Letters to the Editor

The Parkhurst Hall Seizure

TO THE EDITOR:

I want to commend Dean Seymour, President Dickey and all of Dartmouth for the overall excellent management with which they handled the seizure of Parkhurst. It is apparent that much thought had gone into the matter before it occurred, and I do think now that they deserve an expression of appreciation from all of us on the outside.

Much of this very sad rebellion is a reaction to the hypocrisy implicit in our national policy which continues the war. To this, Dartmouth has responded with understanding but with the firmness which must be used in the case of excess.

Wayne, Pa.

TO THE EDITOR:

When a handful of radicals nail shut the doors of Parkhurst Hall, throw out the President and Dean, and are not instantly expelled from the College, I say it is high time for a change in college administration.

Please add my name to the rapidly growing list of loyal alumni who are fed up to the teeth with this assininity.

Wolfeboro, N. H.

TO THE EDITOR:

Since I earlier chose to write and complain, it is reasonable to write and applaud the actions of the College, the Court, and the majority of the student body last Wednesday. It only remains for the Administration to act against the law-breakers from the College's point of view, and the courts from a criminal point of view. I trust these actions will be swift and fair but sufficiently firm to persuade others to try their tricks elsewhere.

As someone else said, there seem to be "indications of a slowdown in the current trend of turning the management of the nation's asylums, scholastic havens, and other shelters over to their inmates." Perhaps the prompt action against unconscionable and ill-conceived rebellion in Hanover is a part of such a change in trend. I hope so!

West field, N. J.

TO THE EDITOR:

Like President Pusey of Harvard, Dartmouth, I believe, acted prematurely in calling in the police to clear students from the administration building. Property was protected, but I doubt that the principle defended was worth the result. If Dartmouth students follow the reaction of their fellows in other colleges, the police action will effectively radicalize a much larger part of the moderate student body who had little sympathy for the extreme tactics of S.D.S. Couldn't the President have attempted to reach the invaders by argument and persuasion? Couldn't he have waited a while and showed a little restraint and patience? The student sitters-in look more absurd with each day that passes. Couldn't he and the deans have enlisted the support of the vast moderate majority instead of alienating a good proportion of them and turning the dissidents into martyrs, much to their satisfaction?

In my day President Hopkins had a kind of Eisenhower prestige and dignity. Even though he wasn't always exciting or inspiring, his calm integrity impressed us and reassured us. I can't believe that he would have rushed to telephone the police and thus to match the radicals in the immediate exercise of power and force. The "Dartmouth fellowship," so frequently and rightfully extolled, has suffered a tragic defeat for which the administration as much as the radical students is responsible.

Newport, R. I.

TO THE EDITOR:

It is my hope and prayer that the students recently arrested in Parkhurst Hall may be protected against themselves. They can have no real idea of the consequences to themselves that their reckless act may engender. No graduate school and few employers will accept a convicted student agitator.

I can only hope that strong academic action by the College (i.e. suspension) will prove enough for the courts of New Hampshire.

New York, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

Dartmouth has met the challenge well. I had felt the College's Guidelines for Dissent seemed reasonable - you can protest as long as you don't lean on my rights. The anti-ROTC faction in addition to the shortsightedness of their position, violated the law and the rights of others and must pay the price of their civil disobedience. Thoreau preferred jail to paying taxes - and he went to jail. Amnesty is inconsistent with the philosophy of civil disobedience.

I do not question their sincerity, it takes courage to bodily remove Dean Seymour to carry him out - from Parkhurst Hall. However, I deplore their lack of common sense. I would not expel them, feeling that the College needs more men who will stand up for their convictions. Suspension would permit time for reflection. Perhaps it could be spent in the enlisted Service which would provide first-hand experience for their views that a college student doesn't need a Service Commission and that the military doesn't need the liberalizing influence of civilian-college-educated officers.

I mailed my Alumni Fund check last week. Some alumni will undoubtedly cease their support of the College, which I would liken to a parishioner's cutting off his church after the alms box has been rifled by the choir boy. I'll try to find my checkbook again before June 30th.

Malvern, Pa.

TO THE EDITOR:

I never stood taller than when I heard the good news the judge handed down last week. I can't tell you how proud I am of my alma mater after hearing so many cases of namby-pamby treatment at other colleges. I'm glad Dartmouth and New Hamcshire are willing to fight for what's right.

