Letters to the Editor

The Wages of Sin

In the October issue appeared a few letters "alarmed at the deteriorating image of Dartmouth College." Those who wrote made their points, but obviously they have never realized that the College well prepares divinity students for the ministry. When a wealthy older New York City lady, who owns a summer home near Hanover, asked me not long ago, "How did a nice Dartmouth man decide to go to seminary?" I replied, "Ma'am, I learned about sin at Dartmouth."

Already this fall, I have sent again proudly my Alumni Fund contribution to support the finest college in the nation.

Princeton, N.J.

Loyalty

I write this at the risk of being attacked by feminists or accused of being a sentimentalist. However, after reading a number of dismal letters from alumni, I feel the need to express my feelings for Dartmouth.

I loved every minute of my four years at Dartmouth. Even during the relatively bad times I was able to smile. For instance, when I had to read 400 pages of War and Peace in one night, or when I was tackled one Winter Carnival by an exuberant fraternity member and my ankle was broken, or even during those walks around Occom Pond when I was indulging in the tears and sighs of a broken heart and lost romance.

The "Co-Hog" song did not hurt or offend me. I never thought of it except as a crude but harmless way of poking fun at females. If there were men who sang it with malicious intent, it was a sorry way for them to boost their own egos. How can one feel insulted or angered by a person with so little self-respect?

At Dartmouth I discovered a greater excitement in learning than I had previously known. There are many ideas shared with faculty and other students that return to me now. The enthusiasm and courage in a number of my professors for growing and seeing the world in new or different perspectives made a strong impression on me, and during hard times after leaving the college womb they have helped me to grit my teeth and not give up.

Dartmouth found a very special place in my heart, and as I observed the camaraderie between the men, I was able to empathize with the alumni who remembered Dartmouth as an all-male environment; but I was thankful that the decision had been made to admit women so that I, too, could discover and share the Dartmouth spirit.

The dissent of the last years, the outcry against coeducation, the bitter complaints from women and minority groups, and the bad publicity by the media have been disturbing. However, dissension and discussion are healthy for a liberal arts institution. And amidst the turmoil, I have faith that Dartmouth's spirit prevails strong, constant, and inspiring to all those who have ever known, appreciated, and loved her. My loyalty for Dartmouth will never die.

Bristol, R.I.

Abiding Interest

I read Dan Nelson's excellent article, "Temples, Turtles and Fat Boys," in the September issue with considerable interest.

Having been raised close to the Mexican border and having lived for considerable periods in that country, I have long been interested in things pertaining to ancient Mexican and Mesoamerican Indian cultures.

Thank you, again, for your highly enjoyable and informative article.

Los Angeles, Calif.

The Trustees

I have often wanted to write to tell you how much I've enjoyed reading the ALUMNI MAGAZINE over the past 45 years - and reading the October issue prompts this letter.

My congratulations to the author of "The Trustees" article. Written in depth, and quoting each trustee on various issues, plus the thumbnail sketches of each trustee - all contributed to a better understanding and first-hand knowledge of the workings of this board. We all knew of their devotion to Dartmouth and its best interests. But we never realized how much time had to be devoted to fulfilling their duties as trustees.

Now, the same in-depth article on the President's Office and his administration should be equally rewarding.

Washington, D. C.

I was very interested in reading Dan Nelson's in-depth article, "The Trustees." Having always lived in the Boston area and being from a Dartmouth family, I have met more than my share of Dartmouth men. I have met many wonderful alumni who would make outstanding trustees - men who put justice over expediency, truth over cover-up, and independent thinking over rubberstamping. In recent years, I have been concerned about one member of the board of trustees whom I have observed in action in his legal profession and who does not meet any of the above criteria, in my opinion. This trustee was formerly a member of the same Boston law firm as another trustee now retired.

I believe the weakness in the trustees at Dartmouth is that charter trustees, nominated and elected by the trustees themselves, dominate the board since they can serve three five-year terms whereas alumni trustees can serve only two terms. Thus the trustees at Dartmouth, to a large extent, are cronies of trustees - not necessarily the best men for the honor.

If it is more education and work that is needed for greater alumni participation in the selection of trustees, then I say let's do it. I'm against the trustees, themselves, nominating and electing any of their successors.

Wakefield, Mass.

Why Grades, Anyway?

Wondering why in heaven's name I find myself so fascinated with letters-to-the-editor columns (whether titled "Safety Valve" or "Ice Box - Cool Off Here" or just "Letters"), it dawns on me that here alone is the American writing without fear of reprisals, whether from boss, subordinate, relatives, or whomsoever. Your September issue has two items worthy of serious comment but a third that incites response. That is the letter from Isabel J. Finkbiner '77.

