Letters to the Editor

Coeducation ( Cont.)

TO THE EDITOR:

This year, as every year, a large group of high school seniors well qualified and highly motivated to come to Dartmouth did not even apply. Many of them stood at the top of their class; and in a few years, having gone elsewhere to college, many will be in the top ranks in their careers in business, government, the professions, or the arts. Some are from families that have been coming to Dartmouth for generations. The reason they did not apply was not money; nor was it the isolation or the "lack of social life" in Hanover. The reason was that they knew their applications would be rejected by return mail, without regard to their qualifications, and without even having been read. They would be rejected not because they were Black, or Jewish, or Italian—though they might be any of these—but because they were women.

I would like to address those alumni who still believe that Dartmouth should remain an all-male college. I am not insensitive to the values of such an institution. I am generally put off by the sort of undergraduate argument that emphasizes the "lack of female companionship" at Dartmouth. I don't think women should be brought to Dartmouth merely for the purpose of facilitating the transition of juvenile males from the arms of their mothers to the arms of their wives, or of diluting the stimuli for developing the independence, self-reliance, aggressiveness, and breadth of view that we have traditionally associated with an all- male Dartmouth. A certain number of students, from the moment they arrive in the unique Hanover environment, set to work to shut out that environment and to surround themselves with the familiar sights, sounds, and commodities that can be found in any American suburb. I don't think the preference of such students for available dates should weigh very heavily with us.

I am deeply offended and disturbed by the attitude of some students and faculty that the alumni should be told to "go to hell" (even though my faculty status probably allows me a personal exemption). I consider that the success of Dartmouth as an educational institution is to be measured in large part by its influence on those who live and work outside academic circles, and that strong ties with alumni are important for helping us to see what direction our educational efforts should take to be most valuable to and influential on our students. I also consider it important that students who come to Dartmouth know that as alumni they will have a continuing stake in making Dartmouth better.

So I do not dismiss lightly the feelings of alumni who are loyal to the traditional values of an all-male school. We cannot, however, shut our eyes to the truth that there is an ugly fact about an all-male Dartmouth, and that fact is discrimination. Dartmouth is not a private club, formed for purposes of recreation and fellowship. It is an educational institution with priceless resources: a million-volume open-stack library, an outstanding faculty, and a unique computer center, among others. Such resources cannot justifiably be reserved for the use of a privileged group. To deny them to a qualified individual on the grounds of race or religion would be unthinkable; to do so on the grounds of sex should be no less so.

The more one thinks about it, the more clear it becomes that the issue of discrimination outweighs all other considerations in the debate on the admission of women. It is not a question of what is desirable, or of what is expedient, but of what is just. Read the charter (DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE, December, 1969). Dartmouth was founded for the education of "Youth of the Indian Tribes ... English Youth and any others." Not "male youth," but "youth." Perhaps in those days it did not occur to anyone that women would ever seek a college education, and the word "youth" would have been considered synonymous with "young men." But the word "youth," in the context, clearly denoted all those young people seeking aneducation; and it is this sense of the word that is indicated by the entire spirit of the charter. Dartmouth was founded to be non- discriminatory, as shown by that part of the charter that specifically forbids religious discrimination: "... and not excluding any Person or any religious denomination whatsoever from free & equal liberty & advantage of Education ... on account of his or their speculative sentiments in Religion & of his or their being of a religious profession different from the said Trustees ..." Nowhere does the charter give the Trustees authority to practice discrimination against any group. The tradition of being an all-male institution is grounded merely on former social convention, and now, in the face of social change, stands in conflict with an older and higher commitment to non-discriminatory education.

In October the Trustees will tackle the question of the admission of women at Dartmouth. The "associated school" concept, insofar as it does away with most of the substance, though not the form, of discrimination, is a step in the right direction; and perhaps that is the best we can do at this time. I can't yet relinquish the hope, however, that Dartmouth will go the whole distance and embrace a non-discriminatory admissions policy. I urge those alumni who have loved Dartmouth as an all- male institution to recognize that this can no longer be continued without unjustly depriving certain young people of opportunities they have fairly earned. An all-male Dartmouth, like the clipper ships, belongs to the past. A glorious past, to be sure; but past nevertheless. I urge all alumni who support (however grudgingly) the admission of women on an equal footing with men to communicate their support to the Trustees.

I do not consider myself a supporter of "coeducation." The word "coeducation" suggests a special form of education, different from plain ordinary education. That, in my view, is not the way it is. There is no such thing as "coeducation." There is education; and there is discrimination; and Dartmouth was founded to do one and not the other.

Asst. Prof, of Pharmacology

Hanover, N.H.

