Letters to the Editor

Views About ROTC (Cont.)

TO THE EDITOR:

May I add two comments to the debate over the ending of ROTC?

First, in answer to Mr. Roger Fosdick '34, who feels that instead of abolishing ROTC, the College should probably have made it compulsory. Because of the armed power of communism. Mr. Fosdick quotes Professor Luehrmann's observation that "the need to serve our military interests today is not worth the loss of freedom and independence in carrying on our essential business—teaching and learning." He then says, "If Mr. Luehrmann knew the first thing about communism he would know that:

(1) Leaders, teachers, administrators (state and church) and intellectuals are the first groups to be liquidated when the communists take over.

(2) Freedom and independence as we know them disappear.

"If he survived to carry on teaching and learning, he can rest assured he would be teaching and learning exactly what he was told."

Where does Mr. Fosdick get this information? As it happens, I was teaching and learning in a communist country this past fall—at the University of Warsaw, in

Poland. I taught two courses. In one of them I did indeed do as I was told; that is, I gave a survey course in modern American literature. In the other course, for seniors, my orders were to give what Poles call "monograph lectures"—that is, lectures on anything that seemed to me a good idea.

Furthermore, though I heard a great deal about the Nazis liquidating teachers and administrators, I saw no evidence that the Polish communist government had done this. On the contrary, Polish universities continue to be staffed very heavily by what amount to hereditary academic families. My two senior colleagues in the Instytut Filologii Angiel- skiej, for example, were both children of pre-war professors at Cracow. One of them has five brothers and sisters, of whom four are teachers and the fifth married to a professor at Lublin. That's liquidation?

Obviously there have indeed been liquidations after communist take-overs. I would imagine that members of any Establishment tend to get dispossessed, and sometimes killed, after any revolution. (Certainly a fair number of Loyalist teachers and preachers were sent packing to England after our own revolution.) But it seems to me that the first thing I have learned about communism is that you cannot safely make sweeping generalizations.

My second comment is on the point, made in several letters, that Dartmouth should have retained ROTC because the country needs "a supply of officers educated in a liberal-arts atmosphere." Few would argue with that. A supply of essentially civilian officers does seem a safeguard against militarism.

But how does it follow that the only or even the best way to achieve this is through ROTC? If you look at the Civil War, you find vast numbers of Dartmouth men serving as officers, not one through ROTC. If you look at World War 11, you find the services more or less impartially getting hold of liberal-arts officers by three methods: (1) direct commissions, (2) OCS, (3) calling up ROTC graduates. I can't resist adding that 1 myself got a direct commission in 1949, simply by graduating from Williams College and applying. It's true that when I was called up for the Korean war, I and a lot of other people like me had to be given sixteen weeks of training at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, before we could be shipped out as artillery officers. But, then, the next battalion to ours was composed of ROTC graduates getting the identical training. And who brought into service the greatest quantity of liberal-arts atmosphere? We did, of course, since none of our time in college had been taken up with military science.

One last note and I will stop. Like most of the Dartmouth faculty, I voted to end ROTC. I did it with some regret, because I have liked so many of the ROTC unit commanders. At least two who have retired and come back to work for Dartmouth as civilian administrators seem to me among the best people the College has. But I don't think you can justify the program as a way for Dartmouth to recruit colonels and navy captains any more than you can as a way for the armed services to recruit Dartmouth boys.

Professor of English

Hanover, N.H.

TO THE EDITOR:

As a Dartmouth alumnus and a career Air Force officer, I was not pleased to learn that Dartmouth was abolishing its ROTC programs. Nor could I agree with the reasoning of Professor Luehrmann's "Explanation' published in the November 1970 issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. The article argued that the action was a. result of careful evaluation by the administration and not a result of pressure from the students and some faculty members. I found little validity in Professor Luehrmann's analogy in which he posed as an equivalent situation Dartmouth's turning down an offer of an executive training program by General' Motors Corporation. Does he believe that in a possible military confrontation a decade or two hence, we would look to GMC as our military agent?

The ROTC programs have for many years been the main suppliers of officers for the armed forces. In these times of complex technology and impending crises, we need an adequate, continuous supply of officers of high potential some of whom will make the military service a career. (An onerous thought to some people, perhaps, but note on whom we would at first rely during a future military crisis.) The universities and colleges, having benefitted from our hard- won freedoms and institutions, have obligations to provide these officers.

In a possible future confrontation, we probably would not have the preparation time we had during World War II. And from the standpoint of our nation's survival, it would be best if we didn't have the luxury of deciding if we individually think the conflict is worth fighting in. (The professor weighed the merits of our involvement in World War II in contrast to the war in Southeast Asia.) Without ample and consistent production of ROTC officers, including many from outstanding colleges such as Dartmouth, the principal loser will not be our evicted ROTC staffs but our national security.

