Moldy. October ll. '96!

The Schneirov Trial

SCARLET AND BLACK

illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

} Letters
(Continued'irom Page 10)

lystem of government that has
come along in a good many
years. That is to say, the con-
servative structure of the gov-
ernment of the United States,
as seen in its vulnerability to
the interests of a well»placed
and/or wealthy few and its al-
most total immobility when
faced by the non-advantaged
multitudes, has resulted in tho
near-perfect instance of John-
Ion, unyielding on Vietnam,
capable of determining his suc-
cessor, gicrying in his paper
triumphs in the field of Civil
liberties.

Thus, when students and
Blacks turn to force, they
should not be condemned mere-
ly because they invite anarchy.
The overwhelming stagnation of
this nation cannot be eliminated
by the fetid odor that is the
self- righteous d e rn a n d for
“reason” when one really
means "acceptance.” I can
only hope that before the edi-
torial staff of the Scarlet and
Hiack decides to inundate its
readers again with Aristotelian
irrelevancies, they r e m o v e
themselves from the Classics
Department and take a course
or two from Professor Goldberg
on such topics as collective be
havior and ideology, power and
society. Or they might cease
studying long enough to take in
such books as Black Power,
Dark Ghetto, Black Skin,
White Mask, or The Colonizer
and the colonized. Then, per-
haps, they will have had some
contact with social reality and
will be less ready to pronounce
the Truth of the Ages at us.

Andrew Rothsteln

Cites Dangers In
Open Dorms issue

To the Editor:

A c a d e in i o institutions in
America, particularly the lib.
oral arts college, are in grave
danger of suppression. The on

of our intellectual haven to in-
quire into and attack the in-
stitutinns of America has forced
a moderation of the Vietnam
war policy and started people
rethinking almost every aspect
of American society.

These are achievements the
academic community may well
be proud of. But in the process
we have made many enemies:
Wallace and Reagan pose a
very real threat to our freedom.

All students and faculty are
well aware of the restrictions
on academic freedom created
by the involvement of govern-
ment in state universities How-
ever, the liberal arts college
also depends on economic and
political support from outside
its “ivory tower" -— to some
extent from government but
also from alumni and interested
philanthropists. The rapid rise
of tuition is clear testimony
that the financial status of this
college is very serious, The fact
is that the very existence of
the school may depend on alle-
giance with people who do not
like much of what goes on at
Grinneii. Continued academic
quality and academic freedom
is in jeopardy.

Yet we make our own de-
fense even more difficult by
fighting amongst ourselves
about issues like the “open
dorms problem," Much is
wrong with the present situa-
tion. Certainly We should talk
about our problems and try to
make changes. But our attack
on these problems is often an
cessive, immature, and unrea1<
istic. The college is only I
small part of a bigger commu<
nity. issues in that bigger com-
munity are far more important
than social issues at Grinnell.

The time has come that Grin-
nell must begin thinking more
of academic integrity and less
of ”open dorms." I have spent
two years listening and talking
about Grinnell and its problems.
I’m fed up. I want to leam
about America and go out and
change it. The liberal arts edu-

cation gives a student a unique
ability to do this. But if we de-
stroy the college in the process,
then we have defeated our pur-
pose. So then let me urge all
students and faculty to join me
in saying:
GRINNELL, GROW UP!
Robert Ashille

Corneilian Editor
Explains Editorial

To the Editor:

In reading your editorial of
October 4, and then re-readillg
my own of September 23, I
found that it was indeed possi-
ble for the impression of an ex
post facto philosophy to be con-
veyed. i am writing to point out
that this is not the case.

The editorial which you quoted
contained a comment from
Doug Peterson, Student Govem—
ment (so) Presidentr He is
quoted as saying that student
selfcetermination over their pri<
vate lives and group living con-
ditions is “the overriding princi-
ple by which so will be operat-
ing throughout the year." This
statement, part of an article
Doug wrote lot a THE COR-
NELLIAN Extra, received
campus - wide circulation before
the open dorms election.

The philosophy of student
self-government in these areas
was the platform upon which
Peterson was elected SG Presi-
dent. His election came at the
end of a year in which greater
student awareness of their own
rights and power was manifest.

As you can see, the idea of
student self-determination was
far from new at Cornell. It was
not used to justify the SG action.
It was the framework in which
their proposal was created.

Cornell College, that is, the
students, faculty, and adminis-
tration, are now seeking the
best way to embody this prine
ciple.

Robert Barrick
Editor, THE CORNELLIAN

(All letters must be signed.
Names withheld by request.)

