Letters

The legacy of Dick's House

I enjoyed the recent article on Dr. John Turco as director of Dick Hall's House. Since I began working with him on our class project, I have been very impressed with his dedication to Dick's House. He has made our committee feel welcome and even needed in the effort to preserve Dick's House as the special place it is. I was disappointed, however, that no mention was made of the efforts of the Classes of '27 and '77 with regards to this project considering that this is the alumni magazine. We, the '77s, have just begun, but the Class of '27, Dick Hall's class, has followed the house through the years trying to do whatever they could to keep Dick's House a "home away from home" for the students. I intend to see that we follow that same goal for the next 50 years.

At present, I'm trying to compile a history of what the '27s have done at Dick's House lest we forget. Any information from alumni on that subject would be appreciated.

Goffstown, N.H.

No place for ROTC

I write to the Alumni Magazine for the first time in the nearly 15 years since my graduation, to endorse the eloquent and timely reasoning displayed in my classmate Gene Bryant's letter (Sept. '85).

Those of us who worked so hard to abolish military training from the Dartmouth course offerings over a decade ago did so for a variety of motives, but we were all compelled by an unalterable conviction that military training has no place in a liberal arts curriculum. This simple fact has not been made any less true, or any less in need of repeating, in the intervening years. The Dartmouth faculty periodically de- termines which courses are or are not of sufficient intellectual merit to deserve to be presented for credit at an institution of higher learning. As we said then, and as we reiterate now, war is not among them.

Brooklyn, N.Y.

Grow up!

My husband, Class of '34, and I deplored the inane high jinks of the freshman class during the half at the recent rainy HarvardDartmouth game. It is to be hoped that before June '89 rolls around, these kids will learn some manners. I also learned, to my disgust, that the big drum which usually accompanies the Harvard band was not in evidence because Dartmouth was in town. The silence of their big drum tells a lot about Dartmouth's image in Cambridge.

Grow up, Dartmouth!

Marblehead, Mass.

Alumni blackmail

The Letters section of the Alumni Magazine has, over the nearly 19 years of issues I've received, struck me as a rather benign collection of polite banter. From the crotchety whinings of devout conservatives to the Utopian formulas of modern thinkers, nothing much has had the edge and conflict of the intense ravings that are printed in our local daily newspapers.

Of the recurrent themes in the Letters section, such as the Indian symbol (how many years has this been going on?) and ROTC, there seems to be the "I'm going to withhold my formidable potential alumni contribution because " Fill in the blank with the reason of your choice.

I suspect that these threats are issued by the guys who, as fathers, try to exert the same kind of blackmail on their children in order to coerce them into a philosophical and life-style regimen in the parental mold (sorry female alums, but you are a few years away from this kind of leverage).

The letter from John Barchilon '60 is probably one of the classics in alumni blackmail, wherein he wraps himself in a full cloak of radical conservatism, "patriotism," and racist innuendo to conceal what emerges in his transparent letter as basic, old-fashioned stinginess. By his own admission, Mr. Barchilon's contributions to his alma mater have been "paltry," supposedly because of the "liberal" persuasion of the faculty and curriculum. I'll bet that his support would remain wimpy if the Dartmouth degree were awarded for a course of study imported from Bob Jones University and approved by Jerry Falwell.

In view of the fact that the College is missing out on the funds available from such a benefactor, it might be worthwhile to find out exactly how much Mr. Barchilon would contribute if a few courses were dropped and a few professors fired. Would it be worth it? Since he has made the challenge, why not ask to see all his cards on the table?

Historically, Dartmouth has relied on much of its funding from politically conservative benefactors. Fortunately, the College has not allowed this to influence the free exchange of ideas that has existed there. (Will geology majors someday receive a degree for a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament?) As the radical right pressures its belief systems into education, it is increasingly vital for educators to resist the book-burning mentality. I hope Dartmouth will remain its old stodgy, ivy-covered self, immune to the ravings of the day.

Thanks for printing Mr. Barchilon's letter. It helped to keep the sophomore in me alive and well.

Kirkland, Wash.

Many happy returns

I have just received a lovely pewter bowl from the Dartmouth Alumni. Fund inscribed: "With gratitude for 60 consecutive years of giving/' an award of which you may be sure I am justly proud. When we graduated, our class voted to assume the obligation to reimburse the College the amount by which the cost to the College of our education exceeded our tuition payments (then, believe it or not, $1,000 per classmate). Then came the days of the Great Depression and collections were difficult. Our class agent pleaded with us to send him "something, if even an old. suspender button" to show our recognition to the College for the superb liberal arts education as well as four of the happiest years of our lives. The gift of the bowl and its symbolism moves me to send this message to the soonto-be-graduating seniors: Consistently responding to Dartmouth's needs, in whatever form, is one of the soundest investments you will ever make in life-long self-satisfaction and an affectionate return from the Dartmouth we all love.

