Letters to the Editor
Parkhurst and ROTC
TO THE EDITOR
Cheers for John Dickey and the other men responsible for the simple but beautiful handling of the Protest attacks.
Perhaps it will set up an example for the other institutions who are discarding their college anthems in favor of "We Shall Be Overcome."
Hollywood, Calif.
TO THE EDITOR
As the son of a Dartmouth alumnus and the father of a non-striking Dartmouth student in this chaotic spring of 1969, I feel that some comments anent Dartmouth's future are of vital interest to all.
I am concerned as I have never been before about the future of our College. As of this moment our Alumni Fund is far below last year in both the number of contributors and monies received to date. And such negative thinking is in reality an endorsement of Marx, Lenin, and the SDS.
Dartmouth needs our unqualified support more than ever before if we are to defeat the premeditated plan of SDS to close down our College. Refusal to continue to contribute to our College not only totally negates recent progress, but gives to SDS a victory far beyond their fondest hopes in reducing alumni support as one of their main objectives. ...
Like most people, I'm concerned about ROTC, Vietnam, Third Century Fund, the Supreme Court, ad infinitum. And, I have heard all of the pat excuses for not giving from all too many alumni in this spring of 1969. But this is not a pat world.
And, like everyone else, I don't agree with all the decisions of the Trustees, Administration, Faculty and Students who probably don't agree with us about some actions that we have taken during our lifetimes! But time is of the essence on a plane geared to atomic energy and space exploration, not the halcyon days of our youth. We elected the Trustees who are charged by our charter with administration of College affairs. As alumni we must endorse their decisions and support them to the best of our abilities.
Indifference, indolence and negative thinking today fester like a cancer in this world of 1969, and Dartmouth must continue to be a leading integral part of that world by meriting our increased support in all ways now as never before or SDS will ultimatly succeed in closing Dartmouth down as one of its main objectives.
Rochester, N. H.
TO THE EDITOR
The Administration is to be commended for its understanding and firmness in connection with the occupation of Parkhurst Hall by a student minority group on May 6 and 7 and for the informative bulletin sent to the alumni by the Secretary of the College. It was not clear to me, however, at what point in this chain of events the students were expelled from the College.
Winnetka, Ill.
TO THE EDITOR:
I read the May letter of John Wilson '27 in defense of ROTC. I realize there are many sides to the question of whether or not ROTC belongs on college campuses. I'd like, though, to give my own views. For many years, long before the current problem, I have felt that ROTC is highly over-rated. To me, it is something like the National Guard. Neither is worth much but both have become institutionalized with soft billets available - instructors, administrators, etc.
In World War II many of my fellow lieutenants in the Marines had never had any military training. Yet within a few months they were ready for combat. I am against ROTC because it is a waste of money and manpower. The American young man can be trained after college and doesn't need ROTC while in college.
Bethesda, Md.
TO THE EDITOR
The latest series of SDS-ROTC episodes finally causes me to "put my mouth where my money was" - in the Alumni Fund envelope.
Until we have an administration who will "tell it like it is," a la Notre Dame's Hesburgh. I plan to bank my modest contributions in a special Dartmouth account. When it becomes evident there is again some back-bone in Parkhurst, whatever has accrued plus interest will go back in the green and white envelope.
Palo Alto, Calif.
TO THE EDITOR:
It was, with great interest this morning, that I read an advertisment in The NewYork Times requesting, under the title "Dartmouth College Case" funds for the legal defense of the demonstrators in the recent upheaval.
I am no great friend of Dartmouth College, since I was separated in my senior year because I was apparently considered intellectually incapable, or unworthy, of a diploma. Since I now hold the 8.A., the M.A., and am currently writing my dissertation, I still question the judgment of Dean Seymour and his committee. . . .
Whatever the motivation of "these patriotic young people," it seems to me basic that the disruption of the functioning of a college deep in the provinces, geographically and intellectually, proves nothing. They presuma- bly knew the potential consequences of their acts. The Governor and Mr. Dickey seemed to have acted responsibly and with restraint. They deserve the congratulations of even so negative an alumnus (?) as I.
Hartsdale, N. Y.
TO THE EDITOR
I am deeply concerned with the events occurring at Dartmouth and other colleges. I believe that organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society can no longer be tolerated on American campuses. They are disrupting the education of others, and keeing more deserving students from attend;,, the college of their choice. The hard core if these militant dissenters are few in number and should be exorcised from the student body immediately.
