Letters to the Editor
Coeducation ( Cont.)
TO THE EDITOR:
I am damn mad. So many of these arguments about coeducation at Dartmouth are enough to make one ... I am at a loss for words.
To start with I will refer to that long letter in your July issue from Asst. Prof. C. D. Thron. In the first paragraph if you substitute the word "Smith" for Dartmouth in the two places it appears, substitute "Northampton" for Hanover and then change the last word in the paragraph to "men," the paragraph still makes sense. It is very dramatic—very impressive! It shows what a narrow-minded organization is Smith to deny its facilities to a minority of the citizens of the country. (Mr. Katz, about whom I will write in a moment, declares women to be the majority of the citizens of the nation.) Shall we demand that Congress make all education in the country available to all sexes male, female and convertible (borrowing a phrase from Victor Borge)?
Is there any good, sound, practical reason why Dartmouth should not remain a men's college and Smith remain one for girls? If women want a college as superior as Dartmouth why not develop one. There is no law against it.
Mr. Thron goes on to tell of the "ugly fact about an all-male Dartmouth and that fact is discrimination." What balderdash! That word "discrimination" has appeared frequently in these arguments and it seems to be used in the sense of an adverse distinction and we are asked to consider that this applies to the entrance policy of the College. This adverse distinction suggests that the College has a pet hate against women. Surely the saner description of an all-male policy is one of selectivity. It is not a question of a negative policy designed to deny the facilities to women. It is a positive program intended for men.
I may be a little out of touch living abroad as I do, so may I ask if any women's colleges are accused of discrimination against men? I have not heard of any....
Frank D. Katz writing in that same issue, seems to go ethereal over that word discrimination. He says: "I have always suspected that the word tradition is used not as the symbol for continuing all that is good from the past, but as a justification for continued discrimination against those members of our society who have not previously been endowed with the privileges of the upper classes." Is he talking about women? And are they all so under privileged? He can't be referring to men because I know of many who were so lacking in the endowment of upper class privileges that they worked their way through college. I don't see it.
I consider Mr. Katz is singularly unwise and gains little by being provocative when he brings race into the discussion. Again I quote him: "... whether or not Dartmouth ought to go coeducational is no more difficult than the isslue of whether or not it ought to admit Blacks." In my day there were blacks and there were foreign students. So what?
If Dartmouth goes coeducational then it will no longer be the Dartmouth College which did me so much good.
Andover, England
TO THE EDITOR:
I have just read the address of John Sullivan '21 at the 50th reunion of his Class in Hanover as reported in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE for July. It expresses most eloquently my feelings on the training of reserve officers and the admission of women as undergraduates. May it forecast the Trustees' action at the time of decision.
Probably, as President Kemeny pointed out in his reply, the phasing out of ROTC reflected dissatisfaction with the Vietnam war rather than officer training as such. But, I believe it still holds, two wrongs do not make a right.
As to coeducation, let's wait awhile. In a few years Yale, Princeton and others will have demonstrated the soundness or unsoundness of such action. And, I feel sure, this passage of time will not destroy Dartmouth's ability to attract "top-flight girls."
Medina, Ohio
TO THE EDITOR:
There were several excellent letters to the editor in the June 1971 issue expressing in fine manner opposition to making Dartmouth coeducational. My feelings, also, are strongly against such a move.
It may be significant that at our 45th reunion in 1970 at a Class meeting a great majority of the wives and widows as well as the men in a vote from the floor felt that Dartmouth should retain its tradition of males only. So may it be!
Cleveland, Ohio
TO THE EDITOR:
It is inconceivable to me that any educational institution which is sensitive to the main currents of social progress in America will choose to remain virtually allmale.
I hope and believe that the Trustees will endorse the admission of women.
Weston, Conn.
TO THE EDITOR:
After reading letters from various irate alumni and faculty members on the pros and cons of coeducation, I would like to say this: I am one of the young people who was unable to go to Dartmouth because of her sex. I left college, married a Dartmouth man,, and became very much a part of the "Dartmouth Experience." I took part in Drama Department activities, became friends with students and faculty members, sat in on some classes and guest lectures. And I learned.
