Six Questions for the Candidates

The contenders for the Board of Trustees offer their vision of Dartmouth present and future.

This month, alumni will be asked to decide between two candidates for the Board of Trustees. To see where they stand on the issues, we telephoned incumbent Robert Danziger '56 T'57, and his challenger, Wilcomb Washburn '48, and asked each the same six questions about Dartmouth. Danziger, who was nominated by the Alumni Council, is the founder and president of the Northland Investment Corporation, a real estate and development firm in Newton, Massachusetts. Washburn is the director of the Office of American Studies at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.—Ed.

1 Is there a set of knowledge every student should learn before graduating from Dartmouth?

DANZIGER: Yes, there is. I'm a believer in a core curriculum. I think students should continue to be required, as they currently are, to take such courses as English 5, a freshman writing seminar, a foreign-language requirement, as well as three courses in the natural sciences, humanities, and the social sciences. I'm proud that Dartmouth did not relinquish these requirements during the 1960s and '70s when most other schools did.

Dartmouth today offers more than 1,000 undergraduate courses in a wide variety of disciplines, which I think bright students demand and deserve. While I support a diversity of offerings—in both Western and non-Western cultures—l still believe that a basic core curriculum is essential to a meaningful undergraduate education.

WASHBURN: Yes and no. Let's look at the Western culture controversy, for example. My own education had almost no Western culture. During the war I was a Japanese language officer in the Marine Corps. I went to Harvard after Dartmouth and got into American Indian studies. Still, one has an obligation to understand one's own culture, particularly when it has been so powerful and dominant, culturally and militarily, throughout the world. While I don't believe everyone should be in lockstep and go through a St. Johns-style great-books curriculum, you don't throw out Shakespeare to study with the latest ideological warrior pontificating on the latest political controversy.

I have no theoretical problem with women's studies, black studies, native American studies, or anything of that sort. But too often they turn ideologial—"oppression studies," as a colleague of mine calls them. There is only good or bad research. Often slipshod research gets by. Research in such subjects must be held to the same standards as research in other fields.

What kinds of students should the College seek?

DANZIGER: Dartmouth should create an academic environment that is hospitable to the nation's most highly qualified students. Our faculty, curriculum and facilities must be competitive with any undergraduate institution in the country.

I think it's very important to balance the class and to offer the opportunity of a Dartmouth education to minorities, to athletes, to legacies, to international students, to backpackers, to musicians and artists and to students who will bring to the campus a variety of experiences and cultures. Here I might quote from Ernest Martin Hopkins, who in 1923 said that one of the most essential elements of a preeminent undergraduate education is learning from interaction among students of diverse backgrounds. I believe this is already being accomplished without sacrificing the special spirit and unique culture which we all want to preserve at Dartmouth.

WASHBURN: There were implications in President Freedman's inaugural address that he wanted a different student from the extroverted, hard-drinking nonintellectual student sometimes identified as the Dartmouth "type." This is a stereotype that I don't regard myself as fitting into. And fellow alumni justifiably say they're offended by it. Instead, I would reaffirm what the president said in the February televised program—that they're looking for the same type of students that they already have. Basically, we always look within a diverse student body for people of different backgrounds—athletes, scholars—everybody has different abilities, and one looks for those who excel in any field.

Dartmouth should never apologize to any university for being secondrate. I'm glad President Freedman modified his original statement. But because of Dartmouth's location and traditions, it should never ignore the physical man (and woman) any more than the mental man. Academics often denigrate physical activitiesmountain climbing, skiing, football. I resent that, and I think the solution to the problem is more to correct the stereotype than to say we're going after the intellectual and not these nonintellectual types that allegedly have given Dartmouth a bad name in the public eye.

