Pets, food wrap up year for CSL, SGA

by Anne Rawland

The Committee on Student Life
and Joint Board ended a somewhat
rocky relationship last week by
disagreeing on both the pet
proposal and foodfight-food
removal proposals.

The CSL pet policy called for an
allrcampus ban on dogs and cats.
Joint Board ammended the policy
to dogs only. It also amended the
food lightrfood removal proposal.

PRESIDENT A. Richard Turner
rejected both the CSL proposal and
several suggestions Joint Board
made ior enforcing the existing cat
policy, claiming present policies
work better than would any of the
proposed amendments. He also
encouraged students to draw up a
better policy for the new college
president to consider.

Next week, Turner will consider
the food fight-food removal
proposals irom CSL and Joint
Board,

The Grinnell

Scarlet 8 Black

lusPs Abs-non)

Looks like fun. cli‘.’ One at the traditionally most popular aspects of last \vvekeiid

The policy brings oilenders
before Judicial Council when
accused oi either “food lighting"
or removing food from the dining
rooms. They will be given a
warning for their first offense: be
forbidden dining hall privileges for
a week, with sack meals, provided
by Food Service, on the second
offense; and suspended from the
dining halls for the remainder of
the semester, with sack meals,
after the third offense,

A $50 fine is added for third time
offenders if the incident occurs
within die last week of the
semester. in addition, the offender
will bear all extra elean~up costs.

The Joint Board amendments
qualify an oirender as a person who
1) throws food in a “dangerous or
destructive manner; " 2) refuses to
clean up a mess when asked; and
3) has a complaint brought against
him or her by another diner, as
opposed to a food service worker.

Members at CSL expect Turner
to sign their proposal because of
the ambiguity ol the Joint Board
terms “dangerous or destructive”
and the possibility or events oc~
curing just because people clean
up the mess or no one complains.

One committee member, Dan
Ward, attended last week’s Joint
Board meeting to help explain
CSL’s decisions. “They were really
hostile toward the CSL
representatives," he said. “I got
the feeling that they were trying as
hard as they could to come up With
amendments just to spite CSL.”

Some feel this theme charae
terized all of the major policy
considerations of the past year,
with the exception of the decision
to allow dogs in offseampus
housing on a trial basis this
semester,

Despite the sometimes intense
conflicts between the two bodies,

laculty representative to CSL,
Liahna Babener, said, “I think the
system should stay the way it is so
(he most input will result, The
alcohol policy started everyone oll
tense, but the system probably
contributed to more productivity
than it took away,”

On several proposals, including
the “Dave Herren alcohol amend
merit" trestricting SGA funded
liquor to a strictly controlled
area), and the bathroom policy,
voting seemed to divide along
student against racultyadmini-
stration lines. But SGA president
Greg Youtz said, ”There
was steady improvement in the
interaction and the ability ior

‘members to compromise."

Babener echoed Youtz’s state
ment by pointing out, “On dog
policy we all came together at the
end or the year,”

Dean or Student Affairs Jim

Tederman said, ”I think the
Committee was fairly represen
tative of the student body, with
some very liberal and some very
conservative members. if you get
an issue that’s not so politically
hot, you'd see people voting all
over the place."

Earlier in the year, several
structural changes were submitted
by Tederman which would have
eliminated Joint Board from the
process. “Joint Board just doesn‘t
have the kind oi iniormation they
need or the time to consider it as
the committee has," he said. “I
still think the students should be in
the majority on CSL, but not the
bouncing back and forth with Joint
Board."

However. he went on to say, “I
have seen this process work
beiore, but the only way it worked
was for Joint Board to see the
legitimacy of the committee,”

 

5/11/79

Grinnel], Iowa

Grinnell College

Vol. 87, No. 28

 

es

Griiilrcll licln

the mild hole. Those lucky people weren't the only ones to take the big splaoliiniany others. includ g
former 5&3 editor Dch Weim’r. preceded and followed them. (Photo by Joel r\aL-|l.l

Skip Day—better late. -. .

Last Friday’s Skip Day was a
“great success," according to SGA
president Greg Youtz. The event,
which was sanctioned by SGA and
a number of students, was held
despite its recent veto by the
faculty.

Youtz said that itwas the largest
participation he had ever seen in 3
Skip Day and his only regret was
that “we had to Wait so long to find
a nice day "

However. many laculty and
students did not feel that student
participation was complete Most
icil lhat participation was
primarily limited to students In the
social sciences and humanities
One studentnoted that “there were
many students missing from Social

studies classes, but very few
missing from math and science
courses."

Assistant physics professor
Robert Cadmus noted that “there
wasn't really much allect on at-
tendance in classes,“ and that lab
attendance was ”normal.”

