Letters to the Editor

Teaching Ethics

The new ethics classes described in the March issue may be popular and relevant, but are they worthwhile? Admittedly, some are taught by the unqualified. Others are given by professors of religion who are no doubt prejudiced by their favorite religion. What about the Philosophy Department? In his "Ethical Theory" class, Professor Gert defends simpleminded rules such as "Don't kill, don't cause pain, and keep your promise." Really, don't these rules belong in Sunday school along with Moses' Ten Commandments? They have too many exceptions to be very useful. Don't cause pain unless you are a doctor, dentist, soldier, parent, or football player. Don't kill unless it's for food, self-defense, war, capital punishment, abortion, or mercy. Besides, the rules are vague as they stand. What does the rule about killing apply to? Animals, humans, fetuses, zygotes, deformed infants, or what? What kind of pain are we worried about, mental or physical, or both?

These classes ought to be removed from the curriculum and replaced with classes devoted to the classical theories of Mill and Kant and their application to current moral problems.

St. Cloud, Minn.

On reading Philosophy Professor Gert's bloodless epitome of ethics "Live and let live," which with regard to such as Kitty Genovese and the Third World amounts in fact to "Live and let die" I certainly hope his students are not required, as I was, to check whatever religious faith they-might have at the philosophy classroom door. For in simply dismissing out of hand the precept "Love your neighbor as yourself' as hopelessly impracticable, he has at one stroke dismissed the very sum and substance of the whole Judaeo- Christian ethic.

Charleston, W. Va.

[Professor Gert urges readers White andDickinson to consult his book The Moral Rules. Ed.]

I just completed reading the article on the teaching of ethics in the various disciplines taught at Dartmouth and found this resurgence enlightening and heartening. I also have sympathy for the students taking many of these courses, however, because, aside from the quote from Professor Gert's brilliant book, TheMoral Rules, most of the statements by the other instructors were largely academic gobbledygook. I suggest that those teaching these important courses read and carry with them Strunk and White's, Elements of Style and William Zinsser's On Writing Well, 2nd edition, so they may formulate and convey their ideas in a direct, clear, and precise fashion.

Rochester, N. Y.

Congratulations on the March issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. It was very encouraging to me, at least, to read the long and interesting article on the faculty concern with ethics and participation in sensible teaching of such. At this point of a change in administration, I would appreciate additional articles on the drift of the College in its curricular concerns, and what centrality or lack of centrality of vision other related groups of the faculty have. I take it from President Kemeny that the thrust of the social sciences will be helped by the Rockefeller Center for the Social Sciences, where constant interplay may take place among professors of those fields.

Is there any interest in bridging the gaps in the humanities between the arts, music, and literature? When I went to the College, the quality of the faculty, despite lack of higher degrees, was tops stimulating, broadgauged, and wise. Those of us who have been out for 50 years have rather lost touch. We ride on faith, but we welcome (at least I do) informative articles on the two fundamentals on which a college stands the library and the faculty. I suppose graduates of the professional schools, Tuck, Thayer, and Medical, would also welcome them.

Bethesda, Md.

[An article on the Rockefeller Center for theSocial Sciences appears in this issue. Ed.]

Teaching Liberals

I appreciated the photograph of some of the humorous material on my office door which appeared in. the recent ALUMNI MAGAZINE. Lest the wrong impression be left, however, I may say that quite a few of my students are in fact liberals, and spend a lot of time in my office where we discuss all sorts of things but mostly literature.

Hanover, N.H.

Cats and Dogs

In May, we all had the opportunity to contribute to the future of Dartmouth through our choice Of trustees. However, if the personal statement of each of the four candidates (as set forth in the April mailing of the Alumni Association) reflects the future, I am very concerned for the well-being of the College.

