Letters
Reconciliation
This is a thanks and no thanks letter. I was delighted recently to find in the March, 1985 Alumni Magazine my letter on the Indian symbol printed under the heading "Going to the Dogs." But I was appalled that you cut the ultimate paragraph, which, in terms of addressing the issue of reconciliation, was the most important thing I had to say. Those who put the Dartmouth Indian in a "mascot" box, put the rabbit in the hat and foment divisiveness. Those who reject that approach, as I did, suggest a bridge to reconciliation.
Cutting from the bottom up is the newspaper approach, as I learned in my undergraduate years on The D. I had not thought that the same rule applied to magazines. I question whether Charlie Widmayer, whom I knew very well from my partially overlap- ping terms as an Alumni Magazine contributor of eight years as a Club Secretary and fifteen years as a Class Secretary, would have cut that paragraph.
Whether there is anything you can do about this at this point in time, I leave to your conscience.
Madison, N.J.
[What we inadvertently cut from Mr. Dilk's letteris reprinted below. Ed.]
To my mind, a "mascot" is led around by a leash, like Yale's Bulldog, or by a halter, like Navy's goat and Army's mule. I know of no Dartmouth alumnus, much less any cheerleader, who regarded the Indian cheerleaders who froze at cold football games as "mascots." By analogy, those who do so would relegate West Point's proud Black Knight astride his stallion to the status of the Army mule.
Another Zimbabwe?
When Dennis Brutus, Bishop Tutu, and others, with your editorial support ("Dennis Brutus Speaks Out," Sept. '84), manage to turn South Africa into another Zimbabwe, will you then support me in my efforts to turn this country back to the red Indians? Only in our case (and unlike southern Africa), the Indians were already here when we arrived. Nor have we subsidized them to multiply, as has South Africa, the Bantu. Either that, or give another man of color Gaoussou Kamissoko a fraction of the space you gave Brutus to air his views!
San Francisco, Calif.
A Model of BalancedReasoning
As one who admired James Heffernan's "The Draft: To Register or Not to Register," I feel impelled to defend it against attacks by two of my fellow alumni, published in your March issue.
Either they misread Professor Heffernan's intentions and arguments or my own powers of interpretation are sadly wanting. First of all (as I understand him), Heffernan was telling his young audience to comply with the law and register for the draft despite peer pressure to do otherwise. ("Pressures make compliance with the law seem an act of weak- ness, and defiance an act of strength.") I believe seem is the most important word in that sentence.
Secondly, Heffernan was arguing against the pacifist position that no war is justifiable. Save your protest, he advised his young audience, until you are sure that the action for which you are drafted is one you cannot support; if you must resist, do so on specific grounds, not out of some conviction about war-in-general and be prepared to take the consequences.
Professor Heffernan neither "encourages resistance," as Robert Unangst claimed, nor "intimates that defiance of the law is 'an act of strength,' " as Theodore Wolf accused him of doing. His speech is a model of balanced reasoning, maintaining an essential equilibrium between obedience and dissent. Thank you for publishing it.
Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Whether in Defeat orVictory
I have been really dismayed lately by all the alumni fuss in this magazine and my class newsletter over the recent low ebb in Dartmouth's athletic teams' records. First, some seem to think that because we've been at or near league bottom in some sports it's an excuse for quitting. Reminds me of the kid and his marbles. Someone has to be at the bottom in the Ivy League each year, unlike the kids in Lake Wobegone who are all above average. Second, where is it written that College resources must be used to field a winning team in each and every sport? Is the official justification of intercollegiate athletics that it is character-building or something like that really that much of a farce, or are we really a pro outfit in disguise? Sure, it's nice to win the college where I work had a WCHA champion hockey team last year but that seems like a poor reason to choose a college. I would like to see my fellow alumni more concerned about the quality of the teaching staff and other academic resources than about our football team's glories, and I applaud the administration's taking a cool look at this se- rious conflict over limited resources. I for one will remain a loyal Dartmouth fan no matter how any team is faring in any particular year. If there are those who won't, where did they get their values?
Duluth, Minn
It's Embarrassing
Of the 20 letters to the editor appearing in your March 1985 (that's right, 1985, not 1975) issue, thirteen dealt with the Indian symbol. The endless continuation of this debate over a fait accompli is more than boring, it's embarrassing. I find myself treating your publication like some kind of contraband, hiding it from friends and family. Would my children seriously consider attending the College if they perceived (albeit incorrectly) this insipid correspondence to be representative of the quality of thinking and caring within the Dartmouth community?
