Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/06/12/tdr_at_25_interview_with_john_steel.php
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Editor's Note: Dr. John Steel '54 was elected to the Board of Trustees in 1980 as a petition candidate, the first in the College's history to do so. His election also spurred a number of disaffected Daily Dartmouth staffers to found a new newspaper, The Dartmouth Review. In honor of the Review's 25th anniversary, excerpts from the interview with Steel in Volume 1, Issue 1 are printed below.
Last month twelve thousand ballots flowed into the office of Michael McGeehan, secretary of the College, in the second trustee election in Dartmouth history. Seven thousand of those ballots were cast for Dr. John Steel '54. Assuming Steel is rubber-stamped by the board when they meet this weekend—and a wise bettor would mortgage his house on it—Steel is the next Trustee of Dartmouth College.
Throughout the balloting in Steel's race against Raymond Rasenberger, the California surgeon has attracted wide attention. His controversial official statement drew immediate fire from the administration, and from students who feared a vote for Steel was a vote against minorities, women, tolerance, and indeed progress. In an effort to find out where Steel stands on some of the deeper issues facing the College, the Review contacted Steel at his home in La Jolla, California for comment.
The Dartmouth Review: You have spent a great deal of time in Hanover over the past several years; you put a great deal of effort into this election. Your statement emphasizes the importance of alumni contact and alumni unity. What does a Steel victory mean for alumni?
John Steel: I think what this election—which is as I understand it the first time in the history of this rather historic College that this has happened—would suggest that. number one, the trustees should make a reappraisal of how things are going. This is the first clear-cut sample, if you will, or covering of the alumni both in vote form and in message form, and I think that certainly the trustees will receive that message; I would hope that they would. I think that the alumni council secondarily will have to re-appraise how well they may or may not be representing the alumni body, and how they approach things.
TDR: But what specific areas of the College's operations would you like them to re-evaluate?
JS: Well, at present, I think the most important consideration facing the trustees is obvious to everyone, and that is in the selection of the next president and chief administrator of the College. As you're probably aware, the trustees in general would like to establish long-range policy, but the administration of it is the responsibility of the president. So I think that the most important consideration that will come up very soon is the selection of the right, proper president of the College.
TDR: And what sort of qualities would that person have?
JS: I think that certainly it should be someone who has lived and has felt the Dartmouth experience in Hanover, and probably specifically from my standpoint and many of the alumni that would mean a Dartmouth man. Somebody who has that feeling of having been through Dartmouth and therefore has an understanding and a respect for the traditions of the College, its place in history, and most importantly, where that might be taking us in the future.
TDR: You've placed quite a bit of emphasis, both in your statement and in conversation, on the Indian symbol. And yet—as in the recent petition drive to keep you off the board—that emphasis has alienated some people who might be with you in other areas, areas that most people see as more important to Dartmouth. What do you see in the symbol that makes it so important?
JS: Well, I think that I and many others have looked on the Indian symbol as a very dignified situation, one that represents strength and leadership; those of us who admire the Indian symbol have never meant to offend anybody.
TDR: But you do.
JS: But it also seems to be a symbol for all the other problems people are complaining about: it's a symbol for a lot of things. But I think this business of the symbol once again presses on the idea of freedom of expression. I don't think that anyone should have their feeling suppressed, nor should one be told that they should or should not sing songs, nor should artwork be covered up. I think the freedom of expression is very important in the business of the symbol. I certainly am not a politician and I certainly am not going to be able to please everybody about every issue. But I am a very loyal son of Dartmouth College and certainly I am going to protect her traditions and try to maintain Dartmouth's position among the outstanding educational institutions of this country. These historic concepts of this college should be preserved; these are legacies from those who have been to Hanover before us. So I think that before we abandon significant traditions we should take a good look at them and see what they really mean.
TDR: Now that the Indian symbol has been gone for several years, the tradition is fuzzy. I'm not quite clear on your position. Are you merely saying that you oppose administrative attempts to suppress expression in favor of the symbol, or are you arguing further that the trustees should vote to establish it as the official college symbol?
JS: My own personal feeling—because I don't speak for the trustees—is that in the past, the Indian symbol was not dealt with wisely, and that that has caused problems within the alumni body and among the undergraduates themselves. They themselves should be the ones that demonstrate their right to freedom of expression and their affection for the symbol. That is one way for the symbol to be returned. But I certainly wouldn't want it returned and demand that everybody wear an Indian. It requires freedom, and it if you want it, fine; if you don't want it, fine. This is one of the vital areas that the College needs to reexamine, in terms of not only the symbol but freedom of expression—that's why I've keyed in on this issue.
TDR: You have a son and daughter here. What do they tell you about what's going on at the College?
JS: Oh, we discuss a number of things. Occasionally they come to me on some of these instances of oppression. For instance, my daughter and her classmates have approached me and said that they had received a letter from one of the administrators saying that it would be not in good taste and it was suggested that perhaps they shouldn't buy or have any clothes with any Indian markings on it or any jewelry with the same. I think that's treading a little bit off onto what personal freedoms are. On the exclusion policy: I'm more in favor of including people rather than excluding people; I'm more in favor of saying that people are free and responsible for their freedom and that they should conduct their lives as such. They don't need an administrator to suggest what kind of jewelry they should have on. My son has told me on a number of occasions of the threat to fraternities that if they don't comply and get rid of, for instance, their Indian jackets, that there may be something doled out from above regarding the fraternity. Now whether these are real or untrue, these are the kinds of things I hear, and that concerns me. I'm not against change, certainly, but I think that if one looks back over the years, over the decades, to those older alumni that are with us, those in the '20's, in the '30's, '40's, '50's, and '60's, that, whatever there was going on on campus, we all haven't turned out all that bad. There must be something decent or good about what happened there.
TDR: You've been active as an alumnus, visiting Hanover and purchasing a home in the area. When did you begin to be concerned for the College's operation?
JS: Well, I guess I probably became concerned somewhere in the neighborhood of three or four years ago, when my own children began going there, and maybe a year or two before that, as others we had been encouraging to go there began to apply, and I began to hear that maybe it wasn't the same place that I had experienced. And I began to listen and look to see what they were talking about. I think I became acutely interested in, oh, the last one to two years, and this ended up in the profile statement on this year's ballot, which is public. That's what it culminated in.
TDR: Do you go back to your old fraternity—Alpha Delta—when you're on campus?
JS: I go to my own; I go to others. In fact, I would say on my average visit to the campus, I get to at least four or five fraternities and they aren't always the same ones.
TDR: What's your sense of the state of the system?
JS: Before I answer that, let me tell you that I also visit several dormitories and go to dorm functions, so I don't limit my experience to the fraternities and their physical plants, in the ones that I've seen, look to me as though they have improved them. I don't see everything with a glistening eye: I think that there have been some problems and that the physical plants need to be improved. But the fraternities that I have seen have not only done some good things in the community and on campus, but have done a lot for the social patterns at the College. I'm sure there are abuses and there always have been. I don't think that once can eliminate an occasional abuse. I've been impressed with what I've seen of the fraternities; I've seen news recently about the rushes and the renewed interest in the fraternities.