Letters to the Editor

Sabine Seussified

TO THE EDITOR:

I trust that nobody has taken seriously the asinine rant by Jamie Partridge Bevson '71 against Dr. Seuss' "The Rape of the Sabine Woman" which appeared in the letters column of your May issue. Dr. Seuss' painting is delightful and made a most imaginative cover for your February issue.

Mr. Bevson's letter takes the word rape in its usual modern meaning: i.e., the sexual violation of a woman. If Mr. Bevson had somewhat more liberal learning and somewhat less doctrinaire liberalism, he would be aware that there is another meaning of the word rape: i.e., the forcible carrying off of a person or thing. This meaning occurs in such classical references as Pope's The Rape of the Lock and the Rape of the Sabine Women. In Roman history the followers of Romulus, being short on eligible females, raided the neighboring Sabines and carried off some of their women to be their wives. But this bit of new information will probably only serve to set Mr. Bevson off on a further rant against male supremacy, the patriarchy, sexism, et cetera.

Should Mr. Bevson ever be called upon to rape a Sabine, let's hope he'll know what he's supposed to do.

Medford, Mass.

TO THE EDITOR:

In the May issue isn't Jamie Partridge Bevson '71 misinformed as to the legend of the Rape of the Sabine Women? Jamie denounces the humorous treatment of rape in the painting by Dr. Seuss formerly in the Dartmouth Club of New York.

The first meaning of the verb "rape" given in the dictionary is "to seize and carry away by force" directly from the Latin "rapio." The old story had it that the Roman state in its infancy was short of women. It was necessary to provide brides, wives, and mothers for the new republic, and some of the Sabine women were seized and carried off to enforced matrimony and motherhood. It was not a sexual assault, and after the initial shock the women apparently became proud Roman matrons. The subject has been treated humorously throughout the years in drama, cinema, and song.

Newport, R.I.

Walking Tall

TO THE EDITOR:

"The Long Walk" by Olive Tardiff in the May 1975 issue gave well-deserved credit to two strong long-distance Dartmouth walkers, Sherm Adams '20 and Bill Fowler '21. Why did the author finish "The Long Walk" story with the statement, "Except for an attempt in September of that year by Daniell [Warren F. Daniell '22] to walk to the Massachusetts line, the craze for distance walking at Dartmouth was at an end"?

This attempt to reach the Massachusetts line established a new Dartmouth long-distance one-day walking record of 86 miles that has not yet been equaled. I was accompanied on the first 46 miles by Grosvenor Plowman '20 and on the remainder of the trip alternately by Bill Fowler '21 and Jack Dalton '22.

The detailed story of my walk was told by Bill Fowler in the December 1932 AppalachianMountain Club Bulletin, in the same article, "From Midnight to Midnight," that described the 83-mile "Chain of Cabins" walk made by Sherm Adams and Bill Fowler.

Hanover, N.H.

Professor Mirsky

TO THE EDITOR:

The history surrounding such events as Jonathan Mirsky's departure was sufficiently tangled and mist-shrouded when I was a student that I realize the futility of attempting to unravel it now, removed as I am from the scene. I would simply like to express my deep regret at his leave-taking.

I never formally studied with him; I spoke with him at length only once, when a friend and I invited him to lunch. Nonetheless, I say he was a very fine teacher.

His presence, his thoughts were provocative in a most positive way. The attic of the mind, filled with the odds and ends of intellectual furniture, was visited. Some items were spruced up, some tossed out.

For me one goal of the College is the creation of a crucible of ideas, linked to action in the world. (Recall the motto of the Tucker Foundation.) Jonathan Mirsky, among others now "departed," was an important catalyst in that creation. He will be sorely missed.

Salem, N.H.

(Some of the issues surrounding JonathanMirsky's departure are discussed on page 15. Ed.)

TO THE EDITOR:

I was very saddened and upset to learn that Professor Jonathan Mirsky will be leaving Dartmouth after nine years. As a student, I found Mr. Mirsky to be the most stimulating and interesting teacher I had at Dartmouth. His interest in students extended beyond the classroom. I remember the numerous seminars and discussions in which he participated. In addition, he was truly interested in a student's welfare and "larger education," and was willing to spend hours in his office offering conversation and advice. I understand that this was the educational experience that Mr. Mirsky consistently offered during his years at the College. I know that he published regularly during these years.

