Letters

International embarrassment

The recent scene on the Green - a true tragedy of the commons - received worldwide coverage. We in London share with the belligerents a deep concern for maintaining and improving the beauty of Dartmouth College. We strongly deplore, however, the methods used. Negotiation and debate, not terrorism and censorship, would have been appropriate courses of action. Such reasonable methods had already produced an agreement to move the shanties to allow room for the Winter Carnival snow sculpture.

Again, we are sympathetic to the perpetrators' goals. Nonetheless, though it would certainly beautify the College, ridding it of its most prominent eyesore and source of international embarrassment, we must refrain from the temptation to destroy the operations of The Review by sledgehammer or any other violent means, because of our belief in its right to exist. The ideals of toleration of diversity and freedom of expression oblige us to contain our outrage and confront The Review on the battleground of ideas. Fortunately, in this area opponents of The Review have a clear advantage.

Furthermore, by ordering the shanties be removed from the Green after Carnival, President McLauglin gives the impression (mistaken, we hope) that terrorism can be an effective means of political action on the Dartmouth campus.

JONATHAN L. SHRIER '85 London, Eng.

Ashamed

I have suffered silently through the demise of the Indian symbol, the abolition of "Eleazar Wheelock," the controversy over the Hovey murals, the "gay" student group, and, most recently, the dismal performance of Dartmouth on the athletic fields. However, I have never been ashamed of my alma mater until last weekend's national TV coverage of the "shanty confrontation." The spokesman for the dissident anti-apartheid group looked as if he had just graduated from a terrorist training camp instead of being a representative of Dartmouth's student body!

Apropos of our investments in South Africa, I wonder if this dissident group has ever studied the catastrophic effects of pulling Western capital out of South Africa? Unless the void were filled in by the Soviets it would create economic chaos, universal unemployment and poverty which would magnify the present problems manyfold. This is probably just another voice crying out of the wilderness but I can remain silent no longer.

Manlius, N.Y.

Messing around

Today, again, Dartmouth students made the Boston papers, arguing the apartheid divestment. Issue after issue, the alumni mess around with the Indian symbol in the Letters to the Editor in our alumni magazine.

Because people know I went to Dartmouth and I like to talk about what the school has done for me, and because I interview possible candidates for admission to Dartmouth, I get involved in discussion about the shantytown and the Indian symbol. I welcome the publicity because it means that some students and my college are interested in making up their minds and in expressing what they think.

Naturally I take sides because I know by my own experience that what the students think is in the direction of what the country will think and act on down the political and economic and social roads. I remember that D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover was forbidden and on the locked shelves when I was in school, and we couldn't even buy beer at Tanzi's.

I wish that The Review were honestly named the Opinion Review or Special Interest and that clear, basic thinking were more evident in the "for" and "against" struggles over what are important and therefore dangerous ideas. The dangers face us all, and I admit that I am made aware of my fears as I read about the College and its troubles. I am afraid that we won't come up with the productive answers.

I need straight thinking in living my religion, my politics, my economics, my art. I am also aware of how poor we are at arguing religion or government or love, but in order to get better at it we must work at it. So I admire the students and hope that the College (that includes me) can make the best of it.

Hanover, N.H.

A suggestion

James Breeden, Dean of the Tucker Foundation states that the $l8 billion pension fund of TIAA-CREF, the educators' pension fund, should commit "this divestment in March of 1987 if the South African government has not demonstrated that South Africa is on the path toward a democratic and unitary society ..."

As my idealism is greater than his, perhaps I could suggest that he change his comment to read "any country" instead of just South Africa. Unfortunately, that would include Nicaragua, Cuba, Russia, nine-tenths of Africa, most of the Middle East, the Balkans, Middle Europe, and so on. As Dean Breeden would rather return his grant than attack these countries, perhaps he could qualify this suggested change by adding a sentence: "Of course, this applies only to allies of the United States."

Kansas City, Mo.

Sounding off

The dispute concerning the football coach got exaggerated publicity as soon as it got into the courts. Juggler Joe Paterno leaped into the breach, trying to protect his dynasty. He has a good disciple at Penn, with its exorbitant football subsidy - how did Penn ever get into the Ivy League? They have been a big professional program for years. And Blackman, of course, who probably was a lot more authoritative than hypocritical Joe. I feel strongly that Dartmouth's athletic director and council have the right to hire and fire as they wish. And surely any judge in the country will agree. Coaches do not enjoy the tenure provisions of the faculty, as Juggler Joe implied.

As a professor emeritus (Pitt), I happen to think ROTC a good thing for our country. We would have been in bad shape in World War II without it. Where better to find a pool of intelligent, democratically trained young men than among the graduates of our good colleges? However, the faculty must approve any additions or modifications to Dartmouth's curriculum. Most of the ROTC courses are not academically respectable and should not carry credit toward the degree. And were the students consulted on this issue?

The sit ins and the shanties are certainly symptomatic of the national concerns of us all. Minority representation in the student body is a very difficult problem to solve: women, not so difficult; blacks, very difficult for every college in this country (where do we find blacks qualified to be admitted and to stay in?) Hispanics, probably the same situation; indians, I don't know, but I cannot see anything demeaning about the American Indian as a symbol.

Much of this, as you say, is reflection of our national attitudes. While I deplore the wave of conservatism evinced by The Review and Jeffrey Hart, I suppose I must grant them the right to make their views known. But I hope Dartmouth educates its graduates to distinguish half-truths.

Jenerstown, Pa.

Let's be even-handed

I have just received The Bulletin issued by Dartmouth College on Jan. 28 and am in harmony with what was said and the manner with which the College is dealing with its problems with one exception. I note that the persons who destroyed the shanties and who occupied Parkhurst Hall without College authorization are being subject to disciplinary action. If we are to be evenhanded in this matter I suggest that the persons who built the "shanties" without College authorization on College property be subjected to the same disciplinary action.

I am not in favor of "hanging" any of these persons or even being very severe with them. They all acted out personal ideals respected by the law of the land and which Dartmouth College must traditionally respect. My only objection is to dealing with the problem piecemeal.

