Letters to the Editor

The Events in May

TO THE EDITOR! Your June issue was mainly devoted to a full coverage of the so-called “Student Strike” to protest the Cambodian War. I am entirely in sympathy with student and faculty opposition to this war, but question the relevancy of their action. (Today’s students often question the relevancy of various courses and other features of college life, altho not often specifying relevant towhat.

You refer to this apparently high-tension event as a great educational experience! I hope that normal class work and campus services at Dartmouth are that! I enclose an interesting commentary by our Maine hu- morist, John Gould, in the Christian ScienceMonitor of July 9th, on the “relevancy” of omitting caps and gowns and band from the Bowdoin Commencement.

I hope that in your issue for June 1971 you will have an article on the 1970 “Strike” as it looks from the perspective of “One Year Afterwards.”

Orono, Me.

TO THE EDITOR; I have read from cover to cover the June issue. I want to tell you that I think you and your associates and the others who worked on or contributed to this issue did a terrific job in explaining in detail the recent “strike” at the College. I have for a great many years, as you know, been a subscriber but I really think that this was the best issue of the Alumni Magazine.

Congratulations on a fine job well done.

New York, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR: I have read everything in the July issue and am amazed to note how many alumni seem to know all the answers. I freely admit I do not, so after reading these letters I read once again, this time in entirety, the material written for the June issue by various members of the Dartmouth community, including the President, members of the faculty, and of the student body. I seriously doubt that many of the dissidents took the time to read this material “in toto.” Had they done so, the tone of their letters might have been quite different. I attended the Commencement exercises in conjunction with my Fiftieth this June and left Hanover feeling very proud to be a Dartmouth man.

For the record, in 1942 I came out of civilian life to become a combat intelligence officer in the Army Air Force and spent over two years in Africa and Italy with two heavy bomb groups. I felt Nixon’s decision to enter Cambodia was a wise one but, I hasten to add, this is certainly not proof positive that it was.

After reading the Kemeny letter telling what he had done in concert with the students and faculty in early May I wrote him a letter saying that I thought he had acted wisely. I further congratulated him on his efforts, the apparent results of which had, unlike the cases of many other educational institutions, brought the admin- istration and the students together on what might well have been an exremely divisive issue. Although one alumnus stated in these columns that President Kemeny’s actions “will not be respected in the long run,” I feel strongly that the reverse will be true. I believe the action he took under conditions of great stress will be recognized as perhaps one of the most courageous, forthright and timely of those ever taken by a Dartmouth College president.

To conclude, let me say that many of us old timers may feel quite differently about how the College should be operated. It is difficult to keep in tune with changing conditions which, despite our disinclination to accept, may actually have considerable merit. Let’s give our president a chance to work things out along the lines of what he considers to be in the best interests of the College. Let’s not jump down his throat because his actions do not always coincide with the way we feel about many things, with some of which we, after all, may be somewhat out Of touch.

Clearwater Beach, Fla.

TO THE EDITOR: The National Strike Call (for American college students), as published in the June issue of the Alumni Magazine is so full of fodder for all peace-loving peoples that I think it should be presented to the student bodies of Moscow University and similar institutions of higher learning in the Soviet Union, but with minor—very minor—• changes as indicated below.

National Strike Call

(1) That the Government of the Soviet Union cease its meddling in the Middle East and Czechoslovakia; that it unilaterally and immediately withdraw all forces from the Middle East and Eastern Europe. (2) That the Government of the Soviet Union end its systematic repression of political dissidents and release all political prisoners, and

(3) That the universities and the scientific community end their complicity with the Soviet war machine by an immediate end to defense research, officer training, subversion research, and all other such programs.

I’m sure the gentlemen in the Kremlin would consider it a real knee-slapper.

Kankakee, 111.

TO THE EDITOR: President Kemeny, having announced that civilization in this country has reached a stage that he finds “totally intolerable,” and having become the paladin of the anti-war crusade, should, I think, tell us (a) how he describes the condition of the teachers and students of Czechoslovakia, and (b) what he proposes to do to keep this country and other free nations from going the way of Czechoslovakia.

Chicago, 111.

TO THE EDITOR: What a perfectly swell piece of reportage, the Strike Issue. Bravo.

New York, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR: I read the June Alumni Magazine with profound admiration. Having trod the shifting sands of the fourth estate for some forty years, I think I know something about publications. Your production is superb.

I gather Dear Old Dartmouth is moving through this period of public distress with great common sense.

