Letters to the Editor

Coeducation (Cont.)

TO THE EDITOR:

Most of the objections to coeducation at Dartmouth, those which arise in my mind, have been voiced more effectively by others. However, I cannot resist adding my opposition. I cannot help believing that there is room for one college like Dartmouth that will stand by its tradition of males only.

Furthermore, from the figures quoted, it would appear that the change now would court financial difficulties, serious when viewed in the light of those recently emphasized by President Kemeny. Would it not be better to resist the impulse to jump on the bandwagon until the results for others are more clearly shown? Just to confuse the metaphor, I do not think Dartmouth will miss the boat.

Washington, D.C.

TO THE EDITOR:

The question of Dartmouth's becoming coeducational is not of critical importance to me. The administration must find money to finance new facilities and additional personnel. That is important. If the administration and the Board of Trustees have the financial answers, so be it.

As for me and, I dare say, for others of my archival vintage, the proposed change is not at all startling because I find that all my old stand-bys are gone: the Constitution, the aristocracy of brains (to which group I never belonged), the Bible, the Sears and Roebuck catalogue, Joe Pilver, and the street car.

And the Dartmouth I knew is also gone—gone forever. The Dartmouth Row is still there; so is Tuck Drive and Baker Library, the golf course and the snow, and the winter stars sparkling over West Street; but these only suggest a Dartmouth that once lived and breathed. Now they are merely hooks on which I hang memories. The ambience of youth, the friends I saw every day, the teachers I liked, the day-to-day rubbing against the buildings and events, the letters I wrote and received—all are gone.

So whether or not Dartmouth becomes coeducational does not really trouble me. If the times call for such a change, it should not be resisted on the grounds that Dartmouth will thus change.

To the students, teachers, and administration, Dartmouth is a living, growing being, but to me it is simply a charming, animated mausoleum where my youth lies buried under forty years of change. I can not go back to Dartmouth again.

But I often wonder how "Men of Dartmouth ... and the loyal sons who love her... will sound when soprano blends with bass and baritone.

Scarsdale, N.Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

With further reference to the burning question of coeducation at Dartmouth, it is gratifying to read in The New York Times that cooler heads prevailed at the Trustees' decision meeting in April.

In the same issue of The Times, a release from the Yale Office of Admissions announced that applications for the next entering class were significantly lower. It is of more than passing interest to note that the Dartmouth Office of Admissions without benefit of coeducation attractions reports the highest number of paid applications in the past five years.

I have carefully read the report of the Trustee committee on this proposal and although I have no desire to debate the subject with Dudley Orr there are a few passages in that report that seem to invite comment. Among these is the statistical comparison of the numbers of male and female students proposed to be at Dartmouth in 1975 compared to the numbers in 1930 or in Dr. Tucker's time.

What possible use do such comparisons serve? One might as well go back to Dr. Wheelock's time.

The report also states that "responding to society's needs will distinguish a college." It seems to me if distinction is a College goal, and I think it is, it is more likely to be achieved in splendid isolation than in imitation. The location and environment have imposed a certain amount of isolation on the College for 200 years and have contributed greatly to its unity and strength.

The report warns us against the danger of becoming a "solitary relic" but most of us are pretty fond of that old relic and want to be certain we are getting something better if we change.

It is acknowledged by its proponents that the new program would impose on the College additional operating expenses at a time of financial stringency but it goes on to say "if in hard times new programs are not introduced, the College may be going out of business."

It seems to me that this is a dangerous philosophy on which to launch a new program in a new administration. Deficit financing is sometimes a way of life for a National Administration and its practice has contributed significantly to the present inflation that has affected us all, but a government has unlimited powers of taxation which a college does not. I would suggest that introduction of expensive new programs in hard times increases rather than reduces the danger of the College going out of business.

If the College should be unwise enough to embark on a new program at a time when present programs are being funded with great difficulty, it will be the alumni who will ultimately be asked to pick up the tab, and yet these alumni, who are so vitally concerned, have not so far been consulted in depth about such a major step.

Whatever long-range merits or demerits coeducation has for Dartmouth College, the evidence is substantial that the 1972 target date is wrong. Why not wait until the Nation and the College are in a happier and healthier economic state? Our affluent sister colleges, Harvard, Yale and Princeton, to mention a few, are running annual deficits of several million dollars. With their enormous assets they can afford the luxury of a new program but can Dartmouth?

Does Dartmouth need to rush into something it really can't afford at this time just because everyone else is? Wouldn't we look a little foolish going into debt for a program that we might not even like?

Finally, with $6,500,000 in the till and a favorable experience at our sister colleges as precedent, I still would hope that a program could be evolved that would not lower the male undergraduate admission rate. Under these conditions and if properly consulted as a whole, the alumni might go along.

The President said at the last Council-Trustees meeting that Dartmouth under no circumstances would give up football. While that statement is reassuring and his interest in college athletics is well known, it would be more convincing if he told us how it would be possible to continue Dartmouth football on a respectable scale with a declining male enrollment. If we cannot maintain at least a semblance of the proud football tradition we have earned, we had better give up the sport entirely.

If the proposed program is adopted, the well-rounded boy we are asked to find to meet the standards of the Office of Admissions may give way to the well-rounded girl and that, I submit, is unfair competition.

Is there really anything worthwhile to be lost by deferring this decision now slated for October, which once made is irrevocable, until the economic and financial horizon is significantly clearer, the alumni body as a whole has been heard, and the experiences of Princeton and Yale can be evaluated?

McLean, Va.

When members of my Class of 1914 left the Plain after graduation we did not leave the College but changed our address in order to make our way in the world. Dartmouth graduates never leave the College — we remain permanently members of the family. Therefore, I am opposed to any attempt to make it coeducational.

I have read numerous articles in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE and the articles written by President Kemeny. As yet, I have never seen anything that would indicate to me the need or any benefits which would result to the College. I have read the Wheelock Succession through Brown, Dana, Tyler. Tucker, Nichols and Hopkins. During the difficult years and problems encountered, Dartmouth proved to be one of the outstanding male colleges in America. It was only during the more recent tendency toward a change that an attempt was made by the inflated egotists who suffer from that anesthetic of human nature which prevents people from dying from shame when they realize what fools they have been.

The lengthy articles of the President are entirely lacking in any definite opinion as to a choice in the matter. If the College belongs to the alumni, as I assume it doe; and should, then the alumni should decide this question. The alumni, who so successfully contributed to the Third Century Fund Drive, should vote on this question.

New Brunswick, N.J.

TO THE EDITOR:

Here we go again.

When Princeton became co-educational, I transferred my pittance (although not necessarily my loyalties) from it to Dartmouth, which I considered to be a last bastion of masculinity. And now I find that Dartmouth, under the tutelage of Dudley Orr (who is, incidentally, a friend of mine from way back when), is considering taking the same road. Once again I may be looking for another all-male institution which I can help out in my own small way.

I have spent some forty years in the education of males, and I see nothing wrong with it. From Princeton, from Phillips Exeter, and from my present school, which is also considering the same action, I have not yet heard the answer to Mr. Wilkinson's question: "Will a greater feminine presence improve the quality of the educational experience which is being provided—?"

Even if it could be proved that all-male education were inferior in general, it does not mean that it is inferior for everybody. Freedom of choice will be denied to future generations of students by those institutions which for the most part gained their renown as one-sex organizations. Mr. Rearden said in his letter: "I personally fail to see the justice involved in completely eliminating the individual's freedom of choice. Should an individual desire to go to an all-male Ivy League school, I think he should have that choice available to him."

I have two granddaughters. I sincerely hope that they will not choose Princeton, and that they cannot choose Dartmouth.

Princeton '30

Rome, Ga.

Coed Already?