Milwaukee, Wis.

TO THE EDITOR:

My check for the 1969 Alumni Fund, while very modest, represents an increase ten-fold, of the token contributions I have been making for the last five years or so. There are reasons for my emergence from tokenism at this time.

Commencing with the Valedictory Address of last June I was permitted to see the first glimmer of hope that my elite college was developing courageous, ethical brains along with its conditioning of talents for perpetuating the profit system ... regardless. Then enough of the alumni body indicated by letters to the ALUMNI MAGAZINE that I was not alone. Now recent headlines make it also clear that the faculty and student body mean to challenge the monolithic, unthinking pseudo-patriotism which was allowing our college to function as a breeder of military and CIA adventurism. I am much more concerned and hopeful for the College's future than I was when I cut back my contribtuions during our early involvement in Vietnam.

Be it a matter of record that this ten-fold increase is intended as a tribute to the emergence of effective dissent in Hanover.

Guilford, Conn.

TO THE EDITOR:

This writer never ceases to be amazed at seeing today's educators at bay from a mere handful of militants on campuses from coast to coast. Equally amazing is the ignorance of the students toward achieving goals they purport to espouse. Anyone who has worked in politics at any level knows that the Body Politic is so apathetic that by working within the existing framework in an orderly manner, it doesn't take many eager bodies to change things.

While it is refreshing to see fellow students take up the cudgel and tell their militant counterparts to "love or leave" the campus, we submit this alternative should have been laid down by the Administration and Faculty long before.

Perhaps we parents of the college-age group have shirked our duties in: (1) Preparing our offspring for that world out there that rightfully does deny freedom without responsibility; (2) building a modicum of respect for elders, and (3) denying enough to them so that they have some respect for property and the rights of others. Psychologists tell us that discipline fairly administered builds security in the child. This can help to overcome the insecure feelings of a .generation that claims lack "of security from the constant threat of nuclear destruction.

The only conclusion we can draw is that it's time for each one of us to shoulder his own responsibilities. Good citizenship is required in each of these areas but history tells us that such will not be achieved without fair but strict enforcement of rules.

Perhaps it is time that educators showed their intellect and wisdom by expelling those who do not want to live by the rules which is certainly a part of the educational process.

Perhaps it is time that parents showed their love and wisdom by refusing to support those offspring who choose to repudiate the experience, values and system the parents represent.

Perhaps it is time that the students took the time to study the society in which they live and develop definite goals toward its betterment. Let them also determine how effective they can be in beards and sandals vs. the grey flannel suit and a reasonable degree of conformity to generally accepted rules of society.

We frankly abhor the idea that a great institution like Dartmouth, who owes her very existence to the concept of enforcement of contractual obligations, can concede to the blackmail of a militant few. Where has the "Granite of New Hampshire" gone?

San Diego, Calif.

TO THE EDITOR:

I have just read the report of two occurrences at Dartmouth which have disgusted me and as a fairly recent graduate of Dartmouth and the ROTC program I must express my opinion.

The action of the SDS in physically ejecting Dean Seymour from the Administration Building was a reprehensible act, and how reasonable men, regardless of the so-called inequities which prompted it, can fail to expel permanently those who precipitated it is beyond my comprehension.

But even more disturbing to me is the action taken by the faculty in voting to abolish ROTC by 1973. What right does the faculty have to respond to a few rabblerousing anarchists bent on the destruction of every phase of our educational system, whether good or bad, while ignoring other students who have voted for ROTC by electing to take the courses? And what about the thousands of alumni who are, and always have been in the words of President Dickey, an integral part of Dartmouth? Are they to be heard on the kind of curriculum to be offered? Ask them whether ROTC should be abolished.

Dartmouth is a private institution supported in large part by alumni contributions. No student has a constitutional right to attend Dartmouth, much less the right to impose his "demands" on the administration as to what courses it will or will not offer to its student body. If they don't like what is offered in the curriculum, they are free to go elsewhere, and that applies to the faculty also....

Furthermore, whose purpose is being served when the faculty forces ROTC to leave? One of the great strengths of our democracy has been the citizen involvement in our military, the leadership of which is largely supplied from our liberal arts colleges. Eliminate that source of officer recruitment and the polarization of issues, of which educators have expressed such fear, is a foregone conclusion: a campus that has no involvement in our military system and a military devoid of those trained in the liberal arts. ...