Dartmouth is an exciting, growing institution where the real debate should (and presumably does) involve the great issues facing humankind. I find it appalling that, in a world threatened daily by 40,000 nuclear weapons, your Letters, section is almost singularly devoted to rantings and ramblings about the Indian symbol.
Pittsfield, Mass.
The Symbol Controversy:Not All Bad
I have enjoyed the spirited discussion of the Indian symbol in these pages, but am beginning to agree with the writers who maintain that we should get on with college business and abandon this divisive issue. But before doing so I would like to propose a much-neglected consideration.
As a public prosecutor and judge for three decades, I have learned that no decision, however well considered, pleases everybody. Officially I have had to disappoint vocal minorities in my own community who advocate removing Huckleberry Finn and Slaughterhousefive from the school libraries and some robust subject matter from the public screen.
Mary Thron '78 maintains (letters, March '85) that "there are people who find the Indian symbol offensive and that, in itself, makes the symbol unacceptable." I would also automatically defer to the 20 to 30 people who are offended and whose position I respect if that is the only factor in the equation. If, however, I am to be a fair and impartial judge of this issue, I must also consider that a vast majority of Dartmouth men and women, thousands of them, have a deep respect and affection for the Indian symbol which is a part of their college like Dartmouth Row, the granite of New Hampshire, and the Big Green teams they have cheered to victory. To remove it from their college is a form of mayhem; to substitute Golden Retrievers or Timber Wolves, a sacrilege.
Perhaps we are deciding the case on the issue of ownership. Is the Indian symbol the exclusive property of those who have Indian blood in their veins? Or has our traditional use of the symbol through the years given us a right to it by a sort of adverse possession?
Or are we moved to a decision by a sense of guilt? Both the Indian and buffalo have received rough treatment in the past. Nevertheless, the nation unashamedly puts their images on our coins. When I look that Indian in the eye, I remember the wrongs that have been done to him. I also remember the message of "The Devil and Daniel Webster" that all of us, of different colors, good and bad, have played a part in the making of America. That history is not "theirs" or "mine" but "ours" and its memories and images have come into a common ownership.
This controversy has not been all bad. While in the past we may have sometimes denigrated the Indian symbol, perhaps its future may be shaped by the image of the NAD who love it most.
Waterloo, lowa
The Symbol (cont.) Do WeNeed One?
If we must go on and on about this, some points:
1. Read Lawrence Ritter's excellent book The Glory of Their Times. It contains an entire chapter by and about Chief Meyers, an Indian who played for John McGraw's Giants and also attended Dartmouth. He tells in great detail the old story about the Earl of Dartmouth setting up a fund (which "still exists today") so that Indians could attend Dartmouth free, which was just what he did.
A more reliable source, the late Warren Kimball '11, was around at that time and told me that he heard that a group of alumni paid the Chief's bills until problems with math did him in. But that leaves the myth, told by a genuine Dartmouth Indian, in print.
2. On the other hand, my father's 1911 senior cane does have a handsome Indian head on top of it. Unless some woodcarver back then was being whimsical, one assumes that there was some recognition of an Indian association with the college in 1911. Arguing that it was a PR gimmick thought up in more recent times is nutty.
3. My father also kept a scrapbook filled with clippings about Dartmouth doings in those years. It contains sports cartoons and articles about all their games in various sports and I notice that an Indian is often mentioned or pictured in those clippings. That Indian always represents Carlisle. Dartmouth is always shown as a huge, rather Buddy Ebsontype character coming down from the hills of Hanover to lay waste to John Harvard or the Princeton Tiger. He sometimes clobbers the Indian.
I have carefully read all the clippings and the Dartmouth teams are always simply called the Dartmouth teams or, on rare occasions, the Big Green. And this seems entirely satisfactory "Dartmouth's in Town Again!" No mention of Indians in that song. The 1911 students seemed to find all this quite satisfactory.
4. I blame the public relations industry for all this nonsense. Why do we need a symbol? The Indian still tops my father's cane but, judging by his snapshots, his rooms contained no comical (or serious) Indians on his college banners or blankets: Such memorabilia simply carried the label "Dartmouth."
