Letters to Editor

The Symbol (cont.)

In the May '79 issue of this magazine was a full-page ad with a single word in large letters at the top — FADDIS. Those who discovered the ad and then waded through the formidable but completely factual text learned near the end that FADDIS was an acronym for "For a Dignified Dartmouth Indian Symbol." Readers were asked to vote for or against it. They were informed that the ad had cost $675 and if anyone wished to contribute toward its cost, I would welcome the dough. The ad promised nothing — not even the publication of the results.

To date, over 500 votes have been received and over $2,500 has been contributed! Voters are fairly evenly distributed over all classes and over nearly all states and all continents except Africa and Australia. An overwhelming 90.5 per cent want the Indian symbol restored and of these a phenomenal 64 per cent sent money. More than one per cent of the total alumni responded. Recalling the uncannily accurate election-night predictions based on less than one per cent of the total, it is most likely that my votes are a very reasonable indication of the opinions of the nearly 40,000 total alumni.

By far the most satisfying aspect of the results, to me, has been your many complimentary comments and letters. Your most common comment said, "Thank God somebody gives a damn what we think." After that, most of you echoed the comment that a voter from '08 wrote on the bottom of his coupon: "There's a hell of a lot more wrong up there than the Indian symbol." Your letters were so sincere that they put to shame the carefully nurtured image of the crass, profane alumnus opposed to any change. (As a matter of fact, several voters against the symbol would take all the honors in that department.) Another exploded myth is that pre-World War II classes are really the only ones interested in restoring the symbol.

A detailed FADDIS report has been sent to all voters who gave legible names and addresses. And to all officers and trustees. And to all alumni clubs and class newsletter editors (you can obtain a copy of the FADDIS report by writing FADDIS, Box 765, Bernardsville, N.J. 07924). Printing and mailing these has used up most of our surplus money. My ad stated that any surplus over the cost of the ad would go to the Alumni Fund. I must amend that to say "any surplus remaining at the end of the FADDIS project" — because at this point I'm flying blind.

Unfortunately, I cannot personally answer each of the wonderful letters you sent me — even though it would be a labor of love. The bulging folder in which they are contained is most impressive, and I hope to use it effectively.

Any further developments will be reported in future letters-to-the-editor.

Bernardsville, N.J.

I am writing in response to the recent reports 1 have heard and read concerning the Indian symbol at the College, but especially to the FADDIS advertisement which appeared in the May issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE.

Having been a member of the second class of women admitted to Dartmouth as freshmen, and being of Asian background (a heritage of which I am proud but do not advertise — it speaks for itself well enough!), I think I may have a viewpoint that deserves to be heard. However, I should make clear that the following is what I have adopted as my own personal philosophy, which may or may not have anything to do with the fact that I can be considered a "minority woman."

The problem lies in the lack of respect and consideration for others' feelings and pride, a lack which is pervasive in our world today. The question of the Indian symbol, or the problem of the chauvinism which still exists at Dartmouth, is but one manifestation of such lack. I wonder if the world would not be a happier place if everyone held the attitude of asking oneself, Will what I am about to say or do offend or hurt anyone? And if so, would I not be better off if I thought twice about it before doing anything?

Idealistic and naive as I may sound, I dare say that, because of that attitude which has been a central part of my life philosophy, I am a much happier person than many others whom I do come across from day to day. I just hope that this attitude on my part has made at least some of my friends happier persons, too.

Peace to all of you.

Brookline, Mass.

I'm writing as a minority of one. Isn't each of us a minority of one? Racially, I was a minority of one — an Indian — in the class of 1931, poorly prepared and fresh off the South Dakota Yankton Sioux reservation. I learned to adapt.

You'll note, I refer to myself as an Indian. Like most of you reading this, I'm also a native American. In a recent news release, a Minnesota Chippewa tribe decried the use of the euphemistic "Native American" rather than "Indian" for its identity. Most Indians echo this preference.

From Hanover news reports, it would appear that instead of beating breasts, Dartmouth's self-called minorities should learn to cope with reality as privileged students instead of reacting to or creating imagined slights. The Indians there should be especially grateful they're not among the 89 per cent presently unemployed on the Yankton Sioux reservation. They should be preparing to be leaders of America's most neglected ethnic group instead of denigrating "the faceless alumni" — as Indian adviser Professor Dorris calls us — and instead of tilting at windmills because they don't respect Dartmouth tradition. Or should it be 40 against 40,000 who will prevail?

True, for a century Indians have been waiting for indemnities for broken treaties which they had made in good faith. Although these years have been good for attorneys, they've played havoc with Indian morale and larders. Indians need qualified, responsible leadership to become self-sufficient.

There's nothing wrong with having pride in one's heritage. But we live in a multi-ethnic country which requires perception of differences and adaptation whether it be as a Dartmouth student or as an adult.

Dr. Kemeny's statement on "Moratorium Day," March 8, that "the most important ingredient in true communication is listening" should have gone a step further. As holder of a doctorate in and as a lifelong scholar of communication, I maintain trust subsumes listening and perception because unless we trust we will not listen or perceive.

