LETTERS

Rising Research

I would like to add two comments to Anne Bagamery's excellent discussion of the current and future role of research at Dartmouth.

First, the reward system for faculty is often in conflict with the ideal that active research promotes good teaching. Imagine you are an assistant professor who has labored like a galley slave for ten or 15 years to get where you are today. If you fail to win grants or publish "enough good" technical papers, you will be fired. on a typical day, your choices might be to (a) develop creative new audiovisual aids to clarify your lectures, (b) re-read your students' term papers, making detailed and thoughtful comments, (c) discuss the wider implications of your subject field with a student, (d) go skiing, or (e) shut your office door and growl at anyone daring to disturb you. If you consistently choose (a), (b), or (c) you will be fired. Choice (d) is deferred until after tenure. Is it any wonder that so many choose (e)?

Second, why are administrators so keen on research? Because grants equal income. Besides obvious things like buying equipment or paying research assistants, most universities skim off from 30 to 75 percent of a grant in "overhead" or "indirect costs." Although some budget categories are exempt from these charges, a very large proportion of each grant goes directly into the institution's operating budget. No wonder bigmoney researchers become folk heroes to administrators.

Of course there are happy exceptions. My point is that the professional and institutional reward structures are already biased in favor of research. It was true at Dartmouth to some extent in my time. How do we find and keep that delicate balance with teaching?

Honolulu, Hawaii

The following is quoted directly from the office door of a faculty member at the National Law Center, George Washington University:

"AN OPEN LETTER TO MY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW STUDENTS:

"I think that you are entitled to an explanation of my delay in completing grading of your final examinations from last semester .... The reason for the delay is that I have been spending almost all of my waking hours . . . completing a major article .... It was necessary for me to do this in order to fulfill the requirements of my contract with the University, under which the faculty must consider whether to award me tenure this spring .... I would not have delayed completion of grading in this manner if it were not for the conflicting academic obligation . . ."

It was a genuine privilege to attend, as an undergraduate, a college, an institution which made all other "academic obligations" secondary to teaching (usually). Do we really want to jeopardize that?

Washington, D.C.

Declined Award

On January 12 the Dartmouth Club of Washington, D.C., honored alumni who are members of the local judiciary, including, posthumously, Circuit Judge Carl McGowan, '32, with its Daniel Webster award for public service. We are sorry that one of our colleagues, Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman '57, declined to accept the award. That, of course, is his right. We are also sorry, however, that he chose to make public his reasons for doing so, and that he expressed them in the manner he did.

In his letter to Gary Komarow '77, president of the Club, Judge Silberman stated that he could not attend the dinner at which the awards were made, because the presence there of Board of Trustees Chairman George Munroe '43 gave the dinner and the award the College's "official imprimatur." He made an unfavorable comparison between the state of freedom of expression at Dartmouth and in communist Yugoslavia. He accused the College of "McCarthyism." And he asserted that the climate at Dartmouth is so unrelentingly hostile to. a particular way of thinking, and so repressive of it, that it would be unseemly for a federal judge to allow himself to be identified with the institution.

That is a view with which we disagree, and from which we wish publicly to disassociate ourselves. We also hope that Judge Silberman's letter and the publicity given it will not affect the litigation now pending in New Hampshire.

It is surely true that not all alumni/ae support every decision made by College authorities in the recent past. There are certainly grounds for fair-minded criticism. Indeed, Judge Silberman, as a new member of the Alumni Council, could have been an eloquent and statesmanlike spokesman for conservite causes. Unfortunately, as Judge Silberman acknowledges, having; lost the vote on the first proposal he put to the Alumni Council as a member, he resigned. His conservative point of view was not repressed by the College. He himself abdicated the position from which he might have been most effective in expressing it.

Furthermore, it does not seem to us to evidence a general intolerance of a conservative philosophy to be offended, as some members of the College community have been, at certain things The Dartmouth Review has undertaken to do, and to print, in the name of conservatism. Nor does it appear to us that the College can be found to be "repressing" an organ that it has allowed to abuse it, using its own name, for nearly a decade, to the continuing embarrassment and dismay of many students, alumni/ae, parents, and supporters, no matter what their political persuasions.

For ourselves, we remain loyal to the College, and proud of our connections with it, despite such misgivings any of us may have individually about the controversial events which have divided the Dartmouth family. We believe Judge Silberman's actions only exacerbate and perpetuate that division. We, however, regard ourselves as honored to have been selected for the Daniel Webster award, and we have accepted it with gratitude, hoping that the College's "official imprimatur" does, indeed, attach.