On the merits I can't understand the decision not to renew Mr. Mirsky's contract. Of course, I am unfamiliar with the internal politics of the Dartmouth faculty and its departments. But I ask, why do we lose our best teachers? As one who feels very deeply about Dartmouth and the Dartmouth experience, actions of this sort continually cause me to reevaluate my feelings and attitudes towards the College. Would I advise a young person to attend Dartmouth when the very richness of the experience seems to be thinning? My faith in Dartmouth is greatly undermined when I contemplate the misjudgments that must have gone into the decision regarding Mr. Mirsky's employment.

Like justice, Dartmouth must not only be fair, but must give the appearance of fairness. The College seems to have achieved neither in this case. I believe Dartmouth owes her students and alumni (not to mention Mr. Mirsky) a full explanation of why one of her most popular and rigorous teachers is leaving. A full investigation of this matter is warranted.

Cambridge, Mass.

TO THE EDITOR:

I learned last week that my friend and former teacher, Jonathan Mirsky, is leaving Dartmouth. My understanding is that he has been fired; he did not resign.

In these days of eagerness to put Vietnam behind us, the news of Professor Mirsky's departure is for me especially ironic and sad.

No doubt there is a wide range of opinion about Jonathan Mirsky among the faculty and students, present and former. He is not the sort of person who invites indifference. Please allow me to share with you some of my thoughts on what this man has done at Dartmouth, and what his dismissal means.

I recall myself in 1967-68; how anxious I was to succeed at Dartmouth, to excell, to qualify for the next phase of personal advancement. In the distant background, far from my concerns and strivings at Dartmouth, were the events in and around Vietnam. Then I came in contact with Professor Mirsky. The relationship which evolved was difficult, intimidating, often painful. He was not an easy man to know, either personally or intellectually. Why? Looking back, it was largely because Professor Mirsky was taking the reality of Vietnam extremely seriously. Somehow he was letting it register in his guts and conscience, on his mind, in his imagination. How he saw it and how I saw it frequently differed. But through him the reality of it all began to open for me. As a consequence, my Dartmouth strivings were affected, called into question, somehow altered.

This is why Jonathan Mirksy was for me a hard man to know. But I can honestly say that knowing him has been more important to me than most anything else in my Dartmouth experience.

I doubt that my experience in knowing Professor Mirsky was unique. Between 1967 and 1970 among my acquaintances at Dartmouth there was a clear shift in attitude toward this person - from distrust and suspicion to high regard and appreciation. Probably more than any other member of the faculty and administration, Jonathan Mirsky heightened our awareness of our country's policies in Vietnam and their actual consequences. He helped to effect a shift from blind acceptance to critical doubt, from unquestioned loyalty to a painful search for truth. The essence of education.

After receiving this kind of contribution it is most regrettable that Dartmouth is letting go of Professor Mirsky. The words of Ecclesiastes keep coming to mind:

There is no remembrance of former things .... What has been is what will be,and what has been done is what will bedone;and there is nothing new under the sun.

Princeton, N. J.

TO THE EDITOR:

A year ago last fall, having reached the age of 57, I enrolled as a special graduate student with the permission of Professor Jonathan Mirsky in Chinese 1. I had never met Dr. Mirsky before, but it was quickly evident by the way he conducted the new class that he was indeed an unusual teacher. In fact, I concluded that he was one of the three best college professors I had personally encountered both at Cooper Union in New York, where I received a B. Sc. degree, and at M.1.T., where I received both an M. Sc. degree and a Doctor of Science degree.

After one term Mirsky went on leave and was replaced by a visiting professor. He returned last fall and resumed teaching our class. I can honestly state that I learned more Chinese per unit of class time under Mirsky than under his replacement, thus confirming my original impression of his teaching ability.

I am familiar with the Mirskys' support of the student protest against our participation in the Vietnam civil war and that they had the courage to submit to arrest for protesting against something they considered immoral. Since the fall of the Nixon White House and the revelation of the Nixon enemy list and Nixon's misuse of Presidential power to punish his enemies, it is fairly easy to deduce that the Mirskys were on that list and that subtle pressure was brought to bear on Dartmouth (via alumni, federal grants, etc.) to "get rid" of these "troublemakers." If this surmise has any elements of truth, then it is a sad reflection indeed on the American concept of freedom of speech, opinion, religion, etc., which prestigious institutions of higher learning like Dartmouth are committed to defend to the end.

