Letters to the Editor
Totally Divorced
TO THE EDITOR:
Having just read in the [July] Bulletin the resolution passed by the Alumni Council on the subject of the future composition of the student body of the College, I want to divorce myself totally from both the position expressed in that resolution and from the more basic attitudes that seem to me to stand (not very far) behind it.
It seems to me patently obvious that society is undergoing a transformation, the final outcome of which is clear: women and minorities will in the future participate in the carrying out of all social functions on an equal level with white, middle-class men. This is a process which will run its course through to its goal; it may be slowed down by those who fear the future — but it will not be stopped. Women and minorities have been second-class citizens too long to accept further denials. So, the College is faced with a very straightforward decision: whether it will play a leading role in. facilitating the transformation, or whether it will stick its collective head in the sand.
In passing its resolution the Alumni Council seems to prefer to do the latter: it implicitly opts for more men than women, for the haves (children of alumni — let us have no illusions about what social class they — and we — generally represent) over the have-nots, and it seems to accept minorities only for what they can contribute to what is to remain — in its value-structure, clientele and purpose — an essentially white, middle-class institution. While "educative mix" may be nice for good, white, middle-class kids — they may indeed benefit from a little exposure to the wretched of the earth — blacks, Chicanos, and Native Americans stand to gain far more from just plain education.
In short, to use a rhetoric which has become outmoded, but which for once seems to me to speak most directly to the matter at hand: the resolution is (paragraph 1) sexist, (paragraph 2a) reactionary, and (paragraph 2c) racist. I trust the other constituencies of the College will not see fit to follow its bidding.
Madison, Wisc.
Questions
TO THE EDITOR:
The June issue carries an article concerning the number of blacks to be accepted and graduated. It shows plainly that Dartmouth's educational leaders are confused and without an answer to this problem of their making. This vacillation is similar to their inability to reach a conclusion after four years' study covering the number of female students desirable under their instituted coeducational policy. A third area of long-standing disorder is the pending unnecessary furor they created regarding the Indian symbol.
Now Dartmouth's foundations and survival as a liberal arts college are threatened by a fourth most serious exigency attributable to today's governing leaders in Hanover. Dartmouth accepted in the 1974-1975 academic year a total of $7,692,452 in grants and contracts from the federal government. Incidentally, this is over 65 per cent more than raised by the all-time record 1976 Alumni Fund. This is a case of abandoning the private enterprise system in favor of actions leading to a total welfare state which is socialism.
Each Dartmouth man should ask himself the following questions:
1. Why should he contribute to the Alumni Fund when he supports the College through federal income tax payments?
2. Why should he make bequests or support a capital gifts campaign when Dartmouth officers want it both ways in requesting that the faucet controlling the pipeline of federal funds to Hanover be opened wider each year?
With its freedom lost, it's obvious why the administration suddenly endorsed unreasonably large increases in the number of black administrative officers, black faculty members, black students, and courses in black culture. More alarming than this, the current plan under consideration and originated by these men and women holding office as educators proposes, in effect, that future acceptance of undergraduates be representative of a typical cross-section of today's society. This means, of course, a conglomerate, non-adhesive, and often antagonistic mixture of races, colors, nationalities, and cultures.
Dartmouth's critical problems are solvable. The Board of Trustees should study a plan to again enjoy the freedom and independence of a financially self-supporting liberal arts college for men only, with maximum undergraduate enrollment of 3,000 students. The temporary transitional problems are not monumental but very encouraging because of the phenomenal saving possible in physical-plant expense plus sizable reductions in administrative and faculty staffs. Most important of all, the College can regain its former historic renown noted for excellence in education and the leaders it trained. What a wonderful contrast to the present leveling down approach which will result in mediocrity or worse in trying to cater to all minority groups and the "so-called" underprivileged.
The latest anomaly is a study of the feasibility of increasing the College size, presumably to accommodate a higher percentage of women. Let's return to Dartmouth's former reputation for quality education and quality in the overall constituency. I propose abandonment of the present administration policy for nondescript growth at the cost of freedom, loss of principles, and what I consider the unwise spending each year of millions of your dollars.
Winnetka, Ill.
TO THE EDITOR:
It is a despicable state of affairs when the current crop of Dartmouth undergraduates, as reported in the "Undergraduate Chair" in the June issue, "spends the minimum time necessary in the library and as much time as possible on the 'Row,' in the locker room, and on the prowl."
And the next paragraph quotes a Professor Roger Masters in a faculty meeting as asserting that the Dartmouth students' "first concern was to get bombed, second to get laid, and third to play Softball on the Green."
Are today's students rejecting or taking only half-heartedly the very great opportunity that is theirs to obtain as fine an education as is available anywhere? Do students now think of nothing but getting drunk and having sex? This attitude is most repugnant and unworthy of Dartmouth's reputation and history.