Louis F. Oberdorfer '39 District of Columbia

William C. Pryor '54 District of Columbia

Paul Mannes '55 District of Maryland

Thomas Penfield Jackson '58 District of Columbia

Talk About Precocious

Did anyone notice the news release during the recent political campaign in which Vice President-elect Dan Quayle defended his decision to hire as an intern John W. Quilhot '90, one of those suspended by the College in the recent rhubarb involving the Dartmouth Review?

Quayle is quoted as saying he has known Quilhot since 1976 —when Quilhot was a volunteer in Quayle's first bid for Congress. Assuming Mr. Quilhot is now 20 years of age, he would have been eight years old in 1976! Hmm. . . .

Oak Brook, Illinois

Let Us Pray

Has there ever been a Dartmouth Prayer? Don't you think one might be useful in what might be called the winter of our discontent? Herewith a neophyte's attempt to fill this void.

O Lord of Hosts, our thanks go forth to you who have led us to this land of ineffable beauty. In this dwelling place serene you have richly blessed us by endowing your sisters and brothers with unending love for one another and for all of mankind. This is now a solemn pledge to you.

As the shadows lengthen, keep us, we pray, ever in the right way: the path of service for one another—and for all of thy children, especially any who are sorrow-laden. These things we ask in thy name, that we may so do: as long as grass shall grow, winds shall blow, and water shall flow. Amen.

Danvers, Massachusetts

Life Savers

I would like to convey my appreciation and gratitude to members of the Dartmouth community who made the Chris Reed drive for increasing the bone marrow registry so successful.

Most importantly, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous effort to coordinate this drive by Kirk Endicott and Barbara Strohbehn, and by the other members of the coordinating committee. It has crossed my mind many times that they could be responsible for saving my life.

Paula and I are certain that their effort will not be in vain; they have certainly saved somebody's life sometime in the future. I am thankful, and in awe of their efforts on my behalf, and somewhat envious of their accomplishments in the name of people unknown to them, stricken with similar diseases. Few communities have members with the strength of char- acter demonstrated in ours.

Hanover, New Hampshire

The Dartmouth community turned outin force in January to try to find a bonemarrow donor for Associate Professor ofBiology Christopher Reed, 37, who haslymphoma. Reed's hope for survivalhinges on finding a donor whose marrowtype perfectly matches his own; the oddsagainst a match are as high as one in80,000. To increase his chances, 621 students, faculty, administrators and community members underwent marrowtyping blood tests in Webster Hall. Localorganizers of the effort—Assistant to theDean of the College Barbara Strohbehnand Anthropology Professor Kirk Endicott—report that financial donationshave covered nearly all of the $39,000in laboratory fees. Largest contributor:the Dartmouth Club of the Upper Valley. Ed.

Flagged Poll

I expect that the majority of Dartmouth alumni see through the Hopkins Institute. Many of us have been gently amused by an organization that preaches traditional education and competence but cannot compose a simple eight-page bulletin free of frequent spelling, grammar, and usage errors.

However, their recent "survey" is more insidious. As a professional statistician, I feel obliged to point out the many errors in this work.

The first principle of survey design is to write even-handed questions. The questions in the Institute's "survey" do not even pretend to be fair, using phrases like "despotic implementation of the Indian symbol ban," "violation of the principles and practice of freedom of expression," and "blatant liberal bias."

The second principle of survey design is to obtain a sample that rep-resents the population. An open mail survey cannot do this.

The third principle of survey design is to get the best results for the least cost. The Institute criticizes Dartmouth for profligate spending and duns us for money, but they have wasted money on this "survey."

Perhaps their purpose is political rather than a search for truth . . .

Ithaca, New York

Windows Rumor

A few years ago someone started a rumor, apparently since then believed by many alumni, that some segment of the Dartmouth community had successfully pressured the College into covering up five stainedglass windows in Rollins Chapel which depict religious figures.

This rumor is absolutely false; pure myth. It is unfortunate that it ever got started, and unfortunate that reference to it should have continued in print.

In 1960, at the request of the Tucker Foundation, the Trustees commissioned an architectural firm which had experience with church design to make a study of Rollins Chapel. The study was to recommend a location for a new Austin organ, solutions for a new larger choir loft to accommodate the Glee Club, a new location for the pulpit, a better means of entrance, and improvement of the drabness of the interior.