Hanover, N.H.

TO THE EDITOR:

As an East Asian Studies major at Dartmouth, I had the great good fortune to have Professor Jonathan Mirsky as both a teacher and as an adviser. I also shared with him the frustration of being committed to a disfavored program. I can well remember a time when it took a vote of the Committee on Instruction to approve a major in East Asian Studies; a time when an excellent professor of Chinese in the then two-man department did not have his contract renewed, and the relevant dean did not even know his name; a time when underfunding. threatened the entire program, and the Bulletin description was reduced to a deception. In the end there was an expression by the faculty of commitment to the continuation of Chinese studies at Dartmouth. Many took this to be also an expression of support for Professor Mirsky and a recognition of his unflagging efforts to maintain academic excellence.

I do not know the present status of Chinese studies at Dartmouth, but it is difficult to believe that anyone can continue to recognize its importance and yet fail to recognize the dis- astrous impact of losing someone of Professor Mirsky's stature. Thus, I join with those who are both saddened and angered at his firing. He is one of those truly outstanding teachers that are all too rarely found even at Dartmouth.

Hartford, Conn.

TO THE EDITOR:

I would like to add my expression of regret and dismay to those of others regarding the separation of Dartmouth and Jonathan Mirsky.

His personal strength and morality have been extolled by others. Suffice it to say that, as I knew him, he was an individual of great common sense and humanity. I can presume he still is, and Dartmouth's loss will certainly be some other community's windfall. That it should happen is unfortunate irony, and, in some sense, a defeat for the intellect and it's enterprise at Dartmouth.

Professor Mirsky was the single most important teacher I have had in my formal and informal education, not so much for the facts and ideas we kicked around but for what he taught me about the learning process. It seems to me that in Dartmouth's single-minded devotion to undergraduate education, the most important lesson it can teach is how to teach oneself. This is profoundly significant for each of us as long as we are. It is thus ironic that one of those who fulfilled this, and Dartmouth's, mission so well should be cast out. Dartmouth is the weaker for it and I am sorry.

Hollywood, Calif.

TO THE EDITOR:

I suppose the College is receiving a number of letters these days from recent alumni threatening to withhold financial support over the firing of Professor Mirsky. I won't join them.

My four years at Dartmouth were too valuable for me to sever my ties with the College over this incident. Besides, I am able to give so little that my gesture would be silly.

I knew Jonathan Mirsky, not as a teacher but as a committed opponent of the Vietnam war who was always willing to travel great distances - often at his own expense - to discuss and defend his views. He did it well. And he was right.

No, I won't threaten and posture over his dismissal. But my pride in Dartmouth has dimmed a bit. What the hell were those four years all about anyway?

Westmoreland, N.H.

TO THE EDITOR:

Aside from considerations of scholarship, it would be tragic were Jonathan Mirsky leaving Dartmouth only because his views are repugnant to most of us.

It is in the Dartmouth tradition to develop the individual intellect by teaching the student to analyze in an objective and critical manner, to take the position of the skeptic and to be the iconoclast. In a former day, Professor John Mecklin likened this intellectual experience to Plato's Allegory of The Cave, and, as he put it, "To think one's way into living rather than to live one's way into thinking."

Of necessity, these intellectual processes are negative because their purpose is to tear down conditioned concepts. The important ingredient in the Dartmouth tradition is that once things were taken apart, one looked for the way to put them back together again.

Mirsky might not have been in the Dartmouth tradition in this latter respect because, in his extremist views, he was destructive of the Establishment, destructive of traditions, destructive of loyalties. He might not have offered anything constructive to take the place of what he destroyed.

In the end, it was really not up to Mirsky to put those things back together. What we think of as the Dartmouth experience, or, if you will, the College curriculum, should restore an intellectual order of things.

Perhaps this is the key to what President Kemeny was saying in his valedictory when he admitted that he could not, in five minutes, make up for all that was not learned in four years, and then he beseeched the class to " ... join organizations even if human institutions are always imperfect," to serve those institutions and to improve them by contributing an individualistic and independent outlook.

