Letters

The rattlesnake at the SundaySchool picnic

A couple weeks ago I wrote my usual check for the Alumni Fund and mailed it. Then I took out the Dartmouth Song Book and scanned many of its pages noting especially the old traditions that have (failed) (changed). Then, and still, I thought it is time I should be the rattlesnake at the Sunday School picnic and ask a question that has been with me for awhile.

Is the (Dartmouth, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Pomona, Claremont) experience worth the $70,000 it costs, including books, travel, sport equipment, and other miscellany?

In parallel, are not educations at universities partly tax-supported - hence less costly to student families - just as'desirable? The quality of education and prestige associated with many is the equal if not the superior of those offered by the name schools.

Who will answer?

Los Altos, Calif.

"Fulsome detail"

It probably reflects a loss of critical acuity as I totter into senior citizenship, but despite the promise in the index to the Summer '85 issue, I was unable to find anything offensive or loathsome on the article on the Wentworth Bowl. This, despite my reading it instantly, avidly, and twice.

It seems to me that if you promise "fulsome detail" on page 3, you should deliver same on page 44. You never would have gotten away with it in Professor F. Cudworth Flint's freshman English course before World War II.

Gardiner, N.Y.

[ Mr. Orenstein was one of a number of alertreaders who wrote on the subject. I replied, inpart:

You are quite right in suggesting that weought to have been more careful with the usage.I remember looking it up before I wrote it; obviously, I didn't look far enough. The dictionarywe consult on day-to-day matters is Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. The firstentry under fulsome reads, "characterized byabundance: COPIOUS"; and under usage thereis the remark, "Many commentators condemnthe modern use of fulsome without perforativeovertones as misuse or ignorance. This use (sense1) is, however, the earliest and etymologicallypurest sense of the word. But since the perforative senses continue to flourish, expressions like'fulsome praise' can be ambiguous..."

Obviously, we should have avoided the phrase. Ed.]

"Some Thoughts onCommencement"

In "Some Thoughts on Commencement, 1985" (Summer issue), the Editor comments on the increased number of green armbands worn to protest College investments in corporations operating in South Africa. Would it not be appropriate for those wearers also to wear bands protesting the communistic controls and concrete wall across eastern Europe? Many more people are locked up behind that wall than exist in South Africa.

Yarmouthport, Mass.

Consideration

Thank you for the article about a truly great man, Orton Hicks. Let me give you an example of this.

In 1969, my wife's father, Adolph Weil of Montgomery, Alabama, died. Our son, Robert, was at Dartmouth at the time and the first leg on the way to the funeral was a puddle jumper to Boston, which had a mishap at some small airport damaging it enough so that it could not continue without any injuries. While they were waiting, a distinguished gentleman fell into a conversation with Robert who told him his name, that his grandfather had died, and that he was on the way to the funeral. Without a moment's hesitation, Orton Hicks said, "You are Pat Uhlmann's son and that is Mr. Weil of Montgomery, Alabama." He then proceeded to see that Robert got one of the limited number of seats on the small replacement plane at the sacrifice of a several hour wait for another plane for himself. The instant connection of our name with my in-laws was a marvelous piece of salesmanship. The thoughtfulness and consideration for a young man, and indeed for all of us, was humanship, the pleasant act of consideration none of us will forget.

Kansas City, Mo.

Sensitivities

The May issue of the Alumni Magazine quotes Provost Agnar Pytte as referring to Jacquelynn Baas, distinguished art historian and recently appointed Director of Dartmouth's Hood Museum of Art, as "Jackie."

Intrafaculty relations are less formal now than they were when I attended Dartmouth. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the provost would in publicly announcing the appointment to an important position of a black with the first name "William" refer to him as "Willie." In view of the administration's expressed concern for the sensitivities of minority groups, I am disappointed that apparently it is not equally concerned about the feelings of the many women who might reasonably consider the use of a nickname in a formal public statement as a denigration of Dr. Baas' position and accomplishments.

Kenilworth, N.J.

