Page Two

Editorial . .

Trouble Ahead

Last week’s “illegal visitation” by members of the AWS Board
of the Com? will apparently bring about a clarification oi the col-
lege’s policy relating to violatlons of visitations rules and premari-
tal sex among students.

This week President Leggett told the 5&3: “On this matter of
Illegal Visitation which extends overnight, I just don’t have an open
mind on this . . Leggett observed that within the last genera-
tion of college students there has been a marked change of attitude
toward premarital sex; “it used to be that ii a boy spent the night
with a girl they would be immediately expelled and no questions
would be asked” But now, as evidenced by the demonstratiomlast
week, some students are taking a diiierent attitude about it. Leg-
gett said "Maybe the time has come that we must put some sort
oi statement on premarital sex in the catalog. Maybe the time has
come that the small college must say this is the climate of opinion
and values we have here."

Leggett has, by his own admission, changed his mind about
his ptevrous statement on in loco paientis, (“I don’t believe in the in
loco parentis concept The time is gone when the administration of
a college can regulate student morality. . . son September 10,
1965). .

For his current view oi in loco parentis Leggett pointed to a
recent magazine article on small colleges ln which he was quoted:
“All societies are founded on the idea of in loco parentis. . . . It
depends on what kind of parent you're talking about. We don’t be-
lieve in tyrannical control, but neither do we believe in abdication."
.(Ltulk, October 4, 1966).

Leggett says he sees the function and nature of the small col-
lege as very much dillerent titan the large university and gave the
opinion that die small college cannot encompass the variety of
geople and behaviors that the university can, “What you want is

omogeneity in academic and r i i in moral standards."

Leggett indicated that it was a function of the college to estab-
lish the “proper environment” ior students to live in and be rightly
recognizes the interrelationship ot academic and non-academic life.

But as recent statements from Leggett (see article on page 1,
"Leggett Rejects Students’ Appeal”), the administration's “advis-
ing" oi the Faculty Committee on Student Aliens in their decision
X0 suspend three students and the administration’s inﬂuence which
prompted the censorship of “The Chairs” (see 5&8, October 7 and
14) all indicate, Leggett and the deans intend to not only decide
What sort of “environment” the Grinnell student should have but
also what sort or penalties will be given to violators.

We think this is a matter or concern for students and faculty
alike. We think the inclusion of “moral guidelines”, defined by the
administration, on matters or student conduct has very serious and
very negative implications, We think the administration may he on
the verge of taking a major step backwards in its quest for the
“homogeneous moral and academic community.”

. Because of the current trend toward liberalization of rules in
most schools across the country, Grinnell and other small schools
like it may soon find themselves to be rather alone with rule Struc-
tures that Eliseo vivas recently termed "vestiges of the 19th Cen-
tum”

In a recent New York Times survey of eastern college rules
(April 25, 1966 page 1:7) Ruth Darling, assistant dean for residence
halls at Cornell (New York), where junior and senior girls have to
check into their dorms only once a day, said: We don’t ask what
they do and we don’t want to know, We don’t ask because the girls
are presumed to be responsible.”

The article commented: “Not one university official inter-
viewed expressed dissatisfaction wiih the results of the liberalized
rules — although several said they expected serious trouble." Co-
lumhia, Cornell. Fordham, New York University. Princeton and
yaie were included in the survey; almost all have legal visitation
hours that vastly exceed Grinnell’s three hours per week. We would
rather not believe Grinnell is really that different or that the stu-
dents are significantly less mature than their eastern counterparts.

We commend the efforts this year of student government to
bring the relevant issues up for discussion and we commend the en-
lightened attitude oi the student courts in taking a constructive
counseling approach to student problems. We compare this with the
administration's seemingly hysterical need to “separate ironi the
campus" violators of an antiquated sexual ethic,

We think the idea of the “community court” is a good one;
whether or not it will work depends largely on the attitude of the ad-
ministration. It would appear that the gulf between the administra-
uon's “separation is necessary" and the student courts' “a severe
warning the first time” attitudes may be too much [0 breach

. We also see serious difficulties facing SGA in their attempts to
bring the college more in line with the reality of the present student
generation. in a speech given at Parents Weekend last year (0ctn~
her is, 1965) Leggett said:

. . our colleges are managed by students, but I hope
only in the sense that their welfare, not their voles, decide
what lS_ to be done, Surely mdent government exists because
it provides an arena of trai rig and a way of communication
between faculty and students, not because ot any genuine
political necessrty. what it comes down to is that neither
college otncials our parents want to find themselves in a
KYstem where the political and social rights of students are
confused with their academic welfare and allowed to warp
it on the grounds that a Student cannot be denied in college
all the freedoms he has in his outside society. Students
should not be encumbered with rules. Their society in the
long‘run probably needs to be self regulating; but. college
officials,_ not students have to define the environment in
which this seltreguialing society is to operate, and it students

SCARLET AND BLACK

Friday. December 2, im

Valid Generalizations

i suppose that in writing a
column, 1 take on a responsibil-
ity. In analyzing the word "re»
Sponsibility,” I find that it
breaks down into the ability to
respond, which, it Antigone is
right, i must do if I can. 1 do
believe in Antigone.

The questions, then, are,
“What do I respond to?" and
“How do I respond?" i could re-
spond to my internal reﬂection,
write a monologue, a stream“-
consciousness nonsense story.
but that just doesn't seem right.
I mean right in any way you
want to conceive or it: morally
right, pragmatically, or purely
emotionally right. You can
choose of these because I feel
that I ought to respond to exter-
nal stimuli (the school) rather
than internal stimuli (myself);
it would be better, for the news-
paper and the school, if the col-
umn were relevant; and, by
God, I just want to talk about
what is going on.

Now, how dol respond? First,
there has to be a reason to re-
spond, a point to make, a rele-
vant comment. Up until this
point, i have been writing with
one principle in mind: go to

the extreme to get the point
across. It’s just like teaching it
small Child not. to take cookies
from Lhe cookie jar; to make
your point, you don’t say, “No,
no, bad, bad." You give him
a solid smack on the rear end.
Sn 1 have attempted to go in
an extreme with points, hoping
that students, intelligent enough
and, therefore, indignant
enough to tone down the ex-
rremism, would happen upon
exactly the point I was trying
to make. In some cases, it
worked.

But, lo and behold, as some»
one very gently pointed out to
me, there is a large dinerence
between the extreme and the ir-
rational. One doesn't make any
point by being irrational except
the point that he is irrational,
And perhaps this mistake oi
confusion and extreme, as a
method of making a point, with
the irrational, or beyond reason,
was committed this past week
by the student leaders of the
College. In thinking that the
protest was merely going to am
extreme to make a point, per-
haps they slipped into the ir-
rational by not exhausting all

possible means within the sys-
tem before going outside of it in
committing an illegal act.

It would be unfortunate if
they thought that they were ny-
ing to elicit a "flexible policy"
of handling student violations,
while actually, that is just what
they were combatting: a “tiexa
ible policy” is a contradiction
in terms, besides being a great
danger to justice it merely by
the fact that the extreme limit
use of the word ”flexibility” is
“whim". On whose whims do
you wish to depend? Do you
want whim or do you want a
more liberal policy, on “ameli-
oration” of the punitive mettle
ods used with regard to rule
violators? Do you want whim
or do you want a definite, struc-
tured guideline upon which to
base a legal system?

P e r h a p 5 these questions
should have been answered be
fore you protested; and if you,
the student leaders, have an-
swered them, why didn’t you
give the student body a chance
to see and perhaps amend your
conception of the student body's
desires? Perhaps you acted too
hastily. —Paul R. Jones

 

Letters . . .

To the Editor:

The recent suspension of
three Griniiell students has
served to highlight three cen-
tral issues, the clarification
and analysis of which are long
overdue by both faculty and
students. The most pervasive
and tundamental issue concerns
the role of Grinnell College in
US. society at this time. is
the College to be dominantly an
encuiturator or received ideas,
teelings, and patterns of be-
havior or is it to be dominant
ly a place where the received is
critically scrutinized and the
new totmulated and tested? is
Grinncli College to be a center

tor dissent and radical innoya»
tion or for the turtherance of,
at best, a discriminatingly slits
ed status quo? Answers to these
questions have implications ior
the type of student the College
admits, the type of faculty it
attracts, the amount and source
of tinancial support available
to it, and the types of “aca-
demic“ programs it offers

A second pervasive issue, one
closely related to the iirst is,
what shall Grinncll College
mean by "education"? Does
"education” refer to gaining
familiarity with and verbal
fluency in the conceptual cate-
gories and frameworks that have
dominated western and eastern
thought in the past and cur-
rently without attending expli—
citly to the relevance or these

 

do not find this environment to their taste, then the adjust
ment is theirs, not the college’s to make. and it is a matter

of honesty to announce it.”