So, as a contributing alumnus who helps (albeit in a minor way) to pay the salaries of the faculty at Dartmouth College, I have a "demand" of my own: I demand that ROTC, with or without credit, be retained at Dartmouth as an authorized course of study for those who choose to take it.

Wellesley, Mass.

TO THE EDITOR:

For the first and only time since 1930, I feel constrained to write a "letter to the editor."

I have had some misgivings about the way things are going at Dartmouth. As an older alumnus, I am disturbed by the demands made by a minority of students to "change the course of the College." "

I feel strongly that the administration should run the College, and should deter mine the "course of the College" and that if the students do not like it then they should go somewhere else. They certainly were not drafted to go to Dartmouth.

It also seems to me that if they want to run the College their way, they should then go out and raise the money to do so rather than rely on alumni who do not feel as they do.

I vigorously endorse Father Hesburgh's courageous stand and am ashamed of col lege administrations which do not have the courage to dismiss students who "take over" college buildings as of right.

Maybe there should be a revolt - of the alumni - and not of the students or some far-out teachers who support them.

Lynn, Mass.

The ROTC Issue

TO THE EDITOR:

One of the best methods of insuring a growing and increasingly powerful military machine is to provide a more and more tightly knit officer caste system. The best possible method of insuring this is to centralize the development of more and more military academies under the direct and exclusive control of the Military. In order to preserve the purity of the military bloodline one must make certain to block the infusion into the military caste of men (and women) educated in the traditions of the liberal arts, sciences, and humanities. By far the best method of preventing this infusion from diluting the military is to destroy the source of the infusion. Only by diligently destroying the ROTC and all other groups that foment and encourage the assimilation of civilians into the military can we ever hope to, someday, have complete military control over all facets of American life. And tomorrow the World!

Milwaukee, Wis.

TO THE EDITOR:

If one holds that the Dartmouth community shelters doddering alumni, as well as the roistering illuminati busily serving up ultimatums, here's one vintage vox from the California deserto.

Associated Press reports in war-bulletin style that 125 Men of Dartmouth, following a siege of Parkhurst, have "given the Ivy League college until May 12 to meet their demands for an immediate end to ROTC."

Some "gift." With but ten days of countdown left, some of us who are scrambling to pack our belongings in baby strollers and flee Thebes are muttering darkly. For these 125 mod Goths would figuratively (and, I have no doubt, literally) deprive us of our Dartmouth degrees.

Like hundreds of other para-military menaces from Junker redoubts like Brooklyn, East Orange, Cobb's Corners, and Pasadena, I owe my four years in Hanover unabjectly to the United States Navy. But for the USNROTC "Regular Program," admirably drawn by Admiral Holloway, our families could never have afforded to pack their sons off to Dartmouth - or Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or for that matter Berkeley.

Mention of the bully fun and backbone- stiffening effects of serving four years as a Naval officer might, admittedly, not pass the litmus of "relevancy" so important to modern "dialogue."

So, dear editor, I am in a moral quandary. Should I furl my invalidated diploma and send it in for next week's S.D.S. bonfire? Or, simply thwack it upon an ROTC-phobic professor's learned (if addled) pate, thus providing grist for lectures on how Americans invented violence?

Los Angeles, Calif.

TO THE EDITOR:

There's about as much sense in capitulating to the polemics of a parcel of pusillanimous pacifists and abolishing ROTC as there would be in eliminating the Medical School at the behest of honorable but misguided Christian Scientists.

The profession of arms has, for centuries, attracted myriad men of ambition, talent, and stature. On the Dartmouth campus and in the curriculum, the ROTC has the same reason and justification for being as does the Tuck School, the Thayer School and, of course, the Medical School. They should all coexist for the laudable purpose of professional education.

This undersigned member of the Volunteer Generation — a 1917 graduate of Dartmouth and Plattsburg —is made very sad in contemplation of the havoc wrought by a vociferous yet minuscule minority of the present and coddled generation of Dartmouth faculty and undergraduates.

Whatever has happened to the glorious heritage and enviable tradition of Dartmouth's military heroes?