So it behooves undergraduates, faculty, and administration alike to trust the alumni who are striving to return Dartmouth to its former eminence. That which made Dartmouth distinctive and distinguished didn't flow from computer terminals!

Wah-hoo-wah! ("Snow! Come on, snow! — correct Sioux translation.)

St. Paul, Minn.

I read the article in the April issue by the assistant professor of anthropology with more than a passing interest. Having in mind the freedom of the press, I believe the editors were justified in publishing it, and I compliment them on having the decency to put it on the last page.

I am one of the "coalition of faceless alumni" white, male (but not a fraternity member) supposedly in deadly combat with the "rowdy band" of "humorless bleeding-hearts." If I read Michael Dorris' message correctly, we (of the older and decadent generation) are to sit back in our rocking chairs and with one hand applaud his confusing and erudite dissertation and with the other clip our coupons and send them to the Alumni Fund to help pay his salary.

Michael apparently gets confused between the "allied women, minorities, and humorless bleeding-hearts." It would be so much easier to answer his diatribe if he stayed with one issue instead of blandly labeling one "Old Dartmouth" and one "New Dartmouth." For the sake of simplicity, I will limit my comments to what Michael refers to as "symbols." It is clear that Michael cannot distinguish between a "symbol" and a "caricature." A symbol is defined as "an object to represent something abstract; emblem: as the dove is a symbol of peace, the cross is the symbol of Christianity."

A "caricature" is defined as "the deliberately distorted picturing or imitating of a person, literary, style, etc.... by exaggerating features or mannerisms for satirical effect" (Webster'sNew World Dictionary of the AmericanLanguage — College Edition). To hundreds of the antiquated alumni, the Indian was and is a symbol of Dartmouth. Not only Dartmouth as it was but, to us, Dartmouth as it is. To compare this with what Michael refers to as the "Passive Dumb Woman" is a lively exercise of the imagination. Why does he object to having the American Indian as a symbol of one of the finest colleges in America?

It is easy for Michael to say let us "bury the hatchet," but he wants it only on his terms. We cannot buy a record of "Eleazar Wheelock" (to us a symbol of the College) because it might hurt the tender feelings of the "Native Americans," only 14 of whom even with free tuition have graduated in 200 years. Where is his "spirit of understanding"? He seeks to bury a valued tradition of the College, but what does he suggest to replace it: a picture of Pollyanna sitting on the steps of Dartmouth Hall with her finger in her mouth.

I will admit I am conservative, old fashioned, and "stuffy." My only excuse is I came by it naturally; my grandfather was in the class of 1842, and my father was in the class of 1885. Incidentally, this was the class of Richard Hovey, who wrote "Eleazar Wheelock" and "Men of Dartmouth." If you wish to take Michael's "Growing Pains" instead of "Lest the old traditions fail," that is your privilege.

Waukegan, Ill.

In order to restrain my vehemence and vituperativeness regarding the article on the last page of the April issue extolling the "new" Dartmouth, I have waited for the end of my cooling-off period.

The assistant professor who wrote the article decries the "belittling" symbolism depicted in caricatures of the Indian. To my recollection there was only one type caricature represented occasionally in the football program or in periodicals: of a chap, sometimes fat, sometimes skinny but always in context with the drawing's main message and always in good taste.

All other depictions of the Dartmouth Indian were extremely complimentary, emphasizing the honorable and stoic qualities of the Indian. The cheerleaders at the football games who simulated Indians in dress and makeup were Adonis-like, athletic, and in better shape than some of the football players.

It is a shame that creeping hypersensitivity is robbing us of the fun in life. The sterility forthcoming makes for a bleak outlook. Even an innocuous display of Indian nostalgia at the "infamous" hockey game was decried by the all too pervasive goody-two-shoes clique so inordinately vociferous in recent years.

And then to have this pious mass of jelly screaming for the thespians' heads and to be so regurgitatingly, pimpishly indignant when they were not booted out of school is ridiculous to the extreme.

This group would ban Wimpy from Popeye (too fat ... offends fat people). Mutt from Mutt and Jeff (too thin ... offends thin people), Jeff from Mutt and Jeff (too short ... offends short people).

Those who think that removing every symbol that is remotely, possibly, potentially offensive is the answer are the computer heads, the reductionists, and the killjoys of life. Unfortunately, they are too much with us and are laying waste our powers.

But fortunately, thank God, I was part of the "old" Dartmouth, not the "new."

Chicago, Ill.

Not only the Alumni Mag, now comes also The New Yorker on the Indian symbol trail. Is there no end?

Having been a minority student at Dartmouth in the forties (there were very few Southerners there then), I have some sympathy with the protesters at the moratorium and elsewhere. It was more than a bore to be taunted constantly about speaking French with a Southern accent, and it was even more tiresome to be treated as ineluctably intellectually underprivileged by graduates of St. Grottlesex or of high schools in more affluent states than Georgia. But in the days before the invention of minority rights, I was expected to take this guff in stride, and to perform without allowances for my preferential admission on the basis of geography.

Rather, I was supposed (and sometimes managed) to maintain a sense of proportion and even of humor, to be grateful for the opportunity given me, and to take my lumps.

May it not just be that some of our present rather shrill undergraduates could use a similar lesson? Not to mention the faculty and (whisper the thought) the administration?