Finkbiner implies the three instances (herself and the "boy next door," both failing macroeconomics at Dartmouth, and her brother at his "respective college," failing a year course in statistics) were, first, "fair," then "excellent" and last, "hard-working" students. Unfottunately, she does not attempt to substantiate the implied attributes explicitly, and her writing style does not give reinforcing evidence.

Why grades, anyway? I have never heard a college teacher say he liked grading; some do boast they have arranged to make the task painless (for themselves). For most instructors, grading is an unwelcome, exasperating task; sometimes it is done with conscience, sometimes not; sometimes it is willfully subverted.

Grade inflation, as all of us know, has been substantial. Failures used to be far more frequent than today. Is performance better today? As a one-time academic, I am familiar with the pressure for high grades felt by students whose eyes are on graduate study. Instructors come to feel that harassment to raise grades is viewed by some students as an academic tactic as legitimate as study.

Are admissions procedures discriminatory enough to establish that all admitted should pass through without failure? Hardly. Most of them report performance and can only hint at potential. Further, we do not ask that the talents of one individual encompass quantum physics, music composition, and English literature. Accordingly, physicists do fail sociology and artists fail organic chemistry. How many should fail? Four per cent, in an introductory course, hardly seems excessive. I suspect most failures stem from instructors' exasperation that a student should have picked up so little (of course, an instructor may have said little).

Why grades, anyway? Students work harder when under the pressure of grades; it is hard to be critical of stimuli that lead to hard work. In my experience good students are competitive, and I think much of the difference between an excellent and a lousy college stems from the amount of work the best students are willing to do to obtain high grades.

The ball is in Finkbiner's court, hopefully in bounds; let her take another swing but with more attention to her stroke.

Berkeley, Calif.

Small Error, Nice Work

You made a small error in the "Big Green Teams" section in the September issue. I imagine that you probably got your information from the Sports Information Office at the gym, and thus it is not really your error, but I'd like to correct it anyway.

In the article about the Dartmouth crews, you mention that I was at that time training with the U.S. Team in the fours event. Actually, I was rowing in the double sculls event for the World Rowing Championships in Bled, Yugoslavia. My partner, Jan Palchikoff, and I won the doubles event at the U.S. National Championships last June, then won the U.S. Team trials in July, thereby earning the right to represent the U.S. at the Worlds at Bled. We placed fifth there, and were the only Western double to make the finals!

West Fairlee, Vt.

Restraint, Please

More interesting by far than listing the nine languages Professor Arndt ["Wearers of the Green," October issue] is supposed to be fluent in would be to learn why he makes the curious claim to have been born "a citizen of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg" - a merchant league that last convened in 1669 - instead of simply calling it what it was when he was born - the German city of Hamburg.

The reader is also left wondering why Professor Arndt was interned in an "ill-run German POW Camp" in view of his claim of being' "fairly high on the Nazis' hit list." The Nazis were not usually so careless with enemies of state as important as the article makes him out to be - but without ever mentioning why.

What can one make of Mrs. Arndt's cryptic remark that her father-in-law "was one of the too few people who left Germany without having to"? It can only be a claim that Arndt's parents were not Jewish, certainly too unimportant a fact to warrant such a circumlocutious proclamation; or that the Arndts feel that many more non-Jewish Germans should have left the country in 1933. Could we know the reason for such feelings?

And finally, only the most extreme circumstances cause natives of a country to give up their citizenship in it. What powerful motive must Arndt have had to take such a drastic step? One could begin to understand the source of this near life-long Germanophobia if Professor Arndt were Jewish, but in the article he and his wife suggest he is not. What then is the source of his passion?

The Arndt article is not the first in this regular column which substitutes all vestiges of scholarship for a saccharine mash of blind hero worship, self-serving editorializing by the subject, and crafty editing to render opaque the very aspects of the subject's life that would most illuminate it.

For the future, I beg the editor to exercise his talent to insure that accuracy, clarity, and restraint be the guiding principles of these biographical sketches. And of these, the greatest is restraint.

Concord, Mass.

In Memory

By this letter, I want the class of '34 to know that nothing has touched me as much as the letter and card advising me that Dartmouth library now has a memorial book in my husband Dick's name.

No one would have been more pleased than Dick, as he loved books and he loved Dartmouth.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Westhampton, N. Y.

A Sad Record

I have a question that is directed to both Dartmouth and the Ivy League: What has happened to the quality of Ivy League football? During the past two weeks, I have been for- tunate - or misfortunate depending on one's perspective - to see the Dartmouth-Holy Cross game (Dartmouth lost) as well as the Brown-Rhode Island game (Brown won). Both games can best be described as being inept and punctuated by occasional spectator laughter over the mistakes and misplays of both winners and losers.