Waterloo, lowa

Goon squads

An article appeared on February 13th in The New York Times which seemed to epitomize the nature of the national press's coverage of the turmoil in Hanover. Matthew Wald's piece was titled "At Dartmouth, the Right Borrows the Protest Mantle of the Left." The conflict sparked by the destruction of the shantytown on the Green has been universally portrayed as one between conservatives and liberals. Such an analysis seems to miss the mark. Quite simply, one group of students has adopted goon squad tactics, something which has always been shared by right and left alike. This behavior is not desirable, let alone heroic, and the 12 students suspended by the College should in no way be hailed as martyrs by any political faction.

The abuses committed by Ferdinand Marcos's right-wing neophytes in the Philippines have been much publicized in recent weeks. Similar tactics, short of spilling blood in front of cameras, are used to break up protests in the Soviet Union. The only difference between these examples is that in the latter, the people being accosted with sledgehammers are labelled as noble free dom-fighters by the American right (including The Review).

The common thread throughout is the enormous arrogance of the perpetrators. Assuming they possess both the moral high-ground and the support of the powers-that-be, they believe that they can step outside the boundaries of accepted conduct with impunity. When Ivy League students practice such tactics, they are often glamorized. Give them a gun and place them on the streets of Manila, and they'll be in good company.

In sum, such behavior is incompatible with a democratic form of government (and there are dictators on both the left and right). If our institutions of higher education are concerned with turning out the future leaders of our society, they had better send out a signal as to which type of leadership we demand.

New York, N.Y.

A friendly reminder

The best president Dartmouth ever had was Ernest Martin Hopkins, a businessman and top-notch educational administrator. Perhaps David McLaughlin should read Charlie Widmayer's book, Hopkins of Dartmouth for a second time, and more carefully. This is not to suggest a copycat approach to Hopkins' successes transferred over to Dartmouth's 14th president, just a friendly reminder that he himself is a businessman. Thence, by sprinkling Hoppy's experiences with a few new ideas of his own, plus continual excellent support from a fine Board of Trustees, he still could turn out to be one of the College's finest presidents.

As for a faculty that ladles out skimpy portions of cooperation to their leader under the guise of being left out of things, I'd say give the worst of these thin-skinned malcontents the boot. Academia has plenty of professors out there looking longingly at those salary increases initiated and approved by McLaughlin since '81.

Redondo Beach, Calif.

"Your business here ... "

It is self-evident that the purpose of a student at Dartmouth is to study mathematics, languages, the arts, social and physical sciences and that the purpose of the faculty is to teach those subjects.

Relations between our country and others are in the hands of the State Department and are not the primary business of the College's faculty or students. Members of the College would do well not to allow their personal feelings on subjects extraneous to their proper scholarly functions to result in overt acts or controversial and divisive conduct.

It is an excellent idea to, as Benjamin Franklin put it, "Mind your business."

Portland, Me.

Whence the College'scharacter?

The erection of shanties on the Green was a form of protest and probably not an acceptable one, in that it desecrated an area of general public usage without that public's consent.

This protest was implicitly tolerated, even accepted, by the College's administration, which did nothing.

The attempted removal of the shanties was also a form of protest - probably no more acceptable than the other. But this protest resulted in the suspension of 12 students.

Without arguing the merit of either protest, it does seem to me that the administration's handling of this business was less than even-handed or fair.

On another, but related, subject - can anyone related to Dartmouth find an American Indian who is really offended by Dartmouth's Indian - symbolic of strength, fortitude, perseverance, the will to overcome adversity? If such a person exists, he can't be very proud of his Indian-ness.

By being so afraid of offending someone (blacks, Jews, Indians, homosexuals, women or the latest whatever cause), isn't Dartmouth just becoming flaccid and wishy-washy?

My wife's family is Czech. They fled their considerable properties, with no notice and less than the shirts on their backs, in 1946, to escape the Russians. I don't think very many people reading this (including me) really understand the strength of character an action like that takes. I'd like to think Dartmouth was helping develop that kind of character, but, unhappily, I don't think it is.

Penn, England

Lest the old traditions lie

So what's this I hear say? My heritage did tuition pay. No one told me ... or my family That Dartmouth should have been free. My family sacrificed much to pay the bill Required by the "noble, virtuous savage" of a College on the Hill. To this day I still pay and pay So what's this alumna's opinion really say??? If this "traditional" belief is held so dear Then let me make this very clear. This charmingly homogenous institution Did not pay for four years of tuition.

Ithaca, N.Y.

[Alumna Clute describes herself as "a slightlyright-of-center Seneca who still opposes the Indian symbol." Ed.]

Berkeley in Hanover

Of all the specious, mealy-mouthed efforts for self justification for caving in on all fronts of the recent media-featured, heartsickening events in Hanover, President McLaughlin's letter comprising the most recent Bulletin is about tops in inanity.

There was a time when one could take pride in being a Dartmouth graduate. Its scholastic rating was tops, its athletic teams were great, its students were red-blooded Americans - the pick of the schools of the country, and its image across the country and abroad was one of high principles, great traditions, patriotism - all worthy of great pride.

Starting with the administration of former President Kemeny and culminating with the disgraceful appeasement of the last several months, this image has been eroded to the point where scholarship has been diluted and weakened by the over-use of Affirmative Action, athletic teams are the doormat of the Ivy League, we have indecisive fence-walking leadership, lost tradition, and a left-leaning faculty and student body ...

Right now I feel more like an alumnus of Berkeley than of Dartmouth.

Delray Beach, Fla.

Clash of rights

The bad news coming from Hanover these days is indeed disturbing. I approach the subject like a skittish horse before a brass band. The issues are volatile and visible.

We must bear in mind that the crisis at Dartmouth is multifaceted - it is a series of interrelated critical problems, not a single one. Some have to do with race, class, gender, and homophobia. Others deal with college governance, executive control, and faculty discontent. Still others are concerned with the excesses of drinking and fraternity life. All of which is a recipe for big trouble that can be potentially explosive.

