve the purpose of the College - to educate its students and to participate in the search for truth. The Dean and his employer, the College, are chargeable with providing an orderly forum for the scheduled address. This would entail the use of whatever means necessary to silence the unruly members of the audience. ...
Failure to so act has resultedin a denial of free speech at Dartmouth. The students involved, of whom a majority were members of the Afro-American Society, have displayed unacceptable boorishness and unwillingness or inability to absorb the purpose and function of a college - the aforesaid seeking after knowledge and a willingness to hear opposing points of view.
Riverside, R. I.
EDITOR'S NOTE: AS pointed out in our November issue, Dr. Shockley was not in Hanover as a guest lecturer but as a member of the National Academy of Sciences attending the Academy's fall meeting. In the College's view, however, this did not mitigate the students' violation of the principle of free discourse to which the College is firmly committed.
TO THE EDITOR:
I have just read the New York Times editorial of Oct. 20 commenting on the success of a group of Negro students in preventing Dr. William Shockley from delivering his paper which the Times says discussed whether heredity or environment is of greater importance in determining human intelligence.
The incident strikes me as particularly ironic in that only recently, at the informal reunion of the Class of 1935, we were told of Dartmouth's success in lining up the largest number of Negro freshmen for admission to the class of '73 and elsewhere solemnly assured there had been no lowering of entrance requirements, etc., etc.
Somewhere along the line, someone up there is missing the whole point. Could it be the admissions office? Could it be the faculty? The point of a Dartmouth education, at least in my day, was the value of the liberal arts philosophy, a keystone of which is the right of the other fellow to be heard. The Shockley incident is simply a carbon-copy of the Wallace incident a few years back. It would seem now that "liberal arts" simply means the right to hear only the "liberal" point of view and I sincerely wonder if any other is presented at Dartmouth.
Many of us alumni were proud of Dartmouth's handling of the seizure of Park-hurst last year. And we will await with interest to see what discipline is meted out to the 30 black "students." Meanwhile, _ there is the suggestion at least that their behavior answered the question Dr. Shockley raised better than the paper he could not present.
Washington, D. C.
TO THE EDITOR:
It's a pity that the black boors who prevented Dr. Shockley from speaking last week should have given some credence thereby to his unfashionable views. People of course cannot avoid the responsibility of their own acts, but I really feel in this instance that the Admissions Office is more at fault than the band of malcontents. I suspect in this regard that most of them did not seek out Dartmouth but were themselves sought out and actively courted by Dartmouth, perhaps with substantial scholarship assistance for which they would not qualify in a color-blind society. This means that they feel no gratitude or obligation to the institution and perhaps should feel none. I expect the same attitude existed among athletes when Dartmouth was represented on the playing field by hired gladiators rather than by ordinary Dartmouth students.
I feel deeply that a diverse student body is a valuable learning tool. I feel equally deeply that there must be many culturally or economically disadvantaged young men who want to come to Dartmouth and it is dead wrong to overlook them in favor of persons who have to be talked into it.
Although the Shockley affair is far worse than anything that took place at last year's graduation, it is sobering to remember that the attitude of certain parents on that occasion differed only in degree, rather than in kind, from last week's black anti-intellectualism. Only the wisest among any age, class or race can listen when their deepest prejudices (or convictions) are affronted.
Southport, Conn.
TO THE EDITOR!
Please convey to Dr. William Shockley the sincere apologies of at least one shamed Dartmouth alumnus. I want him to know that there are some Dartmouth men whose definition of "academic freedom" does not include the right of uninformed undergraduates to prevent an eminent scientist from delivering a paper on a college campus.
Northfield, Vt.
ROTC and Peace
TO THE EDITOR:
I am writing as an ex-ROTC student (Navy Lt. jg, Nuclear Weapons Officer, 1961-65) and a pacifist (between nations and other social groups but with reservations about its viability for interpersonal relations).