Along with the way immorality is flourishing on campus, the imprudent, ill-advised, foolhardy and short-sighted way Dartmouth is aiming for a mix in all strata in our society, the way the College accepts nearly $8 million (academic year 1974-1975) from the federal government when we call ourselves a free institution, unlike state supported schools, then it is obvious we have considerably degraded ourselves since the days of dear and wise Prexy Hopkins.
My feeling, sadly, is that it will be well-nigh impossible for many alumni to continue financial or social or recruitment support for an institution in which faith is waning. Other finer institutions may command my own meager subsidy from now on.
A brighter future for Dartmouth could be assured by following the advice of Doug C. Jones '71 of Camarillo, California, when he says on page 4 of the same June issue that "a continuation of the coeducation experiment seems to have been taken for granted.... There are valid reasons to challenge that assumption and consider returning to an all-male admissions policy at Dartmouth."
May the day come when the College shall be truly undying in each of our hearts because we love her for doing what is right and good.
Aspen, Colo.
(Points of clarification: about 70 per cent of thefederal funds received by Dartmouth in 1974-75were for the Medical School. Secondly, thereport in the June issue described recommendations to the Board of Trustees from.the Committeeon Equal Opportunity — which was composedof alumni, faculty, and students — notfrom "the administration." Ed.)
Keep 'em Rowing
TO THE EDITOR:
In recent years there have been two major changes at Dartmouth which have had a profound effect on the athletic program and in particular on the crew: (1) the matriculation of women and the development of athletic programs for them, and (2) the institution of the Dartmouth Plan with its resultant full use of campus facilities through the summer months.
The main effect of these changes on crew has been an astounding increase in the number of person-hours of rowing done per year at Dartmouth, and concomitant increases in the demand for boats to row in and in the aging rate of those same boats. The Connecticut River at Hanover is undoubtedly one of the finest bodies of rowing water in North America, and undergraduates in unprecedented numbers are taking advantage of that fact. It is to Coach Peter Gardner's credit that he has established such an accommodating recreational rowing program in the summer months. The students benefit greatly, which is his prime concern, but, on the debit side, the equipment suffers from overuse, especially the small boats that are in so much demand.
My Dartmouth crew experience was obtained before the sport was supported by the DCAC, but I have stayed close to Dartmouth rowing since graduation. We learned out of necessity to prize and care for our rowing equipment. Dartmouth oarspeople still pay exemplary attention to the care of their equipment, but delicate racking shells undeniably have a finite lifespan of hard use, no matter how carefully maintained. I have seen first-hand how greatly increased usage of boats and oars has exposed glaring deficiencies in that equipment, much of which was in use even when I rowed more than a decade ago. At the present time, Dartmouth crew (competitive) and Dartmouth rowing (recreational) urgently need more equipment, especially small boats such as singles, pairs and fours, as well as racing eights.
Rowing at Dartmouth is definitely in a vibrant state, with the lightweight crew and the women among the three or four best in the land. For every competitor in those first boats, there are two or three others who are likewise deriving the advantages of intense competitive sacrifice, camaraderie, and teamwork. We are all especially proud of Judy Geer '75, who recently became Dartmouth's first Olympic alumna by rowing in the U.S. four which made the finals in Montreal.
It is my fervent hope that my letter will spur others to support the Dartmouth crew. Thanks for listening.
Norwich, Vt.
Subject: W. H. Ferry
TO THE EDITOR:
Must you serve as a forum for another of the members of the liberal media? [See "Subject: W. H. Ferry," June issue.]
Here we have an individual who admits that he has engaged in treason (defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.... ").
Ferry says he "did [his] best to change... policies and bring down [emphasis supplied] the Administration...."
For my money the FBI has done more for the nation than Ferry ever will. He deserved to be watched.
Evanston, Ill.
Loyal Kin
TO THE EDITOR:
On my 25th reunion in June, I noted a group from the Dartmouth Glee Club singing the alma mater, "Men of Dartmouth."
With young ladies in the student group, the title and lyrics obviously seemed an anachronism.
Perhaps others have already taken steps to remedy the situation, but it occurred to me that the words of the song could be readily, easily adapted to Dartmouth's coeducational family along the following lines:
Kin of Dartmouth
Kin of Dartmouth give a rouse For the College on the hill! For the lone pine above her And the loyal ones who love her
Give a rouse, give a rouse With a will! For the kin of old Dartmouth The loyal kin of Dartmouth Though round the girdled earth they roam Her spell on them remains They have the still north in their hearts And the hill winds in their veins And the granite of New Hampshire In their bodies"and their brains.
(Repeat last two lines)
Champaign, Ill.
(Four years ago the then undergraduate womenmade it known that they wished to retain the"men" in "Men of Dartmouth." Ed.)