The best of the liberal tradition is tolerant of all views or expressions, however distasteful or repugnant. So one wonders what has happened to Dartmouth when a Shockley is not permitted to speak or when the ROTC is run out of Dartmouth because its symbolism is distasteful to the majority of the students and/or the faculty. They were wrong, and if this is the reason that Mirsky is leaving Dartmouth, it is equally wrong because, in the Dartmouth tradition, one becomes immune from error or evil not by hiding from them but by exposure to them. One wonders how the Dartmouth tradition can persevere unless we know how to put back together those things which we have taken apart.

Montgomery, Ala.

Outward Bound

TO THE EDITOR:

Dear Alumni - As I sit on the Moosilauke Ravine Lodge porch soaking in the noonday sun, my thoughts wander back to Hanover and my first nine months as a Dartmouth student. My freshman year has been a great success, and I thank you all for continuing to support the Dartmouth spirit. Mostly I want to share with you the highlights of my spring term in the Dartmouth Outward Bound Learning/Living experience.

The past 12 weeks have been the most exciting and rewarding days of my life. Beginning in March with a ten-day wilderness expedition - backpacking, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing in the White Mountains - I developed a deep sense of trust and honesty with the students and instructors in our crew. While learning skills-in first aid, map and compass, rock climbing, and wilderness rescue techniques, we were growing inside with confidence in ourselves and understanding of each other. During the term, we each experienced a three-day solo to discover a new perspective on our lives while living alone in the woods. At the end of the term, we planned and executed a five-day backpacking expedition in the Pemigewassett Wilderness without our instructors - a true test of our knowledge and teamwork.

Throughout the term, the 12 Learning/Living students lived in an off-campus cooperative house where we did all our own buying, planning, and cooking. While carrying two regular academic courses, we all participated in an environmental studies seminar, designing and presenting a land-use plan for Goodwin Park in Lebanon, In. addition, we worked in a community service project in the Canaan and Enfield elementary schools. At the Outward Bound house, our lives were full of informal social and intellectual gatherings while entertaining numerous faculty, students, and Dartmouth guests. On campus, we fielded a star soccer team while participating daily in tennis, biking, running or some other physical activity.

In all, the Dartmouth Outward Bound Learning/Living term stimulated my physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual being to my utmost potential. By learning and sharing with new-found friends, I have discovered my true best friend - myself!

Thank you all again.

Hanover, N.H.

Acts of Conscience

TO THE EDITOR:

For several years I have not been able in good conscience to contribute to the Alumni Fund despite the various approaches made by my class agents and others because of what I term unconscionable abandonment of Dartmouth traditions on the part of the present administration.

Ellis O. Briggs '21 summed up my sentiment most succinctly in his letter "Five Years Ago" published on page 6 of the April 1975 issue. His feelings were so well expressed that I couldn't help writing him a letter expressing my concurrence with what he had written.

His reply to me was so much to the point that I feel I must pass it on to you. I think it deserves publication in your next issue along side of the writings of the various liberals, radicals, and parlor pinks who, to judge by their attitudes, seem happy with the progressive emasculation of their College, and, yes, their country.

Boynton Beach, Fla.

TO THE EDITOR:

This letter is mainly an act of conscience. ...

When coeducation was proposed for Dartmouth, I was agin it. For one thing, I thought there was (and I still think there might have been) a useful role to be played by an all-male college of some distinction in the "big picture" of American education. For another, it seemed to me the decision was being taken less on its merits than out of fear of being not with it and of becoming insufficiently attractive to the prospective students we want. For both reasons, it seemed to me something of a cop-out - although I recognized that I didn't have the responsibility for backing my judgments which the Trustees did have. Moreover, even at the time, the testimony of my two prep-schoolers, as they then were, and their friends strongly supported the judgment that it was coeducate or die.

However all that may be, what I want to say now is that based on what I have read, what my faculty (all emeritus now) friends tell me, what I have seen during a Horizons program, what I saw in Hanover during our recent 30th, and, most of all, what Dartmouth has done with and for my niece, Ms. Lee Harris Potter '78, I do not see how coeducation can be characterized as other than a howling success.