I feel the administration handled the recent confrontation at Dartmouth much more expeditiously than did the leaders of other campuses beset by similar turmoil. This is an opinion not a commendation. The violence should never have occurred. A private institution has no obligation to include within it ranks those who would seek to destroy it
I do not, however, feel that I should with-hold my moral or financial support from Dartmouth in her hour of need. I believe that all men of Dartmouth should support her and articulate their concern for the recent events. In this way we can go forward together from a position of understanding and strength.
Lakeside, Calif.
TO THE EDITOR
As a college administrator, and as one who has witnessed disruptions and take-overs on my own campus this year, I can only view with alarm the precipitous action of the Dartmouth administration during the recent occupation of Parkhurst by anti-ROTC students. To welcome massive force on a private college campus is, today, to escalate the conflict and grievances the police were brought to quell. Such action serves to reduce - not restore - the college's ability to function as a relevant institution of liberal inquiry and learning. And further to subject students, those who are uniquely the well-spring of our society and the most vulnerable to its encroachments, to both the "justice" of the civil court and possible disciplinary action of the Conduct Committee is to put them in double jeopardy. Since the civil court has already acted so harshly, I sincerely hope the College will not carry out its own threat of punishment.
These are difficult times for education, and the pastoral quiet of Hanover is surely a thing of the past. The College has too long slept. It has wrapped itself in political and social complacency and only now is being kicked and cajoled into the 1960's. Like so many other universities that have found it easier to ignore social issues, the truth is that Dartmouth should have considered the ROTC question long ago. I hope it will not pass its own irresponsibility on to its students at this critical time in its history.
Portland, Ore.
TO THE EDITOR:
I have noted letters in recent issues of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, many of them authored by active and retired military officers, expressing dissatisfaction with the recent decision to curtail ROTC. Having followed carefully the events of the past month, and having received the special bulletin issued to alumni on May 7 by the Secretary of the College, I wish, as a recent alumnus, to record the following comments.
First, I approve of the basic direction taken by the Faculty on January 31 and May 5. Clearly, this was the very least that could be done, given the mood and structure of undergraduate opinion as registered in the April 28 referendum. The impact of the Vietnam war together with the more gradual accretion of influence within American society on the part of the military-industrial complex has created the conditions whereby most thinking Americans (at least of my generation) who are concerned for the future of our country find the officially sanctioned presence of the military on campus to be repugnant. That this should be true at Dartmouth as at most other institutions of quality should not come as any surprise.
What I do find shocking, however, is the character of the College administration's response to the student demonstration of May 6-7. By admission of the Secretary's own report, no serious effort was made to negotiate the dispute by College officials. Instead, immediate recourse was taken to enforcement by State authorities of (in the context) irrelevant prattle about the sanctity of private property. What the College administration, from President Dickey on down, succeeded in demonstrating was a basic ignorance of and hostility to what the revolution on today's campuses is all about. Substantive issues, such as ROTC, are indeed a component of this revolution. But more than substance, what is involved today is a procedural revolution. It is a revolt against the procedures and circumstances which dictate that in the face of a clear expression of student opinion, an adminstration responds with half of what is demanded, that half being subject to the approval, six weeks hence, of the Board of Trustees' executive committee. If Dartmouth College intends to relate to the needs and wishes of its students, as opposed to trustees, alumni, etc., then greater flexibility of procedure is clearly the order of the day. . . .
The heroes of the current confrontation are the students who were arrested by the State and who faced incarceration. If these actions were intended to gain alumni support by supposedly "acting tough," I can vouch for one alumnus whose sympathy was alienated.
Minneapolis, Minn.
TO THE EDITOR:
Although I am not convinced that Dartmouth College should end its ties with the ROTC programs, I applaud the actions in dealing with those who would disrupt the orderly process of change in the College by the use of force.
A hearty "well done" to President Dickey and his staff!
Syracuse, N. Y.
TO THE EDITOR:
During the past year, this MAGAZINE has carried many letters from Dartmouth alumni deploring the lack of respect for their social and political values shown by today's students. It is sad that President Dickey felt it necessary to respond to the financial threats of this reactionary group by asking the police and the courts to punish Dartmouth men for voicing opposition to the training of killers on the Dartmouth campus.
Who do those letter-writers think students today should respect? Alumni who belonged to and financed national fraternities which were openly and proudly racist? A government which has sacrificed 35,000 Americans, and countless thousands of Asians, in its support of the anti-democratic South Vietnamese regime?
