Friday, February 28. W69

SCARLET AND BLACK

Page Five

 

legality and Moraliy: The issue of Disroliing Analyzed

By NEAL MILNER

Asslslant Prof. of Political Science

Discussions conceming the recent
campus disrobing incident usually locus
upon the motives of the actors involved.
The students are accused of being public.
lty-hungry, the attorney general is in-
dicted for his alleged desire for political
gain, and the local prosecutor is accused
of a weaki-kneed capitulation to political

ressuie. 0n the basis of such discus
sions it is easy to lapse into ad hominum
arguments about these participants. (In-
deed, is certain local cement mixer
whose humor reflects all the subtlety of
an amplified Bronx cheer, has developed
this ad hominum approach into a finely
honed, if monotonously and awkwardly
used method.)-Thess rather parochial
discussions fail to consider some of the
most important aspects of the issue, Two
questions are particularly nppropziato
and interesting, First, what makes the
issue so perplexing to the public? Second,
why is the settlement of the issue seem-
ingly so dependent upon the legal pro«
cess?

A common response. to the first ques<
tion might very well be, “Only an aca<
demicion could ask such a questionl
The reason is simply that people don’t
like students running around without
their clothes on." I suggest that the is-
sue is a more complex issue which is
related to some basic social and politi-
cal characteristics of American society.
Public opinion surveys quite conclusively
show that very few Americans have any-
thing close to a well deﬁned, well de-
veloped political ideology. Nonetheless,
most of us manifest some kind of basic
and quite stable core oi perceptions and
attitudes which we use to interpret ihe
world around us. The dismbing incident

It's

THE VARSITY

NEWSSTAN D

FOR
SMO KES,
SNACKS,

BOOKS.

GLASSES

Malth and Repaired
in Our Laboratory

Contact lenses

Cases and
Solutions

Eyes Examined
Phone 236-3779

E. J. Jensen, 0.0.

OPTOMETR IST

Across from Post Office

cloud ram. PM.
and Sat. PM.

is particularly perplexing to the public
because if is especially difficult to place
Within this world view. The cues the
incident generates are not easily related
to our traditional core of political atti-
tudes and behavior.

The Grinnell issues are not easily re-
lated to the more common campus oc-
currences which are usually associated
with the “politics of confrontation.” No
buildings were damaged, no papers were
destroyed, and indeed no ultimatums
were made. Given the political context
of the last few years, American society
is probably better able to comprehend
(but not, i emphasize, necessarily ap-
prove of) these more violent acts than.
it is able to comprehend the nature and
goals of disrobing. Out of necessity this
society has been required to cope with a
great deal of violence during the past
few years, I am not arguing that these
experiences have created a greater legi-
timacy for violent acts, I am only ar-
guing that, regardless of his attitudes to-
wards the disrobing, an individual can
more easily reldte Violence to his world
view than he can relate public nudity.

Furthermore, the disrobing becomes
more perplexllig because of Ihe diffi-
culty of viewing it in terms of tradi-
tional religious values. Here again I do
not say that this confusion itself neces-
sarily creates greater approval or disap-
proval, The disiobing gdds a variation to
a typical and traditional problem which
Julieta—Christian religions face. Tradi-
tionally, the church has faced a con-
flict over whether to stress physical over
spiritual amelioration of the unfortunate.
A Hasidic aphorism nicely summarizes
the usual two positions in this conflict.
“Don't worry so much about my soul and
your body. Worry about my body and

your soul." The disrobing incident ls cou-
fusing because it forces society to con-
sider a moral question in a manner con-
cerned with amelioration of the body in
the traditional sense of seeking protection

or sustenance for it. On the other hand,
they were quite explicitly telling society
not to worry about the actual physical
appearance of the body. These are
two uncommon and rather sophisticated
ideas, and it is little wonder that the
stated aims of the nude protesters are
constantly misunderstood. (Certainly the
media has made little attempt to make
these issues any more comprehensible.)

Why, then, does society attempt to
solve such a particularly perplexing mor-
al issue by means of the legal process?
The sociologist William Chambllss Sug-
gests that “the legal process must be
understood as taking the form that it does
because of the characteristics of the SO-
cial system which are independent of,
and which render relatively inconse<
quential, the motives. character, or per
sonality of the particular people who oc-
cupy positions in the system.” Such par-
ticipants are only a part of the larger
social structure to be resolved by means
of the nature of the Conflicts to be re-
solved by means or the legal process and
to a lesser extent, the sanctions to be
implemented. In American satiety we
oltcn turn to the legal process as a
means of settling moral issues. Recent
opinion surveys show that the indivi-
dual American most commonly claims
that crime is caused by moral break-
down. They also show that paradoxtcally
the individual American commonly ex-
pects that traditional government legal
sanctions will correct moral inad-
equacies. In fact. Daniel Bell contends

that, despite glaring failures, “in no
other country have there been such
spectacular attempts to curb human
appetites and brand them illicit.“ Since
the disrobing inCldent involves some 50-
pliisticated moral issues, and since we
often tiy to resolve these issues through
the political-legal process, it should not
be too surprising that participants in the
legal process are involved. individual
motivations thus explain only a pan of
the story.

