Fridayi December 9, mo

SCARLET AND BLACK

Page Seven

 

} Letters

(Continued from Page is)

for the next offense of a simi-
lar nature.

1 strongly believe that ottt of
the confusion and resulting con-
flict of feelings on everyone:
part these last two weeks, we
can extract something to build
on. Our student leaders’ single
act of protest, and hopefully
the debate over the question
of its advisability, is over. We
can gain nothing by brooding
over what is past; we can gain
much by now working together
for the future.

——Don Kurasch

Another Berkeley

To the editor:

in these last few weeks the
administration has frequently
suggested that those students
who disagree with their stand.
ords make plans to leave the
college. it would be unfortunate
if the students complied with
the administrations request. it
is often the case that those stu-
dents who protest most vehe-
mently against those policies
which they feel to be wrong are
the same students that care most
deeply about the college.

When one sees that someone
worthwhile is making a mistake,
is it right to do nothing about
1 . The college. an educational
institution, is as deserving of
our efforts. Why give money as
alumni to an institution that one
tailed to try to improve as a
student? Why prop tip an anach.
runism? _

if the administration’s “like it
or lump it.” policy is followed.
Crinnell will soon find itself
with a population of indifferent
students. students that are in-
different about college policy
are less likely to be excited
about anything else. from Dante
to thermodynamics.

In changing an existant pol-
icy it is best to work from with.
in the rule structure. Since it
is not given to the student to
be a dean, the participation of
student government seems called
for. Last week, in an orderly
and constructive way, student
government attempted to right
what they felt to be a severe
wrong. Unfortunately, the col-
lege did not see fit to reward
a Constructive attempt and so
other methods were tried,

students have exhausted every
method. It is to be wondered if,
perhaps the college administra-
tion wants another Berkeley.
One would find it very difficult
to place any other construction
upon their action,

—narcy B. Kelley

Answers Crosseﬂ'
To the Editor:

In answer to John Crossett,
Associate Professor of Classical
Languages, I would like to
tiuote the words of fiichard T.
LaPiere, in his book, A Theory
of Social Control (p. 353):

. . . innovation requires an

atypical degree and kind of

social isolation, a condition
which might well be described
as social insulation, since it
does not necessarily mean the
lack of normal group mem—
bership. Unless the individual
is adequately insulated from
social controls, he will find
himself, as most men do most

of the time. preoccupied with

andhis time p cmpted by '

status-group acti ties, and he
will be unable to persevere
in the innovative quest. So-
ciety is for the most part
geared'to the maintenance of
routine forms of conduct. Ev-
en in organizations, such as
modern universities, which of-
fically encourage and spon—
sor creative effort, such effort
is often systematically it unin-
tentionally discouraged by
both official and unofficial
demands on the scholars
time and energies.

Perseverance in innovative
endeavor would seem to he a
function of atypical values,
especially those relating to
group membership and status,
and of limited sensitivity to
sympathetic and other normal
demands on the individual’s
time and energies. The illdir
vidual must to a degree at
least put aside the needs as
locally defined, of his wife
and children, the demands of
his occupation, and the inter-
ests of his friends and Her
qualntances, in favor of his
inventive project. lt would
seem that in general success-
ful innovators are character-
istically somewhat rude and
ruthless; but it does not fol.
low that an unteeling and
self~centered egotist neces~
sarily possesses the other at-
tri utes, motivational and otlr
erwisc, which are essential to
innovation. Sociologists have
observed that innovations ape
pear most frequently in those
societies that have a suffici-
ently high standard of living
to provide their members
with the leisure (freedom
from immediate practical
concerns) necessary to work
out innovations; however,
many societies have main
tained in permanent leisure
an entire Class — 8.3., the
scholars of China and the
priests of the Middle Agesi
without profit. Apparently,
therefore, it is not so much
freedom from material want
as freedom front group ohli
gations which, other and
equally essential factors be
ing present. enables an inn
dividual so to concentrate on

a given task that he may
eventually succeed in produc
ing something new.

What LaPicre has said leads
to the conelttsion that some of
“those . . whose vision ex-
tends beyond the problem of
lionlen‘s hours and cars and
open dormitories" must have an
ﬂbllgmatism,

_Terry liloss

Lowly Student
and
Even More Lowly Pemale

Answers Crossett
Again

Dear Doctor Crassett,

in reference lo your recent ,

letter in the sat-l1. some of us
feel that money is important;
however, money is not the only
factor determining the quality
of an educational institution.

Potential donors should be
gnen an accurate description of
the college to which they offer

 

ME lﬂli IllllI-lﬂl

TANDARD

couuns g;

support. Many of us, as stu-
dents, feel that the protest was
an attempt to expose, honestly,
problems within the college
community. You, on the other
hand, seem to be saying that
differences of opinion should
be buried solely to secure fi-
nancial support. Your comments
support a continued policy of
hypocracy. Under this policy
offenders me only occasionally
apprehended; then they are
treated as if they were rare
exceptions to the norm of cam-
pus life — which. in fact, they
are not. it is the rules which
represent a misconception of
what the Grinneli student is
and, we feel, should be.

