Page Six

SCARLET AND BLACK

Friday, December 9, mo

 

) Letters
(Continued from Page 5)

(iii) and television newscasts.
was as iollows: “This is a social
violation, and I was not too eag-
er to put in any academic rec
criminations.” Now this is ex-
actly the point which the sus-
ended students emphasized in
their appeal, and which the
student leaders EnlphaSiZEd in
their protest.

President Leggett admits.
then, that the violation was of
a social nature. But the suspen-
sions which be upheld were aca-
demic in nature. lie is willing
to see the students “enroll as
Grinnell students in another
college university” but he is
not w‘ ing to have them enroll
as Grinnell students at Grin-
ncll College. For one who was
"not too eager" to give these
students an academic penalty
{or a social violation, he has
forced himself to do an excel»
lent job of it.

What disturhes me about
President Leggett’s decision is
lhat it leaves unclear liis posi-
tion regarding punishment ior
this type of social violation. His
statement seems to imply that
he recognizes the ditierence be-
tween academic and social pun-
ishment, and further that he is
not anxious to mete out the one
where the other is required, But
his action. in upholding the
suspensions, indicates that he
was not willing to apply what
he evidently believes to the
ease in question. This, of
course, leaves open the question
oi inture policy. The president
had an opportunity to establish
a precedent ior tuture action on
cases oi illegal visitation. He
could have done this by issuing
a clearly defined statement and
acting in accordance with it.
That he chose not to do so, es-
pecially at a time when college
policy regarding a number of
social questions is becoming
more and more a matter of gen
eral concern, is regrettable.

—Donald R. Gregory

Goals Need

Reexu alion
To the Editor:

in his letter last week, Mr.
Crossett raised an important
issue. He in eiiect stated that
we at the college should be
governed by practical reasons,
and l inier that the rules of
the college, and the moral and
social behavir oi the students,
should be to some extent based
on an attempt not to cause the
disapproval oi those who con<
tribute to the college.

Although agree with Mr.
Crossott that we need to con-
lider the practical consequences
of our actions, i believe that
we also need to reexamine the
goals or the college what type
of education is it trying to of-
iei- us? what are the purposes
oi its rules? Does the college
wish to iill our heads with (acts
or does it wish to help us in
our search tor the meaning of
our lives and in our attempt
to establish a satisiactory relac
uonship with society? Certain.
1y we need to he aware of
practical considerations in ad.
vancing our goals — anyone
who ignores these considera~
tions is unequipped to iace so.
ciety. But telling us that society
would eniorce its disapproval
of a liberalization of rules by
decreasing its financial support
oi the college does not help us
understand the reasons for its
disapproval.

The 5&1! quoted President
Leggett as having taken a stand
Igainst premarital sex, 1 be-
have he should now tell us why
he takes this stand. For many

cars l have been seeking the

isil «morality. The most

Ami Still More letters . . .

satisfactory reason for my obey-
ing the “moral laws" that I
have heard is that I face os«
tracism from society it I don’t
obey; however, society can
change and does change. i am
trying to iind out how much it
should cl:..ige. I believe that
many other students share my
search for a moral system. and
have not iound satisfactory ans-
wers. it President Leggett and
the administration could help
us answer some oi our ques-
tions, I believe that it would
be much more helpful than
just stating that abolishing cer-
tain rules would be ”inlpraclica
able” or that certain acts are

“immoral.” .
—Elalne Cook

Blind to Sex

Says Mother
To the Editor:

The iollowing is part oi a let.
ter i received ironi my mother
this morning:

I became as excited :5 you
when 1 read the account of
the crisis that had arisen at
Crinnellt What a sad story tor
the three students! You may
have guessed t! at my sym.
pathy would be with the stu-
dents. 1 think that the “sys-
tern” is unrealistic and not
completely honest. I tend to
agree with the Editorial irom
your paper, that I am ret
ing ior you to read agai
The students, it seems to me,
are being punished tor being
caught and not really tor the
“act”. Surely the “authori-
ties” know that the students
explore sexual contacts, and
it would seem to me that
their concern should be with
helping the young people
analyze and frankly discuss
the psychological consequenc-
es that may occur with ex.
perimentation, the individual
responsibility toward such be-
haviour and the variety of
attitudes that exist toward
sex. and more and more and
much more, but to keep the
subject open and not to try
and push it under the rug or
pretend that it does not exist
and certainly not to “forbid"
it. in an institution oi learn
ing, and learning is not con.
iined to books alone, a policy
of enlightenment in all phas-
es oi living should be prac-
ticed and as a matter oi fact
encouraged. Students, 1 hope,
are encouraged to probe in
academic arcas, how can they
be so blind , .d rigid in this
particular area oi sex?