In an increasingly polarized society, I am convinced that one of the important reasons for alienation of the young from the old in our time is to be found not in the cussedness of either generation but in the abruptness of social change. The sudden modification of normal conditions is a threat to the security of the individual. And contemporary life at Dartmouth is replete with such shocks. Consider, for instance, the introduction of women, the discontinuance of the Indian symbol, and the objections raised about the Hovey murals, coupled with the demise and rebirth of ROTC military training. And then consider the controversy over the relocation of the Medical School followed by the firing of a respected football coach and the furor over the dismantling of the shanties that were built in symbolic protest against an oppressive race policy in South Africa.

Both the young and the old are flailed by the same kinds of abrupt challenge, but the young find it relatively simple to adjust to change, at least superficially, in part because they have not developed a regimen of life that has to be deviated from under pressure. Therefore when the young tend to rebel against the accustomed norms, the reaction is often severe.

As a result of the abruptly altering social mores, the myths and shibboleths of yesterday are not only unbelieved by the young, they become positively abhorrent. And many of the older generation, unable to see any similarity between their own noble causes and those of today, are outraged by the rejections of institutional loyalty. And they are a threat because they challenge verities that are cornerstones of what we know as the Dartmouth fellowship.

Like Greek tragedy, much of the current ferment involves a clash of rights rather than of wrongs. In trying to resolve these serious conflicts, Dartmouth needs to avoid the arrogance that can afflict academic communities no less than other groups. The worst thing that can happen is for the polarized elements to rigidify. Let us not become enmeshed in this political thicket, where we as an institution could be torn apart by thorns and brambles. The fostering of personal values, a sense of continuing obligation to others these too are parts of the idea of our alma mater.

Marblehead, Mass.

Freeddm of the press andprotest

Having been a witness to and a participant in the issues of freedom of the press and protest as part of an educational process, I am saddened by what I read about Dartmouth College.

John Dickey's defense of freedom of the college press published in the June 1951 Alumni Magazine stands as an elegant and forceful statement. I agree with it whole- heartedly.

There are two issues, however, which President Dickey did not address. One is the subject of outside funding and the other the use of brownshirt tactics against those in the community with whom one disagrees.

A free press earns that right through paying its bills securing advertisers and subscribers. If it thus succeeds, its freedom is, and should be, unlimited and it will serve its community well. Foreign funding of a local press is abhorrent.

A free press can lose its rights by using violence against those with whom they disagree. This is the natural right of any community of men and women.

In the spirit of John Dickey's letter, I am enormously encouraged by the meetings held on campus that is the real Dartmouth community.

McLean, VA

Sensibilities

At the end of Winter term 1979, the College's administration sent the men from Buildings and Grounds over to clean up around Cutter Hall where students from the Afro-Am had built a graveyard in snow, after the events of Soweto, to symbolize their opposition to Dartmouth's continuing investment in South African apartheid. The College said it was unaware of any snow sculpture, that B&G had been sent to clean up a mess in front of one of the dorms before the Trustees arrived in town. In response, students from the Afro-Am, NAD, and other groups marched on the snow sculpture on the Green and defaced it with black and red paint. This was enough to upset everyone else and the College called a moratorium on classes. Things at Dartmouth, like South Africa, have not come very far in seven years.

In 1979 John Kemeny gave the opening speech of the moratorium in which he urged the student body to overcome their divisions for the good of the community. Then he left the room. Was this hypocrisy? The only division I saw then was between the students and the administration. Now, seven years later, his speech has found its time and place.

I liked the shanties. In light of the current building boom going on at the College, it's nice to be reminded of where it all began. Without the shanty there would be no new dorms, new museums, or new sports facilities. Many others do not share my aesthetic sensibilities. I have no bone to pick with those who are anti-shanty, but I am concerned about the way in which these sentiments are expressed. The Green is not a suburb of Belfast or Beirut. When students use tactics of violence and intimidation, tactics they themselves vociferously condemn in those places, to achieve their political ends; when they claim to be ignorant of the symbolic implications of their actions: by sledgehammering the shanties on the night of Martin Luther King's holiday they are attacking black, and human, aspirations for justice and freedom on two continents; and when they cloak their reasons behind a mundane and trivial excuse, the same one chosen by the administration seven years ago, to cloud and confuse the real issues at hand, then, out of respect for truth and the peaceful resolution of conflict and initiation of change in human society, we must join as a community in condemning their act.

I suspect that the College is totally amoral as to where the money comes from to raise its dorms and classrooms, whether from gangsters, racist regimes, or right wing ideologues who think their money has bought them the right to use the College's time-honored name to advertise their political doctrine. If the worldly success of other former Review staffers is any indication, then our shanty-bashers have no need to fear for the future, but Dartmouth cannot allow their punishment to be turned into a reward. The January attack on the shanties must be condemned unequivocally from the highest offices of the College.

Norwich, Vt.

Speaking up

I want to express my utmost support and respect for the actions of the students and faculty demonstrating against Dartmouth's tacit support of apartheid. In response to violence and hatred they responded nonviolently. Prior to the attacks, President McLaughlin stated that "it is important to respect the freedom of expression for all parties as long as that right is exercised in a responsible manner." The violent manner in which The Review members chose to "express" themselves was irresponsible, and, happily, was not condoned by the College. The decision of the administration, calling a moratorium on classes to recognize and try to address the issues of racism and intolerance at Dartmouth, was a positive response. Their action, like that of the DCD, involved courage.

My feelings upon reading the letters of this month's Alumni Magazine (Jan./ Feb.) differed greatly from those mentioned above. Namely I experienced revulsion and shock. Obviously it is, in the Dartmouth community, still acceptable to be racist. The letters in this issue are actually somewhat less blatantly bigoted than in issues past; however, I am appalled by the various writers' insensitivity to other members of our Dartmouth family ...

Dialogue about racism at Dartmouth is not likely to fade soon. In light of this and repeated alumni remarks to the effect that those who "don't like it ... [can] go elsewhere" (Francis H. Horn '30, Jan/Feb '86), the strong editorial position of this magazine is heartening. "There is probably no healthier hallmark of a sound academic environment than vigorous, well-reasoned difference of opinion on controversial matters. And we are glad to report that 'Love it or leave it!' is not in vogue at the College. Ed." (Jan/Feb '86) With this in mind I would like to conclude these thoughts with the oftquoted passage of Pastor Martin Niemoller:

"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up."

