Letters

The NAD Statement

As I read NAD's advertisement in the December issue of the Alumni Magazine, I was very encouraged. They put together what I felt was an excellent presentation of history and a clear explanation of why they object to the Indian symbol. I hoped that this convincing advertisement would help finally put the Indian symbol to rest.

As I turned to the next pages and read the letters to the editor, I became very discouraged. Of 14 letters, seven were in support of the Indian symbol; none was against. From the letters, I could tell that even the reasoned arguments outlined in the NAD advertisement will not have any influence on alumni such as those who wrote.

I can understand the alumni's feelings. The Indian symbol is a very strong identity in their memories of their college days. They do not think of the symbol as at all offensive-in fact, since it is a symbol they all identify with, how could it be offensive in their eyes? They do not understand why Native Americans and others at Dartmouth are offended by the symbol, and no amount of explaining will ever get them to understand.

The way I look at it, there are people who find the Indian symbol offensive, and that in and of itself makes the symbol unacceptable. It's not just one or two people, or a small group of people in one class. Each year it's been 20, 50, 100, and more people expressing their offense for over 10 years. These are people who are as much a part of the Dartmouth family as are the alumni who "cherish" the symbol. Unfortunately, there are many who do not see the issue this way.

As long as there are members of the Dartmouth family who remember being proud to call themselves a Dartmouth Indian, the issue will remain. I hope that NAD and others who oppose the use of the Indian symbol can hold out. More recent alumni may have worn Indian T-shirts, but because of the controversy over the symbol, they can't have developed the strong, positive memories of the Indian symbol that are present in those who graduated before the seventies.

This controversy may well continue for 50 years, but eventually, if NAD and others continue their annual fight, it will die out. I usually contribute to both the Alumni Fund and the Tucker Foundation. This year, my contributions to both will go to NAD to provide moral as well as some financial support for their annual defense.

Kittery Point, Me.

The "NAD Rejects Review Poll" advertisemen was an insult to the intelligence of a great number of alumni. It was signed by 37 undergraduates out of 4000. Unfortunately S. Avery Raube '30 used percentages, not numbers [in his poll], but it can be assumed that his positive responses outnumber the 37. In this country, the majority wins. If the country is honest. It was my understanding that the chief, sachems, and elders spoke for a tribe. If a youngster disputed his elders, he got up in a tribal meeting to present his views. None of the 37 has indicated doing so to change the results of the poll. A tribe is not a political body as we citizens of the U.S. have. When those 37 signers prove they tried to change the tribes' responses, we can believe their honesty. When will the administration stop kowtowing to the LOUD minority (from the 60s and 70s) and return the College to the sound fundamentals we knew under Hopkins?

Wyncote, Penn.

With reference to the NAD advertisement in the December Alumni Magazine, "methinks they protest too much."

If the purpose of the ad was to eliminate the "non-issue" once and for all, an entirely opposite effect has been achieved. In effect the NAD is suggesting that the leaders of the Indian nations are incapable of knowing when they are being conned or of deciding on their own what is right or wrong. What could be more demeaning . . . and by their own progeny!

Unfortunately, the Indian chiefs did not have the benefit of the NAD's thinking and exposure to group pressures, so how would they know how to respond "correctly"? Apparently, the few "insiders" exposed to the NAD programs find the symbol demeaning while most of the "outsiders" do not!

All this brings into serious question the purposes and end results of the various "studies" programs at Dartmouth. Do they promote divisiveness and isolation or harmony and integration among the Dartmouth communities of interest? More importantly, what impact has this educational imperative had on other segments of the curricula in preparing students for the real world?

Perhaps the faculty ought to take a closer look at what they have wrought overall during the last decade. Specifically, it is apparent that a change in the direction and attitude of the NAD and the Native American Studies would be a logical step forward to resolve the symbol issue, once and for all . . . and give hope to alumni and others that liberal extremism is finally moderating on the Dartmouth campus.

