Letters to the Editor

The Dartmouth Indian

TO THE EDITOR:

I'm sure the Native Americans have struck a responsive chord in every Dartmouth heart with their policy statement, but as we drop the indignities let's keep cool and build on what is useful in our heritage. Surely our Native Americans cannot complain of efforts to share knowledge with them either by Eleazar Wheelock or the current Administration. The sincerity was and is there, and no other institution is more distinguished in this field. Study of minority cultures is a proper emphasis in these times, and the Indians can be of special help to us, notably in the critical sphere of ecology, not to mention philosophy. So why cannot the whole Dartmouth community be Indians in spirit? There has never been a lack of respect intended.

As for demeaning caricatures and fake war whoops—of course do away with them (though everyone who achieves distinction gets caricatured)! But many Native American societies were indeed notably warlike, and proud of it, so what is inappropriate about retaining the combative image of our athletic contestants? If our Native Americans don't approve the noble profile and purposeful war paint of the traditional Dartmouth Indian symbol, then let them come up with one we can all honor!

Do not make us ape Harvard and Yale by styling us all Eleazar Wheelocks! And who wants to be some animal like those tigers at Princeton? (We just got over that—remember?) Let us truly distinguish ourselves in this age with our Native American relationships and studies, and all remain Indians forever!

Buffalo, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

The complaint of the Native Americans at Dartmouth certainly calls for careful consideration. One can sympathize with the feelings of the students of Indian descent when they see, and, to a degree, are forced by circumstances to join in what seems to them to be derogatory to their racial culture. There are, however, considerations other than the strict interpretation of such matters as pointing toward racial discrimination. A major factor to be considered is the manner and intent of the subject in question.

The song Eleazar Wheelock and the murals in College Hall illustrating it should be viewed as to their nature and intent, rather than from a literal standpoint. When Richard Hovey wrote those verses nearly a century ago, it is extremely doubtful that he meant them to be anything other than a humorous poem. And certainly, when Walt Humphrey 'l4 painted the murals he put into them not only his skill as an artist but even more importantly his puckish wit, for which he was known all his life.

Sooner or later every ethnic group finds itself lampooned in some way, but if the caricature is taken as such, with a bit ofhumor, it may serve to smooth the path oflife a little for all the parties concerned.

In Hovey's verse Dr. Wheelock, thefounder of Dartmouth College, is describedin terms that are hardly respectful. In fact,the whole scene as described in the poem is not what one would call historically accurate. Yet, so far as I know, there never have been complaints regarding this lack of truthand respect from Dr. Wheelock—that could hardly be expected—nor from his descendants. One of these is a member of the Class of 1914 and participated in the ceremonies in Columbia, Connecticut, in 1968 commemorating the founding of Moor's Charity School by the good reverend.

Let us keep the song and the murals! Neither is going to harm the Indians or the Wheelock family.

West Hartford, Conn.

TO THE EDITOR :

The article in the most recent DartmouthAlumni Magazine regarding the protest of the American Indians about the use of the Indian Head as a "caricature symbol" for Dartmouth athletic teams prompts this letter.

As an eye surgeon, of more years experience than I like to think about, I would like to bring to the attention of the general reader one of the most important attributes of an experienced surgeon. It is the ability to know when to stop operating so as not to jeopardize the patient's life. Often, just a little bit more operating may turn a successful operation into a tragedy.

For the past two years Dartmouth College has been undergoing an illness, marked by a high fever, caused by the wrangling over coeducation and the twelve month program, not to mention some other changes. Actually, I think that if the entire alumni body had been polled on coeducation it would have been a close thing despite what the pollster's sample showed. And in an informal poll that I carried out during a two-week skiing vacation in February 1971 at the Dartmouth Skiway of fifty-two undergraduates who rode up on the double chair lift with me, only one favored coeducation. This, of course, may indicate that Dartmouth skiers didn't favor coeducation while the rest of the undergraduates did; or the students gave me this opinion to avoid arguing with an alumnus. However, the bringing up of the Indian Head symbol at this time may be just the little factor (the straw that breaks the camel's back) that will alienate the large number of alumni who gritted their teeth and accepted coeducation and the twelve month program and decided that they would continue to support the Alumni Fund The Alumni Fund, is, of course, the Achilles Heel that must be watched and protected.