His school was Dartmouth. His team was Dartmouth. No bulldogs, no violets, no wolves. Is there some psychological reason (perhaps we have all been brainwashed by advertising) why we can't call a Dartmouth team simply a Dartmouth team?
Weston, Conn.
Race Relations
This comment concerns the relationship of Dartmouth College to the North American Indian.
Modern science can easily demonstrate that humans of all races are born savage; the individual's progress from savagery depends as much on the environment in which he/she is raised as on his/her heredity. Obviously some individuals are superior to others (at least in some respects), but no scientific research has yet been able to prove one whole race superior to another, nor can I think of any research more useless. Therefore each Dartmouth student can be, and should be, proud of his/her racial heredity.
Since all students have met Dartmouth's standards for admission, each should feel that he/she is the full equal of every other, regardless of race or anything else. They should be able to move comfortably on campus and in the community at large. If some freshmen lack this feeling, their years on campus should firmly establish it otherwise these years have not been completely successful. Most graduate feeling qualified to be President of the United States and trying hard not to show it!
I have just read the article (March 1985) about Ms. K. Louise Erdrich '76 and her husband, Professor Michael A. Dorris. In publishing this piece, you are doing much to enlighten the alumni body and the undergraduates, if they have the opportunity and the time to read it thoughtfully.
For over 200 years Dartmouth College has really been in the business of educating teen- age savages, all of whom considered them- selves adults and of whom over 99% have been palefaces. None of the living alumni has completely transcended this savage state; certainly not I. The very example of these two fine people aids our progress towards cultural refinement. I join in praising them.
But when we meet our Ivy League opponents in an athletic contest, why can't we all become savages until the game is over? Our athletes will play to win if they think of themselves as Indian braves. And let the team boosters give all the Wah Hoo Wah's they feel like.
Should the proud and dignified North American Indian be restored as the symbol of Dartmouth College? Not the mascot! Sometime within the next twelve months this question should be settled by a written ballot sent to all employees of the College, to all present and former students with each person's vote counting equally. Unless 66% or more vote for restoration of the Indian, we should maintain the status quo and be satisfied to be simply "The Big Green." Once the ballots are counted, the issue should not be raised again for at least ten years. There are other things more important than the symbol of the College. Such as good race relations. And better understanding of the other person's point of view while not necessarily abandoning your own. And learning how to make mutually beneficial compromises. But, like our country's flag, the symbol of the College is important. The issue should be settled fairly and soon.
Grand Rapids, Mich
How 'Bout Them Pine Trees?
Re: the continuing miasmic saga of the symbol, why not the Dartmouth "Pines"? Pines, after all, are big and green. They are tall, imposing, unchanging in their character, often symmetrical ("well-rounded"), and they survive even the heartiest of winters. Each is an individual, rugged and unique, reaching from New Hampshire's granited soil to the sky. A pine is imbedded in the College seal and the "old pine" is held in nostalgic reverence. It is a symbol without sexist overtones, it offends no one, and it is easy to depict on uniforms, on enticements in the Go-op's windows, and on Campion's old school ties. It is broad enough to cover us all.
Amherst, Mass.[lf I recall, the Pine Tree was suggested early onin the severities, with one Boston sports writerheadlining his column, "Timber . :You mayfind some pleasure in the knowledge that whenDartmouth'awards the doctorate, the gown is embroidered with a pine tree insignia, depicted below. Ed.]
Times Have Changed
I have just read the statement by the Native American students at Dartmouth in the December issue. I have also read Poisoned Ivy by Ben Hart, '81. I miss the Indian symbol, too, but times have changed and so have our country and our College. Perhaps in time, the Native Americans at Dartmouth will change their own feelings on the subject, but on such a matter it is their feelings that count. I believe we owe it to them and to the larger values we all share to honor their feelings. We are all part of the Dartmouth community, and "in the Dartmouth fellowship there is no parting."
My vote goes to the Native Americans at Dartmouth.
Brussels, Belgium
Escalating Costs: The College's Real Problem
May I request that you give some thought to covering a situation which I consider one of the most serious, perhaps the,most serious one facing the College. It is that of escalating costs, which I see by The New York Times will go up 8 percent to $14,860.