I'd like to think that the performances of Dartmouth and Brown in these two games are not representative of the current quality of Ivy League play. However, games viewed in recent years indicate that such quality is representative and slipping. Last year Dartmouth won the Ivy League and lost its two non-league games by the combined score of 17-55. This year the Ivy League is, to date, 4-7-1 against such football "powers" as Lehigh, Lafayette, Bucknell, U.R.I., and U.N.H. In recent years the Ivy League has hovered around .500 in its nonleague games against such teams. That's a sad record.

Back in the mid to late 19605, the Ivy League played good football. Its players were exciting - witness, for example, Harvard's Bobby Leo, Vic Gatto, and John Dockery; Yale's Brian Dowling and Calvin Hill; Dartmouth's Gene Rycewicz and Gordon Rule. The late 1970s have an occasional Buddy Teevens and Dave Shula, but they are too few. In ten years the overall quality has slipped significantly.

Has the Ivy League made a conscious effort to downgrade the quality? Are circumstances such that it can no longer recruit on a competitive level? Has attendance at games been falling?

Ivy League football has been a great competitive institution until recently - perhaps it's time to re-examine its charter.

North Kingstown, R.I.

Affirming Action

Many people have written to me to comment on my suggestions for remedying past inequities in the admission system at Dartmouth. The most lucid comment was that while Dartmouth has discriminated in the past against Jews, blacks, women, and others, the real inequity was toward those individuals who did not get in because of their sex, race, creed, or national origin.

What is important is that Dartmouth have a system which treats individuals fairly and a system in which all individuals perceive that they will be treated fairly.

Therefore, I revise my proposal for changes in administration policy. Since Dartmouth's past discriminations have been against individuals, I propose that we remedy this situation by having an admission policy which admits individuals on their individual merit without regard to sex, race, creed, or national origins.

I would also like to express my thanks to all the people who took the time to write and comment on my previous letter.

Kansas City, Mo.

Papal Variant

Woo-hoo-woo! Although I believe it has been demonstrated that "wah-hoo-wah" is a proper cheer, I would not be adverse to "woo-hoo-woo."

Berne, N. Y.

[The following is from a New York Times accountof the Pope's visit to New York: "After aroaring, singing, brass-band welcome for PopeJohn Paul II by almost 19,000 teenagers inMadison Square Garden yesterday, it was timefor him to respond. The crowd came to a hushand the Pope, seated, leaned toward hismicrophone. . . . One refrain came across loudand clear: 'Rack-em up, stack 'em up, bust 'emin two. Holy Father, we're for you.' The Pope'seyebrows danced and his broad slavic facebeamed. Someone started to coo and everyonecould hear the sounds, low-register tones on thepublic address system:, 'woo-woo-woo' (or woo-hoo-woo).What was this? It was the Pope,eyebrows working, humming what turned out tobe roughly the Polish equivalent of 'wow, wow,wow.' " Ed.]

The Symbol (cont.)

FADDIS (For A Dignified Dartmouth Indian Symbol) - what has it accomplished?

Nothing tangible so far. But I have very good reason to believe that most of our trustees read the FADDIS report sympathetically and with more than passing interest. Chairman David McLaughlin responded cordially to a personal letter I wrote, and we have reached complete agreement on promoting at least one project for the Hanover Plain, namely, a sense of humor. I was so encouraged that I even composed another acronym: FADSOH - For A Dartmouth Sense Of Humor.

Unfortunately, I also have very good reason to believe that, as in most prestigious colleges, the influence of the Dartmouth faculty on policy decisions is extreme. Dartmouth has succeeded in attracting many of the most brilliant minds in their respective fields. Many - perhaps most - never attended Dartmouth. Most are imbued with the pressing need of promoting social reform. The famed Dartmouth spirit and its supporting "traditions" militate against change - and, as all alumni know, we are constantly being told that everything changes and that it is really childish to cling to any traditions that might be offensive to anyone! I can assure you that our trustees face very formidable obstacles in preserving traditions. With - or even without - President Kemeny.