TO THE EDITOR:

Mr. Orr's remark keeps coming up that we should not deny women access to the quality education that Dartmouth can provide. (1) The fact is that the good women's colleges have long been as good as Dartmouth and a little better; it is not as if there were few good places for women to go. (2) This sort of sentimental liberalism is the curse of our. age. Dartmouth will have all it can do and should do if it tries to give a good liberal education to a certain number of young men capable of taking it; it is mere sentiment to say that it should do good here there, and everywhere.

Reckless innovating is as bad as reckless trying to do good. One can hardly keep up with the stream of proposals for change in the College, all proudly presented as innovations. Obviously it is good to adopt improved methods of all kinds, but there seems to be a false analogy with business, where the genuine improvements are far more frequent. Most of the recent proposals seem like concessions to students who are bored or frustrated by serious and sustained intellectual effort. After all, this is essentially an intellectual enterprise, one meant for people who are able to sit still and work on somewhat abstract things. If we are to be up-to-date and aware of the principles of management in the modern world, we might start with Peter Drucker's principle that management should often ask itself what kind of business it really is in.

New York, N.Y.

TO THE EDITOR.

Had a talk with Daniel Webster the other day. I told him the College was going coeducational because it needed the money and besides Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were going that way. Webster was furious.

"Be damned to Harvard, Yale and Princeton!" he said. "Dartmouth's a small college for men in the hills of New Hampshire and no females should clutter up the best damned college in the land!"

Daniel's black eyes flashed with anger and he spat out one more word, "Damn!"

I find myself and possibly thousands more who once trod the Hanover campus echoing that sentiment. Damn!

Palm Beach, Fla.

TO THE EDITOR:

Finally, many years after the writing on the wall has become painfully obvious, the Trustees are considering coeducation at Dartmouth. And wouldn't you know it, the method considered is a separate women's school associated with Dartmouth.

Would someone please inform 'hose insensitive Neanderthals on the Board of Trustees that "separate but equal" went out of style years ago, in 1954 to be precise. While most members of the Dartmouth Community are by now willing to grant that all races ought to be afforded equal rights in our society, they fail to see that the same equality must obtain for women.

They scoff at the racist who preaches white supremacy, but at the same time justify discrimination (either overt or covert) against women on the basis of the natural order of things, the necessities of our society, ancient traditions, or biology. Dartmouth is concerned with education, and I have never known my penis to be a material advantage in that field.

In considering the problems underlying the years of racial discrimination in the United States, Dartmouth did not conclude that the proper solution was to create an associated school on the Hanover plain for Blacks, so that they could derive the advantages of a Dartmouth education without being awarded the high status of the real "Dartmouth" diploma. Nor did it conclude (although I do not know what tacit understandings there may be on this point) that it would be fitting to offer positions at Dartmouth to Blacks, Indians, and Chicanos only on the condition that the number of white undergraduates remains undiminished.

In all the arguments concerning coeducation, the most prominent word has been "tradition." I have always suspected that the word tradition is used not as the symbol for continuing all that is good from the past, but as a justification for continued discrimination against those members of our society who have not previously been endowed with the privileges of the upper classes.

While Dartmouth, as a private college, probably has the legal right to discriminate as it wishes (the equal protection clause of the Constitution being inapplicable without "state action") no alumnus would deny the advantage of the Dartmouth diploma and the high status that it carries in obtaining personal advancement in our society. Contrary to the statement by Charles Zimmerman, Dartmouth's constituency is broader than students, faculty, and alumni. Dartmouth is part of a larger society. It is a significant force in the power structure of this country and to deny access to Dartmouth to the majority of the citizens of the nation makes a mockery of assertions of equal rights and equal opportunity.

Don't the Trustees realize that this high status cannot be transferred to some poor cousin of a women's school that is associated with Dartmouth? The only status that such a school will have would be derivative of Dartmouth, but necessarily lesser than the original. Don't they realize that women can be as interested in the worlds of business and finance, politics and science as men are? Do those slight differences in curriculum that the Trustees anticipated mean nursing for women rather than medical school, secretarial, homemaking and child-care training rather than business administration and child psychology, an emphasis on elementary school teaching rather than college teaching?

And finally, don't the Trustees realize that a separate school is just one more way of telling women that we do not really consider them our equal?

For me, the question of whether or not Dartmouth ought to go coeducational is no more difficult than the issue of whether or not it ought to admit Blacks. Nor does the method proposed to rectify past policies differ materially. Ideally, just as applications do not have a column for "race," they ought not have one for "sex." It simply should not enter into consideration. Until some sem- blance of equality is reached, however preferential acceptance ought to be given to women as well as the various minorities against whom systematic discrimination has been practiced for a number of years. The only potential "administrative" problem that I can foresee is what to do with th urinals.

