Letters

Thorny Presence

This submission is to ask the question: Why not let the "Thorny Presence" simply wither away from disuse by individual decision?

The reference is to the Dartmouth Review article in which the ALUMNI MAGAZINE gives "standing" to a publication called unworthy in most quarters.

Dean of the Faculty Hans Penner (who impressed the hell out of me during a recent campus visit) has attempted to narrow free speech to faculty-judged parameters. His description of a "tender balance" again places the Review in a position of importance. Is it that deserving?

At the U.S. Post Office you simply write "refused" on mail you do not accept. If you do not want the "free" weekly "newspaper," you tell the young man on his bike to stop throwing it on (or under) your car in the driveway.

What happened to the right to accept or reject on the Hanover Plain rather than engage in apparently unproductive screaming?

San Juan Capistrano, Calif.

The Dartmouth Review controversy reminds us that the great issues of democracy are always under review.

In 1968, a comparable situation developed at Colby Junior, now Colby-Sawyer College, in New London, New Hampshire. During nationwide campus turbulence, spawned by racism and Vietnam, a student invitation to abrasive civil-rights campaigner Dick Gregory prompted an uproar among some local residents. They petitioned me publicly to cancel Gregory's visit, of which they "took a dim view."

I met the group personally to refuse their request and to explain why the best colleges entertain controversial characters.

They do so to protect democracy itself and the principles our constitution makes essential to our way of life. They do so for faith in students and to encourage them to defend the values so many of us have fought for physically and must preserve. This is why liberal institutions insist on airing all perspectives on great issues in the continuing search for truth.

This is what President John Dickey insisted was the purpose of the "liberating arts" and what President Eisenhower told the graduating class of 1953 when he said, "Don't join the book-burners," and President McLaughlin reminded us recently that "free expression is not a privilege, but a fundamental right."

So now again is the time for brave institutions to reaffirm the courage and trust inherent in our constitution and to reject publicly some prevalent dim views about faith and freedom. We should again express our contempt for bookburners and for moralizing majorities and guard ourselves against narrow nationalism which so quickly turns civilized societies into tribes. These disturbing tendencies are the moral retreats of people of mean mind and shallow spirit, who have no trust, no confidence, no positive affirmation of life. Numbed by complacency and snowed. by a leadership of paralyzed perspective, they run scared, compounding the national anxiety.

Our hope today is that some world statesmen will emerge to give us the courage to not be afraid, the imagination to make an enemy a friend, and the sense to stop trying to buy peace by providing machines of war to ancient antagonists who should be helped to find a better way. Otherwise, we will soon be grouping at the lowest level of human endeavor, preparing to crawl into bomb shelters, arranging evacuation plans, peeking through phony "windows of vulnerability," and otherwise running away with no place to hide.

Potter Place, N.H

{Everett Woodman was president of Colby JuniorCollege from 1962 to 1972. Ed.}

Reports of recent events in Hanover concerning the Dartmouth Review appearing in the national press and in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE are discouraging, to say the least. Actual examination-of the Review itself is even more so. Evidence that such a publication can exist for two years and, worse, be generously supported by contributions from Dartmouth alumni suggests that racial attitudes held by significant numbers of the Dartmouth family are, at best, old-fashioned and, at worst, obscene.

President McLaughlin apparently views the situation with concern but cites the right of free expression. It was my understanding that there are generally agreed-upon limits to this right shouting "fire" in a crowded but secure theater, for example. It seems clear that what the Dartmouth Review is engaged in doing is precisely analogous; it is shouting a racist and inflammatory message to a reasonably secure community with the potential for disaster.

Very simply, the Review is offensive to me and, I think, dangerous to Dartmouth. I believe that consideration of its right to exist goes well beyond the issue of free speech. I do not understand why legitimate means cannot be found to terminate its existence. And finally, I cannot understand why any alumnus would find it deserving of his or her support.

Peapack, N.J

The Dartmouth Review would undoubtedly find its own way to oblivion if administration, faculty, students, and alumni of the College confined their efforts to areas that make an institution great rather than providing visibility to juvenile and tasteless journalism.

