Page Two Edilo Is Deans' Vel'o Cri‘licized . . . By Vetuing proposed open rooms during North Campus Week- end, the Deans’ Committee has implied its negative position on the visitation question. it: procedural objections to open rooms are pragmailcally indefensible: mere prior notification is the only preparation required [or such visitation. The Committee‘s Contention that “the program for the week- end as presented at the meeting did not require open rooms," is capricious perversion oi the intention oi the handbook’s "appro- priateness” Clause rather than a clarification of it. Students are not arguing lbr the necessity oi open rooms this weekend; they are arguing for an appropriateness which has been traditionally estab lished. No social event is, strictly speaking, “required," yet any event is the sum of its parts and open rooms are an integral part or North Campus Weekend. Dictatoriul prohibition of open rooms is, at the least, had psy- chology and at worst, a violation or community integrity. Need one one the’obvious example or Prohibition, its attendant abuses, and eventual repeal? To deny the conventional request tor open rooms, winch require a bare minimum or planning, on procedural grounds is to disregard visitation's praisewprlhy aim or encourag- ing informal socializing on a campus much in need of such oppor- tunity. The connotations of the Deans’ Committee decision are all too clear. The Committee has played its hand # and its trump card is a Club. If it is indeed the aim of the Committee to “keep the issues honest" the committee must define rather than avoid the issues. it it is the aim oi the Committee to avoid alienating Seg< merits oi the college community (it this is a cummunily), it be- hooves the Committee to judge the question of open rooms on this occasion or any other occasion in an open minded manner and to remain responsibly receptive to the opinion or the community it seeks to serve. —S. G. ln’rerim Lauded . . . We praise the initative shown by students who setup and par- ticipated in the interim Session. Their efforts indicate that students can be highly motivated to learn on an independent basis and Without the pressure at forced academia. Rick MacDowell, who supervised the planning of Interim, es< pecialiy deserves congratulations. Undaunted by Administration skepticism, he brought the initial plans to iruition. The College shnuld iurther encourage (allow?) Students it) de— velop initiative and sell~motivation in academic areas. The external pressure of grades and requirements cease after the college years; the desire [or education should not. —K. N. New Editor . . . The editorship of the 5&3 has been tossed around a bit since leaving Hal Fuson‘s hands last semester. Suzanne Gelher was elected editor for a full week until she made plans to enroll in an oft-campus program. Now Suzanne is back with us as Associate Editor (her course schedule would not permit a leave at this time) and i find myseli as 5&3 editor tor the next year. The newspaper is in a stage or transition; a new stall is being developed. By soliciting stories lrom non-start students who are “special- ists” in a particular held of interest, we Wish to broaden the per- spective oi the paper. The end product may tend toward a journal rather than a newspaper but such an orientation is probably more befitting a college weekly. We think you will lind the new Grinnell weekly more pertinent, more mature, more intellectual. We also hope to evolve to an easierrto-read and visually pleasing lormat, We subscribe to the in-depth, “news analysis” philosophy at reporting and to the integrity or the student tree press, Krystyna Neuman Scarle'l' and Black GIINNELL COLLEGK Grill-tell, [own A weelii newspaper published each Friday or the college year y the Grinnell Committee on Student Pub- lications. ncpresented ior national idvcrlismg by Na- noiml Advertising Service, lnc., college euphshcrx v). Representative. is cast som street, New York, . N v. csccpnd class postage paid it Grihncil, lowa, subscription rate 55.01) per school year. ixoo plid subscriptions. _ 0, (a 6, 20mm .... .... , nusmzss MANAGER assocmrs EDITOR EDITORS’ ASSISTANTS EDITORIAL STAFF ... . Kryslyim Neumflll ,, Susnn will . suzimnc Gelher lenld Fits , Henry Wilhelm Richlm Kamp, Plul Nochmon. nitnhrd Schneirouv, Knlhy slice sl-onrs LDI'IOR . Sieve Casey CHIEF pnerooxarnen , BUSINESS STAFF . Mike Delole, Chuck Den-chock REPuN'i'iNG STAFF arm. Berkcy, Nell Fischer, inn mic, AMI! hm PM)“: Murny. Sarlll Diorlen, Don Whiney . sushi. Kuuer SCARLET AND BLACK Friday, January 20. m7, a A Student Opinion Perspective By Grant Crandall Richard Schneirov Aiter reading the statements attributed to President Leggett in the editorial oi the Decem her 2 issue oi the 5&1}, we tell it necessary to re- ply. in a statement which we decided not to pub- lish, we called President Leggett a hypocrite. Wo telt that his statements on “in loco parentis", map aliiy, community and student government contra- dicted earlier statements he had made and state- menls lound in the catalog. However, in order to be fair to President Leggett, we decided to talk to him betcre publishing the article. Aitcr on intensive, two hour talk on December a, we lelt that our original article was an incorrect analysis of the situation. Because or this interview we now tool that President Leggeit is not a hypocrite, is not trying to deceive the students, but, on the contrary, is conscientiously trying to fulfill his duties as president of the college. The question still remains, however, how could Mr, Leggett publicly contradict himself so unknowingly? The answer lies in his inabil- ity to communicate erlectivcly