North Palm Beach, Fla

I am moved to write my first letter to this publication by a curious contrast observed in the December issue. On pages 6 and 7, a letter by the Native Americans at Dartmouth appeared as a paid advertisement. On the following pages, in this column, were several pro-Indian-symbol letters by Dartmouth alumni. The former attempted to push us towards a broader perspective and understanding. The latter attempted to bind us more closely to a faded status quo. The contrast was sharp and provocative. ,

I mean no disrespect to alumni favoring the return of the Indian symbol. I understand that alumni loyalty and support are vital to the health of the institution. But the institution does not exist to please alumni. It is not a particular physical plant, nor a particular social environment, nor a particular set of images and symbols. Rather, it is an ever-changing panorama of opportunities and experiences, molded around common goals and ideals, designed to stimulate creative thought and action. It strives to prepare students to confront and master the challenges of their age. The challenges change, the students change, and the institution the visible institution must also be willing to change. Alumni must not only permit, but actively support, its evolution. Traditions and cherished memories are important, but not when they blind us to a need for change, nor when they blind us to injury we inflict on others. Alumni should be more concerned with ensuring the constancy of Dartmouth's goals and achievements, and less with ensuring the constancy of images that conform reassuringly to undergraduate memories. Loyalty belongs to the institution, not to a symbol.

I understand that many alumni have deep emotional ties to the Indian symbol, and heartfelt interest in its restoration. But the fact remains that a certain group of people those from whom Dartmouth took the symbol take profound offense at it. Most alumni cannot relate to that offense. Most of us have never been the subject of racial slur or caricature. Most of us have never seen our customs and dress and ceremonies bastardized and satirized on a football field. Most of us have never been somebody's mascot. We can't know how it feels, but we can as sensitive and humane individuals - take the word of those who do, and halt the offense.

I suspect that if the subject of the caricature were a black or Jew, we would be a lot more attentive to the opposition. Instead, the subject is a Native American, and Native Americans have enjoyed neither the cohesive image nor the political and economic clout of those other minorities. We would find it in poor taste to publicly demean a black or Jew in the name of Dartmouth - or at the very least, not politically expedient; we pride ourselves on being more open-minded than that. But despite the fact that our own Native American students have repeatedly and clearly stated that the Indian symbol degrades them, alumni still push for its restoration. The potential for hypocrisy is disturbing; values should not be governed by expediency.

Whether or not Native Americans "should" feel degraded by the symbol, from a distant and coolly secure majority perspective, is not the quesiton. Clearly, they do. How we respond to that feeling is what's important, and that may reflect a lot of what we really learned at Dartmouth.

I urge every alumnus who has not done so to read the letter by the Native Americans at Dartmouth. I urge you not just to listen, but to hear. That letter contains much that is thought-provoking; I urge you to think about it with curiosity and generosity of spirit, and with open mind. I urge you also to consider the feelings you might have over loss of the Indian symbol. "Saddened, infuriated, frustrated, disappointed" many possibilities come to mind; however, I am hard pressed to imagine that "degraded" will be among them. That is an important distinction.

New Orleans, La.

The Alumni Magazine did not report on TheReview's survey of Indian tribal chiefs nationwide on the Indian symbol issue. Thus many alumni were probably confused to see a prominently featured two-page advertisement by Native Americans at Dartmouth (NAD) attempting to refute this survey in the last issue of the Alumni Magazine.

By way of clarification, The Review sent a questionnaire to more than 300 tribal chiefs across the country, describing the controversy Over the Indian symbol, informing them that it was banned from official use some 10 years ago because some Indians and others felt it stereotyped the Indian race, and asking them their opinions about whether the Indian should be returned as Dartmouth's symbol.

This was an important poll because for more than a decade, Professor Michael Dorris and NAD have maintained not just that they subjectively dislike the Indian symbol, but that it was racially offensive and for that reason should be outlawed.

The results of the Indian chiefs survey revealed that, far from being unanimously opposed to the Indian as a hateful sterotype, the vast majority of Indian spokesmen were strongly in favor of the Indian, and wanted it back at Dartmouth. One hundred twenty five chiefs favored the Indian, 11 were opposed, and 15 had no opinion.

