Letters to the Editor

Ecumenicity

TO THE EDITOR:

Could the combination of a Princeton graduate as President, an alumnus of Yale as Dean of the College, and a presidentemeritus of Harvard as a new resident of the Hanover community be correctly construed as ample manifestation of Dartmouth's ecumenicity?

That outburst of curiosity is prompted by a re-reading of Jere Daniell's commendable "Eleazar Wheelock and the Dartmouth College Charter" just reprinted by the New Hampshire Historical Society. Thereby this seemingly inhospitable alumnus was reminded that, after all, Dartmouth was founded by a Yale man with essential help from a founder of Princeton. And, so it goes!

But now, lest other extra-collegiate influences — say, from alumnae of Smith, Vassar, Wellesley, et al. — infiltrate and pervade Dartmouth's administration and ambience, may we assert "Enough's enough! Desist! Let further dilution cease!"

Hampton Falls, N. H.

Some Losey Opinions

TO THE EDITOR:

As one who has never written to this publication before and is not likely to again, and out of the experience of having conducted a rather large course this winter term at the College, I should like briefly to express a few opinions:

(1) Contrary to general belief, judging from the cross-section of the 85 students in my class (Drama 64), I find the undergraduates at Dartmouth now to be very gentle, aware, and perceptive, and I hope they can preserve these virtues in later life. (2) In my opinion, the College should go coed as quickly and as fully as possible. Any compromise or delay could be disastrous. I believe the vast majority of students concur in this. (3) Hopkins Center is the greatest single improvement that I find at Dartmouth since I graduated 41 years ago. The innovative work being done by such people as Peter Smith, Matthew Wysocki, Varujan Boghosian, Don Cherry, Jon Appleton — and undoubtedly others with whom I have had no direct contact — leads the way to a new usefulness and a more enlightened education. (4) A universal Pass/Fail/Citation system of grading is desperately needed.

I present these points as my conclusions after an intense eleven weeks in residence. I do not argue them because no argument would affect those who do not wish to be convinced.

Hanover, N. H.

Coeducation (Cont.)

TO THE EDITOR:

For many months, I have followed the controversy concerning coeducation. Personally, I feel that to become involved in the discussion is futile. It has become increasingly apparent to me, as well as to most alumni, that the death knell of allmale education at Dartmouth has long since sounded.

It is most difficult to argue with the statistics cited by Messrs. Pherson and Zuckerman and Miss Carey in the March ALUMNI MAGAZINE. They show they have done their homework. And yet, something is missing. We cannot condemn these people, for what they have failed to recognize is what they have not yet had the pleasure to experience.

If one talks to a member of the Class of '28, he will probably tell you that there were four girls in Hanover when he was there. A member of '45 might agree, or even say there were five. As long as any of us can remember, we all complained about the lack of female companionship at Dartmouth —or was it truly a complaint? Could it not have been merely an exercise in rhetoric that was part of the Dartmouth experience? I think so. In looking over any list of Dartmouth alumni, I am always impressed by the caliber of men. Some of the finest men and minds in the world have passed through these hallowed and womanless halls. I just can't seem to locate any who have been mentally and physically warped by the experience.

The thing that has always been most apparent to me among the alumni is fellowship. Pardon me if you find this trite, but a more apt description cannot be found. Outsiders never cease to be amazed at the "Dartmouth hysteria" which seems to infect the alumni. The bases of this closeness are those things which we experienced in common. The "monastic existence" in Hanover is one of those things.

I am sure that if I am someday introduced to a Dartmouth woman, I will not feel the same "closeness" as when I meet a Dartmouth man. It is not a generation gap or a sex gap, but merely an experience gap. Thankfully, the experiences we had at Dartmouth can never be taken from us. I can only feel sorry for those who will attend Dartmouth, and yet never know the true feeling of being a Dartmouth Man.

Tucson, Ariz.

TO THE EDITOR:

When all the pros and cons of making Dartmouth coeducational have been exhausted one stubborn fact will remain: if Dartmouth goes coed, then no matter how excellent the institution at Hanover may be, it just won't be Dartmouth College any more.

There would seem to be an ephemeral element in these things. Colby Academy at New London for many years was coeducational, then it changed to Colby Junior College and became an all-girls school. Kimball Union Academy, for many years coeducational, changed to all boys. After Dartmouth has been coed for a few years perhaps it will then become all girls. This is no more a "way out" thought than the present proposal would have seemed a few years ago or even now for that matter. If all this happens, the original Dartmouth alumni will have been orphaned into limbo.

