Students in Uniform

ROTC "Courage"

I WOULD LIKE TO DEBATE A Couple of the points you make about ROTC in the May issue ["Editorial"].

"We, too, think it is better for Dartmouth to remain an active participant... than to sulk on the sidelines," you write. Is not this position opposite to that used—successfully, it would seem from recent news-against the South African government in the 1980s? Were the Trustees to make a truly courageous decision (and not the one which you labeled "courageous"), and end ROTC at Dartmouth, I would hope that they would riot then "sulk on the sidelines" but would take up an active role in seeking to support President Clinton and the "historical momentum" for change, which you yourselves note.

Finally, you may be interested to know that the "best deal' that President Clinton got on his new military policy—"Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue"—has actually resulted in more investigations and discharges than the previous policy, according to a recent issue of the San Francisco Chronicle.

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

IAPPLAUD THE TRUSTEES' DECISION and agree with your use of the historical perspective regarding desegregating the Services. Of course, before we become too self-righteous, we ought to recall that an earlier Board of Trustees shut down the three ROTC programs on campus, thus denying some 200 students a year the shot at scholarships and the opportunity for Dartmouth to keep her hands in the military organization.

COLONEL, U.S. MARINE CORPS

TO LABEL THE TRUSTEES' DECISION courageous is tantamount to calling their decision to divest in South Africa an act of cowardice. An act of courage usually involves sticking to one's guns, to act on principles of fairness rather than pandering to political forces or using pragmatics as an apology, which is precisely what the Trustees did when they voted to retain ROTC.

More disturbing, however, is your attempt to describe the Trustees' decision as an act of "progress" since, you argue, keeping Dartmouth s hand in the military will help the military to evolve. I seriously doubt whether keeping ROTC is the best way for the College to help the military evolve. Moreover, I seriously doubt whether anyone believes that the Trustees' decision to keep ROTC was based on a desire to effectively change the military's discrimination against gays.

But whether the military can evolve is beside the point. The role of the College in regard to ROTC is not to help the military, or to make apologies for it. Rather, the College's role is to act decisively in condemning discrimination and to promote its commitment to equality and inclusion. In voting to retain ROTC, the Trustees have failed to act in the spirit of these commitments, but instead have succeeded once again to tell the world that Dartmouth allows discrimination on its campus.

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES WENT to great lengths to express its disapproval of the military's policy, saying that it was discriminatory and intrusive into the personal lives of men and women. After admitting this fact the Board then wants us to believe that the decision to keep ROTC does not violate Dartmouth's non-discrimination policy. As a teacher, I know first hand that my role as an educator is crucial and the worst thing that I can do for my kids is to send conflicting messages where I say one thing and then do another.

Discrimination against homosexuals is an injustice just as it is to other minority groups, and the only way that that injustice will be rectified comes from love and understanding. Those types of things don't come from the outside, they come from our own small communities. Dartmouth prides itself on being a family, but I don't see it as one. Not when approximately 400 men and women are denied the benefits of a program that serves only a small number of students. It is time for the Dartmouth "community" to make some hard decisions. Are we going to accept our role as a leading institution in liberal thought and pursue those goals which we already profess to be true, or are we going to hide behind a shield of mediocrity waiting for other people to make the changes which we are too afraid to make ourselves?

MIAMI, FLORIDA

Kennel Rational

IN RESPONSE TO THE NEWS Reported in "Dr. Wheelock's Journal" (Summer) that Dartmouth dogs are yet again under siege: My beloved canine companion, at 13 now in her twilight years, spent her puppyhood in a certain fraternity house during my senior year. I can report that she turned out to be a well-adjusted and considerate creature, not to mention her wonderful pedigree. As I recall, Lou Renza's seminar on literary criticism consisted of eight students and three dogs, and no one ever bit an- other—although there was some tension concerning Deconstructionism and rawhide chew toys. What are those canine detractors growling about, anyways? Without its roaming dogs, Dartmouth would not be Dartmouth!

COLCHESTER, VERMONT

Gift Errors

THE APRIL ISSUE WAS A RINGING refutation of those who say that the three most prominent alumni of Dartmouth College are "Daniel Webster, Daniel Webster, and Daniel Webster." (As a lawyer, of course, that left-handed compliment does not bother me, but I had scant idea of the importance of Dartmouth alumni in the sciences).

Still, I think I noticed one minor error on page 53 about "Lincoln's Kingmaker." As I recall from Jim Wright (now Dean of the Faculty), the Republican nominee in 1856 was General John Fremont, a Mexican-American War hero and Western explorer. The campaign motto was "Free Soil [a reference to Kansas-Nebraska], Free Trade and Fremont." Lincoln, in 1856 still a relatively obscure lawyer from Springfield, Illinois, had by then served only one term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He burst on the national scene with his 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas in the race for the Senate, and was nominated in Chicago in 1860 to be the Republican candidate for president, right after winning a major land accretion case resolving title to Lake Michigan shoreline, and just before winning (for the defense), a murder trial downstate.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

AS A HISTORIAN, I ENJOYED THE special issue. However, as a historian I must point out that in the "Lincoln's Kingmaker" section, concerning Amos Tuck, in 33 short words there are four errors.