Hampton Falls, N. H.

TO THE EDITOR:

I wish to commend the decision of the faculty to eliminate credit for ROTC, but I wish too, to remind all members of Dartmouth that this gesture is only the first step toward what must be the complete elimination of any connection between Dartmouth College and ROTC.

The purpose of the university ultimately defines what relation, if any at all, can exist between university education and military training. The university is not a vocational training center; nor, on the other hand, is it exactly a forum for the expression of all thoughts and ideas.

There are three principal means of communication between men: violent means such as war or exploitation; emotional, but non-verbal, nonviolent means such as intuition; and intellectual means such as speech, writing, and creative sciences and arts. The university is dedicated to the proposition that not only is intellectual communication an alternative to violence and war, but also that it is vastly superior.

The effect of a university is to teach a man he can think. The effect of ROTC is to teach a man he must not think. The university extols the ability of humanity to improve the world consciously and creatively. ROTC extols the ability of humanity to destroy the world by utilizing the subconscious instinct for survival to commit violence without regret. ROTC is diametrically opposed to practically everything the university stands for. ROTC rejects the concept of the university, yet it asks for course credit, it asks for building space, it asks for faculty status.

I cannot accept that an organization devoted to developing the most sophisticated and efficient violent and destructive communication between human beings has any place on the campus of any university. Those who feel compelled to take an officer's commission should do so at OCS. I therefore give my complete and unreserved support to any non-violent struggle against ROTC, a struggle which must not end until the Pentagon is out of College Hall.

London, England

TO THE EDITOR:

I have never written such a letter before but when I read Mr. Blanchard's I felt compelled to do so.

I am an orthopedic surgeon now in private practice. I attended both the College and Med School, joining the Naval Reserve without solicitation in 1958 because I felt an obligation to my country. In July 1966 I began two years of active duty which were among the most rewarding in my life. My patients were almost all Vietnam casualties. A more deserving and appreciative group one could not find. On July 12, 1968 I completed my two-year tour and am now in a reserve unit because I am proud to be able to continue to serve my country in some small way.

I do not condone war or violence, but despise it. Unfortunately as long as there are aggressive nations, the armed services will be necessary. I cannot understand the logic of eliminating ROTC programs. If we ever needed clear-thinking, talented people in the military it is now. Only by getting capable minds involved in military services can we hope to improve the manner in which our armed services act. How can such talent be infused if we eliminate ROTC programs?

The military is a fertile field to harvest good fruit if it is worked by talented, concerned and dynamic people. Denying its existence by our greatest institutions defies logic. This is a primitive defense mechanism used by psychotic patients in coping with the problems of reality.

Grow up, administration, faculty, and students. You have an obligation to your country. If you dislike the way the military is run, improve it by infusing it with talented minds. Denial has never solved any problems.

Pelham Manor, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

I have been reading the April issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, studying the picture of Daniel Webster on the front and reflecting on the caption below, "Will to Resist: The Dartmouth College Case." I cannot keep quiet any longer.

When I was in college, Earl Blaik was called back to his alma mater, West Point, to coach football. This was an era when Dartmouth was known as the "Big Green." In an emotional farewell address, he said there was only one word to describe Dartmouth and Dartmouth men. That word was "rugged."

I see in the news that Dartmouth is now bent on doing away with ROTC and going coeducational. What harm the ROTC did anyone I don't know - unless it was the communists, and we wouldn't want to do that to them - James Newton straightened us out on that! And as for the girls, who doesn't like them? I guess there are just not enough coeducational colleges for anyone who desires to go to school with girls, and that we must therefore fill this deficiency. Yes - let's have a coeducational school and let's let the bearded minority run it by all means or else we will "not be with it."

I know what it is to be an old grad now. I remember those words of Men of Dartmouth "They have the still North in their hearts, the hill winds in their veins, and the granite of New Hampshire in their muscles and their brains, and the granite of New Hampshire in their muscles and their brains." I guess all that meant was that we had rocks in our head.

Oh Dartmouth, when did you become a conformist - and where did you lose your resolve? Men of Dartmouth, set a watch lest the old traditions fail!

Statesville, N. C.