Of course, I'm judging on very little evidence, quantitatively speaking, but what I have seen is unanimous and it is qualitatively impressive. The ladies of Dartmouth (if I may be allowed so outmoded and, if you wish, so provincial an expression) not only have class, as I suppose one might perhaps have expected, but, I judge, they add a lot of class to the College. And I am inclined to give much more weight than I once was to the consideration that the College is doing some rather nice things for these ladies; I would have rejected the notion, ex ante, that girls were being deprived of something they ought to have, but I now consider it a binding consideration.

In short, I consider that it is still arguable that the coachman (sorry, coachperson) was tipsy, but that there is no doubt that the horses knew the way.

Washington, D.C.

TO THE EDITOR:

A year as visiting professor at Tuck gave me revised views on two issues which have excited the alumni in recent years.

First, those of us who opposed the architecture of the Hopkins Center were wrong, but for reasons for which we may be forgiven. The drawings of the building appeared to indicate a structure which was simply massive and unrelated to the College's architecture. Actually, as one views the Center, it is clear that Harrison, by use of rounded arches and skillful placing of the entrance relative to Wilson Hall, related his structure brilliantly to the four Romanesque buildings of the campus. Whether for this reason or some other, the Romanesque buildings now appear a more valuable part of the campus' visual impact than they seemed in my undergraduate days. If all of the College's architects had attempted only versions of Georgian and Greek Revival, the campus would be monotonous and give much less impression of historical continuity than it does.

Second, the current effort to get rid of the Indian-head symbol is doomed to failure by the nature of the industry which produces it. The Indian head is produced by a competitive industry of small firms, which is inevitably highly responsive to market demands and not at all to administrative decisions. The Indian provided for Dartmouth what the Keystone herald provided for the Pennsylvania Railroad: instantaneous identification, mixed with symbolism of what the institution thought it stood for. Upon its merger with the New York Central in 1968, the Pennsylvania dropped the Keystone in favor of the two-earthworms-in-love logo of the Penn Central. The Keystone herald is available currently on tie bars, tie tacks, T-shirts, decals, watch fobs, bumper stickers, bar glasses, coffee mugs, coaster's, ashtrays, calendars, and doubtless much else with which I am not yet familiar.

I make no judgment on the relative emotions engendered by Dartmouth and the Pennsylvania Railroad. It was not a small railroad, and yet there are those who love it.

Los Angeles, Calif.

The Fund

TO THE EDITOR:

A short time ago I was contacted by a fellow alumnus regarding my contribution to the Alumni Fund. Although I am sure that he was well-meaning, his method of soliciting money disturbed me.

As a teacher in a small liberal arts college, I am fully aware of the need for alumni contributions. On the whole, I have great respect and admiration for the manner in which the Alumni Fund is run. In fact, I feel that many colleges could well profit by studying the close relationship which Dartmouth has with her alumni.

My only criticism is that I feel that I was being pressured into giving a certain amount of money. I believe that one should give as much as he wants or is able to give without the implication that his gift is tainted because it fails to meet the "average."

I am convinced that schools would have much better rapport with their alumni if they graciously accepted any contribution, however large or small. I realize that my experience may be atypical, but I felt that I should still write this letter. I shall remain a loyal alumnus, but my feeling that the College would be better off with even a small contribution from every living alumnus has not changed.

Although this has nothing to do with the point of my letter, I have been both amused and irritated by the letters regarding coeducation at Dartmouth. I am very much in favor of coeducation and when I use the word "alumnus", it should be considered as synonymous with "graduate."

Holland, Mich.

The President's Report

TO THE EDITOR:

I always look forward to reading my dad's copy of the DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE

I was very impressed with the article in the April issue by President Kemeny ("The President's Five-year Report"). It was an enlightening article and written, I feel, in an easy-to-understand style. I feel President Kemeny and your magazine have provided an important service by printing the article - you have let the friends of Dartmouth know what's happening at Dartmouth.

Keep up the good work!

Wayzata, Minn.

TO THE EDITOR:

I appreciate the thorough report from the President. It's another piece of evidence that the College is in good hands.

One question, however: The President's report says (page 39), "During the 19605, federal aid to higher education became a major factor in the financing of colleges and universities." I looked in vain for a breakout on Dartmouth's budget in terms of federal vs. non-federal funds, and I even asked President Kemeny when he spoke in Washington recently. He said it would be a bit difficult to figure out, because budgets aren't kept that way. Still, I would like the percentage of Dartmouth's annual operating budget that is provided by the federal government. I would include all such monies - student aid, research grants, and so forth.

