Letters to the EditorFarewell, Dear Old Dartmouth To the Editor: I was extremely vexed when it was decided to eliminate the Indian symbol, of which we were all so proud, to satisfy a few juvenile students, stirred up by a disturbed faculty member. We were all proud of our 'Indian' cheerleaders; 'Big Green' and a lumpy moose are insipid. The plan to force sororities and fraternities to go co-ed is the straw on the camel's back. I was not a member of a frat, but never felt excluded, nor did I view frats as elitist. I feel there should be choice. If there can be other affinity groups, why not all-male or all-female groups? The changes that have been forced on the college over the years in the name of political correctness have changed Dartmouth to the point where it is no longer the school I knew and loved. I am not opposed to change—change is both inevitable and desirable—and I expect it, but I am opposed to change for the sake of change, and especially to the PC changes I have mentioned. There is nothing I can do about it—Wright's letter made it quite clear that although the powers that be are soliciting input, they will go ahead with their plans, regardless of what anyone thinks—but I can refuse to be a party to it. Therefore, I plan no further contributions to the Alumni Fund. I am well aware that the size of the alumni contributions I, as a retired professor from a small school in a poor state, could make would have little to no impact, and my action may seem petty, but I can conceive of no other way to protest. I shall continue to pay my class dues, but since my Dartmouth has ceased to exist, I see no reason to send money to the new imposter. Over the years, I have contributed to Dartmouth, but not the University of Arizona, where I received my graduate degree; in the future, UA will get my support. Sincerely,
To the Editor: I sent the following comments to about 25 classmates and friends. A bit direct and crude perhaps, but the administration 'just doesn't get it' that a huge percentage of alumni are very unhappy. The time for action is now: the College can out-wait all students, who are in Hanover only four years. You have probably seen Tom Bloomer's letter in the May Alumni Magazine. I support every point he makes. Further, I've come to the reluctant conclusion that the Administration in particular, abetted by sycophantic Trustees, cares little about preponderant Alumni views—or of those students they are committed to educate. Perhaps only the jingle of dollars can be heard. Therefore, I have turned off my trickle, redirecting it to my beleaguered fraternity, and direct support of favored campus groups. Alumni Fund appeals will be returned prominently endorsed NFW. If you are similarly disenchanted, rethink your next Alumni Fund gift. Sincerely,
To the Editor: As the daughter of Alumnus F. Derby Hall '14, I was brought up to respect the Dartmouth Indian. We were both shocked and disappointed by President Kemeny's ill-advised decision in the '70s to abolish that long-time symbol because it might be offensive to Native Americans on campus. I've often thought of the Old Man of the Mountain in connection with the search for a new symbol for Dartmouth. On the shore of Profile Lake hundreds of feet below the famous stone face is a plaque inscribed with the words of Dartmouth's great statesman and orator, Daniel Webster: 'Men hang out their signs indicative of their trades. Shoemakers hang out a gigantic shoe. Jewelers a monster watch. A dentist hangs out a gold tooth. In my dad's day—years before the likes of Kemeny, Freedman, and now Wright, methodically set out to destroy the old Dartmouth and its traditions—Webster would have been honored for his observations about Nature's famous handiwork in Franconia Notch. Today with political correctness running rampant throughout academia, I'm sure Webster's tribute would be construed as being homophobic, sexist, and insensitive by the whiners and chronic complainers. Sincerely,
To the Editor: A recent editorial in The Pueblo Chieftain was highly critical of Dartmouth. Somebody should have considered how stupid the latest flap seems to outsiders. DUH! Sincerely,
To the Editor: I see no reason why Greek-letter societies (in any form: all-male, all-female, or coeducational) must be abolished to make place for a utopian social system. Maybe President Wright had a bad experience with fraternities in his own college years, but why are the Trustees, who are all graduates of Dartmouth, going along with this ill-advised plan, which could be the coup-de-grace for tradition? Sincerely,
