Letters to the Editor

The Growth Syndrome

TO THE EDITOR:

I have in front of me two rather incredible articles—articles which have stirred my conscience to the extent that I have abandoned studying for my graduate exams this week to voice my feelings. Both are related to the current College fiscal crisis, or alleged crisis.

The first, Lawrence Manley's "Undergraduate Chair" column in the March issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, points out that the Third Century Fund has been victimized by inflation to the tune of $29 million, thus causing the shelving of many projects which "have the greatest direct effect on the quality of undergraduate education"—notably the science center, new stacks for Baker, a new dorm and dining facility, the squash and handball courts, the ice arena, and two or three special professorships. The second is a letter from our class president noting with gloom that Dartmouth may be closed in five years by financial troubles, or may have to become a public institution—this as a stimulus to alumni giving!

I am indeed sorry to note that the College is caught up—apparently with many of its students—in the "growth syndrome" frame of mind which is characteristic of our society today: the belief that exponential rates of growth in all spheres can be maintained forever with the aid of expanding technology. I would suggest that it is not alumni giving, but administration policies of expansion, that be reexamined. Look at your priorities, gentlemen: You lament handball courts and ice arenas, whose contribution to the "quality" of your education is highly questionable. You lament the fact that the cost of an education is now such that many middle-class students cannot be able in the future to afford an education—this, just after you eliminate by your own choice the possibility for many middle-class students to attend by their own choice under the ROTC programs (to say nothing of the humanizing role such students could have played in the military—and I know, because I've been there). 82% of you vote for coeducation, and Trustee Dudley Orr estimates that it will only cost $274,000 per year. It will cost one hell of a lot more than that, friends! In case you haven't heard, coeducational living is now commonplace in dorms on every part of campus, not just in colleges, and the cost in lavatory conversion and price both might as well be computed for every dorm on campus, because it will come to that: the girls will make sure it does. It will cost you not having girls around checking on your behavior elsewhere, too.

And there are far more important intangible considerations to coeducation: considerations that most students don't consider until they become alums. Why do you think the alumni body is so closely knit as a group? It is because Dartmouth has been a melding pot that has brought together so many diverse elements and forced them to interact with one another as fellow men. How many people do you know at least casually when you graduate—those in your own class, for instance? Think about it—for most of you it will be 70-80% of your class, if things have not changed too much in the last 8 years. With coeducation, many of you would become so involved on campus all of the time with a particular girl that you simply would not mix in the same way. And perhaps that mixing has not just a little to do with the successes our graduates have known in the business world. If you eliminate that aspect, you may well be striking a fatal blow to one of the real mechanisms that maintains alumni spirit AND motivates alumni giving in the long run. Another question: how many potential women alums would be able to contribute in the six-figure bracket? Silly, you say—but where are your current moneys for these programs coming from?

Trustee Orr argues that we should not deny young women the right to the quality education Dartmouth can provide. When we talk about quality, though, we are really talking about those intangibles again: Dartmouth's unique emphasis on the undergraduate (and now you are starting doctoral programs?), the unbelievably beautiful physical plant of the campus (even without new squash and handball courts), the "melding-pot" atmosphere (which, I would suggest, girls on campus might eventually destroy), and the fantastic faculty. I would propose that the last category should be highest on the priority list for finances. You shouldn't have too much trouble hanging on to them if they are, for these days Ph.D.'s can't even find jobs at junior colleges. After all, gentlemen, isn't your business there really learning? Or has that changed too? You will find, after you have married, that the women are a part of Dartmouth life in a way they never could have been if they were just alums. Perhaps could it be that they enjoy the exclusivity of the club, and that we are not male chauvinists after all, but are merely getting a real education in human relations that we could have gotten in no other way? I think so; you have to decide for yourselves. As the world must survive, so must the College; as the science of survival must be rational, so must the effort to maintain the spirit and the unity that is Dartmouth.

East Lansing, Mich.

Too Expensive?

TO THE EDITOR:

Your March issue displays two quite conflicting aspects of the fiscal thinking of the College. The article on the financial "crunch" outlines in some detail the present state of our financial affairs and this is still further delineated in the March 1 issue of The Bulletin. The picture is a very grim one brought about by that old, old story of spending more money than one receives over a period of time. The College is far from alone in this practice as many (not all) other colleges as well as the federal government and other enterprises both public as well as private have also been drawn into its embrace. Penn Central and Rolls Royce are distinguished examples of this latter group. It is a complex, multifaceted situation that among other things is pricing the colleges' product right out of the market. And like alcoholism and drug addiction the serious problems of deficit financing will not go away until the sufferer truly resolves that they must, and gives to this absolute priority over all else. Mere talk and small gestures in the direction of budget balancing mean very little. Besides, they are likely to be more than offset from time to time by new projects whose allure just can not be resisted.