Those who say the liberal education of ROTC students ensures a healthy injection of humane citizens into the military are deluding themselves. In fact, ROTC students have about the lowest retention rate in the military, and the few who do stay in are discriminated against in promotion to high rank - discriminated against by those "trade school" officers from Annapolis, West Point, etc., who are as inbred as Ivy League businessmen. It'll be a snowy day in hell before ROTC infiltrates the admiral-general ranks and obtains a measure of policy-making power.
But if some ROTC-types manage to do so, they'll be as brainwashed as any academy-type already there. That is the one unchanging prerequisite for promotion, and is assured through such things as the Navy's fitness report system which rates a man's "character" and "loyalty."
Eight years of naval experience taught me this lesson: the greatest cause of war is a military establishment. Leaving aside the interlocking economic interests of the military with government and big business, war is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy operating unconsciously, especially in the military. We train for war because we expect war. And, sure enough, sooner or later we get war. ...
It is time for us to start expecting peace and time for us to demand that our government deliver peace. When a government is not truly representative of its citizens, then that government must go (and it appears the Second American Revolution is already under way). Peace is something that has rarely been taken seriously by any government, but if government is really going to represent the people - not its own vested interests - then government has to take peace seriously because that's what people want today. Doing that will not be blind illusion or foolish disregard of "the lessons of history." History has only one thing to teach us: forget it. It is a record of ugliness, brutality, exploitation, deception and mistakes which, thankfully, young people today are deliberately disregarding. They are not suggesting reformation of old ways but rather the evolution of new ways - ways to decrease the fear and lessen the paranoia of our "enemies" who also are under the domination of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You get peace by living peacefully. That means no military and no arms - not half-measures designed to make the military acceptable.
Cheshire, Conn.
TO THE EDITOR:
I found myself guilty of remaining silent when the time to speak is now. I refer to the NROTC/ROTC decisions made and being made in the name of academic freedom or, as some of us think, acquiescence to pressures from those who are not yet qualified to force such actions. Of many points that could be raised, I will only take space to mention three.
First, at the personal level, in this great drive to purge the College of the distasteful presence of the military, that "majority' of students who are prevailing are depriving a minority of a right and privilege which our system chooses to give them.— the financing of a higher education which they could not otherwise afford. This minority has the further right to pursue a military career through means of a liberal arts education. This right is being cut off by the unenlightened majority.
But more disturbing is acceptance by college officials that the College can and should function in its own isolation, divorced from the reality of life as it is in our country and from those elements of our society which have helped preserve a way of life which defends the right of these young neophytes to spread their wings and make themselves heard. I refer specifically to the military on campus, and in general to that framework of "older generation" authority which must direct the continuum that is our heritage and our future until the "new generation" develops the wisdom and maturity that, coupled with its present idealism, will permit it to assume the helm. The College cannot possibly help develop the total man if it permits the partial man - the student — to form the curriculum, the policy, and the atmosphere of the College in their own incomplete image.
Thirdly, I think the College has an obligation to our society as a total as well as to the individual students since it is that society that supports the concept of the private, liberal arts school. Part of that obligation is a modicum of active support such as the NROTC/ROTC programs provide. The military academies cannot develop enough educated, trained young officers to meet the needs of the country. But, more importantly, liberal arts schools, with their concentration on the total man, graduate young men who have much to offer in the service of their country. The very things that today's young liberals are against - excessive militarism, the inhumanity of war, etc. - require a military which is aware of its proper role in our social, political and economic way of life. I personally feel those of us in the military who are Dartmouth graduates are better officers and citizens for having had the privilege of attending Dartmouth.
By all means, let's satisfy the needs of our students today. But let's also remember that an institution based on the dictates of the least initiated will grow no more than will an elementary school conducted according to the dictates of first and second graders.
It is a basic phenomenon of human nature to think that, as a student, we know more than the "establishment" about how, what, arid whom should be taught. After seven years of higher education spread over three occasions, I concluded that the establishment knew more than I did.