TO THE EDITOR:

Reading the April 1971 issue, I noticed the Alumni Ski Weekend caption: "Viewing things from the top of the slalom run are (1 to r) Mary Thielscher '54, Joshua Rich '62, Jane Yusen '58, Ingeborg Lazar '59, and Audrey Vosburgh '52."

Lo! Has the College been coed all these years unbeknownst to its alumni in the farout places?

Dallas, Texas

EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Arnstein's quotation is not strictly correct. The numerals after the names of the Dartmouth wives were all enclosed in parentheses. This for years has been our way of indicating the class of the Dartmouth husband and, we like to think, of making the wife a recognized part of the Dartmouth family.

Judiciary Plan Opposed

TO THE EDITOR:

I read with some amazement your article in the April issue on the new judiciary system under consideration. I realize it has become fashionable to have all-black dorms, all-black clubs, and all-black teams. (After all, one must keep up with the times.) But the Prospect of a racially divided judiciary Astern catches me by surprise.

It became clear to me as an undergraduate that even under the old judiciary system infractions were not infractions as long as they were committed by Blacks. Many of my friends observed the same phenomenon. I take it as a matter of common knowledge that members of racial minorities are rarely, if ever, suspended for any reason. The more intimidated the administration feels, the less likely is the College to risk a row over a disciplinary case. But what kind of equitable justice do our Great Scholars imagine a segregated judiciary will be capable of administering? Has the intellectual community really gone bananas or are they just masquerading? I find it hard to be sure.

New York, N.Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

Meekly and with the customary humility of a subjugated majority member, I summon sufficient audacity to inquire ruefully: are all majority rights to be subordinated to those of the minority on our Dartmouth campus?

Or, can there yet be a vestige of hope to justify the sustaining belief that those, like myself, who ardently advocate the security of old and established traditions may live to witness the prevalence of another majority opinion?

Or, yet again, are the campus and alumni majorities to be constantly and flagrantly frustrated in their desires and thwarted by tenacious, cacophonous minorities whose extraordinary power belies their importance and exaggerates their privilege?

A case in point: the unwarranted condescension enunciated on page 18 of the April issue anent the CCSC: "Three of the students [of the five allotted to the CCSC] would be elected by the entire undergrad- uate body. Black students would elect one of the remaining two members and Indian students the other [the underlines are mine]." In the name of judicial and parliamentary common sense, what's fair about that proposal?

First, if all undergraduates are eligible to vote for three members, why aren't they all eligible to vote for the Negro and Indian members? Second, isn't the College's much-vaunted computer system capable of striking off a much better proportionate representation than three for approximately 3000, one for approximately 150 and one for approximately 20, respectively?

Let the Faculty of Arts and Sciences return to its star chamber and come up with a better balance of representation on the CCSC.

Hampton Falls, N. H.

EDITOR'S NOTE: As reported in the May issue, Dartmouth students voted down the proposed new judiciary system. There was widespread feeling that there was no evidence of a need for special minority panels in order to ensure a fair and unprejudiced hearing for any student enrolled at Dartmouth.

Not Exactly "Medieval"

TO THE EDITOR:

In the April issue Jerome J. Altman '32 alleges that Dartmouth, alone among her Ivy sisters, still continues to adhere to "medieval antecedants" in allowing her Board of Trustees to be a self-perpetuating body "completely free of alumni [and student?] interference." Mr. Altman then concludes his letter by congratulating the College for sticking to tradition "in this age of too rapid change."

Without commenting on the accuracy of Mr. Altman's view of the present situation, I should like to point out that "medieval antecedants" do not consistently support our mode of Trustee election. In The Rule of St.Benedict, for example, one reads that abbots should be "chosen unanimously in the fear of God by the whole community, or even by a minority, however small, if its counsel be more wholesome." And on the reasoning behind this passage St. Benedict is abundantly clear: "Now the reason why we have said that all should be called to council, is that God often reveals what is better to the younger — quia juniori Dominus revelatquod melius est." All of which leads me to wonder whether Princeton is being truly radical in its new approach to Trustee elections or whether it should be regarded as merely Benedictine?