Lt. Col., USAF

San Antonio, Texas

TO THE EDITOR:

I read with interest Professor Luehrmann's attempt, published in the November issue, to justify the action of the faculty in terminating ROTC at Dartmouth. I won't comment on the points made in the professor's letter. Able replies made by Pratt '44, Cunningham '53, and Fosdick '34 were published in the January issue. Oh, that Bill Cunningham '19 was still alive, with his searing vocabulary and contempt for academe.

Apparently in all of the cerebrating and soul-searching by the faculty, no consideration was given to the possible financial results of their action. President Kemeny has stated that the financial situation of the College is serious. I suspect that the Department of Defense made small payments to the College for the use of certain facilities, while ROTC was active. ROTC payments to student enrollees (at least $50 per month) doubtless went far toward lessening requests for financial aid. An adverse effect of the action on contributions to the Alumni Fund and other fund drives will, I believe, be felt. Class agents have, in all probability, received many letters which would support this opinion. They should have been consulted in this connection.

I should like to add a non-sequitur. Is the College completely free of racial discrimination? This, as regards white boys and their applications for admission, for financial aid, for fair grading by instructors, etc. I feel that the Trustees or the administration should set up a task force which would look into this matter, and report. When the College finally takes in coeds the matter of discrimination becomes even more possible, both as regards race and sex.

One sometimes wonders whether the Trustees, in their board rooms and executive suites, are not too far removed from the average alumnus to appreciate fully his feelings on various actions of the administration and the faculty, all of which have the tacit approval of the Trustees.

Lexington, Mass.

TO THE EDITOR:

While Professor Luehrmann's explanations may not be entirely satisfactory, or even clear to many alumni, myself included, I think it is incorrect and improper to assign him sole responsibility for proper clarification of the College's position. I think the buck should be passed to the Trustees.

The questions raised by Mr. Howard J. Mullin '27, in the second paragraph of his letter, are too serious to be left unanswered.

The issue of the existence of the ROTC at Dartmouth should be reconsidered by the Trustees, or, at the very least, full and complete answers to questions raised by Mr. Mullin should be communicated to the alumni.

Rolling Hills, Calif.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The second paragraph in Mr. Mullin's letter (January issue) asked what approaches the College had made to the DOD and the White House on reform of the ROTC program—"What innovative proposals were advanced? What resulted from President Dickey's Washington contacts on the question?"

At the request of the Dartmouth faculty, President Dickey did engage in direct discussion, as well as correspondence, with Defense officials concerning ROTC changes that would make the program more viable for colleges like Dartmouth. Pertinent to one facet of these discussions is this portion of the reply of a committee member to an alumnus:

"You raise a number of important procedural points regarding the propriety of the way in which our ROTC program was terminated. Why, you ask, was ROTC not made an extracurricular activity, like athletics perhaps? The fact is that a sizable minority of students and a majority of faculty favored that solution. It would have minimized direct military involvement in the business of the College while making ROTC available to students desiring it. President Dickey exchanged letters with a representative of the Department of Defense and Dartmouth sent a delegation to Washington to discuss this possibility. It turned out that the congressional acts establishing ROTC specifically require universities entering the program to give degree credit for ROTC courses and to give the voting rank of full professor to the senior officer of each detachment. Thus the DOD was unable to consider our proposal without an act of Congress. As you know, the House of Representatives has been in no mood to enact legislation that could be construed as 'soft on colleges.' We were led to believe, therefore, that an extracurricular ROTC program was out of the question for the foreseeable future."

Perhaps the fullest and best study of ROTC made so far was the work of two Dartmouth professors, Gene M. Lyons and the late John W. Masland, whose book Education and Military Leadership: AStudy of the ROTC was published in 1959. In connection with it, the College held a major conference in Hanover, attended by college presidents, high-ranking military officers, Defense officials, foundation representatives and others. A key statement in the Lyons-Masland study was this: "The substance of the ROTC programs must be changed in order to provide an appropriate pre-professional experience for a military career. All too frequently ROTC instruction is unimaginative and less than first-rate. Classroom content must be minimized and military training accomplished in extracurricular drill and laboratories and in longer summer camp and cruise periods. The student must devote his on-campus time to a broad educational preparation for later training and specialized technical and professional schooling. After all, even West Point graduates receive the greater portion of their military training after commissioning."

In the foreword to the study, President Dickey wrote: "This central issue of the whole business seems ... to focus squarely on whether the traditional concept of the ROTC is adequate to the national security requirements of this nation in the foresee- able future. If there is any real doubt about this, then, I think, there can be little doubt about the need for some very fundamental changes in the entire setup, with a strong educationally oriented lead being given from above and outside, and the sooner the better."

It is not too much to claim that Dartmouth did more than any college in the country to try to bring about changes in ROTC.