So, if in your own wisdom and judgment you elders of the College truly think it best that NROTC/ROTC be abandoned, please make clear why. Otherwise, please show the same moral courage you did in the Parkhurst Hall incident and let the students know there is a limit at which their rebellion must be checked, a limit beyond which they cannot dictate. As Daniel Webster did when he supported the Clay compromise, take the unpopular course because it is the right one.
Commander, U.S. Navy
San Diego, Calif.
TO THE EDITOR!
After several months of reading the ALUMNI MAGAZINE (both news and letters) and the releases by the Secretary of the College (unfortunately not matched by releases from the dissident students), I feel compelled to add several comments.
First, I do not feel qualified from a distance of 3000 miles (nor would I from 30 miles) to decide whether the seizure of Parkhurst Hall was justified or not. I am completely opposed to the Vietnamese War and in favor of abolition of ROTC, but I am not convinced that the students had no other alternative.
The act that makes me feel that the sit-in may have been justified was President Dickey's ill-advised securing of an injunction calling in the state police. As the College celebrates the 150th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that freed it from state control, I can think of no action more ominous than the inviting of state forces to exercise authority that belongs to college administrators. With such an act as precedent I fear for the future of the independent college. This decision of President Dickey leads me to believe that he was out of touch and sympathy with the students and acted out of fear rather than reason.
Second, I can think of no good reason for the existence of ROTC on the Dartmouth campus, now or ever. It would be contrary to the principles of the College to ban such organizations from the campus. However, to give military science courses credit in a liberal arts curriculum should be unthinkable. The question then becomes, can the ROTC units survive as voluntary, non-credit groups? And that is their (or the Department of Defense's) problem.
The argument that Dartmouth ROTC graduates have an effect on the military services is sheer nonsense. No such effect can be discerned. Our ROTC graduates do not usually become career officers and reach the upper echelons of military officialdom. To have an ameliorating effect on the military services, Dartmouth would have to graduate many times the number of officers it now does, a highly unlikely prospect under any circumstances.
Third, I feel that the objections of many alumni to coeducation at Dartmouth show that they failed to obtain one of the major benefits of the "liberating" arts — an open mind. To be true to its best traditions, Dartmouth cannot be bound by the past when the future dictates change. The ability to change when conditions demand it is the mark of a great institution. Just as the not-so-subtle racism of the white majority cannot be allowed to deny Blacks equal opportunity, neither can the even-less-subtle racism of the male minority be allowed to deny equal opportunity to women.
If Dartmouth is as great as we know it to be, we should be honored to share it with all.
Whittier, Calif.
The Indian Symbol
TO THE EDITOR:
It is difficult to fathom what the Indian students found objectionable in a Dartmouth cheerleader made up as an Indian. I had always thought that this symbolism of Dartmouth's founding was carried out in good taste.
Aesop (620 to 560 B.C.) had a word or two for it in his fable (too bad they are called fables) of the farmer, his son, and the little ass. By acceding to the suggestion of every wayfarer on the road to market, the father and son wound up by carrying the little ass slung from a pole.
I predict that about ten years from now some Indian student will make the brilliant suggestion that, in view of Dartmouth's early history as an Indian school, it would be most appropriate to have an "Indian" cheerleader. If so, the administration should accede.
Clinton, Conn.
TO THE EDITOR:
I miss the Dartmouth Indian cavorting along the sidelines. The report in last Thursday's Globe that his absence is attributable to protests by Indians now at Hanover is hard to believe.
It is reasonable to assume that the Indian cheerleader, like his forebears in Paul Sample's murals, is a fair representation of the Indian as Eleazar Wheelock found him when he went into the wilderness 200 years ago.
If I were an American Indian now on the Dartmouth campus, I would be mighty proud that a colorful Indian head appears on Dartmouth jackets and ties, and on the Senior Cane, as the living symbol of a great college and all it stands for.