TO THE EDITOR:

I have before me two items, one a letter mentioning that "Dartmouth - Love It or Leave It" tags are appearing on the campus. The second is a picture taken from the Lancaster, Pa., New Era of April 23 with a caption reading partly: "SDS Protestors and Sympathizers Take Over the Office Tuesday of President Dickey of Dartmouth College."

The information in the letter is heartening and another instance of the revulsion against student disorder now appearing throughout the land. In fact, there is not much that I could add to the great mass of public opinion now appearing in the press to the effect that unreasonable and unlawful dissent is not condoned by the American people.

However, in regard to the sit-in demanding an end to the ROTC program on the Dartmouth campus, I wonder if everybody concerned realizes how many hitherto loyal alumni have cancelled their plans for the June 1969 reunions and reduced their contributions or stopped them altogether. These would be good reasons for forestalling the proposal to drop ROTC at Dartmouth, but they are not the best ones. The plain fact is that we need the organized reserve as the real ultimate weapon of a democracy. In my opinion, it is far more powerful than its nuclear counterpart. In the Berlin, Cuban, and Pueblo crises, we did not resort to the atom bomb but called out the reserve. This is an action denied to the dictator who has no organized reserve, only organized hostility.

So, let me ask for support from the alumni to convince these misguided young people that they are tampering with the most important weapon in the democratic arsenal, that of the willingness of free people to rise in defense of their liberties.

In conclusion, let me assure that I have nothing but good wishes for the Dartmouth administration in these difficult times.

Lancaster, Pa.

Concerning Coeducation

TO THE EDITOR!

The agitation for coeducation in Hanover, coupled with the campaign for capital improvements, strikes me as muddle-headed as much of the stuff that comes out of the College at this time.

If the College needs funds so badly, it cannot afford the additional funds that coeducation would take. Furthermore, is the College planning to cut down the male enrollment and replace it with female enrollment, or go blithely ahead and increase the enrollment in order to have women in the College?

For years I have thought that tuition pays only one-half of the expenses of the College. Therefore, if this is the case, both the annual drive for the Alumni Fund and the capital gains fund will be increased ifwe have coeducation.

I for one will discontinue any giving or any fund solicitation for the College, if coeducation is adopted, on the basis that an administration that is muddled-headed enough to do so is much too stupid for me to solicit funds for.

Dallas, Texas

TO THE EDITOR:

Dartmouth is in trouble.

Next year, for the first time, females will comprise portions of the Yale and Princeton student bodies. Harvard's de facto coeducation with Radcliffe may well be formalized soon. Cornell and Penn are coeducational. Brown has Pembroke and Columbia has Barnard (and New York).

Dartmouth remains the Ivy League's lone bastion of monastic education.

To some alumni, perhaps, this is a good thing. It serves tradition: Dartmouth has not yet sold out. But, gentlemen, tradition must not be viewed in a vacuum. The implications of preserving this element of tradition threaten the very existence of Dartmouth as a first-rate educational institution. Certainly, the lack of female students will not deter (many) teachers from joining the faculty. (I parenthetically say "many" because several faculty members, with experience at other schools, find that coeducational classes produce more responsive and sincere students.) But is the quality of the faculty the sole criterion for educational excellence? What of the student body? The absence of women at Dartmouth is not a selling point for prospective students; it is a deterrent. (Indeed, observe the literature prospective students receive. It is filled with photographs of students and dates.) A recent Princeton graduate informs me that the growing competitive weakness of all male institutions played a central role in Princeton's decision to coeducate.

A recent positive development in American education is the growth in the number of colleges offering superior educations. The Ivies no longer monopolize this important element of society. Bright high school seniors choose among an ever-expanding list of first-rate colleges. Can we continue to afford to offer them an excellent education . . . without girls? We must remember that the market for college students is highly competitive. Our competitors are now offering a more attractive package than we are.

The two most frequently voiced objections to coeducation that I have heard are: (1) The expense of coeducation appears prohibitive at the present time when the inauguration of graduate education demands such large sums of money. While not here questioning the desirability of graduate education and hence not urging coeducation at its expense, I ask: Will superior graduate education accompany a lower quality body of undergraduates? Dartmouth has a large endowment; Dartmouth has the Bicentennial Fund; Dartmouth has the Alumni Fund (to which I would gladly contribute a second time if the College announced plans for coeducation in the immediate future). Dartmouth can, and must, finance coeducation.