North Bennington, Vt.

Antagonisms unreported

Dartmouth's success as an educational institution is due in part to generations of talented students, to the actions of occasionally enlightened administrations, and, in no small measure, to a faculty committed to high standards of teaching and scholarship. Historically, Dartmouth's educators, many of whom devote their entire careers to the College, have quite logically played a central role in setting the educational direction of the institution. From all indications, governance by professional educators is now being replaced by governance by professional administrators. Quite apart from specific issues currently under debate, this shift in power and policy must have profound consequences for the College as an educational commmunity.

These changes, and the resulting antagonisms between the faculty and the administration, have gone largely unreported in the Alumni Magazine, which regularly provides administration, alumni, and student viewpoints. I for one would be grateful if the Magazine would also air the faculty side of the present dispute.

St. Louis, Mo.

[For coverage of faculty concerns, see the Collegesection of the March issue. Ed.]

Major issues

There have been three major issues facing the Dartmouth community: The return of the Indian symbol, the return of ROTC to the campus in a type of program recommended by the U. S. Navy, and an in-depth reexamination of faculty tenure.

It is clear that the issue of the removal of the Indian symbol has created more divisiveness in the Dartmouth community than any other in its history.

The Dartmouth community consists of four elements: the student body, the administration, the alumni, and the faculty. The administration and the Board of Trustees, however, believe that the faculty is first among equals. Accordingly, its decisions have consistently followed the faculty position, particularly in respect to the Indian symbol.

Since neither the administration nor the Trustees, by resolution, have acted affirmatively on the restoration of the Indian symbol, I propose the following: 1. Amend the charter of Dartmouth College making the American Indian the official College symbol. 2. This amendment would be accomplished by an act of the New Hampshire legislature. 3. Further, to that end, the establishment of a fund financed by contributions to defray the expenses of attaining this goal.

These expenses would include employment of an attorney well versed in New Hampshire constitutional law; professionals and staff required to coordinate the project and to appear before individual New Hampshire legislators; and telephone, stationery, and mailing expenses. Hopefully, many of these services will be volunteered.

For example, although 3,000 miles away from Hanover, I would be happy to establish the fund and coordinate the correspondence until such time as it became necessary to move it closer to the College.

I welcome volunteers who would agree to help effect the successful achievement of our goal and look forward to hearing from alumni who would support this effort.

Rolling Hills, Calif.

Who's in the money?

The controversy over divestiture and the various reactions thereto have attained even the upper regions of the national magazines, such as Time and The Nation, to say nothing of The St. Petersburg Times and TheBoston Globe.

I suppose that I am not as erudite a product of Dartmouth as I should be. Or could be if I were younger. After all, we didn't have the girls (Damn it) and we did have the Indian!

But I am puzzled as to just what effect Dartmouth's divestiture of its holdings in companies doing business in South Africa can have. Let us take a simple example. Assume I hold a large quantity of stock in A. Big Company, Inc., operating a large plant in South Africa, as well as in several other countries, including our own. Regardless of its fair labor practices in South Africa, as well as in other places, I want to punish them for operating in South Africa. I am receiving a splendid return on my ABC stock, but I will show ABC what I think of them. I tell my broker to sell it. He advises me not to, but, being high principled I say, "Sell!" That will fix ABC and South Africa.

But one can not sell something unless someone else buys it. To my dismay I find that Joe Blowhard, a close neighbor to me, boasts - over cocktails - he has bought exactly the same number of shares that I directed my broker to sell, and they are all in A.G.B. Company Inc.! Worse still, Joe is gloating over his purchase.

Please! Will someone of our faculty, our alumni, our undergraduates please tell me who is being punished and who has been benefited - and if so, how?

Dunedin, Fla.

Inaction and insensitivity

As I read the accounts of the trashing of the symbolic shantytown by that fun group of guys and gals from The Review, I thought I heard someone exclaim, "Excelsior! On ward and upward!" But perhaps not.

I suggest that almost as offensive as the intolerant conduct of the wrecking crew toward the minority who built the shanties is the inaction and insensitivity of those in charge in the Dartmouth community who were apparently going to let the eyesore continue indefinitely. I believe that each of us has a right to a part of a Green free and clear of obstruction, subject to temporary special uses such as ice sculptures, bonfires, and other First Amendment exercises. I submit that the administration failed to act responsively or responsibly when it did not remove both the cause of the demonstration and the eyesore it created.

I hope that for once the College authorities will act quickly and decisively to put this sordid affair behind us. The night riders should be disciplined fairly. The South African trash should be dumped from the portfolio forthwith. And you who are fortunate enough to be in Hanover should again be about your business there.

Falls Church, Va.

Having it both ways

Suspend a dozen students for attempting to clean up the Green, or, a week later, arrest another dozen or so for trying to pre- vent the clean up of the Green.

You can't have it-both ways.

Belchertoum, Mass.

Good taste?

On the masthead of the Alumni Magazine it states, "This publication is guided by Dartmouth's principle of freedom of expression and accepted standards of good taste." What happened to the College's good taste when it permitted the shanties to remain for many weeks as an eyesore on the campus?

The synonyms for justice are equity, fairness, and impartiality. After reading all about the shanty affair and learning about the harsh judgment and punishment imposed on the so-called wrecking crew, it seems to me that the decision was far from a just one.

When the shanties were erected why didn't the College stick to and carry out its first and proper ruling to remove the eyesore immediately? If it was wrong to erect them let's admit it was also wrong to destroy them. We all know the old saying that "two wrongs do not make a right." But in this case two wrongs did make one unjustifiable right and it was the primary offenders who built the shanties. Without a first "wrong" there would not have been the second.

Was it all right for the students to take over the president's office and cause the cancellation of classes? What was the punishment for these offenders? As far as I know there was none. Isn't the president's office considered a privileged place and not subject to "raids" by a group of students? In my day as an undergraduate such action was unthinkable and I am certain it would have brought severe punishment. But in the present case it was just ignored by the preSident and the administration and apparently cheered by a segment of the faculty.