Let's get thinking on the Dartmouth campus back into proper perspective, and start by restoring the Indian cheerleader to the sidelines. His first task would be to chase the girl cheerleaders — as pretty as they may be - all the way back to Smith and Mt. Holyoke where they belong.
It is hard to see what could be derogatory in displaying unbounded enthusiasm and loyalty for a college such as Dartmouth.
Needham, Mass.
TO THE EDITOR:
We expect that the Dartmouth Co-op will now stop selling the green sweatshirts and blazers with an Indian head on them or, at least, the DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE will refuse to accept advertising for them.
It would be just as ridiculous as the capitulation of the Dartmouth College Athletic Council to the demands of the four Indian undergraduates to eliminate the symbolic and traditional Indian cheerleader-mascot. There was nothing offensive to the non-Indian about the young man who pranced around the Yale Bowl or Princeton Stadium in Indian dress, or lack of it, in all kinds of inclement weather. He always provoked our admiration for his physique and his physical stamina.
New York, N. Y.
No Band at Yale
TO THE EDITOR:
Never in the history of man (this one, anyway) has the Dartmouth Band failed to make an appearance at the Yale Bowl for the game of the year attended by the largest number of alumni. For some reason Brown was substituted for Yale this year - perhaps for a good, if unknown, reason. Even so, can't the College afford to have the Band transported to a game which drew 50,000 people, most at $6.00 per head?
I hope that the Band will make the Princeton game.
Darien, Conn.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The Band's budget allows three "away" games each season and the choice is customarily made by the Band itself. After some contretemps at New Haven last year, the Band voted for Harvard, Brown and Princeton this year.
Two Points of Disappointment
TO THE EDITOR:
I was deeply disappointed to find that the President of Dartmouth College had not joined with the 79 college presidents in signing a letter to President Nixon that was printed in The New York Times on Sunday, October 12, 1969. I was disappointed that he could not find it in his heart to join in urging a "stepped-up timetable for withdrawal from Vietnam." I was disappointed that he could not go even that far in responding to the urgent appeals of young people for more humane vision among our adult leaders.
I would like to add that I have been disturbed by the extremely punitive approach that the College took in the Parkhurst Hall case. A month in jail, in addition to further punishments administered by the College, seems an excessive penalty for a peaceable demonstration against an unpopular policy.
When the College arranged for the withdrawal of the ROTC program within the coming year, it showed that the protesting students were justified in believing that it was not really necessary to keep the ROTC for four more years, as the College had claimed. Under the circumstances, I should think the Dartmouth administration would feel under obligation to those students whom it has so severely punished. I have been wondering how they can be repaid for their loss of freedom. As I recall, Hanover is very pleasant in the spring.
If it were any other college, it wouldn't hurt so much.
West Hartford, Conn.
EDITOR'S NOTE: AS he explained to TheDartmouth when questioned about the absence of his name on the letter published in The Times, President Dickey felt that his views on Vietnam had already been publicly stated and also that he had more effective means to bring his views to bear on those responsible for U. S. policy.
"Men in the Middle"
TO THE EDITOR:
In your October issue there is a letter from William Wenz, "a '55 father," referring to a picture in the June issue "of a state trooper bringing out a leader of the building takeover." Mr. Wenz asks, "Would you hire a man with a background like this?" and makes other pejorative comments about one or the other of the individuals cited.
The sad comment I would like to make is that your readers are apparently split about 50-50 between those who would equate "him" with the state trooper and those who would identify "him" as the arrested man. This reminds me of Prof. Wing-tsit Chan's lectures in 1943, in which he discussed the demise of the "men in the middle" in wartime China. At that time Dartmouth students were being trained to seek a reasonable middle ground between, e.g., The DailyWorker and Mein Kampf. If similar training is still provided, it receives precious, little attention.
Raleigh, N. C.