But these statistics do not even begin to reflect the enthusiasm with which the overwhelming majority of chiefs endorsed the Indian symbol. "It would be an honor to have the Indian as a symbol," said a Creek Nation chief. "We would be delighted if the symbol was re-instated for Dartmouth," according to a Paiute spokesman. "I don't think it's racist that's crazy," wrote a Cayuga chief. "It is self-destructive for Indians to try and do away with their heritage," said another chief. "Our tribe voted unanimously that a dignified Indian symbol would be an honor to the Indians," wrote another chief.

And so on. There are more than 100 such endorsements from more than 50 tribes. As Fortune magazine remarked, The Review has "stunningly established" the support of tribal chiefs for the Indian, and "there's no rational reason why it has to be offensive." Naturally, Professor Dorris and NAD officers are dismayed to discover that they are so out of touch with their alleged constituency. They do not like to read statements like,

"Do not become a victim of reverse racism from a small group of urban Indians who have blood quantums of 1/16 or less of Indian blood," as Chief Arthur Welmas of the Cabazon Indians of California advised the Dartmouth community.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion about the Indian symbol. Everyone is not entitled to his own facts about the Indian. The facts show that the Indian symbol is popular not only with the vast majority of alumni and students, but also with Indian chiefs across the country.

Princeton, N.J.[The author is a former editor of The DartmouthReview. Ed.]

Revelations

I found your issue of November '84 one of the most interesting in recent years!

The letter of Arthur H. Lord '10 is priceless. We should encourage more information from our older alumni on their experiences while in Hanover. I applaud Mr. Lord's effort to bring back memories of the days when a college education seemed a rare privilege, though far less expensive than presently!

I suspect that pranks on the president of the College are much less prevalent these days, but what a story Mr. Lord told of his prexy's unexpected ride in that hand-drawn buggy!

It does recall a somewhat less similar prank which involved yours truly and my former third baseman, Brainy Bower, not directly on our Prexy Hopkins, but upon the C&G house where the great Hoppy was speaking at their Strawberry Festival, in the spring of 1920. In those days there was a friendly rivalry between my club, Sphinx, and C&G. Brainy and I were strolling by the C&G house when we heard Prexy's voice through the open front door. The window of a front room was also

open, and we then saw a person leaving a huge platter of strawberry shortcake on a table, after which he withdrew to the room where a crowd was listening to their president. Brainy looked at me and the same thought rushed through both of us! Why not? Brainy, being a lot smaller, quietly stepped through the window and handed the platter of shortcake out to me. I quickly took off my sweater and covered the shortcake as we hustled down to the "tomb" where several of our brothers helped ourselves to a most delicious cake!

Hoppy, who befriended many athletes among others, became a very good friend of mine, and when we met on the Yankee Clipper, returning from New York several years later, I revealed that we had been the culprits! Hoppy got a genuine kick out of the revelation!

I feel for Joe Yukica and his band of football players! The poor old Ivy League is not in the same league as these Florida teams, and many others. The schools here are truly professional, and as some sportswriter wrote recently, why not pay them salaries?

Delray Beach, Fla

A Little Much

The article by Mary Ross ("Thayendanegea Joseph Brant '53: A Reverance for the Past") spoiled an otherwise interesting Oct. 1984 issue. Dartmouth College represents a quest for truth, for the advancement of knowledge. Like their colleagues, most Dartmouth scholars and scientists rely on underpinnings for logical thinking, such as John Stuart Mill's principles for knowing about causes and the scientific process. Thus, two full pages about (formerly) George F. Reinhard's claim to have been a Mohawk chief sometime among his (supposed) previous lifetimes was a little much. To top it off, the gentleman encourages research in psychic phenomena. It would be refreshing if, for once, a person who conjured up a previous life claimed only to be an unimportant, nondescript person. Also, the top (but less publicized) researchers in psychic phenomena are quick to admit that their field offers scant hard evidence of any paranormal events. They cringe when people like Brant make overzealous assertions, because it opens their field to ridicule. They know well how magicians and the recent Project Alpha have exposed the lack of controls in psychic research.

