Letters to the Editor

Rebuttal to "Munich Analogy"

TO THE EDITOR:

The essay on "The Myth of the Munich Analogy" by Stephen Theoharis '71 in your June issue is brilliant. And, like so much of the thinking of the revisionist historians, it is brilliantly dangerous . . . even brilliantly irresponsible.

Without going into detailed analysis of all of Mr. Theoharis' facts and the conclusions he draws from them, I would merely point to a few of the dead ends into which he leads us.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear, to use a phrase recently popularized. I share Steve Theoharis' "dovishness" with respect to perhaps the greatest—and most tragic — foreign policy blunder in American history: Vietnam. But if it was a mistake to use the analogy of Munich as a basis for our all-out intervention in Vietnam, is it not equally a mistake to use the retroactive analogy of Vietnam to argue—or at least to imply—that it was wrong to resist Hitler's aggression more than three decades ago?

Theoharis, it seems to me, falls into precisely the same error for which he chastises those foreign policy makers who are the targets of his analysis: he generalizes — perhaps a more precise word is "universalizes" — his argument, and he seems to do it by retroactive thinking. Since it was wrong to resist aggression in Vietnam (although it is at least partly if not wholly a civil war), we should not have resisted aggression at Munich. Since, for the obvious reasons he cites, we have not been successful in a containment policy in Vietnam, the entire post-war policy of containment was wrong. Nonsense!

Thus, like all the revisionist historians, Theoharis bravely repeals the Cold War, forgetting that the configuration of world power in 1972 is vastly different from the bipolar world of decades ago. And forgetting too that revolutionary societies achieve a degree of conservatism after their revolutions are old enough so that they have something to conserve. And also forgetting that the nuclear age, despite its frightfulness or rather because of it, provides a mutual deterrent that did not exist a generation ago.

What is irresponsible in Mr. Theoharis' essay is that he is sharply critical of the policy of those who opposed Munich without in any way suggesting what policy he would have advocated. Are Chamberlain and Daladier now to become—again retro-actively—our instant heroes in 1972? And Churchill and Roosevelt our instant villains? Were those of my generation wrong in thinking that perhaps Fascism should have been stopped—or at least slowed down — in Spain? Would Europe or the world have been better off if our post-war policy of containment had not been effected through the Marshall Plan, the Berlin airlift, and the creation of NATO?

The whole point is that there are no viable and eternal foreign policies except the policy of flexibility. What is correct in the context of one set of circumstances is often wrong for another situation. In this sense, and only in this sense, I share the implications of the Theoharis essay.

Perhaps my point can best be made by suggesting that the creation of NATO was correct in terms of the time and the circumstances, but the creation of SEATO, by analogy with NATO, was wrong because the circumstances were inappropriate, especially the unwillingness of the major powers of the area concerned to participate. Finally, if Mr. Theoharis does not mean to be urging some form of neo-isolationism, it would be helpful if he would outline his own foreign policy.

Former Ambassador to Peru and Guinea

Saranac Lake, N. Y.

The Faculty Is Flunked

TO THE EDITOR:

For a moment, I was hopeful—but only for a moment. There I was, reading the June 1972 Alumni Magazine, and there, in the "The College" section, was a note that the faculty was supporting, "as conscience dictates, protests against the escalation of the Indochina War." Wow, I thought, the academic world is coming to its senses! Finally, the wonderland of higher education has understood!

Alas, I was wrong. As I read further I realized that the faculty was actually endorsing the protest against the U. S.response to the escalation of the war. While I must admit I'm not surprised that the faculty took this latter position, I must say that I am a bit aghast at a faculty that makes no distinction, semantically or substantively, between escalation and response. Both Webster (dictionary) and common sense would dictate that they are not the same.

Great minds at work?

Milwaukee, Wis.

Praise for the Valedictorian

TO THE EDITOR:

I found Ross Kindermann's '72 valedictory address excellent, extremely current, and even brave. Living and practicing law abroad now after two years as an international civil servant, I have seen instances where the general charity of which Kindermann speaks, so generously but sometimes stupidly given by the American people, became the object of vast self-seeking abuse. I am glad, then, that someone has spoken for a redirecting of generosity on the part of the Americans to a "specific charity" — goodwill toward one's neighbors and toward those in one's immediate vicinity.

