To the Editor:
In the 1950s, defenders of the status quo made it a practice on any number of issues (civil rights, colonialism, even fluoridated water!) to label reformers as Communist or anti-American. Rather than engage in reasoned debate, these intemperate folks sought to demonize their opponents.
Merle Adelman '80's letter ("College Under Fire," Apr. 11) is a present-day example of this tactic. She completely ignores the arguments put forward by Michael Murphy '61's petition slate in the upcoming Association of Alumni election. Instead, she points out with alarm that one of the 11 candidates on Murphy's slate is a director of the Hanover Institute, and she broadly assails their concerns ("alarmist rhetoric," "unfounded accusations abounding"). She even trots out trustee Zywicki's remarks of last year and asserts without evidence that the petition slate members agree with them.
The DartmouthUndying website, which also supports the slate opposing Murphy's petitioners, goes on in the same aggressive vein as Adelman: "misguided alumni," "destructive forces," "our College is being attacked," "egregious slanders and continuing misinformation." The site is entirely negative; it does not advance a single argument supporting the trustees' Board-packing plan, which will reduce the alumni-elected trustees on the Board to one third from one half -- the share that alumni have held since 1891.
Adelman should have the grace to acknowledge that people who disagree with her might also be motivated by the same love for Dartmouth that she professes. Going negative and trying to stifle debate with namecalling helps no one.
Joseph Asch '79
Hanover, NH