3 How big a part shouldfraternities and sororities play in students' social life?

DANZIGER: I understand the strong friendships and bonding that result from house affiliations, and I definitely support the continuation of a responsible fraternity-sorority system at Dartmouth. With the advent of freshman rush in 1972, the Greek system expanded, with over 60 percent of the student body belonging to fraternities or sororities. In comparison, in the 1950s and '60s only about 40 percent belonged since freshmen were excluded. The dominance of the system led to alcohol abuses and often inappropriate individual and group behavior.

I think it's important to permit freshmen to establish their own personal relationships and academic priorities without the pressure of having to rush a fraternity while they're still becoming acclimated to college life. I support the College's efforts in trying to establish viable social alternatives within the residence halls. In addition to spending several millions of dollars within the last few years to construct social spaces within the clusters, the College has allocated $150,000 this year alone to programs which would enhance the social life outside of the fraternity and sorority system. The houses have made commendable prog-ress in recent years in complying with "minimum standards," and I am convinced that the changes now being proposed will result in a stronger and healthier social system on campus.

WASHBURN: I speak as one who was not active in a fraternity, though I was a member of Casque & Gauntlet. Here again we encounter a stereotype—the Animal House stereotype. I don't think you correct it by abolishing the source of the stereotype. I'm comfortable with enforcing whatever disciplinary regulations apply. But one should not attempt to destroy the institution in order to get rid of the stereotype. Remember the French Revolution's slogan: "fraternity." It's a good word and suggests a certain collegiality. I would be cautious about any attempt to eliminate fraternities or to severely restrict them in ways that would destroy to some extent the collegiality that is so essential and memorable a part of the College experience of thousands of alumni.

How intimate a relationship should there be between research and teaching?

DANZIGER: I would begin by reiterating that our Board of Trustees and administration are totally committed to the primacy of undergraduate education at Dartmouth. In no way would I want this College to change its historical focus and become a large, impersonal research institution. I think full professors must continue to teach undergraduates, and that, in order to earn tenure, faculty must demonstrate skill in teaching as well as in research.

But we recognize that, in order to attract and retain the very best faculty in the country, we must provide research opportunities and a critical mass of colleagues in a particular discipline. I support President Freedman'a recent initiative to encourage Dartmouth's brightest students to become more involved in academic projects which will support faculty research.

WASHBURN: I'm employed by an institution whose mission is "the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men"—this is the reason the Smithsonian was founded. One of the things I do here is to teach graduate students. But I'm also concerned with the significance of research. It is true, as President Freedman says, that research infuses teaching with excitement and meaning. But while I applaud research as an end, and even as a function that enhances the teaching process, the more you go the route of the university—even a liberal-arts university—the more you put the emphasis on research over teaching. Anybody knows that universities reward teaching only in theory; in reality they reward research.

There are problems with the increasingly narrow specialization which sometimes removes the product of research from all but the researchers or a small coterie around them. The Board of Trustees—which has relatively academic types on it—is not fully able to evaluate the president's proposals along that line.

Enhancing the research capabilities of a college also makes it more expensive. Research universities are now in very great financial trouble. Johns Hopkins is one. It's cutting back, asking people to retire early, because it's in a financial bind.

In the president's speech of October 31, which was published in your winter issue, he asserted that Dartmouth is already a liberal-arts university. He said he wanted to eliminate the ambiguity over whether Dartmouth is a college or a university. But he contributed to that ambiguity by assuming that the faculty's research role could be expanded without affecting Dartmouth's traditional emphasis upon undergraduate education.

5 What should the role of graduate programs be?

DANZIGER: I feel that the 11 Ph.D. programs which we have offered for a number of years, primarily in the sciences, enhance the undergraduate program and provide research assistance to our teacher-scholars. On a limited basis I would support additional doctoral programs in other disciplines—for the purpose of farthering the depth and breadth of knowledge for our undergraduate students, and to support the essential research of our faculty.

We have had for almost a century three renowned professional schools in business, medicine and engineering which allow our undergraduate students an introduction to these academic areas that would be impossible in a small, strictly liberal-arts college. While I clearly support these graduate programs and professional schools, the Trustees and the current administration have no intention of altering the basic principles, overall size, or historic educational purpose of the College.