Associate Professor of History

Hanover, N. H.

Saluting Admiral Walters

TO THE EDITOR:

The matter of the ROTC should not yet be considered a closed incident and I was glad to read the precisely professional and tremendously complete letter by Dr. Waltman Walters '17 in the April issue. ROTC adherents, and they are legion, will be grateful to Admiral Walters for his devastating defense of an institution that should not have needed any.

My father, 1895 Medical, a long-time practicing physician, Professor and author, co-founder and for 30 years Editor of Medical Economics, well-known pharmaceutical manufacturer. Colonel Medical Corps in WW1 and for many years in the Reserve, a past President of the Medical School Alumni who next to his family loved nothing better than Dartmouth, was a great ROTC booster. Had he been alive his voice, for its preservation, would have been a powerful one in supporting that of Admiral Walters.

Philadelphia, Pa.

What Debt?

TO THE EDITOR:

The argument of William W. Goodman '39 in the April issue sounds like the promotion of a juice-loan racket to me. Each alumnus upon graduation owes the College $2400 but after repaying $3125 he still owes $2400. You are going to turn off a lot of people with that kind of argument. My reaction is: stop yakking at us and trying to make us feel guilty about what we are doing for Dartmouth. We'll do the best we can for Dartmouth without being pressured.

As a matter of fact, Dartmouth didn't "loan" us any money, or "invest" in us, or "subsidize" us, and we don't "owe" any specific debt to the College. The application of business jargon to what is essentially a very personal matter is repellent. The Trustees and faculty gave us an education in the hope that it would enrich our lives, help us to get some new values, and contribute tangible or intangible benefits to the community. It would seem almost Self evident that our duty to contribute Dartmouth is determined by the benefit and pleasure we got from the college experience and our financial situation at the moment.

I would like to say also that the who], idea of growth, as expressed by Presided Kemeny — that present programs have to be expanded, that new programs have to be taken on, and that the student body has to increase in size — is wrong. If there's anything this country doesn't need, if's growth. What it needs, as pointed out by Paul Ehrlich of Stanford, is de-development If Dud Orr and others want to make Dartmouth co-ed, it's O.K. by me, but let's do it in the way suggested by Malcolm Churchill '60: "... open Dartmouth up on a competitive, non-quota basis to the best applicants, whatever sex they may be." Don't increase the enrollment, and don't increase the costs.

Chicago, Ill.

Misrepresented

TO THE EDITOR:

The letter which I wrote concerning coeducation and which was published in the April issue of the Alumni Magazine was designed to present a view of Dartmouth's coeducation plan as it might appear to a non-male, non-Dartmouth outsider. For greater effect, it was drafted and signed as if written by a fictitious Wym. N. Lib. While I had expected that my name would be used, I was dismayed to discover that the letter was published under my signature and without the pseudo-signature Wym N. Lib. thus making it appear that the letter represents my personal opinion. This omission, if intentional, strikes me as a clearly unjustified application of editorial prerogative, and I would hope that you would be good enough to correct the record.

The main purpose of my letter was to stimulate some hard thinking about the unlikelihood of being able to permanently maintain a system of coeducation which (hypocritically?) allows us to retain male predominance at Dartmouth. My intention was not, as you have made it appear, to launch a tirade against "you Dartmouth men."

Washington, D.C.

The CEP Calendar Redefined

To THE EDITOR:

Times of change require informed cornunity discussion. I am therefore dismayed by the vagueness and inaccuracy of Joel Zylberberg '72 writing in "The Under-graduate Chair" (ALUMNI MAGAZINE, May). As a member of the Committee on Educational Planning, I am especially disturbed by the misrepresentation of the CEP calendar proposal in that article.