_Allanynwus Student

Supports Protest
To the Editor:

1 wish iully to support the
s.G.A. protest against the arbi-
trary suspension of three stus
dents for illegal visitation.
This action demonstrates the
glaring inadequacies oi existing
rules and the gross incompet-
ence oi present eniorcement
policies.

First of all, the administra~
tion rciuscd to consider the
previous record oi the dciend-
ants in exacting the sentence.
None of them hall been in-
volved in other oifenses; at
least one student had a high
academic average Furthermore,
since they were not allowed to
retulll next semester, an acn-
dcmic pllnlshm .it was given tor
a social violation.

Secondly, the administration
had reiuscd to question the ne-
cessity of existing visitation
rules. lt persists in conceiving
authorila-‘an directives as the
proper i~ ponse to human pelt
banality. At the risk or up ' 'ng
the Bilrling monopoly on thlcs,
i would suggest that this utti.
tulle is pl,= ly immoral, Most
oi us are not relativists. We be-

lieve that essential human
rights must be preserved, and
that loi- his purpose certain
rules are required But among
those central irecdoms are the
privacy in our homes and the
dignity oi our personal rela<
tioiiships.

An auth ity which restricts
our opportunity to entertain
guests and elevates private pre-
)utllce to college policy poses
an obvious threat to these hli-
exiles. The regulations intended
to uphold campus “morality”
have thus become a spectacle
of folly.

One would like to dismiss the
Burling Burlesque as a refresh-
ing intermezzo, an amusing
bracer tor the papers and im—
als ahead. The damage to the
careers oi three people renders
this impossible. The implicar
tions oi the sentence are also
bound to create a “credibility
gap" in the administration’s re
lationsliip to the student body,

The rigid eniorcemcnt of a
rule which most oi us no long-
er respect does little to pro
mote the spirit of dialogue and
graduated change. it genuine
communication is to be main-
tained, the authorities must
cease groping m a maze oi end-
less legality and relate to us
as human beings

—Davld Dillon

Grad Comments
To tht Editor:

As a graduate of Grinnell
College I feel that I have both
the privilege and obligation to
comment on the recent events
reg drug the “open dorm"
policy.

I do not to debate wheth-
er the ndm istration's policy
regarding “open dorms” is good
or bad. i desire only to express
my opinion oi the student re-
action to this policy.

1 am entirely in iavor of aca-
demic freedom [or both faculty
and students. However, such
freedom is not inherent in an
in titulion. It must be built,
brl ’ by brick, Step b steDr 0n
a‘strung foundation 0 responsi-
blllty. For, without responsibili-
t)‘, freedom is only another
word for anarchy.

I strongly believe the recent
“demmstration” was the anti-
thesis of responsibility on the
part of those students who par-
ticipated. To openly violate a
policy. no matter how strongly
you disagree with that policy.
is a demonstration of irresponsir
bility not responsibility Not
only is it irresponsible. but it is
also self-defeating, It is selfrde-
(eating because it forces the
administration into an unten-
able posilion.

Any attempt by a group or an
individual to impose its will
upon another group or indivi-
dual must inevitably result in
defeat, (or if the attempt is
successiul you lose the respect
of the ”conquered," while if
the attempt is unsuccessiul you
weaken your initial position,

l implore the responsible stu»
dents of Grinlleli College to
assert your responsibility and
to seize control over your desti»
ny. it you fail to do so now
the grip of irresponsible stu-
dents \liil be too strong, and
such a grip must prove total
not only to you as individuals,
but also to Grinnell College as
an illstituation.

_Gor(lon L. Gibbs
Class of 1964

lnsulted
To the Editor:

Am i unconcerned about
values, taste and my general
welfare? I keep receiving im-
plications that I would run
wild, naked, vilely sexual and
lead a gcnerally stark-ravingly
disgusting life if there weren't
x‘tl‘ss to prevent it.

l’m personall- insulted.

—Suran Barqulst

Deans Need

Reevaluation

To the Editor:

Now would appear to be an
excellent time to reevaluate the
traditional roles of the Dean oi
Men and the Dean of Women,
The entire college community
has had reason to be concerned
about the dual responsbllitieo
oi the deans as student counsel»
ors and law eniorceinent oiii-
cers. The recent dismissals of
three students makes all the
more necessary the clarification
at these dual responsibilities.

1 would suggest that a work-
able solution is within our
reach. I propose that the judi-
cal, law enforcing duties oi the
deans be negated. in their place
a council on student alfairs
comprised of faculty, students,
and tlle Associate Dean oi the
College be created. All viola.
tions (excluding petty oifenses
within the hall) at college regu-
latlons would be presented to
this joint body. Decisions oi
this community would be ap-
penled directly to the President
oi the College.

