Letters to the Editor
Dartmouth Alumni Trust
TO THE EDITOR:
The following is a copy of the letter I sent to the Dartmouth Alumni Trust in response to their advertisement in the February issue: Gentlemen:
In your advertisement in the current issue of Dartmouth Alumni Magazine a line in the advertisement reads as follows: "Tell us how you feel about the recent events at the College." I accept your invitation.
On balance, I think the College is doing a remarkably good job in adjusting to our changing social and economic conditions. With so many controversial issues, it is not likely that many people would be in total agreement on many subjects. The College gets high marks in my book.
"Why didn't they listen to you?" is a question raised in your ad. This implies we should run the College by referendum. It couldn't work for a college, or a government, or a company. Dartmouth has elected Trustees, and elected Alumni Councillors who act as objectively as humans can act.
I personally feel your advertisement is in poor taste. It reflects, if I may say so, your immaturity. On the other hand, you might say my remarks reflect my advancing years. Maybe, we're both right.
I dislike dissension that becomes divisive. This makes the cure worse than the disease.
" Trust your hopes and not your fears.
New York, N. Y.
TO THE EDITOR:
I am both outraged and grieved by the advertisement which appeared on page 14 of the February 1973 issue of the Dartmouth AlumniMagazine. That a self-appointed group should (1) deliberately try to sabotage the Alumni Fund, one of the greatest pillars of strength of Dartmouth, and (2) solicit support of a so-called Dartmouth Alumni Trust is almost unbelievable. Such efforts are in my opinion not only most divisive, but destructive and damnable. As one of the older alumni, in the twilight years of my life, with four sons and a grandson all graduates of the College, I am saddened beyond the expression of words.
That this group should use a name so similar to the Dartmouth Alumni Fund without the approval of the College Trustees is blatant arrogance and perhaps illegal.
It would appear that this group is seeking to arrogate to themselves powers which explicitly and inherently belong to the College Trustees, the President, and other administrators, when they seek to determine and only "support programs which retain the traditional Dartmouth spirit."
Factually, they are completely incorrect in stating that the alumni were not consulted before coeducation was adopted. That was talked and written about for several years. And at the Class Officers Conferences in May 1971 at Hanover, coeducation was the main topic of discussion. At these Conferences the Class Officers elected an ad hoc Advisory Committee (of which I was honored to be one) to meet and consult with the College Trustees and the President and others before any final decision was made by the Trustees, in which body the ultimate decision, of course, would have to be made. In June 1971 that ad hoc Committee met for several intensive days of in-depth sessions in Hanover and although not in full agreement, I am quite sure that a majority (of which I was one) favored coeducation.
Of course I believe in dissent. Frankly, I am opposed to the dropping of the Indian symbol. With certain reservations, I would favor the return of ROTC. But how any truly loyal Dartmouth man can, because of dissent, withdraw his support to the Alumni Fund, or to the Bequest Program, is beyond my comprehension. As 1910's Bequest Chairman for the past 18 years and as a former President of the Bequest Association, I am aware that a few (I do not believe many) alumni have rewritten their wills, etc. because they disagree with some of the present policies and trends. This also shocks me.
For my part, I think the Trustees and the President are doing a superb job in this changing world and that our beloved College will reach new heights within the next few years to come. They need and deserve all the help and cooperation and unity which every loyal alumnus can give them to make Dartmouth what we all fervently desire — namely, a greater — no, more than that — the very best institution of higher learning in the United States of America.
New York, N. Y.
TO THE EDITOR:
Your February issue carried an advertisement on page 14 and a notice about your "advertising policy" on page 12, that to me are highly significant in their interpretation. While I admire the position of your statement on page 12, I sense between the lines the attitude that while you accept the ad on page 14 in order to "conform to the standards of free expression" you must apologize to at least a part of your readership.
The advertisement from the Dartmouth Alumni Trust is highly controversial, it is true. However, I see no reason why your journal should apologize in advance. Do you fear violence?
I think it is important for your journal and the College administration to face the fact that certain segments of the alumni oppose recent changes in College policies that have been introduced in the name of "progress." ...
My complaint against the College is not easy to express in a few words. I feel that it has acted irresponsibly in a number of cases such as the student uprisings, abolition of ROTC, coeducation, and dropping the Indian symbol. But these are only symptoms. What is behind these images and postures is of greater moment.
These concerns are excessive permissiveness regarding student participation in setting College policy. The College takes the whims and fads of students too seriously. People of college age lack the experience to make far-reaching decisions on policy, and the administration should know this. There is no reason why student opinion should not be heard but action of the College should reflect mature judgment.
I think the College and my parents did not take me seriously when I was a student. Looking back, I think it would have been disastrous if they had. My life has been enough of a disaster, as it is. I am sure others of my generation will concur in this viewpoint concerning their own lives.
The teaching of my student days was for free expression. We were taught to expose ourselves to both sides of a topic or question and weigh our acceptance or rejection. But, we certainly were not told that if we did not receive acceptance that it was OK to band together, take over the administration building, wreck it or burn it down, and then expect amnesty and a pat on the head.