Note, I would not suggest that an end be put to general charity, but I would welcome a decrease in its quantity and an increase in its quality, as well as an increase at home in the specific kind.

I congratulate Mr. Kindermann on his brilliant scholastic achievement and on his fine address.

Geneva, Switzerland

The Alumni Fund

TO THE EDITOR:

As a participant in numerous fund-raising campaigns in my home city, I can offer some observations from this experience which may be helpful to the Dartmouth Alumni Fund. Since this year's campaign is over, I am sending this letter to you with the hope that you will refer it to the next year's leadership.

(1) Establishing a goal and explaining the use of the funds in general terms is not enough for the sophisticated contributor. He wants to know precisely how the money will be spent: so much for salaries, equipment, etc.

(2) In presenting the specifics the costs of the campaign should be included, particularly fees (if any) paid to a professional fund-raising organization, salaries of staff assigned to the project, brochures and mailing expenses. If these expenses total 5% of the funds raised, they are acceptable. A total of 10% and over is questionable.

(3) The pace-setter is the response of those who are the direct beneficiaries of the funds raised, i.e., the College officers, employees, faculty and students. In other words, the concept should not be limited to the alumni but should include those on campus joining for a common objective. Faculty salaries plus fringe benefits have now reached a level at least equal to the incomes of many contributing alumni. It's a reasonable assumption that the administrative salaries are also competitive. To what extent will they open their pocketbooks for Dartmouth? A high participation from students, if only a few pennies each, would have a big impact. My suggestion is that an advance campaign be conducted on campus and that its results be announced to the alumni at the time the regular campaign opens. It could be a pace-setter.

(4) The theme of any campaign usually is emotional because giving is a sentimental act. Yet one must search among the remnants of Dartmouth traditions to find any sentimental residue. Even the College's quality of leadership has dimmed in the eyes of many as it followed rather than led the trends in education. Many of the innovations recently—coeducation, four-term years, dismantlement of the class structure, demise of fraternities—appeared long ago in other educational institutions. Where has the College led? In the use of the computer, perhaps, but it is hard to be sentimental over a machine. Can you base a sentimental appeal on "trying to be what it says it is"? What do you say you are now?

(5) Finally, I get the impression that the College used Madison Avenue techniques, the "snow job," on the alumni instead of letting them in on all the facts and figures. Whether this is correct or not, there is something wrong if that impression prevails. Moreover, the alumnus is considered a source of money and not much beyond that except that he could benefit from more adult education directed by the faculty.

In my opinion, next year's campaign will be more effective if the planning includes serious considerations of these observations and some answers to these questions.

Toledo, Ohio

TO THE EDITOR:

I have just received a letter from three of the leading members of the Class of 1941 on behalf of the Alumni Fund. Their plea has a dual reason for action on the part of the addressee. First, the College is in dire straits and alumni support is essential. Secondly, as a competitive matter, our class should measure up to the performance of other classes. Inasmuch as I have not contributed and have no intention of contributing, the first instinct is to use the circular file. However, I believe it is important that the administration and the alumni as a whole be aware of why support for the College is waning. It is not the tight economic situation, nor a lack of appreciation of the education and associations gained at Hanover . . . rather it is a protest against the policies of the present administration and a complete lack of confidence in its influence on our society.

My background has always been steeped in the Dartmouth tradition. As a Dartmouth son and Dartmouth father, for many years I enjoyed a great pride in the College and all it stood for. However, just because years ago the Packard automobile was the "standard of excellence" does not make it so today. Similarly, I believe we must constantly reexamine institutions which we have supported unstintingly in the past. Men ofDartmouth warns us to set a "watch lest the old traditions fail." The question becomes — what are we to do if they have failed, if the College no longer stands forth for the historical values in which we believe.

The move to the left began in the previous administration and has been consciously accelerated by the present one. The College has nurtured the philosophy of socialism and radical dissent from the values on which our country was built. Contrariwise, the obligation of the liberal arts college to provide a forum for exploration of all facets of any issue has not been exercised. There has been no attempt to provide enunciation of both sides. Rather, the College seems to be an interested party in promoting the leftist view.

