The Grinnell
Scarlet & Black

4/7/78
Grinnell College

Grinnell, Iowa
Vol. 86, No. 22

 

Delivers major speech

Mezvinsky sets human rights policy role here

by Trenn Clelalid

The Carter administration
defined Ihe role of human rights
considerations in the formulation
of American foreign policy in a
speech given here last night by
Edward Mezvinsky, United States
Representative to the United
Nations Commission on Human
Rights.

Mezvinsky, formerly a
Democratic congressman from
this district and currently a
member of U N, Representative
Andrew Young’s Staff, spoke in
South Lounge on “Toward a
Peaceful Coexistence Between
Human Rights and Foreign
Policy."

ALTHOUGH

he stressed the

critical role the human rights issue
plays in determining America’s
relations with other nations,
Mezvinsky pointed out that “no
single factor will control

Boycott dispute rages on
m Turner

any

CSL
members
retained '

by Eric Berry

An attempt to impeach the [our
SGAeappointed members of the
Committee on Student Life (CSL)
failed at a nearly four-hour Joint
Board meeting Wednesday night.

David Purcell, Marca Fox. Mary
Jo LaDu, and Carl Rude retained
their positions as motions to
remove lhem failed to achieve the
twoethirds majority required for
their removal.

Representative Jim Stuart

foreign relations decision. That
includes human rights."
“Obviously, human rights is a
factor, but it is not the only one.
We are concerned also about the
spread of nuclear weapons, about
the reduction of conﬂict, about
maintaining vital US, military
bases abroad, about efforts to
combat hijacking and terrorism,
and many other issues," he said.
ACCORDING to Mezvinsky,
there are several methods, by
which America can pursue the
human rights principles it ads
vocates in dealing with other
nations. A controversial option is to
curtail or cut off military and
economic aid to offending nations:
a less drastic one is to simply
speak out against their poor
records, Although Mezvinsky Said
|hat “lhe traditional nicelies of
diplomacy are being laid aside"
and “selective morality is clearly

moved for the dismissals, stating, , '

“It is obvious by the conﬂict with
SGA that lthe Joint Board-
approved CSL members) don't
represent the student body. We
want students on the committee
who don't yield to the ad-
ministration‘s policies."

Ifl\DU respoiuicti by defending
the CSL’S differences with the
Joint Board, which have occurred
throughout the year. On the food
boycott issue, the dispute which
brought the year-long difficulties
between the two bodies to a head,
She claimed that the Joint Board
was delinquent in not formulating
its policy within the allotted time
(18 days) , therefore Lhe CSL had no
choice but to refuse to consider it.

anles representative Dave
Howell stimulated a long
discussion about What. the word
“represent” implies, Cornell
Rudov stated that “we chose them
to represent us. Now we are
removing them because they are
not puppets, Representation does
not mean a rubber stamp." In a
similar argument, Bob Greenberg
called the proposed action
“student power usurping students
in power."

PAUL (‘l'aiic contended that the
Joint Board had no conclusive
evidence that the QSL was not
representing the majority of the
students. A concern over whether
student opinion was being

 

President A. lchard Turner

represented by SGA was expressed
throughout the meeting, as
members reiterated that no one
could be certain who was actually
representing student interests.
Rhonda West countered, “If you do
not know what student interests
are. you are not doing your job."

At this point in the meeting a.

clear conceptual difference
emerged concerning the role oi the
CSL. Tom Kiefer repeated the
argument that the CSL should act
on what was perceived as student
opinion, Gary Doernhoefer and
Tom Arenberg, however, asserted
that there is an essential difference
in the functions of the Joint Board
and the CSL, Doernhoefer claimed
that the CSL‘s function was lo
analyze the issues in depth, bring
them before the Joint Board and
explain its proposals, He also
stated that if these members were
removed, the CSL would be
reduced in the eyes of everyone.
SGA President Joli Nciderbach,
relinquishing the chair, recounted
the Joint Board's conﬂicts with the
CSL throughout the year. em-
phasizing the issues of dogs in off
campus housing and the alcohol
‘ tcontihued on page 3)

dissipating," he cautioned that in
certain countries which may be
sensitive to U 5, pressure, crir
ticism may backfire and cause
increased human rights violations,
hence, “quiet diplomacy also has
its place," The third and easiest
approach mentioned is that of
“positively reinforcing" nations
which make significant progress in
their human rights policies

Mezvinsky stressed the im-
portance of the U.N. Human Rights
Commission in the struggle for
international acceptance of human
rights, saying that “a U,N organ
in itself. . ,is free of many of the
consu’aints of bilateral relation»
ships. . .and does not face foreign
policy tradeoffs " In an interview
before delivering his statemenl,
Mezvinsky downplayed lhe role of
the U.S ’in calling for worldwide
reform,

' defends
choice

By deciding on March u to ac-
cept the Committee on Student
Life's boycott proposal our the
objection of the son. President A.
Richard Turner has stimulated
campus lsciission on the power of
the CSL. the role or SGA, and the
nature of toorl scrvicc boycotts. in
the following interview. President
Turner discusses his position in the
conflict. and offers reasons for his
March 9 decision.

it: Why did you accept the (‘SL
boycott policy proposal over the
SGA amended one?