With respect to the symbol itself: I cannot see how it could be considered insulting; the SPCA is not demonstrating on behalf of the Yale or the Georgia bulldog. But if it makes the existence of our Indian (spare us the solecism of "native American") undergraduates uncomfortable (not, of course, intolerable; they are still there), then common courtesy would suggest dropping it. We do not, I submit, need PR men's aberrations like Woodmen or "Give a Rouse For"; and "Eleazar" is a good and funny song. If President Kemeny's performance at the moratorium has been accurately reported, our flacks have more important work to do.

On the other hand, I think our "minorities" might reasonably be expected, in their own interest as well as that of the rest of us, to behave with a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, and be urged to display some sense of the fitness of things, even to the extent of modulating their outcries.

Our job — one with which every member of the Dartmouth family is concerned — is the not insignificant one of running an educational institution. Which is primarily a matter of learning, in class and out. Let's get on with it.

Boone, N.C.

Having received today the May 14 issue of The New Yorker, which arrived by bicycle messenger from Manhattan, I read of the recent events in Hanover and of Dartmouth's contortions of indecision over the propriety of Indian symbols and the old "wah-hoo-wah."

I had no idea that "wah-hoo-wah" meant sodomy, and had I known I would have been delighted to turn them blue in the gills at Harvard and Brown with the fresh translations of the old cheers.

Along with my Alumni Magazine, which you have not been sending to me, please forward to me translations of whatever else I have been shouting all of these years, and please inform the anti-Hovey Grill gang, that, though correct they may be, life in Hanover without a sense of humor is cold toes, Thayer biscuits, and long nights in the 1902 Room, where I saw all manner of shows thrown, the least curious of which would have been someone in feathers and paint.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

The cheer "wah-hoo-wah" was really started by a fellow with a Barbara Walters-like accent. What he was trying to say was obviously "rahhoorah."

Then there's the theory that "wah" in some dialects is like "bitte" in German. At the beginning of a phrase or sentence it means "please." At the end it means "thank you." The "hoo" — chanted repeatedly in war dances — means "victory." Thus "wah-hoo-wah" translated means "Please win, thank you."

Now there's a tribe in Chinese Himalaya....

Troy, N. Y.

I was taken aback to learn in recent articles that the widespread use of the Indian as a symbol for Dartmouth dates back only to a Boston sportswriter in the 1920s, and that the College graduated only a dozen or so Indians in its first 200 years.

When I was at Dartmouth in the fifties, I thought the special magic of the place was its connection with colonial times. And this couldn't help but bring to mind the Indian. Within easy walking distance of campus I can show you paths and trails that still echo ghostly Indian steps.

I guess I never stopped to wonder if those Indians had been on their way to battle or matriculation. But they're there, and always will be.

Chicago. Ill.

Right to Dissent

Doris Bowers' comments on Dartmouth's winter of discontent, set forth in "Vox" in the June issue, are perhaps the most rational and dispassionate yet published. Many thanks to her and to you for providing a forum for her remarks.

Concerning your editorial note to another alumnus' protest letter (less dispassionate than Ms. Bowers'), the alumni claim no exclusive right to criticize the operation of the College and no such claim is implied in Mr. Collins' letter. You seem to have overlooked Mr. Collins' apparently valid observation that the freedom of demonstrative dissent is granted more generously to some Dartmouth student constituencies than to others. This aspect of the Dartmouth campus society, unfortunately, mirrors the broader society surrounding it. Limited, or selective, anarchy is as destructive as complete anarchy. Freedom of dissent is one of our most fundamental freedoms and should be granted equally to all members of society. One of the obligations of that freedom is to exercise it in a socially responsible, orderly manner. Dartmouth's educational process should instill an appreciation of both the freedom and its inherent obligations. Sadly, at Dartmouth the freedom is granted, and the obligation imposed, upon some, but not all.

Dallas, Texas

The editorial comment of yours at the end of the letter of George N. Collins '34 — which asked the question: "Is the message here (in the letter) that it is perfectly proper for alumni — but not students — to criticize the operation of the College?" — makes me wonder if you understand what letters to you say. Subject letter of George Collins complains that three students — not alumni — were severely disciplined for skating across the ice at the Brown hockey game, in Indian regalia, in criticism and protest of the ban on any use of words, songs, or symbols linking Dartmouth with anything to do with Indians.

This was a student and not an alumni protest, "as any fool can plainly see. Ah can see!"

I thoroughly agree with ex-President John Dickey's remarks in his speech to the 50th reunion of the class of 1928, to the effect that the administration and faculty were responsible for the operation of the College, but that the alumni were responsible for the traditions! e.g., "Men of Dartmouth set a watch, lest the old traditions fail!"

Many alumni have been asleep on watch.

Camden, S.C.

[George Collins wrote in the June issue that hewas not attending his class reunion because ofthe Dartmouth administration's "sickening,gutless leadership" and "lily-livered panderingto the several vociferous minority groups." Ed.]

Perhaps I have come in late on the "hockey game-Indian" incident. Has anyone discussed or considered whether the disciplined students' rights of free speech and assembly have been infringed?

Berkeley, Calif.