Brant espouses psychic research at Dartmouth. Instead, money would be better spent to teach students that having an open mind is not the same as treating all ideas equally, and that overreliance on anecdotal evidence alone has led many scholars far astray. The most consequential product of scientific research has not been (and likely will not be) the discovery of principles related to extra-sensory perception, but rather the enhanced understanding of mistaken human belief systems.

Eugene, Ore.

The Facts

According to Ben Hart's Poisoned Ivy, the widow of an alumnus sent a check for $1,000 to Dartmouth to support The Review, but the College blocked the check. It says she phoned Parkhurst, hinting she might cut Dartmouth out of her will if the check wasn't in The Review's bank account by the end of the week, and they received the check the following day.

Here are the facts. I worked closely with the donor. She told me about the check, and I warned her The Review had no tax exemp- tion. At her request, I called the College and held up payment.

Six months later, when I received notice of their 501 (c) 3 exemption, I called the College to release the check. They had received a copy of the notice the day before and had already handed over the check. Caveat emptor.

Monument Beach, Mass.

At least some members of the Dartmouth fellowship must be aware - I know I am of the efforts which the editors of The Review are making to raise journalistic standards in Hanover to enhance the good name of the College. I'm also sure that they (editors and alumni) take a dim view of smear-artists who cloak anti-Dartmouth subversion in anonym- ity. Yes, sir, I can almost hear those editors saying,"lf a writer has a statement to make, even if it runs counter to our thinking, let the pinko creep make it - but he'd better identify himself by name!"

If my hearing can still be relied on, then I'm confident that the men and women of TheReview will rush to join me in deploring the text of the Dartmouth Bookstore advertisement in the December '84 Alumni Magazine. Whoever wrote that editorial against America's "great colleges" correction, that ad for Ben Hart's Poisoned Ivy chose to forgo name-credit for his prose. One sample may explain why: "Hart finds Dartmouth not unlike some of our other great colleges that have lost their common sense and have turned an environment for objective study into a propaganda poolroom that makes a mockery of academic freedom and inquisitive discourse."

Young Anonymous prepares the way for Hart's "find" by stating that "Something has happened to our best colleges [ among which, were it not for The Review's timely disclosures, he might have included Dartmouth], where some teachers and administrators are trashing democracy, fighting freedom of the press, ditching the Constitution, disowning tradition, and taking outrageous actions against students who dissent." Boy, if Anonymous had included Dartmouth among our "best colleges," I'd really be upset. Even a tenuous affiliation with an institution that tolerates de- mocracy-trashing and Constitution-ditching would bring my Dartmouth "blood" to a boil. So would learning that the college which gave me my start as a writer and editor had turned into a propaganda poolroom mocking inquisitive discourse.

All the same, I am teed off at Anonymous, not for his gee-whiz thinking and buzz-word English, but for his gratuitous bad-mouthing of the College that permits his bookstore to use its name. (Oh, it's Dartmouth he's talking about, all right. To make sure that everybody, Review editors included, identifies the target right off, Anonymous headlines the ad with a slogan so catchy you can almost sing it: "If you have Dartmouth in your blood, you should read this book.")

Dartmouth thinkers and writers like those staffing The Review (along with their predecessors, including Mr. Hart, who doesn't hesitate to sign his stuff) must be even more disturbed than I am by Anonymous's meanspirited put-down of our College. Heck, one thing we all learned - at home, in the Scouts, or at Dartmouth - is that only a nerd fouls his own nest.

I look to them - the intellectual leaders of the student body and, in time, who knows, of the entire Dartmouth fellowship-to organize a dignified, non-violent protest against the Dartmouth Bookstore for traducing the students, faculty, and administrators who have had good reason, until now, to support it. (Hey, Review editors-how's for filing a libel suit against the Bookstore? Wouldn't it be fun to appear in court for once as the plaintiff?)

