Page Two

Edilo Is
Deans' Vel'o Cri‘licized . . .

By Vetuing proposed open rooms during North Campus Week-
end, the Deans’ Committee has implied its negative position on
the visitation question. it: procedural objections to open rooms are
pragmailcally indefensible: mere prior notification is the only
preparation required [or such visitation.

The Committee‘s Contention that “the program for the week-
end as presented at the meeting did not require open rooms," is
capricious perversion oi the intention oi the handbook’s "appro-
priateness” Clause rather than a clarification of it. Students are not
arguing lbr the necessity oi open rooms this weekend; they are
arguing for an appropriateness which has been traditionally estab
lished. No social event is, strictly speaking, “required," yet any
event is the sum of its parts and open rooms are an integral part
or North Campus Weekend.

Dictatoriul prohibition of open rooms is, at the least, had psy-
chology and at worst, a violation or community integrity. Need
one one the’obvious example or Prohibition, its attendant abuses,
and eventual repeal? To deny the conventional request tor open
rooms, winch require a bare minimum or planning, on procedural
grounds is to disregard visitation's praisewprlhy aim or encourag-
ing informal socializing on a campus much in need of such oppor-
tunity.

The connotations of the Deans’ Committee decision are all too
clear. The Committee has played its hand # and its trump card
is a Club. If it is indeed the aim of the Committee to “keep the
issues honest" the committee must define rather than avoid the
issues. it it is the aim oi the Committee to avoid alienating Seg<
merits oi the college community (it this is a cummunily), it be-
hooves the Committee to judge the question of open rooms on this
occasion or any other occasion in an open minded manner and to
remain responsibly receptive to the opinion or the community it
seeks to serve. —S. G.

ln’rerim Lauded . . .

We praise the initative shown by students who setup and par-
ticipated in the interim Session.

Their efforts indicate that students can be highly motivated to
learn on an independent basis and Without the pressure at forced
academia.

Rick MacDowell, who supervised the planning of Interim, es<
pecialiy deserves congratulations. Undaunted by Administration
skepticism, he brought the initial plans to iruition.

The College shnuld iurther encourage (allow?) Students it) de—
velop initiative and sell~motivation in academic areas.

The external pressure of grades and requirements cease after
the college years; the desire [or education should not. —K. N.

New Editor . . .

The editorship of the 5&3 has been tossed around a bit since
leaving Hal Fuson‘s hands last semester. Suzanne Gelher was
elected editor for a full week until she made plans to enroll in an
oft-campus program. Now Suzanne is back with us as Associate
Editor (her course schedule would not permit a leave at this
time) and i ﬁnd myseli as 5&3 editor tor the next year.

The newspaper is in a stage or transition; a new stall is being
developed.

By soliciting stories lrom non-start students who are “special-
ists” in a particular held of interest, we Wish to broaden the per-
spective oi the paper. The end product may tend toward a journal
rather than a newspaper but such an orientation is probably more
beﬁtting a college weekly.

We think you will lind the new Grinnell weekly more pertinent,
more mature, more intellectual. We also hope to evolve to an
easierrto-read and visually pleasing lormat,

We subscribe to the in-depth, “news analysis” philosophy at
reporting and to the integrity or the student tree press,

Krystyna Neuman

Scarle'l' and Black

GIINNELL COLLEGK
Grill-tell, [own

A weelii newspaper published each Friday or the

college year y the Grinnell Committee on Student Pub-

lications. ncpresented ior national idvcrlismg by Na-

noiml Advertising Service, lnc., college euphshcrx

v). Representative. is cast som street, New York, . N v.
csccpnd class postage paid it Grihncil, lowa, subscription
rate 55.01) per school year. ixoo plid subscriptions.

_
0,
(a
6,

20mm .... .... ,
nusmzss MANAGER
assocmrs EDITOR
EDITORS’ ASSISTANTS
EDITORIAL STAFF ...

. Kryslyim Neumﬂll

,, Susnn will

. suzimnc Gelher

lenld Fits , Henry Wilhelm
Richlm Kamp, Plul Nochmon.
nitnhrd Schneirouv, Knlhy slice

sl-onrs LDI'IOR . Sieve Casey

CHIEF pnerooxarnen ,
BUSINESS STAFF . Mike Delole, Chuck Den-chock
REPuN'i'iNG STAFF arm. Berkcy, Nell Fischer, inn mic,

AMI! hm PM)“: Murny. Sarlll Diorlen, Don Whiney

. sushi. Kuuer

SCARLET AND BLACK

Friday, January 20. m7,
a

A Student Opinion

Perspective

By Grant Crandall
Richard Schneirov

Aiter reading the statements attributed to
President Leggett in the editorial oi the Decem
her 2 issue oi the 5&1}, we tell it necessary to re-
ply. in a statement which we decided not to pub-
lish, we called President Leggett a hypocrite. Wo
telt that his statements on “in loco parentis", map
aliiy, community and student government contra-
dicted earlier statements he had made and state-
menls lound in the catalog. However, in order to
be fair to President Leggett, we decided to talk
to him betcre publishing the article. Aitcr on
intensive, two hour talk on December a, we lelt
that our original article was an incorrect analysis
of the situation. Because or this interview we now
tool that President Leggeit is not a hypocrite, is
not trying to deceive the students, but, on the
contrary, is conscientiously trying to fulfill his
duties as president of the college.

