Yale University - Banner / Pot Pourri Yearbook (New Haven, CT)

Page 33 text:

fb l'ourtesy of the .Vcw Haven Register , NM,-.- Yale in om Election Year American politics seemed to have reached a new point of departure. For two decades the Demo- cratic party had held sway over a shifting political, social, and economic scene. The era had seen in the early thirties one third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-nourished , it saw, twenty years later, the fulfillment of the American dream--full employment. On the domestic scene, it had felt the birth pangs of a new concept of American government. Beyond the national borders, it had heard the death rattle of an aspiring foreign trium- virateg but it had soon witnessed a new threat -Communism--arising to threaten American security. As the atmosphere of the political arena began to tighten with the impending clash, the Demo- crats claimed credit for bringing prosperity and peace to the country, the Republicans charged that twenty years of Democratic political supremacy had brought with it corruption and inefficiency. How did the Yale man view the candidates and the issues of the day? Are 'radicals' or 'reactionariesl the more dan- gerous to what you consider the American way of life?', Seventy per cent checked 'radical'-a strik- ing contrast to the figure of 48 i recorded in answer to the same question asked in the 1948 Banner. Five years had seen a marked trend back to conservatism, fear of Communism and inquisi- torial 'Qsubversive lists was reflected in Yale's re- nunciation of radical thought and action. The American mixed economic system of government control of monopoly plus individual ownership came in for a high degree of favor. Eighty-three per cent thought it the best eco- nomic system for America , all alternatives to the left received a total of only 351. This was a campaign which held more interest for the Yale man than had any political event in many years. Candidates for both nominations- Taft, Kefauver, and Harriman-were Yale men. Adlai Stevenson was a Princetonian whose ties to the east were apparentg Dwight Eisenhower was the president of Columbia. To the eastern college student then, it was an election whose appeal could hardly be denied. How would you describe the intensity of your interest in the campaign?', Three of five Uexpressed opinions freelyng the Hgure was slightly higher in the sector favoring Eisenhower. At Yale, as will be noted later, the fashionable choice was Eisenhower, and Stevenson supporters were infrequently vocal, when they did speak, however, it was with a fervor and a faith approaching idolatry. Tlt'l'IIl-1'-7lfII4

Page 32 text:

the basic trends and motivations . . . what were the Yale man's problems . . . how did he meet them . . . how true was the indictment against him? These were issues far beyond the limited scope of a seventy-question survey, they were is- sues which could be determined and delineated only in the light of events yet to come, in the stark black words of headlines yet to be written. But even in the limited area of present condi- tions, even in the relatively narrow context of Yale itself, certain hypotheses began to take form. First among these were theories of the basic pat- terns in Yale life-what makes the Yale man tick. The drives and motivations which characterized the Yale man in 1953 seemed suited in some re- spects to the rest of his generation, in other areas there was a measure of dissimilarity. What were these drives, and what were their effects? First in importance, perhaps, was a drive for con- formity and uniformity. The Yale man felt an impelling need to do as others did, to think as others thoughtg he seemed to feel an aversion to any activity of the mind or of the body which smacked of the radical. To be different was to be queer. And no matter what the loss of indi- viduality it entailed, this was largely the pattern which the Yale man followed. The traditional ladder of success appeared to be a fundamental tenet in the Yale scheme of things. The president of the Political Union had acidly etched the Yale success story in terms of Green- wich born, Andover bred, Fence polished, Bones tapped. A few would rebel against the system, would make bitter attacks against what was de- nounced as a hypocritical and shallow com- munity, but the vast majority not only abided by it, but stood by it. To most Yale men it was almost a religion-a faith which, though other values, other institutions might fall or shift, would con- tinue to be valid and recognized. To those outside the Yale community it was a mark of immaturity, of school-boy symbolism and hero-worship. To those who lived under the standards and values it enforced, it was, for four brief years, a way of life. To the thoughtful observer, one of the most striking aspects of the Yale scene is the cleavage between the ideal and reality, the ever-widening chasm between what the Yale man wanted and valued and the action he was willing to take to achieve these goals. The prime example is in his academic work: with rare but notable exceptions, the Yale man values studies above the other phases of his life at Yale, with even rarer exception, he Twrufy-eigbt is unwilling to sacrifice his heavily-occupied leisure time, unwilling to drop his characteristic attitude of indifference to give his studies an amount of time and effort commensurate with the value he places on them. Yale as a university is dedicated to Lux et Veritas, to her students, these words are frequently only empty slogans on full highball glasses. What of the so-called uindictmentf, the charges of stagnation and apathy and sterility which were leveled not only at the Yale man, but at his entire generation? How is the validity of these accusations supported or denied by the Survey? The answer is one of complexity and, in many cases, of relativism. The cautious withdrawal from the demands of life, the dearth of creative work, the sparseness of outspoken individualism-these seem to give a degree of credence to the Wasteland-like picture of the generation presented by its critics. There is little doubt that this era is one of inarticulation, of quiet but ever-present skepticism, of intellectual numbness. Historians will have pains to find a hero among the members of the past generation. There were few Merriwells in 1953, fewer Stovers. But is the indictment thus completely supported by the picture of the Yale man? The defenders of the generation cry out a loud and resounding denial. The 1948 Banner Survey found that The most outstanding characteristic of the Yale politi- cal community was apathy. Its 1953 counterpart reflected a sharply contrasting picture: the high interest in the political campaign and the ardent support of both candidates among students fsee Political Survey followingj was in direct refutal of the charges of stagnation and indifference. Indeed, the entire poll seemed to indicate that within this generation there is much that is hope- ful, much which is ignored by its critics. Professor Richard B. Sewall, speaking to the class of 1952, said, There has been more productive discussion and good argument in your generation at Yale than in any I can remember. Perhaps herein we find a key to the hope which still exists for the intellectual survival of the so-called Silent Generation. They are silent because there are no voluble martyrs, no fire-eaters, no silver-tongued orators. But in the classroom there is not silence. There the genera- tion is, in the words of Thornton Wilder, fashion- ing Twentieth-Century Man. It is in this setting that the generation recognizes that the time is out of joint, and it is against this background that it realizes that it was born to set it right. -P.Z.