An unusual direct example of this is the announcement of the gift of the very beautiful and extensive estate on Squam Lake which is to be used as an off-campus conference center. This is quite too alluring to resist, as images of an academic Camp David or a modern day Walden immediately take shape in the mind. But to the more austere mind there is also an immediate image of considerable expense. A staff for the mere maintenance of such a place is substantial, plus a partial subsidy that I presume will be exacted from the local taxpayers in the form of tax exemption. Then with use there is bound to be at least minor alterations, some degree of equipment and more staff to feed and bed the participants. Believe me, this will add up!

But where and what is the lack of such facilities in Hanover? Particularly with our new Inn, I can not imagine a meeting that might be held at Squam that could not be held in Hanover in equally adequate and luxurious quarters as well as a greater academic atmosphere. If this is at all true, then the Squam project would appear to be a non-essential extravagance and a step in the wrong financial direction.

Providence, R.I.

A Reply by Gregory S. Prince, Director of Summer Programs

The careful attention the President and the Trustees of Dartmouth College gave to the issues Mr. Goodnow raises testifies to their importance, and his considered inquiry deserves reply.

After careful study, the Trustees, the President, and Officers of the College concluded that Dartmouth does have a need for a facility of this kind which in size, atmosphere and setting complements, but does not duplicate, existing or planned facilities.

In the past, small, outside groups have sought Dartmouth's help with continuing education programs but, at the same time, they often wanted the seclusion and exclusive use of a facility which could not be provided on campus. Within the College, committees, task forces, or departmental groups have increasing difficult) finding accommodations that will give them uninterrupted time for concentrated work on planning. The Minary Center provides a new opportunity to respond to these needs. ,

In accepting the Center, the College did not ignore financial considerations. Because Mr. Paley graciously did not attach any stipulation that the College must keep the estate in perpetuity, Dartmouth, without risk of financial loss, can attempt to fulfill Mr. Paley's hope that the Center be used as a valuable educational facility.

The College is confident that a considerately used conference center which makes only limited demands on community services will bring advantages to the Squam Lake community that will more than offset any loss suffered by the removal of a privately owned, but intermittently used, summer estate from the tax rolls.

Not Convinced

TO THE EDITOR:

The Provost of the College and his committee maintain that the quality of education at Dartmouth will suffer unless the College becomes coeducational. It is difficult for me to reason out the rationale behind this argument because it would seem to me that the resultant costs arising from the infusion of women would more than offset the additional revenues and would have a significant dilutible effect on the quality of education offered to the 4,000 men and women who would comprise the student body under the proposed plan.

As a Dartmouth graduate, as the father of a member of the Class of 1965, and as the father of a 1974 freshman, I resent the fact that students will be forced off campus for six-month periods and will be forced to attend one or more summer sessions in order to accommodate 900 women in the student body. In my opinion, this would be a disruptive influence to the esprit de corps which has characterized Dartmouth alumni for two centuries and will even split a class into many small segments by allowing athletes to be selective in those terms which they would attend over a four-year period. As a businessman, and as one who recruits for his firm on several college campuses, including Tuck School, I don't know how a young man is going to be able to get a job for a six-month period of time. Industry has traditionally hired college students for summer employment (primarily as a recruiting tool) and I would be sure that this practice will continue, with the exception of summers such as 1971 when employment of college students will be severely curtailed for economic reasons.

I do not feel that the Quayle Poll should be used as an argument for coeducation. In the first place, I do not feel that the sample was sufficient to be meaningful nor do I feel that the alumni who were polled were apprised of the facts which were set forth in my preceding paragraph. Furthermore, I would like to see the following question put to the student body:

Would you be in favor of coeducation at Dartmouth if it meant that you would: (a) be forced away from the Hanover environment for two six-month periods, and (b) be forced to attend one or more summer sessions?

I sincerely hope that mine is not a voice crying out of the wilderness.

Syracuse, N.Y.