(2) The second factor is alumni opposition to coeducation. I could beg those who are opposed to be altruistic enough to allow future generations of Dartmouth students to enjoy a more pleasant (and natural) four years in Hanover. But I do not believe that an appeal to altruism is necessary. I can advocate coeducation on a purely selfish, pragmatic basis: I am proud of Dartmouth and thankful for the marvelous education she accorded me. I would hate to see her travel downhill; I want to see her improve. We alumni form a powerful body in the makings' of Dartmouth College. We must all adopt the cry of current students - Coeducation Now!

Like many recent grads, I would like to be able to send any daughters as well as sons I might eventually have to my alma mater. But I see no reason to deny the high quality education of Dartmouth and the serenity of the beautiful Upper Valley t0 present intelligent high school girls. The Bicentennial presents an excellent occasion to further the traditional excellence of Dartmouth College by planning immediate co- education.

New Haven, Conn.

TO THE EDITOR:

I wish to add my voice to those of other alumni who will protest the addition of coeds during the forthcoming year. This, I am aware, is in keeping with the current trend in education, but it is most definitely not part of the Dartmouth character. (Years ago, I was also opposed to "permissive" and "Progressive" educational programs, and if that makes me a fuddy-duddy, make the most of it.)

I am happy to read that the program is "experimental." If coeds are to become a standard part of the Dartmouth scene, the Alumni Fund can save itself some postage by dropping me from the mailing lists.

East Hartford, Conn.

TO THE EDITOR:

I am one of the first coeds at Dartmouth College. In Hanover since September 1968, I have been studying at the College as one of the "special students in Drama." When I was accepted, I clearly understood that I would be spending one year —my junior year - at the College and that I would be expected to return to my original school in order to obtain a bachelor of arts degree. I did not know then that I would become so attached to Dartmouth and so assimilated into its life that I would not want to leave at the end of that year.

Being one of eight women on a predominantly male campus proved difficult at first. Some students considered me as just a girl - one of those beings whom they invite to Hanover for Winter Carnival - not as a person in my own right with interests, beliefs, and feelings similar to many of theirs. I attended classes with my fellow students. I lived in the same community and was also affected by that community. A month passed and I had attained friends. Another month passed and I had attained more friends. More and more barriers and prejudices were broken down and I came to be accepted as a human being first; an acceptance that every person searches for from every other person. It distresses me that I had to fight for it - merely because of my sex difference.

As a student I have done well. I have been on the Dean's List and have proven that I am more than capable of a Dartmouth education. Since I am a Drama major most of my time has been spent in Hopkins Center. At the period I am in now I could not ask for better facilities or even better instruction in the theatre. I do not want to leave a college that is able to offer me so many opportunities; a college that I feel I am able to give something in return. ... I should by human standards be eligible for the highly regarded Dartmouth degree; and yet because I am a female and not a male I am ineligible. I never expected in my life to be denied an equal chance for anything.

I find it hard to believe that many men honestly consider a woman an inferior being. Why shouldn't a woman be entitled a Dartmouth education and a Dartmouth degree? I will only have one undergraduate education in my lifetime. I want it to be a Dartmouth education and I want the diploma to show it; to show that I as a person first and a woman second have proven myself worthy academically and socially of it. I am a human being, neither more nor less than any man of Dartmouth. I am merely asking to be treated like one.

Hanover, N. H.

The Afro-American Decision

TO THE EDITOR:

The Dartmouth of April 14 has printed the College's response to the Afro-American Society's eighteen original demands and has outlined seventeen other actions. It seems to me that the College owes the alumni an exact statement on these policies.

The No. One response was: "The College stated that its admissions policy would aim for a student body 'broadly representative of national patterns' in response to the proposal for a quota system guaranteeing 100 black students, or 11 percent, in each freshman class."

What is meant by the statement that "the admissions policy would aim for a student body 'broadly representative of national patterns' "? Does this mean, as it seems to mean in the context of a quota for black students, that there will be a quota for Mexican-Americans, Appalachian students, Indians, etc.? Does it mean that three percent of the college will be Jewish?

The second response was: "Current admissions office practice to accept 'black and educationally deprived students whose records would not in a traditional sense be acceptable but which would, nevertheless, appear to give them a reasonable chance of meeting the normal academic requirements' was noted. The response stated that this was 'in accordance with and in respect to socioeducational deprivation of the Black Community, which was the criterion stated in the AAS demands."

