(Elie ﬁtnrltt l'llli] ZlBldzk

%& 18 (Elinor

End OF A Department

Next Monday the faculty will continue the debate over the
proposed “disestablishment” of the Department of Comm-
unications, and will likely vote on the matter. Although at
this point the faculty move will constitute only an “opinion"
which will be relayed to the Board of Trustees, who will
actually decide the matter in April, the vote is nonetheless
important for it will constitute, if the motion is approved,
a major step in the wrong direction as concerns decisions'
making processes at Grinnell, and will further eliminate for
largely undefined reasons a department which has promise
of great academic value.

Few students and faculty would argue that the Department
of Communications as it is presently organized is the best
possible structure for the study of Communications, and thus
the Executive Council rightly concludes that something must
be done. But the Council in its published rationale for the
recommendation of “disestablishment” considers only three
possibilities--(l) maintaining the status quo, (2) expanding
the program, and (3) eliminating the program--without con—
sidering a fourth and extremely viable alternative: revising
the program without expansion. An elaborate proposal to that
effect was presented by Concerned Communications Students
to the Council last fall, yet the alternatives that proposal pre-
sented were apparently not even seriously considered.

One is therefore led to believe that, as suggested by the
remarks of Council member Robert Voertman during the
last faculty meeting, the Council considers the department
worth eliminating not primarily because of budgetary and
personnel constraints, but rather because the study of Com—
munications itself is more “vocational” than ”academic”
and thus should be purged from the school as were such
departments as Business Administration many years ago.
This viewpoint, as Communications Instructor Pat Kent
pointed out at the meeting, is sorely mistaken, and if the
Council has indeed taken this factor as a primary consideras
tion the members should be reprimanded for not having done
their homework.

More significant than the consideration involving the De—
partment itself, however, are the questions which the whole
discussion brings to light concerning the process by which
such decisions are made at Grinnell, As SGA Vice-President
Anne Walter pointed out in an article in last week’s 85:13, the
Council in claiming that major concerns with this issue are
confidential personnel matters has in effect removed entirely
some of the key issues from discussion among the faculty.
Ms. Walter therefore suggests, and perhaps quite legitimately,
that personnel matters which are not concerned with specific
students should be brought more into the open and included
as part of a broader discussion about “educational policy.”‘

The personnel question, however, is only a small part of
the whole area of secrecy. Despite the fact that the Execu—
tive Council did receive during its deliberations input from
several sources, including the Concerned Communications
Students, departmental instructors, and other persons of pre
sumed expertise in the area of Communications, when the
hard decisions were being made none of those persons were
present to answer criticism of their positions and to ad
dress themselves to the real central issues in the heart
of the decision—making discussion.

Such a one~sided process forces those in the position (in
this instance) of defending the department to guess ahead of
time the issues the Council will find pertinent, and then to
address those during brief presentations. During the real
heart of the process they are not present to participate in
the give—and»take of argument, which is precisely the point
where their arguments may most urgently need to be heard.

When the decision being made is as significant as the abol—
ishment of a department, the weaknesses of the process be—
come apparent. Not only does it deny one side of the debate
a full hearing, but it likewise forces the Executive Council
to make decisions in complete ignorance of some opposing
arguments which, if voiced, might have been convincing.

As is becoming most apparent in the present instance, both
sides lose in the exchange.

a1

COLUMNISTS. . , ,

Che ®nnntll
ﬁfdrlrt null Elntk

1n. Grlnurll surui in: Black is lhc sludcnl nui.
river at unmn rune... Published weekly while
the on.“ n n. “won by (hi Crmncll canon
Commute: on sworn run [inns in mm m
inrlll nplnlnns do not m. rlly rolled lhr our
all u. noun: bony, lacul or administration ol
cnmn Cullen- Mllerui lrom nE Starlet 1nd
Elk! :lnnvl or ”prod-lad for puiumun “nun
In: "pr-ii consult of the inner

sum um posh" rum, cumin lows loin

EDITOR. . . . .
MANAclhc c o ,Morryvnrsner
con EDITOR . . . John Wylie
BUSINESS MANAGER Glendenlng
Anvsnnsmc MANAGER Rome Brown
clnchATlon MANAGER. . Pat snishido
spans thi‘f‘ol‘t. . .om Cllvlrl

non oasenzis

. , Jim All, rm
Cuner, nrrgg liiflnrr, chk Duppell, Scull
Mason, John Polls.