During the four years in Hanover, I was witness to many problems. Relations, between the administration and the student body were, at times, tumultuous. The furor that surrounded the decision to exclude freshmen from fraternity activities was only one notable example. Relations between students and faculty were less than ideal. In this regard, I need only cite the callous firing (politely termed "denial of tenure") of Professor Henry Buckley, despite the considerable outcry of many French ma jors. As evidenced by the events during winter quarter of 1979, relations between student groups could also be marred by ugly tension.

There were, of course, the seemingly endless budgetary concerns. As a result of growing constraints, room, board, and tuition increased markedly, placing additional pressures on students and their families. Recent decisions by the Reagan administration concerning the student loan program can only augment the pressures.

The brewing controversy over the "D-Plan" [of year-round operation], a plan which critics claimed would lead to increased fragmentation of, and alienation within the student body, cannot be ignored. Whether such criticisms were right or wrong, that fragmentation was increasingly evident while I was at Dartmouth.

In view of these problems, the office of trustee of the College will certainly bear "the heaviest responsibility," for in large part responsibility for the eradication of the College's current woes falls upon that office. Four capable, sincere men vied for that "rarest privilege." Yet, I ask myself if these men truly measure up to the task. Much of the emphasis of the candidates' personal statements focused on the Indian symbol and our "sagging athletic fortunes." Such statements clearly demonstrate that the candidates, whether nominated by the Alumni Council or by alumni petition, are dangerously out of touch with the realities of campus life. Indeed, slogans about Dartmouth's athletic fortunes were not painted on the snow sculpture in 1979!

I only hope that the new trustees, whomever they might be, quickly alter their perceptions of the most serious problems facing Dartmouth. If they fail to do so, the entire Board of Trustees will soon be in for a very rude awakening, and the College, I fear, will be hard pressed to recover from the consequences.

Arlington, Va.

[A report on the outcome of the ballotingappears in this issue. Ed.]

I am becoming increasingly troubled by what appears to be a fast-growing divisiveness among Dartmouth alumni to the point that the current trustee elections have taken on the aura of an old-fashioned name-calling, mud-slinging, no holds-barred political campaign, which I feel has no place in Dartmouth affairs. There is even talk about a lawsuit!

All this seems to have started with the nomination and election of John Steel last year as an opposition candidate to the one selected by the Alumni Council to fill a vacancy on the Board of Trustees and with the establishment of a new student publication, the Dartmouth Review, a self-proclaimed conservative newspaper (displaying a provocative if less than tactful Latin motto) ostensibly as the voice of opposition to the College administration, and which has drawn considerable alumni support. Such a publication could exercise a healthy, therapeutic influence, but somehow things do not seem to be working out that way.

From a viewpoint of some 1,200 miles south and nearly 50 years out of college, the general impression I receive is that neither the administration nor its opposition has handled the problems that have arisen with the dignity or calm judiciousness that one might be entitled to expect.

There has unquestionably been a growing unease in recent years among many alumni, in eluding the undersigned, about a number of developments at Dartmouth which they do not understand and with which they do not agree, but on which their opinions have not been sought, or, when offered, have in many cases been ignored. Many alumni have come to feel that their only value to the College is as the latter's primary source of fund-raising.

It seems to me that with a Board of Trustees undergirded by the Dartmouth Alumni Council with a combined membership of more than 70 highly qualified alumni who have demonstrated, through their Dartmouthrelated activities, a high degree of devotion and concern for the College, there must be better ways of solving our problems than the undignified cat-and-dog fight that is going on now. From my observation, the Association of Alumni, under Jack Benson '3l, is doing its utmost to be unbiased and fair in handling the current trustee elections; and to characterize the latter's letter which accompanied the ballot material as a "vicious smear" is uncalled for, as are the "grave doubts" expressed as to the fairness of the election and even the fair counting of the ballots.

Strident criticism bordering on paranoia cannot be expected to be of any help in this situation, and I earnestly hope that the new administration, under Dave McLaughlin's leadership, will strive to bring some reason and order into this most chaotic situation and find practical solutions to the problems facing us which are equitable and acceptable to all concerned.

Venice, Fla.