The extremely negative and unfavorable attention given to Dartmouth by the media recently is embarrassing and, I am sorry to say, shameful. I have always been proud to say that I and my two sons were Dartmouth graduates but now it is a matter of trying to explain what is happening in Hanover, but it is not easy.

Quite frankly, I find the situation up there most distasteful as it appears to me that the top echelon of the administration from the president on down hears only the minority voices and is too concerned with killing The Review rather than handing out impartial justice. In my opinion the punishment in this affair was considerably more devastating than the crime.

West Palm Beach, Fla.

An ill wind

Last evening I read with great sorrow and dismay about the "trial" and virtual explusion of a dozen bright and fine-looking young men and women for doing what the Trustees should have done much sooner during the daylight hours. Finally, I understand why it is that the Indian does not care to be the Dartmouth symbol.

It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Out of the ashes of this tribulation is born a new symbol for the College on the hill - the Kangaroo.

Uniontown, Penn.

Controversies

We have received a Bulletin from President McLaughlin suggesting we not be too concerned over a stream of adverse news flowing from Dartmouth.

It is not surprising in this disturbed and rapidly changing world that Dartmouth also has its controversies. But it has been distressing lately to see elements of meanness, intolerance, and violence appear in the affairs at Hanover.

If a select group, such as the Dartmouth community, cannot act reasonably and wisely to produce solutions for problems and a better society for the future, who will?

Carlsbad, N.M.

Logic?

I appreciated Dorothy Foley's Undergraduate Chair, "Are we 'role-ing' over and playing dead?" (January/February '86); however I could not let her interpretation of the negative response to Ms. Ferraro's position on abortion go unchallenged. I believe it can more rightly be attributed to a general awakening in our nation to the absurdity of that position, no matter who espouses it. If one is "personally opposed to abortion on demand," it would follow that the most logical reason for that opposition would be a belief that the developing fetus is a person entitled to the most basic right, the right to live.

To refuse to act on a belief of that sort in the public arena is not only cowardly and inconsistent, but morally reprehensible. Do we not look with disapproval on the 19th- century politican whose position was "I'm personally opposed to slavery, but I don't have a right to legislate morality"? To believe that in an abortion an innocent human life is taken and to do nothing to try to stop its practice is simply hypocritical, and certainly not acting in the tradition of Edna St. Vincent Millay who was willing to sacrifice her reputation to see justice done.

Hillsboro, N.H.

The free-tuition myth

Among the many gems of thought offered in the letters of the January/February issue was the implication by Francis Horn that Native American students attend Dartmouth without paying tuition. ("Perhaps some other college will give them free Tuition of $10,000 a year.") Native American students do not now, and never have, attendedDartmouth tuition-free. I invite anyone who doubts the veracity of this to check, as I did, with College Archivist Kenneth Cramer. But myths such as free tuition for Native Americans, and that it's possible to have a "dignified" stereotype which is not racist, are what keep the Indian symbol proponents going - and by this time I'm convinced that neither fact nor reason will affect them.

As wrong as Mr. Horn's statement is, however, the editor managed to go one better in his attempt to clarify the situation. The editor's note following the letter states: "Dartmouth is one of a handful of colleges offering financial assistance on a 'needblind' basis ..." In fact,' all financial aid at Dartmouth is based solely on need. This applies to all students, including Native Americans, who must meet the same criteria as anyone else in order to qualify for aid. Many Native American students have received absolutely no aid, and many of those now enrolled will graduate with student loans in excess of $12,000.

Finally, I would suggest that if the letters in the last issue are indicative of the depth of thought of our alumni, then the letters column has outlived its usefulness. Nine of the eleven letters had as their subject either Native Americans or the Indian symbol. If it's that important for these people to call themselves Indians and their wives squaws, far be it from me to spoil their game, but please spare me from reading about it.

South Strafford, Vt.

[Mr. Hebert, a Narragansett Indian, is directorof the Native American Program at the College. We regret the editorial blunder alluded to above. Ed.]

Preferential treatment

There are those of you in the Dartmouth "community" who insist on believing that Native American students receive preferential treatment at Dartmouth. Well, you are right; they are indeed treated differently - they receive more than their fair share of ignorance, ridicule, derision, racism, and even blatant hatred. This is the "preferential treatment" Native American students enjoy at Dartmouth College.

Contrary to popular belief, however, Native American students DO NOT receive preferential treatment with respect to admissions or financial aid. Native Americans go through the same admission procedure as any other candidate and are awarded financial aid on a NEED BASIS, as are all financial aid recipients. One final note: Native American students do not attend Dartmouth tuition free.

Lebanon, N.H.

In a glass house

I was pleased to receive recently an envelope from the newly born "Alumni Committee for a Strong Dartmouth." At first, I must confess, I was disturbed when confronted with the curious mailing - alarmed even. What's the College doing lending its mailing list for political purposes, whether they be pro or con an individual alum's philosophy? I was ready to write an angry, strident letter. Then I opened the envelope, read the contents thoroughly and calmed down. Now I'm ready to write a more subdued letter.

The information sent by the ACFASD - sent at length, I might add, over the course of nine single-spaced pages that begin beneath the image of a Native American I've never seen is of such inconsequence that it hardly qualifies as politization. It's hogwash is what it is. It begins, "Dartmouth alumni are saddened by the recent spate of negative press that reflects badly on their College" and it goes on from there to detail the ACFASD's heavy handed and hardly high-minded recipe of solutions. Among them, "The need for a better balanced faculty ... The need to dissolve the politically activist Tucker Foundation ... The need to strengthen the Dartmouth intercollegiate athletics program ... the need to supplement the recently installed Army ROTC program with the superior Navy ROTC. . . . The pressing need (italics mine) to end the longest and most divisive issue in Dartmouth's history by bringing back the Indian symbol." Ad nauseum is a cliche, so I'll not use it here.