Being a woman does not stop one from learning. And, more to the point, it does not stop one from contributing—either within the college community or in the world at large. Certainly, some of the charm of the all-male Dartmouth will be missed. Certainly, sexual activity on the campus will increase with the implementation of coeducation. But young men and women will be in a situation which will allow them to know and understand one another as individuals. Women are as capable of contribution and discussion as men are: on the Green, in the Hop, and in class. They are as understanding in times of personal crisis as any "buddy" can be. They are, in short, an important part of learning and developing for men, just as men are for them.
Alumni and Trustees, by keeping them out of Dartmouth, you are placing an unfair distinction, with improper emphasis, on "WOMEN." And, even worse, you are denying not only the women, but also the .men and the College itself, the most complete, educational, and fulfilling "Dartmouth Experience" that they can have. Please don't.
Ithaca, New York
TO THE EDITOR:
Re: Coeducation. Having been a leader of the Glee Club for two years, I suggest: "Girdled, around the earth they roam."
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
TO THE EDITOR:
It is interesting to note that the June letters to the editor opposing coeducation at Dartmouth were written by those graduated before 1917. As the wife of a 1953 graduate and the mother of an entering freshman, I support my two men in their interest that Dartmouth become coed. With due respect for financial questions, this is a point where the honor for the purse strings of one generation be superseded by the concern for a normal, healthy and practical college environment.
Bloomington, Ind.
TO THE EDITOR:
May I add my name to those who oppose coeducation at Dartmouth?
Thanks to Charles Boak '32 and Dr. Henry Haywood '14 for expressing my sentiments so well.
APO, New York
TO THE EDITOR:
Art Buchwald, in his haste to put down David Levy and his words (Dartmouth valedictorian's commencement address), succeeded in missing the point of his confession and searching questions. How much easier it is to discard young seeds of thought, than to plant them in one's mind to bear fruit and heed the advice of that wise old gardener of earth and humanity, Gunnar Myrdal ... and how much simpler to dispatch women to the house, rather than to cultivate and reap their talents. So I would share this poem with Dartmouth while contemplating coeducation, and with others who may be asking ... how "green" is our valley?
On becoming man and woman
Behold all humans, equal and diverse. Let talents flower, unstifled by conformity to archaic patterns labeled His and hers.
woman, weak, inferior copy of the Man? and blacks, the carbons used by Masters? hopes ground beneath boot-heels and bombs?
Destined to synthesize and nurture life, she bears gifts of heart, mind and soul to blend with his and create a human home, a culture coat of many colors, races, tribes, and nations. Keys all tried and trusted we preserve to open locks and understand.
One family, ours on earth, disbar the gate to the garden from which vanquished, we would return, imperfect, but at peace.
Multihued and variegated forms, chastened, aged and holy human, we bear seeds, innocent and free to bloom, or sin-bent, self-destruct.
Gods all dead, divine denial of a second coming, new orthodoxy, light unto its time, extinguished, dig deeper for the soul, the natural waters welling.
Stars flung wide and wondrous, as heavens' windows frame no father god, her rains fall on ever greening children.
For we, grown wisely brown and withering, gave way before the sun, our place disappearing leaves, nourishing the roots of life.
Hanover, N. H.
Salute to Cliff Jordan
TO THE EDITOR:
Cliff Jordan and his fine Alumni Fund staff are always sending out marvelous letters congratulating alumni for their selfless dedication to Dartmouth fund-raising goals. These letters are deeply appreciated by the recipients, yours truly included. Please permit me to turn the table.
I am told that the final total for the 1971 effort is $2,464,201. What a fantastic achievement! To attain this $400,000 increase in the face of two perplexing financial problems ... the very serious effect our nation's recessive economy has had on Dartmouth alumni across the nation, and the additional pressure many of us face because we are obligated to continue payment of the Third Century Fund ... is deserving of a standing ovation from all factors in the Dartmouth community. As the chief administrator of this effort, Cliff Jordan deserves the top honors.
I am sure his staff would lead the applause. And, likewise, he would in his humble fashion give them full credit. During my three years as Head Agent for the Class of '54, I have had the good fortune of working with many of his staff and can attest to their absolute dedication to financial funding goals of the College. The enthusiasm and industry they radiate from Hanover is an essential stimulant to the Alumni Fund functionaries across the land. But Cliff is the guy who has made it work.
New York, N. Y.
David Levy's Valedictory
TO THE EDITOR:
It was a great 50th Reunion for me—except for the Commencement exercises.
I cannot fathom why the College would decide to hold the traditional academic procession, and then allow it to be profaned by permitting some of the graduating seniors to march in the procession wearing the type of dress they feel best fits their personality.
