Link to Full Text: Dankovic’s Letter to the Dean
About This Artifact
The artifact recovered and discussed below is a typewritten letter from David A. Dankovic, Vice President of the Student Peace Union at Penn State.1 The letter is addressed to Dean Russell E. Larson. The main concern of the letter is its questioning of Penn State University College of Agriculture’s involvement in the Vietnam War and actions during this war. The piece specifically asks if “Pennsylvania State University College of Agriculture is directing any of its research towards developing herbicides and defoliants which are causing the ecological disaster to the land and people of Indochina?”
This artifact engages with the attitude and atmosphere of the time because it reveals the student’s concern with the impact and involvement, not only the United States has, but that they have in the war. Even the American film industry even fell short of looking for a perspective of hopefulness or happiness when it came to recreating this war and the environment/experiences of it. Many filmmakers were afraid of the “reactionary foreign policy implications.” 2 This written letter from David is an expression of concern that works to negotiate the involvement of the student’s relation to the war itself. The student’s concern to administration reveals the value students see in their work and the care for people around the world students also have. While no response was given back, in can be concluded that Penn State, being a large and active institution, does have ties to larger research projects and licenses to utilize the research done in a business and military environment. The students are “approaching” for a “statement of truth” from the administration. They are “waiting outside for the truth” revealing that these students want to be informed and deserve to know who/where their research is being provided to.
This artifact was then enacted with a protest, waiting for Dean Larson to give the students a piece of “truth” concerning where the agricultural research was being fed to. This rhetorical usage of “truth” can be analyzed further prompting questions as to do the students have the right to the truth? Does the President or Dean of a university have the right to withhold the truth?