Muddled Situation?

I write concerning "Honor," the atrociously misnamed story which appeared in the April issue. While the journalistic quality of this article may have been up to the general editorial standards of the National Enquirer, as an alumnus I expect more informative and incisive reporting from the publication through which most alumni receive their news of the College.

The writer of this article apparently was so uncertain of his facts, sources, and interpretation of the situation, that he (or she) boasted in writing that by maintaining his anonymity he "might keep . . . from getting sued." At this point, warning bells should have alerted the editors to danger, and the story should have been killed. Rather than presenting an honorable effort to get the news straight, the article gives only the briefest-recitation of what transpired at the College Committee on Standing and Conduct (C.C.S.C.) hearing in question. Indeed, as I fear he intended, the writer primarily succeeded in muddling the situation, as if the goal was to confuse the alumni rather than enlighten them. Worse, the writer completely missed the primary issue behind this latest controversy surrounding the C.C.S.C. The fundamental issue was not whether the student involved was innocent or guilty but whether the rules and functions of the C.C.S.C., as currently constituted, are vague, biased, and unfair.

Based upon my knowledge of the C.C.S.C., gleaned from four recent years at Dartmouth and information received from friends still attending the College, I must answer this question affirmatively. The men and women comprising the committee are not necessarily at fault for this situation; most of them are honorable people performing a difficult and thankless task. But the rules are so vague, the committee's purpose so unclear, the pressures to conform to the administration's will so great, that the C.C.S.C. is a natural organization with which to place ideological pressures on the student body. What is needed is not the abolition of the C.C.S.C. but the formalization of procedures to be used by the organization so that its proceedings can be made more equitable and the present fear which exists on campus of being railroaded by the C.C.S.C. can be eliminated. In the absence of such procedures, pressures from the administration are certain to continue to pervert the true purpose of the C.C.S.C., as they have in the past.

Finally, I am saddened that the ALUMNI MAGAZINE did not approach this very serious controversy in a more constructive manner. Being a recent alumnus, I am familiar with the problems of the C.C.S.C., the power it has at its disposal, and the manner in which this power has been abused. Other alumni are not so fortunate. Your goal should be to enlighten these alumni to the difficulties confronting the College and to encourage their active participation in solving those problems. Dartmouth is experiencing very troubled times, and all alumni are concerned. More articles on the joys of woodcarving we simply do not need.

Arlington, Va.

[Others have argued that the issue at stake washonor, not the system. Still others rememberthe time when a student's fate was decided bythe stern justice of, say, a Craven Laycock. Ofcourse, back then there wasn't so much talkabout due process or suing. Ed.]

Cold Memories

The picture of the burning White Church, on page 25 of the April issue, reminded me of some hours I spent there practicing the organ while I was studying with Professor Homer Whitford.

I recall one occasion when it was so cold in the church that I opened the window to let in the less cold January air in order to keep warm. I would have appreciated some of the bonfire heat of May 13, 1931.

Enclosed is a piece of organ music I have recently composed. This must certainly have its roots in the old White Church and in the harmony course I studied at Dartmouth. I was probably the dumbest in the class but also one of a few who have kept at it long enough to get to first base. Please give the music to someone who likes music as much as I do.

Also enclosed is a photo of the interior of the White Church. There are probably many pictures of the exterior extant but this white-pew view is unique(?). Enclosed also are two negatives. You may give these to the museum or library or whoever may be interested.

Stamford, Conn.

In the item entitled "The Lord's Barn" [about the burning of the White Church] in the April issue, reference is made to X-Delta "gracing the front lawn of Sanborn Library." I would say it would be more accurate to describe it as stogracing the front lawn of Sanborn House.

Franklin Lakes, N.J.

Accolades

I have no doubts that the teams and individuals noted in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE deserve the accolades they have received. To take nothing from others' achievements, I do wish to mention the achievements of another set of Dartmouth teams and individuals in the fear that they might otherwise go unrecognized.