We think the administration is a little confused about what
Dean S. Eugene Thompson recently referred to as “. . . the line
between caring about young people and caring ior young people."

We are worried about the kind of student who will come to a
school that takes the condescending views of students' ability to
run their own personal lives that Grinnell does.

Henry Steele Comniager, writing in the Saturday Review (Aug-
ust 27, 1%6) on “The Nature 01 Academic Freedom" said:

“The notion that the University should act "in loco pai‘entis"
to its students is a relatively new and Limited one: to this
day it. is confined pretty much to the Englishrspeakiug coun-
tries, and unknown elsewhere. The principle 01 “in loco
parenus" was doubtless suitable enough in an earlier era,
when boys went to college at the age of thirteen or fourteen;
if is a bit ridiculous in a society where most students are
mature enough to marry and raise families.”

We Suggest that the administration and faculty especially, take

a long hard look into the current trend oi administrative policy,
especially the educational implications oi the idea that students
should all accept a uniiorin “moral code ot behavior" which must

also be the administration's.

We suggest that die administration study the recommendations

set forth in the American Association of University Professors'
“Statement on the Academic Freedom of Students" (December 1965
AAUF Bulletin) which outline a just procedure for handling student
“violations"i

And this week Leggetl. observed: “There is a fundamental dis-
agreement With students on this matter of the moral question." We
agree. —n. w.

 

GRINNELL COLLEGE
orluneil. lawn

Scarlet and Blue

A weekly ucwsoaper published rritlay or the college year by oi-lu
nﬂ'l Committee on student ruolicullous. Represented int national uov r

tisiug by National Adveilising Service, tnc, Colloge publishers Rep
scnrativs. to east soth Street. New York, 2-» NY. second class postage
paid at criuneii, lows. Subscription rate 5 per sci-moi year. icon bold
subscriptions.
notion

nusmns a
MANAGING EDITOR

Harold hrson
susou wni
neury Wilhelm

for the everyday, moment-to-
moment life of the student; or
does it refer to learning how
to extrapolate from concrete in-
formation nnd abstractions to
one’s own life in it personally
and socially meaningful and
satisfying way? Does Grinliell
hold there is a difference be-
tween “education” and “pre-
paration for life" or that these
are synonymous terms?

Regardless if Grinnell is to be
dominantly either traditional‘or
innovative, “educating" or “life
preparing,” what part are stu-
dents to play in the conduct at
the (Zone 7 Are they to de«
termine, j ntly or in parallel
with the raculty, or singly, the
rules governing their behavior
—academic, social, etc. 7 or de-
termine that there need he
no rules at all? How “feasible"
in operational, psychological,
and sociological terms is gen-
uinely (not nominally) ioint
studentrfacully governance in
which a student vote has the
same weight in the decision
making process as does the
faculty vote?

Inquiry into these underlying
issues presents an opportunity
for constructive, but challeng-
ing, dissent by both Grinneil
students and faculty.

—Gcorge Eastman
Professor at Education
and Philosophy
a a .

Supports Disseniers

To the Editor:

One of the arguments cur-
rcntly being used by students
who do not.wish to sign the
various statements expressing
reservations about the demon-
stration made by the Cofl-l'P
and the aws Board last week
is this: there is no need to ex-
press reservations since nothing
bad has happened.

1 think it should be pointed
out to these students that the
bad results of the demonstre.
tion are real and permanent
even though not immediately
visible. Prospective donors to
the College come, for the most
part, ti-om social and economic
classes who embrace a morality
opposed to such demonstrations.
The publicity attendant on the
demonstration was largely un-
favorable; such donors are apt
either not to make gitts to the

College at all or to reduce their

LETTERS—
(Continued on Page 7)

 