To me, that leaves the students as our best hope. Recently, when 2,000 students signed a petition for "equal access," our trustees almost immediately junked their carefully worked out plan for gradually increasing the proportion of women students. Students are complaining of apathy at sports events, and at the recent Princeton game there was no organized cheering. My poll asked for votes for or against the Indian symbol and/or "wah-hoo-wah" and "Eleazar" - 9.5 per cent voted against the Indian, but only 2 per cent voted against the cheer and song. Neither the cheer nor the song were expected to be banned when the trustees originally voted to disavow the Indian symbol. Were the students to show a united front in demanding their return, I feel confident that the current undergraduate Native Americans (not their elder advisers) could be persuaded that their cause would be greatly enhanced with the full force of the students (and the alumni) behind them. So I tried to place a full page-ad in The Dartmouth with the heading, "How Many Students Want to Cheer Wah-Hoo-Wah and Sing 'Eleazar' Again?" It was not accepted for publication. I was going to raise hell but decided that would be counterproductive. At the moment, I am very cautiously optimistic. More later.

Bernardsville, N.J.

The enclosed article ("Stanford Students Back Tree for Mascot") might be of interest. Apparently, Stanford didn't get very excited about dropping the Indian, but didn't like their new Cardinal, either. Maybe they should change to the Popes.

Carmel, Calif.

[The article, from the San Francisco Chronicle, says that since Stanford decided its Indianmascot was inappropriate-, "strong pressure hasbeen placed on the administration by someangry alumni to 'bring back Chief Lightfoot tothe Farm.' " In a vote in October. Stanfordstudents indicated they thought a tree made abetter mascot than a cardinal (bird), which hasbeen used since 1972. The Chronicle reports thatthere was one write-in vote for the Indian andfour write-ins for Panini, an Italian bread. Ed.]

"Eleazar Wheelock," that fictional and impish ballad, ha? provided countless moments of nostalgic joy for thousands of Dartmouth alumni and friends. In the era of the twenties and thirties, best known to the writer, the Dartmouth Glee Club "brought down the house" by the refreshing harmony provided by the rendition of "Eleazar Wheelock." Yet this ballad has been all but silenced by contemporary Dartmouth because of the apparently sincere but misdirected pride of an ethnic group. Pride is worthy, but humility is a virtue that is more difficult to extol. Where is their sense of humor? This ballad makes no claim of historical accuracy - the caricaturization of Eleazar Wheelock is no less than that of Native Americans.

But wait! There is more!

It is my understanding that the Hovey Grill was constructed with the concept of providing a place for relaxation and conviviality for contemporary Dartmouth students and their friends. With such a designed atmosphere in mind, the Dartmouth class of 1914 commissioned its famous artist member, Walter Beach Humphrey, to provide a depiction by murals in the Hovey Grill of the lyrics of "Eleazar Wheelock."

At the time those murals were painted, Walter Beach Humphrey was a nationally recognized artist. He was a mentor for Norman Rockwell. For several years the two artists alternated in providing the cover-page art for the Saturday Evening Post.

Now I have heard that the Humphrey murals are to be paneled over in order not to offend the sensitivity of an ethnic group. Have they given any thought of the sensitivity of thousands of alumni?

Each contemporary student and faculty member enjoys a singular privilege at Dartmouth. Must weakening of tradition be the "trade off in their effort to accomplish a "vibrant" Dartmouth?

The administration has many more urgent problems than the one presented here. But this is an example of difficulties presented when any small group seeks identification regardless of the effect on Dartmouth heritage. They should consider the law of diminishing returns.

Annapolis, Md.

I have been following the seemingly eternal controversy surrounding the Dartmouth symbol with a mixture of fascination and despair. Although I tend to side with those who think that the preservation of a college symbol weighs rather lightly against the sensitivities of those who have been stigmatized by symbols and stereotypes, I am not writing to argue that point.

What disturbs me more than the substance of the debate is its style. On one hand, the position of those who oppose the symbol is expressed with such hyperbole, such venom, and such indiscriminating cant that one wonders whether reason and good sense still prevail in Hanover. On the other hand, the protests of the prosymbol alumni are so laden with jingoism, arrogance, and downright bigotry that I am ashamed to count myself among the sons of Dartmouth. I am all for well-reasoned pride, be it pride in one's ethnic identity or pride in one's alma mater, but pride and prejudice need not go hand in hand.

Anyone with an ounce of reason and an open mind knows that Dartmouth is not the undiluted hell which some of the undergraduates claim, nor has it ever been the green and glorious paradise that seems to exist .in the minds of many of the alumni. What it should be is a forum for the reasonable airing of divergent views. Instead, it has become a shabby arena in which myopic opponents vent their spleen in a pathetic echo of the narcissistic squabbling of society as a whole. God save Dartmouth from her students, past and present!

Ann Arbor, Mich.

The ALUMNI MAGAZINE welcomes comment from its readers. For publication, letters should be signed and addressed specifically to the Magazine (not copies of communications to other organizations or individuals). Letters exceeding 400 words in length will be condensed by the editors.