In the past year or two the Dartmouth debate team has set and maintained a standard of excellence above that of perhaps any other university in the country. Unlike the athletes, it is no goal of the debate team to be merely the best in the Ivies. Competing against teams from throughout the country, the Green has achieved the following: In the annual poll of debate coaches, Dartmouth's best teams finished second in the nation last year and first this year. In the past two years, Dartmouth has had teams finish second, third, fifth, and ninth at the National Debate Tournament. The depth of the squad is demonstrated by the second and third places that our freshman teams have taken at the National Novice Championships. The teams have recently placed first or second at the following tournaments: U. Mass. (twice), Harvard, Suffolk, Georgetown, Emory (twice), Northwestern (twice), Wake Forest, Cal-State Fullerton (twice), Kansas State-Emporia, Bates, and Kentucky, as well as the varsity and novice national championships.

The success of Dartmouth teams is due in very large measure to the fine coaches that Dartmouth has been blessed with in the past few years: Herb James, Ken Strange, Charles Willard, and Frank Cross. There have also been impressive individual performances highlighted by the First Place Speaker Award won by Stephen Meagher '80 at the 1980 national championships. The following people also deserve mention: Peter Hutchins '80, Robin Jacobsohn '83, Tom Lyon '83, Rob Meadow '79, Steve Meagher '8O, Steve Parker '7B, Chris Patti '8O, Antonio Piggee '8O, Cy Smith '81, Mark Weinhardt '82, and, I suppose, myself. That list, like any other, tells only part of the story; there are so many others who have competed (and will continue to) on the Dartmouth debate squads. The list also fails to tell so much. It tells nothing of Smith and Weinhardt's rise to become the best team in the nation this year. Dartmouth's sophomore (Lyon and Jacobsohn) team reached the elimination rounds of the national championships an impressive achievement for a team of seniors, much more for a pair of '83s. Finally, I cannot help but mention that Steve Meagher and I had the best score at a single tournament (Kansas State in October 1979) of any team in recent years. We had the highest possible score: 20 out of 20 ballots.

Like any debater, I could go on forever. The complete story of the Dartmouth Forensic Union would take much longer to give any justice to the entire squad and our coaches.

Philadelphia, Pa.

[Since graduation, Thomas Isaacson has alsoserved as assistant debate coach at Cornell. Ed.]

Good Show

I was delighted to tune in to Vermont Public Radio in late April to hear John Merrow '63's Options in Education programs on how a highly selective college (ours truly) chooses its students.

Merrow's clearheaded interviews and lexicon of admissions jargon gave a fascinating insight into the admissions process. Perhaps more important, he proved that the College has little to fear from responsible journalists a relief after the Animal House mudfights.

After listening to the program and the behind-the-scenes discussion of candidates, I was left with one overwhelming question: how on earth did I get in?

Maybe others were wondering that, too.

Hanover, N.H.

Thanks

I would like to thank Nancy Wasserman '77 for her April-issue profile of Douglas McBain. Her article "Backstairs and Blooms" showed delightful glints of facets of a man who not only wears "the green," he nurtures it with skill, kindness, dedication, and a happy wink's worth of irony. You're a good man, Doug. And a good friend. Now, thanks to Ms. Wasserman, the rest of the alumni(ae) know that, too!

New York, N.Y.

No Thanks

Printed under the picture on the cover of the April issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE is the question: "Bring these women together and what do you get?" A number of answers readily come to mind, but the initial one strongly suggested by the picture might easily be: "A group of sprawling, disorderly teeny boppers in a junior high school class that is totally out of control."

Actually, the picture itself better seen in a high-school yearbook raises a question about the judgment, purpose, and perhaps taste of featuring something that is ambiguous enough to invite the false inferences about Dartmouth classroom decorum that this one does, especially at a time when alumni are being pressured for funds.

This does no credit to an educational institution that makes the claims to excellence that Dartmouth does. Who designs these magazine covers, anyway? Somebody needs some direction!