My submission: These things are not "needs." Furthermore, it seems a foolish, divisive course (a divisiveness purposely chosen, I suspect) to present them as such. The ACFASD issues no study on the balance of the faculty. At the very least it is residing in a glass house when it talks about the Tucker Foundation's activism. It doesn't spell out why there's a need to win games; I was of the impression that personal growth, physical and moral fitness and camaraderie were what Ivy athletics were about. In fact, having been a four-year member of a .500 program at Dartmouth, I can attest that all positive values of athletics can be derived without a championship. Whether ROTC is a need is debatable (and should be debated); a certainly ramroding ROTC home is not a need. And I'm sure this letters column has seen quite enough ink spilled on the "pressing need" to reintroduce the "Indian" symbol. Would the ACFASD have us put more faith in symbols than substance? This is what is implied by the fervor of its charge.

The bulky envelope also contained position papers for two candidates who are running for the Board of Trustees, Daniel E. Provost III and Stephen Gouldin Kelley. Their candidacies are based largely on the precepts of the ACFASD. I know neither of these men, but do not doubt that they have been loyal, creditable Big Greeners.

But while not challenging the gentlemen's claims as upright alums, I was most bothered by the hard-to-escape conclusion that they would question MINE if I did (and I do) disagree with them. If this ACFASD is trying to divide and conquer the College, then I condemn it. If reasoned discourse, debate, even the compromise that Webster embodied in his very considerable image disappear from the nation's campuses, than they will disappear everywhere. Colleges are not banana republics to be politicked against from the rain forests of a mailing list. Colleges should be - have been - the philosopher kings of society. I don't want someone with an arbitrary list of knee-jerk, whimsical responses to be in charge of mine.

And so, felicitiously, the mailing finally caused no disgust, not even alarm. It is so out there, so extremely un-Dartmouth in its extremism that I knew it was inconsequential. It's the kind of thing that is of grave concern in unstable societies, but not a cause of worry in confident ones.

Well then, the ACFASD would declaim (no doubt loudly), Dartmouth is at present unstable - Haven't you been reading your papers! Sure I have, and they gave me cause for concern. But the news of tribulations in Hanover wasn't really upsetting, especially since we realize that there is often tribulation on campuses. The idea of being in a community whose business it is to stimulate thought - even to provoke - and not have tribulation is absurd. There were trying times when I was at Dartmouth (early '70s), but they were hardly times that tried the institution. Nevertheless, the recent spate of media attention prompted me to plan something of a personal fact-finding mission. If there's a crime, nothing like going to the scene of it - so I went to Hanover.

The biggest difference from the (good?) old days seemed to be, quite frankly, better snow at the Skiway (snowmaking was introduced this season). The College is stable, quite stable. The issues being discussed in the national media are actually stimulating debate in Hanover. As a professor I visited put it, "The one thing that used to bother me was that the place could become boring. It certainly isn't now." That man thought (and I concur) that some of the news from Dartmouth has been slanted, unfair, over-blown but no cause to think the walls of Baker are crumbling. The walls of Parkhurst? That's another question, and one to be discussed. The leadership of an institution should always be scrutinized. This leadership is being scrutinized, and I was assured that it is undergoing some self-scrutiny. What's wrong with that? It's a time to ask questions and talk things over. It's not a time to leap to the barricades.

Dartmouth stands, securely, In Hanover not in the press reports, and certainly not in the vituperative campaigns of small bands of extremist alumni. We are the extremists, they always used to say of people like us. As I file away the ACFASD's recent package, I beg to differ.

New York, N.Y.

The ol' macho

Walter Sosnowski in the January/February issue says, "I don't remember a student who wanted a date not getting one whenever he wanted." This presumably proves that coeds are not necessary at Dartmouth for purposes of entertainment, whatever other value they may have. Did Walt and I attend the same college?

In my Hanover years I had one (1) date - a Hanover girl, since I certainly couldn't afford to import any girl from even an adjoining town nor did I know any girls who could even swing the taxi fare from the train station. This date was also curious in that all Hanover families shipped their daughters out of town at age 12 and kept them out of town till they were 50 or looked 50, whichever came first. My date had some- how slipped through the roadblocks but was quickly rounded up and shipped back to Siberia.

One date per college career may not sound like much but it put me one up on most of my friends. Sosnowski also wonders if the growth in gay student activities is a reaction of some sort to the presence of coeds on campus. This is like saying that if they open a saloon on Main Street we'll all quit drinking.

As for ROTC, he seems to feel that it's useful in that it means our best men will lead us in time of war. ROTC helps some individuals financially. Those who sign up need the money. I don't remember any ROTC at Dartmouth before World War II but when the war started, every reasonably warm body on the campus was yanked into the services and we all did okay. Don't worry - they'll get us with or without ROTC. I'm not opposed to ROTC but think it's unimportant insofar as our defense structure is concerned.

Mr. Sosnowski also thinks our teams lose more because they lack that old macho Indian to march behind. He can't imagine fighting for the Big Green. When I was at Dartmouth, Cornell was the powerhouse, behind the label of the Big Red. Penn marched behind a Quaker, symbol of pacifism, while John Harvard with his thick glasses and mortarboard symbolized the school that helped found college football.

As I noted years ago, dropping the Indian was rather silly. But our crude use of that Indian (caricatured on diapers?) was worse. And dropping the whole childish Halloween-style business is hardly of any importance to any adult with a genuine interest in the real world.

If Dartmouth teams can't win without that symbol, Dartmouth athletes should grow up. If alumni have nothing better to worry about after all these years, perhaps we kept the symbol too long! I'm beginning to think that every Dartmouth man who grew up with the Indian symbol (and, while we're at it, without coeds) never really grew up at all.

Weston, Conn.

Saying it just right

My reason for writing - you are doing a superb job as #1 man of our alumni magazine. Your editorial this month ("A family affair" Jan./ Feb.) is very thoughtfully written and I can tell you appreciated us older guys!

I am a co-founder of our Dartmouth Club in Greenwich (in 1951) and assure you that my comments are multiple. So many of us have worked for Dartmouth over the years and frown at our current PR. Embarrassed we are yet firm. Your editorial says it just right.

Quechee, Vt.

Students against famine

Last year, two members of the Class of 1988 started a nationwide effort to raise money to fight famine around the world. The organization they founded is now called Students Against Famine Every where (SAFE).