Under other circumstances, I might have criticized the takeover of Parkhurst Hall. I might even have defended the right of those students now enrolled in ROTC to finish the program. But American and Vietnamese lives cannot wait three more years. And they are far more important than any business that is transacted in Parkhurst. The demonstrators who occupied Parkhurst Hall were making a stand for human life, and for that the Dartmouth administration sent them to jail.
Undoubtedly, many of those alumni who have criticized Jamie Newton and the termination of ROTC are making their for tunes from the war and its demands unpon industry. But many students today put the value of life above the value of the dollar and to that end will continue to attack the war on every front. Hopefully, they will win, and their traditions will be the ones of which future Dartmouth generations are proud.
New York, N. Y.
TO THE EDITOR:
In the fervent hope that dissident students will soon leave their present colleges to establish their own educational facilities, I of. fer them a new Alma Mater song to the tune of Cornell's "Far Above Cayuga's waters."
Far removed from Up-Tight College, With its profs and rules, We seek all our newer knowledge In our liberal schools. We don't need Administration; We don't need a Dean; We just want pot stimulation — And some words obscene.
Chorus:
Shoot some people; blast some buildings: Dad will pay our liens; And, if that is not productive, We'll use violent means.
And a new, appropriate college cheer: Who are we? Who are we? We are the boys from Anarchy; We are the bathless; we are the true; I am the ME - and to Hell with you!
New London, N. H.
TO THE EDITOR:
After watching a telecast of our recent weirdo rebellion the thought occurred to me: how could any interviewing committee in their right minds certify that these malcontents were ready for Dartmouth, that they were exceptional boys who would be rated as highly desirable for Dartmouth?
As an old veteran on an interviewing committee for over thirty years, and I speak for my cohorts who give up their Sunday afternoons and nights. Of what value is this interviewing committee anyway? We are little disgusted sheep that see our efforts wasted.. . .
Frankly I believe that most committees are wondering if it is worth the time to serve under this system when boys who are high-ranking students and good athletes are turned down, and some jerk is accepted.
Spend an hour in front of an Inn and watch what goes by. Please do not throw up on the daisies.
Marion, Mass.
Coeducation
TO THE EDITOR:
The most disturbing aspect of the coeducation debate is the overriding sense that most correspondents, both pro and con, do see women as objects, not so much because of their training at Dartmouth, though that couldn't have helped, as because of their training in the family system. Dartmouth men are usually sophisticated enough to avoid blatantly racist remarks, but don't even notice the sexism with which their everyday speech is permeated. The simple fact is that women in this and every society are an exploited group, trained domestics and breeders who are discriminated against in the job and education markets, and that idealization serves them as poorly as any other form of stereotyping. Never mind whether will help Dartmouth men - which it most certainly will. Justice dictates that we owe it to Dartmouth women. And Mr. Augustyn's warning about tokenism is well taken —forty per cent should be a minimum goal.
New York, N. Y.
TO THE EDITOR:
When I left Dartmouth College I wrote Dean Seymour that I did not intend to contribute to the Alumni Fund until the College became coeducational. I hoped that by protesting Dartmouth's policy I could perhaps influence it in a way crucial to its continued existence as a desirable center for learning.
This year I write again to renew my protest I have not failed to note the gradual moves Dartmouth is making toward coeducation, and I welcome them. But the great step has not yet been taken, and rhetoric and tokens will not alone solve the problems of a monosexual institution. These are vast, and extend from inability (rightfully so) to compete for bright students with our up-to-date sister schools, to the immense psychological suffering, and even impairment, visited by Dartmouth on her students. At the time of my note to Dean Seymour I suggested that one need not read The NakedApe to realize that man is in fact an animal with emotional needs developmental and timelessly fundamental which must not be ignored by anyone running an institution affecting others' lives. Dr. Morris points out that even a space-age ape must urinate, a concept worth paraphrasing to read: even a serious college student must have the evolutionarily normal and biologically expected everyday contact with the other sex if he is to be happy and develop normally. To deny him this contact is cruelty.
Gentlemen, men were not made to be sent off scores of miles from women, especially at so critical a time in life as the age of college students. It is time this was simply said: it is just plain wrong; monosexual schools are more than a reflection of a horrifying ignorance of human beings, they are dangerous. That men manage to come through four years at Dartmouth relatively unscathed is a tribute to their flexibility, but it is no excuse for keeping the system as is. And I suspect there are more wounds present in Dartmouth's graduates than is admitted by even themselves.