Davidson, N.C

Once again, the Review has managed to make the national press, discrediting Dartmouth in the process. All this has been done under the protection of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Although this amendment guarantees the right of free speech, it should not give the staff of the Review permission to print matter that is insulting to minority groups, faculty members, or anyone else who does not see the "truth" of the Review.

This abuse of the First Amendment reaches well beyond the sheltered Hanover plain. The opinions of the Review covered by the national press do have a profound effect on outside views of the College, even if the Review is not considered the official Dartmouth paper. On May 26, for example, both major Boston papers ran articles on incidents stemming from a Keeney Jones article. One of them ran a full front-page headline entitled "HATE AT DARTMOUTH." Perhaps the national press doesn't consider the Review to be the official Dartmouth paper, but headlines like that are bound to cause adverse reflection toward Dartmouth. As members of the Dartmouth family, we, have not seen evidence of such hate, but friends, alumni, and prospective friends and parents could easily be misled.

publication. One possible action is to persuade those alumni who contribute to the Review that their donations do a disservice to the College. We hope that a large majority of alumni and alumnae share our view that the publication has done more harm than good for Dartmouth and that its editorialists must either mature or discontinue the paper. In addition to the recent actions of the U.G.C., faculty, and administration that overwhelmingly condemn the Review, we suggest that the entire Dartmouth community join in constructive action to eliminate this parasitic

Lowell, Mass.

The presence of three separate items in the June ALUMNI MAGAZINE prompt me to write.

First was the editorial hand-wringing over the presence on campus of the Dartmouth Review. Decried was the "psychological violence" perpetrated on women, minorities, and gays by the Review. (The item, interestingly, seemed to defend the physical violence perpetrated on a member of the Review staff by a College administrator.) But the Dartmouth Review, in short, was seen as a big pain to the administration.

And in a sense, I can see why it is. I have read the Review for two years and there is no question that it is in bad taste on occasion. There is no question that it has been hard, sometimes sophomorically so, on the conventional wisdom of the militants in the three groups noted above. But to cast the Review as the problem may miss the point.

Perhaps the Review is instead a symptom of a larger illness, the disaffection of a number of alumni and undergraduates for their college. Perhaps, as my class of '80 son told me, the College does actively cater to the noisiest representatives of the three groups on which that "psychological violence" has been heaped. Perhaps, indeed, the College continues today in the Kemeny tradition of being out of touch, through its actions, with large numbers of its constituents.

Which leads me to the other two magazine items: A letter by Robert C. Goodman lamenting C.O.S.O. financial support to the Gay Students Association and the article on philosopher Max Black and his lectures on "humbug." To which I say:

Does Dartmouth really believe it should give financial support to the Gay Students Association? How very extraordinary.

Milwaukee, Wisc.

I have read several issues of the Dartmouth Review and am very disturbed by the complete lack of decency and sensitivity shown in regard to the feelings of other Dartmouth men and women.

I have written to the editors of the Dartmouth Review reminding them that they do not represent the majority of the members of the Dartmouth community. Therefore, the word "Dartmouth" should not be in the title of their newspaper. I proposed a change of name which more accurately reflects their thoughts and beliefs, "The Archie Bunker Review."

East Dennis, Mass.

I am angry and ashamed to read the New York Times and see the name of my college linked to what I can only describe as racist filth. I am deeply offended by the young bigots of the Dartmouth Review who fancy themselves neoconservative intellectuals.

For those alumni fortunate enough to have missed the experience of the May 30 Times, I quote from the article:

"The most recent furor . . . developed over a column by Keeney Jones. The column, published in examination week, criticized the college's 'affirmative action' plan to recruit black students.

"The Jones column, written entirely in an imitation of black English, contained this sample paragraph:

" 'Dese boys be sayin' dat we be comin' here to Dartmut' and not takin' the classics. You know, Homa, Shakesphere; but I hea' dey all co'd in da ground, six feet unda, and whatcha be askin' us to learn from dem? We be culturally 'lightened, too. We be takin' hard courses in many subjects, like Afro-Am Studies, Women's Studies and Policy Studies. And who be mouthin' 'bout us not bein' good read? I be practicly knowin' 'Roots' cova to cova, 'til my mine be boogying to da words! An I be watchin' the Jeffersons on TV 'til I be blue in da face.'