I dug up the Indian Head that is sewn to my cheer-leading sweater of the late thirties and it appears as an heroic figure and not a "caricature." I doubt if Hector, King of Troy, spins in his grave when the Trojan warrior mounted on a war horse charges around every time USC scores a touchdown.

A medical example of the last straw concerns a man who needed to have a hernia repaired. He also had a number of warts and moles on his back. He talked his surgeon into agreeing to remove the skin lesions after finishing the hernia. The hernia repair went off without a hitch. Then the patient was turned upon stomach and the minor surgery of removing the skin lesions was carried out. Just as this was nearly finished the patient went into cardiac arrest, He was resuscitated but never regained consciousness and died a few days later. Moral: the operation should have stopped after the hernia repair.

Agitation over the Indian Head symbol is a triviality that should be soft-pedaled for several years until Dartmouth has recovered from its present illness. Because if it should affect the Alumni Fund... As the now generation says, "Cool it for a while, man."

New Bern, N. C.

TO THE EDITOR:

In your most recent issue, I noticed that the Indian students are unhappy with the Indian symbols associated with the College. They also are asking for an Indian Studies Program..

Why don't you, as a college, go all out and have an Irish and a Hindu Studies Program and a program for the Zambesians? Also, why not really fracture the College and have a course of study on Ethiopia, Ghana, and a few of the others?

The whole thing is ridiculous. If the people concerned haven't got enough respect for themselves to understand a little kidding, they must think very little of their inherent worth.

For years the Irish were kidded in America, and it didn't hurt them a bit. Why some of the other races are so sensitive, I don't understand.

Dallas, Texas

TO THE EDITOR:

I think the present undergraduate group which wants the Indian removed from our symbolism is missing several valid points in its own favor:

(1) Dartmouth started as a school to teach Indians.

(2) Virtually every class has had Indian enrollment.

(3) Through over 100 years of change and evolution, Dartmouth has never forgotten or de-emphasized its Indian heritage.

Don't our Indians realize that this is a great accomplishment and a distinct credit to their own heritage?

Hamden, Conn.

TO THE EDITOR:

As one who has always felt "simpatico" with the American Indians, having studied their history, their customs, their traditions and having had nothing but shame for the brutal way in which they have been treated, have long cherished Dartmouth's original educating concept. Accordingly, it was with Particular pleasure that I witnessed the reawakening by the College Trustees to their duty to once again attempt "to teach the Indian."

But, this tempest concerning the abolishment of all Indian symbols, logos, cheers, etc. is "too much." To my way of thinking, Indians would diminish a proud heritage to effectuate such a change. Why, in God's name, can't they take pride in such things instead of shame? About the most adverse criticism that can be leveled at the "Dartmouth Indian" is that he looks fierce and warlike. I suppose the next agitation will be to abolish the word, "Indian" for "Red."

Much as I sympathize with the plight of minority groups, I am of the opinion that Indians, or "Reds" if you will, have been misled by their black brothers into this ridiculous position.

One concession, however, should be made and that is to eliminate any caricature portraying the Dartmouth Indian in a stupid, foolish or degrading way.

Worcester, Mass.

TO THE EDITOR:

I was pleased to learn that Dartmouth decided to provide for an increase in enrollment of minorities through an expanded financial aid program. This step indicated that Dartmouth, as an institution, recognizes contemporary problems and the educational needs of our times. As a matter of fact, I can recall receiving an "A" from Professor Childs on a freshman English composition on this very subject.

This program has caused adjustments in the social mores of the college community, which are to be expected. On the other hand, when I read the January alumni magazine article "Indian Students Denounce Symbols," I am compelled to express a viewpoint which says the college community, including the alumni, should not acquiesce to all of the changes in "Dartmouth's prized traditions" suggested by those who, understandably, find it difficult to adjust to the new Dartmouth situation.

I am addressing this reply particularly to the Indian students' petition to eliminate the Indian symbols used by athletic teams, etc. We have had Indians matriculate at Dartmouth before. In fact, some of my classmates will recall that we played lacrosse with two fine teammates who were Canadian Indians. I never heard a complaint from them regarding the use of the Indian symbol. To the contrary, I got the feeling they were proud of it, and proud to be at Dartmouth, which was founded by Eleazar Wheelock as a school for their people years ago.

