Letters to the EditorA Distorted View To the Editor: I recently read your article about the Trustee Statement on the Student Life Initiative ('The Trustees Rule Against Students,' TDR, 4/24/00). As you note, the Trustees generally followed the SLI Committee Report. That committee was composed of 14 members, with an overwhelming liberal bias—4 undergraduates, 3 faculty, and 3 administrators all hand-picked by the administration—10 of the 14 non-Trustee members. What would you expect the report to propose? Are you aware that the Alumni Council sampled the general alumni for their sentiments? The sampling was a half-hearted attempt, and by the meeting on March 4, 2000 to formalize a report to the Trustees, there were only 260-odd responses from almost 60,000 alumni. In my judgment, this poor response is due to alumni skepticism about the College's interest in their opinions. A classmate and I collected a large percentage of those 260 responses. Generally, the alumni responses were clear and unambiguous. At the March 4 meeting, these responses from the alumni were disregarded and administration-approved spin was put in the Alumni Council Resolutions that were forwarded to the Trustees. For example, 75-100% of the responding alumni were opposed to the World Cultures Initiative and to special social education programs in the dorms, but the Council Resolution endorses both. Again, the Trustees got a distorted view. I can only hope that continued dialogue between concerned constituents within the Dartmouth community will demonstrate to the Trustees what the collective college community's real feelings are. Ralph A. Adams '53, Thayer '54
To the Editor: We recently received a form letter from Robert M. Caldwell, Executive Director, Dartmouth Alumni Fund, advising us that we would be receiving a call from a Dartmouth College—to paraphrase it—asking for money. Mr. Caldwell's letter emphasizes the student education offered. Formerly, the Administration would hire professors who hopefully could and would teach. Now they employ big domes who do research, and delegate their teaching responsibilities to teaching assistants. In my mind, and I am probably crying in the wilderness, this is a 180-degree shift in Dartmouth's educational philosophy. The May 1, 2000 issue of Dartmouth Life states Dartmouth's mission clearly, to wit: 'the aspirations of a research university.' I have no desire to contribute funds for research purposes, the research and the researcher to be decided by a faculty and a board whose educational philosophy is alien to mine. While I am sure many alumni applaud this, I don't. For many years, I believe the Trustees and Messrs. Freedman and Wright have violated their fiduciary responsibilities in many areas—but they have succeeded in their goal of making Dartmouth the Harvard of the North Woods. They won. We are no longer unique and great. We are little more than a Harvard clone. The only thing we have not done to match Harvard is to invite Hillary to be the next Dartmouth president. I suppose this oversight will soon be corrected. After all, Dartmouth's Trustees awarded an honorary degree to her husband, the second President of the United States to be impeached. On another matter, I believe that our endowment is large enough, after eliminating wasteful expenditures, to reduce, not increase, tuition costs. It's a matter of priorities. Face it, Dartmouth's priorities are as follows: 1. the faculty, 2. the administration, 3. sticks and bricks, 4. students. When we hear the plea: 'Look what Dartmouth has done for you. Now it's your turn to do something for Dartmouth,' my response is, 'It isn't the same Dartmouth. The direction is different, the orientation has been and is toward a politically correct philosophy, and the goals are different.' For practical purposes, the method of electing Trustees is a self-perpetuating farce, and unlikely to be changed during our lifetime. The very least the Trustees could do is eliminate the category of Charter Trustees, replace them with elected Alumni Trustees, and reduce the number of years in each term to three. Even England eliminated future hereditary selection in the House of Lords. Mr. Caldwell bemoans the drop in the alumni's participation rate in the Alumni Fund, and compares our performance with Princeton. Well, what the devil do the Board of Trustees and the administration expect? Fred Fuld, Jr. '40 Editor's Note: The following two letters were sent to Dartmouth President James Wright and William King, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, in response to the Board's April statement concerning the Student Life Initiative.