The writer and editors have brought shame on themselves and shame on the name of our college. I respectfully request all alumni who are funding the Review through subscriptions to cut off their support. The paper is not the legitimate voice of alumni concerns over the future of our college.

The spell of Dartmouth has not touched these authors, for they have not absorbed the granite of New Hampshire into their beings. The chill north wind shrieks through their hearts, and mud season sloshes ever in their heads.

Austin, Tex.

The New York Times quotation from the scurrilous Dartmouth Review left me with a deep sense of shame for my college. I lament for your minority recruitment program unless you make it clear that the Review is not sanctioned by the College.

Can anyone, without license, assume the proud name of Dartmouth? May we next have the Dartmouth Communist and the Dartmouth Sodomist?

Where on earth did you nice folks dig up a professor like Jeff Hart? Does he have tenure? As an officer of the Alumni Council at Columbia's medical school, I know too well the difficulty of attracting the top minority students. If I were one I should hesitate to choose Dartmouth.

Great Neck, N. Y.

Regarding the June issue's column on the Dartmouth Review, I need some background information.

You report that the faculty deplored the Review's "vilification of individuals," "abuses of responsible journalism," etc. During the late sixties and early seventies, the left wing of the Dartmouth community was guilty of much worse. Where was the faculty then?

You also report that the'U.G.C. asked that the Review (to which I do not subscribe and have never even read) be prevented from using the name "Dartmouth" in its title. Please give me the dates when the following institutions (some now defunct) were forced to drop "Dartmouth" from their names: Dartmouth Cab Company, Dartmouth Smoke Shop, Dartmouth Variety Store, Dartmouth Travel Bureau, Dartmouth Dairy, Dartmouth Cooperative Society, Dartmouth National Bank, Dartmouth Savings Bank, Dartmouth Bookstore, Dartmouth Outdoor Sports, Inc.?

Manchester, N.H.

Your article in the June issue concerning the Dartmouth Review brings to mind a few thoughts I'd like to express. After being in Hanover recently for my 25th reunion, I'm convinced that the outlook there is considerably to the left of the midline of the political spectrum. The Dartmouth Review serves to present conservative ideas and opinions to a Dartmouth community which has had little exposure to them.

The furor described in this article, during which a Dartmouth student was.assaulted by an official of Dartmouth College, is a glaring example of the absurdity which has been present for some time in Hanover. This has been manifested by the administration's obsequious adherence to the pernicious ideals of affirmative action, resulting in pandering by the College to every whim of so-called minorities. For example, there are now Negro fraternities on campus. Whatever happened to the resolution of 1954 which banned fraternities with racial clauses? Racially oriented eating areas in Thayer Hall, as well as residential areas in dorms, have come about as I understand it. The College even sanctions homosexual organizations!

This alumnus has given considerably more to the Dartmouth Review in the past two years than to the Alumni Fund. I strongly urge alumni and others who feel as I do to support and to subscribe to the Dartmouth Review.

Birmingham, Ala.

{As previously reported in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, the Dartmouth chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha wasestablished in 1972 with an all-black, membership,which it retains to this day. A group of black womenstudents also recently founded a local chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority. According to the adviserof Alpha Phi Alpha, the fraternity "has absolutelyno rule forbidding any student, whatever the ethnicbackground, from seeking membership. It is absolutely forbidden by the national office of the fraternity tomake such a distinction." The adviser also points outthat there are several all-white fraternities atDartmouth.

As for dormitories, Cutter Hall has been set asideas a residence for black students; according to thedean's office, however, no "racially oriented eatingareas" have been designated in Thayer Hall. Ed.}

Actions and Sensibilities

How is it possible that an institution capable of the greatness, of a Webster, Hopkins, or Rockefeller can tolerate the base existence of a 53-year-old man (?) convicted of assaulting an undergraduate? The actions of Mr. Smith will go down in infamy along with those of the Dartmouth faculty that responded to the event, not with a righteous vote to throw the scoundrel Smith out, but rather with an overwhelming majority pointing a McCarthy-esque finger at the Dartmouth Review for "provoking the attack." The parallels between an academic institution festering in this type of hypocrisy and a nation capable of acquitting a John Hinckley are frightening indeed. It is perhaps some form of divine justice that makes Mr. Smith's department of employ the Dartmouth Alumni Fund. No good alumni, loyal to the honesty, pride, and objective introspection of a Dartmouth that no longer seems to exist, should find it hard to vote his pocketbook by cutting off the funds that promote such a person, such a faculty, or such an institution.

