Letters to the Editor

Some Educational Myths

TO THE EDITOR:

Mr. Crosby's noble sounding proposals for educational reform (December Undergraduate Chair), vague as they were, seem most disturbing. He appears to advocate either the impossible or the undesirable. He, of course, failed to be concrete about his goals or how colleges fail to attain them. However, objections apparently are desirable about what he appears to suggest.

First, I believe that his call for a stress on integration of knowledge is ill conceived. By and large, the relationships are far more obvious than the concepts of each field. Interdisciplinary courses or majors often cover too much too badly to be of any value.

This leads to another basic point — just what college should accomplish. Personal enrichment sounds wonderful but what does it mean? Dartmouth is very expensive both directly and because you are giving up income. You had better expect from it something that you could not get elsewhere and that may not necessarily be a particularly pleasant experience. As far as I can tell, the contribution of higher education is to transmit concepts and approaches that cannot, as least as yet, be readily mastered elsewhere. This may be something as ancient as learning how to argue sensibly with your intellectual peers or as modern as the behavior of materials under low temperatures.

I object strenuously to the false distinctions raised among the humane, the professional, and the problem-solving. It is impossible from any reasonable point of view rigidly to divide education into such compartments. There is hardly anything at Dartmouth that cannot on the one hand be taken for professional reasons and on the other benefit one's humane education. A sizable proportion of those specializing in the more esoteric branches of the humanities are seeking careers in them; a highly pragmatic course at Tuck School might enlighten Mr. Crosby about the business world. Similarly, I cannot see how anyone can justify a college education that does not expose people to the problem-solving tools that colleges are uniquely qualified to provide.

The whole idea smacks of an effort at intellectual loyalty tests and regimentation. Higher education has a responsibility to provide students with intellectually respectable material. What they do with it is none of our business. We can try to persuade them not to view this purely in terms of marketable skills but who are we to criticize those who choose to think otherwise.

My concern is increased by recognition that the Crosby approach can all too easily lead to a rigid inflexible curriculum that in the hope of transmitting a nonexistent universally essential core of knowledge aids no one. There is far more essential knowledge than we can master in a lifetime and the present system of allowing students to select from among them seems as reasonable as possible.

Finally, I would like to interject comments or> a myth Mr. Crosby did not discuss—that research and consulting conflict with teaching. In fact, in many fields, the activities are mutually supportive. A good deal of what we can teach is how to deal with problems in an area and it is by research activity that we acquire the requisite skills. Conversely, a lively course should raise issues that inspire us to develop new ideas. Similarly, consulting can make one aware of the applicability of one's theories to concrete problems.

Where conflicts arise they come from inadequate recognition of the interactions. Strains mount when hard-pressed institutions find it difficult to provide adequate time for research; everything may suffer.

University Park, Pa.

The Scranton Report

TO THE EDITOR:

Speaking as one who has experienced both the life of the small college and that of the giant university, I wish to express my thanks for your publication of one section of the Scranton Commission Report, "The New Youth Culture," in the December issue.

We who consider ourselves to be moderates often find it difficult to explain the basis for our trust in moderation to our friends on either the right or the left. The chapter from the Scranton Report may help. It gives no answers — and doesn't pretend to do so — but it does give authority to what many of us who have received advanced degrees in recent years have felt: we have a duty to improve our society along the lines that our liberal education has indicated, yet we must do so without destroying everything in the process. It is a truism, but one that too many people seem to ignore.

The point has been eloquently stated by — of all things — a bumper-sticker: America — Change it or Lose it.

With your permission, I'll copy the article for use by my American history courses in high school.

Rochester, N. Y.

Green Again, Please

TO THE EDITOR:

There are all sorts of ways to determine whether a magazine is looked at by its customers. Most of the time I suspect our Alumni Magazine rates rather high. Feedback might even be interesting if you are compiling statistics. No doubt you'll have much comment on the December issue which instantly suggested that perhaps Dartmouth was going into the red, and this was the psychologic way to introduce the alumni into deficit spending. Then again, perhaps the Lampoon boys have done it again. If this be the case, my congratulations to them. The Scranton report didn't make me see red, but the cover did. How about disposing of the last batch of ink, and going back to the old familiar green? Or has the Dartmouth Green "gone to war"? If that is so, it's one more reason we'd like to see a little more peace on earth.

Dunedin, Fla.

Toxic Dangers Are Real

TO THE EDITOR:

I must reply to Dr. Tepper's dangerously misleading letter concerning lead toxicity in the December issue.

While it may be true that "there is no evidence that current levels of this element (lead) in man cause impairment of health ...," it is also very true that the continued and uncontrolled automobile discharge of organic lead compounds (eg., tetraethyl lead) into the atmosphere is definite cause for serious concern. The concentration of atmospheric lead over Los Angeles and other large cities is approaching frightening levels.

