. The
1' Scarlet

& Black

Alumni discuss White Paper

This past Weekend 35 alumni
-visited campus ior the purpose oi
discussing the Position twnitel
Paper; more generally, the iuture
ot the College. Of course this also
involved ior them a discussion ot
the past.

The alums were outspoken and
all contributed in some sense to the
conterence. There was at times
disagreement on such issues as
“Who should come to Grinnell?"

and “Should we be more involved '

in the Grinnell and-or Iowa come
munity'l" Various areas including
that of advising were hashed
,hrough, The alumni remembered
much support irom the faculty,
both academically and personally.
and they thought that this should
continue. They reaiiirmed the
grerlgth oi the academics but
stressed that the writing and
speaking talents they acquired,
and the variety oi subjects they
explored were more important
than any one individual course.

Grinnell’s tension level was also
€scussedt One man said that
ension is healthy because it
prepares one tor later lite and
f ause it Stimulates students to
ork while in school. Someone else
felt that the level was too high
because students don’t have
enough time outside at studying to
get more involved in ex-
tracurricular activities, the faculty
doesn't have as much time aS it
wans to spend with students, and
the administration doesn’t have
enough time to collect input as
much as they’d like.

 

The issue of affirmative action
was addressed at length. There
was a Consensus that Grinnell
College should seek more women
and minorities for faculty positions
without lowering standards.

on Sunday morning many
alums said that they had had a
positive experience while at
Grinnell They didn’t know many
of the specifics of Courses offered,
social programming, iinances, etc.
on campus now; nor did they care
to. Instead, they telt it more lm»
portant to reaffirm the College as
the sound institution it is now. A
part oi what they were reaitirming
about the College, they said. was
nature to take risks and implement
changes when needed. They ielt
that the College had always been
willing to take a worthwhile
calculated risk concerning the
curriculum, the people and even
basic philosophies oi the College,
and that this should continue,

The alums thought that the
students should have a lot of input
in determining the iuture of the
College, Several times peopleople
asked What the students thought
about the Position Paper
However. each of the students
participating was hardrpressed to
speak as a representative oi the
student body because none was
sure What the students think,

Among the ten student par-
ticipants in the weekend's
discussions, a definite feeling that
the weekend accomplished
something seemed evident.

Matt Cohen mentioned that the
meetings really clariiied what
Grinnell should be and could be
doing in terms of attitude and
direction rather than specific
proposals,

“I don’t sense Grinnell is taking
risks as it should be, It should be a
place to develop the individual and
individuality,” explained Cohen.

Cohen’s general perception oi
the weekend was that the
discussions had a great indirect
etiect on the White Paper. “The
alumni were most helpiul in giving
Grinnellians an outside per-
spective, They helped reiine our
sense of what Grinnell should be,"
said Cohen.

Ruth Montgomery, SGA
president, said she got a "good
feeling” from the weekend. She felt
that the alumni were not blind to
new ideas. Montgomery did,

'oheio by com towzl

‘ major areas:

 

however, indicate that the
direction of the weekend was kind
of vague.

“Some people ielt trustration not
knowing where the discussion was

supposed to be going The next
conference Wlll be more centered
around'a betler idea of a speciiic
purpose. For example, next time
there will be an expansion of
student involvement through an
opportunity tor students to eat with
alumni In dining halls.” explained
Montgomery.

Three general discussions were
held during the weekend centering
on “What is the desired outcome oi
a liberal arts cdumtionl,” “The
curriculum: specialists and
generalists,” and “Restdential
life: some thoughts on human
development.” Small group
discussions were held and there

were [our meetings of Students and,

alumni in different residence hall
lounges.

Susan Green Crim, assistant
dean of student aiiairs, opened
the meeting in Read lounge
Saturday night with a com-
prehensive summary oi issues
discussed earlier that day in
alumni meetings. The iirst concern
of the alumni is the effective
implementation of. the liberal arts
education, concentrating on six
student decision-
making, the guidance and advising
system, the College’s progressive
social attitude, preparation ot
students for life in the ”outside
world," student cultivation of
survival skills, and Grinnell's
smtus as an elitist institution, The
second concern of the alumni is the
liberal arts education as an
ongoing process of values
clariﬁcation. Items discussed were
values decisions, the group mission
ofthe College, the advising system,
the school’s position as an ai—
firmative role model, admissions
policies, and the receptivity oi the
College to new competencies and
modes of thought The alumni
reaffirmed their dedication to
general education, as opposed to
vocationally oriented education.

Students Voiced their complaints
concerning Turner’s apparent
disregard ior student input on

(continued on page 5)

Grinnell College
Grinnell, Iowa

11/12ﬂ6 Vol.85, No.9

Washington
‘ journalist Visits
Grinnell

by Debbie Weiner

The modern liberal in America
has often been stereotyped as an
optimistic idealist. Journalist and
historian Milton Viorst, who
describes himself as a “liberal"
political columnist, defied that
categorization in two admittedly
“gloomy” lectures he delivered
Tuesday and Wednesday cone
cerning the recent election and
problems in the Third World.

Viorst was on campus this past
week as this year’s Woodrow
Wilson Fellow, and met with
students in class and in informal
sessions to discuss politics, in»
vestigativc journalism, careers in
journalism, the Scarlet and Black,
and campus issues. Viorst, a
former columnist for the
Washington Star, is now writing a
book about America in the '60’s
concentrating especially on
political activism and radicalism.
He has worked for the Washington
Post and New York Post, and as a
freelance writer.

Tuesday, Viorst spoke in South
lounge giving a lecture entitled.
”After 1976; Or, Is Democracy Too
Boring To Survive?” He coma
mented that although the
nominating process oi the past
election wt.- perhaps the most
democratic in history. with the two
candidates chosen solely through
primaries instead of in ”smoke-
filled” rooms, Americans ended up
repudiating both candidates:
“After we picked them, we told
them to get lost.“ Although Carter

' ' Journalist-hlstorhn Milton- Viorst

 

and Ford represented contrasting
ideologies, their solutions to
problems were quite similar.
Viorst believes this is because “lhe
options oi politics seem to have
narrowed." There are no fresh
ideas coming out of either the
liberal or conservative camps,
resulting in a lack of new solutions,
Both liberal and conservative
experts have reached a
“technocratic consensus” on old
solutions concernlng the economy,
energl’, etc. so that there is little
disagreement, but also little
confidence that old solutions will
work. Americans felt that there
was “little likelihood” that either
candidate could solile the
problems.

As a result, neither Ford nor
Carter generated a great deal oi
enthusiasm After the
disillusionment of the active
Johnson and Nixon years, “what
we seem frightened about . . , is
adventurism." Ford was a safe,
non-adventurous candidate, says
Viorst, and Carter’s emphasis on
love and trust was something the
people were ”desperately looking
for.” But by Ihe end of the
campaign people were nervous and
skeptical. Carter was “beckoning
us to the unknown and we had been
to the unknown with Johnson and
Nixon. and we didn't like what we
found there." Viorst believes that
if the election had been held two
weeks later, the results may have

icontiuued on page 3)

photo by cm. twu

 