I also hope that Anonymous will look for some other kind of work. He'll never make it on Madison Avenue.

New York, N.Y

Nicotine Stains

Shelby Grantham's article on the Kemenys ("Life after the Presidency," November '84) uses a technique I find employed with increasing frequency by other writers of biographical sketches. By describing what the Kemenys do during the interview, she provides insight into what life after the presidency is like. I have never paged through an article which left my fingers so nicotine stained. The ashtrays or idling cigarettes in all seven of Nancy Wasserman's photographs left my eyes smarting and my throat raw.

The fact that these two extremely talented individuals are hooked on cigarettes is inescapable. This comes as no surprise since when John was president I received calls from alumni in distant cities asking that the Cancer Center do something to break a habit which was so grossly apparent on the alumni circuit. I now learn from the article the reason for the habit. After six and a half months off cigarettes, John and Jean started smoking again in order to "sharpen" their minds.

Smoking cessation programs recognize that a fraction of people who smoke will claim to do so because they receive a "mental lift" from smoking. The powerful effect of nicotine upon the nervous system should not be overlooked by those in charge of anti-smoking programs (or by those who use nicotine as an insecticide). There is, however, no good evidence that addiction to nicotine enhances creativity. Habits, good and bad, are one means of adaptation to the human condition, and, when coupled with folklore and superstition, may produce profound effects on the individual's perception of himself. Most of the evidence suggests that Mother Nature has tuned the human to operate most effectively in the non-poisoned state. Ironically, if poisons are to be used, it may be more effective to poison the audience rather than the artist. Most of us would prefer to have had one too many ourselves than listen to an after-dinner speaker who has had one too many.

Hanover, N.H.

[Dr. Mclntyre, the James J. Carroll Professor ofOncology at the Dartmouth Medical School, is alsodirector of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center. Ed.]

Registering a Complaint

I recently read the article in the November issue titled "The Draft: To Register or Not to Register" by James Heffernan. The philosophy exposed in that bit of prose left me with an extreme feeling of indignation, nausea, and concern for the College and its future..

For a period of over 200 years, young men and women have fought, died, and made heavy sacrifices so that this present generation may live and breathe freely, go to college, and make of their lives what they will.

Now young men are legally required to register for the armed services, to help insure that other men may have the same opportunity that this generation has been given.

When the law is violated, anarchy exists. I completely disagree with the author's feeling on Vietnam. That war was futile, not because of our armed forces, but because of the spinelessness of a portion of our civilian population.

In my opinion (and I am sure I am far from being alone), the men who refuse registration have violated the law and should be separated from the College.

If the administration of the College encourages resistance, that administration should be held in contempt.

North Stratford, N.H.

Register for the Draft?

"The hardest decisions of their lives" is the way Professor Heffernan characterized the struggle young men are facing on whether or not to register for 'the draft (.Alumni Magazine, Nov.).

It should be one of the easiest decisions. The law says all 18-year-olds must register. So register. It is as simple as that.

"I am unwilling to state categorically," Heffernan says, "that no good reason for a draft could arise. To register for the draft is to give the government what I believe it deserves: the benefit of the doubt." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of a decision to obey the law.

The time to resist the laws of one's country "is when and if the government drafts you to participate in a specific military action which you cannot, support," Heffernan continues. That's better. As when you are drafted to invade Margaret Thatcher's England, perhaps?

But listen to this: "Pressures make compliance with the law seem an act of weakness, and defiance an act of strength. Heroism used to be the exclusive property of those who fought; it has now become the property of those who refuse to fight, who are willing to go to jail if necessary rather than register for the draft."

No wonder Ivy League liberalism is held in such low esteem by millions of Americans when a professor (a Princeton Ph.D.) intimates that defiance of the law is "an act of strength," that "heroism" is a willingness to go to jail rather than fight for one's country or even to register for the draft.

Dartmouth freshmen are intelligent, and in the infinite wisdom of 18-year-olds, they should be able to distinguish good advice from bad. But plenty of mature adults - including professors - have that trouble, which is why the world is in such a mess.