Hooray for Doris Bowers and Dick Black '29. All the correspondence castigating the College seems to pall, after a while. As an old fool, I have seen lots of good and bad things, but the total experience of Dartmouth is a grand plus. Therefore, hooray for the Indians, for the Big Green, for Joe Pilver, and for Genevieve!

Manchester, Conn.

Taylor Pro and Con

Tim Taylor '79 shows great personal courage and a real concern for the welfare of his college in April's "Undergraduate Chair." Not all alumni feel that current student gripes are expressions of only a few discontents, nor have all Dartmouth alumni failed to make suggestions for some reform by the College in the past.

Example: In an Alumni Magazine article ("Vox") of May 1976, by Norman R. Carpenter '53, he wrote: "My modest proposal would be that some awareness of the problem (alcoholism) be manifested, somehow, by the College."

In spite of several letters-to-the-editor received from alumni (September 1976 issue) in favor of Carpenter's recommendations — some even admitted to, or suggested, their own disastrous experiences with alcohol — no action has ever been forthcoming by the administration or the Board of Trustees. Evidently, these officials feel that this problem with drink is simply the result of young adults having their usual "fling," and that it will ever be thus with undergraduates of college age. That whatever these students do (the liberal arts theory) is their own business and that besides, our educators should be in the academic field only, not in a world of social reform.

While this reasoning is considered logical and very popular nowadays, it is not necessarily accepted by all institutions at the college level. Some colleges have introduced remedial programs, albeit usually optional electives for their youngest undergraduates, that deal with the study of alcoholism as a disease. The object is to help these young people make decisions on how they are going to handle their drinking, if at all, after, of course, they have gained a complete, knowledgeable study by trained experts in the field of every facet of this country's number one addictive drug. Some schools, taking a page from the military, have even gone so far as to hire recovering alcoholics as instructors. I hope that someday Dartmouth will take this approach, rather than the one of simply "copping out."

Redondo Beach, Calif.

[After the arrival of Frank Davis' letter, welearned that Dartmouth now has a "student-administration-faculty action group" dealingwith alcohol abuse. Ed.]

The column entitled "Bombs Away" by one Tim Taylor '79 in the June Alumni Magazine needs to be answered. The bombs are intended for those of us who can sing a Richard Hovey song without gnashing our teeth. Bombers must expect to draw antiaircraft fire, you know.

Like so many of the articulate in Hanover these days, Mr. Taylor is obsessed with the words "change" and "diversity." They are two bugs up his navel and he has spent too much time contemplating his navel.

Does Tim mean to scare us with a rather pointless quotation from John Steinbeck? John isn't much of a bogeyman. We read stronger stuff in Shaw, Faulkner, George Orwell, Henry Miller, Kropotkin, and the first four books of the New Testament in my day. I do indeed fear the time man becomes calcified — say about 1984 — "calcified into a rigid existence" by a big brother out of such callow minds as Aronson, Arrington (see The Dartmouth for May 16, 1979), Sharp, and Taylor.

On the subject of change, Tim '79 says this: "When Homo sapiens first arrived on the evolutionary scene, they probably got a similar reception from those Neanderthals still hanging around the neighborhood who didn't appreciate the change, but one would think that after roughly 35,000 years things would have improved." First, I want to say that, without looking it up, I will bet a new ill-sized Susan B. Anthony dollar that "homo sapiens" is singular, not plural. Second, that sentence is anthropologically outrageous, not to say puerile, and will never be used as an example of Dartmouth's vaunted "educational excellence" by the faculty or the fund raisers.

The big bomb comes down in the last paragraph — Tim Taylor would not recommend Dartmouth to any high school senior looking for a place to matriculate. He would send him or her to a state university. That is the unkindest cut of all and a real blockbuster. My advice to you, Tim Taylor, is that you matriculate again, preferably at a state university, get the.bugs out of your navel, and get an education this time around.

Uniontown, Penn.

[Tim Taylor's April and June "UndergraduateChair" columns both reflected on change,diversity, and understanding. Ed.]

"Merciful Treatment"

Men of Dartmouth who would prefer to throw Andy Merton's recent Esquire article under the rug should instead extend warm thanks to him for his merciful and kind treatment of the problems of racism, sexism, and class-ism at the College.

At a gathering the night before the recent Commencement, various Dartmouth celebrities, mostly wearing Adidas sneakers and rugby-style shirts, as well as some acquaintances of mine, were overheard giving their reactions to the article. To the people Merton calls "jocks" the article was "misrepresentative," or, heaven help us, "bogus." The jocks seemed to imply that an outside journalist had some duty to be "representative," whatever that may mean. I suppose it means something that's pretty clear in the minds of these people, one of whom was enjoying the relief of being let off the hook for D.W.I. a few nights before.

But some people whose opinions are worthy of serious respect and consideration were dismayed by the article. I hadn't read it yet, so I began to expect a horrendous, scathing revelation of the everyday activities. I soon got hold of a copy of the article and read it quickly. I was tremendously disappointed. I had been led to expect tales of horror and perversion that would boggle even a Dartmouth-educated mind. I had expected to be at least as disgusted as I imagine I. would be from a movie directed jointly by Polanski, Pekinpah, and Fellini, but, ppffffssstt — no show. I couldn't understand where all these rumors were coming from, having to do with the magazine's distributor withholding the distribution of the magazine in this area. I had wanted a nostalgic hit of disgust, to help me relive old college memories.