Dear Bill: I write in response to your April 15, 2000 statement from the Board of Trustees summarizing 'plans for enhancing student residential and social life.' The inescapable inferences from the April 15, 2000 statement include an intent to change the nature of Dartmouth College, act in loco parentis for all students, crush fraternities and sororities in favor of amorphous social entities, increase the emphasis upon graduate students, dictate membership in such social entities as survive, and raise the sanctity and preferred status of certain special interest groups on campus. I disagree strongly with the transformation of Dartmouth from a college to a university, with the increased emphasis and attention to graduate students, with the execution of fraternities and sororities, with the mandated congestion of students into residential clusters in an effort to emulate Harvard University and Yale University, with the prevention of new fraternities or sororities, with the proposed demolition of dormatories built within just the past 25 years, and with the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars. I further disagree profoundly with the notion of segregating all freshmen residentially. I also reiterate my request to allow alumni of the College to attend Board of Trustees meetings at which action, in accordance with the statement by the Board of Trustees of April 15, 2000, is discussed or contemplated. The Board of Trustees can do no less for the graduates of dear old Dartmouth upon whom the Trustees rely financially and otherwise. Quentin Kopp '49
Dear Sirs: Your statement is poorly written. One would have to have a lot of additional background to understand all the bureaucratese. From what I could make out, Dartmouth will be adding facilities, eliminating or planning to eliminate fraternities, sororities, and senior societies, controlling alcohol dispensation and abuse and pursuing certain amorphous would culture and academic affinity initiatives. Why did you write me and what would you have me do about these things? It seems to me that getting rid of the fraternities, sororities, and senior societies will do very little to restrain alcohol abuse. Alcohol abuse will be a factor as long as it is available. Just look around society and ask AA. The issue is really how to best mitigate its mostly safety-related negative effects. The current thinking will contribute to more, not fewer, car accidents as students look for choices other than the Orwellian options being developed for them on campus. Treat the Dartmouth student as the adult he or she is. They can vote, serve in the military, and are no longer minors under the law. They should be responsible for their behavior and able to associate with whomever they please or whoever will have them. Treating them like the children your proposals assume is an insult to each and every one. John Wimsatt '70
To the Editor: Over time, I have come to realize that The Dartmouth Review has been one of my most valuable experiences at Dartmouth, not because I agree with the paper (because I usually violently disagree) but because it has nearly single-handedly taught me the value of tolerance of others' exercise of free speech. Throughout my freshman year and part of my sophomore year, I pretty much hated the Review—thought everything they wrote was pure evil, thought they should all die, etc. I think that changed when I read Bill Cook's quote on the front of the Review last year—'Free speech is the last refuge of scoundrels'—and I realized just how horrible that kind of attitude was. Then it occurred to me that even though I despised much of what the Review wrote, that to eliminate the paper in the name of equality and justice was perhaps the most hypocritical thing I'd ever heard in my life. Equality and justice come from the open interplay of opposing minds, not from the elimination of all that lives. So I still disagree with the Review most of the time, but I recognize not only that they have a right to publish what they want, but that their existence is a very positive contribution to the community here. It seems that there's a certain quality of maturity that enables one to transcend issues of personal offense and realize that some things that are best for a community might not appeal to each individual. If we let personal offense dictate the organizations we try to crush, we'll eventually stagnate, lacking the diversity of opinions that allows us to stay out of ruts. Thoughtful people with foresight and respect for the community's best interests would recognize that occasional personal offense is a small price to pay for continuing social progress. Brian Sharp '01
To the Editor: As I read Harold Putnam's letter, which appeared in the March 13 issue, I had to chuckle. He accuses The Dartmouth Review of selling its principles and of being vicious. If telling the truth is vicious, then you certainly are 'guilty' of being vicious. If standing by your principles, when contrary to the beliefs of those who oppose you, is wrong, then you are 'guilty.' How can The Review bear such 'guilt'? Keep up the good work. Fight the good fight, and above all, keep piling on the 'guilt.' Illegitimae non carborundum! That's fractured Latin for 'Don't let the bastards grind you down.' Don Kennedy '54
To the Editor: Fraternities will always be at a disadvantage negotiating with the administration because of the current legal drinking age. Why is it that at age 18 you can vote in all elections, get married, have children, sign for major surgery on yourself or your children, get a credit card, be executed, have an abortion, and die for your country in a foreign war but still not be allowed to purchase and consume a six-pack of beer? It's blatantly unfair and another example of the heavy hand of the federal government on individual and states' rights. Lawrence Purcell '59 |
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 |
||