The question still remains, however, how
could Mr, Leggett publicly contradict himself
so unknowingly? The answer lies in his inabil-
ity to communicate erlectivcly with the Stu»
dent body. We left our talk with the reeling
that president Leggett had been using such
words as democracy, community Ind morality
very loosely and with meanings quite tiller-
ent train the meanings that many students give
to them. For example, to Leggett a community
is simply an aggregate pl individuals living
together. He completely ignores the modern
connotation of the term implying a mutual
respect and responsibility among equals. To
Mr. Leggett democracy seemingly has no po—
litical implications. The statement that Grin-
pell is democratic means to him that all stu.
dents are equal and may talir to the adminis.
trntlon about their problems at any time. This
retsricted dcliniticn allowed Leggett to say
that student government did not cxist ror any
“genuine political necessity" but only as an
“Arena for training."

Perhaps the most basic disagreement we have
with Mr. Leggelt is on the “in loco parentis” is.
sue. Mr. Leggett insists that the administration
“define the environment in which the students'
sellregulaung society is to operate." To us, how-
ever, it is obvious that whoever controls the one
vironment will also c o n t r o l the society. We
believe that while the administration can set

guidelines, it should do so only after consultation
and general agreement by the students.

This division on loco pai'entis" maniresis
itselr most openly in the pnemarital sex issue.
in our conversation Mr. Leggett reiterated
that “he did not have an open mind on this
issue." He stated that by this stand he was
saving the students involved tram hurting
themselves, their families and their lrlends. He
said he was looking out lor the wellare oi im-
mature students. We cannot agree with Mr.
Leggett's judgment on this matter. We reel
that Grinnell students are mature enough to
make moral decisions tor thcmsclves. Anyone
close to the students or Grinnell will recognize
that they are making these decisions and will

on leggett

continue to make them whcihcr the college
likes it or not.

College should be a place where students are
searching, questioning, and trying out new ideas.
We believe that education is precisely learning
how to live, and that o small, liberal arts college
such as Grinneli has a unique opportunity to ex~
perimcnt in new approaches to living. We can
only improve society by crcating a better one
vironment here in Grinnell than we have else
where. In reporting on the Encampment for tho
5&1} Kathy Jagow stated, “An initial goal of the
liberal arts college is to alienate the student in
some degree from his society, by pointing to the
myths of our culture and the inconsistencies or
our system of thought and behavior.” We don't
want an exact, miniature version of outside suciv
ciy with its hate, prejudice, and strile, We are
here at Grinneil in search lor an alternative. That
is why we disagree with Mr. Leggett when he
takes a rigid, rundcmentalist position on morality,
and when he says, "if students do not find this
environment to their taste, then the adjustment is
theirs, not tbe college’s.”

We reel that the college should have the ﬂex~
lbllity to change, Why do so many conscientious
and intelligent students choose a small college
over a large university? Isn’t one or the reasons
precisely because they think that the smallness
and closeness of the liberal arts community will
enable them to inﬂuence what goes on abou
them, while in a large university they would tee
lost and insignificant? This is why Leggett’s authe
oriiarian philosophy, which is only now being res
vealed, is so disillusicning.

Wc feel that the wide disparities that exist be-
tween the educational, social, and moral phil-
osophies or the. members or the Grinnell com.
munity must be discussed, debated, and re-
conciled anew. The issue or morality is one
about which there is great need lop better com-
munication and understanding between the

nunger generation and the older generation.
ilorallty, including more than sex, can no long.
er be dictated by the administration of a coir
iege (it may be dictated hut intelligent student!
just won't blindly roliow it). it must be and
is decided by each person individually.

it the members at tht administration and the
lnculty wish to aid the students “in a lifelong
quest tor a considered sense of values" (according
to the catalog), they must not limit their help to
merely dictating behavior by rules because this

authoritarian approach will generally be unsuc-
cesslul in dealing with the intelligent, question.
ing students ot crinpell. They must advise the
students, not dogmatically lay down rules. The
College may successtully enforce its rules on
morality, prevent student misconduct and avoid
public censure, but it will not have persuaded the
student to incorporate its moral values as his
own.

it was with the hope that we plight improve
communication among the students, faculty and
administration that we wrote this article. In view
or this aim we recommend that discussion groups
and seminars of students, taculiy, and adminis-
tration on campus morality be established.

 

lam a Senior. and at (ours.
ihsye to late phylicli til-
nets.l know I had in do it
but I war slisidi

The first d-y l went out, and
after running around ”in traelt
a low times I got rick. Right
in the middle of tit. field!

iii. nart timl l didn't get sick,
but l wlrit back to my room
uni collapsed. l cutsll my
classes tor three dayr.

7.

 

By the rim. I had l'u isle his
text. though. I nit pretty

good. And I could do syery.
rhing without lap much pain.

The day at the mi l was
piraid. but I went out and pm
my al|.l parredll

So he" i am a senior. about
to ink. my Compr, sndi
found out that I want to he I
Phys. Ed. mater.

 