[You do have a point, Mr. Markson, but I'msure if you knezv Drs. Baas and Pytte, you wouldnever assume any slur was intended. As all whoknoW him will attest, Ag Pytte, (Who was myfreshman adviser some 23 years ago), is as warmand sensitive a man as you would find on campus. And Jackie is as unaffected as she is bright. Ed.]

Something of a coup

Isn't this something of a coup . . . two major features in the Summer issue by an undergraduate?

He's quite an intern, Fred Pfaff '85. His talent is impressive. I hope he's headed toward newspaper or magazine writing and huge by-line success. I could never measure up to Pfaff but, 10, I was an intern on your magazine under Charlie Widmeyer in '41 and '42.

Please forward my compliments!

Del Mar, Calif.

[Fred Pfaff '85, the son of Mr. and Mrs. WarrenG. Pfaff '51, who distinguished himself as awriter of both fiction and non-fiction as an undergraduate, is currently an associate editor at Marketing and Marketing Decisions in NewYork City. Ed.]

ROTC: a healthy, positiveinfluence

This is in response to several of the letters in your Summer edition concerning ROTC at Dartmouth. Having served on both sides of the ROTC program, I feel that I have a unique perspective on its place at Dartmouth. I attended Dartmouth on a four year ROTC scholarship and was one of the last commissionees when ROTC was voted off campus. More recently, I just completed two years as the officer in charge of an ROTC extension center in North Carolina.

In response to the arguments that ROTC classes will "displace regular classes" and "take precedence over regular college programs," I would like to make the following points. First, my memory is that only two of my twelve ROTC courses at Dartmouth received credit, and I took extra courses those trimesters. Second, ROTC is a voluntary program. No one has to take it. Third, it doesn't take any more time than any number of other voluntary programs available and offers many of the same benefits. If helping a student meet others with similar interests and develop leadership ability, self-confidence, communication skills, and ability to deal with stress is counter-productive to the liberal arts education process, then ROTC, along with fraternities, sororities, and most other voluntary organizations, should be banned from the Dartmouth campus. When I was a student, ROTC helped me develop my potential, and the counseling and training I received from the cadre were instrumental in my growth. As an assistant professor of military science, I watched many students grow in self-confidence and self-reliance as a result of the training and one-on-one coaching received in ROTC. In most cases, these students received individualized attention in the program that they could not get anywhere else on campus. And fourth, far from detracting from the student's academic performance, the self-discipline, problem-solving skills, and attention to detail learned in ROTC improved the cadets' academic performance. My cadets' average GPA was significantly above that of their peers. I believe that this is typical.

There is one other point I'd like to make about the appropriateness of ROTC on the liberal arts campus. My observation has been that the officers commissioned through ROTC provide a stabilizing and moderating effect on the Army and are a healthy and positive influence. Removal of ROTC programs from all liberal arts institutions would lead to a professional officer corps educated in greatly expanded military academies, where the exposure to "liberal" influences would be greatly restricted. As a 1971 graduate, I was amazed by the difference between the broad debate on Vietnam that I had been exposed to and taken part in, and the narrow "anybody that is against the war is a commie" attitude expressed by the 1971 military academy graduates that I met. Perhaps the relevant question is not "Does ROTC belong on a liberal arts campus like Dartmouth?" but "Do we want a military without Dartmouth-educated officers?" My answer to that question is a definite and resounding "No!" Where better to find the type of officer our country needs than Dartmouth?

ROTC isn't for everyone, but it provides an opportunity that should be available to those who want it, will benefit from it, and in some cases need it. I couldn't have attended Darmouth without the ROTC scholarship, and I know there are others like me today. Should they be deprived of the chance for a Dartmouth education because they choose to pay for it by serving their country for four years? I think not.

In summary, I applaud President Mc-Laughlin's decision.

Wilmington, N.C.

Enriching Dartmouth

The hormonal wailing characterizing much of the reaction to the return of ROTC to the College obscures the fundamental is sue - freedom of choice.

