Letters to the Editor

The Sexes, Etc.

TO THE EDITOR:

Your report of the Trustee vote which appears on page 10 of the February ALUMNI MAGAZINE includes your interpretation that "the Board of Trustees has, in effect, said it is prepared to remove sex as a criterion of admission to Dartmouth." That conclusion is incomplete and may be misleading if taken out of the context of other basic factors which will have a direct bearing upon the judgmental decisions that will have to be made from time to time in the course of implementing the admissions policy. To have reached such a decision the Trustees would have prejudged a fundamental factor in the deliberations we are undertaking over this year of consultation and review. We did not make any such prejudgment. Indeed, as we tried to make clear, the implementation of admission policies and methods both long- and short-range has not been determined and will not be until January 1977.

Your interpretation has validity as a possible alternative only in the context of other basic concerns. Under the Trustees' January 17 statement, the original determination of which applicants are "best qualified" would be made in accordance with selective process criteria to be discussed during this year; and an integral part of that process would be an abiding awareness of the College's own particular institutional interests and character and the needs for their fulfillment.

In the long run, the selective process of society in determining the qualities of men and women who will make a positive impact will also be the basis for determining the selective criteria for Dartmouth's admission policies. If society makes these determinations partly on the basis of sex, as it does today, then sex will be one of the factors in our admission criteria but only to the degree that societal factors dictate it to be valid. As the norms of society on this issue change, so should our admissions policy foresee them and lead into them. If changes in the class composition are determined necessary in the short term, sex will be a factor in the selective process through the period of transition to assure gradualism of change and to protect the College's physical and educational ability to assimilate comfortably those changes. And lastly, though it may be obvious, it bears repeating: the Admissions policy, and any changes made therein from time to time, must always be scrutinized in light of the Colleges own needs and interests.

These points are found in your article but I think a clearer picture emerges when they are stated together.

TO THE EDITOR:

As a Dartmouth-elect (Class of '80), I enjoyed the recent article by Dave Shribrnan describing his experiences as the "son of an alum." I, too, have become a victim of the Dartmouth Syndrome.

Initially, my father did have a hard time getting used to coeducation. When visiting Hanover in 1972 he spotted a girl coed and cried, "There's one!" Surprisingly enough, though, he didn't seem too heart broken when I first announced my intentions of applying to Dartmouth. He, also, promised that he would not pressure me into making "what was obviously the right decision." My father was even more excited than I when I was accepted into Dartmouth. Now, whenever I meet any of my parents' friends, I am no longer introduced as "And this is our daughter, Susan," but rather "And this is our daughter, Susan. She's going to Dartmouth, where her father went."

My father has given me a Dartmouth sticker for my car, bought me a Dartmouth T-shirt, and given me a Dartmouth-green bathrobe. Often he lets me read his ALUMNI MAGAZINE before he's even gotten to it. I thank God that his recording of "Men of Dartmouth" is as scratchy and warped as it is, otherwise I might have to hear it all the time rather than just when he's had a little to drink and wants to give me a feeling for the "true Dartmouth spirit."

Despite and probably because of my father's feelings for Dartmouth, I will matriculate next September. I hope the time has passed, though, when I would see old alums gaping and pointing at me saying, "My God, there's another one!"

Northbrook, Ill.

TO THE EDITOR:

My very warm feeling for Dartmouth, its present and its past, has been significantly cooled by the "class composition" issue.

My service to Dartmouth as an alumnus (now limited to enrollment and Alumni Fund) shall cease until I am convinced: a) the College is correct in its decision to alter class composition; b) the College decides to retain its present class composition; or c) the College decides the wisdom of coeducation has placed unbearable bureaucratic pressure on the institution and a return to mono-sex status is in order.

I look forward to playing an active role in discussing this issue in New York and Hanover during the months ahead.

Chappaqua, IV. Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

I read the letter Mr. Metz wrote to TheDartmouth on February 25, 1976 where he stated that he would cease contributing his time and energy to the College unless he was convinced that the Trustees were right in their decision to alter the class composition. I was disappointed that Mr. Metz could not see the merits of the decision.