Page 34 text:

-.-PTE. .- dh- irq -nffp-511:-9: :tvs -':,f5:.e- - ,. 2,4755-rf, -12 , 3 .,.1: 1 3- ..g.,i3,,,, ,.:' AC 'J' .iiigls .,::s?i'?-Q2 -2- a- aa' . 79 .fer 3 ai' Q - h fi . AL E ,. ZND Levis . as r .-.A 5--fig?-f . Platforms, more than personalities, were de- terminants of Yale's preferences PREDICTIONS AND PREFERENCES The Banner Survey studied the Yale man's out- look as election day neared and found a parallel to the trend seen in the national public opinion polls. Sixty-nine per cent favored Eisenhower, and fifty-five per cent thought he would win the elec- tion, while Yale was more heavily Republican than the nation, her predictions were almost exactly correct. This prediction-preference pattern was re- peated throughout the poll. Those students whose families earned less than 510,000 annually were more thickly concentrated behind Stevenson than was Yale as a whole. The Democrats, campaigning and winning elections for twenty years on a prosperity-stylei' platform, thus held a substantial sector of the vote of Yale's lower economic strata. Fraternity men were considerably stronger for Eisenhower than was the average Yale man, reflecting, perhaps, a background of money and economic interests set off to a certain degree from the non-fraternity area of the student body. More significant than these relatively minor aberra- tions was the lack of sharply divided group characteristics. By and large, groups seemed to have little or no effect on the political atitudes on campus, most sentiments were apparently wide- spread and tended to cross the traditionally fric- tional lines of in-groups and out-groups. PERSONALITIES AND PLATFORMS The Survey asked Do you think the majority of Americals voters are swayed in their choice by platform, personalities, or emotional reaction? Few C1810 thought the voting public was inter- Thirty ested in the issues of the platforms, indeed the platforms were frequently so nearly identical as to make a choice based on such a factor virtually im- possible. But 682, of Yalemen thought the plat- form most influential in determining their own votes. The question of personalities Qwhich 407, said was most importantj was a complex one, the Eisenhower symbol and the Stevenson phenomenon have been and will be the subject of endless dis- cussion. The broad grin and infectious laugh of a conquering hero home from the wars, the charm and sincerity of a witty intellectual bred in the tradition of political service-these were qualities which endeared both candidates to wide and vary- ing sectors of the American public. Eisenhower's arms, upraised in the symbol of victory, Steven- son,s quiet smile and chiding quip-millions of Americans came to anticipate and to love these gestures and trademarks, millions came to identify themselves with each. What were the important issues of the day? Yale's answers are as interesting in many cases as are the preferences and the attitudes. When asked to check in the list below the issues you consider most important in the current campaign, the Yale man replied in this manner: 1. Corruption 2. Foreign policy 3. Inflation 4. Change of administration 5. Korean situation The answers of the Eisenhower and Stevenson supporters to this question were studied separately. With the exception of creeping socialism checked frequently by the Ike men and civil rights' by the Stevenson supporters, the results were substan- tially the same. Apparently the issues of the day were fairly widely accepted as such, party con- siderations seemed only infrequently to color the Yale observer's objectivity. This trend at Yale may be considered parallel to the widespread junking of traditional party-determined attitudes on election day. If Eisenhower is elected, do you think the pri- mary reason would be that people want a change? Three of four Yale men said yes. Thus, while only ten percent of the pollees themselves thought change of administration an important issue, a much greater portion thought this would be a fun- damental determinant in the final decision. Much of the weight given to the throw the rascals out sentiment can, of course, be traced to its basic