PHOTOGRAPHERS . .Jnhn Eeuecki.
Ron Bummer, lien 2 Drain. Julie Dunn,
Bill Glaser, Craig kugisiui, Jay Mnnafee,
Julie kivlin, Eon Slams, krn Winokur
ARTIST Miriam uurslrm
'rmsr . . .. Nancy Oswald
REPORTERS . . ,.aon Arnold, Mike
Breed, zluinr Carry. Ann Cassel, Michelle
Casuy, limo Crow. Jeff Dick, Bill Glaser,
Curt corrull, Erucc Johns-in, Bonnie Ken-
noy, Sherilyn Lee, Lynn Lichlrnbrrgsr,
Maxine howy, non Medvin, Crnlg Murphy,
om Nlculzl, Rlck Nightingale. snerunn,
Bonnie noswig, Tum Rowat, arrnl Schen-
dvlmeyer, ml Sinners, Mirth: Wicker,
Ken Winokur, Torry Wolf

Oswald: Student llilpicking

To the Editors:

I suppose that I should have ex,
pected it; with the latest issue on
campus being the lack or inhibi-
tion of student power, the proposed
elimination of the Communications
Dept, was a perfect opportunity for
Grinnell students to make a stand,
However, I [01‘ one attended the
faculty meeting on Monday because
I was concerned over the existence
of the dept in question itself and
wished to see how the faculty op—
erated. The present issue was of
special interest because it appear-
ed that student input had been com-
pletely passed over in an anxious
attempt to decrease campus spends
ing.

A few points are worthy of com—
ment. First, despite the almost hy-
sterical drive to gel students to at-
tend the meeting, President Leggett
made a point of the faculty's ad-
visory status ln relation to the
trustees, who make the final den
cision. Isn‘t there some way for
concerned students to influence that
most reputable body, now that we
have made our presence felt with
the faculty?

Secondly, the massive turnout of
students attests to the anxiety we
feel about high handed administra-
tions and faculty. If nothing else,
such attendance was a concrete
means of voicing our concern, as
contrasted to letters to the editor
and the oft-heard grumbling in the
privacy of our own student/student
conversations.

Thirdly, and this is the impres-
sion which rather disgusted me.
we “idealistic" students are just
as prone to bureaucratic nitpickr
ing and red-tape tangles as the al-
leged “opponents” in the field. I
was a bit disappointed to see the
critical lssue--survlval of the Co-
mmunications Dept.--gctting blur-
red by accusations of committee
conspiracy and biased analyses.
Personally, I was much more imr
pressed with the presentation of the
Communications faculty as a den
fense of their department. I believe
the best means [of asserting stu-

Steinson, McCus—
ker: Vandals

To the Editors:

A most appalling discovery was
made Monday morning at the Sch-
aeffer Gallery in the Fine Arts
Building when Mr. Cervene found
that five of Mr. Boehner’s six pa—
intings on exhibition had been male
iciously marred either by piercing
or creasing of the canvas.

The exhibition, "Grafton Boehner
"Prints, Paintings, Drawings, and
Louis Zirklerrllolloware Retrosp-
ective,” which had been scheduled
to remain up until March 9, was
immediately removed. This is not
the first time that exhibition mater-
ials have been vandalized. Onewon-
ders what prestige a Grinnell come
munity can deserve where incidents
Such as this occur.

Mary Steinson
Kris McCusker

Thanks To All

To the Editors:

We, as campaign managers for
sea Presidential hopeful sim Ha-
mmer, wish to thank thosemembers
of the electorate who cast their
vote in his favor. We also wish to
thank Mr. Hammer for not with
drawing from the race when he
learned he had entered.

In reference to his lack of plat-
form, we are heartened by the
fact that at least fifty—two voters
did not want to place an son Pres
sident in a position where he min
ght not be able to fulfill his cams
paign promises As seen by the
briefness of his campaign and the
number of votes he received, it is
not necessary for a candidate to
saturate the campus Willi propa-
ganda. We hope that next year’s
candidates will continue to refrain
from employing advertising agen-
cies to run their campaign.

We again thank Mr. Hammer and
the electorate

Bill Sayre
Neil Ratzlaff

dent power is a constructive use of
that power, not its channelling into
hassles over procedural foulups.
Why not publish the student rec—
ommendation to the council? Give
the non-communication-majors a
chance to defend the student stand
without groping in the dark; we can
pressure faculty, (on, and onawider
subtle scale.
Nancy Oswald

Rosen: Need Practical Courses

To the Editors:

It is 3 fact that one forgets about
90% of what he learns. For instance
how much do juniors and seniors
remember of their freshman year
courses? I find it hard to believe
that many of them could even pass
the exams they took in those cour-
ses without studying again. In fact
it is probable that few could talk
for more than a few minutes on the
specific content of those courses
without review. Grinnell graduates

Patterson: EC
Expedience

T0 the Editors:

As I see it, the motion before the
faculty which would endorse the re—
commendation by the Executive
Council to disestablish the Com—
munications department is a pro-
duct of political expedience, and a
gesture of bad faith on the part
of the college institution.

