Page Eighl 5& found a house president did ; not enforce the rules and 112- 1 that there were lreouent and serious violations oi these rules, SCARLET AND BLACK “best possible" iwuuld be l‘iltl‘itl‘ foolish. McKlveeniThCi’e has solution always {used to enforce them—specifi- lethin his hall, Such a Siluatioi‘i,l)ecn a difference in the degree Cally in relation to the driiilv would put the hump oi the on- lot eniorcement between halls iiig rules, the car rules, and :tii-c student government struc.,and there will always be a die the open dorm regulations? Cohen 7 Until the laws have been revised by the students l, would leave entorcemcnt oi the laws up to the individual htllli president. Once the laws have been ratified by student vote they would hare to he eniorced to protect the students or I \toqu moie ioi- impeachment oi the particular president. Convci'scil must first mention that until one sits on tiie ColHP, it is hard to imagine the iarieti- ct factors bearing on this type of situation. However. as iming that it was a situation where violations requiring cniorcenient had been deliberately neglected by a house president, 1 would have one course of actio pre ‘ sent the situation to the Com? ior considcration and a recoup niendation. This recommcndation, could he directed to the hall . dent, the court, or the ex- ecutive cabinet Any mole spe- cific action than this voiild den pend on the particular incident. ture in jeopardy. The first thing to do would be to give the house president lair warning that it he did not be. gin enioreing the rules, serious measures would be taken. If the SGA constitution, which states noining were not heeded, it ii ould be the duty of the Execu— lil'e Cabinet to make u ot Section C72 or Article 11 ot' the that the E. to the Student Senate. and to initiate proceedings in the court tstelll against any student oili- cial negligent in the execution of his omcial duties Assume there is a diticrence iii the degree of cniorccmcnt between all u halls. Would you strive ior equality oi en- loi'eeulent? How? Cohan—The i'atifieatiun of the‘ laws would be the eqtizillzer in tl s case. l want unirormity only in iesaid to spccitic laws and points ot law I think hall raria itiuiL to suit their specific plubv LarsonAA CofHP president cannot take over total responsi- bility of an indlvtdual hall presi- dent in the case or irresponsible leadership. Any i-iolaiion of iiiles occurring within that htlll would. however, be SlllJJQCt to enforce- ment by the CoIHP president or other house presidents as would the same violation occuiring anywhere on the campus Con—i tinned refusal to enforce college rules would be a matter to be, considered by the executive cab—i iilet, with whomtthe power to lake action, if any. is rested. f McKlvcen—To mail: this dues-l tion answerable l will assume that. the particular house presi— dent completely refused to en- Sludenis Internet? rial l Travel Association Join the 10th Hawaii Study Tour June 21 through August 2 Includes study Period, Ac- commodations. Social Activ- ities (10 events), Sightseeing, and FUN FUN FUN. Obtain detailed iniormation irom Judy I’reissle on cam» pus, or Griniiell Travel Cell4 ter. 808 Fifth Avenue. lcins are vital. Cnnvei‘seiEquilli - at eniorce— ment is a plinse i ithout mean— ing: it implics the same inteiu ,pietation oi a rule by each oi clcicn house presidents Such a goal is unrealistic. Rather, a rule must be thought or-as having a ,rzillge of interpretation Some Vl- olations tall outside the limits ot a rule and must be brought her lore the court s)sienl. The court decisions come closest to estab— lishing equality oi enter-cement , Thus ,a range which the intent ot the rule is saieguarded, This range. in and of itself, precludes equality of enforcement. Larson—Each oi the 11 nien'si halls is distinctly diilerent than,l meiit would not necessarily be‘ any other in its mahcup. Thel most effective and Just enforce-j lrigidly the same in all halls. The ,'”degl'ee" of eniorcenient can ithei'efore betlexible so long as it idoes not conflict with the basic ,responsibility placed on those ipossessing powers oi ciiiorcee ‘ ment. 1 would say that, though there are definite areas needing im— provement, the present system is satisiuctor To say that it is BATES FLOWERS cutivc Cabinet, liya, simpleeinaiority vote, shall have1 the power to submit legislation is established in l terencc. Each house president should be responsible tor the enloicenicnt or rules within his lhall. and some flexihi ilv in the uniformity of enrorccnicnt bc- ‘llveen the halls should be al- lowed Do you tecl the present court system allows tor the actual determination oi giiilt , or innocence? is the determi- nation basctl on tact or pres- sur 7 CuhoniA< long as the students are in this basically ambiguous position between their Conscience ,cs and the administration, and ‘until the students Finally deter-- lmine ivhat guilt is, the court systctn is too open to pressures from vai ous sources An unbi- ased doc 'on on a small campus is ditl‘icuit enough without being ‘onlounded by variables, like in which cases are the laws to be supported. ConverseiTlle court system is certainly no arm of any enloi- ing body in the sense that it influenced or pres‘ui’ed, thereby hindering it impartiality in do termiiiinsr guilt or innocence in my experience. when cases have Iconic hetiirc the court. the ev‘ dence has usually been well sub- stantiated This is the pr ssui the pressure oi tact. . The Weakness at our court system lies in the determination ot decree of guilt (represented as a fine). not determination oi guilt or innocence. In con del'e tine degree ot guilt, the entoicing body definitely exerts pressure. ‘Htlw edeetire it is i don't kno Lal‘soiiifiascd on those cases iwith which i am familiar, it seems that the couit system has .in many instances not been able lto determine actual guilt or inno- eenee. particularly innocence, it seems that the Court's attitude is otten influenced by concern for the effect of an individual Questiahs CleP Candidates \Vhilt would you do if ya“ ‘Ioi‘ce the rules in any wily, and the decision on The court tests it should up- hold respect tor the law at Grin» nell. McKlvecniNever hay-insr Wltr nessed the court systcni in ses— sion and depending solely on contlicting opinions oi those who have been there, 1 do not iccl that i am able to answer the ,ouestian. Is the present four-year resin dence hail system ‘itisliictm'y‘.’ is it the best possible solution at Grinnell? ColinniTht‘ prcscnt [our year residence system is ~ol bly all ght ior those that it c it There should be a lot more riccdoin or choice, however, ior those :uho lilie to live oh-campus; I also tend to agree with Steve .Huweil‘s article that the students stiller in the long run, by living ,iindcr this practically traternul system, but this too is a matter tor the campus to decide. Coiivcrseei bclieve the lotus year residence hall system ofi‘e tor men, the best opportunities tor indiiidual development com— mensurate with the goals of the college Because of the random composition or cacti hall. greater possibilities exist tor the torina. tion oi enduring a. ociations, similar and vet varied illtellece tuzil lntl‘l‘Q