Page 4

Bucks Jones Plan

As the Great Faculty Requirements Debate heads into its
sixth (or is it seventh?) week the casual observer is ata
loss as to what to expect next. Two variations of the major
proposals have been defeated and some are beginning to
wonder if a majority of the faculty can be formed behind
any proposal. At the close of Monday‘s meeting (in which
the faculty spent an hour and a half discussinga distribu~
tional proposal that no one proved to be interested in).
Professor Alan R. Jones stepped into the void with an amend-
ment to the Clotfelter (the so—mlled ”no-requirements")
proposal tl-at seems to answer the major objections to that
document.

Arguments against the Clotfelterproposalincludedallegations
that it was negative in tone, that it presented freshmen stu-
dents with no guidelines for choosing a program, and that it
was based on the shaky premise that the underclass advising
system would be greatly improved. The Jones amendment
answers each of these objections although it cannot counter
those who disagree with the basic philosophy of "no require-
ments" (23 out of 90 in a straw vote four weeks ago) and
who argue that there is a certain deﬁnable body of knowledge
that all liberal arts students should be exposed to before
graduating.

The Jones amendment calls for the institution ofa required
Freshman Tutorial program which he describes as follows:

"The Freshman Tutorial Program is a credit-fail
non-classroom learning experience to be completed
in the first semester of the freshman year. Each
student will work closely with his faculty tutor in
preparing a series of essays during the semester,
'and the aim of the program is to introduce entering
students into a new learning experience emphasizing
independent study and writing skills. Satisfactory
completion of» the program will carry four credits.
The turor will also act as the student‘s underclass
academic adviser. "

The proposal gets to the heart of the advising problem and
also provides the writing skills course that many professors
feel is necessary for freshmen. It is far superior to the Hu-
manities requirement (standing alone) in that it emphasizes
skills over facts, an emphasis that many feel liberal arts
in general should echo. In addition Grinnell has long needed
a program to enable its students to make the transition from
traditional high school fare to Grinnell’s emphasis on inde-
pendent study. None of the current requirements even ap-
proaches this need. .

The Jones amendment to the revised Clotfelter proposal
adds a strong positive note to a proposal which enables Grin-
nell to come closer to the ideal we seekna strong personal

liberal arts education. . -

- G.S.B.

i, _;

Hits Initiative Fund

by J.c. Labowltz

The Initiative Fund has come
up with a new set ofguidelines
that they are using to give away
our money, and they are a lot
of fun. it seems thatDougMen-
denhall and the gang have de-
cided to emphasize "creative
and innovative activities" in
their allocation of our social
funds, which are part of the
$47 student activities fee that
we all pay and from which all
good things flow (SGA, con<
certs, etc.). What exactly is
meant by "creative and inno-
vative” is rather vague, but
as I understand it, the empha-
sis will be away from the tra~
dltional form of social activi-
ties that have been funded in
the past.

Part of the impetus behind
this is the definite policy set
down by "collegeauthorities"
that no alcohol be purchased
by the college, directly or in*
directly, due to the leyl imtL
piications of such an act. This
will also mean thatthe college
will not honor such practices
of the past as turning in re-
ceipts for $59 and claiming
that this was for potato chips

1 certainly have no quarrels
over this issue of alcohol. (I
did have lots of quarrels with
it, but it was patiently pointed
out to me that I was fighting
the Iowa Criminal Code so i
no longer have any quarrels.)

‘ What I raise questions about
is the idea that social activi-
ties have to be "creative and
innovative" in order to be
worthy of being funded. I have
already' heard of one instance
'where Gary Dike threwa party
for iupeople (an old-fashioned
type party which at least 41

people here seem to enjoy)
and when he applied for ini-
tiative funds, was told thattoo
few people attended to warrant
money. Now my roommate,
Cralger Miller (Grand island,
Nebraska. bats right, throws
right) saw the Red Balloon on
Sunday, and is fired up to buy
a an of helium and some bal-
loons and pass them around.
Lois of fun, and definitely cr-
eative. Al Jones' Utopia class
is going to the Amanas for
lunch which is filling if not
downright creative and inno-
vative.

My point is that social con-
cerns and activities of a great
many members of the campus
community are being deter-
mined by a non-elective body
that may not have been desig‘
ned to do that, and that “ille-
gitimate social activities",
traditional, nonrcreative, or
highly imaginative, may be re?
jected and refused funding.
And, on the other hand, acti-
vities that may not warrant
the use of student fees maybe
funded simply because they
are unique.

What I seem to be saying to
the Initiative Fund is thaithey
should use more criteria than
inventiveness and creativity
in determining allocation of
social funds. I realize thatthe
same guidelines that l speak
of also make this same point,
but [would not like to see the
precedent set in the beginning
of a single criterion used in
allocating money. Each re-
quest for money should be
analyzed individually for its
social value and benefits,with
the idea being tint the stud-
ents’ money should be spent
legitimately.

,THE SCARLET AND» BLACK

. OCTOBER 16, 1970 1.

by Jon Stsln

 

 

U767 Veil/8 we Mm ole/(D014
4M) Ken/7' ism/”awe W
BcFDKe We was Cﬂ/O‘Ko
W0 7H5 PWEO)’ ”was my, . .
we were (EAMV aanre/

DON/f wears sex/c TWEJWT
meme rem/e I5 DVEH. we OFcaJkSe/m sou 77mm

W60 'eﬂ/

WC’O as 6/77/1/6
Kw / . V

Group Urges Curricular Reform;
Debate Centers 0n Requirements

This summer a specialcom-
mittee of 11 faculty and ad
ministrators studied several
plans for curricular reform,
concentrating on a11~college
requirements, with the intent
of recommending specific
proposals for curricular re-
form to the faculty this fall.
The study group was unable to
reach a concensus on a gen'
eral plan forall requirements,
but it did suggestseverai spe-
ciﬁc changes in the present
structure which were adopted
by the faculty to be effective
immediately.

The .committee grew from
the desire of faculty mem—
bers and students lastsemes-
ter to reevaluate the present
curriculum as it concerned
allrcollege requirements-and
to make changes where they
were warranted. Discussions
last semester, among stud-
ents and faculty and within
departments and divisions,
had divided most people am-
ong three major positions on
reform: 1) those favoring the
Clotfelter “no-breadth" re
quirements proposal, 2) those
favoring distribution require-
ments, and #3) those favoring
the present, structured requ-
irements. The study Commit
tee, which had been appointed

by the Dean at the end of last '

semester, had hoped to reach
agreement on one of these
proposals or a modification
and submit that to the faculty.

However, even after the stu-

dy group did research on the ‘

changing thinking about requ-
irements that has been going
on at colleges and universi-
ties throughout the country, it
was unable to reachany better
consensus than when it smrt-
ed. The final recommendation
to the faculty on majorreform
was a nine page report outlin-
ing the threeproposals (inclu-
ding two different distribution
requirement schemes) and the
rationales for each of them.
The summer study committee
urged the faculty to make it
their first business this sem-
ester to debate each of these
proposals in turn. and make a
final decision this semester.
The faculty is in the process
of doing that now.

On a more concrete level, the
committee agreed. with little
or no disagreement, to re-
commend to the faculty four
changes in the present curri—
culum. These proposals were
adopted by the faculty at their
first meeting this semester.

The first change was theelie
mination of the upperclass ge-
neral education requirement,
or minor. It was considered
overly restrictive. and some-
times ridiculous in the way it
was administered.

. rings unless

The committee also agreed
that it should be possible to
bake the science and social
science requirements any
time before the end of the jun-
ior year. This was a recogni—
tion of an already lenient pol-
icy of the Committee on Aca-

demic Smnding toward grant- .

ing delays, as well as a move
to put more flexibility into the
curriculum. Also, two Physics
courses were added to the list
of courses which satisfy the
physical science requirement.

The third proposal of the
summer study committee was
for formal recognition ofthree
types of majors: depart-
mental, interdisciplinary, and
independent. All of thesemaj-

ors had already existed, but :3.
by making them more formal, '
the faculty opened the way for
more independent majors,and 5"
the expansion of such minors L,
as Religious studies and pos- c
sibly Urban Studies into inter» k,
disciplinary majors.

Finally, a fourth recommen-
dation was incorporated into ‘.
the committee’s report to the ‘
faculty at the suggestion of
the SGA cabinet, with which
the study committee and the
Trustees met for severaldays a"
at the end ofthe summer. This .
student-backed proposal was .,
for the establishment of a ‘
committee to study the devel- t

, opment of descriptive course}:

(Continued to page 10) ,

SGA Asks Referendum

On JudicialBroposal

by John Gardner

The Senate has recentlybeen

working on new proposals for
hall judicial councils and for
a campus judicial council.
Their proposals will be con-
mined in a studentrbody re-
ferendum to be distributed
50011.

The present ideas for re-
organizing the judicial coun-
cils' workings have been re-
vised from a set of propo-
sals which failed referendum
passage last semester by a
little less than two percent
(58.7% out of a needed 60%).
Greg Vranicar, Student Co-
ordinator, says that the fai-
lure of the proposals was
partly due to the definition
of "open hearings" that was
made, partly due to the large
abstention vote. (Abstentions
had been defined not to in-
clude empty ballots.) These
earlier referendum propo-
sals, however, have much in
common with the current ones.

Both are geared toward set»
ting up hearings for students
who are accused of violating
college or dorm rules, or
who initiate cases against
dorms for violation of their
rights under the Student Bill
of Rights. There are three
basic changes:

Firsr, the definition of "open
hearings" has been changed
from an audience of twenty
people (the first twenty who
show up at the hearing) to
about 72 people (the capacity
of Fine Arts 104). The basic
idea for even this limitation
is to preserve a fairly or-
derly atmosphere in which
the defendant pleads his case;
also. peoplewill not beallowed
to speak at campus~wide hea»
they are wit-
nesses.

Second, the Senate has re-
organized the composition of
the judicial council to include
three students and two facul‘ ,
ty members, instead of three '\
stydents and three faculty 5.
members. This change is de- .'
signed to prevent hung votes ,
and also to support a trial-
by»peers concept while inclu»
ding faculty viewpoint. ‘

Third, the review power of f;
the campus judicial council
has been more clearly defined.
The judicial council will have '
power to rule on the validity ‘
of any regulation where the '
regulation conﬂicts with one
of three basic documents ‘-
the SGA constitution, the Stu-
dent Bill of Rights or any
statute of civil law. This pro-
posed definition would give a
student the power, for exam-
ple, of appealing to the ju-
dicial council if a hall was ~
violating his right, under the ,7
student Bill of Rights, tosieep ’-
in his room at any time. 9’-
When the council determines
that a rule has been broken or
that the Bill of Rights is being
infringed in some case, the
next step isa recommendation
to the President, on the facts
of the situationandany punish-
ment to be meted out.

NEXT WEEK:
Senate budget

if

 

5mm Nmpmr ol
on..." con-g.
cum“, to...

1| 5min". Ilctl

n. independent newlwprwaliyhedwck-

w. Exes-Fl aim; ”my. m cumin-tion ‘
mum. w the emu: (swim in
slum. Pnbllullonl. Sumcriplim mm m...
«2.50 in «mm ,..,,

mm
mllmu nmmr
ow :«Im
Fmro mm cam sown
Sport: sum Amﬂvml
n-pmm: Ylm Porcuphhn Popplr.
Mon: sax-mat, Jon sum. 4.6. Locum,
may Mamet. m comm, Mark
13!“!th St: Ann Schwartz.
Lain: M. u - Mr, Lym Donna, Bob
Duim. Andros cmrg- shyhut. Am Call...
Sun Pot-rm. Mum» McKomo, am emu,
Dome ammo-r51. Lmrll Hullblrg.

cm amour
am. rrI-n
Jlm Alt

 

 

 

 