Charleston, S.C.

{The June issue carried a report of the altercationbetween Samuel Smith '49, associate director of theAlumni Fund, and Benjamin Hart 'Bl, a memberof the Review staff. Smith pleaded no contest tocharges of simple assault and was fined by the Hanover court. The College suspended Smith for a weekwithout pay and placed him on probation for threemonths. Ed.}

Having been preoccupied during the years since leaving Hanover with other matters, I have been only marginally aware of political developments on the Dartmouth campus. I have read and heard only a little about the Dartmouth Review, featured recently in some national news items.

I do, however, know Mr. Samuel Smith. In years past when I served as a Dartmouth liaison representative, I saw Sam Smith frequently during his annual visits as a Dartmouth admissions officer to high schools in Montana. The consensus among the high-school faculties in Billings during those years was that he was the best and most attractive of all the people from the many schools who regularly sent representatives here to interview students and acquaint them with their colleges' attributes and advantages.

One summer, Sam Smith and I fished together for several days in some of Montana's rivers. You get to know a man especially well when you spend time with him in the out-of-doors. It should be noted that Sam Smith is an excellent, scientific fly fisherman.

Although Sam Smith doesn't need a character reference from me or anyone else, I want it to be recorded that he is a kind and thoughtful gentleman, and I am certain he is not easily provoked. If he was provoked by the Dartmouth Review to the extent that he found it necessary to use force, that would have had to be mighty strong provocation. Without hearing either participant's side of the story, I would bet that Sam Smith's reaction to that provocation was fully justified.

Apparently, the writers and staff of the Dartmouth Review have been tasteless and irresponsible enough to cause at least one of their advisers a well-known conservative politician to ask that his name be removed from the advisory board of that publication. If quoted accurately in the press, some of the writing in the Dartmouth Review is inflammatory, racist, sexist, and the product of incredibly immature minds, militantly provocative and childishly trying to attract attention to themselves.

I think that freedom of the press should be accorded even to the Dartmouth Review. That freedom does not, however, include the right to harass persons with opposite views. If possible,. I would like my annual contribution to the Dartmouth Alumni Fund to be used to help defray Sam's court expenses. The sensibilities of reasonable, enlightened, and tolerant men should also have freedom of expression.

Billings, Mont.

One of the most perplexing facets of Dartmouth is its total inconsistency. On the one hand, it can sanction, through the awarding of honorary doctorates in 1981, the viciousness of an Oliphant (even the Washington Post doesn't carry him) and the self-righteous humbug of a second-rater like George Ball. Then, in 1982, it recoups all by awarding an honorary degree to Marshall Meyer, one of the truly decent and good people of our era. However, at the same time, it imposes penalties on Samuel Smith for refusing (to use Meyer's words) to "keep quiet" in the face of the Dartmouth Review's provocations.

If it is any consolation to Mr. Smith, whom I recall as one of the gentlest and mildest of men, he has literary precedent on his side. I quote from Tobias Smollett's Humphry Clinker:

"If, from the ignorance of partiality of juries, a gentleman can have no redress from law, for being defamed in a pamphlet or news-paper, I know but one other method of proceeding against the publisher, which is attended with some risque, but has been practised successfully, more than once, in my remembrance. A regiment of horse was represented, on one of the news-papers, as having misbehaved at Dettingen; a captain of that regiment broke the publisher's bones, telling him, at the same time, if he went to law, he should certainly have the like salutation from every officer of the corps. Governor took the same satisfaction on the ribs of an author, who traduced him by name in a periodical paper. I know a low fellow of the same class, who, being turned out of Venice for his impudence and scurrility, retired to Lugano, a town of the Grisons (a free people, God wot), where he found a printing press, from whence he squirted his filth at some respectable characters in the republic, which he had been obliged to abandon. Some of these, finding him out of the reach of legal chastisement, employed certain useful instruments, such as may be found in all countries, to give him the bastinado; which, being repeated more than once, effectually stopt the current of his abuse."