Page Eleven

l Where the Truth Lies |

By DONALD STUMF

The evening before Richard Schneirov's trial last week, A
pleasant — looking freshman girl greeted me as l emerged from
the dining room and offered me a mimengraphed sheet. I expected.
I suppose, a proposal to have a hike hike; and I got a naked in-
vocation of student power. It began, “Students have the power to
make the rules that govern them" and ended. "THIS is A TRiAbY
OF THE STUDENT BODY'S RIGHT TO SELF REGULATION.”
In between there was the implicit assumption that it is the stu-
dent’s power that gives the right. To be greeted by such Machia-
vellian stuff so soon after dinner unsettled my stomach, especial-
ly the line, “If we stand behind Schneirov, we guarantee our own
safety." I wonder what kind of safety the Schneirov case can offer
anyone, especially the freshman who gave me the sheet.

Now I know that “safety" was used in a very limited sense
in the article. it meant safety from being punished, and as Plato
proves, that is like safety from being healed by a doctor. But ll
do not want to argue on the basis of systematic philosophy; few
men believe that truth lies in philosophy. 1 want to discuss safety in
practical terms, those of the hard, real world. Will student self-
reg‘ulution make students safe from the outside world and them-
selves?

First of all, Will the women of Grinnell have safety from the
onslaught of mail from their mothers? Letters about Schneirov'l
fiveeday indiscretion will descend on the college by the bagfuii in
the coming weeks. Parents have spent 330% to send their offspring
t0 Grinnell; and they have done so With the understanding that (ha
administration, which writes the bulletins and makes the rules.
would be in charge. Not only does the administration have legal
responsibility for the conditions in the dormitories, but it has a
moral responsibility to parents. How many parents would approve
of student rule in the halls? Can one simply turn over control to
the students without any advance waming? Should parents be put
in the position of having to force their children to transfer in the
middle of their college careers it they do not like “home rule?"
At the very least, the college should give a year's warning before
any release of the reins of government. in a system which changer
rapidly and unjustly, no one is safe.

Then what about the safety of the institution as a whole? in a
year when Richard Nixon is about to be elected President on a
conservative platform emphasizing “law and order," the timo
hardly seems ripe for B college to bow to Student power. As I un-
derstand it, Grinnell. is in very tight ﬁnancial straits. i wonder it
the college can avoid the gold shortage now faced by Antioch and
Reed. Radical schools do not attract liberal donors. I hope that in
the next few days some of the faculty will explain the effects at
past radicalism upon the present treasury at Grinnell. if it is n
matter of life or death to the institution, who would hope for self»
determination?

The examples of Antioch and Reed bring up another pointrl
what happens to the composition of the student body at school!
which have the reputations for being most liberal, not to say
libertine? At Antioch, I know, it has become opptessively ilﬂmOv
geneous. Is there no value in having people from a variety of
backgrounds, including such “conservative areas" as the mid-
west? is there nothing to be said for having voices to remind us
of Edmund Burke as well as Machiavelli?

I also wonder about the safety of anyone ruled by a student
government with the following record: one member of the C of Ti
edits an SDS progaganda paper and advocates polarizing issues
so that there can be only two alternatives; another member of
the C of T, whether intentionally or not, played the demagogue at
the Schneirov hearing, calling for a show of hands and power at
what was supposed to be a time of disinterested deliberation; a
third member of the C of T said, while considering the use 0!
student government funds, “You (should) never worry about the
majority;" the C of T as a whole called for hails to discuss “homl
rule" when the decision on the Schneirov case was still pending
and the administration had not defined its position.

Finally, I would ask what satety one would have, under "horn.
rule," from people who do not show “consideratio What will
happen it a student breaks a rule made by his peers and refuses
to be persuaded that he is being inconsiderate? Will students then
confine him to his room, or ostracize him, or mug him? Will they
turn to the administration and ask that he be removed from the
hall? That would be embarrassing to say the least, How would stu-
dents have handled the problems in Cowles Hall two years ago
without the power to punish their peers? Are most people satisfied
with the effectiveness of “home rule” in such matters as quiet
hours in which it now operates?

Of course I am only asking such questions to be perverse. I
realize that what is meant by “home rule" is either no rule at all
or rule by a complaint administration, which will only intercede
at the request of the student body when a problem has become
too ugly to ignore. It means having what one waan without any
annoying responsibilities on the side.

Oscar Wilde once said there is only one thing worse than not
getting what you want, and that is getting it. if students succeed
in their power-play for “home rule," they and the rest of the
college will deserve to have if.

 

