Letters to the Editor

Responsibility: Two Views

TO THE EDITOR:

I was both heartened and saddened by the paragraphs on coeducation in The Bulletin of September 1975 written by the College President. Heartened because Dartmouth seems to sense that an undergraduate body of 1,000 women vs. 3,000 men might be a little unbalanced and will openly admit that they are currently discriminating against women of equal ability. Saddened because the article implies nothing will be done in the near future to correct this imbalance except to "committee" it and possibly increase the student body by a slight amount (as long as the men hold the majority position?).

This attitude of seeing what needs to be done, but at the next moment wallowing in indecisiveness, because (I can only surmise) it might upset financial giving in the future (women at present have a harder time getting the lucrative positions in business), might interfere with the varsity athletic programs, or cause a few ruffled feathers of generous alumni, bespeaks to me not of an institution leading in troubled times but one that has abdicated its responsibility.

It seems to me that what Dartmouth is saying is that it will only change if it must adhere to governmental guidelines (do not discriminate because of sex), but it will not act out of moral responsibility. Where are these lofty ideals of humanity and responsibility to one's fellow person? I dare not mention the concept of honesty. Where is the institution which has always maintained that it need not have governmental pressure to carry out moral and enlightened policies?

If the Dartmouth alumni and alumnae do not react violently and beseech our school to correct this injustice with utmost haste, it shows in what regard they view their mothers, spouses, daughters, and women in general. It will also embitter many women applicants justifiably and only reinforce the current situation in which women feel that with the same qualifications, they do not have the same opportunities in life. Does this begin to remind you of the hatred and feeling of dispair of the blacks in the '60s that shook the white male establishment?

Here's hoping that the Dartmouth family will spend less time singing and reminiscing about a great institution in the past and spend this same vitality in making their outraged cries for basic human rights heard in the future.

New York, N.Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

The September Bulletin suggests three options for resolving the newly thorny issue of discrimination in admissions (between men and women): (1) reducing male undergraduate numbers; (2) increasing female undergraduate numbers; or (3) doing nothing at all. Option 1 is politically unacceptable. Option 3 is impossible, since Public Law 92-318 (passed, incidentally, before the decision for coeducation) requires an end to all discrimination in admissions within seven years of the decision to admit both sexes. Never heard of that law? Don't be surprised - you can safely assume that the College didn't want you to know about it.

Making it appear that we have a choice in this matter (which we don't), President Kemeny moans that he would "not even hazard a guess as to how this dilemma will be resolved." It is not necessary to guess; the size of the student body will have to be doubled over what it was in the '60s. Then a deficiency in the student-teacher ratio will have to be rectified by more professors, followed by a larger administration.

How will it happen, and when? It has started, if I read my recent history correctly. There is already a statement that "... the Board should have a great deal of information available to it at the January meeting." Sound familiar? The remaining sequence, in chronological order, is predictable:

(1) A poll of the student body, most of whom would by now enjoy a better ratio; (2) a faculty vote (not secret, of course), with department chairman icily staring at untenured juniors who have the temerity to remain seated during the yea vote; (3) a highly selective, scientifically engineered poll of 2,000 alumni (henceforth known as the "Oliver Cool Survey"); (4) 14 issues of The Bulletin, each longer than the survey, telling ALL alumni how a full poll of alumni opinion would be too expensive; (5) a series of cheap presidential trips for the same purpose; (6) a cryptic announcement that the Board will consider the issue in one month; (7) a banner edition of The Bulletin describing the decision to double the size of the College; on the third page is an expression of concern about expanding facilities for the new undergrads and graduate students (where did THEY come from?).

Guess who gets to pay for it all? YOU!

Doesn't this scenario raise some questions about the financial responsibility and integrity of our College leadership?

Every so often, in a very sad dream I see Dan Webster and Eleazar gazing at a glutted John Kemeny and an empty 500-gallon keg; Dan keeps muttering over and over, "She was a small college, and there were those who loved her."

Falls Church, Va.

Farley: Two Views

TO THE EDITOR:

As a member of the League of Women Voters of Franconia Notch, I have from time to time read your publication in my chiropodist's office.

Never, since I had the tip of my left toe indurated, have I read an article so effective in raising my spirits and relieving the strain of waiting-room boredom as the one carried in your last issue.

