Page Two Editorial . . Trouble Ahead Last week’s “illegal visitation” by members of the AWS Board of the Com? will apparently bring about a clarification oi the col- lege’s policy relating to violatlons of visitations rules and premari- tal sex among students. This week President Leggett told the 5&3: “On this matter of Illegal Visitation which extends overnight, I just don’t have an open mind on this . . Leggett observed that within the last genera- tion of college students there has been a marked change of attitude toward premarital sex; “it used to be that ii a boy spent the night with a girl they would be immediately expelled and no questions would be asked” But now, as evidenced by the demonstratiomlast week, some students are taking a diiierent attitude about it. Leg- gett said "Maybe the time has come that we must put some sort oi statement on premarital sex in the catalog. Maybe the time has come that the small college must say this is the climate of opinion and values we have here." Leggett has, by his own admission, changed his mind about his ptevrous statement on in loco paientis, (“I don’t believe in the in loco parentis concept The time is gone when the administration of a college can regulate student morality. . . son September 10, 1965). . For his current view oi in loco parentis Leggett pointed to a recent magazine article on small colleges ln which he was quoted: “All societies are founded on the idea of in loco parentis. . . . It depends on what kind of parent you're talking about. We don’t be- lieve in tyrannical control, but neither do we believe in abdication." .(Ltulk, October 4, 1966). Leggett says he sees the function and nature of the small col- lege as very much dillerent titan the large university and gave the opinion that die small college cannot encompass the variety of geople and behaviors that the university can, “What you want is omogeneity in academic and r i i in moral standards." Leggett indicated that it was a function of the college to estab- lish the “proper environment” ior students to live in and be rightly recognizes the interrelationship ot academic and non-academic life. But as recent statements from Leggett (see article on page 1, "Leggett Rejects Students’ Appeal”), the administration's “advis- ing" oi the Faculty Committee on Student Aliens in their decision X0 suspend three students and the administration’s influence which prompted the censorship of “The Chairs” (see 5&8, October 7 and 14) all indicate, Leggett and the deans intend to not only decide What sort of “environment” the Grinnell student should have but also what sort or penalties will be given to violators. We think this is a matter or concern for students and faculty alike. We think the inclusion of “moral guidelines”, defined by the administration, on matters or student conduct has very serious and very negative implications, We think the administration may he on the verge of taking a major step backwards in its quest for the “homogeneous moral and academic community.” . Because of the current trend toward liberalization of rules in most schools across the country, Grinnell and other small schools like it may soon find themselves to be rather alone with rule Struc- tures that Eliseo vivas recently termed "vestiges of the 19th Cen- tum” In a recent New York Times survey of eastern college rules (April 25, 1966 page 1:7) Ruth Darling, assistant dean for residence halls at Cornell (New York), where junior and senior girls have to check into their dorms only once a day, said: We don’t ask what they do and we don’t want to know, We don’t ask because the girls are presumed to be responsible.” The article commented: “Not one university official inter- viewed expressed dissatisfaction wiih the results of the liberalized rules — although several said they expected serious trouble." Co- lumhia, Cornell. Fordham, New York University. Princeton and yaie were included in the survey; almost all have legal visitation hours that vastly exceed Grinnell’s three hours per week. We would rather not believe Grinnell is really that different or that the stu- dents are significantly less mature than their eastern counterparts. We commend the efforts this year of student government to bring the relevant issues up for discussion and we commend the en- lightened attitude oi the student courts in taking a constructive counseling approach to student problems. We compare this with the administration's seemingly hysterical need to “separate ironi the campus" violators of an antiquated sexual ethic, We think the idea of the “community court” is a good one; whether or not it will work depends largely on the attitude of the ad- ministration. It would appear that the gulf between the administra- uon's “separation is necessary" and the student courts' “a severe warning the first time” attitudes may be too much [0 breach . We also see serious difficulties facing SGA in their attempts to bring the college more in line with the reality of the present student generation. in a speech given at Parents Weekend last year (0ctn~ her is, 1965) Leggett said: . . our colleges are managed by students, but I hope only in the sense that their welfare, not their voles, decide what lS_ to be done, Surely mdent government exists because it provides an arena of trai rig and a way of communication between faculty and students, not because ot any genuine political necessrty. what it comes down to is that neither college otncials our parents want to find themselves in a KYstem where the political and social rights of students are confused with their academic welfare and allowed to warp it on the grounds that a Student cannot be denied in college all the freedoms he has in his outside society. Students should not be encumbered with rules. Their society in the long‘run probably needs to be self regulating; but. college officials,_ not students have to define the environment in which this seltreguialing society is to operate, and it students SCARLET AND BLACK Friday. December 2, im Valid Generalizations i suppose that in writing a column, 1 take on a responsibil- ity. In analyzing the word "re» Sponsibility,” I find that it breaks down into the ability to respond, which, it Antigone is right, i must do if I can. 1 do believe in Antigone. The questions, then, are, “What do I respond to?" and “How do I respond?" i could re- spond to my internal reflection, write a monologue, a stream“- consciousness nonsense story. but that just doesn't seem right. I mean right in any way you want to conceive or it: morally right, pragmatically, or purely emotionally right. You can choose of these because I feel that I ought to respond to exter- nal stimuli (the school) rather than internal stimuli (myself); it would be better, for the news- paper and the school, if the col- umn were relevant; and, by God, I just want to talk about what is going on. Now, how dol respond? First, there has to be a reason to re- spond, a point to make, a rele- vant comment. Up until this point, i have been writing with one principle in mind: go to the extreme to get the point across. It’s just like teaching it small Child not. to take cookies from Lhe cookie jar; to make your point, you don’t say, “No, no, bad, bad." You give him a solid smack on the rear end. Sn 1 have attempted to go in an extreme with points, hoping that students, intelligent enough and, therefore, indignant enough to tone down the ex- rremism, would happen upon exactly the point I was trying to make. In some cases, it worked. But, lo and behold, as some» one very gently pointed out to me, there is a large dinerence between the extreme and the ir- rational. One doesn't make any point by being irrational except the point that he is irrational, And perhaps this mistake oi confusion and extreme, as a method of making a point, with the irrational, or beyond reason, was committed this past week by the student leaders of the College. In thinking that the protest was merely going to am extreme to make a point, per- haps they slipped into the ir- rational by not exhausting all possible means within the sys- tem before going outside of it in committing an illegal act. It would be unfortunate if they thought that they were ny- ing to elicit a "flexible policy" of handling student violations, while actually, that is just what they were combatting: a “tiexa ible policy” is a contradiction in terms, besides being a great danger to justice it merely by the fact that the extreme limit use of the word ”flexibility” is “whim". On whose whims do you wish to depend? Do you want whim or do you want a more liberal policy, on “ameli- oration” of the punitive mettle ods used with regard to rule violators? Do you want whim or do you want a definite, struc- tured guideline upon which to base a legal system? P e r h a p 5 these questions should have been answered be fore you protested; and if you, the student leaders, have an- swered them, why didn’t you give the student body a chance to see and perhaps amend your conception of the student body's desires? Perhaps you acted too hastily. —Paul R. Jones Letters . . . To the Editor: The recent suspension of three Griniiell students has served to highlight three cen- tral issues, the clarification and analysis of which are long overdue by both faculty and students. The most pervasive and tundamental issue concerns the role of Grinnell College in US. society at this time. is the College to be dominantly an encuiturator or received ideas, teelings, and patterns of be- havior or is it to be dominant ly a place where the received is critically scrutinized and the new totmulated and tested? is Grinncli College to be a center tor dissent and radical innoya» tion or for the turtherance of, at