Education is not Just the ac-
ceptance of doctrine — social
or academic — but rather the
development of critical and
evaluative abilities. Do you
really propose a system in
which prescriptions are given
and students dutifully gulp
down their medicine? if Grin-
nell should become that sort of
system. the educational atmos-
phere would no sacrificed and
replaced by that of a morgue—
for surely in this context the
panacea is worse than the di-
scase.

—Jeal|ne Diller Cook

The Two Harvards
To the Editor:

Harvard University seems to
me to faster two alternative
outlooks. In the first place, it
is an institution which prides
and bases itself upon the found.
ations of a timeless (but alas
tiniewornl tradition. It is the
Harvard which takes pride in
itself because it is Harvard and
therefore right (“as right as
right can be," according to w.
5. Gilbert). It is the Harvard
which looks forward to the past.
It is this Harvard which pro.
duces graduates who say,

Those of us whose vision
extends beyond the problem
of women’s hours and cars
and open dormitories can
diagnose the illness.

The approach ls smug, stodgy
and classical. The diagnostic
system is that of llippoerates.
The grammer is impeccable.
The concern is with preserving
this, the best of all possible
worlds. And even it it is not,
it is better not to reevaluate
anyway. since re-evaluation
kicks up ancient dust and fogs
up our spectacles And besides,
we already know what is 'lght
because we have already experi-
enced the world , . , and gone
to Harvard , . . and you haven’t.

There is, however, another
llarvard. This Harvard respects
btit does not revere the past it
bases itself not upon the firm
but childish foundations of
blindly accepted dogma, but up-
on a caravan toward progress
If the caravan sometimes looks
like a circus, this is attr' able
to the antics of the traditional

Step Up To

JD‘S RESI'AURANT

stunted—at 721v: Main.
Grit-hell

 

clowns. This second Harvard
produces graduates who ask,
Is the College to he domi-
nantly In enculturator of re
ceived ideas, feelings, and
patterns of behavior or is it
to he dominantly a place
where the received is critical-
ly scrutinized and the new
formulated and tested? Is
Grinnell College to be a cen-
ter for dissent and radical in
novation or for the further-
ance of, at best, a discrimi-
natingly sifted status quo?
The approach is fresh and
vigorous. It suggests no easy
answers, but it urges that the
question be seriously encount-
ered. Absurd and arrogant
smugness gives way to humility
and flexibility. No easy diag»
hoses are attempted; no quack
cures are prescribed. l tail to
see why the doctorate should
entitle one [0 play doctor,

——Lester L. Tobias

Letter to DAR
To the Editor:

Now that you have given Bob
Hodierne a 21)age spread. in
the interest of Justice, inorahs
tic and conscioiiahle Journalism,
it is incumbent upon you to
give equal time and space to
the other side of the story.

If the title. “Official Photo
grapher, UtFJ." is so impressive
to you. let us recommend iilr.
Jim G. Lucas, Scripps Howard
Correspondent, a capable, ex-
perienced reporter of three
wars, a mature thinker and a
loyal American. Enclosed is an
article written by Mr. Lucas
which I recommend you print

The primary duty of an ed
tor is to edit; that is, delete
from material submitted the
superfluous, the unsavory. the
bad taste. If an editor has an
opinion which might be con-
sidered worthy of attention, he
writes it. in an Editorial. It is
not only unethical but poor
Journalism to permit prejudicial
cppy to be printed verbatim
Simply because the editor may
be of the same opinion.

Am! Still More letters . . .

You should he lnterested to
know that a few years ago a
Colorado university newspaper
printed an article far less por-
tentous than Hodierne’s com»
ments. The situation grew, with
the editor and others hiding be
bind the facade of the Free
Press. Finally, the apathetic
public became so insensed that
the editor and staff and, event-
itally, the university President
were forced to resign. l d
not wish to imply, nor shoul
you infer that i am drawing a
parallel condition. I merely
wish to alert you to the fact
that the power of the press
should not be underrated; nor
should the power of an irate
reading public be underesti-
mated.

Printed in the Rocky hioun-
tain News, Denver, Colorado,
Saturday, October 22, 1966.

(Editor’s note: As a tribute to
American servicemen in Viet
Nam, Senate Republican Leads
er Everett Dirksen has inserted
in the Congressional Record a
letter written by Scrippsl-lo
ward correspondent Jim C.
Lucas to hlrs. Pearle Norman
of the District of Columbia
chapter of the Daughters ot the
American Revolution. The let-
ter follows.)

A Dirty War
Fought by Good Lads

DEAR MRSi NORMAN: 1 am
honored that you have asked
me to address a message to the
members of your chapter of the
Daughters of the American
Revolution, to be read at your
October meeting.

Never before have our fight~
ing men been in greater need
of the support of loyal Ameri-
cans at home.

This is a dirty war. Often, it
is a war little comprehended by
the men who are fighting it.
Yet. 1 am convinced each of
them knows in his heart that
what he is doing is just and

LETTERS—
(Conlinued on Page 8)

SHGP POYNTER'S

for

Selections

in

All. YOUR
CHRISTMAS GIFTS

You’ve Never Seen

So Much Fashion
In One Little Si‘ore

OYNTER'

4th Ave. Fashions

"SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY"

 

