Letters to the Editor

The Decision Draws Near

TO THE EDITOR:

As the time for decision-making on the subject of coeducation at Dartmouth draws closer, I hope very much that the Trustees will read carefully the alumni letters to the editor, particularly those which appeared in the July 1971 issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. This issue also contains excerpts from the Fifty Year Address by John L. Sullivan '21, who has said it loud and clear, and whose thoughts should be considered with care.

I also hope that by this date the members of the Board have studied carefully TheBulletin dated April 27, 1971, and have fully realized the many weak arguments it contains. Dartmouth cannot afford to make any errors of judgment at this critical period in American education, and to follow some of the suggestions of this report might well prove to be very costly.

However, this is not to suggest that the Trustees do not realize the importance of their decision in Dartmouth's long history. I am sure they do realize its significance, and I am most pleased that they have taken time to analyze the question from several different viewpoints. It is a most difficult decision to make, because so many of the arguments, pro and con, are largely matters of opinion (as Mr. Sullivan notes) rather than provable, demonstrable facts.

What has troubled me during the past three months has been my worry whether the Trustees really know what they want, and what is best for Dartmouth. According to the April Bulletin the Trustees were at that time "unanimous in favor of considering an Associated School instead of straight coeducation or the founding of a coordinate college." When I read that statement, I could not but wonder whether the Trustees understood what "an associated school" or a "coordinate college" was, since in the very next paragraph it was stated that "most women enrolled in such a school would probably attend 95% or more of their classes in regular Dartmouth College courses with men undergraduates." Now, if this is not "straight coeducation," then words do not mean the same thing they did when I was in college....

Speaking, as an alumnus, I am well aware that it is the alumni who pay a substantial part of the bills through the annual Alumni Fund. Now, I do not for a moment think that the Alumni Fund is in danger of going out of business if coeducation is adopted; there may be a few drop-offs, but certainly not a large number. What I do believe, however, is that the alumni of a coeducational institution are much less loyal, financially speaking, than those of an all male institution; I believe there are studies to prove this, and it, plus the question of capital gifts, should be kept in mind by the Trustees.

But, far more important than any financial aspect of the problem is the effect that coeducation will have on the quality of the education provided at Dartmouth after 1972.

During the past three years I have been able to observe a small man's college going coeducational, and while I realize that this is not an extensive observation, I can see already that the presence of women on campus and in the classroom has not improved the quality of our product; in fact, there is some evidence of the exact opposite in our large introductory courses, and in the small advanced courses, the so-called seminars, some of which now are given in sections. To be sure, a few more instructors were hired to take care of the increased numbers, but not enough, and so instead of one small seminar for juniors or seniors of 12-15 students, we now have in some of the more popular courses three or four sections of 20-25 students each. And so the quality is not quite as good as it once was. Nor am I convinced that the education of the young women is as good as it should be, as good as I have experienced at one New England women's college.

To me, this is the crux of the issue. Will coeducation improve the quality of present performance at Dartmouth, and will the education meted out to women be the equivalent of or better than that to be had at Smith, Vassar, Wellesley, or Bryn Mawr? Some of these colleges have decided against taking in men for this very reason.

But, whatever the decision of the Board (and I hope it will be the right one), the issue of coeducation at Dartmouth will soon be settled. And whether it be the faculty and students, the administration, or the alumni who prevail, it will be good to have the question settled, because I am sure that a continuation of the argument would only break down further the unity which has been such a large part of the Dartmouth tradition for more than half a century.

Gambier, Ohio

"A Deep Distrust"

TO THE EDITOR:

There is, perhaps, five cents' worth (even remembering the day when a nickel would buy a decent cigar, a loaf of bread, a quart of milk or a full schooner of cold beer) that I feel compelled to contribute to the discussion concerning coeducation at Dartmouth.

First of all, I want to ask if there is any especial and particular reason why there should not be one or two or more private colleges that are exclusively male; or, for that matter, exclusively female? Trustee Dudley W. Orr's answers to this question, considering Dartmouth, are that "the most important reason is a matter of simple justice" and "a matter of conscience": answers, it could be said, representative of thinking that is facile rather than accurate. "Simple justice" and "conscience" are shibboleths easily learned and continuously repeated by those "socially conscious" (as they are called) persons whose convictions are often to be found arising from emotion rather than from reason; and by the contemporary descendants of Don Marquis' Hermione and her little group of serious thinkers. To one who knew Mr. Orr as a Dartmouth undergraduate and who, with many others, admired his undergraduate brilliance his reply is as shocking as it is surprising; because it is essentially childish, To be sure, if one chooses to moor his social outlook and his concept of democracy to the viewpoint from which Israel Zangwill looked when writing his once well-known drama The Melting Pot, or to the ideas of "leveling" that moved many of Cromwell's followers, these views of "justice" and "conscience" will come with immediacy. I, for one, have made no such choice.