This seems to mean that there will be at least eleven percent of the class Negro, if at all possible, and that the standards will be lowered in order to make room for them. There is no doubt in my mind after discussion with a wide range of alumni, that these two points are very tender ones and in main, most of us object to them. There is no reason to lower the standards for admission to Dartmouth. A great many prominent Negro leaders, Bayard Rustin, Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Rowan and prominent Negro Dartmouth alumni have urged that this practice not be put into effect. At any rate, while the College is in the midst of a major fund-raising drive, I think they owe us an explanation and a description of the program which they are going to put into effect.

Kansas City, Mo,

TO THE EDITOR:

As I write this, members of the administration and of the faculty are engaged in "discussions" with a group of students who have demanded that the whole pattern of Dartmouth College must be changed to suit their notions. ... In the face of college and national policies that prescribe acceptance of an individual on the basis of his personal achievements, whatever his race, creed or color, they demand segregation and favoritism solely because of a particular skin pigmentation. And it appears that there are members of the faculty sympathetic with these students.

Any student or faculty member of Dartmouth College can be presumed to have read the General Catalogue and to be familiar with the purposes of the College as expressed in it. Those who are not in sympathy with these purposes certainly are not bound to associate themselves with such others as were attracted by these statements, nor are those who did come to Dartmouth in the belief that they might find what the catalogue offered unreasonable in expecting protection from such disruptions of the orderly educational process as have been perpetrated upon them in recent months. Everyone has known, for example, that Dartmouth has enjoyed a long and honorable association with the Armed Forces of the United States through its ROTC programs. Anybody who believes that such association is harmful to his personal development is free to go to any one of the many colleges which have no such tradition and deserves no sympathy if he chooses, in the face of his awareness of that tradition, to come to Dartmouth to attempt to cause trouble. The same freedom of choice precludes tolerance of those who oppose the presence on the campus of any recruiter, civilian or military, whom he must have expected to be the guest of the College on the basis of long, well-publicized relationships. Surely anyone who feels that Dartmouth cannot satisfy his personal needs would do better by selecting a college adapted to his wishes than by attempting to revise the whole institution in his own image.

There are effective, established procedures for changing the laws of a college, as of a government. Those whose concern for change is sincere have brought about such changes, both in the past and currently. But to resort to force, whether demonstrations, sit-ins or other "protests," can only lead to anarchy; that law of the jungle in which each individual must insure his survival by any means at his disposal, from which rational man is still struggling to escape and to which only the historically naive or the wilfully venal would try to return us all.

Claremont, N. H.

A Reason for Uniting

TO THE EDITOR:

I recently received the April issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, an event which I greet with great enthusiasm in this barren wasteland of an Army post, only to become so disturbed by some of the letters therein that I find myself forced to write, if for no other reason, than the hope of finding something different in the May issue.

While I was quite concerned with the number of contributors supporting ROTC at Dartmouth (a technical institution which has no place at a liberal arts college, regardless of the number of young men, myself included, for whom it has provided its services) this sort of debate is still intelligent and healthy. It is the letters of Messrs. Sherry and Howe that I find so disturbing.

Mr. Sherry apparently saw the Establishment again under attack by the Great Unwashed and rose to the occasion. I have enough respect for Dean Seymour to know that the crux of his argument with Lee lies not with anything so trivial as beads and beards. I also know Lee to be a very cerned and sincere individual who has never advocated change through "force, disturbances, and destruction." The dialogue between these two outstanding individuals can do without the mindless intrusions (I Will exempt the 4th paragraph from this description) of Mr. Sherry.

Mr. Howe's letter I find absolutely staggering. Can an ostensibly mature individual find nothing more important to occupy mind than his seats at a football game? Surely, Mr. Editor, this is a straw-man to stimulate lagging reader response. I am particularly struck by the sentences "It [Alumni Fund boycott] could result in such a shortage of funds that the College would have to choose between football and education. From past experiences, I fear it would choose for its students." I commend you Mr. Howe, for your courage in allowing your name to be printed.

