l:

 

is ET HUMAN/A
I846

\ﬁ

UM lOWENSE 0“

Editor-inchier
Managing Editor
Sports tduor .

Associate Editon

’NNELLrS‘i

circulation Manrg
Curtoonist .,
Yhotogrhphers

srudeni Newspaper of
Grinnell College

reporters _
Mi

Grinnell, lowa

ES!

Callsllnio Pm service

business Manager .

SCARLET AND BLACK

An independenr newspaper published

weekly, except during holidays and exami—

nation periods, by me Grinnell committee

on Student Publications. Subscription rate
5500 per .phooi year.

. James Alexander Arleu

Katherine Newklrk

. Jelircy Schecklﬂ.

. John Gardner, Steven crow.
Mark saoiernan. Benson Smilh

. Eruce Strum
Dough! Earl

mil Andcrson

noward Reid. Michele Canright

rislopner Anderson, Kenneth Slgci

Lynn Adams. mane nllers. Nancy neckett.
rue Ericsan, John Gordiey, Reggie orannm,

el-~

Allan Hart. Don Hockcl’. Jonathan Jenkins. Paul Lewis, Nan
Lower, Paul Miller. Bonnie Nelson. cindy Root. is. K. Scnrnrtt.
Lynne suirners, Maren stewarr, Yvor sronkiev. Fred“ Tenferr

Barbara Wertz Eric Werner.

50|i1

Assistants .

Student Involvement

Robert Asbille in his letter to the
5&3 states that discussions on open
dorms are dangerous. But the discus-
sions have a greater significance than
the question. Even such a trivial topic
as open dorms gives the students the
opportunity to become involved in
some form of political activity.

In the general gloom following the
defeat of Senator Eugene McCarthy
in Chicago, it seemed that many
young people felt the time had come
.to turn away from standard political
activity, either to organize into secret
and militant groups, or to simply turn
in on themselves, in an apathetic with-
drawal to abandon the community.
,The system seemed to fail in what
many believed to be a clear case of
right and wrong.

The fact that thus far Grinnell stu-
dents are fighting the administration
-—the campus’ symbol of the establish-
ment—through peaceful means is a
Sign that the despair after Chicago
was temporary. The Senate’s proposal
for 24 hour open lounges, which has
now been approved by the Committee
on Student Affairs, is an example of
this.

Of course, we hope that the students
here will move on to more worthwhile
enterprises. In this week‘s S&B there

Dancing

Editorial from 5&3, Jan. 21, 1911

. . . The developments of the past
few days have forced us to express
ourselves one way or the other. So
we are giving our personal view,
which is that dancing should be recog
nized by the College as a legitimate
form of entertainment.

To those who are didactically op-
posed to this view we would like to
make a few suggestions: First, that
there is nothing inherently wrong
about gradually changing or modify-
ing any or all of the College tradi-
tions, They were formed for us, not
we for them. Times change and cus-
toms with them. For instance, dancing
is regarded entirely differently than
it was ten years ago. Anyone living in
a small community appreciates the
change of attitude.

Secondly, dancing in Grinnell is
favored by a fairly representative
body of people and not, as many
would like to suppose, by a lower
Strata of the student body.

Thirdly, that great numbers of in-
stitutions similar to Grinnell, recog-
nize dancing and do not seem to find

pearl xadoia. sneenn srown

are articles on poverty in Grinnell and
the Uncle Sam’s Club, activities in
which students can do useful work for
the community.

A Constructive Proposal

An article in this week’s 5&3 men-
tions that the coffee house has been
a failure. The failure of the coffee
house is attributable to Americans’
dislike for the finer coffees that exist,
and their tolerance for the “dirty Wat-
er” served in this country. The coffee
house was a fine addition to the forum
in theory, but it has proved too un-
popular to be profitable.

The game room, on the other hand,
has been a greater success than the
architects supposed it would be. There
are frequently long lines of students
wishing to use the pool tables, and the
bridge tables are often full.

It may be argued that the coffee
house serves the overflow crowd from
the grill. It must be remembered,
however, that the grill serves the ov-
erflow crowd of bridge players. By
constructing another game room, the
bridge players would have more room,
and there would be more opportuni-
ties for those who play pool.

It would therefore seem reasonable
to convert the failing coffee house into
another game room. The college
should find the funds for the room’s
conversion.

the great and insurmountable difficul-
ties which people say would ensue
here. And, strange as it may seem,
these institutions turn out a fairly
good type of manhood and woman-
hood — not so frivolous and utterly
nonsensical as not to compare quite
favorably with Grinnell products.

Fourthly, that dancing would not
strike such a blow at the democracy
of the College as many prophesy. Just
as it is now, each one would be free to
choose his own amusement, be it
vaudeville, comic opera, strolling, or
dancing. In this respect, we should
hope that dancing would prove a de-
cided uplift.