Another question arises in my mind: has any young man ever been compelled by law to enroll at Dartmouth? Or any young woman to enter Smith? Unless in some most unusual personal situation, I should think not. Attendance throughout most of the College's history, I should imagine, has been a matter of volition and desire; and the "cohesiveness and the sense of identity" mentioned by Mr. Orr were qualities born of Dartmouth life in Hanover which contributed much to those moving forces. (It may surprise Mr. Orr to learn that "the Dartmouth Spirit" was known and spoken of as a unique thing long before every other college and university discovered a "spirit"; as "Dartmouth Night," around the world, was also a unique celebration before "homecomings" were brought into existence throughout the land.)

I would remind Mr. Orr, and other alumni too, that not even in "the sweat shirt era" of 1914 to 1918 was Dartmouth considered to be either a monastery or a refuge for the indolent: quite otherwise. In truth, with regard to the factor of "indolence," as Dartmouth was skeptical concerning the College Entrance Board examinations and considered even more dubious the prepara- tion given by the "tutoring schools" which thrived on these, the applicant for admission who did not come from a preparatory school or high school that was on the College's own, approved list faced a set of Dartmouth entrance examinations. Many Dartmouth students faced, then, also the necessity for explaining in their home cities why they had gone to Dartmouth instead of to Harvard, Yale or Princeton. It was at that time that Dr. Tucker said, "Dartmouth will be great when Dartmouth men have learned to take themselves for granted."

It was "the cohesiveness and the sense of identity," spoken of by Mr. Orr, and Dartmouth men's learning to take them- selves for granted that bred the Dartmouth spirit which, in turn, gave the College an alumni body known as remarkable throughout the college world for its devotion to the support of the College in every enterprise; for its zealous and enthusiastic loyalty to the College at all times. Will coeducation enhance or diminish this spirit? is another question I would raise.

Mr. Orr has brought forth, too, and in something of the manner of Harry Houdini, it seems to me, the horrid spectre of a State or Federal government that will financially penalize Dartmouth if the College remains exclusively male. Of course, the college or university that is wholly or greatly tax supported might live under such a risk. But does Dartmouth, primarily and by choice an undergraduate institution, have a range of programs that demands such support? I sincerely hope not; and hope, too, that the College, to employ a phrase of Mr. Will Durant's, may not be frightened into something like a state of fitful piety.

Again, Mr. Orr foresees the possibility that good faculty talent might prefer to teach both men and women than men alone. That is a prospect I find it possible to face with entire equanimity; because I don't believe it will be ever an actuality. Nor do I feel that "the traditional female virtues of accommodation and obedience" (even admitting these qualities to be either traditional or virtues) are likely, on any large scale, to suffer through lack of Dartmouth nourishment. Moreover, I am confident that I could face either Mrs. Indira Ghandi or Mrs. Golda Meir without regretting in the least that they are not "Dartmouth Women." Enough good teachers or either sex, I am sure there are and will be, happy to teach in a single-sex college, to make the fear of any considerable attrition of good faculty talent an idle one.

Confronted by the "overwhelming statistics" put before us by Mr. Orr as to the preference of faculty and students for coeducation, I will not advance the comparison, frequently cited, to another type of institution run by its inmates. I cannot, however, refrain from imagining how a community kindergarten, teachers and children, would respond when asked if they would like to share a box of candy. And I am positive that the vote at the time of my own undergraduate generation would have been even more "overwhelmingly" affirmative. Yet, such a vote, I am constrained to believe, will be based almost always upon emotion rather than reason.

