Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2006/04/21/steeling_the_election.php
Friday, April 21, 2006
Originally Published June 7, 1980 (Volume 1, Issue 1).
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 petition candidate Dr. John Steel. Assuming Steel is rubber-stamped by the board when they meet this weekend, Steel is the next rustee of Dartmouth College.
Throughout the balloting in this race against Raymond Rasenberger, the official Alumni Council candidate, Dr. Steel, a California surgeon, 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. The Review contacted Steel at his home in La Jolla, California for comment:
THE DARTMOUTH REVIEW: What does the Steel victory mean for alumni?
JOHN STEEL: The trustees should make a reappraisal of how things are going. This is the first clear-cut sample of the alumni both in vote form and in message form.
TDR: What specific areas of the College’s operation would you like them to re-evaluate?
JS: 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.
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. From my standpoint and that of 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 on the Indian, the Dartmouth symbol banned by outgoing president John Kemeny in 1974. That emphasis has alienated some people who might well be with you in other areas. What do you see in the symbol that makes it so important?
JS: The Indian symbol represents strength and leadership; those of us who admire the Indian symbol have never meant to offend anybody.
TDR: But you have offended people by supporting the symbol.
JS: Freedom of expression is very important in this business of the symbol. 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 am also 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: 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 an official College symbol?
JS: If the symbol were to return, the students would have to return it themselves. They themselves should be the ones that demonstrate their right to freedom of expression and their affection for the symbol. That is the one way for the symbol to be returned. I certainly wouldn’t want it returned and then demand that everybody wear an Indian. It requires freedom, and if you want it, fine; if you don’t want it, fine. This is one of the vital areas that the College needs to re-examine, in terms of not only the symbol but freedom of expression.
TDR: You have a son and a daughter here. What do they tell you about what’s going on at the College?
JS: My daughter and her classmates received a letter from an administrator saying that it would be in bad taste to have any clothes with Indian markings on it, or any jewelry with the same. That’s treading off onto personal freedoms. I’m 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 of the threat to fraternities if they don’t comply and get rid of their Indian jackets. I’m not against change, certainly, but I think that if one looks back over the years, we haven’t turned out all that bad. There must be something good about what happened there.
TDR: You were in Alpha Delta. What’s your sense of the state of the fraternity system?
JS: 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 one 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 belonging to a fraternity.
TDR: How do you think the average student sees the average alumnus?
JS: When I was an undergraduate, I felt very close to the alumni, very involved, and felt that they were pillars of strength for the College. I have the feeling now, though, that that’s no longer true, that many of the undergraduates are in a vacuum in terms of the alumni. We should be closer.
TDR: What would help bring that closeness about?
JS: I hope that we could get some of the undergraduate news media to the alumni. Most of these alumni get only the bulletins or the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine or the letters that come out from the administrator’s office. It would be nice if some of the undergraduate publications could get into more alumni hands.