I believe that in forming a der
partment of Communications, and
offering a major in Communica-
tions, the college made a commit-
ment to itself and to its students
which goes far beyond the issues
of staffing priorities and budgetary
restraint.

The commitment to teach Com»
munications should not be dropped
simply because the Executive C0-
uncil feels that moneywouldbobet-
ter spent elsewhere. Where is,else-
where? That information is privy
to the Council. I will tend to be—
lieve, until shown otherwise, that
“elsewhere” represents only the
special interests of those on the
Council.

The faculty should decline to ens
dorse the Council recommendation,
until such time as the Council is
willing to say exactly what is being
gained by dropping the Department
of Communications; and the advan~
tages thereof have been subject to
proper debate.

Cam Patterson

Aronin: A Joke

To the Editors:

I am amazed at the volume offeed-
back and controversy that has dev-
eloped since the publication some
weeks ago of my letter concerning
the “lack of lust" on campus.

When I submitted the letter lfelt
certain that at least the majority
of students would realize that it
was a joke, but apparently there is
a greater lack of humor on campus
than of lusl. It amazes mehow many
self-centered, sheltered twerps
there are at this place, just looking
to be insulted, so that they can in
turn put somebody else down.

Though perhaps it is not in keep»
mg with my degenerate nature, when
it comes to lust my actual feelings
on the subject are basically those
which Ms. Mayrent expressed in the
last issue: in essence I am notlook-
lng for a “mere ‘body trip’ .. which
I imagine could be found on this
campus with a llltle diligence, but
would much rather work towards
meaningful relationships where mus
tual enjoyment could be found both
on the sheets and off.

Ira Aronin

,_\j

Because of the midsemester
break the next issue of the 5&8
will be published on Thursday,
March 8. Letters to the editor
for that issue Should be submit-
ted by 7-00 pm. on Tuesday,
March 6.

‘ﬂ‘

remember even less, I'm certain.
The point of this paragraph is what
good does one's studying do if he
is to forget most of it in the near
future?

i believe that studying can be bene»
ficial in that n: (1) serves as a pre—
requisite for other courses as the
amount of information retained will
possibly be useful for another cour-
se in that or a related field. (2)
makes relearning lhe same material
easier than if no sludying were done
in the past.

Do these two benefits justify the
countless hours the student works
or even the countable minutes the
wiser student works? in my opinion
the answer is definitely no and our
academic system therefore needs
a revision. In order to rectify the
situation more “practical" courses
must be offered and some of our
present courses must be made more
”practical”. As an example, Ibe-
lieve that Economics department sh—
ould offer a course dealing with the
kinds of finanical problems an ad-
ult must be able to deal with, Help
in handling income taxes, checking
and savings accounts, loans, the
stock market, etc. cuuldbe included.
The Physics department should em—
phasize in lab not potentiometers
and Wheatstone Bridges, but rat-
her how to attach light fixtures,
handle fuses, etc. A course emp-
hasizing critical thinking should he
offered by the Psychology depart
ment. A course in automobile me—
chanics emphasizing the most com-
mon problems that, do and how
to fill them should'be o on. There
are many other “practical” courr
ses that should be offered.

i am not advocating an abolish,
ment of most courses offered at
Grinnell but rather a revision in
some containing material that will
be retained when we graduate and
an introduction of a few new cour-
ses. AS is the case with SAGA,
10% retention isn’t worth the money.

Robert Rosen

Medvln: Humor

To the Editors:

Reading Jennie Scoon’s letter last
week concerning how the now in-
famous Aronin letter was in “bad
taste" left me both disgusted and
depressed. Ms. Scoon typifies the
average Grinnell student’s appalling
lack of any sense of humor. Aronin’s
letter was a minor masterpiece »
as was the recent computer match
jag perpetrated a week ago , and
anyone who takes it all seriously
should be forced to spend the rest
of their lives in a room with Rhona
Barrett. My God people, stop talk»
ing about "bad taste" 7 an absurd
term in itself - and laugh a little.l

Ron Medvin

PS. This has nothing to do with
the above, but just to save space
...there are too many damn dogs
on this campus; this campus looks
like a kennel and I'm tired of
cleaning my shoes on the curb!

Fursl: Delense

To the Editors:

Since lra Aronin’s letter appeared
In the 5&5, I have read subse»
quent letters commenting on Ira’s
letter, Too many times it seems
that these replies (and spoken com»
ments 1 have heard) lay judgment
upon 1rd and/or his character, rat»
her than expression of a different
interpretation of the situation he
described. Therefore I think I must
Stand by his right to Write what he
did, and declare that if my wit and
creativity could equal his, 1 would
have written the same.

Brad Furst

 