The Mecklin Policy ( Cont. )

TO THE EDITOR:

I read John Mecklin's thoughtful and erudite defense of U.S. policy in Asia with interest but also with some frustration and dismay; frustration because here was an obviously highly intelligent writer still laboring under all the faulty, inglorious concepts of an outdated era, and dismay because such a well-authored commentary required above all an equally forthright and serious refutation in order that many of his basic false assumptions and fallacious assertions might not stand. To give such a refutation its due would certainly require considerable time and talent, neither of which appeared available from this quarter.

Now in your latest issue appear two fine responses, and the issues Peter Slavin and Richard DuBoff take with Mr. Mecklin bear serious consideration by every one of us. The one chief question I should like to add and pose to every Dartmouth man of every generation is: Can we in the 1970's afford to continue to play the old invidious game of peace and war by the same inauspicious devil-may-care rules that took the world into two wars and now leads it along the brink of a third? In my opinion it is going to take a far more perceptive and less Machiavellian approach than that offered by Mr. Mecklin to bring a measure of sanity to the very awesome powers that presently direct us.

New Haven, Conn.

TO THE EDITOR:

Re John Mecklin's letter in the October issue on our policy in Vietnam, I heartily congratulate Peter Slavin '63 and Richard B. DuBoff '55 for their intelligent, well- expressed rebuttal of Mr. Mecklin's letter. As a member of one of the older classes I would like to put my small voice on record concerning our idiotic foreign policy in Asia as well as elsewhere in the world, as it seems to me that most of the criticism of our actions comes from the younger classes.

Most of the press and foreign observers in Vietnam that I have read are pretty well agreed that the vast majority of the Vietnamese people (not the politicians and generals) are against the corrupt, thieving puppets who rule them, and also are against any foreign power intervening in their country militarily. As Kent Pollock, special staff writer for the Palm Beach Post, said after returning from Vietnam, "To most Vietnamese U.S. soldiers are just another foreign power. They are tired of Americans, just as they were tired of French, Japanese and Chinese. Vietnam is a war-weary nation. There is even anti-American feeling among some representatives in their National Assembly. During a debate over a military draft bill one legislator expressed the feelings of many of them, 'Why should we lose the only thing we have left? Why should we lose our 18- and 19-year-olds to fight a war for the Americans?' "

The army tries to bamboozle the American public by calling bombing raids protective reaction strikes; and napalm, the unholy substance used to burn soldiers and civilians alike, is called selective ordnance. How stupid can: we get?

A young Vietnamese civilian has three choices: he can join the army, join the national liberation front, or go to prison. Thousands of Buddhist monks and young Vietnamese are held in inhumane prisons because they won't join the army to fight for their present government. As a document written by a group of Buddhist monks and smuggled out of prison says in part, "We are suffering all kinds of ill treatment solely because we refuse to bear arms against our own brothers."

And we are in the expanded war in Cambodia completely except for ground combat troops. A dispatch in this morning's paper says, "American officials have developed a program for a military equipment delivery team that would send U.S. military representatives throughout Cambodia to check on deployment of American equipment. Commenting on the announcement of the American military teams in Cambodia qualified U. S. officials said the Americans would not fall into an advisory role." Rubbish. We have been lied to so often that I don't believe anything officially handed out to us from the capital of my country.

North Palm Beach, Fla.

1926's "Operation Attic"

TO THE EDITOR:

Many thanks to you and to Stanley Brown '67 for the excellent story The Classof 1926 Collection in your January issue.

The "Sampler," so effectively portrayed in your article, not only capsules the romance of the "First Hundred Years" but more importantly represents the interest and professional skill of our Howard Rice, Ed Lathem and his Library associates, and Ray Nash and his students in the Graphic Arts.

1926 is happy to state that the "Sampler" was produced by the Class, as its "timely" contribution to The Third Century Fund.

We do hope that your readers will include "Operation Attic" in their spring (or any) cleaning, for illustrated books published in New England during Dartmouth's first century.

Winnetka, Ill.

Architects Neglected

TO THE EDITOR:

Page 21 of the January issue is entirely devoted to the soon-to-be-constructed Murdough Center. The benefactors, donors, respective Deans, and President Kemeny are all mentioned, but unfortunately not the architect. The model shown depicts an interesting design that may, in fact, result in Dartmouth's first "modern" building. I'm curious to know who is responsible.

New York, N.Y.

The architects are Campbell, Aldrich &Nulty of Boston. Nelson Aldrich of this firmdesigned several of Dartmouth's newerbuildings and has also done some long-rangeplanning for the College.

"Sad Contrast"

TO THE EDITOR:

I find the picture appearing on Page 66 of your latest issue [deer hunters] to be in sad contrast to the picture on the cover. It is also in sad contrast with your emphasis on "conservation."

Baltimore, Md.

The editor's hunting friends reply that asystematic thinning of the deer herd isencouraged by state law and is lessinhumane than the winter starvation thatwould otherwise be allowed to happen.