Chevy Chase, Md.

No Blessing

This is a response to the letter from Robert C. Goodman '34, which appeared in the June ALUMNI MAGAZINE.

The College "bestows its blessings" on "homosexuals" (the Dartmouth Gay Students Association) in the same manner that it bestows its blessings on the Native Americans at Dartmouth, International Students Association, Asian American Association, and the Dartmouth Women's Alliance. The only factor that these five groups have in common is that they are all recognized minority groups that are currently being funded by C.O.S.O. minorities that have all been oppressed for far too long.

The Dartmouth G.S.A. is not, as Mr. Goodman assumed, a gay "rights" group. The D.G.S.A. exists in order to educate both the gay and non-gay communities about the problems facing and being felt by gay people at Dartmouth and around the world, providing information to the Dartmouth community about gay life on and off campus, and providing a social alternative for the gay and non-gay college community. We provide a supportive environment where people gay, non-gay, or those not quite sure can discuss their feelings openly.

Perhaps it was with "prejudice" not "sorrow" that Mr. Goodman wrote his letter. His suggestion to "encourage College authorities to swing a bit to the right" would involve repressing a healthy outlet for students at a liberal arts college. Next time Mr. Goodman is on campus, we hope he attends a meeting and sees exactly who we are and what we do.

Finally, we encourage support and response from all alumni.

Hanover, N.H.

{Bruce Davidson chairs the Dartmouth Gay Students Association. Ed.}

Robert Goodman '34 recently took the College to task for awarding the Gay Students Association money. He asks what can encourage College authorities to swing to the right. I question Mr. Goodman's politics: The right to personal privacy is as sacred a tenet of conservative philosophy as property rights. And that is what is at stake: Can men and women do as they please in private? Or must the state or the College interfere?

For many years the state and the College have interfered. A gay students association is not recruiting; it's providing shelter from that interference. By making the contribution the College is not endorsing, but it is saying that it will not interfere. At least ten per cent of the population is homosexual. Science knows neither the causes nor the cures for either heterosexuality or homosexuality. Trying to prohibit homosexuality, or to destroy it as Hitler did (600,000), is senseless and cruel. Acceptance will allow gay men and lesbians to lead full lives and be contributors to our community.

Mr. Goodman believes in the strength of the family, as do I. But should that exclude all else? Were Mr. Goodman my father, and I his gay son, I would need another family of gay people at Dartmouth because that support would not come from my family.

Right or left is not the answer. The question is, should the College nurture men and women to know themselves and become self-assured adults? If my son Seth attends Dartmouth (class of '90), I hope the answer is still, "yes." Enclosed is my annual contribution.

San Francisco, Calif.

On "Terrorism"

Professor Joseph Bishop's article in the May issue on "Terrorism and the niceties of justice" misdirects our attention and conceals the real nature of the problem. And unfortunately, aside from Murray Janus' much-needed reminder of the importance of civil liberties, the invited commentators did little to bring the main issues before us.

The basic trouble is Bishop's declaration that he will not discuss "governmental terrorism." This means that he is defining out of existence, or at least out of sight, most of his real subject matter. The overwhelming bulk of terrorist acts are committed all around the world by governments, using police, regular or irregular armed forces, and unofficial killers. For examples we need not look first to Iran or Libya as Bishop suggests. Enough governmental terrorism exists in the United States' own backyard to turn the strongest stomach.

The C.I.A. has set the total number of deaths due to "terrorist violence" during the period 1968 to 1980 at 3,668. Their definition of "terrorist" is an artificially restricted one which parallels Professor Bishop's. But according to Amnesty International, almost that many people were murddred by government forces in Guatemala alone just during 1980. This one example can be multiplied many times over. And, of course, simply counting the victims does not tell the whole story. The revolting practice of torture is almost entirely a crime of governmental, rather than unofficial, terrorists.

