The Scarlet at Black, April 29, 1977—page I

 

Grapevine necessary,

but needs
improvement

Two petitions were circulated this week on campus. One
was a student petition to be delivered to the Executive
Council calling for that body to reverse its recent ruling
restricting student EPC participation in the initial faculty
hiring process. The second was a faculty petition, signed by
approximately 45 faculty members, calling for Jon
Neiderbach and the members of the SGA Cabinet, “as of-
ficials responsible for funding the Institutional Grapevine,"
to question and reassess SGA’s financial support of the
publication.

The petition attacks the validity of the Grapevine on two
basic points. It states that with such a low overall response
rate 127 per centl, “evaluations are likely to be inconclusive.”

The petition also questions the constructiveness of the
latest Grapevine. It terms some of the evaluations
“vituperative and cruel", stating “ . . . they seem un-
productive at best and, at worst, very harmful to the
teachers involved,”

Clearly, the petition has voiced two important questions
concerning the publication, ones that require investigation
and consideration.

This year’s response rate was embarassingly low A
perusal of the Grapevine shows that in only five course
evaluations [out of a total of 70] was the response rate 50 per
cent or above. The validity of evaluations based on such low
response rates is highly questionable. For the Grapevine to
be a meaningful tool in informal student evaluations of
courses and professors, an increase in student response is
crucial.

The evaluations in this year’s Grapevine lack the blatant
vituperativeness and cruelty ascribed them in the petition,
although a'nilmber of excesses exist, To state, for example,
that a professor's strong points are formality and worthless

discussion is inappropriate and has little purpose.
Recognizing the Grapevine‘s problems, the question

naturally arises, should it be continued? We believe that it

should because it serves a necessary function on campus.

The Grapevine is published to aid students in selecting
courses and majors. The Grapevine is the only regular form
of faculty evaluation presently in use on campus. Several
years ago, the administration discontinued the practice of
evaluating each course at the end of the semester. Though
they may reinstitute the practicetheir evaluations would be
confidential and unavailable to the general campus com4
munity. Administrative evaluations are also conducted
when a junior faculty member is up for a contract or tenure
decision. However, tenured faculty members are subject to
no evaluation other than the Grapevine. Professors, like
students, need to have their performances evaluated
regularly so that they will maintain high standards in both
teaching and advising.

Ideally, the Grapevine collects and expresses the views
and opinions of a substantial number of students in each
class. It can be an important tool in helping students choose
their classes. If it is to be helpful for students and faculty,
the Grapevine must be put together with great care, and in a
responsible manner. The capacity to hurt a professor both
professionally and personally is very real. The editors and
staff members should realize their responsibility and attempt
to make the Grapevine as objective as possible.

While the faculty petition raised some important points, it
unfortunately indulged in some of the same excesses it
accused the Grapevine of committing. To state, as the
petition does, that the tone (“wanton vituperation”l of some
of the evaluations is “unproductive except insofar as it
affords certain students (and certain writers and editors) a
kind of temporary relief from the neural itch of their own
private frustrations" seems so counterproductive, so ex-
cessive in its own right, as to lessen the validity of all that
preceeds it. Where in such a statement can be found evidence
of the responsible, constructive stance the petition calls for
from the students? It seems ludicrous that the petition, in
declaiming the excesses of the editors and writers of the
Grapevine, gets caught up in excesses of" its own.

Ex-eclitor responds

to Cohen’s criticism

To the editor: Writing from the
perspective of an eX'SSLB editor of
last semester I find Matt Cohen‘s
severe judgment of the 5&3'5
performance (“Open Space” 4722-
77) both unfair and invalid.

Cohen's major charge is that the
8&3 has “actively refrained” from
cooperation Wim die SGA cabinet.
Part of the evidence cited for this
statement is the son’s supposed
unwillingness to publish an-
nouncements of SGA activities.
The S&B’s function, contrary to
Cohen's belief, is not that of the
Campus Memo. In any given week
there are numerous upcoming
activities to be publicized. it is the
news editor’s responsibility to
determine the importance of these
announcements and place them
accordingly, The conclusion can be
drawn that not everything the son
cabinet plans is newsworthy.

The second example cited by
Cohen of the son’s purportedly
uncooperative stance was the
occurrence of simultaneous
housing reports last semester~one
the result of a Student Coor-
dinator's Survey, the second the
result of an 5&8 investigation.
While Cohen correctly notes that
this was an accidental duplication
on the part of ham the Student
Coordinator's Office and the 5&8,
he assesses blame solely to the
5&8, This is grossly unfair—if it
was a joint error the fault Ila
equally with both sides

Cohen‘s analysis of the 5813’s
“uncooperation” as due to the fear
of “compromising exclusive credit

 

for a story" is ridiculous. The aura
that surrounds the 5&8 office is ,
hardly that of the Washington Post.
I have yet to see a frantic 5&8
reporter engaged in any cut-throat
competition, with an SGA member
or anyone else, to nail down a
“hot" story.

Cohen is correct that there is a
genuine wariness of compromising
objectivity by being ”overly
cooperative" with SGA. This is as
it should be. While the 5&3 is not
totally into the role of “watch dog
press" it certainly should not be
obligated to toe the particular line
of the SGA cabinet, the ad-
ministration, orany other group on
campus, The 5548's function is to
report objectively on all aspects of
the campus community Cohen's
insistence that the 5&8 should
coincide precisely with the SGA
cabinet is an error.