Letters were sent out to colleges and universities across the country asking students to set aside a day to raise money to stop the problem of world hunger. Seventy-seven colleges and universities from all parts of the country participated, and together they raised approximately $66,000. This money was given to CARE, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services, and the Red Cross.

This year, due to limited funding from the College, we've had to reduce our nationwide mailing and practically eliminate any phone contact that we may have to make with other schools. We are concerned that people may think that the problem of starvation has disappeared. Well, the problem still exists, and we want to help wipe it out. However, without additional fundds it will be very difficult to duplicate last year's performance. We are looking for financial support and fundraising ideas from alumni and other sources outside the College. We would greatly appreciate any help that we may receive. Contributions may be sent to SAFE, c/o The Tucker Foundation, HB 6154, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755.

Hanover, N.H.

Why print them?

I graduated from Dartmouth in 1930 so I have been a reader of the Alumni Magazine for over 55 years. I enjoy and respect it.

However, I will never understand how a fellow alumnus can write a letter to you that reads as Dan Steinberg's did on page 12 of the January/February issue.

Further, I cannot imagine why you ever published such rubbish. No one is interested in his choice of libation or his need to return to Hanover to get drunk. He should be ashamed of himself for expressing such thoughts and you should for publishing them.

Certainly you cannot prevent his writing you his ideas - but why print them?

As an aside, I have no objection to one drinking. I take a couple each day - so don't misunderstand.

Bay Harbor Islands, Fla.

[We think there was a certain tongue-in-cheeksatire involved. Give it another go-around. Ed.]

A splendid effort

The Dartmouth Alumni Magazine feature on Parents/Alumni in the College is simply superb! All of us in the program owe you a deep debt of gratitude. Not only is the article itself compelling, but the short synopsis in the table of contents is a valuable eye-catcher. Now if only the participation rate matches your splendid efforts!

Hanover, N.H.

Let's love one another

Well, I have finally read enough letters bemoaning the abolishment of the Indian symbol to submit my own entry into the dialogue. Many have written about losing the symbol of a tradition of excellence. The writers of these letters seem to ignore the tradition of caricaturizing and humiliation of a race, which goes with such a symbol.

I have always admired the love Dartmouth alumni have for the "College on the Hill." However, maybe it is time we decided to love one another first. If the symbol offends members of our family, let's give it up for good.

Boston, Mass.

Policy directions

'Tis not my wont to write letters such as this; nevertheless I read those from others with regularity. To say that I have been distressed with some of the policy directions Dartmouth has taken the past decade or so would be an understatement.

For the moment, however, I address, or rather query, but two of these policies.

1.I am pleased that ROTC is back at Dartmouth. It never should have disappeared. Question: What participation in U.S. services have some of the most outspoken anti- ROTC activists had? I would suspect that WWII, Korea, and Vietnam veterans would strongly endorse ROTC, as I do.

2. I would hope some of the anti-Indian symbol advocates watched the Florida State Seminoles in the Gator Bowl game. They not only have a fine football team, which we don't, but they are truly proud of their Seminole title and symbol - which so many of us aren't. Question: How can we be so ridiculous?

Rochester, Minn.

Elementary politeness

I was not moved to interject myself into the Indian symbol controversy until I encountered the letter by Jeffrey Hart '51 in the December '85 issue of the Alumni Magazine. It then became clear that there was, after all, something a professional Philosopher could do to promote an understanding of the issues.

Normally, if something one person does or displays offends another person, it is the responsibility of the one giving offense to render an apology, or at least to avoid, in so far as he can, doing or displaying the thing that gives offense. That is only ele mentary politeness.

It shows a rather crude disregard for the other person to deny that responsibility and, instead, to enumerate all sorts of reasons why the other ought not to be offended and why he really is at fault for taking offense. If I show my disrespect for some person by giving him the finger, I can hardly convince the world that I do in fact love him and respect him, utterly and sincerely, if I proceed to argue that the finger is, after all, only one out of five fingers on the hand and its being in an upright position means nothing at all (after all, it has to be in some position or other) and after all, no one suffered physical injury, etc., etc.

Native Americans take offense at the Indian symbol. Jeffrey Hart does not deny the fact; he just doesn't give a hoot about it. It would be truckling under to "a minority demand," in his judgment, if he were to apologize or mend his ways.

God help us if the rights of minorities are left to the good will of the majority! The Indian symbol in itself may or may not be "racist," but we sure know where the militant defenders of the symbol stand.

Milwaukee, Wisc.

Two cents' worth

I have just received the January/February issue of the Magazine and, although not given to writing letters to the editor, feel nonetheless the urge to put in my two cents' worth, responding to the stimulus of both editorial and Letters to the Editor: Lo the poor Indian! Lo the poor College! Lo the poor Native American! Lo even the poor alumni!

Cannot the College, even somewhat squeamishly (to quote the editor), reinstate the Indian symbol, if for no other reason than to reinforce the honorable tradition of excellence which the College justly claims and to put an end to this demeaning and totally non-constructive fuss and ado?

Can't we get back to basic values and take pride in Dartmouth's accomplishments when its students were known as "Indians" rather than turn our backs on all those alumni who identify with the Indian symbol?

The greatness of the Colltege is that it has always had something for everyone, including Indians who didn't seem to feel that they were being discriminated against by admission into an institution whose other students were "Indians," albeit of another tribe!

If there truly is a serious objection to the familiar Indian symbol, why not enlist the assistance of the tribes in the development of one that will reflect the image of the "Noble Savage"? Everything else will fall back into place, including me!

Rye, N.Y.

A more appropriate symbol

I enjoyed my classmate Nick Sandoe's letter in the October 'B5 issue of the AlumniMagazine in which he pointed out that the Indian was honored even in the College seal, which was, surely, justification of the Indian symbol in connection with the College and all of its activites.

However, in view of the recent apparent kowtowing by all concerned to the demands of the self-styled "Native Americans," it seems to me that a more appropriate symbol would be "Pussy Cats." It comes complete with a yell meow!

Chatham, Mass.