This is effectively pricing out a large segment of the middle class in spite of grants, tuition aids, and so forth. It would seem to me some form of zero budgeting is necessary. That is, take all forms of income for this year and then budget to fit that without raising the tuition. This obviously has to be done in the form of cost cutting.
Without seeing a budget, some obvious ways of cutting it come to mind. Such frills as the Tucker Foundation (whose allocation I know has been cut drastically), some of the many administrators (I believe there is now a Dean of Residential Life or some such title), courses and disciplines for major study which attract only a very small group of people, and so on. At any rate, I think it would be of as much interest as the inevitable discussion of the failure of the women's volleyball team and other related athletic competition.
It is interesting that at the same time a group of two or three hundred college students descended upon the nation's capital to protest the Reagan administration's proposed cut, another 350,000 flocked to Florida's sundrenched beaches spending some $120 million during that vacation. However, even after the cut, about half of the college entrants continue to receive some form of federal aid which could amount to $4,000 annual limit on total federal assistance, not counting an additional $4,000 in unsubsidized plus loans. This is hoped to save $2.3 billion in the budget.
While college expenses can be a burden on middle-class families, we have to remember that the national median family income is roughly $25,000 and that federal monies come from taxing everyone. This means that the $32,000 cap on family income of aid recipients will still benefit a great many people. Let us not forget that 7,000 collegians from families with annual incomes of more than $100,000 receive low-interest guaranteed loans. At this level, the balloon market loans represent chiefly an arbitrage opportunity for families with higher-yielding investments.
The educational field will have to face up to lower expectations from the federal government as will the rest of the country. One way to ameliorate the problem is to copy the federal government and cut down on spending.
At any rate, it would be an interesting subject for discussion and perhaps an article in the magazine.
Kansas City, Mo.
[You will be interested in the comments of AlQuirk '46, Dartmouth's Dean of Admissions andFinancial Aid, in the Summer issue of the Magazine. Ed.]
The Mills Omaly Internship
In the obituary for Mills Omaly '6l (October 1984), mention was made of the memorial fund being established in his name at Edgerton House (the Episcopal Student Center at Dartmouth) for a student internship helping "those interested in the ministry to spend an off-term in study." I wish to explain that internship further.
We at "the Edge" have felt that for the church to be offering a ministry for the students as it were, on a silver platter is woefully incomplete. Rather, in the light of all that is known about experiential learning, as well as what the New Testament teaches about every Christian being a minister, the church needs to be offering hands-on, learnby-doing service both here and abroad. More and more of our students are doing just that in places as far removed as Zaire and Honduras and Jersey City. As younger students find their role models to be upperclassmen making this kind of time investment both within and outside the institutional church, the momentum begins to snowball, and that is exciting.
As a chaplaincy, however, we've never before had the financial base from which to "put our money where our mouth is." We can support students morally as they wrestle with the kind of hard questions which leads to such tough decisions. But at a certain point all we can say is, "Lots of luck."
The Mills Omaly Edgerton House Internship offers a very concrete way to support these costly life-changing choices in a way consistent both with what the church ought to be offering these Dartmouth students as well as Mills Omaly's own vision. Checks may be sent to Henry Eberhardt, director, Dartmouth Alumni Fund.
Hanover, N.H.
[Rev. Mitchener is Chaplain to Episcopal studentsat the College. Ed.]
The GSA Responds
In the February issue of the Alumni Maga-zine, Brandon F. Lachner '75 had, among many comments, some questions about the Gay Students Association. The GSA felt it only polite to respond.
1. "Why," he asked, "is the College funding a sex group?" A sex group? The College is funding a sex group? I wish they'd publicize it better many a Dartmouth student would love to join. Upon hearing this question read at a GSA meeting, one member suggested that it may in fact refer to oar group. This idea was, of course, greeted with "loud GSA laughter."
2. "On what basis does this group demand that the proceedings of its meetings remain secret?" Why, on the basis of the right to privacy which is a basic tenet of any decentminded and self-respecting American's philosophy. I should think that Mr. Lachner, of all people, should be only too happy to remain unaware of such particulars, as GSAers are to spare him the details. On what basis does Mr. Lachner demand that we flaunt our sexuality in his face? A minority organization is not created to produce evidence of its members' humanity by publishing the minutiae of their private lives. Rather, it is to serve as an oasis of acceptance dotting the desert of sandbrained bigots.