Judicial and law enforcement
duties are a tinlerconsurning
nnd wastetul use oi able coun-
selors oi students. The Dean oi
men and the Dean oi Women.
relieved oi these duties, would
be able to devote their entire
energies to the assistance of
troubled students. Students, no
longer having visions oi the
deans with a police whistle
around their necks, a judicial
mallet in one hand. and a bus
ticket in the other, would have
no fear of consulting with them
on personal problems. Any stu-
dents or iaculty members desir-
ing counseling services ior 0th»
or students would be encour-
aged to consult with the deans.
Students or taculty members
desiring disciplinary action
against students would be im-
mediately directed by the deans
to the disciplinary body, the
community council.

Law enforcement duties off
the campus would continue in
the hands oi public authorities.
The deans' role in cases involv-
ing public authorities would be
that oi advisers to the students.
They would continue in such
tasks as bailing individuals out
of Jail. The only time the Dean
or Men or the Dean oi Women
would ever report a violation
oi a student to the council
would be in an incidence where
they, as representatives oi the
College, were iniornied by pu
lic authorities or private ci
zcns oi a student’s offense. In<
iormation required by the noun»
cll would be obtained through
written or oral testimony oi the
public law enforcement ofii-
cials.

If this system were to func-
tion properly. it would be the
responsibility oi all students
and iaculty members to report
ottenses oi students to the coun-
cil. it would be the charge ot~all
hall presidents and ofiicers to
be eliective law entorcers on
campus, Hall oiiicers and resi-
dent advisers would, in efiect.
be the law enforcement arm of
the community council. In an
atmosphere of clarified policy,
precedents. and the existence of
one, respected judicial unit, we
could look forward to the utili-
zation of that one unit and not
the two or three campus courts
and twenty unofficial “hall
courts” we have at present.

student oiienses that demand
immediate action would be the
responsibility oi an executive
committee oi the community
council comprised of one stu-
dent. one iaaulty member, and
the Associate Dean of the Col-
lege. The President of the
College in such cases, as in all
council decisions, would havo
the power of the veto.

This proposal appears to hi.

to be possible and workable.
-Most importantly it provides
the hope oi an adequate coun—
seling program at Crinnell.
With the addition ofapsycliia.
trist or psychologist on campus
to two deans entirely devoted
to the counseling of students.
Grinnell would be in a much
better position to assist (Tour
bled students. This would no
accomplished, too, by merely
the more eiiectlve utilization
of present members at the com-
munity in roles which they
could ably pcriorm. At the same
time the proposal offers a sim-
pliiication oi iudicial proccdurc
and a community court. What-
ever the case. it is hoped that
creative solutions ulll come
irom these opportune conihcts
of opinion.
—Gnrdnn Simonds

Offers Observation
To the Editor:

, l oiier the tollowing observa-
tions on the events or the past
two weeks as a member oi the
primary court. and only ailer
iaving spent nearly live hours
this last Sunday in both for al
and iniorinal discussions \ th
students, faculty. and adm'
tratloll particularly involved
with these events. I must Em-
phasize. however, that l speah
strictly for myseli, and not ne-
cessarily ior any other member
or the court.

It seems to me that the tem-
porary breakdown in coniniui
cation between the student lead-
ers and the administration was
due primarily to an underesti-
mation on the part oi both
sides regarding the integrity of
the other. The administration,
on the one hand. has been un-
iair in regarding the student
grotest as hasty, irrational ex»

ibitionism. The students, on
the other hand, were unfair in
assuming that their disagree-
ment over the administrative
decision regarding the recent
case on campus necessarily sig-
nalled a breakdown in every
form of dissent other than pro-
test. Both sides, it sccms to
me. must assume partial I
sponsibility for the conflict.
But more important, both sides
may now share the credit tor
the constructive results which
i hope may yet evolve from
this near-crisis.

The student demonstration
was in protest of an adminis-
trative decision regarding a spe-
citic issue 7 illegal visitation.
what these students in the pro-
test attempted to do was to
bring the specific issue of il-
legal visitation to the student
court in order that some type
oi guideline would be establish-
ed so far as student handling
ot illegal visitation was con.
cemed.

Two oi the most important
points in the court statement, I
think, deserve a bit of clarifi-
cation. First, these nineteen
student leaders were heard and
judged by the student court in
exactly the same manner, and
with the same attitude. as any
two, live. ten, iiiteen, or nine-
teen students at large would
have been judged; and second,
these nineteen students were,
indeed, given a very spccitlo

enalty — a penalty which has
geen used by the court in the
past, and which will now serve
as a general guideline tor the
student court to use in dealing
with iirst-oiiense. illegal via to-
tlon coming under its jurisdic-
tion in the iuture. The penalty
of a severe warning is vieued
by the court as quite serious,
and says, in eiiect. that ii the
student does not carefully re.
evaluate his relationsliip to
the Grinnell College communi-
ty, and his responsibility to
that community. then he is in
danger oi lacing a minimum
judgment or conduct probation

LETTERS—
(Continued on Page 7)

 