I think it is time that we, as alumni, indeed unite. Let us unite in our rededication to our basic belief in the search for Truth, regardless of what form it takes. Let us have the courage to face our prejudices, admit our biases, and rid our thinking of the subconscious sophistry that we use to advance our self-interest. If the Dartmouth experience is ever to approach greatness, if the phrase "Dartmouth Man" is ever to hold a special, meaning for anyone other than Dartmouth men, we as alumni must do more than just give money.

Fort Knox, Ky.

Editor's Note: We interpreted Mr. Howe'sletter as satire.

John Wheelock's Bequest

TO THE EDITOR:

I am indebted to Professor Frank W. Fetter for pointing out a misstatement in my article on the Dartmouth College Case in the April issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. In that article John Wheelock's 1817 contingent bequest to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church was described as being "for the use of the Theological Seminary at Princeton University About 1812 the General Assembly, under the control of which was Princeton College (later University), despairing of the College's capacity or willingness to attract "pious youth" suitable for the ministry (a condition seemingly persisting to this day), set up a separate enterprise known as the Princeton Theologies! Seminary. Though technically independent, the trustees and faculties of the two institutions tended to interlock. During the period with which we are concerned, "the seminary," according to Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, Princeton University's Bicentennial Historian, "dominated the College and dictated its policies." It was however clearly for the use of the seminary and not Princeton University (or its predecessor Princeton College) that Wheelock's bequest was destined, in the event Dartmouth University should fail.

Professor Fetter has had good reason to concern himself with this lore. Some years ago he discovered that a theological seminary with a Princeton address featured improbably in the chain of title of some lands he himself owned near Sharon, Vermont. Search for an explanation led him back over the byroads of conveyancing to John Wheelock's vindictive will drawn in 1817 to safeguard Wheelock lands from falling into the hands of the despised Trustees of Dartmouth College.

Hanover, N. H.

Cashiered?

To THE EDITOR:

What do the italicized words presumeddead mean after the names of 11 of my classmates in the necrology column of your April issue?

was every resource of locating them alive exhausted before you counted them out? Or is it just possible - pesky, unpleasant thought - that the zealous collectors of the Alumni Fund have despaired of getting them to contribute? Are they being cashiered because they don't leap to action every time tV more-money clarion call is sounded?

It is conceivable that an alumnus can be a loyal Dartmouth man and yet view his obligation to the College in perspective with the other claims on his generosity, with personal commitments.

In reading the ALUMNI MAGAZINE and the frequently published class newsletter ("23 - Skidoo to you") I am struck by the fact that some of the best Dartmouth men I knew in college and in the 46 years since seem to be playing a constantly decreasing role in alumni affairs. I hope it bad times befall them and they have to suspend support of the Alumni Fund they won't be "considered dead."

Garden City, N.Y.

Editor's Note: The listing was decided by the Alumni Records Office which has nothing to do with the Alumni Fund beyond the addressing of mail. It is the editor s experience (rather long at that) that equating alumni interest or standing only with the giving of money is mainly an alumni predilection and is at odds with the ideas and wishes of those at the College who are responsible for alumni affairs.

"The Subject Is Life"

TO THE EDITOR:

I should like particularly to address myself to the letter to the editor of Frank Gilroy '50. Indeed, a mob is not a mob, Mr. Gilroy. A mob, whose purpose is to stop War and Killing, and whose idealism and concern for the common good, move them to action, outside the law, are patriots in the truest sense of the word, no less than were our Founding Fathers, the mob who established the American democracy which has enabled and ennobled our young people to think for themselves and to deny the right of a government to order them to become killers.

They are fighting the good fight for us all. In a world threatened with annihilation, where one obsessed finger oh a button, be it American, Russian or Chinese, can _ end it all, let us address ourselves to righting the wrongs for which the young students are putting themselves on the line. The enemy in our midst, threatening our world, is the military-industrial complex, which has taken its dreadful toll of lives, not the young students.

Let us channel our indignation where it counts. The prime and urgent question before us all is not good manners. It would be a very happy state if our young men could say, "Please, sir, I would like not to kill or be killed, ok?" Unfortunately, that is just not where it's at.

The Subject is LIFE, Mr. Gilroy.

Dartmouth would not be the beautiful college that it is, had it not grown this fine crop of young rebels, whose concern and dedication light the way to peace in the world.

New York City