My purpose here is not to suggest
solutions but merely to consider the im.
pact of the disrobing incident. However,
1 would like to point out two problems
which often evolve from any attempt to
resolve such’ moral issues by means of
legal process. First, lt is all too easy to
define the morally of the powerful as the
customary, acceptable moral behavror.
Such a definition could be particularly
costly to a pluralistic society. Second.
the frustrations which develop from art
attempt to enforce laws based on legal
moralism- can often lead to a dangerous
impatience with the tenets of due pro-
cess.

Tiriiersaii euce

Awards of up to $50 will be given for
individual works of verse or fiction, if
submitted in Mr. Moore (ARH 32), by
March 3, The judges Will be Mr. Andrew
Lytle, speaker for the annual \Vriters’
Conference (March 12713), novelist, critic,
and editor of the Seivanee Review; and
professors Kissane and Lihet‘man. Win—
ners will be announced at the Writers’
Conference.

 

 

Pollsters Examine

By
KATHY BULL and MOLLY MCGUIRE

After the “give ’em hell” SGA mesh
dential candidates‘ speeches on Monday
night we undertook to listen to the
voices-of the overwhelmed students.
Freshmen Carol Sigmund and Jim Bel<
move and sophomore John Gardner.
were spotted just inside or ARl-l. Miss
Sigmand’s political stance is in the
middle of the (straight and narrow?)
road. She calls for vigorous pursuit of a
responsible, moderate (not antagonistic
but wishy»washy), capable of compro«
mise, approach to student government.
She berales Mark Allen for his claim
that studenis should not have a hand
(or foot), even, in academic decisions.
This year Miss Sigmond’s vote will go
to either Jamie Trotter or John Herr
because she likes the issues they didn’t
raise and the solutions they didn’t pro-
pose. She was impressed by their sug-
gested comprehensives, bookstore coop.
and interdisciplinary studies programs.
“The problem is not the system but the
people. Thirteen members could not be
more or less democratic than forty.”

Jim Bellilove is throwlng up his sup-
]Jprt (0 Jim Lew. “I didn't think I'd like
anyone when I came to hear the
speeches, but I liked Jim's idea of mak-
ing the campus more friendly. Different
factions on campus don’t know how to
talk to each other and don't understand
each other,"

John Gardner liked John Herr's “gen-
eral tendency toward unification of the
student body." Student. bodies should be
imifiedi (Remember Tom Thomas'
“warm body approach") Gardner said
that he liked many measures of the
Thomas regime, and he thinks that it’s

Election Attitudes

important to vote to elect someone who
expressed his own views with as much
clarity and conviction and vaseline as
Tom has,

In the warm and lively atmosphere of
the Forum, Phil Sampson and Roger
Doenker were buttonholed, These two
fault the courave so typical of Grinnell,

to disagree. These hardy souls dared to
question the worth of the office of SGA
presidency. Mr. Koenket feels that it is
indeed worthwhile ii there is someone
competent to make decisions. The qual-
lty of the,oillce, he conjectures, is de-
termined by the people who fill it, Mr.
Sampson,~dissenting, thinks that the of-
fice is too powcrtul, hilt does not feel
an attempt at decentralization would be
successful. Their choice of candidate
was the Grim Reaper, by acclamation.
Their reasoning was that he “comes
closest to your heart and head, dresses
most stylishly, was the least deathly of
the five, and has the courage to lie down
and Say what he thinks.” They con<
curred on the idea that the Strident gov-
emment needs people who are not afraid
to say what they think, to stir things up,
to be so bad as to incite a riot, and to
give rebirth to the student government.
"People are going to have to quit play-
ing this game and start playing their
own. If enough students want a student
government there should be one, if not,
there shouldn't” Mr. Sampson suggested
that there be a general senate, including
elected student, faculty and administra-
tion representatives. At this point Tom
Thomas ambled over, and “the Old
Guard" discussed the distinct decline in
political fervor from last year.

Also found drinking in this convivial

setting was Bill Thomas. In response to
the battery of incisive questions, Thomas
quickly formulated his two thoughts and
shot back, ”The conservatives don’t
seem to be Very articulate and intelli.
gent. which is reasonable. We need some-
one to maintain diversity and keep things
petty. He wouldn’t have to be elected,
just run.” Thomas felt that the office of
son president does not have any inhei.
ent importance except in financial mat-
ters (providing funds for beer blasts
etc); the importance is dependent on
the specific events that may occur and
his response to them, and the represen.
tative image he portrays to the World.
Thomas holds that specific ideas are

less important than personality in this
race for office. He sums up by saying
something that has been festering inside
all of us for too long. “What this College
needs is more nepotism.”

Having finally roved to the Youiikei-
study room, we came upon Tom Merrill,
sophomore, quenching his voracious
thirst for knowledge. His full written
text follows:

"I'm for Jamie Trotter. From the
opening speeches it appears that, tir’st,
a kilid of conservative reaction has set
in with the student body — the emphasis
was on reconciliation and a “happy
community” rather than on confronta-
tion, and revolutionary change. Secondly
there was a rather strong resentment
expressed toward what was described

‘as an elites: SGA, Jamie Trotter dem<

onstraicd a painful sincerity and de-
termined naivete that is perfect for im-
plemenling a quixotic program along
these lines. He was also refreshingly un-
hip, sort of low»camp in his own right.
An enthusiastic high school approach in
just what Grinnell needs."

 