"Postpone the Decision"

TO THE EDITOR:

The Trustees should decide to postpone any final decision on the issue of coeducation for at least five years. The pioneering actions taken by such similar institutions as Yale, Princeton, and Williams have placed Dartmouth in the fortunate position of not having to make any change at this time Rather, our Trustees can, and should carefully observe our competitors' experience during the next five years or more. This can be done without harm to Dartmouth, I would contend, based upon the following analysis of points frequently made in favor of coeducation now:

"FINANCES MAY SUFFER"

—the spectre of less Federal Government support because of sexual discrimination has been raised. Are the dollar amounts involved significant? Is this truly an imminent cessation of support? Would this be a disaster to the integrity and viability of the College? Cogent analysis of answers to these questions seems lacking. On the other hand, alumni support will remain at current levels or higher, I would surmise, if there is assurance of no coeducation for a minimum number of years, such as five. Also, tuition income should not appreciably suffer during the observation period, given the past several years of continuing increases in preliminary and final applications. Why fight success? Even should applications decline, the selection is so vast that freshman classes could still be filled with bright young men even in the face of a precipitous decline in applications, an unlikely prospect in just a few years.

"QUALITY OF EDUCATION WILL SUFFER"

—the catch-phrase "quality of education" has been used and abused in the context of coeducational discussion. To some it is a function of student diversity in religion, wealth, skin color, and social status. Currently some would have us believe that "quality education" is also dependent upon an appropriate proportion of feminine bosoms among the student body. In fact, the true "quality of education" at any school is solely dependent upon the teacher, his subject matter, and intellect of students insofar as it affects the teacher's presentation. The "quality" of education received by a student during a lecture course at 105 Dartmouth Hall, for example, is in no way affected by the sex, religion, color, or wealth of his seatmates. Do proponents of coeducation actually think that with the addition of women, Dartmouth will produce proportionately more Rhodes Scholars and Phi Beta Kappas than in the past? Or are they saying that social behaviour (i.e. how to get along with women) is suddenly a subject appropriate to the Dartmouth experience and a critical ingredient in a liberal arts education A positive response to either of the foregoing questions would be of doubtful credibility.

"WE MUST FOLLOW OUR COMPETITORS"

—as businessmen, our Trustees know that in such lines of endeavor as airlines, banks, and insurance companies, there is constant effort to achieve and emphasize product differentiation. Today, Dartmouth has a unique product comprised principally of quality education (as defined), North Country location, and all-male atmosphere. is it good business to remove one of the most significant aspects of Dartmouth's unique product? (Would Volkswagen be where it is today if it had changed its product in response to every criticism over the years?)

In summary, adherence to the moral stricture which has stood us so well for over 200 years, "Vox Clamantis in Deserto," also makes good business sense. The Trustees Should vote against coeducation at this time.

Rockville Centre, N.Y.

Tuck Mall Spoiled?

TO THE EDITOR:

The announcement of the forthcoming expansion of the Tuck-Thayer program with the Murdough Center cannot be met with anything but hearty enthusiasm. However, serious doubts must be raised about the execution of the center with a proposed building at the end of Tuck Mall.

We question the good judgment of those responsible for the initial site selection, and the subesquent acceptance of an inadequate solution. In considering Tuck Mall to be an obstruction to the purposes of the center, the planners have created an obstruction to the corridor of activity between Baker Library and the Wigwam dormitories. This solution shows little of the consideration or restraint exercised by the College in former projects such as Baker Library or the Hopkins Center which successfully related large, complex programs to the scale and spirit of a small college.

We feel that the architect has a greater responsibility to his client than this clipping of contemporary cliches from current trade journals implies. Are we to believe that the beleaguered resident of the Wigwam dormi- tories is expected to attend "town meetings" while wending his way through a sunless plaza to and from class? Who is the mysterious architect? Imhotep? Why has he been permitted to enshrine himself at Dartmouth's expense? Why has the placement of this building on Tuck Mall been disguised?

We challenge the proponents of this scheme to publish a more thorough presentation, especially a view of the building from Baker Library, so that the Dartmouth Community will be aware of the heavy-handed termination of the Tuck Mall vista.

Philadelphia, Pa.

Another Look at Vietnam

TO THE EDITOR:

The letter by Mr. Hart in the February issue must be answered. It contains the sort of emotional parade of misconceptions about American intentions and activities in Vietnam hat has assailed my eyes and ears for several years now—often leaving me deeply hurt that our country should be so consistently and injustly repudiated and reviled for what it has tried to do in vietnam His arguments—I should say —are a carbon-copy of those which emanate from opinion-making ma- chinery here in France: be comforted to know that any French ten-year-old knows them better than his catechism.

