Friday. January 23, 1970

Letters

sec Handbook, pp 791.) However,
the latter terms are intentionally
not defined in the document so
as to allow the editor leeway.
This is a far Cry from Miss
Neuman's allegation that tlle
editor must “comply ivitli Board
of Publications definitions of
good taste. what to print, etc.”

As for her contention'that the
editor’s opinions must "conform
to status quo Grinnell stanr
dards." it’s clear to anyone who
has read the 8&3 over the last
two years that the editors’
opinions have been more oiten
Ardent Activist that Archetypal
Aristotelian. Indeed one extra
polates (with some trepidation)»
that we are due to have another
Aristotelianl But rather than
being evidence of a “compromise
conspiracy” between the two
main political factions in the
college, this is an amusing ac-
cident. As everyone knows, the
prevailing political persuasion at
Grinnell is Old Leftist.

Out of all these false premises,
Miss Neuman draws her con-
clusion: “Obviously the cam-
paign for restructuring . . . .
Grinnell publications must be
resurrected.” That this con-
clusion is by no means obvious,
however, is indicated by the
recently disseminated “Student
Position" paper. With respect to
the Committee on_ Student Publi-

cations and Radio it recomr
mcnds: “The membership,
structure and duties of this com
mittee shall remain as they are
presently defined.”

Still, lest it be claimed that the
faculty’s collective imagination
is limited by the studcnts'
suggestions (as I sometimes
fear), I will present some tbaoke
ground for the consideration of
one ofMiss Neuman’stwo serious
suggestions (the other in-

volves printing techniques, which .

I am incompetent to discuss):
“Investigation of the formation
of an independent student core
poration which would be respon-
sible for all student‘s publi-
cations.” This is “not unreal~
istic,” she argues; “the Harvard
Crimson is run this way, for inn
stance.” Now, even though we
know Grinnell as the “Harvard
of the West,” I would remind us
of one difference: Harvard’s
enrollment is about 16,500; Grin-
nell’s, 1200. This is a difference
which makes a difference when
one tries to recruit Students to
do the extra work required by
an independent newspaper.
Besides having to find ones who
are willing to act as editor and
business manager (positions
which the Committee has not
been able to fill for more than
one semester), the corporation
must find some who are willing
to sell the publication, Anyone
following Pterocactyl’s history

SCARLET AND BLA

knows that this path is not only
arduous, but also strewn with
pitialls oiarrcst, seizure, etc,

As long as I've breached the
ugly subject oi money, l might
as well open Pandora's box
completely. The monolithic point
which must be made regarding
an independent corporation is
that it really must be inde
pendent, not just at the “faculty-
administration block,” but also
of S.G,A.; not just adminis
tratively, but financially as well.
For S.G.A. receives 'its funds
from that block, and is thus
legally inseparable from it. Thus,
the ﬂedgling corporation must be
cut off from the usual patrons.
(Insofar as the oppressive Ad
ministration” almost regularly
bails student piiblications and
radio out of large deﬁcits — a
little known [act 7 it must be
seen as a Golden-EggrLaying
Goose.) It is my understanding
that before the Committee was
established the possibility of an
independent corporation was
discussed inrormally with some
S.G.A. officials and dismissed by
them at least on these financial
grounds.

Let us assume, however, tor
the purposes of further argument
that some group of students is
willing to tackle these financial
problems and establish an inde
pendent publishing corporation.
What other factors are relevant?
<1) The college now uses the

student media as practical for its
Communications Studies
program. This complicates, but
need not eliminate. the possibility
of an independent corporation.
(2) The corporation would have
to ask just what the Committee
asks, namely, that is as publisher
not be involved in suits arising
from libelous material in its
publications. The difference is, of
course, that it may be more
liberal in its assessment of What
is potentially libelous. Further,
by not serving the greater Grin
nell community (including
alumni, iaculty, and parents.) it
need not be limited by that com-
munity’s taste in matters of
decency, etc. (3) However, as
long as Ptem continues to come
out, even in the fits and splashes
that it does, is there a need or
demand for second such publi-
cation? One’s impressions that it
is neither widely read nor operas
tionally supported by students
argue in the negative
Peter Bowman
Physics and Philosophy

To the Editor:

Although I have had both tran-
quillizing and “alarmist” reports
on the state of the campus since
my return after a semester’s
sabbatical 7 spent at the
University oi Toronto 7 l have
felt most informed by the state

age

of the bulletin board for the
Women’s Liberation League
located in the post office.
Someone has put up ade
vertlsements lor diamond rings
and cosmetics to flesh out the
austere calls for abortion and
fornication which seem to lie at
the heart (or should i say
“gut?") of those neo»
suffragettes. if students can take
themselves With a grain of
humorous salt 7 the “saving
grace of laughter,“ as President
Leggett calls it 7 there may be
hopeyet.

I did not see much sense of
humor among students attending
the University of Toronto; but
then they are suffering right now
from an irrational mixture of
anti-Americanism, chauvinistic
nationalsim, and humanitarian-
ism. Despising America, My
imitate American students in
stridently insisting on their
“rights.” Some of the Canadian
students have gone almost as far
as those at San Francisco State,
and have systematically sought
to disrupt one professor’s class.
After some weeks of this, other
students rose up and literally
threw them out. I remember
discussing with ex»Dean Stauss
a few years ago die menacing
reality of students pitted against
students. If and when that dire
day comes to Grinnell, the quest

Cont. p. 6

The Future of Christianity

in the

Post-Christian Era

Dr. Andersen is the Professor of Old Testament Literature of the Church Divinity

School of the Pacific (Berkeley) and Visiting Professor of Ugcirific of the Univer-

sity of California. Born in Australia, Dr. Andersen holds seven degrees.

He welcomes opportunity for informal discussion. If you would like To talk with

him personally, please contact Jctck Swenson, Science 208, ext. 395.

MONDAY — JAN. 26

8:00 P.M.

ROBERTS THEATER
"The Future of Christianity in the
Post-Christian Era."

TUESDAY — JAN. 27

4:15 P.M.

SOUTH LOUNGE
“Will the RealJesus Please Stand Up?”

SUNDAY - JAN. 25

11:00 AM.
HERRICK CHAPEL
“Thank God That God is Dead."
7:30 P.Mi

SOUTH LOUNGE
”Think God or Feel God in This Era."

PANEL

Mri Klausner

Mr. Wall Hearn.
PhD, Biochemist,
ISU

Dr. Andersen
Mr. Burkle
Mr, Nasser
Mr. Swanson

9:30 PM.

Discussions in various Dorm Lounges —
Watch for later postings.

 