It was written by someone whose literary reputation was unknown to me, but not, I trust, for long. "James L. Farley" - I'm sure this is the nom de plume of a master at light humor. Can you reveal his true identity?

In any case let's have more from "Mr. Farley."

Franconia, N.H.

TO THE EDITOR:

First ROTC. Then women. Then the Indian symbol. Now. sordid articles by the callow and cynical internationalist, James L. Farley. I would not allow my chauffeur's son - much less my grandson - go to your college.

Sodus Mills, N. Y.

An Appreciation

TO THE EDITOR:

I just wanted to write an appreciation of the article "Before the Revolution" by Al Moncure and Ron Neale in the October issue. It was a reminder of a commitment that must not fade with time. More articles of this kind would enrich the ALUMNI MAGAZINE considerably.

Denver, Colo.

Countering Views

TO THE EDITOR:

Regardless of the merit of the writer's position, I wonder if it is proper for the ALUMNI MAGAZINE to carry in its Letters Department communications from undergraduates.

The October issue, for example, includes a letter from a current senior which consumes seven-tenths of a column (about 18 per cent of the entire space) in expressing the writer's opinion anent the ROTC matter, and I would question whether his observations are of that much interest to the alumni body.

Philadelphia, Pa.

TO THE EDITOR:

I was dismayed by the bitter attack by David Dollar '76 in the current ALUMNI MAGAZINE against the Trustees, industry, ROTC and "militarism." This lad is as confused and anti everything except his "principles" that I am afraid that his three years plus at Dartmouth have been wasted away and he will graduate next June far from attaining the goal of being a liberated man.

It is useless to argue with him about the ROTC situation as his mind is made up and he will not want to be confused with the facts. However, his statement that 60 cents of every tax dollar goes to military spending is so incorrect that he must be refuted. This year's federal budget has not yet been passed by Congress so the facts of the case must be presented from the fiscal year 1975 Office of Management and Budget Report which shows that $234.7 billion was spent for Social Security, Medicare, federal retirements, public assistance, housing, interest on the debt, unemployment assistance, veterans benefits, revenue sharing, etc. National defense programs totaled $58.2 billion, with government pay and other civilian programs totaling $31.7 billion. Thus the federal government in fiscal year 1975 spent $324.6 billion and of that total 18 per cent went to national defense - not 60 per cent as Mr. Dollar implies.

In the next fiscal year the proposed budget is $423 billion with the Defense Department expected to receive about $90 billion - 21 per cent, which is a far cry from 60 per cent. Mr. Dollar should spend some time studying the federal budget where he will find that 55 per cent of our tax dollars now go to human resources such as education, health, income security and the like. The defense establishment should no longer be the whipping boy.

Bedford, Mass.

Credit Where Due

TO THE EDITOR:

I am writing to request that you include photo credits in your magazine. It is most upsetting for us who worked for the Aegis not to have it given proper credit. To the average reader all pictures not specifically credited were taken by Adrian Bouchard. I realize that you purchased the photos on page 22 of the September issue as well as page 28 of the October issue from the Aegis and that you regularly purchase photos from undergraduates and give them credit. My question is then why don't you follow this policy for Aegis pictures?

The pictures on page 22 of the September issue appear on page 38 of the '69 Aegis and page 345 of the '70 Aegis. The picture on page 28 of the October issue can be found on page 50 of the '69 Aegis.

I am certain that this seems like a pretty petty problem to you, but it makes my blood boil when I see a picture I printed being credited to Mr. Bouchard by your current policy of omission.

Stanford, Calif.

Friends' Reply

TO THE EDITOR:

As the "con-man" mentioned in Mr. Nelson's letter [October issue] on the 1975 Regional Art Exhibition, I think there are several ideas expressed which need correction. First, the practice of the artists delivering and picking up their work and the use of a registration fee to cover expenses are standard procedures in most regional shows throughout the country. The idea of a non-juried show had historical precedents as may be seen in the Salon des Refusés in the 1870s in Paris and the Whitney Studio exhibitions of the 1920s in New York City, both of which were major influences in thwarting the aesthetic dictatorship of the official salons and allowing new talent to be recognized.