Dartmouth is one of the greatest institutions of learning, its main purpose being to educate those people with the greatest potential to achieve and to contribute to society. Dartmouth became coeducational because the Trustees, faculty, administrators, alumni, and a majority of Dartmouth students felt women would have a positive impact on the community. Women have proved that they can compete on the same level as men, and Dartmouth has found that the addition of women has both strengthened the community and brought it into the 20th century.

Four years of coeducation have passed and the "composition" question is again under review. One example of the dilemma the Admissions Office now faces with men and women applicants is that if it could have taken the most qualified students last year, 100 more Women would have been admitted. Was it fair that 100 qualified women were turned down solely because they were born female? Dartmouth is attractive to men for the same reasons it is attractive to women.

Although the composition of the student body has changed, the Dartmouth spirit has not. Women have found a warm place in their hearts for the College and hope to contribute now, as well as in the future, to its well-being. Dartmouth women are blending into the social and academic life. They are actively contributing to all sorts of campus activities.

I agree with the Trustees' belief that Dartmouth should educate "men and women who have a high potential for making a significant positive impact on society." Coeducation has not always been easy for men and women. It certainly has not helped the situation on campus to have alumni strike out against the existence of coeducation. Dartmouth women need alumni support to make the College as responsive to them as it is to the men. To truly love Dartmouth is to love her as she begins to reflect these changes in society.

Hanover, N.H.

TO THE EDITOR:

Vassar College, Hudson River Valley, intends to be fully coeducational with male students composing half the student population of 2,400. At this time, Vassar women claim that a "coed Vassar is a polluted Vassar," and rallies are being held to have the trustees eliminate the admission of men.

U.S. Military Academy, West Point, Hudson River Valley, will begin this summer with a few female plebes, or whatever they may be called. They are scared to death at West Point for it appears ominous that control is slipping out of the hands of male officers and cadets and may become an academy for women.

We note that Smith College of the Connec- ticut River Valley has remained 100 per cent female, in spite of the fact that some cluck said in an earlier letter-to-the-editor that such discrimination is illegal.

Knowing full well that the destiny of man is controlled by the superiority of women, it appears from the Hudson River Valley that Dartmouth is fast approaching the day when she (?) will bear increasing pressure from Dartmouth women to eliminate admission of men.

As rumors come from the Connecticut River Valley to the Hudson River Valley, the forecast here is that not more than 20 years from now it will be an an all-female student body singing "Men of Dartmouth."

(Just received "The Bulletin," February 1976 Change that forecast to 12 years.)

Goodbye, "Men of Dartmouth."

Poughkeepsie, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

I have just finished reading the article in your February issue concerning student resistance to coeducation. I hope Dartmouth's youthful misogynists understand that in labeling the women cohogs they are only pointing the finger at the original and unsurpassed hogs - themselves.

Seattle, Wash.

TO THE EDITOR:

The picture of Russell Sage dorm draped with "NO COED" signs in the February issue was a shock. I had assumed that the current Dartmouth male undergraduates were liberated, i.e., freed from the antiquated prejudices surrounding human equality. The photo and accompanying article is incriminating evidence to the contrary.

Is the Dartmouth Animal guilty of perpetuating a cruel antisocial myth? Is he unable to appreciate, experience, enjoy, respect, learn from and share with the human female? Does he argue that women should be discouraged in their efforts to develop as individuals? Is he threatened by female intellectual equality? Is he threatened by change? by growth? by challenge? by beauty? by other human beings on the basis that they are female?

My basic optimism doesn't permit me to believe that the prejudices are firmly rooted, although apparently they are abundant. Hopefully, they can be dispelled as soon as possible.

After all, the basic question centers around all that is good about humanity, i.e., the individual desire for challenge and growth. I am unable to understand what is so intrinsically wrong with that desire if it is expressed by a female.

I would think that the more satisfying attitude would be to respect that desire in both sexes and to add the obvious dimension that has been missing from the Dartmouth experience for so many decades: the daily appreciation of feminine beauty.

From where I sit the Dartmouth Animal can only benefit.

C'mon you guys, don't blow it!

Auburn, Maine

Controversial Cover

TO THE EDITOR:

My lament and concern deal with recent covers of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. A check with some 14 or 15 other alumni, of various classes, shows they share similar views.

We have long labored under the impression that the cover of our ALUMNI MAGAZiNEshould mirror the enduring Dartmouth scene: its breathtaking scenic views, its athletic prowess, its educational breakthroughs, and so on.

