Pa Four SCARLET AND BLACK Frlday Octolnr I“!
letters to the Editor

Student Newspaper of Grinnell College
izoz PARK SIREET
oiimiim. IOWA 50111

An lndepcndem newspaper published
weekly, excepi during holidays and exami»
nation periods by the crinnell Committee
on Student. Publications. suosoripiiori yaw
$6.00 per Ichool year.

James Alexander Arlctl

. Kirherine Newkirk

Jenrcy Shectcr

ler, Benson srnirh

. aruce Strom

. Douglas Earl

Mimi Anderson, niedre Prlkopa

Michele Canrlght. Don l-iecker

., , Helen Gabon, John Gardner.
Rzggle Graham, John Gordiey, Sieve Grow, Allan Hon,
Pam Hum, Karen some may Roof, Mark Snbleman,
Lynne sierners, Benson srnirh, Maren srewarr, rvor Siookley

 

Editor-inchier
Men-ping Editor
sporrs Ediror
Associate Edllo
Business Manager
eireulerion Manager
cartoonists .
sun rhorograpners
aeporrers

The Administration’s Predicament

Because of its past policies the administration of
Grinnell College is in a position where it is going to
have to yield to students’ demands for a change of
rules.

In the past, the administration has said that
one of the reasons the college did not change its
rules was that it preferred not to act before other
colleges. Grinnell chose not to be a leader in the
general laxity in rules that accompanied the wide
acceptance of the “new morality.” Rather, it chose
the safer policy of waiting to see what happened to
the innovators, and then to change slowly and by
degrees.

Other colleges in our own conference have re-
laxed their rules with respect to open dormitories.
Grinnell, in accordance with its “keep up with the
Joneses" policy, will probably change its rules, too.

Now the administration is not so obtuse as those
students mentioned in last week’s editorial,
Ex Post Facto Philosophy. They are not so simple
as to think that they can change the rules and then
adopt a philosophical stand which justifies the
change. They will want to change their philosophy
beforehand, or seek some provision in their old one,
a sort of loophole, which will enable them to change
in a way least damaging to them. The administra-
tion has such a loophole, and there have been indi-
cations that they will take advantage of it.

The revision in the residence hall system is the
perfect time to review the old rules. You see, the
old rules might not be valid under new circum-
stances Hence a thoughtful discussion of the rules
is in order.

It is clear that there are only two stands the
administration can otherwise take. The one is to act
in accordance with what are probably its true
beliefs, it could refuse to change the rules on ac-
count of the underlying moral reasons. If the ad-
ministration, however, chooses to act in this way,
if the president chooses to see that all the rules are
enforced and that the rules remain as they are, he
will probably cause the same sort of disruptive ac-
tivities that occurred at Columbia and forced the
shutdown of that institution, An administration
simply cannot function unless it has the support of
the majority of the students and members of the
community.

The administration could refuse to take any
form of action, to let things fall where they may.
They might capitulate as completely as o t h e 1‘
schools have done. This, however, would not be a‘
{wry honorable way to go about solving the prob-

em.

So probably the best the administration can do
is to undergo this period of review, to justify a
change of rules because of the revision in hall liv-
ing, and thus to capitulate subtly to the demands of
the students.

Now the student government ought to take note
of the administration’s predicament. They ought to
realize that if they now go through channels, they
would be likely to obtain a large helping of what
they want, The administration Will surrender, if it
can do so honorably. To force a confrontation on it
will force it to take a stern standi

If the student government acts with caution
and tact, they may win. If they act impulsively and
try to force a confrontation, they may lose.

Resident Advisor
Rebuke: Problems

To the Editor:

I know lt's a bit early to
make sweeping generalizations
of the kind I am going to make
about Grimell, but as a new-
comer whose expectations
about the place have rather
fallen short, I feel compelled
to speak.

First, this campus boxes the
hell out of me. Compared to
campuses I've been on during
the past three years (North-
western and Yale), the Intellec-
tual excitement and ferment
here is almost nil. The sell job
I got before I came was large-
ly based on how intense, bright,
and scintillating all these stile
dents were going to be. Yet I
must say that after nearly six
weeks here i have yet to hear
anyone talk spontaneously about
what he is reading, either in
class or out, let alone talk about
his classes. I have yet to hear
any passionate discussion or
race, politics, religion, art, eco<
nomics, transplants, or comic
strips. In fact I have yet to
hear any passionate discussion
of anyihihg but the opens “ls-
sue", which is little more than
narcissism in its worst form
coupled with is childish exhibi-
tionism (e.g., declarations of
home rule and publicized cohab-
itation), Whatever intensity ex-
ists here is certainly not aca-
demic, though there may be a
great deal of interpersonal in-
tensity. (I will admit that there
is a fair amount of booking go-
ing on and I am not at all talk-
ing about those people who
haven't emerged from the
stacks for six weeks and have
developed a kind of symbiotic
relationship with their Carrel.
Obviously, these people cannot
make the campus a more ex-
citing place. Fcr a person to
be so fascinated by what he
reads that he can never fear
himself away from it seems to
me to be a contradiction in
terms.)

The only issue-oriented activ-
ity on the campus which
reaches to all members of the
community is the Pterodactyl.
Here I will have to admit that
despite all its sexual hangups
and worn-out New Left verbi-
age, the Pierudaiclyl l5 passion-
ate. Despite all its misdirected
rhetoric about Administration.
Establishment, and other iab-
rlcated targets, it is gmss, free.
opinionated, and sometime:
funny.