Washington, D. C.

TO THE EDITOR: I read with considerable fascination the June article entitled “What of the Future?” by Kenneth Bruntel ’7l. He writes glowingly of the enthusiasm of participation and of hearing about such subjects as economic imperialism, foreign policy, the draft and more. He refers disdainfully to the “tyranny of grades” and the “sterile and moribund ‘old’ Dartmouth with its leit-motif of standard education.”

Some years ago, as undergraduates, my contemporaries and I also had spirited discussions covering subjects of then current interest; only they were called bull-sessions, and we faced up to the reality of the formal disciplines of education as well.

It is lamentable that today some feel that academic degrees should be given for participating in king-sized, year-long bull sessions. I hope and trust that Mr. Bruntel’s “new” Dartmouth never comes into being.

Needham, Mass.

TO THE EDITOR: Most of the comments on the current crises at Dartmouth reflect either the opinions of very recent graduates who easily understand current student attitudes, or those of later vintage who very often do not. In any case members of this older group are at a disadvantage: either they are distant from the campus, or on it as teachers or administrators. For this reason, my experi- ence as an alumnus of mellow vintage who has recently been back on a big American campus as a student (albeit a graduate one) may be of special interest. I offer these observations to my fellow alumni of the over-30 group. My friends:

The majority, not just the strident minority, of students at good schools like Dartmouth are probably more disaffected with the “Establishment” than you think. Their feelings about Vietnam, “the system,” and even about the way (they think) colleges are made to support the system while seeming to be independent—these feelings run deep and strong and will cer- tainly not vanish just because a few “hard- core agitators” are removed from under the campus elms.

I think the major reason for this state of affairs is that most of today’s students have a profoundly different experience of living from ours.. Let me cite an example. The film “Easy Rider” told of two rather hairy types who were bullied and finally killed in the South because their looks and life-style enraged the rednecks and not-so-rednecks of small town America. While you, my fellows who graduated before 1965, may recognize that this could happen, you do so through an effort of the imagination. After seeing that film, I deliberately questioned at least 30 assorted undergraduates and graduates at the State University of New York at Albany, where I was doing Ph.D. work, about the movie. Most of them were not particularly hirsute, as present styles go. Every singleone of them said he had either experienced himself some kind of frightening public hostility or harassment because of his dress or appearance, or had a friend who had, and not in the South but in small towns in New York State and throughout America. One fellow who wore a mild Buffalo-Bill-style goatee and mustache told of being verbal- ly—and obscenely—abused and threatening- ly approached by three young men in brush cuts and business suits—until he stood up and disclosed that he was six-foot-six and wearing a steak knife in his right hand. These same students, virtually without exception, looked to the police not for protection from this kind of treatment but for more of the same.

Students at Dartmouth, we may be sure, generally share these attitudes. How differ- ent is our experience—which tends to know the police as the guys in the squad car who check our house while we’re away, and the redneck as the fellow who pumps gas and says “sir." Note that I emphasize “experi- ence.” It is in what we experience, not in what we know theoretically, that we are so different from these young men—these young men who may be drafted to fight the war in which not even we any longer believe.

With this in mind, thank the Board of Trustees and John Dickey that John Kemeny was president when the Cambodian crisis struck. With full respect and liking for Dr. Dickey, I must say that I strongly suspect that Dartmouth would not have come through the crisis as well as it did had he still been in charge. He was of an older order and he was connected by association, whether rightly or wrongly, with the State Department and hence with what the student thinks of as “those wonderful folks who brought you Vietnam.” For this Cambodian crisis was one to break college presidents or reduce them to ridiculous ineffectuality, to disintegrate faculty rational- ity, to dissolve a whole academic term into aimlessness and absenteeism. Something very near that happened—with several serious acts of arson into the bargain—at the university where I was studying. Without superb leadership, this could have happened at Dartmouth. Instead, the College finished the year, as far as I can tell, with style and vigor, separate in opinions but united as an institution that takes learning and life very seriously.

Newark, Delaware

TO THE EDITOR: Apparently, a great many of today’s college students are more interested in so- called Social Justice than in an education. They also apparently think they can govern the country without any experience and very little maturity. Obviously they are, for the most part, quite intelligent, as witnessed by the “Strike” article by Masselli and Rockwell in the June issue of the Alumni Magazine.

