'IIKI Scarlet and Black. February ' .

2 n all-campus drunk: worth $500

by Bob Aldrich

Last Saturday night Loose Hall
held their annual affair, replete
with “six kegs and 2a gallons oi
booze” (5&3, Feb, til). According
to the same source, excluding band
cost, $750 was spent. Now Iam not
a math maior, but by using my
limited faculties, I deduced that of
that $750 a minimum of, say, $500
spent on liquor. beer or
otherwise in iact. it was probably
closer to $600. as there seems to
lgve been little other expense
in olved. This brings to mind a few
questions: is it worth lt'l Could the
money have been spent either
ore constructively and efficiently

*’

in any other way? in other words.
What is the priority of students in
terms of the way money is spent?
Let us at the outset assume two
things. First, the purpose oi this
article is not to condemn drinking,
nor is it to deny the validity of
partying. Second, the money
allocated ought to be spent on some
form of recreation—partying,
movies, concerts and so forth.
Drinking is a social Custom, a
generally accepted form oi
socializing and relaxation. it exists
in proliferation at Grinnell: all-
campus parties are common.
culminating in the Gl'innell Relays
every spring, it is argued by some

that these all-campus parties are
not only iun but useful, uniting the
campus for a time and imparting a
sense ofcummunity, Perhaps so. in
any case, allrcampus parties are
an established part of Grinnell and
are not likely to stop. The issue.
then, becomes not one of absolutes
but oi degree, How much is
enough?

Later on this semester the James
Gang Bang will take place, and, as
a member of the SGA told me.
”They will probably want to have
hard liquor, too,” It should be
noted here that it is the hard llquor
that runs up the cost of a party.

Once again, how much is
enough? is it really worth $500 per

all-campus drunk7

If we assume that there is a time
ior an allrcampus party, and
iurther that such parties can serve
some constructive social function,
do we necessarily have to have
either liquor at all or liquor in such
large volumes?

I am not proposing that alcohol
be banned on campus, nor do I
propose that parties ought to be
nonalcoholic. However, to en
courage an all-campus drunk
seemgto me to be a misdirected
use of funds, which brings forth an
important distinction. that of social
drinking versus drinking to get
drunk

There are any number of ways

that people can get together. of
which drinking comprises one
facet

Five hundred dollars is a large
sum of money, and ii other
alternatives existiand they one
then these alternatives ought to bc .
explored. ii drinking and-or
drunkenness is the only level on
which an all-campus party can
exist, then it may be time to
reexamine the values system that
leads us there in the iirst place.

For some a good drunk is cnr
ioyabic. and it is not my intent here
to condemn that, But even so, i
urge that we look very careiully
and ask whether it is indeed worth
$500 for a one night drunk.

Administration, student apathy lambasted

Matt Cohen

One might wonder as to the ef~
iectiveness oi the student power
movements of the sixties. One can
not avoid an awareness of the total
effectiveness of the Student apathy
movement of the seventies, which
is clearly present in a variety of
forms here at Grinncll. Where
students fail to utilize what power
and input avenues are available to
them, let alone seek to increase the
quantity and quality oi input into
the decision making process, they
will have little if any say in the
decisions which are constantly
beingmade. Such seems to be the
case at Grinnell. This apathy
inhibits student power in two ways.
On an immediate level, the lack of
student interest guarantees that
there will be no direct interaction
between the administration and
the students as to the impact of
decisions affecting student life On
a secondary level, this apathy
reduces the ability of the student
government to operate as a focus
ior student opinion ior many
reasons Consider initially,
however, the extent to which the
administration formally receives
and utilizes student opinioll.

Clearly, the college is in a
position of some financial stress
(how precarious the situation is
has not been clearly defined).
which has necessitated many
budget cuts, and will probably
cause more cuts in the future.
These cuts Will have, must have, a
negative etiect on the quality oi
student academic soctal and
habitational life right now,
The denial of access to in
formation and opportunity to
contribute can be seen on a variety
of levels.

The decision to restrict the
number of students who are
allowed to live off campus is in»
dicative of the administration’s
unwillingness to meaningfully and
formally interact with students
prior to the conclusion of a
decision. In this case, Student
Affairs was delegated the unr
comiortable responsibility of
carrying out a decision made by
the administration without
organized (BY students or the
administration) input. As was also
indicated at the Open Forum, While
there were certain philosophical
concerns i-e preserving a
residential college. the primary
reason for the limitation was
financial.

Another. more current example
oi this administration tendency
is the decision to replace
SAGA .with a collegerun. food

service. in this case, the campus
community was not informed that
negotiations were going on at all
during the five months that the
negotiations were in progress in
and of itself, this docs not seem to
indicate a regard for the extent to
which students are satisfied with
and trusting of the Administration
indeed, for many, myself in
cluded, the change was a welcome
one. However, that in no way
reduces the impropriety of the
method of selectionithe failure to
include or inform students of this
negotiating process While
economizing is clearly necessary,
it is important for students to know
that the quality oi the services
being considered are also given
serious weight It is important that
students feel happy with the person
or group selected, and that we ieol
Confident that this person will work
in our interests, and will be
receptive to our concerns.