Several schemes were considered, including one for turning the seating to face the other way (east) so that the present front entrance could still be used, allowing people to enter at the rear of the seated congregation. It is important to note that in presenting this scheme the architects, not the College, proposed that the five stained-glass windows in the apse be removed and the windows blocked up. The very reasonable basis for this recommendation was that the glare from the windows, particularly when the sun. was on them, would create backlighting which would make it difficult to focus on the pulpit.

It was from this proposal that the final plans evolved and construction went forward in 1965. (Because the windows were memorials to five Dartmouth presidents, consideration was given to relocating them elsewhere, but nothing came of the idea. Consequently, the windows were covered instead of removed.)

Clearly, covering the windows was an architectural solution to a problem; nothing more.

West Lebanon, New Hampshire

Richard Olmsted is emeritus businessmanager and director of planning of theCollege.-Ed.

Dartmouth College Case

It seems to me that the significance of the attack on Dartmouth is not fully apprehended.

The affair, which may become known as the Second Dartmouth College case, transcends the original incident, and is a deliberate attack on the College by a group of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with Dartmouth and have little respect for it. They are aided by well-known hatemongers who are using all the sophisticated knowledge and techniques of the business and advertising worlds. They have taken some undergraduates who are bright, articulate and self-serving, but too deluded by visions of grandeur to realize what they are really doing. They have become pawns to those whose aim is the destruction of Dartmouth College as an institution and of President Freedman as a man.

The recent court decision to consider the backgrounds of the disciplinary committee members regardless of their integrity is a poor decision and a dangerous one, with far-reaching consequences. It is important that it be overturned, and I wish to express my full support for those who are acting in behalf of the legal rights of the College. It creates a heavy burden on them and I, at least, feel grateful to them.

As for the students who have been reinstated, I pity them.

Edgartown, Massachusetts

Won't Give

The first broadsides of the 1989 Alumni Fund drive are beginning to arrive.

Over the years I've given regularly, if not largely; my best gift just made` it into four figures. This letter is being written because this year I find I have no desire to give anything at all; not even a token contribution. In the future I may again want to contribute. However, a couple of things must come about first.

Firstly, I want to see the Indian Symbol officially returned to the Hanover plain.

Secondly, I want every student to know that he or she can expect fair, equal and even-handed discipline for any infractions of the College rules.

A recent national publication had an article of two students with long suspensions being reinstated by a court of law. That's very poor publicity for the College, and it is not the Dartmouth I knew in 1934—38.

Ann Arbor, Michigan

The Indian Symbol, the Humphrey Murals and the song "Eleazar Wheelock" are gone from Dartmouth. They went because the Trustees deemed them "insensitive" to native Americans. The alumni were not consulted. The Trustees do not have to consult us!

I feel that the Trustees have been "insensitive" to me and my fellow alumni. Now I refuse to contribute to the Alumni Fund .... I don't have to!

Hanover, New Hampshire

When I was at Dartmouth, the College was ranked in the top ten, and the student body was all machomale. Racism and sexism were rampant—I was guilty of it, too. The cultural outlets were a movie at the Nugget, getting drunk at the fraternity, or getting drunk with an occasional date at the fraternity. For real culture, we had to drive 110 miles to Boston.

I see that little has changed. Because of this, I have told my children and many friends that I wouldn't matriculate at Dartmouth now. Accordingly, my older daughter is at a major west coast university where the student body is 40 percent non-white and 50 percent female. She is at a university that has well-respected graduate schools, and an "old-boy" network second to none. She is in a major city which has countless cultural opportunities. Most importantly, she is being as well-educated as I, and she's certainly having more fun on her off-time.

I applaud President Freedman's efforts to change the character of the campus. I support his fight against racism which masquerades as neoconservatism. In the meantime, I'll educate my children elsewhere, and most of my alumni money will go to my medical school.

Mesa, Arizona

Dartmouth as University

"Is the 'College' a College?" is a most disturbing piece. And seems to be so to Other alumni with whom I've spoken. But the main thrust of the upset is not really the subject of the title (although we have strong feelings that Dartmouth should remain a College!), but who is making the case.

Is it the place of the president and the faculty to be "debating" such an issue with the clear implication of decision and action on their part? Where is the Board of Trustees? Isn't it time they fulfilled their responsibilities to the conduct and forward thrust of Dartmouth as Dartmouth not as a shadow of some other institution that President Freedman admires?

Northbrook, Illinois

Let's put aside for the moment the negative reactions immediately stirred by the name Dartmouth University; every class since 1804 has come to know of the Great Case, and when one refers to the College there is, for all of us, solemn significance.