I got my bumps for high jinks and escapades.
The students of today will be the citizens and leaders of tomorrow. If they get the that each can "do his own thing" without regard for the desires, wants and feelings of other (young or old) we shall have chaos. Yet, children are taught to defy their parents. "The system" may have a few things wrong with it. But, if each child thinks he can improve matters by burning down the system, we are on a collision course with trouble.
Your "Letters to the Editor" Department may seem an adequate forum for expression of opinions from alumni. You might consider making it larger and invite contribution articles of dissent from alumni who think the College has gone too far in the acceptance of false progress or permissiveness. After all, your logo distinctly say; "alumni." I assume that this means all alumni Otherwise, you should consider changing the logo to read "Dartmouth Sympathetic Alumni Magazine" or something to that effect.
Branford, Conn.
The New Tradition
TO THE EDITOR:
The Dartmouth Indian and Wah Hoo Wah disappear. ROTC departs and women arrive. Some of the traditions are changing. Yet Danmouth now provides the best undergraduate education offered in this country.
We are all part of this new tradition. It would not have been possible to provide this experience without a favorable coeducation decision. ROTC was causing students to channel their efforts in directions counter to the Dartmouth academic traditions. The Ivy League crowns keep coming and the alumni are still proud to be "roused."
Is it not a bit foolish to grumble, petition, and complain about being an integral part of this new, on-going Dartmouth tradition? Should the current academic energy which is channeled toward such excellence in learning be dissipated or diverted?
Stowe, Vt.
Old Fuds, Now Hear This
TO THE EDITOR
May an old fud complain of the irritation which invests him when reading the effusions of other old fuds, about all the horrible things happening to Dartmouth?
What, now, is really so ill-advised, or even new?
I recall, back in the '30s, we all seemed to think well of the basic Hopkins thesis that the College ought to be questioning (to over-simplify his case) whatever had become the currently intrenched views of society. Should rigor mortis now set in?
So we don't have ROTC. Well, neither did we have it back in the 30s, and at the time I (and I think most of us) used to think that was a good mark for Dartmouth. And when ROTC crept in after World War II it felt to me a bit like a gray cloud over the sun of the College's previous utter independence of the government. (Parenthetically, I was brought up as a convinced Westchester square, was a USNR officer for four years, and served the Navy for another 23 years as a civilian.)
And the Indians. And the blacks. Well, when whole races have been given the short end continuouly for hundreds of years and still are, by majority vote, the Establishment looking the other way, I'm for being a bit on the side of trying to accommodate their sensitivity, especially in small things. And certainly on the side of trying to open up to them in reality a little of the equal opportunity without which our vaunted free enterprise concept is a total ethical desert.
And coeducation? Sometimes I do shudder a bit at the thought of females disturbing the purity and simplicity of those four wonderful all-male years. And perhaps there still ought to be some good all-male college — freedom of choice and all that. But 1 guess it's still possible for those so minded to lead a monastic life in Hanover (the 3:1 ratio would seem to preserve this). And down inside I know Dartmouth will be better, overall, for coeducation.
Gadsakes, fellow old fuds! Let's just moulder away quietly, coughing up our 40% deductible Alumni Fund contributions gracefully. (Exceptions might be made for those who have already paid back, with full allowance for subsequent interest and inflation, the full cost of their Dartmouth education.)
Arlington, Va.
The Fuller Story
TO THE EDITOR:
A footnote to Robert B. Graham's article in the February issue on "Dartmouth Gives Its Name to US-Soviet Understanding."
Fortunately, nowadays, Soviet-US meetings are not unusual. In 1960 it required courage on the part of US institutions to support and play host to a US-Soviet conference. John Dickey and the Ford Foundation had it. Irreplaceable Norman Cousins would probably agree that the role of the Ford Foundation, which supported the first conference, was not insignificant. Also I have a suspicion that the choice of Dartmouth was not unconnected with the fact that John Dickey and I were both Dartmouth '29. At the time I happened to be director of the Ford Foundation's International Affairs Program.
Somewhat the same may be said about the US-Japanese conferences which have been flourishing since the early 1960's. Dartmouth was the seat of the first US-Japanese meeting of this type and again John Dickey and the Ford Foundation played the same role.
Paris, France.
The Alumni Chair
TO THE EDITOR: I am in receipt of my February 1973 copy of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine. I have enjoyed reading of alumni reaction to coeducation, abolition of ROTC, Indian symbols, and student activism. In the lower right-hand corner of page 29 of the February issue the following appears:
Queen Contest Dropped
There will be no Carnival Queen this year. Lack of campus interest and new attitudes about the role of women in contemporary society were factors in dropping the contest. "Prevailing attitudes at Dartmouth and throughout the country indicate that contests stressing beauty as the primary or only criterion no longer have the popularity or support they once enjoyed," said George D. Ritchaske '73, Winter Carnival Council chairman.