with the Stu» dent body. We left our talk with the reeling that president Leggett had been using such words as democracy, community Ind morality very loosely and with meanings quite tiller- ent train the meanings that many students give to them. For example, to Leggett a community is simply an aggregate pl individuals living together. He completely ignores the modern connotation of the term implying a mutual respect and responsibility among equals. To Mr. Leggett democracy seemingly has no po— litical implications. The statement that Grin- pell is democratic means to him that all stu. dents are equal and may talir to the adminis. trntlon about their problems at any time. This retsricted dcliniticn allowed Leggett to say that student government did not cxist ror any “genuine political necessity" but only as an “Arena for training." Perhaps the most basic disagreement we have with Mr. Leggelt is on the “in loco parentis” is. sue. Mr. Leggett insists that the administration “define the environment in which the students' sellregulaung society is to operate." To us, how- ever, it is obvious that whoever controls the one vironment will also c o n t r o l the society. We believe that while the administration can set guidelines, it should do so only after consultation and general agreement by the students. This division on loco pai'entis" maniresis itselr most openly in the pnemarital sex issue. in our conversation Mr. Leggett reiterated that “he did not have an open mind on this issue." He stated that by this stand he was saving the students involved tram hurting themselves, their families and their lrlends. He said he was looking out lor the wellare oi im- mature students. We cannot agree with Mr. Leggett's judgment on this matter. We reel that Grinnell students are mature enough to make moral decisions tor thcmsclves. Anyone close to the students or Grinnell will recognize that they are making these decisions and will on leggett continue to make them whcihcr the college likes it or not. College should be a place where students are searching, questioning, and trying out new ideas. We believe that education is precisely learning how to live, and that o small, liberal arts college such as Grinneli has a unique opportunity to ex~ perimcnt in new approaches to living. We can only improve society by crcating a better one vironment here in Grinnell than we have else where. In reporting on the Encampment for tho 5&1} Kathy Jagow stated, “An initial goal of the liberal arts college is to alienate the student in some degree from his society, by pointing to the myths of our culture and the inconsistencies or our system of thought and behavior.” We don't want an exact, miniature version of outside suciv ciy with its hate, prejudice, and strile, We are here at Grinneil in search lor an alternative. That is why we disagree with Mr. Leggett when he takes a rigid, rundcmentalist position on morality, and when he says, "if students do not find this environment to their taste, then the adjustment is theirs, not tbe college’s.” We reel that the college should have the flex~ lbllity to change, Why do so many conscientious and intelligent students choose a small college over a large university? Isn’t one or the reasons precisely because they think that the smallness and closeness of the liberal arts community will enable them to influence what goes on abou them, while in a large university they would tee lost and insignificant? This is why Leggett’s authe oriiarian philosophy, which is only now being res vealed, is so disillusicning. Wc feel that the wide disparities that exist be- tween the educational, social, and moral phil- osophies or the. members or the Grinnell com. munity must be discussed, debated, and re- conciled anew. The issue or morality is one about which there is great need lop better com- munication and understanding between the nunger generation and the older generation. ilorallty, including more than sex, can no long. er be dictated by the administration of a coir iege (it may be dictated hut intelligent student! just won't blindly roliow it). it must be and is decided by each person individually. it the members at tht administration and the lnculty wish to aid the students “in a lifelong quest tor a considered sense of values" (according to the catalog), they must not limit their help to merely dictating behavior by rules because this authoritarian approach will generally be unsuc- cesslul in dealing with the intelligent, question. ing students ot crinpell. They must advise the students, not dogmatically lay down rules. The College may successtully enforce its rules on morality, prevent student misconduct and avoid public censure, but it will not have persuaded the student to incorporate its moral values as his own. it was with the hope that we plight improve communication among the students, faculty and administration that we wrote this article. In view or this aim we recommend that discussion groups and seminars of students, taculiy, and adminis- tration on campus morality be established. lam a Senior. and at (ours. ihsye to late phylicli til- nets.l know I had in do it but I war slisidi The first d-y l went out, and after running around ”in traelt a low times I got rick. Right in the middle of tit. field! iii. nart timl l didn't get sick, but l wlrit back to my room uni collapsed. l cutsll my classes tor three dayr. 7. By the rim. I had l'u isle his text. though. I nit pretty good. And I could do syery. rhing without lap much pain. The day at the mi l was piraid. but I went out and pm my al|.l parredll So he" i am a senior. about to ink. my Compr, sndi found out that I want to he I Phys. Ed. mater.