Scarsdale, N.Y.

Welcome, Mr. President

As one of his first acts as College president, David McLaughlin should enroll himself in English 5. Witness the following quote from a recent article printed in the Boston SundayGlobe:

"There have been some who have maintained that the college should have the same minority representation on campus as that which exists in the country.

"I would tend to reject that because Dartmouth, as an institution, is trying to train and educate people who are going to make a contribution to society. If you said you should have the same proportion of minorities as exist among the leadership element of society that would make more sense to me." (Boston Sunday Globe, April 5, 1981.)

This is the twisted, addled prose of which bad governments are made.

Just what is McLaughlin's line of reasoning? That because Dartmouth has good intentions (educating "people who are going to make a contribution") it ought to be exempt from the principles of equal opportunity? As if one has anything to do with the other. Does he believe that the existing number of minorities "in the leadership element of society" is adequate? And that Dartmouth should scale down its integration efforts to these token levels?

Does McLaughlin know what he's saying? Is he really voicing these inflammatory ideas?

Strange, convoluted sentences infiltrate McLaughlin's every utterance. He likes to mismatch pronouns and their antecedents and displays a child's grasp of grammar. It's okay, I suppose, for a Toro president to be crass, but it's time McLaughlin stopped talking about the irony of how he used to "really push" for a lot of snow.

Cover thyself, David.

Cambridge, Mass.

Eliminating Further Discussion

The announcement of David McLaughlin as the new president of the College has given me a brilliant idea and should go far to alleviate an interminable situation.

The struggle for a proper name to identify Dartmouth athletic teams and provide a distinctive and non-controversial image is now easily solved. How about the Dartmouth Toros? Can't you see John Harvard riding on the horns of the Dartmouth Toro?

While this might create a bit of a problem with humane societies, cattle-breeder associations, and other animal lovers, it would follow along with the Yale Bulldog, the Princeton Tiger, the Brown Bear, the Columbia Lion, the Boston University Terriers, and many others.

Needless to say, those few alumni who cling tenaciously to the discredited Indian symbol might not be overpleased, but this could go far to eliminate further discussion on this conten tious subject.

We wish Mr. McLaughlin well, and it might be a good omen if he should bring along the name of his former company to enhance the image of Dartmouth athletics.

West Newton, Mass.

Dartmouth's committee on presidential selection has labored mightily and come forth with ... a lawnmower salesman.

Abolishing the Native American symbol was insulting enough to your many loyal alumni. But installing "Toro! Toro! Toro!" as the new College football cheer is absolutely beneath contempt.

Saratoga, Calif.

Farewell, Mr. President

I would like to defend John Kemeny against allegations by some alumni that he took the lead in pressing coeducation at Dartmouth.

The fact is that if he supported the presence of women on campus at all, he did so only from political necessity.

Back in 1958, before he became a politician, he was asked if he could support even a study of even a form of coeducation at Dartmouth. To his credit, he declined to sit on the fence. He forthrightly declared himself "not in favor." I enclose a copy of a letter and petition he signed in May of that year. The original petition and signatures were filed with the trustees in June of 1958. A majority of the full-time teaching faculty and several hundred students signed in favor.

Perhaps this issue offers an insight into why Kemeny would step down after a relatively brief term as president of a major college. It must be hell to have to sound like you believe in a lot of causes you secretly think are crazy just to be considered a popular leader.

Once President Kemeny becomes just Professor Kemeny again, concerned alumni should ask again where he stands on the great issues of the campus. I think they'll find it in their hearts to forgive him for his role in the Student Strike, coeducation, and many other crises. In a way, it's a pity he is leaving politics. He was at his best in figuring out which way the crowd was going and getting out in front of it.

Chicago, Ill.

[People do change their minds. By the late19605, before he was president and when thecause was not universally popular, JohnKemeny was on record as favoring coeducation. As for the "relatively brief term,"Kemeny's tenure is the longest among activeIvy presidents. Ed.]