A: Well, my general unr
derstandmg of the process we have
is tthatl a bunch of student com-
mittees thave been) set up ex-
plicitly to give significant student
inputi They are based on the
premise . . that student life
arrangements are not exclusively
at student concern. That is to say,
there are and ought to be other
interested parties ,

I think there are two issues here
which are related but distinct,
There is a governance issue . . and
there is then the separate issue of
boycotts. Now, i happen not to
favor boycotts as an institutional
way of proceeding, but i think that
probably ought to be a separate
concern, What the CSL came up
with, seems to me to be a quite
intelligent compromise. l-low
workable it is I think will only be
clear after it is tried for a while.

The CSL proposal . . . avoids the
question of a total institutional
boycott of something and yet, on
the other hand. allows the
tstudentsi to exercise their con-
sciences in terms of something
they waiit to consume; so it
seemed to me a good proposal It
also Seemed to me that the SGA
tpropusall was not really an
amendment, it was something

tcontinuerl on page 3)

"IN TERMS (if the U.N., (the
U. ) is playing a catalyst function
.,.we shouldn’t be the heavy or the
bully in terms of human rights.
We’ll still be as forthright, we’ll
still be as articulate, we’ll still be
committed, we’ll still handle our
bilateral relationships the same
way. but we will try to deal with
(other countries) in a way that
they will hopefully see and take the
position on themselves. with some

Ed Mezvinsky

degree of prodding from the u s
he said.

Mezvinsky also emphasized the
necessity that the us, begin ade
mitting its own human rights
violations, and called for the
to confront “our own cred
problem,"

"LET'S face it. This country has
some very significant im-
pediments of its own. International

(continued on page 2t

* it

(Photo by Greg Olsoii.l

Wilson named speaker

I); John lilantict

This year‘s commencement
speaker will be Edward 0. Wilson,
Frank B, Baird, Jr. Professor of
Science at Harvard University.

After the first six choices for
commencement speaker had
eilher declined or were discounted
as being too expensive, Grinnell
President A. Richard Turner, over
spring break, contacted Wilson,
who, at the time, was already
scheduled to receive an honorary
Doctor of Science degree at the
ceremony this May, Wilson then
agreed to give the address.

IN ORDER of theI Senior class'
preference. the original nominees
included United States Secretary
of Commerce, Juanita Kreps,
author Lillian Hellman, playwright
and poet Maya Angelou, author
Margaret Mead, Coretta King,
Wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr, and Earl D. Strong
Professor of History, Joe Wall.
Psychologist Elizabeth Kubler
Ross was also a top choice but she
was not invited. Six of the seven
nominees were women. including
two blacks, Angelou and King.

Wilson. 48, received both his B.S.
and M.S. from the Univei‘Slty of
Alabama He earned his PhD. at
Harvard University and began his
distinguished career there as an
assistant professor between 1356
and 1958.

WILSON is ill the forefront of his
field, Sociobiology. Besides
holding his current rank, he was
the National Medal of Science
winner for 1976, awarded by
President Carter, His other
achievements include authoring
six books and editing three others,

 

and he has written approxtmateiy
180 articles for technical
publications. Wilson has also been
featured in a Time magazine cover
story.

The process of selecting a
commencement speaker began
[his year when all seniors were
asked to submit a list of persons
they felt would be good com-
mencement speakers. The Come
mencement Speaker Committee, a
subcommittee of the Senior Week
Committee, tallied the ballots and
submitted a list of the top choices
to President Turner. He, in turn,
passed the list on to the faculty,
who gave their approval, Turner
then wrote a letter of invitation lo
Krcps, who declined. After each
refusal, the next person on the list
was contacted.

Because the process of selecting
a commencement speaker
requires a period of waiting for [he
candidate's response, often the
daemon cannot be finalized until
late in the year This year, Since no
candidates accepted. Turner
decided to ask Wilson Prevmusly,
Wilson had stated |hat he would
like an opportunity to give some
kind ofspeech on a selected topic of
his own.

.\('('oitl.~li\t(; to William
Deminoff, the commencement
coordinator. "This year we really
strove lo get a woman. 1 think it
simply would have been the right
thing to do " Beth Robinson. the
head of the Commencement
Speakers Committee, stated that

‘she had been approached by a

number of sludcnts, including
some from CBS. about getting a
black to speak.

tconlinued on page 6)

 