Boston, Mass.
Afro-American Policy
TO THE EDITOR:
The administration of Dartmouth College had gained my great respect and admiration in the wake of the occupation of Parkhurst. Two classmates and I were moved to sending a telegram in support of the swift and sure injunction-arrest-contempt proceedings. The special Bulletin to alumni served to confirm my belief that Dartmouth College was in good hands and well-prepared for the possibility of anarchistic extortion.
However, after having read "Mutual Sensitivity Wins the Day" in the May issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, I am inclined to feel that our Alma Mater is simply doing a good PR job on the well-publicized problems and subscribing to a policy of virtually 100% capitulation on matters less widely circulated.
Now, logically speaking, the fact that the "negotiations" resulted in fifteen out of nineteen "issues" being resolved for the AAS does not necessarily mean that the College is avoiding conflict "at any cost." However, upon examining some of the "Issues" concerned, it seems that any other conclusion is untenable. For example, any demand that "one (name of one particular race) student each term be released from normal academic obligations ..." is so clearly and patently unfair and discriminatory that it is hard to believe that a progressive liberal arts institution would entertain the thought, much less foster discussion of it.
Hempstead, N. Y.
TO THE EDITOR:
Enclosed is my contribution to the Alumni Fund in the amount of 10¢ which, with due allowance for inflationary influences, is commensurate with my esteem and regard for the present Dartmouth College administration in its reaction to the "demands" presented by its Afro-American Society, and other extremists. The tortured rationalizations under the caption "Mutual Sensitivity Wins the Day," as appears in the May ALUMNI MAGAZINE, when stripped of their banalities, amount to nothing more than complete and abject surrender to black militancy. Arbitrary racial quotas, modifying acceptable admissions standards to accord with "socio-educational deprivation" of Negroes, granting Negro students credits in order to merely recruit more blacks, modifying the Dartmouth judicial system to accommodate alleged communication problems that blacks suffer under, funding the Afro-American Society, etc., is totally contrary to the pre-Dartmouth spirit and heritage. In my opinion, the Dartmouth College trustees, president, and administration should return for a refresher course in contemporary history where the lesson of Munich 1938 should be relearned. Appeasement might buy a little time, but here again the forces of doctrinaire militancy, I believe, will not be placated.
Orlando, Fla.
TO THE EDITOR:
My eldest grandson is graduating from White Plains, N. Y. high school this June. Last summer I helped him get going on applications to Dartmouth, Northwestern, Duke, and U. of Rochester. He stands in the top 10% of his class, is a fine swimmer and earned his letter on the high school team, is a vice-president of his YMCA group, does theatre work, and is a fine boy, if I do say so. As I said in my letter to Hanover asking for the application, he would be the fourth straight generation of Dartmouth men - his father, grandfather, and two great-grand-fathers went to Dartmouth. On his applications to the four colleges he applied for financial help. He works summers and is willing to work at least part time to help pay for his living expenses while in college.
Last month he received answers to his applications, with scholarships for the first year as follows: Northwestern $2900, U. Rochester $2250, Duke U. $2250, Dartmouth accepted but no aid.
If the other three colleges had merely accepted him, with no financial aid, I couldn't complain about Dartmouth's attitude. But these three schools apparently thought enough of him to give him very liberal scholarships. And after reading the article on page 21 of the May 1969 ALUMNI MAGAZINE, it's very plain to see the reason why he didn't get a scholarship at Hanover.
The Afro-American Society cited 18 demands, and as far as I can see, the trustees acceded practically 100% to all of them. As I understand it, the present black enrollment amounts to about 3% of the college student body. Was the remaining 97% ever given a chance to express their opinions, or vote on these 18 demands? I have seen no publicity on this. First of all, the College is trying to get 120 black freshmen this fall and each year following, so that at least 11% of the student body will be black by 1973. If they take 120 black students a year, the blacks would make up 15% of the students by 1973, rather than the national population average of 11%.
I don't think any of us would deny Dartmouth to any applicant, if he fulfills the entrance requirements. But when the College makes an "adjustment in traditional requirements, especially in admissions" (quote from the ALUMNI MAGAZINE) in the case of black students, I think the standards of the entire College will gradually decline. According to some educators, it's the students who cannot fulfill entrance requirements, cannot keep up with their classmates, become frustioned and are the demonstrators and troublemakers on many college campuses....
