Tent Stakes
I object in the strongest terms to President Sian Beilock bringing riot police onto the campus to criminalize nonviolent, non-threatening, non-disruptive protest [“The Campus Is in an Uproar,” DAM online]. There are no facts that support equating protest in pup tents on the Parkhurst lawn in October (one pup tent) or the Green now (five pup tents) with threatening

violence, removing the rights of others, or in any way interfering with the functioning of the College. Saying that pup tents [on other campuses] have led to disruption is a concern, a fear. It is not a fact.

In this context, a tent is speech.

Beilock could have wrapped this expression of intense feeling into the broader program of discussions about these complex and fearful issues for which Dartmouth has been getting such national credit, and deservedly so. She could have asked the leaders of the “encampment” to participate in those discussions and explain what they felt the encampment added to their message, why they felt it was important to have a physical manifestation of protest. Others could have responded. 

Instead, she called in the riot police. Let this be the low point of her administration.

DAVID AYLWARD ’71
Greenbelt, Maryland

Heart to Heart
Thank you for featuring Indigenous alumni [“Where the Heart Is,” May/June]. As a proud descendant of the Grand Portage Band of Ojibwe, it was wonderful to read how my fellow Indigenous alums are giving back to their communities. From reversing cultural genocide and keeping our languages alive to protecting our Native lands and creating a positive future for generations to come, their legacy is remarkable.

I also appreciated the update about repatriating the
remains found on our ancestral lands in Hanover.

KIRA VANDERLAN, Adv’04 
Minneapolis 

There Is No “U” In “Team”
We are three former Dartmouth basketball teammates who were deeply concerned to learn that the current team has voted to unionize [“No More ‘Free’ Throws?” May/June]. This initiative has brought a whole new meaning to the term “March Madness.” It is difficult to express how ill-advised and destructive this decision could be for the future of both Dartmouth and Ivy League athletics.

Ivy League sports have always enjoyed a unique standing in the NCAA. Athletes are truly student-athletes, without the benefit of athletic scholarships or any trappings of so-called “big-time” college sports. Almost all the sports teams generate less revenue than the cost of fielding a team. It is in the context of these economic realities that the current basketball team heedlessly felt they needed a union with the ultimate goal of being paid for their services.  

We never believed that we had been hired to play basketball at Dartmouth. Rather, we were privileged to represent our school while fulfilling our academic requirements and graduating from one of the top colleges in the country. It is beyond disappointing that the current team feels differently. Even more disturbing is the prospect that unionized athletic teams will end up destroying Ivy League sports.  

We have urged the board of trustees to pursue all available legal remedies to prevent the unionization of sports at Dartmouth and to preserve the priceless tradition of Dartmouth athletics.

JOHN MATHIAS ’69
Chicago

WILLIAM STABLEFORD ’69
Madison, Connecticut

ROBERT STURGES ’69
Coral Gables, Florida 

The basketball players’ vote to form a union is a much needed first step. The next move should be to spin off the athletic
department and teams into
for-profit entities. Then you can license the Dartmouth name and facilities to those teams in exchange for rent and royalties. A player can decide if he/she wants to attend college, work for the basketball team, or both. They wouldn’t be the first people to work their way through school. It is long past time for colleges and universities to exit the sports business.

KEN COHEN ’76
La Jolla, California

Parents Rule
I disagree with the comment by education journalist John Merrow ’63 [“Continuing Ed,” May/June]: “Educators have been so arrogant for years in saying, ‘Just leave your kids at the door, we’ll educate them.’ That’s nonsense. Parents are a child’s primary teachers, and schools must recognize that.”

The teachers I knew were very aware of the primacy of parents. That’s not to say teachers always agree or support what parents do, but rather to say teachers know very well the primacy of the parent-child relationship and how it can affect in-class experiences.

My experience with schools also taught me that teachers need more support from administrators, who are far too deferential toward parents. Administrators worry that disgruntled parents will complain to school board members. In turn, school board members are often uncritically supportive
of parental complaints, because many school board members worry about getting re-elected. Hence school board members convey complaints to administrators who, often uncritically, convey those complaints to teachers. And too often, in my opinion, they discipline teachers based upon such complaints.

That probably sounds cynical, but that’s the view from where I sat for 38 years as in-house legal counsel for the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association. I’m sure I have my own biases. And this is not how it always works. But far too often it is.

JIM ALLMENDINGER ’73
Portsmouth, New Hampshire

Costly Difference
Regarding the advocacy by economist Robert Reich ’68 for a universal basic income [“Continuing Ed,” January/February], Ted Brown ’72 countered that such a policy could undermine the social glue of our “face-to-face material interdependence” [“Your Turn,” March/April]. While I can see a great weight of truth in that, Mr. Brown reduces a guaranteed income to “Get paid for being useless.” 

To those who work multiple jobs and still struggle—and sometimes fail—to pay for housing and food, Brown’s reductionism is in the same ballpark as “Let them eat cake.” It ignores the ever more bloated cost of living and the cost of income inequality in contemporary America. Guaranteed income may or may not be the best way to address that, but at least it recognizes the urgency of the problem.

DON LEPLEY ’73
Susanville, California