But of your latest (February) cover, you say on the table of contents page: "The cover photograph . . . hasn't anything to do with anything in this issue. But the picture appeals to us and so does the subject. ..."

Personal likes and dislikes of the editor are not necessarily guidelines! Especially when they may prove quite controversial.

Judging by issues of the past year you also don't like green ink - so it is verboten.

There must be something in this "change merely for change's sake," but a lot of us, out here in the body alumni, have trouble fathoming just what it is.

Winter Haven, Fla.

TO THE EDITOR:

I wish to compliment you and your staff in connection with the picture of Tweety [Jennifer Warren '77] on the cover of the February issue. I think it was a stroke of genius, which will do more to promote racial tolerance than anything I have seen.

Wayzata, Minn.

Remembered Warmly

TO THE EDITOR:

It was with great pleasure that I read your profile of Lo-yi Chan ("Design for Living," February 1976).

I have a dual interest in the Chans. I have a great respect for Lo-yi as an architect and a person and an affection for his father, who introduced me to the formal study of China at Dartmouth and was the force which made me the first and, unfortunately, the last exchange student from Dartmouth to the mainland in 1948-49.

I met Lo-yi first in Rangoon as a colleague of mutual friends, and while my peripatetics have not allowed too close an association, I remember him and his family (extended version) with great warmth.

Thank you for your article.

Kensington, Md.

ROTC

TO THE EDITOR:

The letter on ROTC from Paul Ebbitt '34 in the February issue was right to the point in quoting Fred Hechinger: "... it is difficult to look with respect on institutions that, having banished the ROTC in response to student demands, are quietly inviting the corps back, without as much as an effort to come to grips with the moral issues involved in such action."

What has happened at Dartmouth is, in my opinion, no better than that. The ROTC question was revived by the Trustees in response to no visible demand from students or faculty. There were some efforts to address the issues. A student/faculty/alumni committee was appointed at the Board's direction and debated the possible options and listened to a variety of opinions. Individuals and ad-hoc groups spoke out, most often against ROTC's return. An informal student poll revealed largely opposition and indifference. The Trustees' committee in the end unanimously rejected a traditional ROTC, and by a smaller majority also recommended against modified programs such as the "Princeton plan." The Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted overwhelmingly against any form of military program. Although this decision process was obviously far from perfect, the overall result was a clear "No."

Then the Trustees announced they were going ahead anyway! The College's attempt "to come to grips with the moral issues," an attempt which was initiated by the Trustees themselves, turned out to have been meaningless: since it did not produce the "right" result it was ignored.

All this has given us a hard lesson in the nature of authoritarian rule, and in hypocrisy. I personally am opposed to the restoration of ROTC, but that is not the point of this letter; colleagues who have been more favorably disposed are also angry about the way in which the decision has been imposed. I hope that Mr. Ebbitt and many other alumni will share our sense of outrage - and will speak up about it.

Hanover, N.H.

Legalities

TO THE EDITOR:

I would like to make two clarifications on the article on the American Forum by Dan Nelson '75 in the January issue.

First, the American Forum was invited to cosponsor Justice William Rehnquist by the Daniel Webster Legal Society, and did not do so on their own initiative as implied by the article.

Second, the Society is not "generally concerned with political and economic issues" but rather with law schools and the legal profession. It is DWLS policy to avoid inclusion of politics in an ostensibly legal presentation. Our purpose is to respond to the need at Dartmouth for a program which will give undergraduates the opportunity to investigate first-hand some of the ramifications of a field they may one day enter, not to provide a forum to advance political positions.

Hanover, N.H.

(Mr. Andres is chairman of the Board ofTrustees. Ed.)

(By " 'class composition' issue" Mr. Metzrefers to the possibility - one of many growingout of the recent Trustee statement - that thecomparative number of men and womenstudents at Dartmouth may be altered in thefuture. Ed.)

(Without quarreling with Miss Epstein's mainpoint, some would debate her statement that 100qualified women - if "qualified" is taken tomean both academic and personal ratings were denied admission to Dartmouth last year. Ed.)

(John Lamperti is professor of mathematics atthe College. Ed.)

(Mr. Axford is vice president of the DanielWebster Legal Society. Ed.)

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.