Dartmouth's global reputation for excellence has been primarily underwritten by a philosophy of providing its students an environment for informed choice in the context of personal responsibility, coupled with a steadfast refusal to make decisions for them. Over time, this approach has proven to be self-correcting, protecting the College from the excesses of either the left or right.

I am, admittedly, pleased that the return of Army ROTC offers the prospect of attracting to my service diverse, obviously talented leadership at a time when military issues are becoming increasingly complex while the consequences of error grow appallingly severe. However, I derive profound satisfaction from knowing that freedom of personal choice has returned to Hanover, affirming and enriching the essence of. Dartmouth.

Falls Church, Vir.

Make that five Guggenheims

The Alumni Magazine has, I know, featured the accomplishments of Louise Erdrich '76 in earlier issues. But in "The College" section of the May issue, in the box notably mis-headlined "Guggenheims: Four at one blow," the editors seem barely able to acknowledge that Ms. Erdrich has been awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship. To notice her award only "in addition to the four faculty members" who were so honored, to add briefly that she "also recieved . . ." is both patronizing in tone and dismissive in fact.

Handsomely deserved as the four faculty Guggenheims no doubt are, Ms. Erdrich's honor is the more remarkable in that she has, in the comparatively few years since she graduated, produced such fine writing as earned her a Guggenheim. Given how the box about the Guggenheims is paragraphed, it would appear that President McLaughlin and Dean Lahr were invited by the Magazine to comment on the faculty awards. That they were not invited to include comment on Ms. Erdrich's, or failed to do so, corroborates all too clearly the headline's implication that only "Four" of the five Guggenheims deserve major attention.

Ms. Erdrich's Guggenheim may not, of course, seem to the administration or the Magazine to have the in-house publicity value that's involved in faculty Guggenheims. But given how her award was treated in company with the faculy awards, the fact that the Magazine could not rouse itself to "Give a Rouse" for her (as well as for the eight male alumni so recognized in that column of the May issue) is to speak very simply - a disgrace.

Castine, Me.

[For the record, we're not much interested in the"in-house publicity value" Mr Booth alludes to;we were merely passing along to the Dartmouthcommunity the fact that four faculty members atthe College received the distinction of beingawarded Guggenheims in the same year. Thenotice of those azoards, which came ,to us via anews release, did not mention that Louise Erdrich '76 also received an award since she, likemany alumni recipients not on campus, wouldn'tbe mentioned, either. We thought enough of Ms.Erdrich's distinguished work to feature her onthe cover of the March issue of the Magazine, and, like all members of the Dartmouth family,take great pride in her latest award. Ed.]

Honoring Justice Blackman

I was shocked to see that Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun was awarded an honorary degree at the 1985 commencement. This man "found" a right in our Constitution, the right to an abortion, which somehow eluded the legislatures and judicial systems of 50 states, not to mention the sensibilities of the population at large, for scores of years. He "discovered" that human beings are not persons between the time they are conceived and come forth from their mother. Finally, he mandated this newly found "right" and remarkable discovery about human "personhood" as the law of the land, condemning 15 million (so far) to legalized death by shredding.

Whether history will condemn this man for egregious law, dubious biology, or barbaric ethics, or all three, is unclear. In any case, Dartmouth will one day be ashamed of the honor accorded Harry Blackmun.

Bolton, Mass.

The symbol: insignificant yetdistressful

It seems to me a little silly and a little sad that so many amongst us have identified their Dartmouth experience so passionately and so integrally with such a very superficial and tangential aspect of that experience as a team symbol or mascot. The apparent idea that many alumni's memories of Dartmouth are embodied by something as insignificant as a team symbol, in my mind, minimizes their real Dartmouth experience, and causes me to wonder about the depth of their perception of life in general. The symbol has nothing to do with the actual substance of the experience, yet in some minds it has seemed to replace or supercede the reality of that experience.