The statistic quoted from the questionnaire that some 53% of the present undergraduates would not advise their younger brothers to come to Dartmouth does not necessarily prove that Dartmouth is somehow deficient but rather might tend to show that some unascertained portion of that 53% should not have gone to Dartmouth in the first place. This thought does occur to a Hanover visitor, along with the rather sad thought that in the old days a student would have regarded Dartmouth as the only college his younger brother should go to.

The statistic is unreliable on another count — what basis for comparison do those students have who never attended another college? Who knows what they might have said about a coed college if they had gone to one? Or about Dartmouth if it was already coed?

Even if we knew exactly what the undergraduates thought about this in complete detail, how much weight should the Trustees give to their opinion? The average alumnus out of college as little as ten years would hate to be bound by his undergraduate opinions and would like to think the ten years had taught him something.

One recalls Webster's statement, "It is a small college but there are those who love it." I think it was President Hopkins who updated this by saying, "It is a great college because there are those who love it." Soon perhaps we can combine these and use the past tense: "It was a great small college but there were those who loved it."

By this I do not intend to imply that the proponents of this plan do not love the College while the opponents do. I just think that if the Trustees decide to alter the personality of this 200-year-old institution they will be making a mistake that can never be corrected.

Newport, N. H.

Lost: The Bible

TO THE EDITOR:

Tradition has it that Eleazar Wheelock came on the Hanover scene with a Bible and a drum, and 500 gallons of New England rum. Two hundred years have gone by, and though there appears to be no dearth of the rum, somewhere along the line someone into whose care the welfare of Dartmouth College was entrusted lost the Bible.

In brief, segments of the last two issues of our ALUMNI MAGAZINE contain, in MY opinion, some material particularly offensive to those of us naive enough, or to put it more correctly I feel — sagacious enough to believe in God and Creation, while regarding the theory of evolution as exactly that.

Presently the Class of 1942 is wrapped up in the process of developing a class project, leaving the floor open for any of us to submit an idea. I suggest we present Dartmouth with a weather-proof glass-en- closed plaque of the Ten Commandments, to be located prominently on the Campus green. It appears we would be serving a need.

Lafayette, Ind.

Free Speech Essential

TO THE EDITOR:

Principles and ideals are important, not because they are goals which we necessarily expect to achieve, but because they provide a framework within which we can strive with some common understanding of areas of responsibility. So it is with the free speech and the spirit of inquiry at Dartmouth.

One can sympathize with the indignation of the black students who wrote to the ALUMNI MAGAZINE about the "Shockley Incident," and concede that there is evidence of a double standard in the treatment they received. Yet for them to present one wrong as justification for another is not only futile, but it defies both common sense and history.

Making it impossible for Dr. Shockley to speak cannot be justified by pointing to what happened at the anti-ROTC rally. This is the child rationalizing his misconduct by saying "He hit me first." This is the dictator invading another country to correct an historic wrong. This is the shoplifter seeking to excuse his theft by pointing to excessive profits made by a corporation.

In short, this is the person who sees failure to enforce a law in the past as adequate reason to ignore it at the present, overlooking the evidence that such a philosophy is worse than having no law at all.

It is too bad that the black students who took part in the incident cannot see how important it was to them as well as to the Dartmouth community that Dr. Shockley be allowed to speak. It is too bad that they choose to see the reaction of the College as racist. There are so many things about the whole episode that we can regret, and yet for the College to have ignored this violation of the spirit of free inquiry would only have compounded the injury done to academic freedom by those indignant, sincere but misguided black students.

Milford, N. H.

The BJC Report

TO THE EDITOR:

During a recent visit to Hanover I obtained a copy of the Black Judiciary Committee's report on the Shockley Incident. I found the report both informative and enlightening, and wish that all alumni could have the opportunity of reading it.

Many of the letters you have published on the subject evidence ignorance both of the facts of what took place, and of the relevant background, such as the almost unanimous verdict of physicist Shockley's scientific colleagues that his theories of genetics (a field in which he has no professional qualifications) are not even minimally respectable.

In the letter to Dean Brewster which accompanied their report the Black Judiciary Committee requested "... that the full text of our report should receive the widest publicity since it deals with issues of grave concern to Colleges and Universities throughout the nation." I share this feeling, and therefore suggest that the ALUMNI MAGAZINE print the full report as soon as possible, perhaps in the format used for Alumni College lectures.

The problems the report deals with will not disappear or diminish through our ignorance of their existence. Dartmouth is committed to educating a significant number of Black Americans. If the "Dartmouth fellowship" is to remain real, alumni must confront this fact and its implications.

