Letters to the Editor
ROTC Vote Deplored
TO THE EDITOR:
I was somewhat disturbed to read in our local paper Saturday night that "Dartmouth Faculty OK's Ending Credit for ROTC." This story was followed, as you probably know, by "Yale Busts the ROTC" in the editorial section of Sunday's NewYork Times. In the Times article it is stated that "As the anti-war movement has spread among today's student activists there is little doubt that the SDS has adopted the fight as a popular issue to which many liberal though non-radical students can be rallied." To this I should like to add that to me this is just one more retrograde action sponsored and nurtured by the subversive elements of our society with an aim towards wrecking the existing American standards and way of life.
What's done is done and this letter is in no way an attempt to suggest that either Yale or Dartmouth should reverse the action taken. However, further action to the detriment of ROTC and the reserve system should be deplored particularly in view of the well known fact that we would have had a greatly more difficult task in World War II had it not been for the approximately 140,000 army reserve officers who were ready and willing to serve. In this age wars have to be fought by citizens, particularly in defense of democracy, and in this connection I think another quotation from the Times article is appropriate: "Thus it may be ironic that an extreme radical position against both the draft and ROTC — pillars of the citizen army concept — may push toward a more powerful professional military force such as is usually associated with dictatorial or unstable societies."
Col., U. S. Army, Ret.
Lancaster, Pa.
The Value of ROTC
TO THE EDITOR:
I have become increasingly disappointed with the actions of the faculties of many colleges and universities, including Dartmouth, concerning the place of ROTC on the college campus. To a certain extent I feel that they have taken ill-advised steps in attempting to have the ROTC programs either removed or reduced on the Dartmouth campus. While there are undoubtedly complex and varied reasons for the faculty's opposition to ROTC, there can be little question that opposition to the Vietnam war has at least been a catalyst. There is also little doubt that in many respects the military community is a far cry from the college community.
"In terms of faculty opposition to ROTC, what we are seeing is this long latent but fundamental cleavage in full flower, goaded into, the open by students who are neither as inhibited nor as prudent as their mentors, and who are untroubled by the injustice of it all because they do not perceive it. Some years ago, Morris Janowitz, the prominent sociologist, recognized the academician's peculiar aversion to military matters when, in his preface to The New Military, he felt constrained to justify to his peers the object of his scholarship. By implication, many considered the military unworthy of scholarly attention, just as a vocal minority considers the military unworthy of a place on the campus. Somehow, that minority will have to decide how it can favor university involvement in the great issues of our time while concurrently attempting to expel from its midst those who need its help; how it can be concerned about social institutions generally but not particularly; how it can seek an enlightened military while seeking to deprive the military of its enlightened leadership; how it can favor participatory democracy while participating itself only selectively."
This quote is from an excellent article on the ROTC controversy ("Our Embattled ROTC") written by Major William F. Muhlenfeld, himself an ROTC instructor, and printed in the February 1969 issue of Army. It provides a very candid assessment of the weaknesses of the present ROTC program, the bases of the conflict on the campuses, and some suggestions for resolving the situation. I recommend it to anyone seriously interested in this problem.
If freeing the college community from the presence and influence of the military is one goal of the faculty, it probably can be realized if enough opposition to ROTC continues to be raised. The fundamental question yet to be answered, however, is will this have an advantageous effect on the United States? I think not.
At the present time ROTC is providing a large percentage, if not the majority, of the officers in the Army. These are men who have not been educated in a military school; who have not lived in a military environment; but who have absorbed a liberal education, of one type or another, from a civilian institution; who have studied the humanities, and philosophy, and language, and science, not as a basis for a military career, but as a basis for a civilian career. Their contribution to the Army, even as lowly second lieutenants, is a moderating one. And if they later choose to make the Army a career, their non-military background will have an even greater impression on the whole military system.
If this source of officers were to be greatly curtailed or cut off completely, the military would soon evolve into a very inbred institution. The military could then quite easily become more, not less, militant and dogmatic. I do not believe that the faculty of Dartmouth, or any college, desires that end result: I certainly do not. Dartmouth should be proud of the officers she contributes to the military. Rather than trying to alienate herself from the education of future officers, she should endeavor to leave her mark of a strong liberal education on them. It is something that will go with them and influence them wherever they go and whatever they do.
Fort Holabird, Md.
Ivy in the Way?
TO THE EDITOR:
It seems to me that the faculty and administration owe a candid explanation of the ROTC decision to us.
Let's hope the ivy doesn't interfere with the view of the world as it is.
A saddened alumnus.
Branford, Conn.
Coeducation Advocate
TO THE EDITOR:
I read with great interest and appreciation the remarks of Dean Seymour in your December issue. I fear that I share a degree of that "unique gift which youth brings to society: impatience." In that context, I submit for your consideration these thoughts on coeducation at Dartmouth.
Several weeks ago (1/21) I received my copy of the College announcement that tuition would go up $150 this September. I know that this is no different from what is happening at Princeton and Yale, except they are far closer to getting something additional and vital — coeducation. What will we be getting at Dartmouth to launch the College into her Third Century? I'd certainly like to see a student body of the "intellectually able broadly representative of national patterns of distribution based on race, religion, social and economic status, and other factors." (Could the female sex be such a "factor"?)
Writing about the recent Coed Week, my sophomore son wrote these words (with names changed); I feel the point of view expressed has substantial validity:
"It was walking into a room, sitting down, and talking as if it were the most natural thing in the world. (Outside of an all-male college, it is pretty natural, isn't it?)