Professor Ron Kurtz, chairman
oi the iaculty, said that the faculty
has taken no measures to stop any
future unapproved Skip Days
“The faculty thinks that it tSkip
Day) is dead." But he added that
the faculty feels that students
should “take responsibility lor
whatever happens."

Assistant professor of English,
Michael Cavanaugli, said, “The
only thing the faculty was really

Concerned about was that it came
too late There were a lot of ims
portani things to do, and students
who Couldn't really afford to miss
class, and Wanted to, were hurt.”

Youtz believes that SGA will
continue supporting a Skip Day
next year. This year, SGA spent a
total of $350 dollars on the event,
primarily on “lays, chalk, paint,
yarn. and slime. He believes
that this money will continue being
allocated for the event.

Kurtz stated that he felt it was
“perfectly reasonable” to leave
Skip Day in the Gl‘inneli calendar,
Apparently. the masses or people
in iront of the Forum last Friday
agree wltli Kurtz and will not let
the li‘adilion die.

Faculty adopt new
grades,,bring back “F”

by Dan Flynn

Amid Cries of ”It'sa return to the
Middle Ages” and “History for him
begins with 1960 ' the iacully
approved major: changes in
Grinnell's grading system.

The iaculty will meet again on
Monday to “tie up the loose ends"
concerning the grade change. One
point still undecided is when the
Changes will take place. The
meeting is at 4:15 in Science 171,

MOST DR \STI(‘ 0F the changes
approved last Monday was a
reinstitution of the “r" grade, The
"r" will be a permanent notation
in the student's record. and will be
counted inlo the computation nl
GPA.

However. as in the past. a
student may retake a failed course,
The second grade will ihcn go on
the record. and will replace the 0 0
grade points in computation oi the
student‘s GPA The original "F."
though no longer counting in the
GPA. \Vlll nonetheless be part of
the transcript

lib: ‘ tr: lib: i)i- [ON on
the ' the faculty approved
other changes to the grading
system To give instructors more
options in borderline cases. lwo
new grades were added, 13+ and
C+, Because of the addition of the
two letters. the grade point systcm
had to be changed

“A" will now stand for 4 0 grade
points, ”A-" will be 3.7, “B+" will
ll 1’1, “B” will equal ”i 0. “B-" will
cain2.7 grade points, cw will be
Z 3. and "C" Will still earn 2,0.

lN 'I'llE ARGUMENT preceding
the vote, iaculty members sup»
ported or opposed the proposal tor
nuitea variety oi reasons One pror
lhoughl that Grinncll had already
changed the system too many
times, and said the current system
should be kept.

Another pointed out that the
current system was introduced
bccause students had suffered at
the hands of some grad schools
which turned a ”8+” into a
straight “B” (at that time Grilinell
gave no minus grades) He said
that now many grad schools use
systems like the one proposed.

POSSUM." Wiiii'r finally
carried ihe moiionwerc pleas Irom
Liahna ‘Babener 'and'W'aIt Stone.

 

They contended that often they
have problems in borderline cases
whether to give an “A-" or a “B,”
Babener said that sometimes she
gives an “A-" to students who don't
deserve the grade. although they
do deserve more than a "B ,,

Stone concluded that the change
wouldn't hurt anybody, and that it
uould help people with nilliculties
like Blibcner and he. The motion
carried by a voice vote,

Then. llic iaculty moved to
[he more controversial pal't oi
the proposal The Committee on
Academic Standing had recoms
mended that the current “Erase”
grade be replaced bya “No credit"
graoc, that would go on the trans-
cript, This grade. however. would
not have couiitcd when ligin-ing the

\(‘L’LTY MEMBER then
moved to amend the proposal so
that ihe “No credit" grade would
carry ihcn-eightol o 0 grade points
and be counted in the GPA.

in the often confusing discussion
that followed. profs argued various
rationales for [his move

THE MOST FREQ EXT are
gument for the proposal was that it
would make the system more
reﬂective of Ihe student‘s actual
pcrtoi-mnnce

The most frequent argument
against it was that the grade will
liiosthurt first Semester freshmen.
who “haven't yet got their feel. on
the ground."

lT \i'As POINT m but that
courses failed could be repeated
lor credit. and that that grade
would then go in the GPA, Also,
there would bea tenrweek period in
which to drop a course,

The debate was lengthy tone
faculty member was heard mut-
tering to himself “Why do I waste
my lime like this'Y”), and when the
question was iinally called. it
seemed that some iaculty meme
bel‘s still Weren't sure (is to what
the proposal meant,

lN .\ TlGllT vote. the measure
carried .0

Next. it was decided that in the
spirii ol truth in labeling, the words
‘No credit" should be changed to
“F " This amendment passed with
little discussion. , , , ,

(continued on it - e 4)

 