Marblehead, Mass.

No easy decision

To divest in South Africa or not to divest! Today it was announced that Columbia University, first among the Ivy League, colleges, had decided to divest itself of many of its South African holdings. Today Columbia, tomorrow possibly Dartmouth.

The decision is not an easy one to make. The tragedy is that had the United States government taken a firm stand against apartheid as little as two years ago, instead of the weaseling and waffling the world has had to witness, there is a very good chance the South Africans by now would have found the means to replace the Botha government -this for their own economic well-being.

Apartheid will finally be replaced and South Africa will again achieve a strong and stable economy; yet with a more foresighted government in Washington it is believed much of the death, turmoil, and economic ruin presently engulfing the nation might have been avoided.

New Haven, Conn.

The symbol (cont.)

The opponents of the Indian symbol are wrong educationally, morally, and politically. A few serious points:

1. The opponents are wrong educationally in setting a disgraceful intellectual example. Their position amounts to a demonstration that one should simply succumb to a minority demand, no matter how indefensible that demand. That is to say, one should not apply to a minority assertion the ordinary standards of rationality. This is an atrocious position, morally and educationally.

2. The opponents' position that the Indian symbol is racist fails self-evidently. You do not make a college symbol out of something you dislike. The United States did not put Indian heads on its coinage to condemn Indians, any more than it meant to condemn Lincoln or Kennedy by putting them on the coinage.

3. Some argue that though the Indian symbol is not racist, it nevertheless is "perceived" as racist. To which it must be replied that if a man "perceives" the moon to be made of green cheese, it nevertheless is not.

4. The weakness of the opponents' case has forced them to lie. Yes, lie. The Indian symbol was not an invention of sports writers during the 19205. I can produce Indian head senior canes dating from before World War I. Indians appear on the College Seal. The Indian symbol is deeply rooted in Dartmouth's past, and it is not educationally pleasant to lie about it.

5. Sometimes, sophisticated opponents of the symbol hedge their lies by saying that the Indian symbol became prominent in "sports" during the 19205. But before World War I, football was more like today's rugby clubs. Look at the photographs. It was in fact during the 1920s that the football and other teams crystallized a formal identity. There was nothing artificial at that time for Dartmouth to "adopt its thoroughly traditional Indian symbol as a logo for its teams. The Indian had deeper roots in Dartmouth tradition than the Yale bulldog or the Princeton tiger.

These truths are so plain, as a Virginian once said, as to be self-evident. When will the liberal mentality stop lying about them, and patting itself on the back for doing so?

Hanover, N.H.

[Professor Hart, a nationally-syndicated columnist, teaches English at Dartmouth. Ed.]

The symbol: Missing the point

The tone of recent letters to the AlumniMagazine conveyed the strong suggestion that quite a few readers are becoming fed up with the interminable Indian symbol debate. That led me into thinking that perhaps at long last, the damned thing would wither away.

The debate has always involved a certain aura of unreality since, to the best of my recollection, the Indian symbol never did play much of a part of our undergraduate life: .a painted undergraduate cavorting during halftime at football games, the gaudy stationery that enterprising salesmen unloaded on incoming freshmen, those silly murals in the Hovey Grill, not much more. When we exhorted the team on, it was never the "Indians" but invariably, "C'mon, Big Green!" With such institutions as Harvard, Cornell, and Alabama content to have nothing more than a color (three variations of red) for their symbol of collegiate identity, it seemed reasonable that Dartmouth would end up doing the same. Coming from a town that lives or dies, on the fate of our Redskins, I have nothing personally against the Indian symbol. As it clearly does offend some people, however, I expected most alumni to acquiesce eventually in its quiet burial. After all, it was no great deal.

But when I read our most recent class newsletter, still fulminating and pledging to fight to the end for our beloved symbol, I realized I'd missed the point. The debate is not going to die out all that easily because it isn't really about the Indian symbol at all. The Indian has become (sorry about this) a symbol for what really bugs the protesters: all those dire changes that have taken place since our far-off undergraduate - days women in the College, vocal minorities, things like the black student movement in the sixties, the decline of varsity football, the (just reversed) dropping of ROTC, gay student organizations, such true abominations as leading off the Alumni Magazine's sports section with an article on women's field hockey. What the Indian symbol really offers is a vehicle for criticizing the College, and the world, for changing.

I sympathize with them. Those were delightful days back in the forties and fifties when we undergraduates were overwhelmingly white, macho (we fondly hoped), beer-guzzling males from similar backgrounds, knowing where we stood in a far less complicated world. We can't openly argue in favor of racism or sexism or elitism today, and most of us really wouldn't want to, but we can let off nostalgic steam yammering for the Indian symbol.

Bethesda, Md.

Survey says . . .