3. "How does secrecy promote education, openness, and the respect for others we all seek?" "Secrecy" is for spies, Mr. Lachner, so I am at a loss to understand your opposition to it. Privacy, on the other hand, is the right of all citizens. And in reply to this apparent appeal to be educated, I can only quote a Roman senator who said, "We ought not to allow the barbarians into the Senate until they have put aside their knives and shields, lest we be stabbed in the back." For the purpose of educating, we are given a scant $450 per fiscal year, hardly sufficient means with which to dispel the homophobia rampant among the sons of Dartmouth, both here and abroad.
4. "If the members of this group have special sexual problems (probably a given), why aren't they seeing mental health professionals whose professional ethics dictate confidentiality?" The members of the GSA do not, by and large,, have special sexual problems; if they did, a meeting would hardly be the place to discuss them. No, our special problems stem mostly from living in a world littered with unenlightened people.
Although it is tempting to reply to Mr. Lachner's parallel of gays with Communists and Nazis, I shall refrain from doing so for fear of insulting the intelligence of that vast remainder of the alumni body that already knows the difference.
Mr. Lachner feels that the president's po- sition on the issue is tantamount to a "retreat from integrity." In light of Mr. Lachner's opinion of Ms. Polenz's behavior, I would be most interested in his definition of "integrity." "Some call it hypocrisy" indeed, Mr. Lachner.
Hanover, N.H.
[David Garlirig is president of the Dartmouth GayStudents' Association. Ed.]
Profs. Poole and Patten:A Colleague Remembers
Some of the older alumni, those who were freshmen during the 20s and early 30s, might be interested to know of Dr. Poole's death on December 11, at the age of 95.
Jim Poole came to Dartmouth as an instructor in Evolution in 1922. I came in the same capacity in 1923. The evolution course was one of two orientation courses which all first year students were required to take, one in the Social Sciences and the other (Evolution) in the Natural Sciences.
Dr. William Patten was head of the evolution department and conducted the biological portion. There were four science areas: physics, astronomy, geology, and biology.
As instructors, Jim Poole and I, sometimes with another instructor, had as a major part of our work the conducting of weekly conference sessions. In these sessions we spent most of the time answering questions on the lectures. We also sat and graded all tests and exams, ran the projector, etc.
The lectures were given by representatives of the departments concerned. As the years went by these men, except for Dr. Patten, turned over to us the tasks of writing the text and lecturing. Dr. Patten retired at about 70. The biology portions were turned over to us. Dr. Poole was a botanist and took over the relatively brief botanical section. He and I split the zoological portion. When a curricular revision finally put an end to the orientation courses, Dr. Poole became a member of the botany department. I left Dartmouth in 1938 to take a position in Kansas. Dr. Poole stayed on, and until his death, curated the herbarium.
We used to regard ourselves as the last two survivors of that orientation course. Now I become the last one. I also want to add a little to your account regarding the fate of Dr. Patten's collection after his death.
At the time of Dr. Patten's death there was some discussion among his older colleagues about what should become of his fossil collection.
Since I had studied vertebrate paleontology in the Yale graduate school and during my years in the evolution department, largely at the urging of Dr. Bannerman of geology, I volunteered to take charge of it. Mrs. Patten and their son, Dr. Bradley Patten, accepted my offer.
That became a major activity for me. Dr. Patten had visited museums in England, Norway, and Sweden and maintained correspondence with paleontologists from these museums, as well as with other paleontologists, exchanging reprints of publications with them. That meant that his working library was excellent.
When Bradley Patten came for his father's funeral, he and I talked over my relationship to the collection. He suggested that I should go ahead with research, using both the fossils and Dr. Patten's collection of books and reprints as I saw fit.
I wrote to his correspondents, and over the years we continued to exchange publications. Others were added and the collection continued to grow. We also discussed mutual problems and occasionally they visited at Dartmouth to study the collection.
Rohnert Park, Calif.
On "Evolution"
I was very much interested in the article "Why Study Evolution?" by Warren D. Allmon '82 in your March issue.
In 1923 I stood at the back of Webster Hall to hear William Jennings Bryan speak on "Science versus Evolution." At the time I was a member of Professor Patten's course on evolution. Bryan was a most impressive speaker an orator. His talk was a blistering attack on evolution, calling it "a work of the Devil." Because he was an invited guest of the College he received the respectful attention of the audience, which undoubtedly included Professor Patten, Professor Leland Griggs of the Zoology Dept. and other distinguished members of the Faculty'.