It is bad enough to make such a speech. It is even more stupid of the Alumni Magazine to dig it out of the waste basket (where it belongs) and publish it 19 months later.

Virginia Beach, Va

Going to the Dogs

I read with some sympathy for you personally your "Ruffly Speaking" attempt to "wuff" away the Indian symbol issue.

Unfortunately for you, Dave McLaughlin, and the Trustees, the Dartmouth Indian, like "the granite of New Hampshire," for a sizable number (I suspect sizable majority) of alumni, has been "made part of them till death."

With all due respect to the Golden Retriever, I do not want to see Dartmouth "go to the dogs." One of my unpleasant undergraduate recollections is of a huge, disgusting, slobbering bulldog which frequented Freshman Commons and Thayer Hall. Perhaps because of that memory, while a Yale law student and subsequently, I have never cheered for a Yale team except when a Yale victory over some other team would help the Big Green win an Ivy League crown.

I am not insensitive to the sentivities of my Native American brethren. However, Moor's Indian Charity School will not go away without Orwellian 1984 "Newspeak." Moreover, the Indian symbol evokes in the minds of most alumni not the drunken, pot-bellied Jack-O-Lantern cartoon character in loincloth, but James Fenimore Cooper's "noble savage," a kind of Native American "Candide" perhaps naively idealistic, but certainly not insulting.

The Indian symbol controversy reminds me of the unreal reality of a Samuel Beckett or Harold Pinter play. An attempt has been made to relegate the issue (and alumni who feel strongly about it) to a trash can. Unfortunately for those who would like to put the issue to bed, unhappy alumni keep pushing up the trash can lid.

I would like to see Dave McLaughlin approach our Native American students in a positive vein to determine whether the Dartmouth Indian cannot be revived in a dignified fashion which would satisfy both alumni and most Native American students.

Rightly or wrongly, objecting alumni perceive what has happened as an over-reaction on the part of the administration to the complaints of a minority of Native American students seeking an object at which to throw rocks in a period of student agitation which is largely past history. If that perception is incorrect, the administration has failed to correct it.

P.S. The NAD ad, which I have just read, left me with a combination of understanding and double outrage: understanding of the insult caused by being treated as a "mascot," outrage at having the Dartmouth Indian relegated to "mascot" status, and further outrage at The Review's apparent interest in fostering divisiveness in the Dartmouth community.

New York, N.Y.

Are You Serious?

I can't believe that your proposal to make the Golden Retriever the symbol of Dartmouth was in any way serious. What makes you think our group is any less sensitive than any other minority group? I have seen many of those silly, mocking cartoons depicting the Yale Bulldog and I certainly would not want to see Golden Retrievers caricatured in any such manner. I suppose the next step would be to sell cute little Golden Retriever dolls and T-shirts and banners and badges and eventually you would have Golden Retriever plates and plaques and chairs and blazers.

You had a perfectly legitimate reason for being the Dartmouth Indians after all, it was founded as an Indian school. Unfortunately, you blew it. Too much commercialism and too many caricatures made the symbol offensive to some Indian groups. Instead of the proud image of the brave, independent Indian it should have been, it was perverted to a comic savage drinking too much firewater.

Although I can't speak for all Goldens, please don't let that happen to us.

Sincerely, Stacy-Golden Retriever

PS: Since I have been dead for two years this letter was written for me by my mistress Sally's father.

Paramus, N.J.

Doggerel: or Dog Day Delusions

The doggery undoubtedly to debouch will definitely discharge a decided deluge of dispatches: a debilitating debate, a deplorable duel, a daggling dog fight of defiant dander, dyspeptic dudgeon and declamatory dogma, degenerating to a dolorous donnybrook of divisive denunciation, derisive decrials, defamatory doggerel and decanal despair. A doggone debacle! And I doggedly dared to delude that Dartmouth had departed the dog day doldrums.

You should have let sleeping dogs lie.