The clearly stated and commonly shared foundation of our society is equality of opportunity for all citizens, regardless of race or sex....

San Jose, Calif.

Editor's Note: It is a misunderstanding ofthe proposed Associated School for Womento call it "separate but equal." The associated school plan is designed for administrative purposes and for the flexibility it offers;men and women students would have thesame educational program and attend thesame classes.

TO THE EDITOR."

I had about reconciled myself to the belief that Dartmouth was no longer going to be Dartmouth. Change, seemingly just for the sake of change, seemed inevitable.

Even the ALUMNI MAGAZINE drastically altered its cover, doing away with the time- honored, welcome design we had come to look forward to each month.

And just ahead, it appeared, was coeducation at Hanover! Then I read the article in the May issue by one Joel Zylberberg '72. More power to him. I agree with most everything he says.

The mess we have made of things, nationally and internationally, should cause folks like college trustees and administrators to pause and wonder if "change" is all that wonderful and desirable.

The alumni are not by any means all of Dartmouth, but neither should they be ignored. I am convinced that if a poll were taken—of all the alumni (not a select few)—the result would be a resounding "no" to the query "should Dartmouth be made coeducational?"

Now that they are sending The Bulletin to all alumni, it would be simple and not in any way expensive to take such a poll. Why isn't it done?

Like Patrick Henry of yore, a pause for a reply.

Winter Haven, Fla.

TO THE EDITOR:

In the May 1970 issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE you published my letter attacking coeducation at Dartmouth. In this uncompromising age, I find it difficult to conceive that a concept might be promulgated which would satisfy all parties concerned. Therefore, I wish to commend the Board of Trustees. Their concept of an Associated College for Women must, certainly, be acceptable to all.

Tucson, Ariz.

TO THE EDITOR:

In the current issue of The Bulletin there is a discussion of the pros and cons of admitting women undergraduates to Dartmouth College. If this discussion proved nothing else it made it abundantly clear that person who advances the argument in favor of a proposition cannot be relied upon to present an effective rebuttal thereto.

there appears to be an assumption that Dartmouth men have been deprived of the natural and healthy relationships with somen during four long years of their undergraduate life and that this situation has fostered a rough-hewn attitude toward women and sex. With travel transportation being what it is today, a student can drive from Hanover to New London, N. H., in half an hour, or he can spend his weekends in Boston. These goodies were not available when some of us were in College but, even so, I never knew of any Dartmouth men during that time who developed a "rough- hewn attitude toward women and sex," and I resent the charge.

It has been suggested that the College should not deny women the benefits of the "Dartmouth experience." I submit the propo- sition that as soon as women become members of the Dartmouth undergraduate body, the "Dartmouth experience" will no longer exist. It is not absence that makes the fair coed a sex symbol. No doubt many prospective students who apply for admis- sion to Dartmouth say that they would like to have coeducation also, but what they really mean is they would like to have unrestricted inter-dormitory visiting. If these applicants are anything like those who come to the universities here in Florida (the moral atmosphere being what it is today), they are not the most desirable student material but rather a collection of boys and girls who would like to enjoy some of the amenities of married life without the necessity of assuming any of its responsibilities.

If that is what Dartmouth -wants, this is what Dartmouth gets.

Sun City Center, Fla.

TO THE EDITOR.'

Coeducation is a wonderful thing In Fall, Winter, and especially Spring. "It improves the quality of education." Makes better citizens for the nation." Sets higher standards intellectually" (and, hopefully perhaps, also sexually ). But, after all, why not put it straight— It makes it easy to get a date. Yes, coeducation is a wonderful thing In Fall, Winter, and especially Spring.

Portland, Me.

TO THE EDITOR:

Having long since become an alienated alumnus as a result of the persistent erosion of the Dartmouth traditions that comprise my memory of the school, my observations on a current debate may mean little.

It seems quite presumptuous to me that the should justify conversion of a male bastion to a coeducational school on the basis of a fractional survey however strongly its proponents may claim it is a scientifically accurate reflection of alumni sentiment.

The barrage of letters to the ALUMNI MAGAZINE argues otherwise. And, for what it is worth, I, too, am bitterly opposed to coeducation.

Poll all alumni and see whether there really an overwhelming groundswell favoring coeducation. Surely the cost would be a drop in the bucket compared to the loss of alumni financial support if the fractional survey is not as accurate as presumed. Peter W. DeForth states the case pretty well in the May "Letters."

Round Top, Texas

Where's the Granite?

TO THE EDITOR:

In today's New York Times account of the 201st Commencement we read of a Rufus Choate Scholar having a good cry for himself; and we read also a Presidential pep talk in the best once more into the breach, dead friends tradition.

