Page Four »

The Scarlet & Black

sruderrr Newspaper of
Grinnell College.
Grinnell. Iowa

An independ-
ent newspaper Pub-
“Shed weeklyr C
can during
days and :xamina-
lion periods. by the
Grinncli cummiucc
on Student ruhlicn.

lions Subscription rate $6.00 per

school ycnr.

 

Editors . Hurry rnllon.

Lloyd Gcnon
John Brody

srcvc crow

unilirusr Manager
Managing Edlror .

Lnyour Editor cm: unlcncr

Sports Editor . John render

Columnists Tom oreenuelrl.

Tim rorgcs
Reporters culhy Ncwkirlr,
Mark Sablcmnn, clndy Rout,
Nod: Mmgialetli, Phil snsicu,
.l. c. Llhmvlu, Eeisy cricnsci-i,
Reggie Grahnm. Knrhryn ncinzc.

 

Thomas and the Senate

Last week, the Senate, in its bounteous liberality,
saw fit to give Tom Thomas a gift of $50. They did this
immediately after the Student Auditor had informed
them that they were flat broke. But let that pass. One
should be prepared to tighten one’s belt when such
a worthy solicitor appears. At ﬂ'le time, the Senate
simply gave Thomas the money without either requiring
him to produce evidence of need or requesting him
to report the net profit on his journalistic venture.

Two weeks have passed, and we may note several
interesting facts. Thomas’ paper has been a great
success: approximately 600 copies sold each week. At
25 cents a copy, this means that the gross take came
to about $300 (plus the $50 gift). Now Thomas has stated
that the cost of printing each issue was between $80
and $100. Adding expenses and incidentals to that,
Thomas estimated the cost of producing each issue
at about $125 or about $250 for both. That leaves Mr.
Thomas and friends with a net profit of about $100,
which makes them pretty successful capitalists indeed.

We hasten to note that we are not implying that
Mr. Thomas would keep that $50 for himself. No doubt
he will return it to the Senate. The interesting question
concerns how he will return the money.

It seems that Mr. Thomas still owes SGA a con-
siderable amount of money from a loan made to pay
for his published report on the Chicago riots. That
loan, still in part outstanding, was supposed to have
need paid last semester. Now when that loan is called
in, Thomas is in the interesting position of being able
to pay off the loan with the $50 gift the Senate gave

him. No matter how he chooses to pay off the loan,
the question may be raised as to why he does not return
the gift which, presumably, was given for a non-profit
making venture. At any rate, the Senate has, once
again, demonstrated its seemingly infinite capacity for
thoughtless and naive actions.

The SGA will hold its election for President next
Monday. More precisely, Romper Room is going to
have a new play leader. The gentlemen who are running
for this office are dismally alike in their views. They
speak of student power, activism (apparently a disease
of a malfunctioning pituitary gland), good counselling,
responsibility, revolution, etc. etc. etc. We may mention
that the theater of the absurd candidate, Mark Kass,
at least had the sense of shame to run under an assumed
name ~ Jim Panzee. The other candidates are Andy
Loewi, Phil Mears, and Frank Thomas.

We believe that the range of candidates is something
less than spectacular. The editors of the 5&3 have
been informed that their endorsement of one or another
of the candidates is the kiss of death for that candidate’s
political ambitions. Lest we be thought to be unduly
sadistic, we shall refrain from any real endorsement.
Rather, in the tradition of great liberals like Jefferson
and Madison, we counsel resistance. We encourage
the students to boycott this election.

We do not intend to impugn the characters of any
of the candidates. Nor do we believe that activism
is necessarily reprehensible, although we do believe
that irrational activism is loathsome. Now the present
SGA President apparently operates on the principle
that if you do nothing, you do nothing wrong. That
is not wholly bad principle. But alas, he does nothing
so poorly.

If we support one or another of the candidates
we are simply giving him a license to proceed in the
irresponsible and childish manner of the present Senate.
It seems that it would be wiser to show the ad
ministration, faculty, and the candidates themselves
that we would like something better than what we
presently have. An effective boycott would, we think,
demonstrate this.

SCARLET AND BLACK

Friday, February 27, mo

Letters to the Editor . . .