Mr Zylberberg's view of the world is simplistic- The "Dartmouth fellowship" of which he writes in such glowing terms is both more and less than he claims. It is indeed a bond between Dartmouth men resulting from shared experience, but its significance is not to be found primarily in gifts of money nor even hospitality.

Dartmouth's purpose has long been to provide an education for her students. It is this shared experience, rather than football games and Winter Carnivals, that must be the basis for the Dartmouth fellowship if it is to be anything more than an exclusive drinking club. All Dartmouth men have in common the experiences of living in a small academic community; meeting professors at a football game or concert; walking across campus confident of meeting a friend along the way; but most significantly, studying at a college which provides an education designed to help one meet the challenge of a rapidly changing world.

The world has changed and Dartmouth men have had their part in these changes. Dartmouth must, if it is to remain true to its purpose, change with the world, and the Dartmouth fellowship must, by its nature, follow suit. We have already ceased to regard Hanover as the only locale for Dartmouth education. Each year nearly 600 students spend time studying abroad and in domestic off-campus programs expanding the horizons of the College. This is proper if a Dartmouth education is to continue to deal realistically with the rapidly changing world.

The changes in our society in the last decade which have increased opportunities for well-educated women to make significant contributions to business, the professions, and social growth call upon Dartmouth to open its doors to women. (The reasons for coeducation, contrary to Mr. Zylberberg's impressions, have never been "keeping up with the Yalies.") A Dartmouth education without women can meet neither the long-standing goal of realistically facing the world nor that of actively educating its future leaders.

The CEP is aware of both the value of the Dartmouth fellowship and the need for evolution of the College. The CEP calendar proposal was designed to meet the challenge of reconciling the two. It is unfortunate that Mr. Zylberberg chose to describe only what he saw as disadvantages of the plan, and to do so with misleading and inaccurate statements.

Under the CEP plan the matriculated student body would increase in size by about 20%, but the on-campus community would (contrary to the impression given by Mr. Zylberberg) be slightly reduced from the current rather crowded 3150 to slightly more than 3000. The additional students would be accommodated by making fuller use of off-campus studies and the now under-used summer term. Mr. Zylberberg is right in praising Hanover weather as a binding force, but we feel that the beautiful New Hampshire summers can be at least as important as the well-remembered winters.

Patterns of friendship will indeed change, as Mr. Zylberberg points out. But this is not the tragedy he seems to think it would be. Patterns of friendship have changed before—temporarily during the world wars and permanently with the growth of the College and the wider participation in off-campus programs. Under the CEP plan one would not always be on campus with an upper- or lower-class friend (in fact such contact would typically be cut by slightly more than half). The CEP felt that the disadvantages of this were outweighed by the greater educational flexibility and the increased ability to keep the Dartmouth education in contact with the world. The Dartmouth fellowship, however, should be able to survive unscathed. The fellowship draws its strength not from inter-class friendships formed as undergraduates, but rather from the community felt by students of different decades.

Finally, Mr. Zylberberg accuses us of bringing about the abolition of fraternities. The contrary is true. The CEP plan provides the means to allow fraternities to overcome the financial burden of Hanover property tax rates and survive the current squeeze that has already closed one house and threatens several others. The expansion of the student body and the full use of the summer term provide new sources of revenue through dues and summer room rents. Indeed, with the growth of flexibility in undergraduate programs, fraternities have already become one of the most important bonds a student can have with Hanover. One can return from a term or year off campus and count on finding a group of friends at "the House." The CEP plan increases the flexibility of the Dartmouth education and must therefore rely even more heavily on fraternities to provide some of the continuity needed in undergraduate life.

Dartmouth is a unique institution, but the core of that identity has always been concern for her students and for the quality of their education. The Dartmouth fellowship has grown from the resulting sense of community. Changes in the world now call for changes in the College which, while abandoning some traditions, are necessary that the oldest and most fundamental tradition of fine education might be maintained. I feel confident that the Dartmouth fellowship is strong and vital enough to evolve with the College.

Hanover, N.H.