We are not advancing these as argu-
ments in favor of dancing. As far as
we are concerned—and for that mat-
ter the whole Senior class — dancing
is not absolutely essential for a happy
life in Grinnell, We should show a
sad lack of initiative and individuality,
indeed, we did not in four years find
something well qualified to take its
place. Nevertheless, those who would
like to see dancing established in
Grinnell have ample ground on which
to base their argument.

letters to

D. M. Gibson's Father
Criticizes 5&3 Policy

My dear Mr. Editor-lirChief:

I wish to call your attention
to numerous errors in the news-
paper of which you are ludi-
catcd to be the editor-inchiei.
in doing so. 1 refer to the issues
dated September 20 and 21,
1968. Having noted that these
are issues No. 1 and No. 2.
please know that I recognize the
newness of your position and
therefore am understanding in
many aspects the lack of pre-
ciseness and clarity in certain
articles. Undoubtedly in the fu-
ture your record will be vastly
improved.

Following are the items that
disturbed me the most, Per-
haps these same gross lnade«
quacies have come to the at-
tention of millions of other
readers of your newspaper.

1. You err in noting that the
new physical education plant is
not in high priority. Vast sums
of money must he spent ii Grin-
nell is to achieve No. 1 status
among the nation's major col-
lege football teams. This is sim
ple logic and it disturbs me that
it has escaped you and your
associates.

2. The name of David M.
Gibson is mentioned only three
times in the above two issues.
This is. of course. completely
unacceptable to vast numbers of
your readers.

3. Your own name is mention-
ed in small print on one or two
occasions. I iaii to see why
even these references are
necessary.

These are only a few items
that come quickly to mind. The
errors are so numerous that I
cannot but Wonder where the
Editor-ln—Chief might have been
while the paper was being put
to press.

Please excuse me for writing
to you in such a direct manner.
However, you are undoubtedly
a busy man and it occurs to me
that only a forceful and truthful
letter such as this one will pence
train: the barrier that per-
charlce has been erected around
you by a battery of secretaries,
assistants, associates and other
riff raif,

With kindest personal regards
and hopes that the next issues
of your paper are more accur-
are, i remain kind sir,

Your obedient servant.
Weldon B. Gibson, PhD.
Vice»presldent of Stan-
ford Research Institute

Editorials Blasted
As 'Arisioieliun'

To the Editor!

I am writing this letter be-
cause I feel an intense disgust
with the medieval scholasticism
that tends to pervade the edi-
turial column or this paper.
What has finally cracked my
erstwhile solid apathy towards
the pettiness of the Grinnell
campus was that wretchedly
thought out and executed edi-
torial that ended with a state-
ment as simple and foolish as
“any rithhinking person must
hale anarchy," or words to that
effect. The banal triteness (the
redundant phrase is deliberate.
1y used for emphasis) of such
I comment should be vuouzh in

Friday. Octoblr ll, "5’

the Editor

make any "right-thinking” in-
dividual gag.

The dual idiocy of Iuch |
statement rests on two powetﬁ
ful misconceptions. The first is
that the editor feels that he is
capable of determining who in
"rightrthinking" and who is no
and further. that he knows tha
all of them agree with himself,

Such an attitude indicates an
intellectual conceit that is not
only unwarranted (lndee
crassly undeserved), but on
tremely unhealthy in today’l
society. After all. wasn’t it Hit-
ler and isn’t it Wallace who
pretend to know "what is right
for us?" Secondly, and perhapl
more subtly, is the assumption
that anarchy is the worst evil
in the world. Before one make]
such an apparently ohviou;
statement, that is, obvious m
the privileged, he has to my-
dersland the axioms that under
lie the tenet. The editor hal
taken for granted that undo!
anarchy. the weak. the pooh
the unprivileged Will suffe
whereas under the enlightened
democracy of the United State.
such things would never occun
For those readers who do not
see the fallacy of this slalo-
merit. ! suggest that may t ,
living in a ghetto, either Blac
or Jewish (if the elk-Jewish
members of the radical lei: will
allow me to be so prosaic). I
suggest that they discover that
Bobbes‘ view that organized
exploitation is better than unv
organized exploitation is false.
Anarchy offers no horror to
those who have had to suffer
the well-forged yoke of preju:
dice and paternal subjugation
that is one of the most clearly
defined characteristics of out
society.

To point out an almost pore
fect example of what I have
been saying about the petty,
scholasticisrn of this campus,
I wish to refer to the some subs
high school mentality that I
happened to hear express in
views after Adam Clayton
Powell spoke. This perrinesn
personified had taken refuge in
that trait so typical of the out-
classed high school debator -—
he attacked definitions in [ha
hope of finding a weakness
of minimizing his demoralizin-
tion when he could not find a
mistake in logic and yet did
not wish to admit to the acs
curacy of his opponent's
thrusts. The problem is not that
this individual sought to una-
lyze the definitions. but that
he lost sight of the basic quess
mm, and in doing so missed
the point that Powell was malt-
lng. To he speciiic, one indh
vidual resolved his inner cone
ﬂicts by saying that it was iinl
for Powell to attack the Ad:-
ministration (possibly hecause
our young tool was a conserva-
tive Republican? though I do
not wish to salve the con-
sciences of those who do ac<
cept the Administrnuon), but
that he was wrong in confusing
(’i’lll) the Administration Wi
our form of government. If
am not mistaken, it was exacts
iy Mr. Powell’s point that iho
present Administration is the
must refined product of our

LETTERS—
LCont’d. Page 11, Col. 12

 