What moves me to respond, then, is not the novelty of his message—it is the rage and disappointment that I feel when confronted with such simplistic analysis of American motives in Vietnam coming from a man recently graduated from one of the best American institutions of higher learning. We are indeed suffering internally from a grievous "credibility gap" so long as earnest, intelligent and idealistic young men seriously believe that (1) our national leaders want to transform the world "in America's image"; (2) we were arming Diem "against his own people" even before the birth of the NLF; (3) our answer to an official South Vietnamese call for aid was "massive air strikes against non-military targets in another country"; (4) it is our country's will to "manipulate ... slaughter ... vivisect ... relocate ... ispossess" the people of an entire nation in order to satisfy "self-serving aims in the area."

Points (2) and (3) have circulated through opinion-making machinery on a worldwide scale for several years. If the intent of the authors of such falsehood was to breed an insidious mood of anti-American feeling, I will readily admit that they succeeded admirably. I am surprised, however, that a serious student and newsanalyst, such as Mr. Hart, would look no further in his quest for truth. As for point (1) he may be too young to remember that there was very lengthy national debate on this issue (in Washington as well as in mass media) about ten years ago. In any case, he is not a careful student of the exercise of American aid if he has not yet realized that attempts to export American sociopolitical systems and methods were abandoned many years ago!

And now, Mr. Hart, I come to the most difficult of my answer—that which concerns point (4) and which is the essence of your "alienation." You were not very precise about the "self-serving aims" which you seem to feel dictate American moves in Vietnam, but I gather that you really believe American motives to be no different from those of any nineteenth century colonial power flexing its over-developed muscles? This, again, is the cliche most often employed by serious journalists and TV commentators here in France. Since my keenest personal striving is to know and to understand the machinations and motivations of international relations, and since Vietnam has been a keystone of those relations for several years, I have quite earnestly sought proofs of the existence of this neo-colonialist motivation so widely decried. If their goal was mainly to enhance national prestige, American leaders would have ordered our troops out of Vietnam four years ago OR would have ordered the rapid (and relatively easy) destruction of the economic infrastructure of North Vietnam long ago.

Would you, Mr. Hart, be willing to admit the possibility that a great many of the Americans who have—directly or indirectly —played a role in Vietnam have actually done so "with no malice aforethought"? Would you even admit the possibility that they (and I) are just as concerned as you are about the physical and moral upheavals and the infinite human suffering which the war in Vietnam has wrought? Finally, I wish you could at least imagine that most of the Americans who have had painful decisions to make concerning military strategy gy in Vietnam may have done so in the sincere and quite lucid belief that here were as a country-no more or less an ally than was France in 1915 and 1941—asking our country for help in repelling an externa enemy bent on domination. It has been as sickening and inhumane a war as any this earth has known. Our leaders, both civil and military, seem finally to have realized not only that the propaganda war over Vietnam was lost long ago, but, more important, that the strategic goal of matching force with force is in grave danger of destroying the very people it set out to save.

Paris, France

May Anniversary

TO THE EDITOR:

The intervening months have not subdued my "conscience and concern" over the events in Hanover of last May. If the leadership shown in that crisis and since then persists, we may expect even more harrowing times ahead. We need point only to the experience at Columbia since 1968. extending into February of this year. Moreover, when political power beckons, who will waste time in the liberal arts? Knowing how Mr. Kemeny values dissent, I feel certain he will appreciate "the depth of my personal conviction" shown by this letter.

Last May Dartmouth was faced, in Mr. Kemeny's words, with "the escalation of the war in Indo-China," with a "frustrated" Congress, with Yale's having become a "battleground" of great issues, and finally with "the killing of two boys and two girls at Kent State." In these blood-chilling circumstances, again according to Mr. Kemeny, "a large number of students" in Hanover had issued a call for "united action by the Dartmouth community" to change "the policy of this country." The method chosen by them, presumably with faculty support, was a massive strike against the classroom on the next day and a meeting of many hundreds on the Green to voice "their deepest moral feelings." Their immediate target would be the academic learning for which they earnestly sought admission to Dartmouth.