An open-minded reading of this report provides a unique opportunity to understand black students' perspective. In any case, publication of the report would surely undermine the credibility of defamatory opinions such as those expressed by Mr. Neff in his December letter.

Ithaca, N. Y.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The Black JudiciaryCommittee report was indeed impressive,as we think we stated, and printing it infull was considered. But this was more thanthe MAGAZINE could then manage within thespace and budgetary limits to which it mustadhere as a self-financed publication. We tryto be a magazine of record, but there is somuch textual material pouring forth at theCollege these days that we cannot keep upwith all of it, nor do we believe that weshould.

Thoughts from Vietnam

TO THE EDITOR:

Having spent the past seven months underground (literally) I surface to view some recent ALUMNI MAGAZINES from afar.

(1) The Dartmouth man as revealed in Letters to the Editor often falls into one of two camps: The conservative appears entrenched in a small system sphere, maintaining an uninvolved armchair philosopher's position as regards outside matters. The liberal appears so intent on being involved and or open-minded that in fact he often presents a closed mind. A shortcoming of both positions is that few of either types have or in all probability will rub elbows with some of the aspects of the reality about which they write. Few have experienced working with the "working mass" at his level; yet, lacking this basic involvement, both types set themselves up as experts.

(2) The citizen-soldier concept and its ROTC input source is often not fully appreciated. Especially neglected is consideration of the long-term consequences for both the military and public should a hasty deletion of the ROTC type program leave us without an adequate substitute.

(3) The record of coeducation at Dartmouth could be summed up as: two hundred years of tradition unmarred by progress. The tide may be changing.

(4) The Dartmouth Indian discussion displayed major concern over a minor issue. Again, tradition is no substitute for progress.

(5) Finally, the ALUMNI MAGAZINE could, I feel, have increased meaning for many younger alumni if more space was made available for both the didactic and open forum discussion of current collegiate, national, and international issues. The class news, likewise, could be upgraded to include the discussion and exchange of ideas within and between classes. The best attempt along these lines can be seen in recent Class of '61 news.

Lt. (MC) USNR

Vietnam

A Responsibility Not Met

TO THE EDITOR:

I believe that the decision to phase out the ROTC Program at Dartmouth was a tragic error in judgment and a failure on the part of the College to accept an inherent responsibility.

A British general once said, "The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards." While the size, employment, and influence of the military in our country is a matter justly open to discussion and governmental control, only a fool would deny the need for the existence of a well-managed military organization capable of supporting and defending our national interests.

The management structure of the successful businesses and corporations within our economy today is not the product of a handful of "business academies." The personnel who fill these many levels of responsibility bring to their jobs a wide diversity of backgrounds, experiences, ideas, and training. It is this diversity that combines to create a vital, effective organization.

Effective leadership in the military likewise cannot be the product of a few "Service Academies." To produce a balanced and effective management corps, the men of Dartmouth, Stanford, and the University of Kansas must bring their varied influence into the business of national defense as well as the men of Annapolis, West Point, and the Air Academy.

Does this mean that the military needs Dartmouth? Yes, but at the same time Dartmouth and our country need an effective military if our way of life is to continue. The training of individuals for service within the ranks of the military is a responsibility that must be met in exchange for the guaranteed continuance of the freedoms we value so highly.

Much is said of freedom these days. Naive idealists and at times intentional subversives have attempted to define and employ this concept as a privilege devoid of all responsibility. Acts have been committed under the guise of freedom which not only deny the freedom of others, but in addition defy the established laws of our society, Freedom is not, however, an all-encompassing right granted by an all-merciful God. It is a privilege won through hard struggle and retained only by those who are willing to accept the responsibilities that it exacts in payment for its benefits.

In the case of Dartmouth this responsibility lies in the training and development of young men. Dartmouth must continue to produce a group of individuals capable of taking their place in a growing America — as doctors, corporation executives, teachers, social workers and, for those who voluntarily choose, as professional military men. The existence of a ROTC Program does not infringe on any student's freedom of choice. Rather, it better prepares -our nation to preserve that right and thus represents a responsibility Dartmouth must accept....

Dartmouth has developed her maturity through a period of more than two centuries. She has grown larger, stronger, wealthier, and generally wiser. She is one of the leading colleges in our Nation today. Her graduates fill many positions of leadership across this country. Dartmouth has met the challenges of the past two hundred years with honor and distinction.