With respect to Indian studies or a cultural center, I feel this is a fine objective if it will serve the socio-educational needs of a significant number of students who will take advantage of it. The problem with special study programs, as I understand it, is that they only appeal to a small percentage of the student body and they frequently lose their appeal after a few years. This type of program takes money to implement at a time when private colleges are having budget difficulties. The need for programs of this type should be pragmatically evaluated in light of educational needs and objectives, particularly when finances are tight.

I mentioned at the beginning of this letter that I can see the reason behind Dartmouth's expansion of a scholarship supported minorities program (largely made possible through the Alumni Fund). However, I would like to encourage those who hopefully benefit from these new programs to try to "see it how it is" in this new environment. If the Dartmouth Indian symbol is now repulsive to some undergraduates, then deep and abiding traditions of this type should be explained to prospective students. They would then have an opportunity to decline the invitation to matriculate if they cannot accept these seemingly strange traditions.

On the other hand, if symbol-wise we have been doing things in extremely poor cultural taste, and I truly believe the situation is being blown out of proportion, perhaps some modification of our symbols is in order. But, I don't think our Indian symbol is or has been offensive—it has been a manly depiction of the Indian, and I am confident that the majority of students and alumni believe that it honorably exemplifies the proud manhood that is and has been Dartmouth's.

Princeton, N.J.

TO THE EDITOR:

As time and social changes progress, I have always been for the underdog and eager to participate in events designed to promote understanding, equality, and a keener sense of justice. Undoubtedly, the Indian has received more than his share of mistreatment and injustice, but Dartmouth has not been a catalyst in the misdeeds.

The article in last month's AlumniMagazine suggesting that all references to the Dartmouth Indian as a mascot, symbol, or art form be eliminated absolutely rocks me.

What the hell? Was Sitting Bull the last Indian to smile? The sensitivity is wholly out of proportion to the so-called indignity. In my viewpoint, the reaction is just plain neurotic. My only hope is that the College Administration will not react neurotically to the suggestions, which are, in fact, demands. Whether they do or not cannot change a single moment of Indian history, nor is it likely to enhance or detract from anyone's opinion of Indians in general. It could, possibly, annoy or incense a number of Dartmouth alumni, or at least make them shrug their shoulders in utter disbelief. Some might even write letters.

However, if it should happen, I would gladly let Dartmouth have "The Irish" as their mascot and team name. Dartmouth has a fine backlog of Irish-American football, hockey, and track stars to draw from: i.e. Donovans, O'Briens, Rileys, O'Neills, Sullivans, Kellys, etc. Irish history is intact. If the result is that they call us "The Micks," produce decals of funny little men with upside down clay pipes, shillelaghs, and shamrocks in their hats, that will be just fine. We can use the "Wearin' of the Green" as a fight song, get an Irish setter, if need be, and change the color to Kelly green.

The Richard Hovey Grill could be repainted to depict an Irish hooley, or party, and pepper it with good-lookin' salty colleens. Now, I don't know what Notre Dame will think of all this, but then there are plenty of other teams who have "The Indians" as their name. Not Manhattan, but a lot.

It is possible that Jake Crouthamel would prefer "The Krauts," or should we become "The Noblemen" to honor the Earl of Dartmouth. Then again we might offend somebody. The name "Big Green" does seem threatening and overbearing. Maybe we will have to settle for Damon Runyon's term, "The Dartmouths." But, then, Runyon was such a low brow.

Wilton, Conn.

TO THE EDITOR:

With reference to your article involved with Indians and their relationship to the College, I would like to make some observations.

First of all, I applaud the request to study the Indian culture and heritage. I hope the College will make a real effort in that direction.

Secondly, I hope our Indian friends will realize that when a Dartmouth man sees the Indian caricatures, etc., he has no thought of a derogatory nature towards the Indians. Instead, he has a feeling of nostalgia and love and affection for Dartmouth. If these symbols did not invoke such thoughts in us, we would not use them.

If it were not for this symbolism, our Indian affiliations might easily have been forgotten years ago, and there is no greater tragedy than to be forgotten or ignored.

Phoenix, Ariz.