New York, N.Y.

Old vs. New Traditions

"Old traditions"? (see p. 25, November Magazine). Have you heard of any new traditions recently? Incidentally I'm not sure how old a tradition the luncheon is. It didn't exist in my day. So how old is an "old tradition"?

I like the Kemeny article and liked your Golden Retriever suggestion, as long as it was tongue in cheek. A marvelous dog, but its sunny disposition hardly seems compatible with an aggressive football team. I can just see our linemen licking their opponents' hands.

Tequesta, Fla.

Bored with the Symbol?

I humbly confess that, like many alumni, I am really bored with all this Indian mascot debate. Although I would agree that eventually we will have to do something about replacing "The Big Green" with something more inspiring, I call on my fellow alumni for a few moments of reflection.

Dartmouth has a serious problem here, folks. First, look at what mascots have already been taken: cows, chickens, turtles, dogs, rodents, weather conditions, anatomical parts, biblical names, and even vocations. What's left?

Not much really. Notre Dame, UCLA, Penn, and even Union College already have the few non-protesting ethnic minority mascots available. And here lies the rub. If we should decide to take up an ethnic minority or nationality as a mascot we might be hauled right into the World Court. And that wouldn't look good at all.

Now let's for discussion's sake take the Armenians. At first glance Armenia is a good choice for one, they might never even find out about our choice and if they did, I think Konstantin Chernenko has a few more pressing problems than Dartmouth. We would call ourselves the "Fighting Armenians," offend only the Turks, and cut a hell of a good deal with the Greek Tourist Bureau at the same time. Looks good the first time around, doesn't it?

Not really. Poor Armenia has already suffered enough. It is inevitable that an Armenian pilgrim will somehow end up in this country on a temporary visa and be flat out horrified after translating his local sports page. Just imagine his reaction-first the Turks, then the Soviets, now Dartmouth. The same could be said for all the Eastern Bloc countries and most of Africa and Asia. If we had a winning collection of teams we could probably cut. a deal like Ireland and Notre Dame, but it's not in the cards. Maybe we'd have a chance with Canada now that they're more pro-American up there, but I'm afraid the acid rain problem would queer the deal right off.

The answer, Men and Women of Dartmouth, is a holding pattern, a hiatus, until we win more than we lose. Once we no longer bill Harvard, Yale, and the others for the travel expenses involved in sending our tender lambs to slaughter in their arenas, we might be able to reapproach our own administration and our own Indian students.

Till that time, I suggest we adopt a Temporary Mascot. That's right, a Temporary Mascot and I've got a fool-proof suggestion. How about the Foo-Foo Bird? Since we are all doing what the Foo-Foo Bird actually did, why not be honest and call ourselves the FooFoo Birds? And since no one has actually seen a Foo-Foo Bird, we would color it green and cut some of the problems down the road.

I see a few difficulties with the Foo-Foo Bird. First of all, the Foo-Foo Bird is not even discussed in polite society or mixed company, so social norms of good behavior would, prevent the rest of the Ivy League from talking about our teams. We could use the respite badly. Secondly, we would have a precedent on our side: The Foo-Foo Bird, as a non-game bird, projects an image of innocence and Dartmouth, like the Foo-Foo Bird, would not be supported in Dartmouth's case by the rest of the Ivy League or in the FooFoo's case by Ducks Unlimited just to end up as fodder. I mean, how many of us know someone who ever knocked off a Foo-Foo? Ivy League, take note!

Of course attendance might fall off at away games but that's what we want till we get our act together. In the meantime we won't have to read about the Indian all the time.

One last fact which might help the Dartmouth family shift into this holding pattern follows. While I was bonefishing last year in my custom-built catamaran, my guide told me that he once heard the cry of an enraged Foo-Foo after leaving a wine tasting party in Mendocino and he swears it screamed "WahHoo-Wah." If that's a problem, we could always change the cry since he assured me he was alone.

Fairfield, Conn

The Symbol (cont.)