The valedictorian, David Levy, asked for understanding sympathy. He has mine. His speech was the most devastating criticism of the Dartmouth faculty I have ever heard. To accept the indictment that they had poured so much information and so little understanding into such a brilliant intellect is not easy for a loyal alumnus.
(As an aside to Mr. Levy, if he will spend the next few months not thinking of his problems at all, but in giving all his time, thought, and energy to less fortunate people—perhaps really disadvantaged adults or children—I believe he will find at least some of the answers that he seeks.)
And as for the address by Dr. Myrdal, he must have thrilled the Class of 1971. But again I find it difficult to rationalize the College's decision to use the occasion to have a man from another country—which country is not exactly without sin—brilliantly expound on the utter stupidity of the United States and its Government. Thus did he inspire a fine group of young men on a very important, hopefully a happy, day of their lives, the day that culminated four years of work and life as Dartmouth undergraduates.
Rye, N. Y.
TO THE EDITOR:
A resolution reading as follows was submitted to the Alumni Council by the Fifty Year Class of 1921:
"Concerned that for the second time in four years a valedictory speaker has cast discredit upon Dartmouth College,
"Urges that, if the valedictory address is to be retained as a part of the Commencement exercises, such criteria of selection be adopted as will ensure that the speaker be truly representative of his Class, and
"Urges that further consideration be given to shortening the Commencement exercises by the elimination of the valedictory address, or the address of an outside speaker, or both."
Although the Alumni Council failed to take action upon this proposed Resolution, it is believed that the issue raised may be of interest to the members of the Dartmouth community.
Hanover, N. H.
TO THE EDITOR:
Very seldom have I written a "To The Editor" note to our top drawer alumni magazine ... this one I just feel I should put in the mail.
Re the despairing David Levy and those of his classmates who "received his remarks warmly," I wonder what gracious alumni these characters will be!
Riverside, Conn.
TO THE EDITOR:
I read with interest the report of the comments voiced by Senior Class Valedictorian David M. Levy. His anguished plea for pity would seem to me to be the "Vox Clamantis" of one who by his own admission did not think.
Apparently his memory also suffers from lack of recall that in choosing Datmouth it was his own decision.
I feel sure that if he had applied his ability for study to the choice he would have found a college much more to his liking.
It would seem that in using his status as class valedictorian he has taken advantage of that status to exploit his egotism.
This from a third generation of Dartmouth graduates who thinks that it is still a pretty good college,
New Rochelle, N. Y.
DEAR DAVID:
In your valedictory statement at commencement you invited letters from any who could tell you what meaning there is in life. I am in hopes that you will hear from many. I want to reply and I do so through the ALUMNI MAGAZINE in hopes that my remarks may merit sharing with others who heard you or who read your statement and may be asking the same questions you ask.
I do take pity on you, as you requested, for you are to be pitied. What you seek can be found and many have done so. With all that is wrong in the world, there is much that is right and there is meaning and purpose in life which has eluded you. I can presume that your valedictory statement followed Dean Dey's invocation and Dr. Kemeny's valedictory to the Class of 1971. Had you listened, or reflected on what you did hear (for surely you must have been listening) you would have begun to find what you sought.
Dean Dey concluded with the petition "May our Creator help us to insure that the sum total will count for something, not only in earthly matters, but in the higher drama of the universe." That is the first thing to think about. The world is not ours. We have but assumed ourselves to be masters of the world and all that is in it. Our power is finite. God is working his purposes out in all things. Believing this one can feel that there is a purpose in life and that he is a part of the divine scheme of things. Perhaps we can not always see where we fit into the divine plan, but fit we do. Pride is that which gets in the way of trust in God and in his sovereign power. Pride is trusting in man's wisdom and man's might and turns us from trust in God and therefore from seeing life in the Perspective of God's purpose.
Dr. Kemeny closed his valedictory with the statement, "your fellow man needs you." This is the second way we find meaning and purpose in life—by outgoing love and service to our fellow man. Life is worth living when we see life in relation to others. In Sunday Schools we teach children the meaning of JOY by placing the letters vertically and then next to the letters writing JESUS FIRST, OTHERS SECOND, YOURSELF LAST. Whether you believe in the Son of God or not and even though it may sound corny to the adult mind, there is a truth there for any age—putting yourself last brings joy. The problem we all encounter is the age-old sin of turning it around and putting self first....