The continuing symbol controversy is additionally distressful to me because there are important things happening at Dartmouth that are being overlooked or insufficiently considered in the Dartmouth community because so many are so vociferously preoccupied with the symbol. There are presently at Dartmouth real controversies concerning ROTC, the College's position on and reaction to South Africa and its apartheid policies, the role of the faculty in the governing of the College, some questionable land development projects the College has undertaken or proposed, and, in my opinion, perhaps the most neglected issue facing Dartmouth at this time, the apparent evolution of the student body into a monolithic predominantly white upperclass group. There don't seem to be nearly as many middle-class kids as there were when I was at Dartmouth, and I believe this situation makes for a less interesting student population, a poorer education, a self-perpetuating sort of societal tunnel-vision, and, also, by the way, poorer football teams.

Based on the high cost of attending Dartmouth combined with the high cost of borrowing money for higher education, it is understandable that the student population is evolving the way it is; however, I believe that the Dartmouth community should question whether the direction of this evolution is desirable, and, if not, whether something can be done by Dartmouth to change the direction.

Hanover, N.H.

Resolving the controversy

If one can judge by the quantity of letters to the Editor of the Alumni Magazine, the issue of most interest to alumni over the last many months is certainly the one of the Indian symbol. As others have said, it's a wonder that the matter can't seem to be resolved. Perhaps a conclusion can be reached through a series of questions and answers.

Q: Should Dartmouth have a symbol or mascot?

A: Yes. It would provide a useful focal point, especially in athletics.

Q: Should the symbol have some reasonable connection with the College and/or its history?

A: Yes, if at all possible.

Q: Is there any significant value in continuing traditions?

A: Yes, if the traditions make sense.

Q: Should the symbol be one which a large number of Dartmouth people can rally around and be proud of?

A: Yes, if at all possible.

Q: Are there aspects of the Indian symbol that a significant number of people are concerned about?

A: Yes, those aspects that denigrate Native Americans.

Q: Is it possible to establish an Indian symbol which would contribute to the continuation of worthwhile traditions, serve as a meaningful focal point, and yet be devoid of negative connotations?

A: Yes. We could dispense with negative caricatures and half-naked warriors prancing about at athletic contests. Pictorial designations could denote heroism, strength, strong character, and anything else we deem to be appropriate and laudable. Individuals who show up in person to denote Indians would be dressed tastefully and would convey these same laudable characteristics.

Q: Who should make the decision to do this? When?

A: The College administration. Soon.

Q: What can any of us do to motivate action to accomplish this?

A: My intention is to contribute to the 1985 Dartmouth Alumni Fund one-half of the amount I earlier pledged. (I shall make no such deduction from the amount pledged to Thayer School, which seems to be safely outside this controversy.) When the matter is resolved to my satisfaction, I'll contribute the withheld amount (with appropriate matching gift actions).

San Rafael, Calif.

A little dignity

I was reading the "Give a Rouse" column in the summer issue of the Magazine (always nice to see former students distinguishing themselves), and it struck me that there is one entirely happy aspect of the Indian symbol controversy. I refer to the disappearance of the previous title of that column. For very young alumni who are fortunate enough not to remember, it used to be called "A Wah Hoo Wah for" and then followed news that someone had been appointed a federal judge, or become a vice president of G.E., or won a major prize.

I'm not a Dartmouth alumnus, but in 25 years of teaching at the College I have gotten extremely fond of the place, and that ridiculous heading used to make me wince a little. Sort of like having an otherwise quite honorable and even dignified president of the United States who insisted on calling himself Jimmy, as if he were still eight years old. Or like the intelligent woman I know who invariably refers to the animals she raises as "doggies."

Whatever else the controversy has done, at least it has given some dignity to the way in which the College recognizes some of the accomplishments of her graduates. For that, people on both sides can surely be grateful.

Thetford Center., Vt.

Pretensions

I have just gotten around to reading James Tremblay '55 on the symbol (Jan./ Feb. '85). Exactly. Bring back the symbol but as a symbol of a new Dartmouth commitment to improving the lives of Native Americans. They need all the educational and economic help they can get, and then some.