In his A Dartmouth Chronicle, Ralph Nading Hill '39 referred to Bryan's talk as "merely entertaining." The teaching of evolution at Dartmouth continued. As to why it was terminated in 1936, I am not clear. Surely it had nothing to do with Bryan. In the last few years, a new cult called "Creationism" has come to the fore, and this has resulted in renewed attacks on evolution.
I am not qualified to take a position on the merits of either evolution or creationism. Professor Patten did write: "Let me say here, once and for all, that it is not the purpose of those who are giving this course, to destroy the foundations of your religion nor should it do so." According to the Gallup survey quoted in the article, 44 percent of Americans would lean to the theory of Creationism and 38 percent believe that men evolved in an evolutionary process guided by God. This would seem to describe Professor Patten's position. Only 9 percent believe in the theory of evolution "with God not involved."
I would be much interested in the opinion of other members of the Dartmouth family on this subject. Quite possibly Bryan would receive a more favorable review of his talk than he did in 1923.
Sarasota, Fla
Evolution: Setting theRecord Straight
I welcomed Warren Allmon's recent article ("Why Study Evolution?," March 1985) calling attention to the general lack of appreciation for the concept of evolution in our society today. I agree that a theory of such profound impact on both natural and social sciences deserves recognition as an integral component of a liberal arts education. I don't doubt that this lack of appreciation for evolutionary theory may be due in part, as he suggests, to the lack of emphasis it has received in high school and college curricula. Unfortunately, he made a poor choice of colleges to exemplify his charge. I believe Mr. Allmon has overstated the culpability of Dartmouth College in this neglect.
First, I must set the record straight by pointing out that Mr. Allmon has misrepresented the current course offerings and emphases within the Department of Biological Sciences. I take special exception to his comment that "there is little emphasis in introductory courses on evolution as a central, unifying idea." It is obvious that he has not attempted to contact anyone, either faculty or student, with current first-hand knowl- edge of the biology curriculum. Since Allmon left Dartmouth in 1982, our introductory biology course has been expanded into two courses, Biology of Organisms (Bio 4) and Biology of Adaptation (Bio 6). Contrary to his allegations, in the two years that I have been involved in the second course, evolution has been the central unifying theme. Indeed, the theme and our emphasis in the course are aptly reflected by the books we requested that the students buy: three by Allmon's mentor in evolutionary biology at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould (Ever Since Darwin, The Panda'sThumb, and Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes). I welcome a poll of the'students to get their opinion of the central theme in this course.
My second point has to do with Mr. Allmon's attempt to correlate a dearth of listings on evolution in our College catalog with a lack of emphasis on this subject in our curriculum. Contrary to his recollection, the 1984 issue of the ORC (Organization, Regulations, and Courses) for Dartmouth College reveals that our department offers five undergraduate courses with "evolution" or "the origin of species" in their titles, not one, as indicated in his article. This provides for a representation of 11% of our curriculum (not including freshman seminars, which, by the way, often deal with the history and development of evolutionary thought and its impact on society). In comparison, Harvard University, which has a reputation of strength in evolutionary biology, offers only three undergraduate courses with evolution in their titles for a representation of 5.6% of their biology curriculum. Allmon's portrayal of the relative emphasis given to evolutionary theory at Dartmouth also does not recognize the contribution of the anthropology department, which offers several courses on the evolution of man and other primates, or the Department of Earth Sciences, which offers courses in paleontology.
The relative emphasis placed on evolution in any class will, of course, vary with the individual experience and perspective of the instructor. I can assure Mr. Allmon that evolution pervades every course I teach, from introductory biology to developmental biology, to invertebrate biology, to ultrastructure and biological techniques in electron microscopy, yet it does not appear in the titles-of any of these courses. In light of my personal teaching experience, I doubt that the incidence of the word "evolution" in course titles accurately reflects the relative emphasis that evolutionary theory receives in a biology curriculum. Indeed, the significance of evolutionary theory to all aspects of biology dictates that it should not be restricted to specific courses. I would expect that a broader appreciation for evolution might be gained from a curriculum that allows for the independent evaluation of the relevance of evolution to specific areas of biology within the context of individual courses.