The statement that “overtures
hy the cabinet aimed at
cooperation on investigation or
objectives have met with con
siderable resistance” is patently
false. This is quite the reverse of
what actually has occurred. First
semester there were numerous
occasions when the SGA cabinet
would “actively refrain" from
informing either the 5&8 or the
student bodyratrlarge of important
upcoming meetings with various
administrators or committees. The
cabinet was Similarily closer
mouthed on any valuable results of
such meetings.

SGA also restricted, as far as
possible. access to top decision

 

‘

makers, as in the case of [hc‘
trustees’ meeting last October. At
that time various student groups
requested and obtained discussion
time with the trustees, although
SGA reserved about four fifths of
the total for itself, The 5513 editors,
however, were denied in their
request for time.

In a similar vein SGA set up 3“
ad-hoc committee on student input
and then refused to hold open
meetings. When the SGA cabinet
”Stonewalls" with “no comment” «
to the campus media on Wigs?
issues, there is very little reason to
believe they are responsive to the
student body. .

A large part of the SGA cabinet’a‘
exclusiveness can be traced
directly back to the creation of the
Organized Student Action (USA)
committee of last semester, As a
result of the events of the Open
Forum, OSA was formed to make a
more direct and immediate
response to the administration, By
restricting access to information
on important meetings and
discussions, the SGA cabinet was
jealously protecting its power
base from the competing 03A
group.

i agree, however, with Cohen‘s
statement that we need “opennss‘
honesty, and sensitivity” in the
SGA cabinet rather than
“leadership based on personal
gratification or desire to enter la _
school.” Mary Brandt, <

Medical profession
' panders to the rich

To the editor and all those planning
on a medical career:

It is an increasingly obvious
truth that the American medical
system is inadequate to meet the
needs of any but the privileged of
our society. This failure is the
consequence of a faulty ordering of
priorities among the members of
the medical establishment:
economic and political ado
vancement come before the needs
of the people.

It is no Coincidence that the
areas most in need of health care
are bare of clinics and hospitals,
While such services abound in
more affluentplaces. Not only does
this health delivery system
maximirle profits—primarily for
doctors and administrators~hut
the medical establishment con-
ceals this fact in two important
ways:

1. It consciously attempts to hide
gross injustices through deceit or
most frequently, absolutely im»
penetrable bureaucratic tangles.

2, It fosters a professional
mystique which lends the doctor, in
both his or herand the public’s eye,
an aura of ethical superiority
which renders it difficult to expose
profit-seeking selfrinterest. Such
humanitarian programs as have

Health Center:
no sense

To the editor: Wednesday night a
group of us were walking in the
rain. A member of the group cut
herself on the toe. We went to the
Health Center. A Student getting
paid to Stay at the Health Center
told us there was nothing he could
do to help her. He couldn't even
give her a bandaid because the
handraids were locked up, That
doesn’t make any sense. Jack
Carpenter

been implemented are tokens by
which the public may be placated;
they entail no great economic
sacrifices for those involved in the
planning, and usually yield
sizeable political profits,

For those interested in
discovering the nature of the
American medical system, exr
posing it to the people, and working
with them to fight for more
equitable distribution of health
services, I have a bibliography put
out by the Boston Medical Com-
mittee for Human Rights entitled
The Politics of Health Care. If. lists
articles and books on a wide
variety of topics, from general

analyses to the problems of Blacks
women and rural people in 0‘
laining adequate services, "
More importantly, these sources
provide ways of getting in touch
with others seeking concrete .
changes rather than altruistic sen
sacrifice. Ifyou are interested, call
me up, or come see me; you can
borrow the book, or Zerox it.
Perhaps if there are enough
people, a small library or file of
sources and articles can be set up
somewhere. It is time to break the
silence among us as to the political
implications of our chosen careers, ‘
and engage in meaningful
discussions Becky Marnhout

 

 

second cla

The Scarlet & Black .

ss postage paid at Grinnell, ls. SDllz ﬂ

 

Editor
Associate Editor
News Edit

Feature Editor
Photography Editor
Copy Editor

shorts Editors

cart * t

Advert rig Manage

ausmess Manager
Faculty Advlsnr

Circula ion Manager

Janet eons
Mark Mayer
Tom Arenberg
David Green
Sieve silbsrberg
Debbie Werner
Margo Caiyetli a. Caleb Sullivan
ecln wilsv
r oesn Mcllvaine
Jon Elbaum
Rick Peiran
Wllllam Deminof!

Reporters

enil ieisci arcwn. rim Caver, Trena Cieland. Tim Decosier, Susan outlay,
Nancy Gould. Dennis Nansen, she Henken, arisn Lee, Tom Lowsnbvrg,
chrls Lower. 80!: Meyer, Carolyn Miller, Bob Milchell, Pal Muller, chrisly
Munsbn, Renae Reese, MIKE salsich, Dave Schschtsr. Leah Seldler, John
Strauss. Jim Smckier, Kathy vopsr, sill waldner, Dave Wick,
columnists

Mark 5. Anderson, Elalne Ashbaogh, will colllns. Pat Ed.
moods, Peter Jarolt, Rum Montgomery, Tom Panzer. Ellyn Toscano

photographers
Sieve Bolesta, Dave Kaman, Cnrls Lower. Hells Lukk, Nick Maiden, Dean
Mcilysine. oenny Minsrni, Gus MorEVlu, David Rosenbaum, Gregg Smith.

 

published weekly except duringmolidays and vacation periods by
crinneilcoileos. student Publications and Radio committee. Grinnell, lows
sum, . ,

 

 

 

Greg Ahmsnn, Elalne Ashbaugh, Colleen aidus. David Elan, Mary Brandi, ‘

”f

 

 

 

 