I have two questions for the thousands of Dartmouth alums and students who continue to try to resurrect the Indian symbol: 1) Do you really believe that the administration will accept its error and rescind its condemnation of the Symbol? (We all know that the administration would rather be abolished itself than admit an error.)

2) Given #1, is it worth continuing to upset and harass the Native Americans at Dartmouth who continue to contribute to the College unselfishly and without whom Dartmouth would lose an important part of its heritage?

I too loved the Indian symbol in its day. I grew up looking forward to the time when I would be one of the "Dartmouth Indians." But the Indian symbol has joined the ranks of the dead. Isn't it about time we enjoyed the memories and let the symbol rest peacefully?

Washington, D.C.

There were echoes of,our own great Ernest Martin Hopkins last June when President McLaughlin addressed our 50th Reunion Class and spoke on the meaning of a liberal education at Dartmouth. Though I am unable to quote him verbatim, he made his message crisp and explicit.

"To acquire a liberal education at Dartmouth, we strive to accumulate sufficient knowledge to form our own clear opinions," he said. "And likewise to learn to respect theopinions of others."

How about it out there? Isn't that a goal to which we all aspired when we left the Hanover hills? Then how and why have we, for years now, wasted so much energy, emotion and pages in this magazine fulminating over the loss of such an unimportant object as the Dartmouth Indian symbol?

In the case of that symbol, the opinion we should have learned to respect by now belongs to the Native Americans at Dartmouth. They are "the others" the Indians themselves. And since they are the only ones to whom this symbol can rightfully be called a personal issue, theirs is the only opinion that should count. Thus the polling of non-Indian alumni classes is irrelevant. So are the opinions of last year's non-Indian football team. And nothing could be more irrelevant than the rantings of The Review which has long demonstrated that it respects no opinions other than its own.

If the Native Americans at Dartmouth still feel that the use of the Indian symbol degrades them individually or as a people and they made it clear they so do believe in their dignified message in the December Alumni Magazine, then that should close the matter to the rest of us. Unless, of course, we wish to admit that our liberal education at Dartmouth never "took."

I must admit I don't care much for Timberwolves either. I shall simply go on rooting for the "Big Green" as I have for years now. And after last season, I hope our next brace of football captains will strive harder for points on the football-not the policy field.

Mission Viejo, Calif.

Let's face it "Indians" and "Timberwolves" are obsolete. Dartmouth's nickname should be "The Computers." The athletic emblem on heaving chests and bosoms could be a BIG GREEN APPLE.

Suison, Calif.

Before the following remarks concerning the Indian symbol are dismissed by a significant portion of the readership as musing typical of the Marxist-Leninist death cult that inhabited the Hanover plain in the late 60s and early 70s, let me establish minimal credentials of credibility. I played on one of the last Dartmouth teams to wear the Indian on our uniforms, the 1972 lacrosse team. At the time, I thought the symbol to be attractive and dignified and was proud to wear it.

Whether or not the Indian symbol is esthetically pleasing or awe-inspiring for past or present Dartmouth students does not, however, amount to a hill of beans when weighed against its deleterious impact on the College's Native American program. This program provides the College with an unparalleled opportunity to develop leaders in the Native American community and thus to achieve a perceptible social good. It saddens me that so many of the Dartmouth family cannot accept Native American alumni and students at their word that they view the Indian symbol as degrading. One supposes that tolerance was a lesson lost in our vaunted liberal arts education.

It is axiomatic that our respective passages through Hanover were the best years of our lives and produced an inexhaustible store of fond memories. Obviously, the Indian symbol is part of that treasure trove for many alumni. The abandonment of the Indian symbol does not threaten the loss of those memories, nor should alumni who cherish the symbol interpret its retirement as a negative comment on their beliefs. The symbol added something special to our days at Dartmouth; we now learn that its continued use would poison the College experience for an important segment of our family.

Ultimately, the controversy over the Indian symbol is a troubling resonance of past treatment of Native Americans. We always had this uncanny knack of knowing better than the Indian what was good for him.

Bel Air, Md,