I did mention interpersonal
intensity. The serenity of the
physical campus obscures what
seems to be a permanent and
vicious identity crisis in the
lives'oi many students. There
is a great amount of introspec-
tion and discussion of personal
problems here, either in ,one’s
own o‘ique or with one's friend.
But this verballzing of personal
problems seems to go on ad
infinitum ad nauseam. A vici-
ous dynamic develops which
Cannot offer its own solution. I
am certainly not opposed to
talking out problems. Only the
Catholic Church can deny con-
fession. Many times I need to
talk out problems and do so (to
wit, this letterl). But it also

seems that one way to meet
(albeit not solve) an identity
crisis is to get out of oneself,
to turn attention outward. I am
not saying do not take yourself
seriously, but I am saying try
to take your world a little more
seriously. Yours are riot the
only problems that need to be
solved; in solving others’ prob-
lems you unwittingly may solve
a few of your own.

Second, 1 don’t know why the
campus should be so boring. A
son of surface explanation is
the homogeneity and affluence
of the student body, which his
ways makes for a boring come
hination. There are too many
“great kids” here and not
enough “kooks," The lack of
real diversity in the student
body is definitely a contribut-
ing factor. Pardon the pun, but
well-rounded persons are zeros
by definition. The curriculum is
another factor. There is more
room for experimentation, es-
pecially in interdisciplinary
studies. There is no reason why
course offerings cannot be more
issue-oriented, President Leg-
gett’s ideas of relevance not-
withstanding. (e.g., a course on
organ transplants which ex-
plores the biological. legal.
moral, political, and psycho<
logical ramifications, and use:
faculty from appropriate doe
panments.)

Lastly, l hope everyone reads
this letter, but I hope no one
replies. Not that I can’t stand
criticism, it‘s just that this let-
ter is a symptom of the prob-
lem and not a solution. The
sooner we stop talking about
our problems to ourselves, the
more exciting the campus will
become.

Mike Finley
Resident Adviser

Lungan President
Describes Policy

To the Edllon

We feel that we must clarify
the Langan Hall policy on 24
hoiir dorms. As was stated in
last week's sea, our policy is
based on consideration. This
term is often used, but seldom
understood or acted upon in a
mature way. In previous years,
hall officials strictly enforced
or ignored the rule, but did
little further discussion on the
difficulties of donniiory living
particularly concerning the visi-
tation issue, We feel that our
policy is succeeding through
weekly discussions of the prob-
lems of dormitory living, a
weekly dinner series with fac~
ulty members, use of hall funds
for informal social events, floor
meetings, a helpful and honest
resident advisor, and an atmos-
phere of concern for rho indi-
vidual in his relation to the
college community.

We established this policy of
an open dormitory not as an
action of confrontation, but in
the belief that the value of a
college education lies not only
in the classroom, but also out-
side the classroom in the devele
opmcnt of mature, responsible
individuals as they live at col-
legs. The casual social atmos-
phere, which has in part re-
suiied from our policy, is a step
toward developing the individu-

al who makes decisions ol
knowledge and concern rathel
than decisions based on peel
pressure, poor information, DI
facility.

We would be happy to discus:
the living situation in Langal
with anyone.

Kathy Karlsoli,
House President
Lynda umber-1h,
Vice Preddent

Schneirov Hearing
Vexes Crosseﬂ

To the Edltol-x

Since Mr, Lawrence Franll
used his power to render ml
silent the other day, I am writ-
ing to the SM; as a way of ha:
ing allowed to express my
view. Mr. Frank, in presiding
over the open hearing on tho
case of Richard Schnelrov’l
massive fornication, apparently,
thinks that the wages paid by
the college to Bliss workers in
pertinent to the case but that
the moral and intellectual chap
actor of the defendant is not.
His ruling was only one sign of
many displayed yesterda,
showing that students are n
at present able to govern them-
selves, Lhough they are able to
insist on their ability.

Now the college boasts n 10-!
ratio of students to Ieachers't
it is necessary, however, to

turn the figure around as welli

Every teacher is outnumbere

by ten to one. And even aftet
you bolster up the teachers‘
ranks by adding those allies of
dubious value, the administra-
tion, the odds are still badly,
against the faculty. What ll
true of Grinncll is even true!
of those large universitiei
where the "irrational revolu-
tion" breaks out first. Quit!
clearly the biological and socio-
logical fact of mere, raw nume
hers is the origin of the pres<
out struggle for power. Mn.
Schneirov justifies his action
solely in these terms: studentl
have the power to make their
own rules and therefore they
have the right. Some 2300 year!
ago Socrates showed two
Greeks, both advocates of rhil
theory that might makes right,
that they were wrong; but truth
is powerless against irrational
power. As Milton said, truth
will always win in a fail- fight,
but Mr. Schneirov and his comp
rades do not, of course, fight
fair.

Let us examine the basic ari-
gument advanced by Mr,
Schneirov and his supportersi]
it runs as follows; the present
law governing open dorms is
unenforceable; it is unenforce-
able because it is being dish
obeyed by a number of peopl.
large enough to make enforce-
ment difficult and even impose
oiblc; therefore the law is illo-
gal. I omit Mr. Schnelmv’s in.
ability to distinmlish between
“illegal" and "unjusi," since i
know what he thinks about law
guage: it is a device invented
by man for concealing his
thoughts, and this brutal and
cynical with is then concealed
in turn by the constant appeal
“Well, you know what 1 mean;‘
which is used whenever any
one tries to find out what is
really meant. Ml'. Schncirov
admitted to me, after tho

LETl‘ERs—
(Cont’d on Page 5, Col. 1)

 