TO THE EDITOR:

Dartmouth undergraduates today are said to be smarter, better informed and selected from a more highly qualified group than we were. Could be. They also seem to outperform us in another area—paranoia.

This attack on the College's Indian tradition is too much. Having lived in New Mexico and having worked with Indians there, I think their association with Dartmouth is something they should brag about.

The Irish have done all right despite their "exploitation" by Notre Dame. The Confederacy has not suffered from all the attention drawn to it by a host of Southern universities. I suspect cowboys are not sensitive about Dallas' football team.

My advice to the Class of 1972 is to forget imagined affronts to Indians and think about where they might find a job next June.

Oakland, Calif.

TO THE EDITOR:

No more Dartmouth Indians?

Then how about The Dartmouth Deers? Or maybe Dears?! Oh dear, and a deep sigh for all that has passed away.

After all is said and done, it was Women's Lib in collaboration with the Supreme Court that forced the Dear decision upon a one-time Independent Dartmouth College.

Del Haven, N. J.

Regardless of Cost ?

TO THE EDITOR!

I have to agree with Ralph Sanborn '18 that the alumni have never been consulted as to the financial cost of the so-called Dartmouth Plan. I have to agree, also, with F. Anthony Hanlon '22 that alumni opinion was never adequately polled. The January '72 issue of the Alumni Magazine reports that the Trustees were to receive recommendations for implementation of coeducation and year-round operation at their January meeting. At the same meeting the Treasurer and Business Manager were to have ready an estimate of the extent to which existing pant facilities would have to be modified. Are we to believe that such a major decision as the Dartmouth Plan was decided upon without studies first having been made as to implementation and necessary modification of plant facilities? One cannot help but suspect that the Trustees had made up their minds to year-round operation and coeducation regardless of cost or alumni feeling.

It is particularly ironic that according to Richard M. Zuckerman "72 (The Undergraduate Chair) meetings concerning the proposed changes were held in every dormitory and in many fraternities. Forums were even conducted at the Top of the Hop. Where the Trustees knew they would find support, they conducted meetings; but it is significant that they carefully avoided polling the alumni. There was at best only an inadequate sampling of the alumni.

The question still remains, "Why?" I trust that Thomas W. Braden '40 is not writing seriously in his article, "Narcissus Yields." He gives as reasons: (1) "There was no very good reason for not doing this" and (2) something to do with the Narcissus in us all. If these are really the Trustees' reasons for deciding such a radical change, then I, for one, have lost all confidence in the Trustees.

Mr. Braden quotes one of the Trustees as remarking concerning the proposed change, "My gut feeling is it's wrong." It's too bad our Trustees did not listen to their gut feelings.

Mays Landing, N.J.

Editor's Note: Separate financial studiesby an outside consulting firm, Cresap,McCormick & Paget, and by the College'sown budget officer provided the Trusteeswith very detailed estimates of the costsinvolved in coeducation and year-roundoperation. These studies covered not onlythe costs of the various options open to theBoard but also the experiences of otherinstitutions which generously, on a confidential basis, opened their books to Dartmouth.President Kemeny has said that no board oftrustees was ever better supplied with dataor more thoroughly prepared for making animportant decision.

Joy Boys Outmoded

TO THE EDITOR:

I read the January letters to the editor with a mingled sense of sadness and anger. Sadness because the Trustees have made a decision for the living Dartmouth which disturbs their reveries for the good old days—which never seemed quite that good when they were there. And anger at the expressions of dismay at the admission of women into the College.

I wonder how many Dartmouth "men" (often a ridiculous term for males between 18 and 21 years) were warped in their relationships with women as a result of the all-male policy. The Jack Nicholson character in "Carnal Knowledge" perfectly fits the stereotype of the women-hunting Dartmouth joy boy. The attitude that women are objects, or simply inferior to men, is at least one seed which was borne the fruit of rampant divorce and instability in today's man-woman relationships.

Anally, if the observation that you hate what you fear is correct, why do these old grads fear women? Is their own sense of maleness so fragile that women must be excluded from any contact which might threaten it? If not, there should be no objection to letting today's students find their "maleness" with women. Perhaps they can find new ways to form meaningful relationships.

New York, N. Y.