As is the case with most of the young protesters of the day, some of the statements they make concerning beliefs they believe are not shared by everyone. For instance, they wrote “The impetus for the strike at Dartmouth, and nationally, came on the night of April 30, when Richard Nixon announced the American invasion of Cam- bodia.” It was clear to me at the time, and, of course, is absolutely clear now, that Mr. Nixon sent troops into the Communist sanctuaries, inside Cambodia, to defeat and destroy the Viet Cong Communists, not the Cambodians. His purpose was to prevent massive attacks on our men in Viet Nam.

A further case in point of mistaken action, as I see it, were the rallies on various campuses in support of jailed Black Panther leader Bobby Seale. This man is accused of murder, is he not? Is it not also suspected that he has advocated violent overthrow of the government? Seale is not a “political prisoner.” He represents a threat to life and limb. Negro or White, any man who is as dangerous as he is belongs in jail permanent- ly. Those who take the law into their own hands should be restrained. . . .

It has been my longstanding opinion that it is hard enough to gain admission to Dartmouth and even harder to stay there. It was an honor for me to be admitted. I learned a lot technically and a lot about life itself, and I matured. I was proud to graduate and my education has been of immeasurable help to me these past 17 years. But, I am now beginning to wonder whether or not the admissions office is becoming too concerned with admitting the radical element, such as Webber, just to provide some kind of “balance” between sensible men and “wildies.”

A student must learn to think for himself, and perhaps the so-called strike at Dart- mouth helped some of them mature. But they are at Dartmouth to learn the value of self-discipline also. They and/or their par- ents paid a lot of hard cash for the wonderful experience gained as a student at Dartmouth and striking just because you don’t agree with everything that is going on in the world is certainly a waste of that money and quite immature.

Atlanta, Ga.

TO THE EDITOR; I was quite appalled upon reading the July issue of the Alumni Magazine to find that my class (1961) was represented in the Letters column by the inane remarks of Mr. Schwarzell. In reaction to the campus activities resulting from the Cambodian and Kent State crises, he evidently decides to cease supporting the College financially. I can only hope that Mr. Schwarzell’s commit- ment to other institutions (the United States Government is one that comes to mind) is more enduring than his commitment to Dartmouth. I have no doubt that he would be the first to condemn the radicals for refusing to support the government as an institution merely because they disagree with certain decisions made by the govern- ment.

The real trouble with Mr. Schwarzell’s “solution” to his problem is that it is as simple-minded as it is simple. If there is one thing the radicals desire it is the breakdown of our institutions, and if there is one sure way for that to happen, it is the refusal of the Schwarzells of the country to support those institutions during times of stress. As a resident of San Francisco, I have had the opportunity to observe the partial deteriora- tion of two of the country’s leading universities—one private and one public— through that sort of reasoning. On the one hand, the very able president of Stanford University recently resigned, citing as a prime reason his disillusionment over the discontinuance of financial support from a number of wealthy alumni. On the other hand, the voters of California recently turned down a bond issue for badly needed medical teaching facilities at the University of California—student unrest being cited as the principal reason for the adverse vote. This is known as cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face—and that can be beneficial to no one but plastic surgeons and revolutionaries.

Assuming it were desirable (and I don’t believe it is), it would always be possible to get a new college president, a new board of trustees or even (God forbid!) a new baseball or football coach. But there is only one Dartmouth College, and it is something I hope most of us love and will continue to support regardless of feelings we may have about individual policies or events.

Just for the record, I should say that I wholeheartedly approved of President Kem- eny’s actions and I am particularly gratified by the manner in which the entire college community conducted itself through the troubled period. More than ever before, Dartmouth is now exhibiting a capacity for real educational leadership, and I only wish I could have had the same experiences and opportunities on campus ten years ago that today’s undergraduates have. If President Kemeny’s first months in office are any indication of what’s to come, then the College is in good hands.

San Francisco, Calif.

TO THE EDITOR: I enthusiastically congratulate Dr. Kem- eny and the Dartmouth student body and staff for their gesture of moral commitment following the Cambodia intrusion and the Kent State murders. Dartmouth has in the last decade emerged from a preoccupation with reenforcing the stolid and self-inter- ested attitudes of the affluent to a dynamic concern for social change and moral clarity. I am much more proud now of my “AB Dartmouth” than I was when the College was known primarily as the elitist training ground for the hail-fellow-well-met and the respectable reactionary.