Lead compounds are cumulative poisons (like mercury derivatives) leading to a variety of physiological disorders (anemia, brain damage, joint and muscle pains, abdominal discomforts, kidney and liver lesions) and death in extreme cases. There is also evidence that lead is responsible for thin-shelled eggs laid by birds along the coast of Southern California.

Clearly, safe alternatives to lead (and the benzenoid aromatics) must be found or fuel additives should not be used.

Organic chemists are finding non-toxic substitutes for pesticides (e.g., species-specific synthetic insect sex-attractants)—petroleum chemists must do the same for fuel additives.

Asst. Prof, of Chemistry

Hanover, N. H.

History Ignored

TO THE EDITOR:

I was surprised to read in the November 1970 issue the confident assertion of a correspondent that "There is neither historical nor present justification for the use of the taxpayers' money in Defense programs for 'Domestic Action.' Historically, soldiers on the frontier, although keeping order among the Cowboys and Indians, did little to stop the rape of the land."

This violent oversimplification could only have been made in virtual ignorance of U. S. history itself; even a cursory acquaintance with such standard authorities as Goetzmann's Army Exploration in the AmericanWest 1803-1863 and Weigley's History ofthe United States Army would have dispelled these hasty pronouncements.

The correspondent's professed admiration for the efficiency of European railways appears to have developed in unawareness of the degree to which the military, particularly the German, were involved in such construction and operation (vide Pratt's Rise of Rail Power in War andConquest). One's suspicion of the correspondent's superficiality on this point is reinforced by his inference that the present complex difficulties of U. S. railroads are possibly the fault of the " 'military' men [who] shoddily built them [sic] and ran them," an insinuation so hopelessly defective as to forfeit any further serious consideration.

Your correspondent's peroration, pace de-Tocqueville, that "The most effectual way of diminishing that danger [posed by a large army to democratic institutions] is to reduce the size of the army" proves singularly misleading when offered as a practical solution to the existing dangers of the "military-industrial complex" in a mass society. By this reasoning, one might equally propose to dismantle the Social Security system, citing de Tocqueville's belief that such "a centralized administration is fit only to enervate the nations in which it exists, by incessantly diminishing their local spirit."

I would agree with the correspondent that we must not be naive in the manner and extent to which we allow the military to participate in domestic concerns. However, it would also seem credulous to assume that a simple reduction of the army would by itself solve the current problems of our civil- military relations. The nostrum of diminution has a remarkably consistent record of failure when used to "contain" the army. This is because such a policy usually attempts to alter military institutions through regulation of their size rather than through modification of their organization and quality.

Your correspondent's corollory proposition to exclude the military from all possibilities of developing — presumably under strict controls — more "peaceful" and socially useful functions serves only to reinforce the army's more aggressive and undesirable characteristics. Through such a sequence of challenge and response the traditional vicious circle of "militarism" vs. "antimilitarism" is again completed, affording the correspondent his erroneous deduction that "it would follow that the military ideal- character type should not be foisted upon the young, the poor, and the ignorant in an age when we so desperately need civility and peace."

One might well lament with the late Sir Basil Liddell Hart "Why Don't We Learn from History?"

London, England

The Masculine Virtues

TO THE EDITOR:

I have just completed the questionnaire sent to Class Officers regarding coeducation. The questions themselves call for neatly packaged answers, and suggest to me that the debate centers on the wrong issues.

I am not concerned about student morals, nor do I think the level of academic grades Js the issue. To me, the question of whether women will bring social amenities to the campus is not a controversial point. My concern is Dartmouth, the rare qualities Dartmouth builds into its men, the fierce and undying loyalty of its alumni, which is both a strength and dimension of each man himself and the vital source of Dartmouth's continued greatness.

Dartmouth is what it is because of its unique combination of geography, isolation, and relatively small student body, all combined with a big league faculty, facilities, scholastic standards and athletic prowess. It is the small college that is big league in every dimension. It's a man's college that builds MEN!

Many years ago, Hoppy put restrictions on fraternities for one avowed purpose: to make The College and The Class the focus of undergraduate life. Over the years, this has produced the spirit, devotion and loyalty that sets Dartmouth and its alumni apart from all other colleges.

Today, more than ever in our matriarchal and permissive society, there is need for a strong, all-male college where young men learn to live with men, adjust to other men and compete with men, as they must in later life. Considering these assets, is it any wonder that the ranks of Dartmouth alumni contain a disproportionate share of leaders in every known field and profession. It wasn't "book larnin' " that did it; it was leadership born of competition with men!

If Dartmouth loses this focus — if the main thrust of undergraduate life is not man-to- man competitiveness and companionship but rather a race to develop a meaningful relationship with a woman — then life on campus may well be more agreeable than it was in our undergraduate days, but Dart- mouth will have lost its uniqueness, its vitality, and its greatness.