Two statements by Mr.
Pomerenk, Administrative
Supervisor of the Food Service.
made at the Food Services Subr
committee meeting on Wednesday
are suggestive oi why it is difficult
to he assured that indeed the
Administration is interested in and
makes use of student input, 0n the
one hand, Mr. Pomerenk
suggested that the college was
reasonably satisfied with the
quality of the SAGA food service,
While there is some reasonable
room for differences, given
varying tastes, it would seem that
a sufficient number of students
were unhappy With SAGA to
warrant a change for that reason
alone. Moreover, Mr, Pomcrcnk
indicated that he did “not feel that
it was an appropriate matter for a
lot of student input.” Have we no
right to help determine the quality
of the food we eat?

Ultimately, the administration
minimizes the ability of the
students to effectively address
themselves to these issues by
reiusing to provide any sort oi
comprehensive picture of the
specific scope, range, and targets
oi upcoming budget cuts. This is
important because it defuses
student concern about the overall
impact oi the cuts and limits
concern to the given interest group
involved in the cut at hand.
Moreover, it prevents the students
from, both individually and
collectively, examining our
priorities and indicating the
resulting conclusions about what
areas we think can be cut the most
with, the least impact. whlle

minimizing or eliminating cuts in
areas which We consider to be
extremely important.

The responsibility for insuring
that we be involved in the decision
making process. be provided with
information. and be notified of
proposed changes, is as much our
responsibility as it is that of the
administration, if not more So. We
can’t expect the administration to
be sensitive to our concerns if there
is no apparent interest on the part
oi the student body. As students.
we bear the immediate impact oi
these decisions. and can bring a
legitimate. necessary, and dif»
ierent emphasis into the policy
making process. So far, we have
failed in our responsibility to carry
these concerns to the ad-
ministration ancl to assure them
that we are upset by the need
ior cuts, awarc of their necessity,
and Interested and convinced of the
necessity of being involved in the
dCCisions which determine which
cuts “‘1" bc made

Hopeiuliy, we are all interested
in insuring Griniiells vitality in the
future At the same time, we lnust
be sure that our lnlcrcsts ill the
present are not unreasonably
sacl'ificcd. We cannot do that
without student participation,
contact with SGA, and Contact with
the administration.

on an individual level, students
should take the initiative in seeking
out the administration to discuss
both individual problems and
concerns about the campus Most
committee meetings are open,
communication can occur at the
various Open Forums, and ad
ministrators can and should be
dealt with on a one to one basis.

On a broader level, greater
student involvement and interest
in the operation of SGA might act
to stimulate a greater degree of
activity and effectiveness in that
arca.

Three problems plague the SGA
at this point, beyond a variety of
institutional barriers which limit
its effectiveness, The first of these
is that there is no incentive for SGA
members to be informed because
of the lack of dorm interest in their
activities. Were members being
monitored by dorm members, they
might make greater preparations
prior to meetings, be more willing
to ask ”the hard questions,” and be
more willing to follow through on
what is proposed or initiated in
Joint Board,

Moreover, Where the interested
and well~intentioned SGA members

make attempts at reforms, they
are often stiﬂed by their own
inability to reach compromises
and to put cnds above means The
emergency meeting Monday was
illustrative of this. Two proposals
were introduced to reform the
method of selection of the student
coordinator, Each was clearly a
positive move to deal with the
situation which has been a serious
problem in the past. Because ol the
inability to compromise, no change
was adopted and the current
inadequate system prevails Here
again, greater student inpui might
have provided enough motivation
to allow the members to reach a
compromise. As it is now, they
have no incentive to act because
they perceive that no one cares. As
a result, ili part, nothing gets done.

The most obvious area where
students should demand ac»
countabiiity irom their reps is in
the area of attendance. The past
iour meetings have had to be ad
journed or could not start to begin
with, because not enough pcoplc
were present to constitute a
quorum Studcnts should make it
their business to find out lithe rep
went. wliat transpired at the
meeting, what the rep conr
tributed, and when the rep is not
attending, to take steps to remove
them, SGA is a vital link belween
th students and the ad-
m‘ istration, but requires student
support to function, Moreover, in
iaii-ness to the many dedicated
members involved, their ef-
fectiveness is decreased in direct
proportion to the decreasing level
of student involvement. it only
because of the lime demands
placed on those limited number of
people.

All in all, it is crllical that
students take the initiative in
viewing their concerns, come
plinicnts, complaints, and
suggestions to the administration,
The administration must work to
increase the interplay between
them and the students add to in-
crease thc level of student con-
fidence in their decisions. One way
ior both groups to insure that
everyone is satisfied rind to
promote an atmosphere of mutual
trust is to allow for greater student
input into the decision making
process . ‘. And it is a cyclical
process, for the attitudes of each
body affect the reactions oi the
other. Both must make an effort to
Compromise, to lake the initiative
and to be involved in Com-
municating with the other.

 