There is some question whether the distinction between public and private universities is still "operative," and this data would be useful. (There remains a clear distinction between "elite" and "non-elite" institutions.)

Thanks for your consideration of this request.

Washington, D.C.

[According to the most recent financial report,Dartmouth's total revenue for the year 1973-74amounted to $48,058,000, of which slightlymore than $7.2 million came from the federalgovernment. Of that sum the Medical Schoolreceived $4,680,000; the College, $2,185,000;Thayer School, $384,000; Tuck School, $2,600. Ed.)

Rupe Thompson

TO THE EDITOR:

The March issue of Fortune contained a letter from Royal Little, the founder and entrepreneur of Textron, one of the first and most successful the conglomerates of the USA. He, modestly, Pays tribute to the men who made the dream come true, including the great contribution of Rupert C. Thompson '28: "Rupert Thompson ... had the confidence of the entire financial community .... He gave credibility to the concept of diversification that was completely lacking before. Without Thompson, Textron today would be a small, unknown company of no distinction." I believe that it is a suitable epitaph along with the acknowledgement of his great contribution to Dartmouth College and his class.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.

Among the Best Places

TO THE EDITOR:

The New York Times puts New Hampshire and Vermont at the head of the states where the low infant mortality compares with Sweden, Finland, and Holland, which lead the world in raising healthy babies.

It is possible that Hanover may be among the best places to live both in the nation and the world for old folks as well as infants.

In a motorized age the air of Hanover is relatively pure. No long-distance trucks, buses, or travelers are routed through Hanover. It is a long way to any cows or other situations which attract flies.

The drinking water comes from high in the hills where there is a minimum of men and beasts.

The proportion of medical men to the total population is probably the highest of any community to our knowledge. Their skills are so organized that help can be had at any hour of the day or night and every day of the year. In many places doctors disappear over the weekend. I once checked in at the Hitchcock Hospital at 5:00 on Saturday afternoon, and they worked on me until 9:00 trying to find out what ailed me. I was not an emergency case.

The way the undertaker and the cemeteries are tucked away in inconspicuous places suggests that the inhabitants of Hanover have little occasion to meditate on death. Apparently old codgers of both sexes survive longer amidst the snows of New Hampshire than amidst the balmy breezes of Florida.

This seems to be particularly true of retired college presidents. Both William Jewett Tucker and Ernest Martin Hopkins lasted longer than they or anybody else expected. And apparently James B. Conant of Harvard and John Sloan Dickey are out to better their records.

Those who wish to live long and die happily should hie themselves to Hanover - or its environments.

Hamilton, N.Y.

(But the black flies are murder. Ed.)

Not an Attractive Place

TO THE EDITOR:

It is with growing concern that I read the ALUMNI MAGAZINE'S letters and continually find the same, tired subjects being chewed up once again.

It is guaranteed that each issue will contain at least one letter concerning the Indian symbol, one letter on the possible return of ROTC, and one missive on what sort of cover the magazine ran last issue.

This is not to state that those subjects are not important, but I feel there is a much greater issue facing the Dartmouth community at this time that no one seems to want to talk about. That issue is a pulp mill.

Since graduating, my wife and I have wandered out West, finally settling in a beautiful area in northern Idaho. I gained employment as a writer for the local weekly newspaper, and one of the first issues that came my way was a proposal for a pulp mill in the area.

Northern Idaho and Vermont/New Hampshire are similiar in many ways. Both are naturally scenic, and both have real troubles with not enough jobs. Both are rich in timber, and both have large rivers to tap as sources of energy.

Out here, the newspaper led a fight against the pulp mill, a fight we have at least temporarily won. We did it on the sole grounds that we would rather have our environment remain clean and unpolluted, albeit poor. It is a fact that a pulp mill stinks, that such a mill puts a demand on available timber that is very hard to imagine until it actually occurs.

It is time for the Dartmouth family to speak its mind about the proposal. It would be naive to think that such a voice would not have a strong effect on the issue of a pulp mill. The local communities have already had the question put to them, and if they have their way, the mill will be constructed.