When controversy flares, discussion is a healthy release. However, when discussion degenerates into quarreling, communication stops, and emotion prevails over reason. The controversy over the Indian symbol has too often lapsed into emotionally charged quarreling. The Dartmouth Club of Southern California attempted with a brief survey to promote discussion among our members. While small in its sample, it may be of use to the community at large in measuring alumni opinions.

Our January 1985 luncheon was an open, tolerant, and lively discussion of the issue. Those present agreed to polling the club's active membership to gather a wider sample of viewpoints in this region. A substantial 54 percent of the 250 alumni polled responded to the questionnaire. The five survey options were: 1) The College should adopt the traditional Indian symbol. 2) The College should adopt a new Indian symbol designed with respect for and understanding of Native American tradition. 3) The controversy over adopting the Indian symbol is divisive and detracts from the higher purposes of Dartmouth College. The Indian symbol should be considered "history" and put behind us. 4) The College should adopt another symbol such as the Timberwolf. 5) Other (with a written opinion). The respondent could voluntarily identify his or her class, as did 91 percent of the respondents.

The overall results of the survey indicate a broad spectrum of opinion, which Explains why the controversy shows no sign of subsiding. Forty-seven percent of those polled preferred the adoption of the traditional Indian symbol. Nineteen percent advocated a newly-designed Indian symbol. Thirty-four percent suggested that the Indian symbol remain "history." (Thirtyseven percent of this sub-group thought that it follows that the College should adopt a new symbol. The most common slogan suggested was "Big Green.")

When examined more closely, the survey results indicate a sizable generation gap on the issue. The more senior classes (up to and including the Class of 1969) show strong support (62 percent) for the traditional Indian symbol. Many older class members commented that they do not understand why the traditional Indian symbol offends anyone. Thirteen percent opted for a newly-designed Indian symbol. Twentyfive percent of the older class members think that the Indian symbol should be put behind us.

Of the younger class members surveyed (Class of 1970 and after), eighteen percent advocated adopting the traditional Indian symbol. Twenty-eight percent advocated designing a new Indian symbol. Fifty-four percent preferred that the Indian symbol remain "history."

For those who have followed this issue through the years, the results of this survey may seem to confirm the obvious. At any rate, it begins to quantify factions of alumni opinion, and it indicates continuing polarization. Comments on two returned questionnaires eloquently summarize what continue to be fervent, although opposing, viewpoints on the symbol controversy. They crystalize the best of what rational discussion can be: A '55 wrote, "I suspect that complaints about the abuse of the Indian symbol were well founded, but dropping it entirely was a poor solution. The problem should have been corrected by properly emphasizing the dignity and significance of the American Indian and Dartmouth's history with the education of Native Americans. This could have been a very worthwhile contribution to enhancing the image of a proud group of people."

A '76 commented, "Dartmouth's alumni are her finest asset. Each of us has benefited from the Dartmouth that we experienced. Rather than focus on the Dartmouth that was, we should concentrate on the College that is today, and on what she can become in the future. Let's turn our energies towards attracting the young people who will be her future alumni, and to contributing our time, energy, and, yes, money to making our college the best she can be. The time has come to become a family again."

Los Angeles, Calif.

A neat mouthpiece for The Review

Publishing Professor Mirsky's letter, which he alleges The Dartmouth Review would not print, made the Alumni Magazine a neat mouthpiece for opposition to the Review. An editorial footnote indicated that Mirsky taught at the College from 1967 to 1975. There was no editorial eyebrow raised that he was again teaching at the College.

Having attended a late summer's symposium sponsored by the history department of the College, I went downtown to Lou's for coffee and told a recently retired executive of the College about the afternoon's "lecture. ' I said that Professor Mirsky was a member of the panel representing the College. "You're crazy," he said. "Mirsky was fired."

Naturally one would ask such questions as "Was Mirsky fired? If so, why? Did the history department stage an end-run on the administration in getting him back?" All this seems important because the matter refers to the days of the invasion of Parkhurst Hall. College students went to prison; faculty members did not. Yet a certain portion of the faculty had ceased to use the scientific method of teaching and had become provocateurs of sorts, making reaching an act of proselytism.

If publications of the College or the Hanover community can keep the public and the alumni body assured that the scientific method of teaching (weigh, measure, and count) is used in the College departments of political science, history, economics, and sociology, then intellectual ferment should be healthy on Dartmouth's campus.

Lyme Center, N.H.

A place in my heart

Just a note to say thanks for the piece you did in the Summer number on the Dartmouth Fragment. It was not only well done, it has brought some response from alums.

Secondly, this new issue (September) is especially handsome, particularly the cover. It reminds me of the very best volumes of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin. I also have a fond place in my heart for the Assyrian Reliefs, having worked so often in the British Museum. The front cover certainly did a remarkably good job of capturing the static grandness of one of our reliefs. Bravo!

Hanover, N.H.

[Professor Summers chairs the Department ofMusk at the College. Ed.]

The Dartmouth Alumni Magazine welcomes comment about College affairs arid 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.