Further, the public relations representative of the College visiting high schools has made some very interesting statements as to College policy. Dartmouth is said to have no rules of conduct for its students. The reason given is that in the past what rules it had were unenforceable—a sad commentary on the administrative capabilities of those charged with the responsibility. He states that policy on the coeducational system has not yet been set, so it is unknown whether there will be coeducational dormitories or even coeducational floors. No mention was made of coeducational rooms—presumably this hadn't yet occurred to the pariahs of permissiveness. This type of thinking certainly will result in a "liberal" education for the participants. However, President Hopkins' definition of a liberal education was a search for academic truth and absolutes through a study of all facts and opinions available. How times change! . . .

Bridgewater, Mass.

The Indian Symbol Report

TO THE EDITOR: The Indian Symbol Study Committee is to be commended for its delicate and sympathetic handling of the difficult task of justifying the erasure of a pictorial symbol which was once worth the thousand words recently written about it but now means widely different things to different groups of people. To label one of these groups the Committee Report uses four terms interchangeably. It is the impreciseness of using a word for which my dictionary lists seven adjectival meanings which has inspired the following:

Native American Protest Columbus made the error first; He named as "Indian" his host. The newest name is much the worst, An unkind caricature almost. To name after Amerigo The kin of those here long before All us white natives. Dare we show A reddened face and pray: "Restore Some ancient word with better vibes From tongue of one or many tribes To signify his pale self-image?" As spirits which the mind imbibes Sound symbols set by skillful scribes Could dignify some lines of scrimmage.

Hudson Falls, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

The four-page report in the recent Bulletin on the "Indian Symbol Study" can only evoke amazement and disbelief. The Council's "specific recommendations," somehow, seem to have already been implemented, and the end result fairly obvious.

Similar changes at Dartmouth have occurred during the last few years. The ROTC programs have been terminated, revised admissions quotas and special facilities for black students have been granted, and now the Indian symbol is to be erased.

Minority demands for "equal rights" in areas of public responsibility should have a legal solution. However, the above report reflects greatly exaggerated and, possibly, devious demands. The Bulletin itself quotes one of the underlying complaints that they (Indian students) have "no physical facility for social needs or living requirements as the black students had." It would seem that minority requests could evolve into a "round-robin" of demands from other groups, ad infinitum.

There have been oft-repeated statements from Hanover that these are "discussions," and there is no "giving-in" to demands. Let us hope it is as stated. Otherwise, I believe the question may arise again: "Who really is in charge at Dartmouth?"

Cranford, N. J.

TO THE EDITOR:

First came the cheerleader — then ROTC — followed by the girls — and now the Indian symbol. Next, I assume, to go will be the Lone Pine (grossly unfair to elms, birches, maples, etc.), followed no doubt by the use of the wrecking ball upon Dartmouth Row. For after all, it was built during the most repressive time in American history.

When will it end — this frenetic desire to eliminate the customs, traditions and, yes, symbols, that once made Dartmouth both unique and great? "Vox Clamantis in Deserto" is now the old alum in sad review of what once was his school.

Greenfield, Mass.

TO THE EDITOR:

On the Indian symbol controversy, I see by The New York Times of July 30 that several colleges that use such a symbol (Central Michigan, Dallas Baptist, Mankato State College) are in the process of upgrading it.

If the Dartmouth symbol is a caricature, why not purge it of its deleterious connotations and model it on an actual Indian of sound achievements? I recall that the Reverend Samson Occom made such an excellent impression in the 1760's in England and Scotland that an endowment of £ 12,000 was raised. (What would that be worth today?) Without detracting from Eleazar Wheelock's contribution to the struggling Moor's Indian Charity School, it might be argued that but for the fund-raising efforts of" Samson Occom Dartmouth might not have made it.

I suspect that the use of an Indian symbol for Dartmouth is in the country's consciousness and will be almost impossible to change. Why not try the positive approach and give Samson Occom the credit and recognition he deserves?

Clinton, Conn

TO THE EDITOR:

It was most gratifying to learn that the College is cleansing itself of the vile practice of using the Indian motif. I suggest that as a logical sequence to this fatuous abnegation that immediate steps be taken to update the official founding date since an Indian School was founded in 1769, not Dartmouth.

When news of your noble purification reaches South Bend, Indiana, that institution will undoubtedly abandon the appellation of "Fighting Irish" since it is an obvious vilification of the Polish, Hungarian, Greek, Czech, Slovak, Lithuanian, English, Scotch, etc, persons who have been matriculated.