To The Editors:

Carleton College, which
Grinneil prides itself in outrdoing
whenever it can, has six dorms
which are coeducational by
rooms.

Colorado College (the newest
member of the ACM Conference)
has abolished grades.

Coe College, where the ad-
ministration opted out
of responsibility in drug cases by
abdicating it to the police,
recently revamped its
curriculum, doing away with all
requirements,

Al Grlnnell College, “the
Harvard of the Midwest,” the
politics of the universxty says
don't rock the boat. . .don’t ex-
periment in curriculum. ,don’t
change the living system . ,don‘t
emphasize community coop~
eration in solving counseling
problems. Instead, say 7 change
the curriculum only when you
can prove without a doubt that
present courses are highly unr
desu'able and proposed changes
for superior. . .say, if people are
stupid enough to take drugs when
they don't even know what
they’re getting, they shouldn’t
ask the college to help them out.

What does it take to make a
college excellent? What does it
take to make Grinnell exciting?
Such a minute part of our time
here is spent in the scholarly
pursuits of academia. What,
then, becomes of the rest of that
time? One of the last voices in
the new admissions film said.

“Grinnell can be a beautiful
place," and yet you could almost
hear where the conditional clause
had been removed. If we would
be willing to experiment, ii we
would be willing to challenge
students, if we would be willing
lo respond to people's desire to
learn, then. . .“Grinnell can be
a beautiful place."

For instance, most freshman.

coming into a college situation,
expect a challenging academic
environment. They are ready to
explore their ideological whims,
anxious to find out who they are
and what they are becoming.
How do we capitalize on this?
By a freshman orientation of two
days, designed to [it the
newcomer into Grinnell's day-to-
day operation as quickly and
smoothly as possible? By a
Humanities course as rigid in
reading material as it is in its
application to the student’s
personal questions, which cenr
lel'ed around his life and his
society raise the most profound
questions that any discussion of
Humanities could raise?

We could do better at Grinnell.
II we expect to call ourselves a
lruly outstanding liberal arts
college and have the phrase
mean anything —— then we must
do better. And if the faculty who
control the instllulinn by virtue
of their corporation-like standing
of rank and experience will not
challenge themselves to attempt
change and experimentation,
perhaps students must The
tyranny of prerequisites,
sequence of courses, and the deaf
our to change have no place in
a college which has got to have
an impact in improving the
quality of higher education in
America.

Name Withheld By Request

Tn The Editors:

As an ismrless and neutral
human being, I wish to publicly
commend Mr. Alan Nasser and
Mr. John Crossett for their
contributions to the SM}. May
their sound logic, open min-
dedness, kindness, subtlety of
word choice, and mutual
tolerance serve as an example
toeachstudentatGrinnell.

Sincerely.
Douglas s. llusscll

To The Editors;

Mr. Klein’s comments upon my
review of The Battle of Algiers
are well taken. it was not,
however, my intention to suggest
that the film provides a paradigm
for an American urban
revolution. My point was that a
member or the establishment
sources both here and abroad
(Time, the French government)
perceived the film to have
revolutionary potential. Whether
or not their perceptions were
justified was not my concern;
that they perceived the film in
the paranoid iashion they did
seems to me to he of some
sociological interest. The
lnispcrccptionsoftherulmgclass
are often as instructive as its
vcrldical perceptions. Never-
theless, my article \vns amr
biguous on this point, and 1 am
grateful to Mr. chin for the
clarification.

Mr, Crossell chose not to
examine a single one of my
substantive contentions. instead
he olicred an unprecedented and
venomous exercise in character
assassination. A public debate
between me and Mr. Crossett
would seem to be pointless, as
therc is no reason to think that
his public style would differ
significantly from his written.
The real tragedy of Crossett’s
letter lies Tn the irreparable
damage that its autobiographical
revelations have done to his
reputation and credibility among
students, faculty, and ad»
ministration. Requicscat in Pace.

Alan G. Nasser
lnslructorulPhilosophy
To The Editor:

In his opening remarks to the
now and returning faculty,
August 29, 1969, President Legg-
eu noted that the faculty had,
in the past, managed to carry
LETTERS~

Continued on nngc 5

 