Today she is faced with a continuing responsibility which must be recognized and accepted. The College ROTC Program cannot be eliminated just because the emotions and educational climate of the day finds the military an unpopular concept. Many people today have confused a genuine desire for peace with an impractical philosophy of pacificism. The threat of aggression does not abate because we choose to ignore the possibility. The price of freedom is preparedness. If Dartmouth and the many educational centers across our Nation fail to recognize this fact and actively contribute to its support, the results may not be empirically obvious next year, or five years from now, but the effect none the less will be felt by my children and their children, and yours.

Commander, USN

Kailua, Hawaii

Dartmouth's Approach Supported

TO THE EDITOR:

I recently had the opportunity of hearing Dean Schaefer (Dept. of Chemistry at Dartmouth) talk about some of the contemporary student unrest at both Dartmouth and other universities. I was impressed with his views and the way Dartmouth is approaching these situations. Their approach is realistic and the key to their approach is not trying to imagine Dartmouth or any university as being exactly as it was when we were there. As alumni our views are usually tainted with sentimental memories. Unless we can detach ourselves from these memories, we cannot look at the situation in a constructive and contemporary way. The administration at Dartmouth is attempting to do this, and although they don't have all the answers, they are a lot closer to them than many other institutions including the one I am presently associated with.

Dean Schaefer commented upon several specific and new approaches that Dartmouth is taking. One of these concerned the enforcement of Code and Conduct. There is a committee on Code and Conduct composed of both faculty and students. Any student who is brought before this committee for any reason has the opportunity to have one of the deans assist him with his defense. The dean, then, is not sitting in judgment of the student but, rather, he is actually assisting him. The result is a higher level of confidence and communication between the students and the deans. More students are availing themselves of these opportunities to communicate directly with the deans without fear of the deans initiating any police action. The key is honesty and trust. Dean Schaefer thinks this approach is meeting with a high degree of success.

This is just one example of what I consider a realistic view of student affairs by the administration. I support Dartmouth's approach all the way from coeducation to drugs and feel that we as alumni have the responsibility to try to understand what the administration is doing before we deliberately take a stand that reflects more our own sentimental views than today's student and today's campus.

Ann Arbor, Mich.

The Rugby Facts

TO THE EDITOR:

Comments on rugby football in several issues of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE are perhaps too peripheral to alumni interest for any followup. But let me explain my own interest first and then offer a note.

During the last spring of my graduate work here, rugby was "revived" in Northern California and we chemists, having destroyed all the campus in competition available to us, went out for rugby, and played a bit for the California varsity. Then we organized a club team and I played for another ten years and faded away for another five. We did all right at our peak in 1937-38, beating California once, tying them once and tying Stanford both years. We had as many as eight Ph.D. chemists on the field at one time but did better when we were loaded with high school phys-ed teachers with good football backgrounds.

Following are the facts, as they have been recounted innumerable times to me (I have never bothered to read a word on the matter). Benjamin Ide Wheeler and David Starr Jordan, presidents of California and Stanford, unhappy over the increasing death rate of American football (no forward pass, flying wedge, center rush) axed it in about 1906 and instituted rugby. A touring New Zealand All Black team were brought in on their return from England and gave an initial lesson at 67-3 or thereabouts and left a few players who became Californians and were strong influences in the game. One (whose quality as a player was aptly described to me once by one of his contemporaries, "Why Jim Wylie was so incredibly clumsy that you couldn't be anywhere on the field without falling over him!") coached Stanford teams up into the fifties.

Rugby was, during this pre-World War I era, the principal fall contact field game for Stanford, California, and the Bay Area. I don't think it went much farther south or north. It was given up gradually during that war and never recovered afterward, although some club rugby was played briefly after WW I.

American teams were sent to the Olympic Games in 1920 and 1924 and were made up almost entirely of players from this region. Dink Templeton, long time and great track coach at Stanford, was conspicuous among them. However, rugby was played only as a "demonstration sport" and only three nations entered teams. In 1524 (Paris Games) the Americans incapacitated two French players and were so rough they required a police escort from the field. Why the British entered no teams I do not know, but had they been present, they would certainly have dominated the competition.

Rugby football was "revived" in California in 1933 and has been played steadily ever since. Few oldtimers still live to speak with reverence of the old days and to scorn the quality of current rugby and this is just as well, because, in all probability, better rugby is played now than then.

My best information is that rugby began on the East Coast also about 1933, and was taken up by Ivy League schools soon there- after. It is a good depression game. It was also played in the midwest before WW II Today, I conjecture that more teams play in southern California than anywhere else.

Berkeley, Calif.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Holfelder's letter refers, we assume, to the February and Marchinserts presenting Alumni College lectureson the contemporary state of man, from thepoints of view of an anthropologist and abiologist.