In your next communique may we expect an abjuration to all alumni concerning the use of Wah Hoo Wah?

The members of the "Indian Head" squadron deserve better than this.

Tucson, Ariz.

TO THE EDITOR:

. . . The Indian Symbol Study Committee admits the "Native Americans do not feel demeaned or insulted by the Indian symbol" but are "saddened by an inaccuracy, a grotesqueness, a hypocritical reference to a historical past." Is the latter inconvenience for a few more important than the warm traditional feeling toward the Dartmouth Indian by thousands of Dartmouth graduates?

The attempt by the committee to belittle the historical creation of the College for the purpose of teaching the 18th century Indian is a subversive but not subtle approach to destroy the institution's very foundations. If the Dartmouth family wants to remember its school's beginning as one for teaching the Indian, be it 1 or 30 in number, then it should have this privilege. The fact that few Indians have attended Dartmouth has no bearing on the discussion. This sparse enrollment was in no way encouraged by administration policies, but was the choice of the "Native American" himself, for he could attend tuition-free!

Until an indiscreet, pseudo-intellectual researched the meaning of "Wah Hoo Wah," it was an exclamation of approval for success. It needed no literal translation; it stood on its use, like any expression of praise—translation not needed. Stupid meddling!

First, the minority interests attack and are allowed to lower admission standards to quality education.

Second, ROTC is branded too much regimen, too degrading and thus abolished at the behest of a group of gutless pacifists. Gone is a source of revenue for the College, to say nothing of the great loss to the country of the resulting decrease in reserve trained personnel in the military.

Third, Dartmouth succumbed to the fad of single-sex schools going coed, for supercilious reasons, deemphasizing the primary purpose of a college education, and at the same time placing an undesired extra financial burden on the College.

Fourth, the demise of the Dartmouth Indian.

Next, some one will find that Dartmouth is a dirty word; so we better change the name before that happens. How about Minority Rule College?

All this is a desperate concern for his college by a "Native American" white, a product of the real America history will support, I hope.

Chapel Hill, N. C.

TO THE EDITOR!

Dartmouth was an Indian college that ran out of Indians, largely because of the American Revolution. For many years Dartmouth students, in their innocent fun, played Indian. Now this must go, along with the Minstrel Show and the ethnic jokes. Perhaps in the future Dartmouth students can play English youth. Who can object to that?

St. Petersburg, Fla.

TO THE EDITOR:

While watching a Boston Red Sox game on TV recently I observed twice during a commercial the bronzed head of an Indian brave, the business symbol of the National Shawmut Bank. On another TV program — the All-Star Game in Atlanta — the Braves proudly displayed their Indian, in full regalia. He is their mascot.

Of course, this is crass, imperialist commercialism. This is something which surely must be condemned by the supercilious, university, elitist morality.

Cohasset, Mass.

TO THE EDITOR:

I can suffer in silence no longer. I have never written a letter to the AlumniMagazine in all my 49 years out of college, but recent events have raised my blood pressure to the point where I must speak out.

When I read that those brave Indians at Dartmouth wished to remove all the symbols associated with the Indian history of the College, then it is my voice that is now crying out in the wilderness.

My Dartmouth degree hanging over my desk carries the seal of the College and there is an Indian on that seal because Dartmouth was founded as an Indian school. How many generations of Dartmouth men have rallied to the call of that famous song EleazarWheelock? Are we now to have a new seal, new songs, new symbols just to please the descendants of those original Americans who now feel that they are being treated as second-class citizens? It is probably true that the American public over the years has created this situation, but not at Dartmouth.

And now we are being laughed at by the Press, indicating that we will be known as the Pine Tree College. It is inconceivable to me that a tradition of 200 years can be put aside by these Indians for whom the College was founded. Our Indian brothers should be proud to be on the Dartmouth campus representing their ancestors who proudly wore the green in years past.

Osterville, Mass.

Last Hurrah for Wah Hoo Wah

TO THE EDITOR:

The rash adoption of "Give a Rouse" to replace "Wah Hoo Wah" may be a mistake.