"Toward the end we were all brothers and sisters. Ann and Joan listened and helped when I broke up with Estelle and the feminine viewpoint was expressed in so many different situations, much to our mutual benefit."
Dartmouth has a helluva lot going for it, but its backwoods approach to females, as things not people, works against her. Recent experience of the College with the drama students supports this. The girls should have a more balanced picture of the College that makes them a part of the Dartmouth Experience, not the intruders that "two (or three) girls' dorms" would make them. I certainly hope that this arrangement at Berkeley — where hearsay says that it "works perfectly" - is not the cause of much-publicized student unrest. Even the less desirable "alternate floors" approach is being followed and is working at Stanford, Harpur, Rochester. and quite a few other places.
Recent newspaper photographs of female students attending classes in all-male Ivy colleges suggest that their presence does not cause unrest but even puts some of the boys to sleep. And I submit that you do not have to be a Great Swami, swept away (January issue) on a multi-colored trip, to appreciate the necessity of having a student body representative of national patterns of distribution.
Westbury, N. Y.
The Smell of the Mob
TO THE EDITOR:
"The Undergraduate Chair" reports that 50 students moved from orderly protest and picketing (fine) to physical intimidation and assault of an army recruiter. That's not fine. In fact it stinks with the same fragrance that every mob gives off no matter how noble its purpose.
Monroe, N. Y.
The Credit Reassigned
TO THE EDITOR:
I would like to correct the impression in the January Alumni Album that Conservative Vice Lords Inc. is prime mover of the Foundation Years. Though the Vice Lords contributed to the Foundation Years, this was insignificant relative to the amount necessary to finance a Dartmouth education.
The Foundation Years is a unique educational opportunity for street youth developed by DeWitt Beall '62, chairman of the steering committee, and Bob Grossman '56, co-chairman, with the early and substantial support of Mr. Kenneth Montgomery '26.
Information about the Foundation Years is available by writing: The Foundation Years, Room 820, 110 S. Dearborn, Chicago, Ill. 60603.
In 1969, the "Vox Clamantis in Deserto" is on the city street and the College should be commended for responding to the challenge of apparent urban chaos with a creative program like The Foundation Years.
Chicago, Ill.
Chi Phi's Demise
TO THE EDITOR:
Far from producing a yawn, as he surmises, the letter from T. J. Swartz Jr. '49 arouses me to voice one more protest about the demise of Chi Phi at Dartmouth. My objections are threefold:
(1) The way in which this step wastaken. Instead of an honorable statement of intent, the brothers now active chose merely to withhold initiation fees, a step they knew would, in time, result in expulsion from the National. Meanwhile, they could tap a few extra kegs with the money, while they continued to benefit from the National affiliation.
(2) The worthlessness of the "opinionpoll" taken of Chi Phi alumni as to whether or not "going local" met with their approval. This meant nothing as the die had already been cast. In any event, we were not furnished any further information on the poll, nor were we given any chance to implement the alternatives it set forth: selling the chapter house, or organizing another group loyal to Chi Phi.
(3) The total disregard of the fine national reputation enjoyed now and for one of the longest periods in the history of American college fraternities by Chi Phi, founded at Princeton in 1824. All this, which for 68 years Dartmouth men had learned to respect, and the national associations with alumni of other chapters it permitted in later years, they cynically tossed aside for a few paltry bucks.
Gentlemen: I submit, these are the acts of what in my generation would have been called an immature, irresponsible group of playboys. Surely this entourage does not represent the revered and forward-looking traditions of Chi Phi. To go along with their conduct, as the alumni corporation has done, is to condone dishonesty, irresponsibility and lack of consideration for others. A new group loyal to Chi Phi should be organized and the present local left to fend for itself.
Dartmouth has something at stake, too. in this and similar conversions from National to local now rampant on the campus. As Brother Swartz says, we are now "just another Ivy Club on an ivy campus." Those of us who live in the midwest know how low the Ivy image already has fallen in this area. In sports we are regarded as provincial, our athletes not even worthy of consideration for All-American honors. Even academically we are outbid for many of the more prominent scholars. Now we choose to withdraw even more — national affiliations for our "clubs" are beneath us!
Shaker Heights, Ohio
Song for the Future
TO THE EDITOR!
It was with interest, and I must confess some amusement, that I read the interview with Dartmouth's valedictorian of last year. With all his esoteric and idealistic thinking, all he really needed at Dartmouth was a broad.
And now it seems that his dreams may not be far from reality, since I have read of the proposed experiment of coeds on campus during the school year.
Therefore, I set down below a college song which I suspect may be sung in the not too distant future.
Dartmouth won't come to town, Smith you're through, Now that we've got our own, who needs you?
We'll stay right in our dorm, Our love will keep us warm, Too bad for Skidmore Sue.
Up in the hills we'll stay. Gee, it's nice Here in the snow and ice.
Campion's now sells an evening gown, Dartmouth will stay in town.
New Brunswick, N. J.
A Nichols Anecdote
TO THE EDITOR:
I too have a pleasant recollection of "Ernest Fox Nichols, Tenth President of Dartmouth College, 1906-16."
My recollection is the following: Some time during the Dartmouth school year 1913-14 we undergraduates were returning from a meeting and were proceeding northeast over the campus path leading to the Chapel and Wheeler Hall, where I resided We were in a spirited discussion of the question which had occupied the meeting when suddenly a voice came from the darkness behind us, making a suggestion for the improvement of the discussion. We were only freshmen and this opportunity to have personal contact and talk with the President of the College impressed us greatly.
Las Vegas, Nev.