But if the College will make no new commitment, bring it back anyway. As another writer suggests, the truly supersensitive need not "cause themselves a pain by attending Dartmouth." Dartmouth is already benefiting individual Native Americans by giving them the opportunity for education. Probably not too many will find that the pain in reality outweighs the opportunity.

One can eventually sicken, as I have in other areas and am about to in this one, of the pretensions of professional minority ideologists to dictate the terms on which they will receive benefaction. Accepting or ignoring the Indian symbol, objectively, is not that degrading.

In fact, now that they have graduated to being Native Americans, they can laugh off the Indian bit as silly white man's foolishness. It is, but we love it.

Bridgton, Maine

The Indian symbol (cont.)

So, I read that in Hanover it is "hoped that the Indian symbol will go away." Well, as an unreconstructed alumnus, I will venture to predict that the controversy about it will not go away until someone in the administration gets around to doing what a previous administration failed to do: to teach these modern young Indians that generations of Dartmouth men have honored the Indian students who have come to Dartmouth as members of a noble race. We knew that they were proud of their heritage, and we were proud to have them as fellow students and members of the Dartmouth family.

But the real reason tor writing this letter is to point out that the Indian symbol has never gone away, and will never go away as long as it remains enshrined, as it is, praise be, in the official seal of Dartmouth College. Take a look all you Dartmouth students, and all you Dartmouth alumni. There they are, two little Indians standing just beneath the words "Vox Clamantis in Deserto." If you examine them closely, as I have, I think you will agree that they seem to be quite proud and happy to be Dartmouth students.

Now if the proponents of substituting the timber wolf as the Dartmouth symbol are to succeed (God forbid), it would seem that they must be consistent and demand that the two Indians depicted on the official seal of the College be removed and replaced by a pair of timber wolves. There is ample room for them on the path leading to the entrance to Dartmouth Hall. The words "Vox Clamantis in Deserto" should also be removed as they lose significance if the Indians are expurgated.

It would seem, moreover, that in order to avoid any charge of discrimination or sexism by our female students, one of the timber wolves should be depicted as a lady timber wolf. After all, we must please everyone, even if we look somewhat silly doing it.

Boston, Mass.

On target

Congratulations on your publication of Prof. Charles T. Wood's "A Humanist Ponders the Future of Liberal Education." Ever since the Association of American Medical Colleges came out with a strong report on the necessity of a broader, and presumably liberal, education for students preparing for medicine, I have been accumulating notes for a statement as to why this should be so. The AAMC member schools only accept seven percent non-science majors and we cannot look to them for a justification. It is society at large that seems to be crying for a different kind of M.D.

In my opinion, Prof. Wood's article hit the nexus with the following two sentences: In effect, even though students think they are studying causes, they are really learning how to analyze consequences, how to predict (as they will later have to do in the "real world") the likely result of decisions made ... It is, after all, infinitely preferable for someone to learn from being wrong about the fall of Rome than about the performance of the stock market today.

I would add, in my experience, this kind of training seems to help in the analysis of clinical situations and, conversely, when a good college education is omitted, the lack of training in the "likely result of decisions made" is painfully obvious. His final paragraph hints at the affective dimension of life in the market place. For every chairman of Merrill Lynch, there will be 50 Dartmouth-type "yuppies" who are not chosen as the pyramid of their particular organization narrows at the top. Surely, it is those who have nourished an impractical passion, e.g. Prof. Wood's "love of the Middle Ages," who will prove resilient in the face of life's inevitable shocks.

These thoughts on training in the analysis of consequences and on the practicality of an impractical passion, need to be enlarged to strengthen the case of the high tuitions involved. I, for one, would enjoy further comments from alumni, particularly those in the applied sciences, on Prof. Wood's article.

South Bend, Ind.

The Dartmouth Alumni Magazine welcomes comment about College affairs and the editorial content of this Magazine. The Editor reserves the right to determine the suitability of letters for publication, using as standards accuracy, relevance, and good taste. Letters should not exceed 400 words and may be edited at the discretion of the Editor. Letters must be signed, with address and telephone included for verification. .