Amos Tuck did suggest that the new party forming in the North in the early 1850's be called "Republican," but historians say that many people were calling for a "Republican" party, and that Tuck was not the first. "Republican" was formally adopted by groups of citizens in Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, in 1854. The first Republican party national convention was held in Philadelphia, not Washington, D.C., in 1856. Delegates nominated John C. Fremont, not Abraham Lincoln, for president at that first convention. Abraham Lincoln was nominated for president by the Republicans in Chicago in 1860—the second party convention. Finally, "the influence of Amos Tuck" did not make Lincoln the Republican nominee in 1860. Many people had a hand in this, Tuck being one, but he was not one of the dozen or so most important individuals. Tuck, who had served with Lincoln during the Rail Splitter's one term in Congress (1847-48), did nominate Lincoln for vice president at the 1856 Republican convention. But, Lincoln did not get that nomination.

FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA

Hazing Law

OUR FRATERNITY, SIGMA PHI Epsilon, has been at Dartmouth since 1909, and for at least the past 60 years has fully shared Dean Lee Pelton's view of hazing: It has no rightful place in a college fraternity and is an absurd way to treat a man whom you have just selected to be your brother. Sigma Phi Epsilon-which suspended the charters of 27 chapters for hazing in the last two years alone— applauds the New Hampshire law and Dartmouth's new resolve to act against hazing, as reported in Heather Killebrew's March "On the Hill" article.

Fraternities generally reflect the values of the host institution; Dartmouth's committed opposition to hazing will make it possible for the national fraternities at Dartmouth—all of which oppose hazing—to be effective in what they do.

In our experience, however, banning hazing—without replacing what men such as Chris Miller '63 think it contributes to undergraduate life doesn't work. That is the key reason why Sig Ep took even more decisive action in this area. Its Balanced Man Project, first implemented by Dartmouth Sig Eps nearly two years ago, makes a man a member on the day he joins, eliminating the pledging period when most hazing occurs.

This innovative member-development program helps a man grow through four stages, in each of which the younger member is paired with an older mentor (an upperclassman, an alumnus, a faculty member, a community leader) as he learns more about his fraternity, participates in and leads college activities, assumes increasingly significant community-service responsibilities, and learns how to lead and how to build a successful professional career after graduation.

Central to the Balanced Man Program is a major community-service project that the chapter undertakes as a whole. The Dartmouth Sig Eps recently won the Ten Webster Award for its project—the West Fairlee School, for which the Sig Eps provide the entire physical-education program, as well as other academic services.

The Dartmouth Sig Eps—and the national organization—see the Balanced Man as a new era in responsible fraternity leadership that is truly consonant with what men such as Dean Pelton want in student life. BRUCE H. HASENKAMP '60 AND

Hasenkamp is the fraternity's past national president, and Vale is its currentDartmouth president.

I WAS QUITE UPSET TO READ THE report in the March Alumni Magazine concerning the State of New Hampshire's new anti-hazing statutes. To think that I had spent in vain four years and many thousands of my dollars to learn to think independently when well-meaning legislators can dictate my personal actions and behaviors at the stroke of a pen! Fortunately, I hear that this ill-advised law is already being challenged in court as being unconstitutionally vague.

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

NOW THAT IT IS AGAINST THE New Hampshire law "to cause psychological injury to any person," or against Dartmouth regulations to "embarrass or adversely effect the dignity of an individual," what First Amendment protection remains in place to prevent some hotshot politician or Dartmouth administrator from suing a student who:

1. Pointed out the factually true situation of a professor sleeping with a student, or

2. Called someone who denies the Holocaust ever occurred a "liar," or

3. Complained that a professor spent all his time haranguing students to be politically correct and had no time to teach his subject matter?

In each case the subject would feel great personal embarrassment—perhaps even psychological injury Do the new law and the old regulation mean that truth is no longer a defense?

CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS

You QUOTE DEAN OF THE College Lee Pelton as saying "getting silly haircuts has no educational value. You can't convince me that it does." On a strict definition of what is educational, one must of course concede the point.

But, to paraphrase Daniel Webster, if one is to eliminate "silly haircuts" from the College, then one must continue to extinguish one by one the countless small, non-"education" things which make up the Dartmouth experience. To use my own years as an example, one must remove the late nights spent putting together an issue of the Aegis; cut out the hours spent sunning on the docks; ban the faculty-student "Tails" parties on fraternity row; forbid feeding the omnipresent dogs on the lawn in front of Collis.

At the end of this, according to Pelton's definition, the education provided by Dartmouth will not have diminished—and may have been enhanced. By my own definition, however, and by that of many of my fellow alumni, you will have removed the core of the Dartmouth experience and the most important learning experiences on campus. I speak of the opportunities to learn about the world around oneself, about how one should apportion time and responsibilities, about how one should interact with peers and leaders—in short, about life itself.

Rather than worrying about whether a freshman decides to shave the back of his skull, and in so doing learn a little bit about himself and his milieu, I should think the Dean would better spend energy on important question of budgets, tuition, and faculty diversity.

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS