Friday ruory 14. I967

Confetti and Banners

Photo By Susan Kaesen

‘iiii Uncertain Trumpet’

By David Dillon

The recent SGA election
raises more questions than it
resolves. The student body has
failed to provide a clear man-
date in regard to its long-term
aims and the means of their at~
talnment. The new SGA leader-
ship must be challenged to
formulate more clearly its di-
rection and programs,

Two distinct approaches to
campus affairs were represent-
ed in this campaign. The first—
that of Ray Horn — sought
progress through deliberation
and accommodation. Legislation
of social life had to be shared
with the administration. Accord-
ing to this position, positive
academic co-operation could
more readily ensue if efforts
for rule changes were tempered
and moderated.

This outlook revealed many
defects: it relied heavily on
diplomacy and good will from
an administration which, de-
spite polite denials, has been
often "neither nice nor ration-
at.” Genuine differences of
value were ignored. The rigidity
imposed by structural necesSity
-— the pressure tor students,
taculty, and administrators to
follow group interest — was
not adequately faced. Still,
Ham‘s case offered some co-
herence, and bore a small
chance of success

Craig Allin posed campus
problems with much greater
depth and consistency Institu—
tional conflict and disrespect
for rules were to be counter-
acted by student determination
to affirmatively regulate themv
selves. The attainment of more
privacy — an essential aspect
ot the maturing process H was
urged as the primary social
goal. Student participation in
academic liie could be expand»
ed through greater SGA fiscal
independence

While common positions on
matters of campus concern
were to be sought with the ad-
ministration and faculty, time-
tables of action would be fol-
lowed, so that constructive pro-

posals could not be defeated -

through bureaucratic inertia.
Communications with the stu-
dent body — a major issue for
all candidates — would have
been established on a regular
basis, through creation of a
“Privy Council." Formation of
a community court — a guarA
aniee for consistent enforce-
ment of necessary rules — was
given a high priority.

In addition, a realistic attitude
to demonstrations, recognizing
dliterences ot purpose and de
gree, was repeatedly outlined.
Allin offered all these initiatives
Within a cohesive philosophical
framework — a promising inte-
gration of vision and action,

The campaign of Ric Mac-
Dowell seemed in some respects
an unfortunate contest. Having
contributed iiuittully to campus
life — Interim is the best ex-
ample — MacDoweil made
some worthwhile suggestions for
social and academic progress:
e.g., the need for group recrea-
tional events and foundation
grants for sea. But he lacked
a structure to unify his ideas, a
trameworlr of encompassing
goals. Statements on demonstra-
tions and on practical methods
of communication were often
vague, shitting, and uncle-
veloped. In brief, MacDowell
presents a confusing image. His
broad perspectives are appar-
ently “liberal,” but his program
ror implementation seems in-
consistent, conservative, and
sometimes naive. While an am-
algam of views may attract a
wide electoral base, MacDowell
as President must offer direc-
tion and decision. The middle
course is not enough,

To make certain that SGA is
sustained in momentum and
purpose, Allin and his support~
ers should form a “shadow
cabinet” — a group of con
cerned students who could offer
specific legislation and provide
a philosophical basis to demand
needed institutional changes.
The new leadership must some
how be motivated from below.

Student government must tace
a critical decision. Are we to
have consensus or commit-
ment? -

SCARLET AND BLACK

Page Seven

Proposal for Guaranteed 7' itian

By Suzanne Gelber
5&3 Associate Editor

ED. NOTE: This column is my planned
response to the “News Analysis” article, an-
nouncing a tuition increase. More than
straight reporting, “News Analysis" articles
are intended to serve one of two functions:
either to present interpreﬂve reporting of on
event as a reponer sees it; or to report facts
which are the necessary background for the
presentation of a particular news-based view-
point. The previous article served the latter
function since it was my hope to announce
the tuition rise and the reasons for it in a
manner which would allow me to use that
{actual background in presenting Ihe toilow-
ing editorial view.

President Leggett's announcement of next
years 8160 cost increase, defended as a response
to higher operating costs, raises an interesting
question: is an annual fee increase the only sold
iion available to the college to deal with rising
costs?

Economically Sound Alternative

1 submit that it is not the only solution avail-
able and that an alternative economically sound
and philosophically more justiiiable has been too
peremptoriiy dismissed by the administration.
That alternative is a 4-year guaranteed cost plan,
now in operation at both Beloit and St. Olaf,
which insures entering students a uniform 4—year
fee. (Former editor John Wolf proposed such I
plan in the Nov. 5, 1965, 5&3.)

Legqen. Suits: Say "Unmiistie"

In an interview last week, both President Leg-
gett and Dean Stauss labelled the possibility of
installing a guaranteed cost plan at Grinnell "un-
realistic” and “more trouble than it’s worth."
The administration argument against the guar-
anteed cost plan runs basically as follows:

1) The college’s operating costs are sub-
ject to inflation and are not guaranteed, so
the students should not expect guaranteed
costs either;

2) Unlike Grinnell, schools which have
guaranteed cost programs are church re-
lated. insuring stable endowment;

3) New students would have to bear the
brunt of cost increases under such I plan
and average fees would be higher at Grin-
nell than at competing institutions without
the plan;

4) Therefore, a guaranteed cost plan would

ut Grinnell in r less desirable position
for competition for students, whose parents
would jittigc comparative costs at their face
value;

5) Finally (added as an afterthought by
President Leggett) the application of an en-
tering student is not 1! hlnding legal contract
with the student guaranteeing particular
fees; in fact, an application is merely a one
year proposition concerning I student's Iti-
tendunce It the college.

50 runs the administration position. It sounds
justifiable and realistic — at first, Even a super-
ficial investigation of the argument, however,
reveals not only logical and factual inadequacies,
but assumptions on the part of the administration
which contradict the college’s stated aims.

Strong Case for Cost Plan

There is a strong case to be made for the es-
tablishment of a guaranteed cost plan at Grinnell,
rather than for the unwelcome continuation of
annual cost increase announcements. The case
for guaranteed costs can easily be argued on its
own merits. However, since the administration
has chosen to register only objections to the pro
posal, it may be more significant to establish the
case for guaranteed costs by answering the argu-
ments presented against it.

In discussing the economic and philosophical
justification of the guaranteed cost proposal, eco«
nomics department members Robert H. I-laveman
and William Pollak concurred in the opinion that
such a plan would be “economically feasible” at
Grinnell. Pollak commented more specifically,
"it’s basically a question of whose is the ulti-
mate financial responsibility for rising costs —
the college or the parents.”

Pollak contintted, “What the student is ‘btiy-

ing‘ at Grinnell is a 4-year college education. The
college is in a better posrtion than the parents to
make an educated guess, to take the economic
risk of projecting cost increases which would dot
termine the comprehensive 4-year fee.”

Yearly Raises Nor Responsible

Perhaps it is time to deal with the administran
tlon’s objections to guaranteed costs in their re:
spectivc order. First, the fact that the college’p
operating costs are subject to inflation and arc
not guaranteed does not mean that, therefore,
students’ fees must blindly reflect the samd
trend. If this college were the socially responslvd
and responsible institution it claims to be (so.
President Leggett‘s February 8 speech to the Stu-
dent Senate) and really wished to produce gradrp
ates who reflected the “selfless” character “ilk
herent” in the liberal arts, how could it selfishl!
refuse to accept the economic responsibility for
cost increases?

Schools Have More Stable Income

The administration argues that schools which
presently operate guaranteed cost programs are
church related and therefore have more predict-
able and stable endowments than does Grinnell,
A bit of research uncovered the following inter-
esting facts which reflect on this argument:

1) Grinnell, with an enrournent of 1150, has
on endowment, according to Couege Treas-
urer George Kaufmann, valued as or August
31, 1968 at $16,598,000 (market value; hoolr
value is $10,584,000), including endowed
scholarship funds of $623,000, according to
the present catalog.

2) lioth neloit and st, Olaf have 4-year
guaranteed tuition plans, Both schools have
larger enrollments than does Grinnell (be.
loit, 1350; so Olaf, 2,370). Although St.
out is church-related (American Lutheran
Church) its total endowment of $2,294,000
pales in comparison with our own and yet,
its comprehensive fee ($2200) is lower than
our annual fee. Beloit‘s comprehensive fee
of 33,000 is only 5100 per year more than our
own,

Thus, it is not correct to argue that church}
related schools are necessarily in a better eco-
nomic position and better able to predict their
costs than is Grinnell. Moreover, if both Beloll
and St, Olaf, which are in relatively Inferior eco-
nomic circumstances in comparison to Grinnell,
nevertheless assume the responsibility for cost
increases, there is no economic justification for
Grinnell’s negative position.

Guaranteed Fees a Selling Point

As for the third objection, two colleges with
smaller incomes than Grinnell (and larger stu-
dent bodies) now operating on the guaranteed
cost plan are charging fees either lower or only
slightly higher than Grinnell’s $2900 charge for
1967—68. Moreover, guaranteed cost fees are high-
er than average annual fees only for the initial
two years of a student's attendance and, in the
end, given inflationary costs at Grinnell, probably
tum out to be a long-run saving for the student
and a more predictable income for the collegc.

The public relations effect of a guaranteed
cost plan has not proved unfavorable at either
St. Olaf or Beloit, In fact, both colleges use Ch!
plan as a "selling point" in their catalogs. A
thoroughly explained and publicized guaranteed
cost program at Grinnell might well become an
attractive factor in competition for students.
since other colleges would not be able to offer
parents comparable economic security.

Application Not a Contract

President Leggett’s final objection to a guan-
anteed cost program contains the most dismaying
implications of the argument. While it is true
that an application is not a binding legal con—
tract, it seems like hair-splitting to reiterate thic
point in the face of statements like the toitowing
in the Bulletin (P. 22): “Grinnell is devoted ex-
clusively to the liberal arts. It offers an inter
grated fourvyear program. i ."

An applicant to Grinnell is buying, not a year’s
dormitory residence, but a Grinnell education, an
education which normally takes four years to
complete. A college boasting such on “inte-
grated” program cannot in all conscience frag.
ment its costs and illogicaliy reiuse to consider
an “integrated" 4-year guaranteed fee program.

 