Chicago, Ill.

"I Fear Not"

TO THE EDITOR:

Life for November 20 graphically depicts the intriguing pleasures of modern coeducational living. I wonder, however, when this current crop of undergraduates is old enough to take its place among the financial supporters of a college, if its respect for it will be great enough to dig down as do today's alumni. I fear not.

Philadelphia, Pa.

Testament

TO THE EDITOR:

In a letter which I received from the widow of a classmate who died recently, she said they were discussing the possibility of coeducation at Dartmouth and he said "I hope I never live to see the day that Dartmouth will allow that."

Milton, Mass.

Defining the Conservatives

TO THE EDITOR:

A number of the alumni have expressed confusion about the roles of the Dartmouth Conservative Society, STRIKE BACK, and the Dartmouth chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom, and have asked for clarification in the pages of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. Since they are sometimes being dunned in triplicate, they deserve an answer, and we have tried to provide it below.

The Dartmouth Conservative Society is organized to promote conservative thought on campus through the publication, three times a year, of the Conservative Idea. This very successful publication will be hit hard after this year, since the College has promulgated new rules against the funding of any political organization, and advertising brings in only half the revenue needed to publish the magazine.

STRIKE BACK was organized during the Strike last spring in order to insure that classes would resume, at least for those students who wanted them. Unlike both the DCS and YAF, STRIKE BACK is non-political, and has the aim of halting the degeneration of the campus into a political battleground. Last spring it acted as a clearing house for anti-Strike speakers, and sent a member to present its case before the Finley Committee in Congress. Since its minimum aims were accomplished with the reopening of the College, STRIKE BACK has been quiescent this term. Plans are being made for inviting speakers like Sydney Hook, but no final action has been taken on this as yet.

After the Strike, a number of students felt that they could work more effectively outside the literary framework of the DCS, and so formed a chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom on campus. They have been the most active of the three organizations this term, having sponsored a debate on Vietnam between Father Daniel Lyons and Prof. Jonathan Mirsky, and a talk on poverty by Milton Friedman.

All three organizations thus pursue separate though often complementary ends. Alumni who feel that the College is promoting policies they personally oppose should find their viewpoints being championed by at least one of the above organizations. Or they may support all three, without fear of duplication.

Hanover, N. H.

Credit to Prof. Eldredge

TO THE EDITOR:

In reference to your excellent article entitled "The Outward Bound Term" in the December issue, I would like to mention the contribution of Professor of Sociology H. Wentworth Eldredge '31, who played a major role in bringing Outward Bound to Dartmouth. Professor Eldredge is a founding trustee of Outward Bound, Inc., and was one of the first in this country to recognize the potential relationship between educational institutions and the Outward Bound concept. Indeed, it was his vision and quiet but effective behind-the-scenes efforts which helped persuade us to persevere. His continuing counsel has been invaluable, and it would be seriously incomplete to let any discussion of Outward Bound at Dartmouth pass without adding that acknowledgment.

Dean, The Tucker Foundation

Hanover, N. H.

The Band Defended

TO THE EDITOR:

In the December issue you print a letter from Mrs. Henry H. Hazen ('34) of Marblehead which cries out for a rebuttal. I hope that my letter is only one of many.

I too was at the Harvard-Dartmouth same, as I have been every year, except for military service, since graduation. I cannot agree with Mrs. Hazen that the band was lackluster or that the cheerleaders were high-schoolish or feeble. Ordinarily, because we usually go to the game with a non- Dartmouth couple, I have four seats in good old section 17. Not so this year. The other couple couldn't make it at the last minute so we used those beautiful fifty-yard line tickets on the Harvard side that for years my step- father (Harvard faculty ret) has given away.

We sat a few rows behind the television camera, on the edge of the section reserved for the Harvard Band. We had seats in the same area for the Harvard-Yale game.

I have not sat with undergraduates at a football game since I too was an undergraduate. It is a refreshing experience for a Conservative. The Harvard cheerleaders were embarrassingly juvenile and were politely ignored by the Harvard crowd. The Dartmouth cheerleaders, from my side of the field, were terrific. I do miss the Indian. I regret mostly the childish reason for his exile, but I applaud his substitutes. In my opinion, those little girls are cute as buttons. Fellow alumni, why did we wait so long?

Possibly the band sounded lackluster when heard from the same side. I couldn't hear much from the "feeble" Harvard band, possibly because I was sitting on the same side.

On the way out of the stadium, amid the Harvard throng, hat off, I heard Men ofDartmouth loud and clear.

Westwood, Mass.

