Fridayi December 9, mo SCARLET AND BLACK Page Seven } Letters (Continued from Page is) for the next offense of a simi- lar nature. 1 strongly believe that ottt of the confusion and resulting con- flict of feelings on everyone: part these last two weeks, we can extract something to build on. Our student leaders’ single act of protest, and hopefully the debate over the question of its advisability, is over. We can gain nothing by brooding over what is past; we can gain much by now working together for the future. ——Don Kurasch Another Berkeley To the editor: in these last few weeks the administration has frequently suggested that those students who disagree with their stand. ords make plans to leave the college. it would be unfortunate if the students complied with the administrations request. it is often the case that those stu- dents who protest most vehe- mently against those policies which they feel to be wrong are the same students that care most deeply about the college. When one sees that someone worthwhile is making a mistake, is it right to do nothing about 1 . The college. an educational institution, is as deserving of our efforts. Why give money as alumni to an institution that one tailed to try to improve as a student? Why prop tip an anach. runism? _ if the administration’s “like it or lump it.” policy is followed. Crinnell will soon find itself with a population of indifferent students. students that are in- different about college policy are less likely to be excited about anything else. from Dante to thermodynamics. In changing an existant pol- icy it is best to work from with. in the rule structure. Since it is not given to the student to be a dean, the participation of student government seems called for. Last week, in an orderly and constructive way, student government attempted to right what they felt to be a severe wrong. Unfortunately, the col- lege did not see fit to reward a Constructive attempt and so other methods were tried, students have exhausted every method. It is to be wondered if, perhaps the college administra- tion wants another Berkeley. One would find it very difficult to place any other construction upon their action, —narcy B. Kelley Answers Crossefl' To the Editor: In answer to John Crossett, Associate Professor of Classical Languages, I would like to tiuote the words of fiichard T. LaPiere, in his book, A Theory of Social Control (p. 353): . . . innovation requires an atypical degree and kind of social isolation, a condition which might well be described as social insulation, since it does not necessarily mean the lack of normal group mem— bership. Unless the individual is adequately insulated from social controls, he will find himself, as most men do most of the time. preoccupied with andhis time p cmpted by ' status-group acti ties, and he will be unable to persevere in the innovative quest. So- ciety is for the most part geared'to the maintenance of routine forms of conduct. Ev- en in organizations, such as modern universities, which of- fically encourage and spon— sor creative effort, such effort is often systematically it unin- tentionally discouraged by both official and unofficial demands on the scholars time and energies. Perseverance in innovative endeavor would seem to he a function of atypical values, especially those relating to group membership and status, and of limited sensitivity to sympathetic and other normal demands on the individual’s time and energies. The illdir vidual must to a degree at least put aside the needs as locally defined, of his wife and children, the demands of his occupation, and the inter- ests of his friends and Her qualntances, in favor of his inventive project. lt would seem that in general success- ful innovators are character- istically somewhat rude and ruthless; but it does not fol. low that an unteeling and self~centered egotist neces~ sarily possesses the other at- tri utes, motivational and otlr erwisc, which are essential to innovation. Sociologists have observed that innovations ape pear most frequently in those societies that have a suffici- ently high standard of living to provide their members with the leisure (freedom from immediate practical concerns) necessary to work out innovations; however, many societies have main tained in permanent leisure an entire Class — 8.3., the scholars of China and the priests of the Middle Agesi without profit. Apparently, therefore, it is not so much freedom from material want as freedom front group ohli gations which, other and equally essential factors be ing present. enables an inn dividual so to concentrate on a given task that he may eventually succeed in produc ing something new. What LaPicre has said leads to the conelttsion that some of “those . . whose vision ex- tends beyond the problem of lionlen‘s hours and cars and open dormitories" must have an flbllgmatism, _Terry liloss Lowly Student and Even More Lowly Pemale Answers Crossett Again Dear Doctor Crassett, in reference lo your recent , letter in the sat-l1. some of us feel that money is important; however, money is not the only factor determining the quality of an educational institution. Potential donors should be gnen an accurate description of the college to which they offer ME lflli IllllI-lfll TANDARD couuns g; support. Many of us, as stu- dents, feel that the protest was an attempt to expose, honestly, problems within the college community. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that differences of opinion should be buried solely to secure fi- nancial support. Your comments support a continued policy of hypocracy. Under this policy offenders me only occasionally apprehended; then they are treated as if they were rare exceptions to the norm of cam- pus life — which. in fact, they are not. it is the rules which represent a misconception of what the Grinneli student is and, we feel, should be. Education is not Just the ac- ceptance of doctrine — social or academic — but rather the development of critical and evaluative abilities. Do you really propose a system in which prescriptions are given and students dutifully gulp down their medicine? if Grin- nell should become that sort of system. the educational atmos- phere would no sacrificed and replaced by that of a morgue— for surely in this context the panacea is worse than the di- scase. —Jeal|ne Diller Cook The Two Harvards To the Editor: Harvard University seems to me to faster two alternative outlooks. In the first place, it is an institution which prides and bases itself upon the found. ations of a timeless (but alas tiniewornl tradition. It is the Harvard which takes pride in itself because it is Harvard and therefore right (“as right as right can be," according to w. 5. Gilbert). It is the Harvard which looks forward to the past. It is this Harvard which pro. duces graduates who say, Those of us whose vision extends beyond the problem of women’s hours and cars and open dormitories can diagnose the illness. The approach ls smug, stodgy and classical. The diagnostic system is that of llippoerates. The grammer is impeccable. The concern is with preserving this, the best of all possible worlds. And even it it is not, it is better not to reevaluate anyway. since re-evaluation kicks up ancient dust and fogs up our spectacles And besides, we already know what is 'lght because we have already experi- enced the world , . , and gone to Harvard , . . and you haven’t. There is, however, another llarvard. This Harvard respects btit does not revere the past it bases itself not upon the firm but childish foundations of blindly accepted dogma, but up- on a caravan toward progress If the caravan sometimes looks like a circus, this is attr' able to the antics of the traditional Step Up To JD‘S RESI'AURANT stunted—at 721v: Main. Grit-hell clowns. This second Harvard produces graduates who ask, Is the College to he domi- nantly In enculturator of re ceived ideas, feelings, and patterns of behavior or is it to he dominantly a place where the received is critical- ly scrutinized and the new formulated and tested? Is Grinnell College to be a cen- ter for dissent and radical in novation or for the further- ance of, at best, a discrimi- natingly sifted status quo? The approach is fresh and vigorous. It suggests no easy answers, but it urges that the question be seriously encount- ered. Absurd and arrogant smugness gives way to humility and flexibility. No easy diag» hoses are attempted; no quack cures are prescribed. l tail to see why the doctorate should entitle one [0 play doctor, ——Lester L. Tobias Letter to DAR To the Editor: Now that you have given Bob Hodierne a 21)age spread. in the interest of Justice, inorahs tic and conscioiiahle Journalism, it is incumbent upon you to give equal time and space to the other side of the story. If the title. “Official Photo grapher, UtFJ." is so impressive to you. let us recommend iilr. Jim G. Lucas, Scripps Howard Correspondent, a capable, ex- perienced reporter of three wars, a mature thinker and a loyal American. Enclosed is an article written by Mr. Lucas which I recommend you print The primary duty of an ed tor is to edit; that is, delete from material submitted the superfluous, the unsavory. the bad taste. If an editor has an opinion which might be con- sidered worthy of attention, he writes it. in an Editorial. It is not only unethical but poor Journalism to permit prejudicial cppy to be printed verbatim Simply because the editor may be of the same opinion. Am! Still More letters . . . You should he lnterested to know that a few years ago a Colorado university newspaper printed an article far less por- tentous than Hodierne’s com» ments. The situation grew, with the editor and others hiding be bind the facade of the Free Press. Finally, the apathetic public became so insensed that the editor and staff and, event- itally, the university President were forced to resign. l d not wish to imply, nor shoul you infer that i am drawing a parallel condition. I merely wish to alert you to the fact that the power of the press should not be underrated; nor should the power of an irate reading public be underesti- mated. Printed in the Rocky hioun- tain News, Denver, Colorado, Saturday, October 22, 1966. (Editor’s note: As a tribute to American servicemen in Viet Nam, Senate Republican Leads er Everett Dirksen has inserted in the Congressional Record a letter written by Scrippsl-lo ward correspondent Jim C. Lucas to hlrs. Pearle Norman of the District of Columbia chapter of the Daughters ot the American Revolution. The let- ter follows.) A Dirty War Fought by Good Lads DEAR MRSi NORMAN: 1 am honored that you have asked me to address a message to the members of your chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, to be read at your October meeting. Never before have our fight~ ing men been in greater need of the support of loyal Ameri- cans at home. This is a dirty war. Often, it is a war little comprehended by the men who are fighting it. Yet. 1 am convinced each of them knows in his heart that what he is doing is just and LETTERS— (Conlinued on Page 8) SHGP POYNTER'S for Selections in All. YOUR CHRISTMAS GIFTS You’ve Never Seen So Much Fashion In One Little Si‘ore OYNTER' 4th Ave. Fashions "SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY"