The Fifty-Year Address

Following is the major portion of thetraditional 50-Year Address, deliveredthis year by John L. Sullivan '21,Washington and Manchester lawyer,former Secretary of the Navy, andformer Dartmouth Trustee.The introductory portion of theaddress, given at the Commencementalumni luncheon on June 12, recalledthe Dartmouth known to men of 1906,1911, 1916 and 1921, all present at theluncheon, and reviewed briefly the 50-year history of the Class of 1921,mentioning its outstanding membersand events and its devoted service to theCollege.

There is no need to tell this particular audience that Dart- mouth men feel very strongly about everything that pertains to the College. The extent of their emotions is both the College's treasure and its cross. There are two things which today are troubling a great many of us. I Propose to talk frankly about them because I do not think the College can De served by our repressing our opinìons. What I have to say represents only my own thought on these two subjects for I am in no way authorized to speak for my Class and, of course, cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be presumed to speak for the other Classes here today. If what I have to say meets with their approval, it is possible that in the not too distant future they may make known their concurrence with my views. If anything I have to say sounds too harsh, please be charitable and remember what Finley Peter Dunne caused his favorite bartender, Hennessey, to say in his essay on old age: "Many a man that couldn't direct you to the drugstore on the corner when he was 30 will get a respectful hearing when age has further impaired his mind."

The two things most troubling many Dartmouth alumni today are the end of the ROTC program and the consideration of coeducation in the College. Fundamental in their worries on these two questions is the fact that Dartmouth has already limited the choice of the youth of this nation in one respect and threatens to narrow it again in another respect.

While the ROTC programs were active on this campus more than 3,000 Dartmouth graduates were commissioned.

A few years ago on Armed Services Day the ROTC units were obliged to cancel their plans for a parade through the streets of this town and were harassed into retreat to Memorial Field where they were guarded by State Police for a simple ceremony. A year ago this morning I attended the commissioning of the young men who were becoming Ensigns and First Lieutenants in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. I was shocked to find that the Bema was surrounded with guards. They were there to prevent interruption of the ceremonies by undergraduates, who under no circumstances would brook the slightest interference with any of their own activities. That it was necessary to protect these young men from harassment on such an occasion will always be for me a greatly disturbing recollection.

To those of us who know the extent to which the Armed Services depend upon the ROTC to beef up their very limited cadre of professional officers, the termination on these units is hard to take. Today the Army, Navy, and Air Force have 340,000 commissioned officers. Of these, 111,000 are ROTC graduates.

The world today is still a jungle. Without an adequate national defense and a strong economy, nothing is secure or assured—Social Security, Medicare, federal aid to education, or even the sacrosanct tenure. It is particularly distressing that the attacks on the ROTC come from the faculties, the intellectual centers which should support the civilian-military balance the officer forces so badly need. I am not naive enough to recommend that the ROTC units be reinstituted now, but I do hope that when this country has recovered from the national malaise which it has suffered as a result of the war in Vietnam the administration of this College will address itself to the restoration of ROTC units on this campus. In the last 25 years the Alumni Fund has raised $25,550,000. In this same period of time the Federal Government has contributed to Dartmouth College $53,432,000, more than twice as much as we alumni and our friends have given. Surely the time has come when we should cease to wonder what our country can do for us, and start asking what can Dartmouth do for our country.

On a weekend about the middle of last January, there was held in this hall a joint meeting of the Board of Trustees and the Alumni Council. The weather the day the delegates arrived was quite the worst of a very, very hard winter. Yet 48 of the 53 members of the Council managed to make it in addition to more than 50 retired members of the Council. It was at this meeting that the entire question of coeducation was brought up by representatives of the Trustees Planning Committee.

The consideration of any drastic or radical change in the traditions and life style of a college as old and as prestigious as Dartmouth merits the most complete and unemotional consideration possible. I fear alumni reaction to this issue may have already exceeded acceptable emotional standards. If we are to help resolve this question it must be done with the head rather than the heart and by means of a careful weighing of all valid reasons for and against coeducation at Dartmouth.