It is my opinion that the Dartmouth campus would not be such an attractive place if there was a pulp mill nearby. And if that campus is not so attractive anymore, just what happens to Dartmouth?

It is a question worth considering.

Sandpoint, Idaho

(More on the mill on page 16. Ed.)

People vs. Brandenburg

TO THE EDITOR:

It was appalling to me to realize that the letter of Guy F. Brandenburg '71 in the April issue was actually written by a Dartmouth graduate.

The selective system of admissions cannot, of course, be perfect, but there can be no estimate of what nurturing this type of individual costs the College in terms of support from the older alumni who originally supplied part of the funds for his education.

What surprises me is that Mr. Brandenburg would endure four years of exposure to Dartmouth's traditions and ideals instead of leaving during his first semester for Berkeley where he could have been ecstatically happy in competing with some real pros in the art of diatribe, invective, and reviling of people and institutions.

Mr. Brandenburg should consider himself very fortunate to be living in a country where he can pound the table with his shoe while shouting, "We will bury you," and still remain free - and alive.

Sarasota, Fla.

TO THE EDITOR:

I have just read with revulsion the letter from Guy F. Brandenburg '71 in the April 1975 issue. Is this the kind of graduate that Dartmouth is turning out these days? Let's give him a one-way ticket to the U.S.S.R. where he can find others of his kind.

Winter Park, Fla.

TO THE EDITOR:

I am somewhat perplexed by the letter from Walter C. Dodge '23 in the June ALUMNI MAGAZINE. After accusing one member of my class of arrogance and another of hysteria, he concludes his letter arrogantly and hysterically castigating the entire Class of 1971.

Although it is by no means clear, it appears that Mr. Dodge supports the reinstatement of ROTO at Dartmouth. If this is so, I agree with his position. Yet Mr. Dodge's sardonic final exclamation against my class smacks of stupidity or guilt by association, and I resent it. Some 21 years ago the American people learned of the dangers of such accusations. I hope the lesson has not been forgotten by members of the Dartmouth community.

Durham, Conn.

ROTC

TO THE EDITOR:

I am certain it came as no surprise to many of us when the Trustees determined to take "steps to resume an on-campus ROTC program." I write to commend the Trustees for their con- tinuing capability to make sound decisions based on ability to look at the "big picture" in no way evidenced by the faculty when they voted on the ROTC issue. Hopefully, this decision will bring some disgruntled alumni back into the fold. But why leave the fold in the first place? The final result points Out the necessity for all of us to admire the excellence of our faculty in teaching, research and writing, the excellence of our Board of Trustees in decision-making, and the necessity for the two groups to communicate, yet stay within their respective areas of expertise, responsibility, and authority.

New York, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

I don't know if you are in the habit of printing undergraduate letters, but I hope you will do so. I am an opponent of the reinstatement of ROTC, and thus I am saddened by the Trustees' recent decision. I am, however, more concerned with the way the decision was made. The Trustees ill-advisedly overturned student opinion as expressed in a poll by The Dartmouth and faculty consensus as expressed in the anti-ROTC vote of 83-7 during the past winter term. The Trustees also considered the issue during an interterm break, conveniently avoiding strong reaction or input by students and faculty.

It seems that the Trustees feel that their conception of the interests of the students and faculty is more accurate than that of the students and faculty themselves, or that the interests of pro-ROTC alumni supersede the expressed interests of the students and faculty, or both of the above. If the former is true, the Trustees are acting arrogantly and undemocratically. If the latter is true, the Trustees are perverting the democratic ideals that a Dartmouth education should propagate.

in a letter in the June ALUMNI MAGAZINE, one alumnus writes that policy is "determined only by the Board of Trustees acting in the best interests of Dartmouth alumni, as well as the student body and the faculty." While I appreciate the valuable role alumni play in College affairs, I think student and faculty opinion should be placed first. It's also time that the Trustees act democratically, in the interests of students and faculty as expressed by those groups.

A college student learns about democracy by living in one. While there is no perfect democracy, Dartmouth College could easily come a lot closer to that ideal.

Hanover, N.H.

TO THE EDITOR:

I read with no little interest your article on the report made by Professor Gene Lyons, chairman of the ROTC study committee.

Having heard Professor Lyons express his undying animosity for ROTC at a recent Horizons program, I find it unconscionable that Dartmouth would appoint him as chairman of that particular "study" group. Surely that is like having the fox interview the chickens?

