Letters

Expert Opinion

WHAT A GREAT COVER STORY IN THE September/October issue ["The Experts"]. I read it as a mockery of this kind of how-to nonsense and as informative, since your correspondents (including the dead ones) took their assignments seriously, by and large. It was a clever way to get across a very tired alumni-magazine theme, namely, who are the most accomplished among us in various fields.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvaniamledger@pewtrusts.com

More Civil Unrest

THANK YOU FOR RUNNING THE excellent article on civil unions and the letters about it ['A Civil Action," July/August; "Letters," Sept/Oct],lts refreshing to see that there are people who can see beyond the male-dominant/churchdominant society that we live in. As a Dartmouth student, I was appalled by the prevalent casual attitude toward women and other "minorities." There were many men from various frats and dorms who I thought should have spent some time in jail for their anti-human behavior. On the other hand, there are so many refreshingly positive students and alums, both female and male, who can see that people are people no matter what their religious, sexual or political inclinations.

Orleans, Vermontphaneuf@together.net

I READ YOUR COVER ARTICLE ON BETH Robinsons achievements with great interest and hope. I was surprised and disheartened to see so many alumsespecially younger ones—expresssing hostility and disapproval. Personally, I think the article portrayed a woman who is the epitome of what Dartmouth can be proud of in its alumni. Marriage/civil union is a stable force in society that should be encouraged, not denied. That should be the basis for consideration, not the sex of those in the union.

San Diego, Californiakarenhi@san.rr.com

I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE claim made by John Levitas '55 ["Letters," Sept/Oct] that "there is absolutely no religious or moral basis for supporting [the granting of civil unions to gay couples]." It has been my experience that many of those who support this measure cite religious reasons, and it seems fairly clear that there exist some moral codes which would also provide support. I can only conclude that this statement was not meant to be taken literally, and that, instead, Mr. Levitas is intending to claim that any moral or religious system which would support civil unions of gays is wrong in so doing. This reduces to a statement of opinion. Since the article in question clearly stimulated thought among alumni about issues re- lated to the College, I can only laud the DAM for presenting it.

Bloomington, Indianakr@alum.dartmouth.org

I WANT TO THANK LOUIS TUCKER '95 ["Letters," Sept/Oct] for expressing so cogently and clearly what I wanted to say about the civil unions cover story. It's hard to convey the depth of my disappointment with the DAM's action—not because I am anti-gay (I'm not)—but because of just the factors Tucker cited, primarily a flagrant disregard for the feelings of those on the other side of that oxymoron, gay marriage. Were the tables reversed, i.e., had the cover and the article lionized the alum who worked on the other side, the hue and cry on behalf of yet another downtrodden minority would have been deafening.

Carlsbad, Californiasteve@sciencemedia.com

HURRAH FORTHE CALL FROM LOUIS Tucker for balance. How dare the DAM put a woman (let alone a lesbian) on the scover as though she were a heroine! Co- education at the College is not something all alumni agree on, and it stirs deepseated emotions in both camps. Please balance each liberal you feature in your magazine with a clear-thinking, Biblebelieving person from The Dartmouth Review and/or the Christian Coalition.

San Mateo, Californiathilkert@pacbell.net

BETH ROBINSON IS A CIVIL RIGHTS pioneer and a moral visionary. Naturally, then, her cause incites opposition. As the French say, "to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs." The arguments marshalled against her, however, are the same sanctimonious arguments used against Susan B.Anthony, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr.

New York, New Yorkmichael.ferris@nyc.nxbp.com

THANKYOU FOR YOUR ARTICLE ON Beth Robinson and the fight for civil unions in Vermont and for the selection of alumni letters on that article. I followed the debate closely in my home state of Vermont, and I was struck that the letters to the editor closely reflected the debate here.

Again and again in Vermont arguments against the proposed law cited religious and long-time opposition to homosexuality. (People didn't seem to understand that many traditions—like slavery or patriarchy—need more than the claim that they have existed for a long time to justify them.) Of course, many Christian clergy and Jewish religious leaders joined in the fight for civil unions. I wouldn't want to argue against the interpretations of scripture that condemn all homosexual relationships (though that interpretation is not shared by all Christians and Jews). The issue is whether the adherents of that view have the right to enlist the coercive power of the state to enforce their religious views. The Vermont Supreme Court faced that issue bravely.

Middlebury, Vermontbates@jaguar.middlebury.edu

APPARENTLY THERE ARE ONLY TWO reasons for opposition to same-sex marriage. The first relies on "the collective wisdom of humanity since the dawn of creation" [Doug Kingsley '84, "Letters"]. Even if that assertion were historically accurate (it isn't: monogamous marriage for life is a relatively recent concept), we can think of many ancient, venerable beliefs and practices which have faded as eons of daylight eclipse that dawn, such as slavery, infanticide and human sacrifice. The second assertion is that "there is absolutely no religious or moral basis for supporting" same-sex marriage [John Levitas '55, "Letters"]. Patently false, since ordained clergy in many religions have performed such ceremonies and many people define their support in moral terms. Given that the rhetoric of one side of the debate is informed exclusively by such arguments, what are rational, open-minded persons, who have been uncommitted on this issue, to do? Endorse the opposing position, I suppose.

Colesville, Marylandmdi821@aol.com

I WAS VERY PLEASED TO READ YOUR coverage of how hard Beth Robinson '86 and others are dedicated to achieving the excellence that Dartmouth stands for. As a member of the board of directors of the Dartmouth Gay and Lesbian Alums Association (DGALA), I'm very proud.

When I matriculated, I was taught by Dean Margaret Bonz about the importance of diversity. Wings and roots was her message. Since then, I've learned just how important, and contemporary, her words are. Glad to hear years later that one of our own is succeeding in helping lesbians and gays to achieve our dreams. And at Dartmouth no less! Something we all must be proud of.

Lesbians and gays at Dartmouth are an important and vibrant part of our constituency. To learn more about lesbian and gay alums, feel free to contact me or see my Web page at www.ben-yosef.com/dgala.

Boston, Massachusettsben-yosef.85@alum.dartmouth.org

What 50 Looks Like I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE IN THIS years reunion coverage ["Seems Like Old Times," Sept/Oct] that there were no pictures of the 50th reunion class of 1951.I have always thought that, among reunion anniversaries, none was more important as a benchmark than the 50 th. Many will have attended no other—and may have reduced prospects of attending later ones. You did mention our sizable recordbreaking contribution, but that's not really the stuff of which the class of 1951 is all about. You owe us one!

Charlottesville, Virginiawkrowe@earthlink.net

Here you go! —the Editors

There Goes the Judge

THOMAS PENFIELD JACKSON '58 ["Father in Law," Nov/Dec 2000] was upheld on the "fact-finding" in the Microsoft case, his remedy was completely reversed and thrown out, and he was removed from the case for improper conduct during the remedy phase. Based on that critique of his performance by the appeals court, I fully expect you to put him on the next cover as achieving great success. After all, he is a .333 percent hitter. Your "hero" didn't fare very well, did he? However, I am also quite sure that we will never see the results in print in your magazine. After all, you wouldn't want to ruin the wonderful image that you worked so hard to create for yet another liberal cause.

Pinehurst, North Carolinaftji@webtv.net

The class of '51 luncheon

Write to Us We welcome letters. The editor reserves the right to determine the suitability of letters for publication and to edit them for accuracy and length. We regret that they cannot be returned. Letters should refer to material published in the magazine and include the writer's full name, address and telephone number. Write: Letters, Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, 80 South Main St., Hanover, NH 03755 E-mail: DAMletters@dartmouth.edu Fax: (603) 646-1209