The error came to light by chance. Classmate Dudley Sachem and I were busy late one night, after the Edict, burning our old Alumni Magazines and all else containing the forbidden phrase. Dudley, a classical scholar, does not keep abreast of these matters, so I had to explain to him that we now knew Wah Hoo Wah was Sioux for sodomy and that knowing that, it would be morally wrong to utter the phrase. Dudley asked, "How do we know that? And how many people speak Sioux?" I assured him that there were those who did, that they had pointed out our historical errors and warned him that he should not express doubt by asking for proof lest someone might think him insensitive to Native American rights. "But," Dudley protested, "if only a few people speak Sioux, what affront is it to them that we use the word with a different meaning?" As I ran back to the house to get my Glee Club records (Eleazar Wheelock, v. 2) I told Dudley that empirical considerations were out of the question: "You can't determine human rights by majority vote. So what if there are 35,345 living alumni to whom that phrase has a special meaning. So what if numerous friends of the College recognize the term as a College cheer and password. They cannot tread on the rights of the minority."

Dudley was silent for a moment. Then as he reluctantly threw his Dartmouth Song Book on the fire, he said, "But do the Sioux spell it the same way? How do you know the English spelling of their word has anything to do with our word. Wasn't our word merely invented to fit into the Hleazar Wheelock song?"

Dudley obviously was unable to appreciate the great moral progress we were making in this administrative edict. "Don't get confused with the facts. Those are deminimis considerations," I suggested. "Besides, we've already got a new motto: Give a Rouse."

Dudley's face flushed. He was obviously trying to hold back a burst of laughter. "What's wrong?" I ventured. "How stupid," he choked. "Don't you know what a 'rouse' is?" I admitted I did not. Whereupon Dudley, who is something of a scholar in the area, explained that "rouse" is the word for the Sanscrit character that looks like a backward L. As written, this character slopes inward rising to a slight ball. By itself a "rouse" symbolized and was a word picture for, a right arm bent 90 degrees with a closed fist turned inward. In the ancient Moslem world, the symbol enjoyed a certain meaning, some of which is lost in the contemporary translation of "giving them the old raspberry." "Richard Hovey, a student of Sanscrit, was obviously aware of this meaning when he put this pun into song, 'give a rouse for the College on the hill.' " said Dudley.

I assured Dudley all this was quite impossible inasmuch as several emeriti professors had concurred in giving a rouse. "Emeriti!" he said. "As long as we are going to be historically accurate," Dudley lectured, "you may as well know that e mer i[n] tus, to the ancient Romans, meant sawdust in the cranium. I suppose you're going to tell me that that doesn't matter because nobody speaks Latin any more?"

As the last of our sweatshirts smoldered into the dawn, Dudley's indignation slowly kindled: "Giving a rouse is highly insulting. It's deprecatory to Moslem culture. Besides, you can't use a term like that for a casual greeting or a cheer." I told Dudley the new motto had been chosen, it was too late to offer new suggestions. "Why shouldn't the alumni have some say?" asked my friend. "Why not adopt a term like Excelsior?" he queried. "The term has a defined Webster meaning of 'full of stuffing' which cannot offend minorities. Non-Dartmouth people won't care if we yell 'Excelsior!' to cheer on our teams or to applaud our alumni for achievement. And to friends of Dartmouth, the word will bear the special meaning of 'ever onward and upward.' Besides you could easily polk the alumni by asking them to send in a postcard addressed to the editor of the Magazine indicating (1) I think we should adopt Excelsior as our motto, or (2) I think we should retain Give a rouse for. Why not put it to a vote?"

"That's absurd," I said as we doused the fire. "You can't let the alumni vote on a matter like this. It's an administrative question. It has to be decided by committees, interpretation of polls, and apologetic newsletters to the alumni."

"I suppose you're right. It wouldn't do for the alumni to have a voice," cried my friend as he headed off into the wilderness.

Chicago, Ill.

ROTC (Cont.)

TO THE EDITOR!

The faculty decision to eliminate ROTC from the Dartmouth campus following a student referendum in which only 8.8% of the students voted to retain ROTC, as it then stood, is another example of running a college according to the desires of the students, with little thought being given to the actual needs of the students, the College and the community at large.

As so succinctly stated by Douglas V. Coonrad '67 in the July '72 issue of your magazine, and others in earlier issues, there is a definite need for inputs to the military of officers with a liberal arts background. As a military officer of 14 years' service, I would like to add my voice of dissent to others expressed earlier, regarding the faculty decision.

USAF, MC

Fairfax, Va.

TO THE EDITOR:

Living in London has put me a bit behind the campus news, but the Alumni Mag eventually makes its way to my door, and I eventually find time to read it. The ROTC question stirred this response — l was on the Parkhurst steps then; I can't be silent now.

I suppose the letters (April issue) expressing support for the reinstatement of ROTC at Dartmouth are to be expected, given the social and economic strata into which Dartmouth alums tend to be projected, but I was surprised to see no voices in favor of the College's dismissal of the program. Let this be at least one.

The year since I graduated has been a busy one, full of adjustments, decisions and responsibilities. After experiencing the world for awhile unprotected by college walls, I'm sure I'm not alone in questioning the political campus activities many of us were engaged in. But the more I see of the world, and the more I read and hear of what the world thinks of the States, the more grateful I am that I was able to attend college during a period when people began to see that academic institutions, like all others, are not somehow unrelated to the wider political/ social issues at hand.

It is not enough to say (as Anthony Blecher '67 does) that military training can better enable us to cope with the rigors of everyday civiliap business life, when the peoples of the world continue to kill each other in the cities and on the battlefield over economic interests. And anyone (this is for you, B. Marsh Whelden '21) who thinks that military supremacy will insure peace should review his world history, or at least take a course in simple logic. As for the "costly blot" involved in the College's decision (Frank M. Gavin '31 quoting the Chicago Tribune), haven't we learned that there are possibly more important costs to consider?

Time is running out. Some very important scientists are predicting serious depletion of natural resources, widespread famine and disease, possible nuclear war, and general environmental decay by the year 2000, at the rate we're going. There is only time for priorities, and eliminating ROTC seems to me to be a very small step in paving the way for educating for peace and self-determination.

ROTC was not rejected by the Dartmouth Community because anyone thought the action would make a dent in our war policy. The ROTC struggle, like all the others (Black/Indian/coeducation, investment policy, etc.) was a practical exercise in the growing awareness that we are not powerless, that our individual and collective actions can change the world, not only our own lives, for the better. At Dartmouth I at least learned that.

So, lest I begin sounding like just another complaining alum (who can't even back up his opinion with a check), let me conclude by emphasizing that the students should have the most say on the ROTC issue, and every campus issue. Their lives are most affected by the present nature of Dartmouth's education; let us hear their views.

London, England

Picturesque Col. Diettrich

TO THE EDITOR:

The letters about early ski coaches at Dartmouth brought back a flood of memories. Surely the most picturesque of these characters was Col. Anton Diettrich, who also served as the fencing coach. Despite his Teutonic name he was pure Magyar, with an aquiline profile, flashing black eyes, swarthy skin, and black hair. If he liked you he would let you feel the Italian bullets still in his body — under his scalp and along one shinbone, as I recall it — from his days with the Austro-Hungarian ski troops. He was the first to utter the cry that has echoed through New England winters ever since: "Bend more ze knees!"

Col. Diettrich acquired a small place in the literature of Dartmouth by appearing as Col. Steinlich in Bravig Imbs' novel of the 1920's, The Professor's Wife. He was the unfortunate foreigner who showed up for Hanover dinner parties in a business suit for formal occasions and in black tie for small gatherings.

He made one lasting contribution to the glory of Dartmouth and American skiing. I can still remember the evening when he suggested to a small group that we organize a ski race down the old Moosilauke Carriage Road. Within a couple of weeks the event got under way, on Town Election Day of 1927. This race is now recognized as the direct ancestor of American downhill ski racing. Ken Cuddeback '28 wrote it up for the 1942 American Ski Annual.

The Colonel's sayings were widely quoted on the campus, and one that still comes back after 45 years was his advice on sex to the Ski Team: "Und for ze ski man ze vimmen iss no goot, in any vay, shape, or form."

Bethesda, Md.

"Unrecognizable"

TO THE EDITOR:

I have been tempted to write many times but so far have refrained. Now that Arthur I. Appleton '36 of Chicago has put it in a few words — and very appropriately — in the last issue of the Alumni Magazine, I will put in my oar also.

He states: "Dartmouth College has changed so much that it is unrecognizable — at least to those who attended 10, 15, 20, or more years ago ... I suggest that the Trustees consider changing the name to Kemeny College."

I share his views. In my humble opinion, President Kemeny has so far changed the aims of the College that our undergraduates are now completely brainwashed towards international socialism and are not given the background information which would enable them to balance the disadvantages of socialism (the slave state) against a constitutional republic which we no longer have. Instead, they seem to be taught only about the advantages of international socialism and so-called democracy which can only end up as "mobocracy."

My hat is off to T.S.K. Scott-Craig, Professor of Philosophy, and his letter to the editor in June 1972, in which he attempts to awaken both the students and the faculty as to what is happening to us. President Kemeny seems to have either no knowledge of the aims and methods of international socialism or else he is sympathetic to and a spearhead for these ideals.

Santa Monica, Calif.

"Dartmouth Poems"

TO THE EDITOR:

Here is a reply to Deborah Moffatt which I hope you will want to print.

Dear Debbie:

I am glad that Dartmouth Poems drew a strong reaction from you. In the history of poetry there have been poems that sent readers into ecstasy and there have been poems that made readers angry. The fact that you reacted strongly to Carl Phillips' poem motivates this letter.

Since 1958 I have selected the best poems from about 500 received each year in my classes, with a small percentage out of my classes. Some years I asked colleagues to help in the selections. Last summer I did it alone.

It is always difficult to judge poetry. In this twelfth and last volume of the series this is true as it has been heretofore. I had an historical aim from the beginning. I thought ahead to 2000 and wanted to offer readers in some such future an evidence of what Dartmouth students were feeling and expressing in poems during the years of my tenure. I wanted these small volumes to be a cross-section of the range of feelings, forms and styles employed. I did not want to censor any student. I realized what Phillips was saying but I invite you to read the poem years hence in an historical context. By then, and I hope soon, with coeducation a reality, such attitudes should change for what you would certainly call the better. I did not want to censor Phillips, or anybody else, for feelings sincerely held, whether wrongheaded or right-headed from your or anybody else's point of view. His poem, and all of them, were criticized in class, their virtues and their shortcomings aired and assessed. What is a great, a good, a mediocre or a bad poem has been debated for centuries. The reader is the arbiter, controlled by his or her own taste.

Incidentally, if you want to read about the sexual revolution see an article in the current (August) Atlantic. As for what you call the pretentiousness of the volume, maybe young people have lost an aesthetic sense and pleasure in fine printing. I suggest that these well-made small booklets will last until 2000, which is more than you could say if they were presented mimeographed.

I would like to defend my student by quoting a poem of Carl Phillips which I hope you like as much as I do. It appeared in Seventy Dartmouth Poems, 1970.

I LOVE YOU IN THE MORNING

I love the way your soft impatience fills the room, as the evening's last cigarette is extinguished.

The way you stumble about like a child the light out, arms outstretched for unseen walls.

The way you shudder just a little when we touch after finding one another in the dark.

The pleading "No!" of your zipper.

Your warm breath flaunting my cheek, and the sheets' loud protest in the red at midnight.

The low rumble of breathing when you sleep, very close.

The faint scent of wonderful, all around.

Your soft words whispered at the sunlight, gently waking sleepy ears in the ochre of morning.

The way you hobble into the room on my arm, awake in spirit, but not in body.

The way you curl up beside me, and lean on my shoulder while I light up a cigarette.

The how-are-you-today fragrance of fading perfume, and last night's Old Grand Dad.

The musty lavender of your housecoat, and lumpy couch underneath.

The way your eyes slowly begin to moisten, and finally, the clear drops that gently stop-and-go down your cheek.

The momentary wave of apprehension before the lighted cigarette is thrown to the floor.

The donuts-dunked-in-milk haze, as our eyes meet for the first time.

Your tear-stained makeup, and the way your lipstick is smudged, just so.

The way your long, brown hair seems everywhere when you hold me, very tight.

The slight lemon-smell of aging pipetobacco.

The throb of distant music on sensitive ears, and heartbeats.

Someone's violent, green brush strokes, flaccidly reprinted, and hanging, directly opposite.

The antique chair taste of old food and stale smoke.

The face that smiles.

It's the seeing.

It's the hearing.

It's the touching.

And knowing.

I love you in the morning.

Hanover, N. H.