The case in favor of coeducation was contained in a paper prepared and distributed before the meeting to the members of the Alumni Council and in a very complete talk by Dudley W. Orr of the Class of 1929, chairman of the Trustees Planning Committee. The presentation inquires what social and residential environment in Hanover is needed to meet the needs of today's students and facilitate their relations with the faculty. It raises a question as to whether a first-class educational institution in the liberal arts can be limited to an institution essentially for men. It is argued that it is unjust for a superb educational institution such as Dartmouth to exclude women and that the presence of women may be necessary to continue its excellence.

It was noted that in the fall of 1970 male applicants to Princeton and Yale rose approximately 12 percent immediately after those institutions became coeducational.

It was further stated that no significant college or university had been founded in the 20th Century with enrollment limited to men or women only.

It was then suggested that quite possibly the law would be changed to require Dartmouth to admit women to the baccalaureate degree or run the risk of losing governmental grants and tax exemption benefits.

The final reason for the recommendations by the Trustees Planning Committee was that the faculty was represented in favor of coeducation by 10 to 1 and the students 6 to 1. It concludes that coeducation is necessary because it responds to what the faculty and the students want.

It must be apparent that most of the argument in favor of coeducation at Dartmouth is incapable of proof or disproof and that there is a large area in which honest differences of opinion play a very big part. Very few of us can be sure that we are absolutely right whichever side of the question we find ourselves on. First, I would like to comment on the three factual statements.

The implication of the increase in 1970 of male applications at Princeton and Yale of 12 percent fails to maintain its validity in view of the fact that male applications at Yale for this fall have fallen 18.7 percent and at Princeton 3.9 percent. Does this indicate that the bloom is off the rose?

The statements that no significant college or university has been founded in the 20th Century with enrollment limited to men or women only is undoubtedly correct. It is also undoubtedly correct that during this particular period almost all new colleges and universities established were public institutions.

The suggestion that the Federal Government might change the law to require Dartmouth to admit women to the baccalaureate degree or run the risk of losing governmental grants and tax exemption benefits seems most remote. So long as the Federal Government through the Army, Navy, and Air Force runs prestigious all-male colleges at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs such discrimination against a private institution is unthinkable.

Throughout the presentation in favor of coeducation there seems to run an assumption that if we don't become coeducational we will lose our best male applicants. Let's look at the record.

For the 25 classes from 1951 to 1975 a total of 151,787 young men applied for admission to this College. Of this number 19,452 matriculated. Remember that this happened in a period when no applicant could have anticipated that coeducation could come to pass while he was still in college. This year the applications went up 3-3/10ths percent over last year. In the Ivy League, only Cornell has a higher record of applicants. It seems to me the people here in Hanover must be doing a lot of things right—right now.

In the presentation on coeducation there is a strong assumption that a very great many of the best girls would rush to Hanover. I wonder. The wave of enthusiasm for admitting men to all-girl colleges seemed irresistible two years ago. Since then the tide has definitely turned. A year and a half ago Smith College voted 2 to 1 in favor of coeducation. Just a few weeks ago the undergraduates reversed that vote to 2 to 1 against coeducation. Wellesley; Chatham College in Pittsburgh; Goucher in Baltimore; Mills in California: Stevens in Missouri; Sweet Briar, Hollins, Randolph Macon and Mary Baldwin, all of Virginia, have followed suit. If the leading all-girl colleges in the country have turned their backs on coeducation isn't there a go-slow warning there for us?

For 11½ years I enjoyed the great privilege of serving on the Dartmouth Board of Trustees. The last seven years I served as chairman of the Budget Committee. In the years since I left the Board of Trustees, I have followed the affairs of the College as closely as I could. I feel obliged to tell you that if I were a member of the Board of Trustees in 1971 I would vote against coeducation at this time....