Threading through the President's remarks, like a litany, is the word "research"; this, and the reiterated urging to raise our sights toward higher academic achievement through investment in broader research capabilities, raise for me the uncomfortable feeling that Dartmouth could become another mega school living off grant income. Is the purpose behind the creation of a true university the desire to supplement revenues with the overhead (often as high as 40 percent) customarily a part of grants issued by government funding agencies?

St. Helena, California

I encourage all alumni to read and re-read President Freedman's speech on his vision for Dartmouth. His goals are clear for the type of institution that he wishes to manage. However, it is not the philosophy on which our College was founded and has prospered for 218 years.

The President's "Dartmouth Plan" ignores the College's strengths; in fact it is designed to moderate those pillars. The President appears eager to make his mark on our College by fixing what is not broken, with a tack that places the College in a higher risk posture, financially and competitively.

The argument of "College versus University" is a semantic smoke screen, not the core issue. The central issue is a proposal to downgrade the importance of undergraduate teaching and mentorship in favor of increased research and intellectual accomplishment. It is best outlined by the President in his discussion of the consequences of his vision—more sponsored research with correspondingly:

• reduced reliance on endowment, annual giving, and tuition

• less faculty involvement in administrative committees

• less faculty time in the classroom

• increased faculty size.

Freedman's rationale of attracting the "strongest" faculty and being able to support "frontier areas of learning" are not the critical issues at Dartmouth. Dartmouth has enjoyed a reputation of attracting faculty who are committed to teaching. We are unique in the Ivy League in this regard. "Strength" in generic faculty may be defined by research and publication; I submit that strength in Dartmouth faculty is better described by student relationships, community and campus involvement, and the ability to teach liberal-arts basics. This uniqueness carries over to the graduate programs as well it is Dartmouth's liberal-arts tradition.

Within Dartmouth's "traditional" environment, students and faculty can flourish and explore. The past has produced great accomplishments by the faculty (e.g., computer language, foreign-language teaching, and international studies to name a few) interestingly, all very practical and "consumer-friendly," not wrapped in isolated theory.

This is a strategic issue for Dartmouth, one that the Trustees and Alumni Council should participate in deciding—express your feelings.

Edina, Minnesota

Is President Freedman "merely opening a debate" or is this an opening salvo? He invokes the lares and penates of Dartmouth College and the ghost of Daniel Webster but neglects the tradition, the spirit, the humanity, and yes, the spirituality, of Dartmouth College. These things are the bedrock of any great institution. They are felt, but they come from sources beyond intellect.

President Freedman acknowledges Dartmouth's "rich heritage" and would "preserve our loyalty to the values that Daniel Webster ... loved so dearly," but does he feel them or even understand them? Moreover, do the Trustees understand them, or have they forgotten? Since the close of President Dickey's tenure, rather than building on the strengths and values that are uniquely Dartmouth's, the Trustees appear to have occupied themselves in an overweening pursuit of public approval, measuring the College by the standards of others. Whether wittingly or not, the Trustees have set an uncertain course of small promise except for their own collective hubris. How the world perceives us has become more important than how we perceive ourselves.

Let's play our own game on our own turf. The world has a need for at least one Dartmouth.

cohasset, Massachusetts

I want to be counted among those who support President Freedman's vision for Dartmouth.

Even when I attended, the image of Dartmouth as a small college, pristine and removed from the real world, was in conflict with reality. The ingredients for a move to the major leagues—breadth of program, depth of resources, national reputation, diverse student population, graduate schools—were clearly in evidence even then. They are even more pronounced now.

President Freedman's plan for a liberal-arts university appears to strike a balance which will allow Dartmouth to wear its proper mande as a university openly, while still retaining the institution's core interest in a liberal-arts education for undergraduates.

The challenges in education are enormous and Dartmouth has both the opportunity and the responsibility to take on a bigger role.

Northfield, Vermont

Symbol Vs. Mascot

The controversy over the Dartmouth Indian seems to me a classic example of the kind of muddled thinking out of which the "Dartmouth Experience" was supposed to lead us back in Acne Days. It's a matter of symbol versus mascot.

As a symbol, the Dartmouth Indian is historically valid, an honored and intrinsic part of Dartmouth lore, and properly exalted. But as a mascot, the Indian and his paraphernalia constitute an unacceptable racist cartoonwhether it be a macho, bone-chilled, bare-breasted cheerleader at a football game or the guy in a loincloth who ran up and down the aisles of our 25th reunion banquet. One image needs to be kept. The other should never have become part of the College.

Half Moon Bay, California

A College experiment: how much research is right?