"Anti-Government Attitude"

TO THE EDITOR:

Three events in the past two years reveal the prevailing attitude at Dartmouth. The first was the draft evasion part of James Newton's 1968 valedictory address which was never officially repudiated by the College. The second was the dropping of the ROTC program whereby Dartmouth refused to support the democratic concept of a civilian-officered defense force. The third was President Kemeny's decision to lead the Dartmouth community in a political action opposing the government's decision to eliminate the Cambodian sanctuaries.

All three events indicate an anti-government attitude toward our foreign and defense policy. Professor Luehrmann provides an explanation of the ROTC decision (November ALUMNI MAGAZINE). In doing so he reveals the extent of the permissiveness and alienation which exist on campus. In effect he says that the Board of Trustees permitted the dropping of ROTC because the students and faculty wanted it that way. On alienation he is very specific. "But the best and unique way that a university can perform its service is precisely by refusing to do what society thinks it wants at the moment." The alienation of the intellectual elite from the vast majority of people in this country could hardly be more bluntly stated.

The Board of Trustees is apparently in sympathy with the prevailing attitude at Dartmouth, and to the extent that they allow it to continue they are responsible for it. Their main concern should be the education of the young for a place in our society. Whose interest is it serving if the student has an anti-government bias which derives from the permissiveness and alienation of his educators?

The intellectual elite have their reservations about democratic government. They lack confidence in the composite intelligence of majority rule. They feel better qualified to determine national policies than a government controlled by the common man. Intellectuals not only oppose the laws and measures which support the policies they object to, but they also, in their frustration, make statements disparaging to the country, such as the one by President Kemeny in the radio broadcast on May 4th "that civilization in this country has reached a stage that I find totally intolerable."

All this is not to say that America can dispense with its intellectuals or that the majority is always right and the elitists always wrong. An elitist attitude toward one's own intellectual qualifications is not the point in question. Such self-confidence may be deserved. The objections to the elitist activities at Dartmouth are simply these. Educators should not use students for political purposes. Elitism should not be transmitted to students because students lack the knowledge, experience and judgment which could justify such an attitude. And finally, a college education should not undermine a student's faith in his country's government. A certain amount of faith in one's government is essential, especially in critical times. America is, after all, a country and government of common people from all over the world, and, all things considered, we have done a pretty good job with it.

Manchester, N. H.

The 1915 Record

TO THE EDITOR:

Among the many well-deserved paeans of praise of the Dartmouth 1970 football team, a statement has been frequently made that all records were broken on the shutout side since 1915.

So it is interesting to take a look at that 1915 season's record:

Dartmouth 13 M.A.C. 0 34 Maine 0 20 Tufts 7 60 Vermont 0 7 Princeton 30 26 Amherst 0 7 Pennsylvania 3 29 Bates 0 0 Syracuse 0

Like 1970, there were six shutouts, one being a tie. But it should be emphasized that the 1970 shutouts were against tougher opposition.

Summit, N. J.

"To One Voice"

TO THE EDITOR:

A touch of nostalgia! Chiefly for old-time harmonizers, but with a deep bow to the current glee club for their superb work!

The world offers nothing more pleasing to the ear, or soothing to the spirit than the gentle blending of male voices (and may God have mercy on him who sings off- pitch) !

To pick out three songs to praise could well be compared to picking out three snowflakes as the prettiest, in a blizzard: none the less, I hereby pay tribute to three songs, and to one voice.

For inspired words, rollicking melody, and magnificent harmony, two college songs are in a class by themselves, namely, LordJeffrey Amherst and Eleazar Wheelock: and with its delicious humor, old Eleazar has a slight edge.

Rare is the song that combines poetic words, exquisite melody, limitless potentials for harmony, and an adaptability to occasions from tender romance to solemn rites. Such a song is Aura Lee. A few years ago, in a pensive mood (or something), I contributed to the '09 Diddings, then edited by Jack Childs, some lines in the rhythm of Aura Lee, which I had the temerity to entitle "Aura Lee's Prayer."

Not long after, Harry McDevitt, Class of 'O7, died. It is he to whom I pay tribute. For years, his voice was an inspiration at Dartmouth gatherings. I can recall nothing that has touched me more deeply than the fact that these little verses were used by a group of Harry's friends at a memorial service in his honor.

Greenville, N. H.

Successful Protagonist

TO THE EDITOR:

The decision to send The Bulletin to all alumni instead of only to a selected few, as announced by President Kemeny in the November 24th issue, brings to fruition the continuing effort over the past several years by Warren Kimball '11 to have this practice put into effect.

Having long recognized the need for better communication between the College and the alumni, he fought hard and continually to have this wider distribution adopted, in the face of opposition by the administration for reasons that were never entirely clear.

President Kemeny should, of course, receive credit for approving the recommended practice, but a major part of the credit should go to Warren Kimball, the able and dedicated president of the Class of 1911.

Newton Highlands, Mass.

Mr. Gordon is Professor of Mineral Economics at Pennsylvania State University