Let's Start a Genuine Discussion About Our College
Dartmouth was a wonderful place whenever each of us attended it, which is why we all have such special memories that we cherish to this day. But the College was not perfect when we went here, no matter how much we romanticize our memories. Sometimes it seems that as we get older and farther away from Dartmouth, the good old days of our youth get better and better—which is fine, as long as we do not allow these memories to cloud and confuse our perception of reality.
And the reality is that Dartmouth today is better than it ever was, in almost every respect. In terms of academic, residential and athletic facilities, course offerings, the breadth and scholarly strength of the faculty and the student body, its impressive stature in the Ivy League in computer instruction and availability, the professionalism and commitment of its administration and the level of academic and personal support and guidance, Dartmouth is a superior institution of higher education, and a vibrant intellectual and cultural center.
That's not to say that Dartmouth is perfect now. Several issues have caused concern to a number of alumni.
The College's disciplinary system is one. In the early 1970s, responsibility for the administration of discipline was put in the hands of a faculty-student- administration panel, the Committee on Standards. Following the shanty incidents in the winter of 1985-86, President David McLaughlin '54 and a number of Trustees—as well as many alumni—were deeply disturbed at the striking disparity between the penalties assessed by the COS against the students who occupied the president's office, on the one hand, and the students who knocked down the shanties, on the other. The former were found guilty but received essentially no punishment, while the latter were given stiff suspensions (which were later reduced, following appeals to the president).
At the initiative of Sandy McCulloch '50, who was then chairman of the Board, the code of conduct was substantially revised and clarified. The procedure for assessing penalties was also changed to permit the dean of the College, if he disagreed with the punishment proposed by the COS, to propose an alternative penalty. An arbitrator previously appointed by the president would then select one or the other of the alternatives. These changes were adopted with the support of the administration and the faculty and were in place at the time of the Cole incident last February. Some people seem to have the impression that the "pro-shanty" students were never disciplined at all. That is not the case. One student, who forcibly resisted the town police when they came to take the structures down, spent a week in jail. Students who occupied the tower of Baker Library in April 1986 and forced the closing of the library were assessed various penalties; seniors were denied the right to graduate with their class. When one of them attempted at graduation to join the line of students going forward to receive their diplomas, he was promptly arrested and taken away by the police.
During the Trustees meeting last November, a shanty appeared on the Green. Its builders had failed to obtain the permission required by the new code of conduct. The president and the dean conferred briefly and in a matter of minutes the shanty had been removed and carted off by a College grounds crew., It was all over so fast that, unfortunately, the incident received no media coverage.
Another concern raised by a number of alumni is that President Freedman plans to impose radical changes at Dartmouth. That concern is totally unfounded. Following President McLaughlin's resignation and before instituting a search for his successor, the Trustees met several times to consider the direction in which we thought the new president should lead Dartmouth. There was unanimous agreement that we liked the College as it was, with its primary emphasis on providing an excellent undergraduate liberal-arts education, with a limited number of graduate programs in the liberal arts and three relatively small but high-quality professional schools.
Believing, however, that no institution exists that cannot be made better, the Trustees advised the new president to make it his primary objective to improve the overall excellence of Dartmouth as a preeminent institution of higher learning, while at the same time diminishing remaining vestiges of the College's "Animal House" image. We expect that any changes will be incremental and that Dartmouth's unique structure and character will be enhanced.
At the same time, it seems highly appropriate that we address questions such as: Which are our strong departments and which ones need strengthening? Does our faculty continue to be productive after achieving tenure? What is the quality of our graduate liberal-arts programs? Should we have more of them? Fewer? Can we afford more? Are we demanding enough of our students? (A recent survey indicated that seniors were spending only three hours a day outside the classroom on their studies.) Should we be making it possible for, or requiring, our undergraduates to do more original scholarship? (At present only 15 percent are writing senior theses.)
Nor is the president attempting to people the student body solely with what we used to. call "eggheads" (now called "nerds"). He does believe that we should have a well-rounded student body, but not necessarily that every student need be well-rounded. In other words, we should not shy away from some applicants whose talent is strongly concentrated in a single direction.
Another example of misunderstanding of the president's academic objectives is the Presidential Scholars program. Each year the Admissions Office gets two or three hundred applications from students of a clearlysuperior quality who command almost automatic acceptance by Dartmouth and by others. Each year we have been accepting these students but have been losing five out of six of them to other institutions—principally Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford. A primary purpose of the Presidential Scholars program was to increase our yield of these desirable applicants. With the financial support of two generous alumni, we offered to fly these students to Hanover to visit the campus. The result: about half of the top scholars took advantage of the offer and about half of those enrolled at Dartmouth, doubling our yield from this group to about 60 compared to about 30 in prior years.
Still another misconception: that conservative speakers are not welcome at Dartmouth. Not only are they welcome but their presentations are well attended and well covered by the student and College media. William F. Buckley Jr. addressed a large crowd in Webster Hall during the fall term; Charles Murray, author of LosingGround and In Pursuit, spoke at Rockefeller Center in February; Chief Justice Rehnquist will be coming to Hanover in May to deliver the keynote address at the symposium on the Daniel Webster papers; Judge Douglas Ginsberg has agreed to join the Board of Overseers of the Tucker Foundation; former Secretary of the Interior James Watt will be addressing this year's Senior Symposium; and recent invitees to participate in the Spoor Leadership Dialogue Program at the Rockefeller Center have included Senators Kassebaum and Rudman, Governors Sununu and Kean, Judge Robert Bork, and syndicated columnists George Will, Robert Novak and James Kilpatrick, among others. Many of these invitations have not been accepted, but the invitations have been extended. The appearances of Mr. Buckley and Secretary Watt have been partially funded by the Hopkins Institute, and for that we are grateful.
I firmly believe that if we can do a better job of communicating an accurate picture of what is actually happening at the College, we will be able to restore a common sense of what we want Dartmouth to be—or, at the very least, to raise the discussion to a more civil and tolerant level, with greater respect for each other's views.
I believe, and always have, that healthy, constructive dialogue is essential to a great academic environment. In fact, without open and spirited discussion and dissent I believe one cannot have academic excellence. At the same time, we must always be mindful of the fine line between what is constructive and positive and what is destructive and unhealthy. There is no doubt in my mind that the debate, as it is presently being conducted at Dartmouth—confrontational, uncompromising and characterized by angry charges and countercharges and nasty personal attacks—is hurting Dartmouth badly. It is damaging the legendary Dartmouth spirit, harming the College's reputation outside the Dartmouth family, draining administrative time and energies, absorbing substantial amounts of money that could be put to much better use and, if continued, is likely to affect our ability to attract the topflight students and faculty we want to see come to Hanover.
Tremendous changes in lifestyles, social values, ideas and ideals have taken place in the broader society. We cannot be surprised that many of them are reflected at Dartmouth as the composition of the administration, the faculty and the student body evolve. But we must, as a minimum, be able to discuss the difficult issues that confront us in the rational, open, constructive and civil manner that we have a right to expect from all constituencies of a great educational institution that we all love and cherish. ma
Chairman of Dartmouth's Board of Trustees, George Munroe '43 served for 17 years as Phelps Dodge's chief executive. This essay was adapted from a talk he gave to alumni last January.
"There was unanimousagreement that we likedthe College as it was,with its primaryemphasis on providingan excellentundergraduate liberalarts education ..."