Your valedictory warrants one additional comment. The Dartmouth experience had great value for my life. I loved and still love the Dartmouth fellowship, but it was not my god. I was grateful to be able to go to Dartmouth and especially so when I thought about others who wanted to attend but could not. Books were not my god either. My academic record will attest to that. Money is not what makes life worthwhile. You are right in that observation. I regret that your parents (if it was yours you referred to) and far too many people seem to think of money as their god. What I am saying is that too often far too many of us have made gods and idols out of the vain things of this world. And, what is worse, too often we want to make idols of ourselves — to be our own god. This kind of idolatry never gives meaning and purpose to life.
What I am saying then, is that it seems to me you have been looking in the wrong way and in the wrong places for the answers to your questions. I don't think my life is absurd and I don't consider myself an oddball or one of a very small minority. I appreciate the life God gave to me. Get with it. You are bound to have a lot on the ball or you would not have been the class valedictorian. Don't waste your life thinking it absurd. Don't think that it is without a purpose....
You raised a lot of questions. It is an interesting study to see how many questions are asked in the Bible. Many of them are like your own. The great thing about it is that the answers are there too.
If you've read through this, I thank you. If you give some thought to it for your own life I will be the more grateful, not because of what I have said, but because of what it may mean to you.
Norfolk, Va.
Rural Regression?
TO THE EDITOR:
The June issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE contained an excellent collection of articles on pollution and overpopulation. I was surprised and extremely disappointed, therefore, to discover that the same issue held at least three large ads for land development of a type that has come to seriously threaten every part of rural New England.
One full-page ad in a prominent position publicized a Vermont development that has been questioned by a surprisingly well balanced cross-section of the Hanover community, as well as by Vermont farmers (remember them?) whose property taxes have for the last few years provided a cruel reflection of the inflated land values brought about, in a large part, by big-money development.
The most tasteless ad, however, was for a lakeside development for 125 families in New Hampshire by a group with the ironic name of 'SPACEMAKERS INC.' Space- makers Inc. is a subsidiary of International Paper Company, which is currently on the firing line in Maine for inadequate pollution control. ... This is the firm that proposes to gross $4,112,500 by moving 125 families to 150 New Hampshire acres. I realize these figures sound inconceivable; but check them in your own ad: June 1971, Page 5.
Friends, you in Hanover would not rest so easy if you knew that here in southern New England the week rarely passes without some sort of promotion turning up in the fourth-class mail, addressed to "occupant," for my very own vacation home on a development site in Vermont or New Hampshire. Some of them offer a free inspection weekend, complete with transportation and cocktails. Let's face the facts. Interstate highways, notably routes 89 and 91, have put northern Vermont and New Hampshire within a few easy hours of New York and Connecticut, and even New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Geographic isolation simply can no longer be the comforting protection that it was as recently as five years ago.
At present, neither Vermont nor New Hampshire have effectual laws for the control of irresponsible development, and currently proposed reforms for both states are weak and full of loopholes. I hope that the Hanover community will join more forward looking New England groups in originating and backing sound protective legislation. And I look forward to seeing the ALUMNI MAGAZINE'S stand on this issue as reflected in its advertising policy in the future.
Newport, R. I.
Reminded
TO THE EDITOR:
Mr. Prince's reply to the question raised by Russell Goodnow '21 in the May issue reminds me of the bride's letter to her inquiring father:
"Dear Dad: Of course Fred and I are thinking very carefully of our expenses and are reducing them to those of absolute necessity. Our new color TV blends in so much better with .our new Oriental rug that we simply had to have it. And Fred—bless his thrifty Vermont upbringing—has bought a cute little Mercedes which, of course, will use much less gas and will be much easier to park at the plant than our Cadillac El Dorado.
"Fred and I both hope you and Mother encounter no more difficulty with the Social Security and the Welfare offices—horrible, narrow-minded penny-pinchers!
"Fred is even eliminating his contribution to the Alumni Fund this year. Economy is our watch-word!
New London, N. H.
Editor's Note: Mr. Harvard writes aboutcommunities that already exist. The desire ofpeople to live in the North Country is notgoing to cease, especially when livingconditions elsewhere grow worse and worse;and one can only ask that this influx bemanaged with concern for the environmentand preservation of North Country values—and that the persons making the move willbe citizens who share that concern. Dartmouth alumni, of all people, should meetthat criterion.