This, of course, appeared under the column "The Undergraduate Chair." It might be a good idea to have an "Alumni Chair" column as a small concession to the Dartmouth alumni. May I suggest the following column:
Alumni Fund Dropped
There will be no Dartmouth Alumni Fund this year. Lack of alumni interest, alumni attitudes about coeducation, abolition of ROTC, the use of Indian symbols, student activism, and administration attitudes about the role of alumni in contemporary College affairs were factors in dropping the Dartmouth Alumni Fund. "Prevailing attitudes among Dart, mouth alumni and throughout the country indicate that contests stressing dollar raising and numbers of contributors as the primary or only criterion no longer have the popularity or support they once enjoyed," said a Dartmouth alumni representative.
Akron, Ohio.
Alphabetical Aberration
TO THE EDITOR:
On Page 21 of the February issue, in his article "Dartmouth Gives Its Name to U.S.-Soviet Understanding," Robert B. Graham says, "And at least one program was rewritten to produce its printouts in Russian, and in the acrylic alphabet; Shades of catastrophe in the Senior Room of the Saints! Could he possibly have been a little bit more accurate if he had said, "... and in the Cyrillic alphabet?" It's not nice to fool St. Cyril (Note: acrylic — adj. [ISV acroleintyl]: relating to acrylic acid or its derivatives.)
But please tell Mr. Graham that he has raj sympathy. I was once quoted by a newspaper, and my understanding is total. Acrylic alphabets may be the coming thing - perhaps they will be more indestructible.
Denver, Colo.
In Praise of Learning Facts
TO THE EDITOR:
I wish to make some response to President Kemeny's address, "The Future of Liberal Arts Education at Dartmouth," printed in your June 1972 issue. 1 had expected more.
He noted "something that troubles me deeply ... it is that burning desire to learn something that is missing in so many students" - and then nothing. The five pages of rhetoric explaining the nature and purpose of a liberal arts education - are they not related? "We cannot teach a student all he needs to know the rest of his life." I might add, as continuing education is of prime importance, I would put highest priority on leaving the student somehow — as the College certainly did in days past — with that burning desire, versus "learning in college how to learn, because lift itself is a learning process." Is it possible that students sense the "very low priority on the teaching of facts" ... FACTS too! And ! may say that both wear very well — the thrill and the facts I believe they have something in common.
The first law of thermodynamics should be recalled. The parallelisms in other fields art inescapable to the realist; the law has an all pervasive hegemony. Facts are the stuff of education, of learning - whatever you want to call it. Deemphasize them and that burning desire to learn is lost.
Of course, many other things go into such a desire: inspired teachers, opportunity for advancement, etc. I'd like to bring attention to an aspect ignored by President Kemeny: the thrill of discovering for one's self the overlapping of fields of knowledge ... but through acquaintance facts and theories learned previously, perhaps (in college) in discrete, disciplined areas of education For the student to be learning and correlating at the same instant in the same course is to rob him of that thrill; it is to expect too much. I am not so sure that the smorgasbord approach, which President Kemeny denigrates, is a bad thing (provided done with some system in mind)if in that way it helps to preserve that burning desire to learn.
Finally, about the new in education. "The liberal education offered at Dartmouth is one of the best in the nation ... precisely because it is in ferment ... because it is continually changing." With the late David Lawrence, it is difficult forme to accept the view that just to change is good. Perhaps President Kemeny will carry a good keel, as he also said "... because it is being continually reexamined" — certainly an acceptable posture.
Portland, Me.
Misguided Economy
TO THE EDITOR
The budget proposed by the Administration for fiscal year 1973-74 cuts out funding for NDEA Title VI. This program for years supported language research, scholarships, fellowships, and 106 Language and Area Studies Centers like the one specializing in East Asia here at Dartmouth. American students of East Asian, Southeast Asian, South Asian, Eastern European, Latin American, and African languages and cultures will no longer be supported by their government. A pitiful example: well-qualified undergraduate and graduate students of Chinese used to pursue the language intensively at special summer institutes. From now on only well-off students will be able to take such courses, and America's meager pool of Chinese speakers and readers will start to dry up.
Universities and colleges like Dartmouth, in a time of very tight money, have paid most of the past bills for area studies. The government's significant contribution lies in the area of language — without which the study of, say. China, loses much of its worth.
To complain about these sums — a mere $15.3 million — may seem mean-spirited while Mr. Nixon is hewing away at some much larger trees. But everything is relative. The entire annual federal appropriation for 106 Language and Area Centers would buy one F-111. It is this pittance which the President proposes to withhold.
I urge Dartmouth alumni of whatever political persuasions to urge the Congress to restore these funds.
Associate ProfessorHistory & Chinese
Hanover, N.H.
Two Rouses
TO THE EDITOR:
I give a rouse for the officers of the Hanover Inn for eliminating their part of environmental blight in the form of billboards and for TheBulletin, now printed on recycled paper.
Ithaca, N. Y.
