The making of tlie preside

A search was conducted last spring
for a new president of Grinnell Col-
lége. The iinal decision by the trustee
search committee was, obviously, for
George Drake. This process was more
involved than the announcement of the
new president reflected, and it was a
process in which students were involv-
ed. Did those students have much of
an influence on that process? What
was the‘iunction of the students who
formed an advisory committee to the
trustee search? And what about the
trustees—how do they make this deci~
sion and how did they run the Search
procedure?

First, a brief description of the
board oi trustees: A group oi so peor
ple, half of whom are alumni. The
board decides major policy, especially
financial, [or Grinnell College, These
people, all having a dedicated concern
for Grinnell, are chosen as objective
overseers who do not have a special
interest to protect. Never isolated
irom campus occurrences, the
trustees make decisions in conjunction
with administration Quite a few of the
trustees will call members of the ad-
ministration to Stay in touch. The
president is their direct link to the
campus; he coordinates the policies of
the trustees with the realities oi their
campus implementation. These
policies include the college's budget,

katliy kurz

endowment, iundraising, future
trends, admissions, and others. In
light of their responsibilities, it follows
that they should run a Search and
make the ﬁnal duelsion for a new col-
lege president.

in an attempt to involve diiierent
constituencies, the trustee search
committee asked that the students and
the faculty form advisory search com-
mittees, As one of the five students in-
volved, I read the candidates’
resumes, attended the session of all
search committee members during
which our favorites were chosen, in
terviewed each of the four candidates
who were brought to campus in early
summer, and submitted a ﬁnal choice.
This amount of participation was
greater than during the last search
when only a few students were involv-
ed and only for the last stages of inter
viewing finalists and giving their
first choice.

Last spring, I was aware of the
small amount of input students have
had previously when the students’,
and faculty's opinion had differed
from the trustees'. Students felt their
voice had been ignored. I knew the
trustees didn't want to make that
mistake again; they encouraged our
participation in the search at almost
all levels. But did they listen more
openly to us ior our final decision? I

S&B wins ‘drivel disher’ award

To the editor: You win the prize for
printing the most inane articles it has
been my misfortune to read. For your
prize you can: 1) place a sign on your
door declaring “Champion Drivel
Disher" 2) return all monies to
suscriber [sic] plus only 10% of
subscriptions cost as token penalty for
damages to sensibilities. I assure you
this is a most generous oiierl

My heart is iilled with compassion
for those students who so unwittingly
(I hope) displayed their ignorance in
print. Especially the poor dears who
wrote those scurrilous articles refer~
ing [SIC] to the pope

May some good soul on the faculty
consent to help you edit your kitty
litter liner before the score of your
subcrlbers unsuspectingly chance to

What’s up with literary expression?

To the editor: I have noticed a situa
tion concerning college/student
publications which i can not undersr
tand. Several weeks ago I attended a
meeting ,to organize a literary arts
publication. At that meeting I learned:
a) Grinnell has been unsuccessful in
maintaining a literary magazine from
year to year; and b) last year funding
for this publication was minimal and
came chiefly from the Student In-
itiative Fund. Since that meeting, I
have seen advertisements in the S&B
soliciting prose, poetry, and art for a
literarysupplement; and i have heard
an announcement on KDIC asking that
I, and the rest of the college communir
ty, support another literary magazine
that will be produced on a regular
basis._

My question is: Why, in an institu-

111‘

tion that claims to emphasize the come
munlcation arts, is there both a
breakdown in communications among
these literary factions who are ex
clusively working to a similar end,
and also a lack of vehicles for student
(and faculty) communicative/artistic
self-expression? A School With the
quality of student and faculty that

nt, ’79

have no reason not to th sot

Mr. Bear, chairperson oi the trustee
search committe, asked us many
times to suggest ways in which the
search could be improved. He was
asking for our input. All the search
committee members largely agreed
during the meeting when we chose
four to interview and also on the final
decision. While this is preferable to
each of us having strongly differing
opinions, it leaves unanswered the
question: If we had disagreed, as in
the last search, would they have
listened?

I’m not trying to be negative, but
rather to present the process as i
perceived it and let each student make
his own decision about student input. I
ielt my role was to assert an opinion
as a student representative, interview
candidates with a special interest in
how each would relate to students, and
“keep an 'eye on” ‘as much oi the
trustee decisionrmaking process and
their conception oi student input as i
could.

to the editor

cast their eyes on your paper before
putting it to proper use. And please
spare Dr. Vine Deloria and Rabbi
Moishe Kasowitz your cutsey [sic]
commentaries for having dared to
tread the soil of Iowa

May you find yourseli and have
peace. Mary Ann Kelly

The editor replies: A bit hyperbolic,
really.

Grinnell has ought to be producing an
opinion/llterary/arts/criticism/etc.
magazine on a quarterly (school yearJ
or semester basis. We should be able
to produce at least a good review of
student creative writing, or some
alternative to the well explmted but
ultimately limited resources of the
S&B. Robert Utke

Faculty statement ignores students

To the editor: We offer our most
sincere gratitude to the majority oi
the faculty ior voting against the pro-
posed change in next year's calendar.
As only a voice vote was taken, no one
will know how many members stood
wrth the minority. but we would
hazard to guess that it was more than

just one or two. Our main point of con-
sternation does not concern the final
vote, but a point which was made durr
ing the debate,

Besides the treatment of “harm to
the athletic season” as an issue when
this college proclaims loudly and pro

Scarlet 2; Black,

 