Lusaka, Zatnbia

TO THE EDITOR: In reference to Faculty Commentary by Jonathan Mirsky, June 1970. Neshoba Coun- ty claimed three victims—Chaney, Goodman (Goodwin) and Schwemer. OMISSION IS OPPRESSION!

New York, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR: The articles in the June issue of the Alumni Magazine attempting to explain and justify strike week have raked up some personal ire largely subdued since May. At that time I wrote a letter to President Kemeny indicating the sentiments of at least one alumnus. Despite the articles, the sentiments still hold. I realize that, if all the back-slapping which has been coming out of Hanover for the past two months is any indication, my letter is probably a “vox clamantis,” but I have hopes.

Chapel Hill, N. C.

TO THE EDITOR: Although on May 19 President Kemeny wrote a fairly lengthy letter to the alumni setting forth his defense of the Administra- tion’s decision to suspend classes for a week, he nimbly sidestepped the central issue presented by this action. Was it proper for the College Administration to subscribe the name and prestige of Dartmouth to a position on a contemporary political issue? I submit that the decision to do so counters the venerable Western tradition that the University—the institution itself—should be a non-partisan forum for the free and untrammeled search for truth in all areas of academic endeavor.

Second, President Kemeny’s letter fails to respond to the irregularities cited by the leaflet distributed by the “Strike Back” Committee. Why did the general meeting at which the decision to strike was taken fail to call for a “No” vote? Why was but a “single party” ballot presented? Was it proper that the efforts to organize by those students opposed to the strike were not protected from harassment, that they were given little opportunity to present their position before the vote was called? A vote by the student body on such an issue should have been by secret ballot overseen and conducted by the Administration itself, after fair opportunity had been alforded to advocates of both the pro and con positions to prepare and publish their arguments, and both a “Yes” and “No” choice should surely have been provided on the ballots. And all of this, of course, does not touch the question of whether or not the College acted in breach of contract with those students who wished to continue their classes, and, indeed, whether this is a matter to be submitted to, and decided by, a vote of the student body.

Third, President Kemeny’s statement that during the period in question the College did not suffer a single violent incident may seem to afford some justification for relief and perhaps even congratulations, but one wonders if this was not so simply because those who would have resorted to violence had their way without it. Does the fact that there were no violent incidents really justify the course followed?

Finally, I—as a Dartmouth alumnus—feel somewhat slighted that I too did not have an opportunity to cast my ballot when the vote was taken. I consider myself to be a concerned member of the Dartmouth Com- munity. When the College suspended classes for a week in protest of the invasion of Cambodia, it did not reflect the convictions of this member of the Dartmouth family.

APO, New York

Coeducation (cont.)

TO THE EDITOR: The growing debate over whether Dart- mouth should become coeducational has disturbed me a bit, and I have been encouraged to share my concern and viewpoint with you and thus with the larger body of alumni.

The debate raises for me the whole issue of responsible alumni involvement in the governance of the College. What are the limits of their competence in the complex field of university administration? How deeply can they understand the issues which call upon so much of the time and energy of students, faculty, administrators, and "trus- tees? Perhaps most important, what capacity have they to make sound judgments about the life of an institution with which few of them are intimately related except through local clubs and the Alumni Magazine? I really question whether anyone even ten years out of college who is not related on a day-to-day basis can possibly appreciate the current academic scene—and I say this as one whose profession requires him to spend a great deal of time listening to students, faculty, and administrators in an attempt to understand what’s really going on in the midst of their rather bewildering world.

I find I want to divide the issue. It seems to me alumni have much to offer in terms of goals and purposes—what kind of education should Dartmouth provide young adults today, what sort of person is needed in today’s business, professional, and political milieu, etc. By the same token, I question seriously their competence when it comes to questions of methodology—how can the educational goals be achieved—and context —what sort of environment should surround the learning process. And thus I question whether trustees or administrators should feel bound to abide by alumni opinion in the latter area, while listening closely to such opinion in the former.

Coeducation seems to me to fall into the category of methodology and environment, not goals and purposes. I cannot see the quality of Dartmouth’s education being damaged by the presence of women on campus—it might even be improved. Some of the arguments for it seem pretty persuasive. (My own son would reject Dartmouth because it is not coeducational.) The real issues at stake in any policy decision are the quality of education and its relevance to the times and issues of our society. If, as I believe, the effects of coeducation will be relatively inconsequen- tial for both these issues, then the deciding factor ought to be the reasonable desires of those most affected by it and for whom Dartmouth primarily exists—its students. If today's students, after responsible reflection and assessment of the possible consequences, believe their education will be improved by such a change, if they believe their experience and their ability to build a better society will be enlarged by it, then I think their voice should carry the day. I can think of no legitimate reason for opposing them. Given the maturity and often incredible wisdom of the current student generation, this alumnus is quite prepared to trust their judgment on this issue.