Perhaps Dartmouth is now thinking of having Louise Day Hicks do a study on the effects of segregation in the Boston schools.

Burlington, Mass.

The Symbol

TO THE EDITOR:

As a member of the Class of 1973, and as a Native American, I believe this symbol stuff has gotten too far out of hand.

I personally, along with a few of my fellow "Indian" (Native American) classmates and associates, were responsible for the catastrophic downfall of the "Indian" cheerleader, indeed of the "Indian" symbol as a whole. However, I feel no regrets.

One can decry the noble efforts of Mr. Wheelock, yet there seems to never be any mention or concern of that other "noble gentleman," Mr. Samson Occom. We know too well of the eventual outcome of Mr. Wheelock's attempts, but what of Mr. Occom's? As far as many are concerned, it seems, he was a romantic figure whose aid and influence were greatly appreciated through the naming of a pond after him. Where are his final resting grounds? After Dartmouth was established, what role did he Play in the founding principles of the College? Indeed, is his grave as well-groomed as Mr. Wheelock's?

I read and shook my head at the many reports of the "concerned alumni" whose hearts are wrenched at the very thought of a Dartmouth student, Native American or not, who has been denied the "right" of portraying "savage" and "uncivilized" display on the making of a Dartmouth touchdown. The "Indian" on the field, the "Wah Hoo Wahs," and the Hovey Grill are not, I believe, expressions of a proud school, proud of the contributions of the efforts it has made toward the advancement of Native American education, but rather as excuses for not following through on those initial intentions.

Many alumni can sit back and claim "proudly" that they attended an Ivy League school whose noble and liberal intentions were to make a better life for the red man, but whose efforts were stymied by the simple inadequacies of the Indian mind and culture. However, only recently has any real attempt been made to reestablish this intention so gloriously mentioned in the Charter of the College. I loudly applaud Mr. Kemeny and his colleagues for making definite moves in these directions and urge them to continue, sincerely, in their efforts. However, I also admonish those alumni who seem to think that a school, a place of learning, can be summed up in the caricature of a noble intention. Rather they should think of what they learned through the benefit of such a school as Dartmouth.

If I can say that I learned anything from attending Dartmouth, it is that I learned to think and to attempt to understand.

Phoenix, Ariz.

TO THE EDITOR:

I am getting tired of reading letters to the ALUMNI MAGAZINE such as the one written by Whitney Cushing '39, in the May edition, which claims that the Indian symbol was abandoned because someone "knuckle[d] down to a tiny minority like the civil rights fanatics." As one who was there ('70-'74), I never once got the impression that anyone was being coerced by anyone. On campus one got the impression that once the offensive nature of the caricature was pointed out, there was a spontaneous and general agreement that the symbol should be allowed to fade away. The only people who have taken fanatic positions on this issue have been people like Mr. Cushing.

Dartmouth College is not a fraternal organization; it is a great place of learning. It is a place where for at least once in each person's life he or she should live a life which respects every other person's life. Anyone who can say that "there was never any ridicule or belittling of the Indian" must never have seen, for instance, the depiction of the Native American which used to be on the floor of the basketball court; it had a nose about as long as the diameter of the man's head and had the cranial capacity of a chimpanzee.

And as for respect for the Native Americans, isn't it simply ridiculous to claim that Dartmouth people have always respected them in light of the way white America has treated Native Americans throughout our history? Haven't we pushed the Native Americans around enough, having driven them into abject poverty and to the brink of extinction? It is just this tragic mentality, that the strong should be able to tyrannize the weak, that has brought this country to moral bankruptcy as a result of our policy in Southeast Asia. Now graduated, am I, too, fated to forget the essence of the great Dartmouth experience and be left with but the shell of a caricature which has been outgrown?

Washington, D.C.

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.

(Among other things, Ellis Briggs' letter to Mr.Collins averred that " ... there is a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the presentmanagement Ed.)

(Professor Lyons does not recall commenting,pro or con, on ROTC at the Horizons meetingattended by Mr. Pope in 1969. Before headingthe study committee, Lyons had focused hisresearch on U.S. military policy, written a book,on ROTC, and served as consultant to the U.S.armed forces. Ed.)