I am alarmed at the pressures that are calling for an early decision on IS question. I have never made a good deal in a hurry and I doubt if you have either.

For the last four years Dartmouth has operated at a deficit $2,808,000. I hasten to add that this deficit was foreseen, planned and provided against. It was inevitable that during the time of pressure for the Third Century Fund the achievements of the Alumni Fund were necessarily diminished and there is nothing surprising about these figures. The planned deficit for the coming year is $2,150,000. This means that for these five years Dartmouth will have operated at a deficit of $4,958,000. This is not disturbing. What happens after the year ending June 30, 1972 does cause me apprehension.

The raising of $53,000,000 through the Third Century Fund was a magnificent achievement. A great many people, including myself, believe that its success was due in no small measure to the miracle performed by our new President in leading the campaign to secure from the Foundations a total of $8,500,000, a figure far beyond anything we dreamed possible. Undoubtedly that achievement sparked the entire campaign and did as much to contribute to its successful conclusions as any other single thing.

However, I would remind you that the $53,000,000 that was raised represented only slightly more than half of what was earlier deemed to be necessary for the College at the time. The goal had been reduced to $51,000,000 because the Trustees had concluded, and I think rightly, that $51,000,000 was the highest realistic figure that could be set as a goal. I am sure I don't have to remind this audience of what inflation has done to this $53,000,000 or how much less can be bought with it than at the time the money was raised. Construction costs have been averaging an increase of 15 percent each year for the last six years and no one can foretell how much more rapidly they will rise after the impending settlement of the contract with the steel workers.

So here we are in 1971, unable to use a single penny of the $53,000,000 of the Third Century Fund for coeduca- tion, with the construction of the Physical science building and the hockey rink halted by inflation, although the Trustees had ear-marked $2,000,000 for the Science Center and $1,000,000 for the hockey rink. As of today starting construction in each instance is contingent upon the raising of additional funds in the amount of $2.5 million m°re for the Science Center and $1.5 million more for the Hockey Rink.

So I find myself in this situation. The only available evidence would seem to indicate that coeducation is not so successful at Yale and at Princeton as it was thought to be a year ago. The sudden reversal of so many top-flight women's colleges against coeducation raises a serious doubt that Dartmouth could attract the type of women students we would like to have.

The fiscal future is unpredictable. The present financial condition of the College, while very good, hardly justifies our exploring a new frontier in which we have had, so far as I know, a minimum of administrative experience.

One thing stands out upon which all Dartmouth men agree. The education furnished undergraduates at Dartmouth must continue to be the very best possible and if it is decided that women should become undergraduates, their education must be of equal quality. The one thing we all hope will be avoided at all costs is that in an era when our deficits are mounting by leaps and bounds and when inflation is robbing the Third Century Fund of a substantial part of its purchasing power, we should not flounder to a result that would lower the standards of excellence in our present all-male college.

If the next year or two gives us sufficient evidence that enough top- flight girls wish to come to Dartmouth and we acquire the capital funds necessary to accommodate them and the capability to give them the same quality of excellence received by the men this question should be reviewed.

Meanwhile, let us count our present blessings. We have a great college here in Hanover, the best in the world. We have a truly great President who has demonstrated in his relations with the students, the faculty, the alumni, and the public that he has gotten off to at least as fast a start as any of his predecessors. We have a really fine Board of Trustees, all men of experience and judgment as well as vision. I, for one, have complete confidence in that Board and will gladly accept any verdict they render.

What I ask of all Dartmouth men is they take care that they do not paint themselves into a corner by taking an inflexible position. The question of coeducation obviously cannot be solved to the satisfaction of both the proponents and the opponents. My hope is that it will be solved in the best interests of Dartmouth College and that the future will prove that the solution was the correct one. More than that no one can ask.

John Sullivan '21 giving the 50-YearAddress at Commencement luncheon.