Indeed this is the major reason for our use of the no-jury concept: to prevent the domination of artistic expression in our area by outside agencies, whether they be the metropolitan press, New York's 57th Street, or the slick Madison Avenue dealers. The exhibition itself proved that good artists are not damaged by the presence of those of lesser stature. And who is to be the judge? A group of other artists, few of whom ever agree? We preferred the more democratic process of showing all the work and allowing the public to make up its own mind. Did you see the exhibition, Mr. Nelson? The reports we had from visitors were almost unanimous in their enthusiastic support.

As to the profits - every cent that is collected by the Friends (a non-profit organization of volunteers) from sales and donations goes directly to the support of student scholarships, art purchases, ticket subsidies for needy students, and the general support of the musical and theatrical performances that comprise the magnificent cultural programs of the Hopkins Center.

Hanover, N.H.

Pioneer

TO THE EDITOR:

We venture to draw attention to two enterprises of Henry Heyl that were not included in his obituary in the May issue but which were of considerable benefit to the students of the undergraduate College and its faculty. The first of these was an extremely informal lunch group which met during the 1955-58 period in a small room adjacent to the Hospital cafeteria. The group had no name, but it brought together biochemists, biologists, chemists, physicists, physiologists, psychologists, dermatologists, otolaryngologists, etc. to report on their current work. These meetings played a significant role in breaking down barriers between College and Medical School and even between departments in the same institution.

The second enterprise was of longer duration and of more lasting importance. Somewhere around 1957 Henry used his connections with the National Institutes of Health arising from his assistant directorship of Medical Sciences at the Medical School to persuade the Heart Institute to finance a series of grants for undergraduate research, primarily during the summer vacation. From its beginning until 1972 this project must have helped something like a hundred or more undergraduates of the College to get a genuine taste of experimental research. This research was carried out in many departments of the College and in most departments of the Medical School. A significant number of the beneficiaries continued in research during and after their post-baccalaureate training. Although some were pre-medical students, the majority was not.

All this started several years before the National Science Foundation initiated its grants for undergraduate participation in research and was a piece of pioneering of which Dartmouth and Henry's friends may feel forgivably proud.

Hanover, N.H.

His 'Wooskey' Smooth

TO THE EDITOR:

Just a short note to compliment Jack DeGange on his excellent portrait of "Duke" Duclos. It brought back fond memories of an extraordinary man. I hope that Duke will find happiness in his retirement and, as he used to say with a sly grin, that his "wooskey" will always be smooth. Duke may have retired, but as long as there are varsity teams at Dartmouth, his spirit will always remain.

Needham, Mass.

Educationally Useful

TO THE EDITOR:

We have sat and looked at the cover on the September issue and have cringed each time. Those of us in the neurological area wince at seeing a football player in such a hyper-extended position of his neck, wondering whether he's going to be able to get up off the ground at the conclusion of this tackle.

For better or for worse, we've used it as a teaching example for a number of medical students we come in contact with, both at Creighton and at the University of Nebraska, as how we see quadriparesis develop in a number of football players who have been mangled in the wars of the gridiron. While it has been educationally useful, it does distress me to see such.

Lincoln, Neb.

(Harvard's McInally survived the tackle byDartmouth's Williams, but, alas, broke his legin this year's College All-Star game. Ed.)

A Great Warmth

TO THE EDITOR:

After reading the letters in the September issue, I feel I should express my opinion in regards to the Alumni Fund.

I give a very small donation each year to the Class of '36 in memory of my husband, Robert M. Latham. I receive the monthly magazine, the newsletters, and always a very warm and friendly thank-you for my contribution.

I have never been pressured into giving to the Fund.

I have a great warmth for Dartmouth College, and I feel honored and very very fortunate in being able to be part of it. (With or without the Indian symbol.)

Harrison, Maine

The ALUMNI MAGAZINE welcomes views and comment from its readers. For publication, letters must be signed; addressed specifically to the Magazine (not copies of communications to other individuals or organizations); and kept within a limit of 400 words.

(James L. Farley is not the Emile Coué of theClass of 1942. Ed.)

(Mr. Allen, who was photography editor of theAegis in 1969, is absolutely right. Ed.)

(Mr. Schmeckebier, an art historian andeducator, was chairman of this year's regionalart exhibition sponsored by the Friends ofHopkins Center. Ed.)

(John Wolfenden is professor of chemistryemeritus. John Copenhaver '46 is professor ofbiology. Ed.)