WASHBURN: Dartmouth is an outstanding small college with some wonderful graduate schools and a few Ph.D. programs that have grown by virtue of a natural growth. As long as that growth continues naturally, fine. But to consciously formulate a plan to expand the staff and to create more of a research orientation may lead to the same deficiency that exists at research universities: the removal of the scholar from the undergraduate.

I believe that Dartmouth should not try to ape Harvard or Yale. We should retain Dartmouth's emphasis on undergraduate education. We are, and should be, "the small college we all love." Daniel Webster's understanding of Dartmouth is still the right one.

Do you think the media have treated Dartmouth fairly?

DANZIGER: No. To be sure, that's a generalization, and I'm certain that some media—particularly when writing on noncontroversial subjects have been more than fair to the College. After all, U.S. News recently listed Dartmouth seventh among some 2,000 major colleges and universities in the U.S., and Business Week named Tuck School third among all M.B.A. programs.

But if by this question you're referring to the most recent series of articles and television programs, my greatest frustration is that the goals of the administration are so often misinterpreted or misrepresented by the press.

One of our challenges as a College is to improve our methods of communication so that the alumni and our other constituencies understand that the changes being made are not radical or extraordinary. If one looks at the overall picture of the College, one would see that it is not changing as abruptly or as suddenly as some would have us believe. Particularly unfortunate is that some writers, especially in the editorial pages, put their own "spin" on the facts to suit their special agenda. I would encourage the media, if they truly want to be factual and objective, to get both sides of the stories and not rely on biased information.

My real hope is that Dartmouth alumni don't believe everything they read in the press about their College any more than they believe everything they read about any other subject. The recent confrontations and character attacks, all aired out in the press, are damaging to Dartmouth's national reputation. My greatest desire would be for the Dartmouth family to come together and dedicate our energies to understanding each other's positions and to discussing our differences within a frame work of mutual respect. Constructive dialogue is essential, and I welcome dissent with civility and lively debate within the context of what is best for Dartmouth.

WASHBURN: You may think the media have treated the College unfairly, but the administration has brought this on itself by its clumsy attempts to defend its point of view. Instead of faulting the messenger the Dartmouth Review—I would fault the administration. It has become paranoid about this student newspaper, and has by its administrative opposition created a news story that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

You can see this in the "Sixty Minutes" segment on CBS Television. Good God, here is a student newspaper being treated on a par with Dartmouth College! How did it get that way? Not just because the Review editors can be sophomoric, which is sometimes the case, but because the College has reacted with outrage and heavy-handedness to what may simply be undergraduate exuberance.

Can Dartmouth get back its good name? Of course it can, by simply making sure that all are free to exercise, and be protected in exercising, their First Amendment rights. The College should also discuss in greater detail the reasons for doing what it does—such as the invitation to Angela Davis. I'm not incensed by the College's inviting Angela Davis-fine, invite her. But is she really a good representative to celebrate the anniversary of coeducation? Did the College have to pay her a substantial sum? One should be able to discuss the reasons why people are invited and one should be able to defend such decisions.

On June 14, 1988, the president spoke to all reuning classes, but no tape recorders were allowed in Spaulding. That's not something I would expect on a liberal campus. Is the president afraid of something? This is the attitude that is conveyed when there are so many restrictions to free and open discussion of issues. The College can only hurt itself through its naive and illiberal responses to legitimate intellectual challenges to its authority.

"While I don'tbelieve everyone should be inlockstep and go through a St.Johns-style great-bookscurriculum, you don't throwout Shakespeare to studywith the latestideological warriorpontificating onthe latest politicalcontroversy." Wilcomb Washburn '48

"I would begin byreiterating that our Boardof Trustees andadministration are totallycommitted to the primacy ofundergraduate educationat Dartmouth. In noway would I wantthis College tochange its historicalfocusand become a large,impersonalresearch institution." Robert Danziger '56 T'57