Let's vote on it

As I plan my cross-country trip to my 50th reunion of the Class of 1936, I feel that I shall find some things missing from the Dartmouth College that I knew 50 years ago - primary of which is the lack of a symbol. The term "Big Green" is fine, but it lacks substance and symbolism.

Stanford and Harvard have their "Crimson" and Brown couldn't have any other school color. A color is suitable for school ties, sweaters, and uniforms, but it is no symbol. Enthusiastic, athletically minded poeple, young and old, rally around symbols. Colors don't have the same connotations.

When I was a pre-Dartmouth teenager in New Jersey, I voraciously read books about the American Indians, their culture and customs, their leaders and heroes, their legends and history. From New England to California, from Florida to Alaska the American Indians have left an indelible imprint on all Americans. We all should be proud of that.

I admired Indians; I made Indian "war bonnets" as well as "peace pipes" with Joe Medicine Crow, my Cherokee counselor at Camp Wawayanda in northern New Jersey. I tracked silently through the woods without stepping on a twig, in Indian fashion, so that I could watch birds and animals without disturbing them. I loved nature, and Indians and their ways symbolized to me what is natural in America. I have liked the many Indians I have met in my social life, medical practice, travels, and literature; they have invariably been proud of themselves and their heritage. Dartmouth has buckled under to the anti-Indian symbol campaign for no valid reasons as far as I am concerned. Everyone knows that the College originated as an Indian school. I chose Dartmouth partly because it did identify with Indians.

A recovery of the "Dartmouth Spirit" could be achieved by a return to the Indian symbol - a proud, distinctive, historic, and very American identification.

I call for a democratic vote by all students and alumni, binding upon the administration, as to whether the Indian symbol should be reinstated at Dartmouth. This should settle the matter.

Suisun, Calif.

Righteous indignation

A Wah-Hoo-Wah for Fran Horn '30 for his letter (Jan./Feb. '85), a most refreshing, eloquent masterpiece of deservedly righteous indignation! Every word is true and needed saying.

I have reread the excellent concept of Arthur Nichols '45 for constructive resolution of the controversy, and I think it is time to stop the flow of words and to join him in supplying motivation for a solution.

Until such a resolution is reached, my Alumni Fund contributions will also drop, to a token sum sufficient only to maintain my class participation percentage Who will join us?

Arlington, Va.

[See "The free tuition myth" on pp. 13-14 inthis issue. Ed.]

Dartmouth authors

I write regarding the findings of the readership survey: "The clear winner (read loser) in the category 'less emphasis' was book reviews..."

I wonder if the respondents voicing that sentiment have ever written anything on their own or thought about what publishing a bid of one's lifework, fictional or factual, means to the author? And can mean to society?

As over the years I've glanced at reviews and "Dartmouth Authors," I realized how varied and multi-faceted was the Dartmouth experience, in college and after. Is not that what our Dartmouth "education" is supposed to be all about? Prepare us for a place in society where, hopefully, we lean toward answering the world's problems, not adding to them. And sharing what is worthwhile.

I see authorship as a step on the ladder of life, whether professionally or in the field of one's interests; in retirement to share a lifetime of learning, perhaps even some acquired wisdom.

Years ago I read Punch Sulzberger's ALong Row of Candles. For years he was TheNew York Times's chief foreign correspondent, mostly in Europe. Later, I saw the 1200- page book remaindered for 98 cents. I told myself, "Never will I write about my journalistic life."

Although most of my working life involved writing, it was anonymous, my share in putting out a news magazine where the editor was the only voice. My writing has been in retirement: about shipping, in which I have been immersed my entire life (my father was a Cap Horner), and ship mails: postal markings applied to mail posted on the high seas. Out this year will be a history and catalog of a century of such markings. Hopefully, next year will follow the history, fleet list, and ship posts of the shipping firm my father gave his working life to: the Norddeutscher Lloyd of Bremen. Both volumes will be approaches to history I have not seen in print, much of it information stored in my head and personal records. Both are something I am proud of. And both let me preserve something of my parents, who are part of these records. Already in print are three ship-mail related catalogs published by Christie's Robson Lowe as prestige projects, in London. These contain basic information.

I would guess that most "Dartmouth Authors" feel much the same as I.

Berkeley, Calif.

Talent hunt

Kate Augenblick '79 makes a point in her letter in the November '85 issue ("No place in The College's heart").

The Hood Museum ought to be taking a good look at the paintings Nolan P. Benner Jr. '44, Tuck '45, is churning out now that he has retired from the insurance business. In my untutored view he's a winner.

How many others with such talent are out there?

Schnecksville, Penn.

ROTC research

I am compiling a short history of the reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) and para-military organizations at Dartmouth College. Therefore, I am writing to ask your readers for help. In particular, I am looking for historical facts, anecdotes, and general information about the ROTC at the College. Also, I would like to know about Dartmouth graduates who have distinguished themselves in military service for their country.

Please send letters to: Commander, U.S. Army ROTC Instructor Group, Hinman Box 6185, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. Thank you for your help.

Hanover, N.H.

Halftime traditions

I was surprised and disappointed by the strident tone pervading Mrs. Virgina Wyman Hazen's letter in which she admonished Dartmouth freshmen to "grow up" in regards to their halftime tradition at Dartmouth football games (December '85, "Grow Up"). I, too, was in attendance at this year's Harvard-Dartmouth game, but unlike Mrs. Hazen I paid the price of admission to see a football game and not the Harvard band's big drum. I was eagerly anticipating dozens of Dartmouth touchdowns and not a John Philip Sousa crescendo. Personally, I felt that the display of enthusiasm and spirit by the 'shmen was the most exhilarating thing on an otherwise wet and dismal afternoon. While watching the 'shmen flood the field, I regretted only that my three years of playing football at Dartmouth necessitated my missing the spectacle.

We pigskin pundits in Washington revel in the deeds of the Washington Redskins' halfback John "Riggo" Riggins. Mrs. Hazen, allow me to paraphrase an often- quoted line of Mr. Riggins that he directed to Sandra Day O'Connor at a press dinner a few years back: Virginia baby, loosen up!

Washington, D.C.