best, a discriminatingly slits ed status quo? Answers to these questions have implications ior the type of student the College admits, the type of faculty it attracts, the amount and source of tinancial support available to it, and the types of “aca- demic“ programs it offers A second pervasive issue, one closely related to the iirst is, what shall Grinncll College mean by "education"? Does "education” refer to gaining familiarity with and verbal fluency in the conceptual cate- gories and frameworks that have dominated western and eastern thought in the past and cur- rently without attending expli— citly to the relevance or these do not find this environment to their taste, then the adjust ment is theirs, not the college’s to make. and it is a matter of honesty to announce it.” We think the administration is a little confused about what Dean S. Eugene Thompson recently referred to as “. . . the line between caring about young people and caring ior young people." We are worried about the kind of student who will come to a school that takes the condescending views of students' ability to run their own personal lives that Grinnell does. Henry Steele Comniager, writing in the Saturday Review (Aug- ust 27, 1%6) on “The Nature 01 Academic Freedom" said: “The notion that the University should act "in loco pai‘entis" to its students is a relatively new and Limited one: to this day it. is confined pretty much to the Englishrspeakiug coun- tries, and unknown elsewhere. The principle 01 “in loco parenus" was doubtless suitable enough in an earlier era, when boys went to college at the age of thirteen or fourteen; if is a bit ridiculous in a society where most students are mature enough to marry and raise families.” We Suggest that the administration and faculty especially, take a long hard look into the current trend oi administrative policy, especially the educational implications oi the idea that students should all accept a uniiorin “moral code ot behavior" which must also be the administration's. We suggest that die administration study the recommendations set forth in the American Association of University Professors' “Statement on the Academic Freedom of Students" (December 1965 AAUF Bulletin) which outline a just procedure for handling student “violations"i And this week Leggetl. observed: “There is a fundamental dis- agreement With students on this matter of the moral question." We agree. —n. w. GRINNELL COLLEGE orluneil. lawn Scarlet and Blue A weekly ucwsoaper published rritlay or the college year by oi-lu nfl'l Committee on student ruolicullous. Represented int national uov r tisiug by National Adveilising Service, tnc, Colloge publishers Rep scnrativs. to east soth Street. New York, 2-» NY. second class postage paid at criuneii, lows. Subscription rate 5 per sci-moi year. icon bold subscriptions. notion nusmns a MANAGING EDITOR Harold hrson susou wni neury Wilhelm for the everyday, moment-to- moment life of the student; or does it refer to learning how to extrapolate from concrete in- formation nnd abstractions to one’s own life in it personally and socially meaningful and satisfying way? Does Grinliell hold there is a difference be- tween “education” and “pre- paration for life" or that these are synonymous terms? Regardless if Grinnell is to be dominantly either traditional‘or innovative, “educating" or “life preparing,” what part are stu- dents to play in the conduct at the (Zone 7 Are they to de« termine, j ntly or in parallel with the raculty, or singly, the rules governing their behavior —academic, social, etc. 7 or de- termine that there need he no rules at all? How “feasible" in operational, psychological, and sociological terms is gen- uinely (not nominally) ioint studentrfacully governance in which a student vote has the same weight in the decision making process as does the faculty vote? Inquiry into these underlying issues presents an opportunity for constructive, but challeng- ing, dissent by both Grinneil students and faculty. —Gcorge Eastman Professor at Education and Philosophy a a . Supports Disseniers To the Editor: One of the arguments cur- rcntly being used by students who do not.wish to sign the various statements expressing reservations about the demon- stration made by the Cofl-l'P and the aws Board last week is this: there is no need to ex- press reservations since nothing bad has happened. 1 think it should be pointed out to these students that the bad results of the demonstre. tion are real and permanent even though not immediately visible. Prospective donors to the College come, for the most part, ti-om social and economic classes who embrace a morality opposed to such demonstrations. The publicity attendant on the demonstration was largely un- favorable; such donors are apt either not to make gitts to the College at all or to reduce their LETTERS— (Continued on Page 7)