The Rassias Method

I was disheartened to read in my '77 class newsletter (citing articles in The Dartmouth and The Dartmouth Review) that Professor Rassias' innovative language teaching method may be on its way out at Dartmouth. I was equally disheartened to read that political friction within the French Department may be the predominant reason behind this decision. How can Dartmouth, an institution of superior academic learning, allow politics to discredit and dissolve one of the best programs on its campus?

Although the method has not been entirely discarded, a new language program, not using the Rassias method, is being tried in Lyons this year. In addition, the French Department has made a major change in the L.S.A. (Language Study Abroad) program Professor Rassias conceived and put into place. The department recently voted to make French 1 and 2,. instead of just French 1, prerequisites for going abroad. According to Professor Lyons, the justification for this decision is better to prepare students. He said, "Presently, students who come with only ten weeks of preparation begin to profit from L.S.A. only in the last days of the program." For me and all the students on my program, this was entirely untrue. I had only ten weeks of French prior to leaving for France on a L.S.A. program. True, my family and I could not talk about Hegel's dialectics, but I could compliment my French mother's cooking and talk about the weather and politics, topics my family enjoyed discussing anyhow. (I feel I am quite fluent in French and owe it solely to the 20 weeks of French I studied at Dartmouth and on L.S.A.)

I believe the French Department made its decision for reasons other than the one cited. Demand to go on a L.S.A. program has always exceeded the number of students the program could successfully handle. By stiffening the requirements, the French Department will curtail student interest in going abroad and therefore make it easier on themselves to decide who should go on the program.

I do not believe the French Department's present decision, nor decisions they are contemplating, have been made in the interest of academic excellence. To let the Rassias method, the L.S.A. program or Professor Rassias go is a tremendous mistake. Dartmouth College and its students stand to loose the most.

New York, N. Y.

[John Rassias, who was considering a positionat Boston University, has decided to stay atDartmouth. Presumably, the Rassias methodwill stay with him. Ed.]

Feeling Pulses

Having been born in Brooklyn, U.S.A., I had always looked upon myself as a native American. Until, that is, some faceless phraseturner, by simply capitalizing the first word, managed to pre-empt that term for the North American Indian.

Because this description seems so patently imprecise, I've been uncomfortable with it ever since. A more appropriate choice, I submit, might have been "First American," or the even more appropriate "Pre-American" (why wasn't our continent named "Indiana"?).

In the light of my own unease over this development, I fell to wondering what the "Native Americans" themselves thought about it. So, I decided to conduct a little survey. Working first among Indians who are personal friends, and then boldly approaching total strangers at festivals and such, I went about feeling pulses.

Striving for as, much catholicity as an amateur pollster could achieve, I sampled a mix of young and old, male and female, and reached representatives of several tribes (Mescalero Apache, Wyandotte, Oneida, Creek, Chickasaw) and of two Pueblos (Cochiti and Santo Domingo).

I simply asked the question: "Would you rather be known as a Native American, a First American, a Pre-American, or an Indian?" The score to date stands: Indians 23, opponents 0. I had hoped to follow with a second question: "How do you feel about a college which has decided to discontinue, after several years, calling its sports teams 'The Indians'?" The first time I posed this, however, to a graduate of Haskell, who had spent his entire career on the staff of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Arizona, the implied hurt reflected in his response, "Why would they do that?" prompted me to drop this question instantly.

It is, sir, as I have said, a small poll but there is one who loves it.

And it seems to suggest two further questions: 1) Is it possible that the College's advisers do not speak for the great majority of Indians? 2) Could it be that Dartmouth's well-meaning gesture to spare the feelings of a much-abused people has had just the opposite effect?

Alamogordo, N.M.

The Symbol

The Indian symbol fanatics with their Wah-Hoo W ah-Hoo-Wahs are beginning to give me, quite frankly, a pain in the Aah-Hoo-Aahs.

La Jolla, Calif.

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.