Has something gone wrong with the computers? There seems to be confusion in the programming. A short time ago the President informed us that the undergraduate body "is the finest group of young men you will find in the world."

The Shade of Richard Hovey must be rewriting "Men of Dartmouth." Nothing of granite here.

Durham, N.H.

Supporting Walters

TO THE EDITOR:

This is to thank you for publication of Dr. Waltman Walter's letter in praise of military educators on page 6, the April issue.

If it is not too late to save the country, more letters and articles including this philosophy will be of value in your fine magazine.

Hartford, Conn

For More Variety

TO THE EDITOR:

I was disappointed upon receiving your February issue (it takes awhile to reach Iran) and reading that all three Alumni Council nominees for College Trustees were businessmen.

I don't mean to question the competence of any one of these men. I do mean to question whether, in a time when President Kemeny is appropriately calling for basic reforms in our educational system in general and Dartmouth in particular, the variety of perspectives that could have been selected might not have been more fitting and, in the long run, more beneficial.

The alumni businessmen need not be the only type to help decide the future of Dartmouth College.

Tabriz, Iran

Reviving Wheelock's Dream

TO THE EDITOR:

Going over some old issues of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, I came across one dated October 1965, saved proudly as a family memento. On page 37 of that issue is listed "A Century of Dartmouth College Indians, 1865-1965." There is a listing of 28 Indians enrolled in 100 years, indicating by asterisks the graduates. My husband Henry G. Perley (some knew him as Henry Eagle) graduated cum laude with the Class of 1946 (we like to think of it as '43 sans the war), the Bth Indian graduate of Dartmouth. The 9th and last, as of that issue, was Chief Flying Cloud '49 (William John Cook), who died in a plane crash in Cherry Point, N.C., in 1952.

I had occasion to meet and speak with Presiden Kemeny last year at the Tobacco Valley Inn during a dinner held by the Dartmouth Club of Hartford; I asked President Kemeny at that time what he was doing for the Indians and he assured me that he had a strong program in mind to recruit students of Indian heritage for Dartmouth. I would like to know how the program has progressed and also to see an updated list of Dartmouth Indian graduates covering 1965- 1970. If we can graduate only nine Indians in 100 years, is the Wheelock dream dead?

The preoccupation with money and means seems to overshadow the original obligation for which the College was founded. If we are to have coeducation at Dartmouth, let us not, and in no uncertain terms, overlook the Indian maidens, lest tradition be trod completely underfoot.

A proud Dartmouth Indian Wife!

East Hartford, Conn.

Those Leftist Speakers

TO THE EDITOR:

I notice that the featured Commencement speaker this year is Gunnar Myrdal, who is listed as a sociologist. He might also be listed as a socialist. Many of his ideas which the United States has adopted and more of them which Sweden has adopted have led to Sweden's precarious financial position and our own bad financial position.

Last year, Dartmouth had a series of Commencement speakers all of whom were left-wing radicals such as Senator McGovern. As an interested alumnus, I am tired of the administration having only left-wing speakers given a platform at Dartmouth Commencement.

Once more, I would like to point out that the College is supposed to teach objectivity and should practice that in its own sphere.

Dallas, Texas

Colin Raubeson

TO THE EDITOR:

I suppose it is unusual for a member of the Class of 1952 to comment on the obituary of a member of the Class of 1951. but I felt something should be added to the material on the late Colin Louis Raubeson which appeared in the May 1971 issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE.

When Colin was chairman (not president) of the Thomas Jefferson Club I was first treasurer and then president of the Dartmouth Young Republicans, an organization somewhat to the right of the Thomas Jefferson Club. It was a measure of the political apathy at Hanover in 1950 and 1951 that the Jefferson Club and the Young Republicans each had about twenty members. There were no Young Democrats, at least not on an organized basis.

Colin used to have lunch or coffee with me from time to time to discuss issues and to deplore the general apathy. I think Colic, who was thirteen years older, probably regarded me as a naive young reactionary and I regarded him as a very tough-minded man with deep-seated far-left views. We really didn't agree, on much of anything politically, but our discussions never became personally acrimonious.

Colin was very forceful, and he was very well informed on many topics that most of us at that time preferred to sweep under the rug. He had a lot of courage to maintain some of the positions he took in the climate of those years.

Colin never had much of a conversionary effect on me, as I have remained a registers- Republican since 1952. However, I feel that my encounters with Colin Raubeson have helped me over the years in having a greats- awareness of the complexity of political an social issues.

I'm sorry Colin died so young and extend my sympathy to all who moum him.

New York, N.Y.

Editors Note: By airmail we have sentMr. Fabian word of the election of David R.Weber '65, Phillips Exeter Academy teacher,as a Charter Trustee of the College.