To near a conclusion, I cannot at all agree with Mr. Orr's contention that the presence of women among the undergraduates will strengthen the College "intellectually, socially and, in the end, financially." His "intellectually" must be a matter of at least some doubt; his "socially" a matter of definition; and his "financially" something severely to be questioned. Further, not for one moment do I believe that Dartmouth has turned its back, or is turning it, on half the brains in the country. To speak as does Mr. Orr is to become a mouthpiece for Amelia Bloomer's, Sylvia Pankhurst's and Lucy Stone's spectral shades and for the more solid bodies of our present women's liberationists. May we not more simply and much more fairly say that Dartmouth for historic, among other reasons, prefers to cater to the brains of men; and that the College is happy that Smith, Wellesley, Vassar, and Bryn Mawr exist to cater to the brains of women? I would greatly like to know what opinions on coeducation will be expressed five years from now at these colleges for women, and at Yale and Princeton: which is to say that I believe Dartmouth's Trustees should postpone for that length of time definite commitment of Dartmouth to that change.

It was my great privilege and honor, during my senior year at Dartmouth to be taken by President Hopkins to call very briefly upon Dr. Tucker. Dr. Ernest Fox Nichols I knew without exhilaration. That I could know and think of Ernest Hopkins as both a close personal and official friend and associate was, I think, the greatest distinction I ever achieved. President Emeritus John Sloan Dickey I had the good fortune to become acquainted with and greatly to admire during the last years of his term in office. Of these four former Dartmouth presidents I feel sure that two, at least, would concur in the opinions upon coeducation at Dartmouth which I have expressed. In the opinions on that subject put forward by Mr. Orr I have a deep distrust.

Orlando, Fla.

A Prayerful Answer

TO THE EDITOR:

May I challenge David Levy, along with every other alumnus, friend of, or worker for, the College, to say to himself, every night, before he goes to sleep, the following prayer to be found on page 18, of the Book of Common Prayer:

"Oh! God, the Creator and Preserver of all mankind, we humbly beseech thee for all sorts and conditions of men, that Thou wouldst be pleased to make Thy ways known unto them, Thy saving health unto all nations."

The exercise of doing this, along with the search for the answer to the prayer, David, may absolve you of your nightmare and teach you "how to think" as well as "study."

Rutland, Vt.

Change the Rules

TO THE EDITOR:

It is my understanding that the valedictorian of the senior class is granted that honor by reason of his having the highest scholastic rank and that he is not required to submit his speech to anyone for editing and approval.

If this be true, it seems to me that the time has come to change the rules. The 1971 valedictory address was an insult to his classmates, to the College, and to the audience, as well as presenting a highly unfavorable image of Dartmouth to the general public—a disturbing fact to those who still love her.

Newton, N. J.

El-e-a-nor Wheeloek

TO THE EDITOR:

I wonder if anyone has sent you a copy of a new version of Eleazar Wheelock that was rendered by a group of songsters at the 35th reunion of the Class of 1936. I have obtained one from the librettist, who modestly wishes anonymity, with the thought that your alumni readers might enjoy it as much as we '36ers did.

Oh El-e-a-nor Wheelock was a lady with a cause, She started up a college to enlighten Indian Squaws. El-e-a-nor was the faculty And the only course to choose Was 500 teapots of New England booze.

Fill the tea cups Fill the tea cups Drink to El-e-a-nor And her "tea"-bags and her strainer Where she mixed drinks for the heathens At the Dartmouth Women's Lib. El-e-a-nor thought the Dartmouths and her girls should be integrated So every afternoon at four o'clock they matriculated.

El-e-a-nor led discussions, She was smart and she was glib, You'd hardly know she started life As El-e-a-zar's rib. Fill the tea cups, etc.

New York, N. Y.

A Light Question

TO THE EDITOR:

In the August 24 or 25 Wall StreetJournal there is a review of Einstein, TheLife and Times by Ronald W. Clark.

The reviewer, Edmund Fuller, states that "Einstein showed us that light has weight."

There are probably other old-timers like myself who have long believed that the experiments which proved that light has weight were made by two Dartmouth professors back in the first years of this century: Ernest Fox Nichols and Gordon Ferrie Hull.

I remember hearing Mrs. Nichols say that her husband used hairs from her head while conducting his experiments. Do you have any light—with or without weight—to throw on this question?

Cornish, N. H

Editor's Note: In 1903 the world-famousexperiments by Professors Nichols and Hulldemonstrated the truth of the theory thatlight exerts pressure. This, however, was nota demonstration that light has weight. Lightis a form of energy and the "scientific truth"that it has weight comes from Einstein'shistoric equation E = MC2.

Mr. Bailey, retired since 1968, is formerDean, Acting President, and Professor ofHistory at Kenyon College. He earlier taughtat M.I.T. and Mt. Holyoke.

Mr. Groves, who was Director of theDartmouth News Service from 1921 to 1928,also served as Instructor in English from1925 to 1927.