Letters to the Editor

Response to a Response

TO THE EDITOR:

Lee Bridges' "Response to Dean Seymour" in the February issue is not too surprising, considering the connection with the London School of Economics. And it has enough plausibility, also, to merit a "Response to the Response."

Bridges objects to the Dean stating that the "uniform" of the New Left is "beards, beads and bells." Such an objection is very surprising - nearly as unusual as suggesting that chimneys don't go with Santa Claus! In fact, the Dean's characterization could hardy be more apt, in my opinion.

And if there is any obstacle to communication, I think it is created by the New Left themselves. Perhaps the reason for this is that so many associate beards and beads with the New Left that they expose themselves to being dismissed as such if they look the part. You know, "birds of a feather" and all that sort of thing.

Bridges criticizes American education for not being independent. And just how does he have the temerity to pretend that the New Left is any more independent them-selves? Let them spout anything other than the Party Line and see how long they stay independent!

Obviously Dean Seymour has touched a nerve, and Bridges feels called upon to defend his beard and bells. If he is sincere in his desire for changes in education, let him start with himself and work for these needed changes within the Law, not through protests, force, disturbances, and destruction.

White Plains, N. Y.

Coed Study Disturbing

TO THE EDITOR:

Your excellent issue for February including Mrs. Ross' delightful story, the most interesting coverage of the Dartmouth College Case, etc., strikes a disturbing note in reporting the projected study of the question of coeducation which, according to the recommendation, is "a subject of top priority." How it suddenly could have become a matter of such great import is beyond me, but that, nevertheless, is the statement. Surely the fact that certain city colleges (and Princeton, by proximity, can be so classified) are committed to it should have little or no bearing on Hanoverian thinking.

In any event, as the adoption of coeducation would at least radically, and probably completely, alter the character of Dartmouth as it has been known for 200 years, I assume such a study would include a show of hands by its principal source of support, the alumni body. Personally, I cannot bring myself to the belief that the plaintive wail of those students "crying in the wilderness" is really of top priority - but that may be just another example of the "generation gap" of which we hear.

Philadelphia, Pa.

At Least by 1981

TO THE EDITOR:

I have been reading with some interest about the trend among the nation's colleges toward coed campus life.

I also took note of a recent squib in TheNew York Times that our Board of Trustees was considering the question for Dartmouth.

As one who believes strongly in all of Dartmouth's traditions, I feel it is time to share them with women. I would like to see Dartmouth coed as soon as possible, or at least by 1981 — when my daughter will be of college entrance age!

Armonk, N. Y.

Anchors Away

TO THE EDITOR:

Men of Dartmouth - wake up!

Let's hear it from the Silent Majority, the powerful Dartmouth alumni. The existence of ROTC at Dartmouth College is in danger. There is talk of a three-year phase-out of ROTC and if this happens it will be the equivalent of surrender under fire. I don't go for that and I'm sure many of the former beneficiaries of Dartmouth ROTC will agree.

One of the more recent incidents had to do with the physical obstruction of an Air Corps recruiting officer. The ROTC has long been the target of disgraceful dissent, embarrassing dissent, and humiliation. There is no need of going into the emotional side further; let's look at the ROTC from a practical viewpoint.

With this in mind it seemed very much to the point to visit the Captains and Colonels and obtain figures of the advantages Dartmouth College has enjoyed from ROTC during the last year. Three hundred and fifty nine (359) students have volunteered to train for service as officers in the United States Armed Forces: Army — 185, Navy - 146, Air Force - 28. Three hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars ($365,- 000) will be spent this year in tuition and subsistence for these future officers. The Armed Services have made Dartmouth College a better college for many years.

For those who cry like mad when their seats are not on the 50-yard line at the Princeton game, let them shout just as loud for the decency and respect and existence of the Armed Forces at Dartmouth. Where'll I shout? Well, I'd start with my nearest Trustee. These gentlemen have the say and what they say goes. ROTC needs your help! We need the help of ROTC'

I'll never understand the immunity of the college campus.

Norwich, Vt.

ROTC Supported

TO THE EDITOR:

In the past two or three years I have been concerned about some of the changes at Dartmouth and some of the incidents that have occurred. It is about one of the more recent of these changes that I wish to write, namely, the phasing out of the ROTC program.

When I was a student at Dartmouth there was no ROTC. In view of the happenings some five or six years after my graduation in 1936, I feel that our country would have benefited greatly if there had been an ROTC program at Dartmouth at that time. Numerous liberal arts graduates have had experience in ROTC as undergraduates and have gone into the armed forces as a career. There is no question in my mind that these men have contributed greatly to their country and that they have kept the military from being increasingly militant, and from being dominated by military school graduates.

As the father of a recent Dartmouth graduate, John E. Gait '66, I have had the opportunity of seeing the value of this program in the development of young men of the current generation. These young men, as they took their liberal education at Dartmouth and had the ROTC experience, benefited from it and will be better officers.

It is unfortunate that, in a time of change when the armed forces need the mellowing influence of liberal arts trained officers, the Ivy colleges are removing the ROTC programs from their environs. At least Dartmouth is not as far along the road to complete removal as its sister colleges of Yale and Harvard. I hope, before this removal becomes complete, that the faculty will reexamine this issue in the light of the contribution that liberal arts education can make to the military and will reverse its vote.

Dover, N. H.

A Basic Flaw

TO THE EDITOR:

In recent months much of the space in our mass news media has been devoted to student demonstrations and general disruption of orderly academic activity. Fortunately, Dartmouth has been spared excessive violence but enough disturbance has occurred in Hanover to make these remarks as applicable to Dartmouth as they are to other institutions.