Ministry in Higher Education The Episcopal Church

New York, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR; At the annual Class Officers meeting last May the College held a special meeting in Dartmouth Hall to acquaint us with the subject of coeducation. The large majority of the speakers from the floor were opposed to it.

I have the highest regard for President Kemeny and this is shared by all my alumni friends. I read his report as chairman of the committee to consider coeducation.

I believe, however, that only a man who has spent four years as an undergraduate at Dartmouth can possibly have the true perspective on this subject.

If Dartmouth remains what it was founded for and which its seal indicates, and remains a men’s college, I feel sure there will be no shortage of eligible men who will prefer it.

South Strafford, Vt.

TO THE EDITOR: Coeducation at Dartmouth is a complex issue that even an entire Alumni Magazine could not adequately cover. But coeducation does demand a continuing exchange of opin- ion. so I will briefly add some of my ideas and observations.

As a husband of one of the new undergraduate Yale women, I have some first-hand opinions on one approach to coeducation, and they are not good. Coedu- cation. I feel, must be complete, or not at all. All the favorable arguments for coeduca- tion—balanced education, happier and healthier social lives—collapse in a partially coeducated situation.

Such education by a heavily uneven ratio (7-1 initially at Yale) has left many men and women frustrated and discouraged. For one thing, a ratio or quota system, as many minority groups already know, is just as discriminatory as exclusion. With quotas, competition for entrance is still based not on skills or excellence, but on other arbitrary traits, such as race or sex. Discrimination of any sort is repugnant to an intelligent person.

Furthermore, a lopsided ratio does not coeducate a classroom. Women are still self- conscious representatives of a “woman’s point of view,” not scholars in their own right. Some teachers my wife had at Yale are condescending or sardonically tolerant towards the few women—the women who are “so lucky” to be getting a first-rate education. I have heard that some of the girls in the Dartmouth exchange program felt the same way. How can balanced education occur in face of these attitudes?

Despite arguments to the contrary, even social life in a quota coeducated school leaves much to be desired. There are not enough women to go around, so most men go dateless. Such high quota ratios also prompt many of the women at a “coed” school to become walking fashion shows; I know this is so at Yale and Wesleyan. And while there are many men who will of course welcome such fashion, still others want women to be individuals and real people. Even women at a “coed” school are not altogether happy. One of the biggest complaints of women at Yale this year has been the scarcity of women friends. Women need other women as well as men.

What does all this suggest for Dartmouth in its approach to coeducation? If there is to be coeducation, let it be complete, or not at all. For the sake of male undergraduates, future female undergraduates, and Dart- mouth itself, coeducation should approach a 50-50 ratio. The method could be the attraction of a women’s college to the vicinity to become coordinate or the establishment of a coordinate college (as with Hamilton and Kirkland). It could be a massive and carefully considered expansion of the present exchange program, or the acceptance of Dartmouth women under- graduates in large numbers. If however, the cost of balanced coeducation is simply too great, I feel Dartmouth would best be served by remaining a college for men. Token or lopsided “coeducation” would only serve to remove Dartmouth from being a college for men without initiating her into balanced education.

New Haven, Conn.

TO THE EDITOR: I wish to register my strong feelings on a couple of subjects which seem to be under consideration now.

Firstly, I believe it would be a mistake to make Dartmouth coeducational. The fact that many of our sister institutions are doing so doesn’t bear on the subject, to my way of thinking. If most other quality institutions are coed, all the more reason for one to stand out against the general trend, add to continue as it has in the past. To the best of my knowledge, there are still plenty of applicants for each freshman class, regard- less of whether girls are admitted or not.

Secondly, usage of the term “university” disturbs me. While it is entirely possible that there are different plans for the institution, the great overriding attraction that Dart- mouth has to many, many of its alumni is that it is a college rather than a university. Again, a standing against the tide of ever- increasing size and diversity appeals more to me than trying to become a small Harvard, whatever that may be.

It may be a wish for something that doesn’t change which prompts my com- ments, but honestly I would find it difficult to support a Dartmouth which is much changed in the areas to which I refer.

St. Paul, Minn.