Mr. Kemeny's response to this challengeinterested me as a Dartmouth alumnus andparent. As he has told us, May 4 was forhim, the newly elected President orDartmouth, "a day of decision." Thequestion before him was whether he wouldignore the events, would issue notice thai the College proceed on its course withoutinterruption and that those who might seekforcibly to interfere be disciplined, orwhether he would join the throng himselfAs he put it, he had to decide "whetherwas going to be President of Dartmouth College or not" in a time of threatenedcrisis.„

On the evening of May 4 he went to the air on station WDCR to announce his decision. He would join the throng himself. He reviewed the events that led to the student demand for united action by Dartmouth. He acknowledged the threat of a strike and said it was not directed against Dartmouth but was solely to unite Dartmouth. According to Mr. Kemeny, the details of Kent State were "totally unimportant" because "all of us are at fault" and because "civilization in this country has reached a stage that I find totally intolerable." He proclaimed May 5 as a day of mourning and suspended all classes. For the rest of the week he said that normal academic activities would be put aside for workshops and seminars to discuss recent events; students intent on proceeding with their courses would have to take the initiative themselves to arrange that with their instructors; others who wished to wallow for a week in the bath of profound concern could do so and would automatically receive course credits.

What Mr. Kemeny prescribed for all, including administration officers and janitors, took place. For regular academic purposes, the College closed down for the week. On May 5 over 2500 persons came together on the Green to think things through. One officer described the week's experience as "exhilarating"; others closer to what actually occurred have given more pungent descriptions. A paying parent may wonder about the week of wallowing and the automatic credits; he may perhaps be pardoned if he should ask why a credit on the cost of tuition, room and board was not also allowed. The crisis subsided. We may conclude that Mr. Kemeny began to breathe easily again.

However, with the solution prescribed, the problem refuses to lie down. What will happen this spring or next if students again seize the initiative so favorably rewarded last year by ominously reacting to the welfare crisis, to the prospective trial of Angela Davis, to the ravages of inflation, or in support of the renaissance of the Ku Klux Klan? You can pick your own live issue at random. What will the response be this time in the face of the confrontation? Mr. Kemeny knew the policy of the College on dissent and disruption—as every incom- ing freshman is required to know—where "the orderly processes of the College are ... deliberately obstructed." He quoted in full the text of that policy in his letter to President Nixon of last September. He ignored that policy last spring in his determination to be a leader. What can we expect this spring when the balmy breezes of mellow mornings and soft twilights begin to blow? ...

To Mr. Kemeny, as he spoke on May 4, war has become "totally unacceptable and must be eliminated." Over forty years ago, this nation joined with 64 other nations in a solemn treaty that expressly adopted that credo as a policy. Our Army and Air Fore almost disappeared in pursuit of that policy under the matchless leadership of Mr. Roosevelt. We approached the brink of utter disaster. Mr. Kemeny's wish is as refreshing and as new as it is tired and old We may indeed have peace at any price if we are prepared to include war in the price to be paid.

In the company of many who have lost their way, Mr. Kemeny turns to Washington for the financial relief of universities and of Dartmouth. Students of institutional behavior may be able to tell us why. As reported last September, he urgently appealed to Congress for "a massive Federal program of support to higher education." To test the likely result of this appeal, all frustrated college presidents might simultaneously ask Washington for massive help—and see what happens. This sort of approach to the problem of money for education, welfare, or you-name-it has become stylized and stereotyped. It affords a complete answer for mayors, governors, and now college presidents when failure looms. They can blame Washington—i.e. "all of us"—for their plight. Or can they? Where can we turn for the resourceful and imaginative leadership that is clearly called for?

As paying parents of Dartmouth students —not to mention supporting alumni—we may be forgiven if we hope for something better than the conformist thinking that has prevailed, such as the idea of uniting a supposedly diverse, academic community of distinctive individuals in the stultifying singleness of a program of political action. We may also be forgiven if we wonder whether the liberal arts training—so earnestly needed every year in this intolerable country of ours—can survive the crush of relevance. If Dartmouth is to maintain "its traditional role of training leaders," as Mr. Kemeny proclaimed in his letter to parents of last May 19, we may hope for inspiring examples as proof of the proclamation.

Cincinnati, Ohio

Lydia Behrendt Fund

TO THE EDITOR:

"My students keep me young," said Lydia Hoffmann-Behrendt—and as her physical limitations increased, nothing shone like her youthful spirit. She loved her Dartmouth boys and worried that, as college costs soar, more of them will have to give up their music.

Death came for her gently and suddenly, February 15 at the Mary Hitchcock Hospital in Hanover.

Pupils and other friends who will carry some of her civilizing and artistic influence through life may wish to contribute to The Lydia Hoffmann-Behrendt Memorial Fund, Its purpose will be to encourage music at Dartmouth in ways that would have made her glad.

Checks may be made out to Dartmouth College and sent to: Mrs. William W. Ballard, Norwich, Vermont 05055.

Norwich, Vt.