My third point has to do with the rather subjective portrayal of faculty opinion in the article regarding the merit of evolutionary theory in a biology curriculum. Allmon states that one professor didn't see the need for biology majors to have an understanding of evolution. As a budding evolutionary biologist, Allmon must appreciate the significance of the genetic variability that is inherent within populations, and the range of expression that this variability may take. Faculties are no different. The quote that he selected from a public forum represents a minority viewpoint, and no generalizations should be drawn from it. I find it rather unjust to have an entire faculty burdened with the unorthodox perspective of a single anonymous member.
Unfortunately, Mr. Allmon has not kept up to date on the course offerings by the Department of Biological Sciences or the College in general. As a result, he has misrepresented the emphasis placed on evolution in our curriculum. It seems that some of the responsibility for this casual form of journalism must be borne by the Alumni Magazine. Why wasn't the article checked for possible inaccuracies? The ORC, with our full complement of course offerings, is readily available, and both students and faculty with first-hand knowledge of the situation are only a phone call away. I would hope and expect that any article that reflects on the quality of the education that we offer at Dartmouth would be adequately researched by a responsible editorship.
While I share Mr. Allmon's concern for the lack of appreciation of evolution in our society, I must disagree with his contention that evolution as a central theme in biology is "sorely lacking" in the curriculum at Dartmouth College. Quite the contrary, we in the science division are striving to do our share to provide our students with the breadth of knowledge that they deserve from a superior liberal arts education.
Hanover, N.H.
[Dr. Reed is an assistant professor of biology atthe College. For the record, we did send Mr. Allmon's article to a current faculty member to haveit checked for inaccuracies. Ed.]
Mr. Allmon responds:
I am nothing but delighted that, as indicated by Professor Reed's letter, the College appears to be reinstating evolution as the cornerstone of its biology curriculum. This change will greatly benefit all undergraduates as well as enhance the image and standing of the biology department outside of Hanover. I will, however, stand by my article as an accurate assessment of the attitude and status of the undergraduate curriculum with regard to evolutionary biology at Dartmouth as of June 1982. That the situation has changed suggests that others must have felt as I did (probably long before I did), and that Dartmouth is on its way to regaining its preeminence in educating undergraduates in organismic and evolutionary biology.
Wrong Emphasis
Having played field hockey at Dartmouth, I feel compelled to correct an observation made by Frank Cicero '85 in his profile of Mary Corrigan Twyman ("Wearers of the Green" Jan./ Feb. '85). To suggest that on account of her game-day attire, "Twyman looks more like she should be strolling along Fifth Avenue than coaching field hockey in the wilds of New Hampshire" wrongly emphasizes superficial rather than substantive elements of her career. The very point Cicero's article should have made is that even through the early uncertain years of women's athletics at Dartmouth, when it would have been easy to take a tentative approach, Twyman did exactly the opposite she worked quickly to build a strong, winning field hockey program.
Less tangible than win-loss statistics, but just as important, is the overall role Mary Corrigan Twyman and other coaches have had in the process of coeducation at Dartmouth. Coaches such as Twyman, Aggie Kurtz (squash and lacrosse), and Chris Wielgus (basketball) were just as important as any dean or professor in making women feel accepted on campus. As much as forming teams and winning games were on their agenda, so, too, were struggles for uniforms, buses, vans, playing field use and office space a constant part of their coaching experiences. That the politics of all these issues in the 1970s were changes that the coaches, for the most part, handled themselves, without getting the players involved, is even more to their credit.
Though playing in a transitional period, we were encouraged to play with as much, if not more, intensity than the men's teams with their bigger budgets and higher visibility. No doubt it is in part due to the coaching style of Mary Corrigan Twyman, but field hockey at Dartmouth does not have a genteel chapter. The early years of Dartmouth field hockey, while very different from the dramatic Ivy League contests now played in front of many fans on Red Rolfe Field, reflected a similar level of competitive intensity, albeit in rougher form. Games were won and lost, but always on a playing field where effort was what counted and complacency was disdained. Is this not unlike other principles involved in the pursuit of a liberal arts education at Dartmouth, and also why a profile of Mary Corrigan Twyman should delve deeper than surface appearances?
New York, N.Y.
[Ms. Johnston, who played varsity field hockey forthree seasons, was All-Ivy goalie in 1979 and againin 1980. Ed.]