An Undergraduate's ViewOn Quality of Campus Life

TO THE EDITOR:

Dartmouth undergraduates were recently invited by the Planning Committee on Student Residence to submit their views on enhancing "the quality of life at Dartmouth." I do have opinions, very definite ones in fact, and through the medium of the Alumni Magazine, if I may, I would like to express them in this open-letter form.

I am sure, first of all, that there are many students like myself, who are well-meaning and want the best possible experience at Dartmouth for future students. We have participated in many of the debates of recent months (and years) about CYRO and coeducation. Many of us have disagreed, but now we stand behind one plan—The Dartmouth Plan—confident that wise decisions now will keep the College at the forefront of American education.

There are some vitally important things which I feel must be maintained if Dartmouth is to continue as a great intellectual campus with a little bit more, however. We all agree that Dartmouth's first and, by far, most important function is undergraduate education of the highest order. I would be extremely surprised to hear any student, alumnus, or faculty member say otherwise. However, Dartmouth is more than a place where excellent students can study for four years: Dartmouth is a place where values are formed, good friendships developed, and a love for humanity and nature nurtured. We are still, thank God, a small college—a college where one can meet a large percentage of his classmates and interact with them socially, athletically, and intellectually. Sacrificing one of these for intellectual activity ONLY is an injustice to the students attending the College and to the traditions of Dartmouth and other liberal art institutions.

It comes as no surprise to anyone when I say that many of our top administrators and professors in recent years have come from institutions other than our own—particularly those three very large and, at times, famous institutions in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey. These administrators and professors, often unconsciously, view Dartmouth's education as one which isn't intellectual enough, which should be patterned more after those same institutions from whence they come themselves. Dartmouth, however, is not Harvard, Yale, or Princeton; Dartmouth is not in a big city with problems of crime and violence; Dartmouth does not have a huge graduate division which is all-important. Dartmouth is, rather, a small, residential college whose strength lies in the interaction among its students living in one community, striving together for common goals or, at least, arguing over common problems.

This brings me to the specific areas which were mentioned in the Committee's letter of February 1. Many students on this campus agree that the idea of student residential colleges, each small unit with its own eating commons, social activities, and professorial apartments is divisive and absurd for the Dartmouth experience. No one is afraid of being mugged on the Hanover streets and therefore, remains in his own dormitory or fraternity house. The most important experience here at Dartmouth is meeting and interacting with students throughout the campus and not just with one's friends in a single housing structure. The housing structure is merely a springboard to greater interaction, not an end in itself. I sincerely feel that the whole idea of residential colleges is as misplaced as it is absurd; the idea that Dartmouth should have such a thing is, to me, totally repugnant.

In regard to student social facilities, I feel it's about time the College built a Student Union—a place where students can go, not to look at works of art or discuss poetry necessarily, but just to relax. Almost every college and, surely, every university in the country has such a place, where students can bowl, play pool, play ping-pong, swim, etc. To say that the gym and Hopkins Center fulfill this role on campus is simply not true. Also, fraternities have a vital and important function on this campus. If they die, much of value will be lost to Dartmouth. The pleasure and maturity which develops out of either running or being part of a financially and physically independent structure at Dartmouth cannot be overemphasized in the education of Dartmouth students. With coeducation, matriculated women should be admitted to fraternities by exactly the same criteria as males and should be allowed to live in the houses as any other members would.

Even though I know this is a rather long letter, I would like to conclude by saying something about faculty-student relations. I feel that these relations, which were touted to me as a high school student, have fallen into disrepair in recent years. Many of the faculty members are of the type who feel that intellectualism is the only significant quality in students and the mere idea of socializing with students on a more informal basis is unnecessary if not presumptuous on the student's part. This is a very serious problem which can only be solved by the faculty themselves. I have, more than once, extended a sincere hand of friendship to a faculty member only to be snubbed, for what reasons I do not know.

In any case, I would just like the Committee to realize that we who have chosen Dartmouth by free choice, over such schools as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, did so because it was Dartmouth—small, intimate, friendly. If the Committee weighs the opinions of those who went to those three large universities too heavily or of those who, for other selfish reasons, want to change Dartmouth into an inferior form of those fine institutions, it will be doing a disservice to its purpose and to Dartmouth. This is Dartmouth College. Even though we have changed much for the better, let us keep those things that make us what I consider the finest College in America.

Hanover, N.H.