And now the part that most concerns my grandson. The AA society (point 11) demanded that adequate financial aid be assured each entering black student on the basis of financial need. Again quoting from the ALUMNI MAGAZINE "The trustees have authorized financial aid to all black students who are admitted in the class of 1973, and who demonstrate need." This certainly penalizes the white applicant who has Dartmouth as his first choice, and who although he fulfills the standard requirements cannot get aid like a sub-standard black student. It seems to me that this favoritism for the blacks is as reprehensible as the past favoritism was for the whites....
This whole concept seems to me to be very unfair to the white students, well qualified, who have worked hard to be accepted at Dartmouth, and who want the best education they can get in a high-ranking institution. For every sub-standard applicant accepted, the College is keeping out an applicant who can, and should, go to Dartmouth.
Glencoe, Ill.
Indian Tokenism
TO THE EDITOR:
We applaud the speech of Robert L. Bennett, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, at the ceremonies held at Moor's Indian Charity School in Columbia, Conn. It is unfortunate that more Dartmouth alumni were not able to hear it, and we would hope that the ALUMNI MAGAZINE would see fit to print the speech.
In a day when a great national movement is being built against the concept of "tokenism" in relation to Black Americans, we find it appalling that a college which is proud of its Indian origins and traditions would hold a tokenist attitude toward the American Indian.
As for Mr. Bennett, we wish to thank him for refusing to be a token Indian.
New Haven, Conn.
Dartmouth College Case
TO THE EDITOR:
As each issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE arrives at my law school address, I am reminded of an important legal function which it serves: the inculcation (to some, perpetuation) of the belief that legal history reached its zenith with the decision of the Dartmouth College Case. Seemingly there appears each month new and awed praise of the advocacy of Daniel Webster, the juris prudential acumen of John Marshall (is he not by now at least an honorary alumnus?) and, generally, the glory of Dartmouth for having been associated with the case.
Surely it is heretical to suggest that this is all just so much blather. It is perhaps even irrelevant to suggest this, as I have no doubt that were the case to be overruled by the Supreme Court next year, it would continue to live in the sinews of Dartmouth grads and the mythos of Dartmouth annals.
Nonetheless, I feel compelled to say that this case has never once been mentioned in my three years of legal education _ not in Constitutional Law, not in Contracts, nowhere. The reason is obvious: the case stands only for the proposition that a contract is a contract, constitutionally speaking One could embellish on that a bit, perhaps adding a touch of Gertrude Stein sophistry but in the end that is all you could wring out of the case of precedential value. I submit that the case would only be startling had it been decided the other way.
Now don't get me wrong - I don't want to spoil anyone's birthday party. Luxuriate in your illusions, fellow alumni, if you wish. I simply wish to spare those who intend to pursue the law the embarrassment of citing the Dartmouth College Case on law school exams and in court briefs in the mistaken belief that it stands for some unimpeachable ratio decidendi.
New Haven, Conn.
The Farm Worker Minority
TO THE EDITOR:
How to reach the "mass" audience of Dartmouth men, other than through the ALUMNI MAGAZINE? How to "tell it" so that the message strikes the reader so that he will commit something of himself to an identifiable minority of persons who hardly include college, let alone Dartmouth, in their thinking?
Dartmouth is in the business of producing men who, in the vernacular, will go on to "make it" and so be recognized by their nation, community, and peers. Generally, the many Dartmouth men who "make it" are rewarded for their efforts. This is true of those who have graduated by the midfifties and even of some who are even younger.
On the other hand, what are the chances of farm workers to "make it"? The undersigned, an alumnus who chose not even to try to make it in the conventional channels but who hasn't the backbone to see if he could survive as a farm worker, has found by closely associating with farm workers dignity, intelligence, and, yes, love for man, whatever the level of education.
I have come across no other Dartmouth men who are working with farm workers. My statement then could be considered as a Dartmouth-oriented "voice crying in the desert," which is almost literally the case.
I appeal for support for farm workers who are very possibly creating a historic moment for this country. You should know that the efforts to organize farm workers cannot be placed properly within the context of the labor movement's past, with which many, if not most, Dartmouth men would choose to disassociate themselves for reasons of their own. Please commit something of your position to: United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, Box 155, Tolleson, Arizona, or P.O. Box 1060, Delano, California.
Salinas, Calif.