The Declining Professor

TO THE EDITOR: I have just seen the results of a poll of 4,000 juniors and seniors in high schools across the country. They were asked to list the ten living Americans they most respected from a list of 300 names with write-ins permitted. President Nixon was the over- whelming first choice followed by their parents (write-ins), Bob Hope, Neil Arm- strong, etc.

I suspect that it is exposure to college administrators and faculties which turns so many of these fine teenagers into odd balls, kooks and doubtful citizens. In the past few years, with the possible exception of Protestant Minister, I know no profession which has so fallen in prestige and public esteem as that of University Professor. I see no way to change things at Dartmouth or anywhere else so as to keep the typical college alumnus from feeling impotent, trapped, and that he has been had.

Monticello, 111.

“Good Old American Know-How”

TO THE EDITOR: It took Noel Perrin’s article in a recent New Yorker to break my self-imposed exile of silence from Dartmouth . . . but here I am, a fogey old alumnus two years out of school.

The anti-war movement, under the walls of ivy, took flight only after many other students were bounced on their asses for saying nasties against His Eminence of Infallibility; el Exigente of the Yoonited States. Hoopah! The president and rep rivers have been found out! That’s fine. Let’s get the war machine stopped. God knows it would be a nice change after, how many years now? One thing about ' good ol’ American know-how . . . once you get it going, it’s damned hard to stop.

Which brings me to the issue in question: Good ol’ American know-how. Simply translated, this means American Business. It is, admittedly, an argument left over and found floating on vagrant breezes once the much-vaunted radicals of the ’3o’s made their peace with the world . . . BUT ... if the taxpayer did not approve the appropria- tions for war . . . there would be no money to buy war things from business . . . and if business is not turning a $ from war things . . . they will have to make other things to stay alive.

So, if we are going to stop the wars, or the one continuous war of conquest the USA has been making since about 1850 (the date keeps being pushed back the more I think about; it), we had better get to work on American Business. Because the backbone of American Business is the tax dollar spent on govt contracts.

If you thought the anti-draft and anti-war thing was a toughy, try knocking American Business to your Dad! It usually creates a rift of about ten years width between generations. . . .

The main thing is to keep pushing the frontiers back. War was a difficult first step, but once you see a commercial on TV selling on the basis of peace, you know you have it licked. Now what we have to do is start proxy fights, join up with Ralph Nader, join a middle-sized corporation and bend a few minds, and best of all . . . when you make that Alumni Fund contribution, make it on the condition that Dartmouth divest itself of the stock of corporations involved heavily in defense work.

And one further thing . . . bring your kids up not to respect war, or the hollow words of politicians who have invested in the industry. That ought to raise a few hackles.

Seattle, Wash.

Hail to Hicks

TO THE EDITOR: On his “retirement” a few years ago Ort Hicks ’2l became Vice President Emeritus of the College. I am sure that many of the alumni have some idea of how active he has been since then on behalf of the College. If he should ever discontinue those activities, will the Administration grant him another “emeritus” to go with the one he has already won? Surely there should be some recogni- tion for what has been a labor of love on his part.

Lexington, Mass.

Restored to ’45

TO THE EDITOR: On page 50 of your June issue, you carried a picture of some alumni in Los Angeles discussing the forthcoming Glee Club concert. While Dick Gilman does indeed look young enough to be a member of the Class of ’54 as you reported, he has not to my knowledge resigned from the Class of ’45. As a matter of fact, he attended ’4s’s tremendous 25th and was the “danc- ingest” college president you would ever want to see. Our Class is proud of Dick Gilman, President of Occidental; please restore him to his proper Dartmouth Class.

Carmel, Ind.

The new Sherman Library facility, connecting Baker Library at its northwest corner with Carpenter Fine Arts Build- ing, was dedicated in late spring. The addition, first academic structure to be completed by means of the Third Cen- tury Fund, is a memorial to the late Jacob S. Sherman of Waterbury, Conn., and is the gift of his two Dartmouth sons, William P. Sherman ’3B and Robert P. Sherman ’42. The Sherman Library has provided an

additional 4200 square feet of book- stack space as well as extensive renova- tion of the Art Library reading room. Mr. Sherman, whose name the facility bears, was an inventor and designer who held more than thirty patents. In 1912 he invented the self-lighter for carbide lamps and later created many items in the hardware and gift fields. He founded the Park Sherman Company in Water- bury and was its active head until he retired in 1961. He died in 1967.