Professor Bishop says that "the Soviet government has, of course, no principled objection to terrorism as such ..." since it supplies "money, arms, and training to many terrorist groups." Probably true. But it is remarkable to give no hint that the same indictment applies equally to the United States. Unfortunately, our own government has been deeply involved for many years in the brutal repression of human rights and lives in Latin America and elsewhere. The vicious regime in Guatemala was installed by a C.I.A.-organized invasion in 1954, and the use of "covert means" to "destabilize" Nicaragua is only one of the agency's current priorities. In El Salvador thousands of persons, including Archbishop Romero and other religious leaders, politicians, labor leaders, peasants, and many apolitical children, have been murdered by military and para-military forces. We have supplied precisely "money, arms, and training" to the killers and we are still doing so today.

If we really want to combat terrorism in the world, surely our first duty is to understand the problem in its true colors and dimensions. In my opinion Professor Bishop's article is an obstacle, rather than an aid, to this understanding.

Hanover, N.H.

(John Lamperti is professor of mathematics at theCollege. Ed.}

In Our Time

One nice thing about the DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE is that every so often it allows the spirit of being a student to rise above Big Green mythology and advertisement, the self-congratulation of the institution, and the careerism of those of us past the "Undergraduate Chair." While the legitimate jurists of Dartmouth past pontificate on what they call terrorism (Joseph Bishop, at al.), Rob Eshman '82 reminds us that the collegiality of Dartmouth students and their faculty often allows a broader interpretation of contemporary history than the Dartmouth Review and ALUMNI MAGAZINE letters might suggest.

Liberal America finds in its elite institutions of higher education the means for integrating "the best and the brightest" of all backgrounds into the gentility of a country apparently ruled by law. Yet Dartmouth's populist, democratic ideology and its relative seriousness about social inquiry contradicts in fine fashion the privilege and arrogance that allows "the powers that be" who hold the Korean War, Vietnam, and nuclear proliferation as their heritage to judge organizations of the globally powerless by their criteria of terror. That this issue would arrive in my mailbox just prior to the destruction of Lebanon is perhaps ironic, but not surprising. Establishment memories are short-lived. A Honolulu paper, reporting the recent I.R.A. offensive in London, noted that the "troubles" had been going on for 13 years, a few centuries short of reality.

Enough undergraduates in my time, and evidently today, realized these contradictions were central to our education to do something about social change. Eshman's wish that the debates of Dartmouth be more fully revealed in the pages of this magazine is appreciated. Yet our political arenas are different, one bounded by memories and the other by hopes. Twelve years later, the spring of 1970 is extended to a new class in a new way, which can share the tradition of the motto "In Our Time."

Honolulu, Hawaii

The "Undergraduate Chair" has been very well written this past year. It was disappointing to learn that the March issue of the magazine did not contain the column written by Rob Eshman, reportedly because it was considered by the administration to be "objectionable" to the "majority of alumni."

The article was, however, printed in the commencement-reunion issue of The Harbinger, a new student publication. The article is a lively, well-written account of the College Health Service Contraception Road Show.

Certainly the subject is one which alumni ought to be informed about. My classmates at reunion who attended Professor John Rassias' excellent lecture in 105 Dartmouth Hall on June 16 were not offended by his lively presentation of Maitre Pangloss' homily to Candide on the perils of venery, as reported by Voltaire. Forty years on, or at any age, are we to be sheltered from the facts of life as they are presented to undergraduates and as reported by undergraduates?

However well intended, censorship is offensive to the readers of the censored publication. As a former undergraduate editor of this magazine, I protest its use. Alumni have the right to be well informed about campus life by the undergraduate editors. The rationalizations of the administration as reported in The Harbinger are not persuasive.

This is the College where Ernest Martin Hopkins and the Board of Trustees built the fine faculty of the 1920s and 1930s from among the victims of academic witch-hunting on other campuses, and where President Eisenhower spoke his plea against joining the bookburners. I urge the magazine to reaffirm its commitment to freedom of expression.

Pittsburgh, Pa.

Was it really a "little sleight of hand" by the College they expected to slip through unnoticed? I'm referring to page 29 of your May issue ["High-level Change"].

It seems the College is looking for someone to monitor all publications (including this one, incidentally) to make sure the public sees what Dartmouth wants it to see and maybe nothing else.

Too- bad that Indian symbol fracas must have upset-the College more than we suspect. So now this.

I would hate to see our magazine turn into nothing more than a slick vehicle for selling property in Vermont and New Hampshire and Hitchcock chairs.

Chatham, Mass,

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