July 28, 1969 ATLANTA, GA.—Your M a y / J u n e editorial was the most irrelevant, generalized I have ever read in your magazine. Taking nothing away from "Wonderful Ed's Day" or from Ed Harrison himself (although, you must admit that he was little more than a lame duck president his last two years—Vernon Crawford's undesignated Bachelor of Science curriculum sat stagnant on Harrison's desk from the Fall of 1967 until the day he quit), the demonstration that day had little to do with campus reform, revolutionaries or student activists. I thought your parallel was ill conceived albeit crafty, as it gave you the chance to indiscriminately pan the new left and their culture. By the way, I had no idea you were such a learned critic of contemporary art and music. And really, your overall knowledge of Them (the bad guys) is positively astounding. Anthropologists and sociologists must be envious indeed. I was not aware that it was necessary in our free society to "earn" the right to use its privileges. In my youthful ignorance, I always thought that these rights were given to all Americans— you know, the Bill of Rights, and such as that. I guess I'd better get to work on my "Privileges of Society" merit badge. I only wish I knew the requirements. Oh, and wasn't it nice of sweet old, benevolent Mother Tech to "allow" Them to use the sacred Old Shop Building grounds to hold Their "little open air forums. . . in the time-dishonored custom of the true fascist." How ridiculous. If you have ever seen one of these forums, you know that their format is democratic in the truest sense. I suggest you review some political theory before you embarrass yourself. And yes, maybe They are insuring the rise of reactionaries (cite yourself as an example), but then it works both ways; reactionaries are insuring the rise of activists (cite myself as an example) . It is painfully obvious to whom you must answer in your editorials. You probably please and pacify the power structure with this sort of tripe, but I think you may have underestimated some of the more clear thinking alumni who realize that in a dynamic society (of which educational institutions are an integral part), you cannot rely on static ideas and hope to achieve anything worthwhile. You write of disregard for history. Indeed, does history tell us that war is inevitable because men have always fought each other? I suspect your history does. Well, mine doesn't. Your "institutions" like war, racism and poverty are going to take a terrific beating from Us, whether you like lit or not; and we will survive, for no othe,r
Letters ToThe Editor reason than the fact that we believe more strongly than you disbelieve. Your unqualified generalizations have done concerned and involved students at Tech (and, indeed, everywhere) a great dis-service, but then, that was probably your goal. No matter. Your ideas are passe Mr. Wallace, and try as hard as you might, you cannot win. And in the end, the order shall be reversed and the last shall be first. Michael E. Leeman EDITOR'S NOTE: This is what is known as the generation gap in polite circles. But in defense of our position on one point let us add that we are still a cardcarrying musician who made a living at the trade one time in our life and we have been an art director for over 18 years. July 23, 1969 WORTHINGTON, OHIO—I have just read "The Editor's Notes" in the May-June 1969 Alumnus. I want you to know that I think this is the clearest, most factual and concise statement about the generation gap that I have read or heard. Keep up the good work. O. P. Stark July 23, 1969 ATLANTA, GA.—My Dad used to
say,
"Give 'em the flowers while they can still smell 'em," so, following his advice, I would like to toss you a bouquet of roses for your splendid editorial (Editor's Notes ) in the May-June issue. You have stated the case so clearly, so concisely, and so pungently, that one could only wish that all our "angry young men" of the hippie-anarchist persuasion, who think the way to get "Utopia now" (without even being sure, or agreed among themselves, as to just what Utopia consists of!)—is to tear down the "Existing Structure", could read it in a sober and thoughtful frame of mind—but I suppose this is too much to hope for. They remind me of a spoiled brat who is yelling and trying to kick the bubble-gum machine to pieces because it didn't give him the GOLD BALL—forgetting all the while that he hasn't even put his penny in the slot! I wish I could share your optimism of the last paragraph, but I am afraid that the people who know better are too timid to take the needed action. In the Groves of Academe, especially, it has become such a fetish to be "liberal," "broad-minded," and "open-minded," that those who feel, in their innermost
thoughts, that some of these radical trends are leading us down the path of eventual ruin, are afraid to stand up and say so in unequivocal terms, lest we be accused of being "old-fashioned," "narrow-minded," or "square." Someone has said that the end result of being too open-minded is to have a hole in one's head! Our present "System" of society, which we call civilization, has been the result of a slow and painful trial-anderror process over a period of several thousand years. Our American system, in particular, has been very dearly bought by the blood of partriots who were willing to fight and die for what they believed in. The very freedom which permits these young anarchists to get away with the destructive tactics they employ, they value and understand so little, they are willing to destroy it in exchange for Communist-inspired ideologies which have been fed to them inside a sugar-coating that they represent "freedom" and "liberalism." As you so aptly said, "In the countries they profess to worship, they wouldn't be allowed to brandish their slogans for over a day without being one of the eliminated." In a day when a large portion of our daily press and many of our academic leaders (?) are aiding and abetting the trend toward anarchy by refusing to "tell it like it is," and even making pusillanimous efforts to curry favor with the radicals by making sympathetic noises about it being "all the older generation's fault," it is indeed refreshing and heartening to find an able editor and writer like yourself make such a clear analysis of the issue, and have the guts to print it. "Well done!" and "Amen!" Hendrik R. Hudson July 16, 1969 DECATUR, GA.—This letter is to commend you for your editorial in the current issue of the Tech Alumni Magazine directed toward those who are bent on fomenting campus unrest and disrupting the orderly process of education. I congratulate you on taking a firm stand against lawlessness of this type. I would only hope that the faculty and staff of Georgia Tech will adopt as firm a stance against those who would destroy the school. I should like to see Tech's officials take the position of the president of Notre Dame, as outlined in the article, "A College President Takes a Stand on Campus Chaos," in the May, 1969 issue of The Reader's Digest. To quote the Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, "We The Georgia Tech Alumnus