It seems to me that there is a basic flaw in the management philosophy of those charged with guiding the course of the College. Democracy is sacrosanct in our politics but has no place in the operation of a college. Officers and teachers have attained their position by virtue of knowing more than the students. Not only should they knoW more of the subject matter of their individual disciplines but they should be convinced absolutely that they are more cable of deciding what is best for the students than are the students themselves. This does not preclude listening to respectfully presented suggestions but it should eliminate even consideration of ideas supported by demonstrations. College officials legally stand "in loco parentis" and should so stand in teaching propriety to the students. The law guarantees in effect the right of an individual to demonstrate but it doesnot guarantee the right of an individual to demonstrate and continue his education at Dartmouth.

The moral decay and associated rising crime rate in our country is in large measure due to permissiveness. It is human nature for the immature to commit any act they find through experience that they can get away with. Just as parents have a duty to instill discipline in their children, so does a college have an equal duty to discipline its students. There is an old saying in the Air Force that the best officer is absolutely strict but absolutely fair. If the present administration is not convinced that it is more fit to run the College than are the students, perhaps it should resign to make room for individuals with more courage of their convictions.

Lewiston, Idaho

Hesburgh Policy Backed

TO THE EDITOR:

We note that on February 17 the Reverend Theodore M. Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame, took one of the strongest stands to be taken so far by any college or university official against campus violence. In a letter to faculty members, students and their parents, he is reported" to have outlined the immediate action that will be taken against anyone disrupting University operations. Included in the action: Any one or any group that substitutes force (violent or non-violent) for rational persuasion will be given fifteen minutes to cease and desist. If they do not comply within that time, they will be asked for their identity cards. Those who produce them will be suspended from the University community as not understanding what the community is. Those who do not have or will not produce identity cards will be assumed not to be members of the community and will be charged with trespassing and disturbance of the peace on private property and treated according to law. If after notification of suspension a student does not, within five minutes, cease and desist, such student will be notified of expulsion from the University community and the law will deal with him as a nonresident.

Among other things, it is reported that Father Hesburgh said:

"No one wants the forces of law on this or any other campus, but if some necessitate it, as a last and dismal alternative to anarchy and mob tyranny, let them shoulder the blame instead of receiving the sympathy of a community they would hold at bay.

"The only alternative I can imagine is turning the majority of the community loose on them, and then you have two mobs. I know of no one who would opt for this alternative - always lurking in the wings.

"We can have a thousand resolutions as to what kind of a society we want, but when lawlessness is afoot and all authority flouted - faculty, administration and student - then we invoke the normal societal forces of law, or we allow the university to die beneath our hapless and hopeless gaze.

"I have no intention of presiding over such a spectacle; too many people have given too much of themselves and their lives to this university to let this happen here. Without being melodramatic, if this conviction makes this my last will and testament to Notre Dame, so be it."

A year or so ago there was an incident of student violence at Dartmouth which as of that time we felt was well handled. Lately there have been new stirrings of this type of thing relative to representatives of the military and of corporations appearing on College property to interview students. It is our sincere hope that such evidences of lack of understanding of what the Dartmouth community stands for will be handled in such fashion as to compare favorably with the procedure established by Father Hesburgh.

South Royalton, Vt.

Alumni, Unite!

TO THE EDITOR:

William Keane's letter, in the January issue, rightly points out one of the most serious alumni issues facing the College. His outrage at the poor seats he receives for football games can be shared by all of us. It is quite obvious that, while the College serves the undergraduate mainly through education, it serves its alumni mainly in football tickets. Should we not demand our rights, even as the students demand theirs?

However, I feel that Mr. Keane's proposed reaction, a boycott of the Alumni Fund, would be destructive of alumni interests. It could result in such a shortage of funds that the College would have to choose between football and education. From past experience, I fear it would choose for its students. Such tactics risk cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

We must instead ask why the College coddles its students, letting them infringe on our rights by giving them preferred stadium seats? Is it not because, like students everywhere, they threaten the administration with demonstrations? Witness the recent Newton valedictory. If we are to get action, we must fight fire with fire.

I suggest, therefore, that we move up our class reunions a couple of weeks, to the week preceding final exams. Then hundreds of us could sit in in front of the circulation and reserve reading desks at Baker, so that students could not use the library. If we hit them where it hurts, perhaps they will give us back our rights.

If this doesn't work, though, we can still go one step further. We can take over Hopkins Center, another of the facilities they now have which are peripheral to education We can deny to students those basic rights which they deny to us.

Alumni, unite! Let's show some old Dartmouth spirit.

Shelbwne, Vt.

Alumni Aiding Newcomers

TO THE EDITOR:

As a member of the Class of 1930 and as a member of the board of directors of The American Council for Nationalities Service, I am happy that Fred Scribner, our class president, has just joined our board.

This organization is located in the Freedom House building, at 20 West 40th Street, New York, N. Y., with 36 international institutes throughout the United States and Hawaii. It serves to integrate the newcomers to America and in turn interprets the newcomers' problems to Washington and elsewhere. We also specialize in nationality groups and particularly towards their attitudes in connection with our Blacks and Puerto Ricans. This is a non-profit organization and supported by many foundations and a large amount of individual contributions.

Any alumnus interested in the Council's work can reach me at my office, 509 Madison Avenue, Office 506, New York, N. Y 10022.

New York, N. Y.