"Not Interested"
TO THE EDITOR:
In your October issue you printed a letter from Kenneth Dardick in which he asks questions of Dartmouth alumni. I would respond, for myself as an alumnus:
(1) lam not interested in why you were rude to Governor Rockefeller:
(2) The ALUMNI MAGAZINE'S exercise of journalistic responsibility has, to my knowledge, been excellent throughout some rather troubled recent events, such as valedictories and occupations.
While Mr. Dardick is free to make a spectacle of himself at commencement, whether by standing up, demonstrating, singing, or taking off his clothes, he has no right to demand that I listen to him. Governor Rockefeller has earned such respect from me.
Mr. Dardick was rude to the Governor and he took the risk of being judged on his actions and not his motivation. If Dartmouth is to be of any value to him, it must make him realize that sound and fury may signify nothing; he will be judged on his accomplishments. After he has the record of public service of Governor Rockefeller he can give the commencement address.
Minneapolis, Minn.
More on Coeducation
TO THE EDITOR:
Relevant to the question "Should Dartmouth College continue to offer the unique combination of a rural and male higher educational experience?" I would like to raise two procedural points and submit four personal points of view.
How can the student body, faculty, alumni, administration, and trustees most democratically and effectively participate in the resolution of the above question? What system should be used to solicit and weight the opinions of these groups - especially considering the real concerns as to the impact the eventual decision will have upon present students and faculty as well as the impact upon future student and faculty recruiting and the financial contribution habits of the alumni in the future? ...
My own relationship to Dartmouth is as follows: first serious contact with Dartmouth as a high school senior; a non-New England graduate school and business career; presently living in a suburb with its own fine coed university and coed junior college and in a metropolitan area with many private, religious, and state coed schools; and finally, far more associates from outside the Dartmouth family than within it.
Extrapolating from this personal experience, I wonder how many other alumni (and equally important students, faculty, or administrators) find that their reasons for active participation in the Dartmouth family revolve around our school's unique attributes - a first-class academic college in a rural and male environment. Remove any one of these three basic factors and I wonder what the future would hold for Dartmouth College. I even submit that my opposition to making Dartmouth coed might well reflect a substantial majority viewpoint among the alumni (and perhaps among the students, faculty, and administration).
At the start of Dartmouth's Third Century and as a search is being conducted for a new President, it is a most appropriate time to resolve our College's future enrollment policy: is Dartmouth to remain in the diminishing ranks of male colleges, or is Dartmouth to join the swelling majority of coeducational schools? The leaders of the alumni, student body, and faculty should immediately ascertain the opinions of their group's individual members so that the respective Dartmouth men can intelligently de- cide upon their personal future role in relation to the College.
Chicago, Ill.
Why Students Should Have a Say
TO THE EDITOR:
It was with a great deal of amusement that I opened my very first official copy of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE and discovered two letters expressing their dissatisfaction with a position I took in a column on The Dartmouth last spring.
Chris Kern never told me that he was going to quote me but I am delighted to see that he did, since it does give me great pleasure to learn that at least a couple of fellow alums were annoyed enough to express their protest by mail.
For the record, it is the policy of the Administration of Dartmouth College (and it was largely their behavior I was discussing in the column) that students are considered responsible for their college bills, even though they may or may not actually pay them. The Administration further notes that tuition payments cover roughly ½ the cost of a Dartmouth education. Since the Administration has assigned the duty of providing ½ the required revenue for. the academic operations of the College to the student body, it seemed reasonable to me to note that the student body should be entitled to a say in those operations in keeping with their fund-raising responsibilities. Certainly the will of the alumni who provide the other ½ of the dough is taken well into account in the formulation of College policy.
Actually,, of course, the comment was aimed at providing an explanation of why students should have a say in College policy to those who have no interest in such esoteric concepts as human rights, individual freedom, and freedom from arbitrary rule.
The true reason why students are entitled to a substantial role in the decision making processes of Dartmouth College is that students are the people who will benefit - or suffer - from those decisions. It seems to me a self-evident human right that people should be able to have at least a modicum of control over their own lives and destinies. And that is why students should be heard.
Chestnut Hill, Mass.