Editors Note: This letter, forwarded to The Dartmouth Review, was sent to President Wright and the Dartmouth College Trustees. Dear President Wright and Trustees of Dartmouth College, We, the CFS Alumni Board, representing house corporations and alumni/ae groups of the co-ed houses, fraternities and sororities, welcome the President's and Trustees' invitation to participate in the discussions on student life at Dartmouth. As the landlords and advisors to our respective undergraduate counterparts, we have collectively spent decades working with students to enhance their college experiences. We, while reaffirming our commitment to the vitality of our organizations, applaud the Trustees' initiative to improve student social and residential options. Furthermore, we strongly believe that our houses do facilitate 'a sense of place, of shared experience, and of friendships that are sustained over a lifetime.' Although the CFS houses play a valuable role in student life, it is clearly not at the exclusion of other opportunities as our members are fully involved in the intellectual, cultural and extracurricular life of the College. While over 40% of the student population belong to houses, only about 10% actually live in them (and usually for no more than one year) and there is no dining in the houses. Also, it is important to note that each house was founded and has been sustained by voluntary student participation. Our institutions exist because students want them and alumni/ae support them, not because they are part of a planned system. Just as Dartmouth has changed, so have our houses. Even though some of these changes, such as year-round operation, have imposed additional burdens on us, our organizations have accepted and adapted to these changes, which is a primary reason why the houses remain popular with the student body. The experience students gain in dealing with house corporations and alumni/ae advisory groups affords them a unique educational opportunity that helps prepare them for post-graduate life. As the president of the IFC, Hondo Sen, wrote recently, 'through the common experience of leading an organization, managing a budget, maintaining a physical plant, and programming activities for brothers and other Dartmouth men and women...house members learn important skills that place them at the forefront of campus life, and aid them in future endeavors.' This rich experience also creates an unbreakable bond with Dartmouth. In turn, the alumni/ae maintain an interest in the College that extends beyond merely giving money. If there were no more privately owned houses many of these opportunities would be lost. As alumni, parents and educators we recognize that every student is unique and learns differently. We respect these differences and seek to foster environments where students can enrich themselves intellectually and socially. Some women and men find that single-sex organizations are just such places. While virtually all of the activities on campus are co-ed, many students still find that sororities and fraternities are havens where they can be more comfortable in developing their intellectual and personal identities. In a place as vibrant and challenging as Dartmouth, such an environment can be a home away from home. Based on the experiences of many Dartmouth alumni/ae and of those at many other colleges and universities, our institutions can more than adequately help prepare men and women for the 'real world.' Of great concern to all of us is unsafe and antisocial conduct, some involving relations between the sexes and some related to alcohol and drugs. Our houses can provide a non-threatening atmosphere where students can address the etiology of such behaviors. While these problems neither originate at nor are unique to Dartmouth, we have a collective responsibility to confront them. We pledge our continued support to constructive efforts to deal with these issues. In order to provide and to improve the facilities and programming of our organizations, we are willing, in aggregate, to spend millions of dollars. In the early 1980s our houses spent substantial sums of money to upgrade our facilities in line with minimum standards. Again, we will not shrink from our responsibilities. In our discussions with the Trustees and the Administration we will be guided by the following principles, which are consistent with the 'five principles.' 1) During their college careers, students should be free to choose with whom they socialize and to join organizations of their liking. 2) Co-ed houses, fraternities and sororities should (and do) play a positive role in the academic, cultural and social development of their members and by extension the College as a whole. 3) Students should have the opportunity to have independent living and social facilities. If we want students to be responsible, they need to be given responsibility. 4) There should be diversity within, and a diversity of, organizations. There is a place in the Dartmouth community for single-sex, co-ed and affinity houses. 5) Education will be most successful in curbing antisocial behaviors. 6) The interaction between house corporations and alumni/ae groups, and students presents valuable learning opportunities. Those organizations that own properties should not be coerced to sell them. We want to work in concert with the administration to make Dartmouth a better place and we believe that our houses are one of the major reasons why student satisfaction is so high and alumni/ae support so fierce. As we work together and in the spirit of community we seek a statement of good faith: that the Administration will not unilaterally or forcibly seek to ban, to close, or to mandate the gender composition of our houses. Such a pronouncement would certainly help create a more trusting and constructive atmosphere. Sincerely, |
Article ToolsRelated Articles· Fitz and Schul Defeat Sobriety and Bad Cinema · Fitz and Schul Defeat Sobriety and Bad Cinema: The Story of F. Scott Fitzgerald at Winter Carnival · Wright to Step Down in June 2009 · Winter Carnival: The History
Advertisement  Advertisement |
|
|
Copyright © 1996-2008 The Dartmouth Review |
||