I noted during that gathering the night before graduation that nobody ever made any mention of whether the facts stated in Esquire were true or not. Not even the jocks denied the truth of the incidents referred to. The point was, to them, that somehow, mysteriously, the whole article was at fault. The author must simply have been tasting sour grapes thinking of the last game of the schools' hockey seasons. Imagine that — a U.N.H. prof calling Dartmouth a "jock school"! The husky youths seemed to be saying that the basic thing wrong with the article was its conclusion.

The reactions of many of the most vocal Dartmouth people to the article, in these columns especially, will undoubtedly be overwhelming, and overwhelmingly defensive — rather like the football team's style of play. Hysterical reactions are uncalled-for when seen in light of the basic truth and fairness of Merton's article. College people concerned with the apparent tarnish on the College image should thank their lucky stars that Merton did not look much more deeply than he did into the really more remarkable fraternity goings-on.

Ultimately, the Esquire article will not hurt the public image of the College any more than Edwin Newman's criticism of its official press releases in Strictly Speaking did. The admissions program will hardly have to fold down by the fall. That Esquire will be thrown in the corner, or maybe recycled into the form of College Board test booklets, or maybe even Dartmouth publicity publications. The senseless withholding of the magazine's distribution was really awfully stupid, shortsighted, and petty. If that did indeed happen, national attention given to that one act would do more harm to the College than any number of articles reporting the truth which were allowed unhindered circulation.

Finally, the article proves that the College is worth attacking and criticizing. That is a tremendous compliment, given inadvertently.

Hanover, N.H.

[We asked the manager of the DartmouthBookstore about rumors that the June 19 issue of Esquire, with Andy Merlon's article "HangingOn (by a Jockstrap) to Tradition at Dartmouth,"had somehow been barred fromHanover. "It just arrived two days late," hesaid. "It happens to some magazine everymonth, and this time it happened to Esquire." Ed.]

Animal House has created a situation on campus not seen since Winter Carnival 40 years before.

And the situation has been exploited by Time, Newsweek, Esquire, and many more.

It would be interesting to know what Chris Miller thinks of all this trouble and/or excitement created on campus today.

Chelmsford, Mass.

Uhlmann-mania

I have recovered only partially from the shock engendered by reading, in utter astonishment, Mr. John Uhlmann's letter in your last issue. The term "past sins" occurs four times and "sins of our past" once in this brief but startling communication. The "sins" are alleged to have been committed "toward both women and minorities since 1964." John's closing paragraph I quote as a masterpiece of contrition worthy of the highest-sitting eremite: "The half-hearted measures being proposed in no way will relieve the guilt or shame for our past sins. We must initiate bold new progaams (sic) which will balance out the sins of our past if we wish, in the future, to hold our heads up high among honorable people."

This is really something! No doubt there are numerous alumni who are thankful to have attended Dartmouth during her most sinful period (i.e., before 1964) and who could conceivably lose their traditional interest in the old Mater should she go "75 per cent women or more" (more what?) and "at least 40 per cent ethnic minorities" to "remedy their past sins."

Fortunately, or perhaps by design, Roger Burrill's little gem follows and brings us back to reality.

Berkeley, Calif.

Having just received the latest issue of the Alumni Magazine and read the editorial column, I am more convinced than ever that my brother-in-law, Pat Uhlmann, and my nephew, John Uhlmann, are completely out of their heads and should be incarcerated im- mediately in an appropriate institution, well- manned with guards of the opposite sex!

In my opinion, this country started on a decline immediately upon the passage of the Women's Suffrage Amendment. I am strongly of the feeling that Dartmouth should go on a strict quota system of 100 per cent men and no women! As far as ethnic groups are concerned, the only ethnic group which Dartmouth should favor is the Red Indian, even to the extent of enrolling 100 per cent Indians if so many apply.

Montgomery, Ala.

Undiminished

I propose, if you will pardon the expression, a resounding "wah-hoo-wah" for classmate Roger Burrill's letter-to-the-editor appearing in the June issue. It was a welcome relief from so many of the lengthy, erudite letters which have appeared in the past, complaining of the changes at Dartmouth.

Of course, the College has changed, just as has the country in which most of her alumni/ae live. I have not approved of many of the changes in either, but my love for either has not lessened.

I do not intend to refuse to support my country because I do not approve of all the changes which have taken place; even less do I intend to refuse to support Dartmouth by withholding whatever small contribution I can make each year to the Alumni Fund.

Pinetop, Ariz.

Parkhurst Memories

Steve Tozer's article "When They Resisted" [May issue] brought back poignant memories of that 1968-69 era. For, you see, I was the alumni representative of the Admissions Office who had interviewed Steve in the spring of 1968. And, too, because of that connection with the "official family" of the College, I had received somewhat regular mailings describing the various happenings from the College's point of view.

Steve was one of the most solid students whom I ever had the opportunity to meet in the many years of interviewing in which I had (and have) participated. The evening Steve came to my home to explain his feelings and all of the factors that led to his particular mode of participation in the Parkhurst occupation was one of the most difficult, and satisfying, I have ever experienced. We parted, not agreeing, but still good friends. We parted with this particular individual having had the precious opportunity of having another open his soul and heart in a manner seldom attempted, much less accomplished.

To this day, I know my reaction would have been different. And I also know there will be some, upon reading his article, who will condemn his actions".

I would point out three counterpoints to the above discussion. First, his father was a greater fan of Dartmouth after the incident than before because of his perception of a caring attitude for those involved. Second, Steve went on to fulfill his commitment to others by teaching English "as a foreign language" in the ghettos of Chicago. And, third, if I knew all that I know now, I would once again unqualifiedly recommend Steve for admission to Dartmouth.

Springfield, Ill.

Novices with Hand Grenades

Professor Epperson's article ["Vox," December issue] has been sitting on my desk for some time now while I have been reading the alumni letters. The case on both sides is pretty clear: The moderate positions of both sides are obviously correct and the extreme positions are equally ridiculous. Have at it, gentlemen, but stop for a beer when you get tired. Debating the evils of the young is hot work.

My concern is not the fraternity issue but a set of Professor Epperson's propositions which are palatable, familiar, and fraudulent. We are told, "Every college is subject to internal stresses, any one of which can dissipate that delicate, indeed precious, atmosphere in which [we learn] tolerance, social harmony, thoughtfulness, and intellectual endeavor. Contrary to popular belief, the atmosphere for such activity is fragile and subject to disruptive ... forces."

I submit that the place where ideas are alive is a considerable distance from the place Professor Epperson has in mind. To begin with, the most potent disruptive force I know of is a strong idea, and I assume this is a crucial goal of intellectual endeavor. Theoretically, Dartmouth has several thousand young men and women in a heady brew of ideas. That's a lot of internal stress. If he is looking for a "delicate, indeed precious, atmosphere" whose fragility is one of its distinctive qualities, he had better get rid of the ideas first (and the endeavor that produces them).

The young almost never hold the right ideas, or if they do, they hold them all wrong, like a novice with a hand grenade. There seems to be nothing much we can do about this — not if we want them to learn what to do with explosives. It's only when we turn forty (or get our doctorate) that we begin to care more about the potential accidents than the dandy explosion.

At middle age, how sweet is the thought of the apollonian society; and it is precisely at this place that ideas begin to lose their vitality. Unfortunately, ideas arise out of the tension between a lived life and the unfulfilled ideal. That relationship becomes fragile and precious only when the life is shallow and the idea is a clichè.

Incidentally, for those who don't know, when scholars gather at a symposium wherein there is something vital at stake, the air shimmers with electricity. I remember some Asian Studies meetings which were enormously stimulating but were scarcely preeminent for tolerance, social harmony, and thoughtfulness. And it was the intellectual endeavor that made the air crackle.

By all means, police the fraternities. They unquestionably need it. Make them be nice to the women, and let the women be a touch more virtuous. That's fine; but there is something castrating in Professor Epperson's carefully modulated writing that makes me cross my legs uneasily.

Epping, N.H.

Restored Optimism

Messrs. White & White (letters, May issue) suggest that Judy Aronson "dedicate herself to a higher collective concern than that of women's or minority rights at Dartmouth — to the promotion of a satisfying, beneficial, and memorable Dartmouth experience for all members of the community." There is no difference between these two purposes. I would submit that "this higher collective concern" is exactly what she is pursuing in her dedication to minority rights.

There will be no such thing as a happy, satisfying Dartmouth experience for all members of the community until we solve our problems in the area of the treatment of minorities and women. The meeting at Webster Hall on March 8 did not distort or interrupt Dartmouth's mission. It reaffirmed and strengthened it by forcing us all to face grave problems which will grow worse if neglected. The meeting did not disgust me or cause me to doubt. On the contrary, while some of the rhetoric was excessive, the event did much to restore my optimism about the future of the College as a humane and caring community.

Oxford, England

"Living Hell"

I am amazed that the president of the Afro- American Society at Dartmouth found it necessary to call our school a "living hell." What a sad loss of world perspective! (Something I must, in part, blame on Dartmouth.) This fellow is obviously so bourgeois that he hasn't cracked a news magazine or history book long enough to see what a real living hell is. With a good education, plentiful friends, health, three squares a day, and free speech, how can one be so insensitive as to abuse that last blessing with such an inane comparison? Think of those millions around the world who have died or are dying of ignorance, isolation, hunger, sickness, or governmental torture before you utter one word of comparison between the comfy life in Hanover and the real living hells world over — including the continent which appears in the first half of your organization's name. Millions would give anything to "suffer" in your "living hell." Damn your provincialism, sir!

Honolulu, Hawaii

Neglected Accomplishments

I recently received still one more plea for a contribution to the Alumni Fund drive. Enclosed was a short pamphlet describing the project of Gemma Lockhart '79 that arose out of Noel Perrin's Environmental Journalism course. She made a videotape documentary exploring the controversy surrounding a proposal to build a series of dams along the Black River west of the town of Springfield, Vermont. The folder explained how Gemma interviewed parties on both sides of the issue in order to clarify the problem of the possible environmental damage to the towns of Cavendish and Weathersfield, where certain lands would have to be appropriated. The 30-minute videotape was found worthy enough to be aired twice on the Vermont educational channel.

In this time of wah-hoo-wah over football and hockey triumphs, the short recap of Gemma's efforts made me proud of Mother Dartmouth for what I consider a basic, though too- often neglected, occurrence. At the end of my first year as an alumnus, I remember shamefully little written in any Dartmouth correspondence about the academic accomplishments of its undergraduates. The importance of athletics, the College symbol, and the fraternities is real and substantial, but hasn't their notoriety been a bit heavy-handed? Let's try and keep things in perspective. Isn't the primary (certainly not the only) purpose of Dartmouth still a scholastic one? Granted, a videotape report on local dams does not elicit the same emotional response as an ECAC hockey playoff game, but wouldn't you concede it is at least as much a part of the College's supposed goals? Are academics so trivial to the Dartmouth community to be reported on so infrequently?

I've had the pleasure of taking a writing course with Gemma and am familiar with the intensity and sincerity she brings into the projects she undertakes. Though I've never had a class with Noel Perrin, I have sat in on his lectures and am convinced of the quality and direction he inspires. I applaud their efforts and have done so with my first, albeit meager, contribution to the Alumni Fund. No hat trick could have made me do the same.

Brockton, Mass.

Sweet Harmony

Thank you for publishing Dick Holbrook's article on Jazz at Dartmouth in the late twenties and early thirties. It was sheer joy to recall and relive those days "one more time."

And, what a contrast the writings in the issue portrayed between Dartmouth then and now! Discord reigns where harmony once prevailed.

Xenia, Ohio

Opinion vs. Fact

I am constrained to react to the article on China entitled "There and Back Again" in the April issue of the Alumni Magazine. I respect any professor of history, as long as he sticks to fact. However, this article is shot-through with opinionated statements which present a distorted picture, and, therefore, the article is unworthy of the objectivity that one would expect of a college alumni magazine of your quality.

There is no question that the Truman administration made a great mistake when we cut off the People's Republic and tried to pretend that hundreds of millions of people did not exist. Nevertheless, that administration and every administration since made commitments to Taiwan which were callously broken by the Carter administration, not by recognizing the People's Republic, but by doing so without consultation with the government of Taiwan.

The author states, "China is a far more decent society in which to live than many, many others in this world." How can such a notion be justified?

The author justifies the communist revolution being "as valid and far-reaching for its people and for this century as the American revolution was 200 years ago." They are both called revolutions, but the American revolution was a secession from the British Crown, while the communist revolution was the overthrow of an existing government. The result of the American revolution was a free and democratic society, but the result of the Chinese revolution was a communistic society. How can there be a valid comparison?

The author states, "The Nationalist flag will come down, the People's flag will go up, and not much else will change.... " How can such an assumption be made;? Is this the kind of thing that happened when the Soviet Union took over some of the Eastern European countries? Is this the kind of thing that happened when Hitler took over Austria or Czechoslovakia?

Anyone who has been to Taiwan will know that it is a vibrant country, modern, and although it has been under the government of Chiang Kai-shek, its citizens still have freedom. Anyone who has been to the People's Republic will know that that country is pathetically decades behind the modern world, including Taiwan. It is a society where the individual is unimportant. Individualism is discouraged even to the point that everyone drably dresses the same.

It is good that China and America have reopened relations and maybe we can do a great deal to help them improve their own condition, even to the point of moving toward a freer and more democratic society. We can do this without turning our backs on Taiwan.

In the meantime, let's not be deluded by the unfounded opinions articulated in this article.

Montgomery, Ala.

Apartheid

There are some, such as Harvard President Derek Bok, who feel that a school should be concerned only with the education of its students in the narrow sense of the word: discovery and transmission of knowledge. Under this way of thinking, the school can in many cases ignore pressing social issues in the outside world.

On the other hand, there are many who feel that in order to teach its students to be socially responsible, a school must itself act responsibly in society. A school which expected its members to act responsibly, but which did not itself act responsibly, would be involved in hypocrisy.

One of the most pressing social issues in the world today is the problem of apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid has been almost universally condemned; there seems little doubt that it is one of the most deplorable conditions in recent history. Clearly, this is a problem we should help resolve if we can.

U.S. banks and corporations play a major role in strengthening the South African economy. This in turn helps strengthen the South African government, which is responsible for apartheid. The U.S. corporations have made minor steps to alleviate the hardships of apartheid for their employees (by agreeing to the Sullivan Principles), but these changes have done little good. Since the proportion of the South African labor force hired by these corporations is very small, the possible good they can do by changing their own hiring practices is also very small.

Apartheid would be undermined far more effectively if these banks and corporations pulled out of the country entirely — the South African blacks and outside humanitarian groups strongly urge them to do so. However, since their holdings in South Africa are highly profitable, the corporations stay.

Dartmouth owns stock in many of these U.S. banks and corporations in South Africa. It could probably, with appropriate planning, put this stock into other areas. By divesting itself of these stocks, Dartmouth could help focus public scrutiny on the corporations in South Africa, could help get them to pull out of that country, and could help bring about U.S. sanctions against South Africa. This is something which Dartmouth might do to help end apartheid — if the school is to act responsibly, it will at least consider the possibility of doing it.

Donald Woods, the exiled white South African newspaper editor, said in reply to Derek Bok that "the main point for Harvard should be whether the University is prepared to be part-financed by the world's worst example of racial oppression." His point is that there is no morally neutral stand on this issue; by not doing anything, we are in effect supporting apartheid.

Hanover, N.H.

What's the Point?

I am writing in regard to the kind of courses the colleges and universities are now offering. I am a graduate of the class of '77 and I am just a wee bit angry at the way professors design their courses, in the field of business in particular.

Let me make my point clear: Just what are the aims of various courses such as Macroeconomics I or Statistics I? Is it to weed out the fair students from those who are going on to be Arthur Schlesingers? It was my experience at Dartmouth College that I flunked economics (macro). The boy next door, who also went to Dartmouth College, failed the same course. Just recently my brother flunked statistics — a full-year course no less — at his respective college.

Now, what I want to know is just what is the point of this? Are college professors purposely making some courses so difficult that it is impossible to pass them, even if the student who failed is an excellent student? There seems to me to be something fishy here and something very wrong with the educational process itself if hard-working students can't even pass an introductory course with a respectable grade. I would be very interested to hear the response of the professors in the Economics Department.

Gladwyne. Pa.

[A spokesman for the Department ofEconomics comments: Ms. Finkbiner's section of Economics 1 stuck pretty closely to the material covered in the first 400 pages of P.A. Samuelson's Economics (10th edition), a textbook that has been used by literally millions of undergraduates in hundreds of colleges and universities. This material could hardly be viewed as too difficult for most Dartmouth students. Ms. Finkbiner's sample, consisting as it does of herself, "the boy next door," and her brother who failed a statistics course in another institution, is neither sufficiently large nor sufficiently representative to provide a basis for a claim that there is "something fishy and something very wrong with the educational process itself."

There were 112 Dartmouth students, including Ms. Finkbiner, enrolled in sections of Economics 1 in the spring term of 1976. Only four of them (slightly less than four per cent) failed the course. The most frequent (in view of Ms. Finkbiner's brother's achievement, "modal" probably should be avoided) grade was B— (20 students) and over 60 per cent of the students received a grade of B- or better. Economics 1 is by no means a gut course, and although from the above evidence one might want to infer otherwise, the members of the Department of Economics tend to be tougher graders than most of their colleagues in other departments at Dartmouth. But as the data cited here suggest, you don't have to be a genius or even an Arthur Schlesinger to do pretty well in it. (Incidentally, it is puzzling that Ms. Finkbiner should use A. Schlesinger as an example. Isn't he a historian?)]

Disturbing Photograph

It is indeed wonderful that so many Dartmouth alumni maintain their fellowship after college, but I was disturbed by a photograph depicting one group activity in the April issue.

The picture shows some alumni smiling triumphantly over a sad collection of dead geese. I find it hard to share their pride in the conquests and feel particularly disheartened that the "Dartmouth Goose Hunt" is apparently becoming a new tradition.

Many of the old ones are beginning to be questioned because of their emphasis on a machismo spirit that is characterized more by bravado than sensitivity. It is unfortunate that Dartmouth has nurtured a stereotypical image of men who have fun in a big way, often without consideration for the feelings of others.

Although hunters may enjoy shooting birds, I hope you will not choose to print such a repulsive picture again as evidence of Dartmouth spirit.

Northport, N.Y.

Larger than Life

I was pleased to be mentioned in your pages (June 1979) in connection with my election to the National Academy of Engineering, but it pains me to report that the Academy made me a little larger than life in its citation, and I would like to make some corrections.

The artificial heart on which I worked as a collaborator was primarily the work of Dr. Leland Clark. My contribution was in the electronic control system for the valves. It was one of the first ever to be used in an operation on a human being, but I do not believe it was the first ever.

The steering system for the first automatic flight was developed by me, and it consisted of a radio direction finder plus a device to connect it to the plane's automatic pilot. However, there was a great deal more to the entire system, which was developed by (then) Captains Carl Crane and George Holloman, and Raymond Stout, all of Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio, and Dr. Constantine Barbelesco.

Norwich, Vt.

Solidarity Forever

I always enjoy your lively magazine, but never more than when I read in the letters column of your May issue a gentle complaint from Concord, Massachusetts. Labeled "Too Many Letters," it included this splendid sentence: "I'm a Wellesley grad and think we have the best magazine ever."

Hooray for Ruth Haven Backus, Wellesley '13!

Hanover, N.H.

The Covers

Once again i am forced to write to protest your choice of the cover for the Alumni Magazine. In a time when alumni support is so essential, why do you persist in alienating this support? The March edition does nothing to re-kindle the nostalgia which I associate with Dartmouth. I feel strongly if you polled the alumni — and the magazine is for the alumni — very few would approve of this cover and many of the choices of the last year or so. What is wrong with Dartmouth scenes? We never tire of these.

I personally feel that individuals, with the exception possibly of the president, do not belong on the cover!

Elgin AFB, Fla.

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.