Friday ruory 14. I967 Confetti and Banners Photo By Susan Kaesen ‘iiii Uncertain Trumpet’ By David Dillon The recent SGA election raises more questions than it resolves. The student body has failed to provide a clear man- date in regard to its long-term aims and the means of their at~ talnment. The new SGA leader- ship must be challenged to formulate more clearly its di- rection and programs, Two distinct approaches to campus affairs were represent- ed in this campaign. The first— that of Ray Horn — sought progress through deliberation and accommodation. Legislation of social life had to be shared with the administration. Accord- ing to this position, positive academic co-operation could more readily ensue if efforts for rule changes were tempered and moderated. This outlook revealed many defects: it relied heavily on diplomacy and good will from an administration which, de- spite polite denials, has been often "neither nice nor ration- at.” Genuine differences of value were ignored. The rigidity imposed by structural necesSity -— the pressure tor students, taculty, and administrators to follow group interest — was not adequately faced. Still, Ham‘s case offered some co- herence, and bore a small chance of success Craig Allin posed campus problems with much greater depth and consistency Institu— tional conflict and disrespect for rules were to be counter- acted by student determination to affirmatively regulate themv selves. The attainment of more privacy — an essential aspect ot the maturing process H was urged as the primary social goal. Student participation in academic liie could be expand» ed through greater SGA fiscal independence While common positions on matters of campus concern were to be sought with the ad- ministration and faculty, time- tables of action would be fol- lowed, so that constructive pro- posals could not be defeated - through bureaucratic inertia. Communications with the stu- dent body — a major issue for all candidates — would have been established on a regular basis, through creation of a “Privy Council." Formation of a community court — a guarA aniee for consistent enforce- ment of necessary rules — was given a high priority. In addition, a realistic attitude to demonstrations, recognizing dliterences ot purpose and de gree, was repeatedly outlined. Allin offered all these initiatives Within a cohesive philosophical framework — a promising inte- gration of vision and action, The campaign of Ric Mac- Dowell seemed in some respects an unfortunate contest. Having contributed iiuittully to campus life — Interim is the best ex- ample — MacDoweil made some worthwhile suggestions for social and academic progress: e.g., the need for group recrea- tional events and foundation grants for sea. But he lacked a structure to unify his ideas, a trameworlr of encompassing goals. Statements on demonstra- tions and on practical methods of communication were often vague, shitting, and uncle- veloped. In brief, MacDowell presents a confusing image. His broad perspectives are appar- ently “liberal,” but his program ror implementation seems in- consistent, conservative, and sometimes naive. While an am- algam of views may attract a wide electoral base, MacDowell as President must offer direc- tion and decision. The middle course is not enough, To make certain that SGA is sustained in momentum and purpose, Allin and his support~ ers should form a “shadow cabinet” — a group of con cerned students who could offer specific legislation and provide a philosophical basis to demand needed institutional changes. The new leadership must some how be motivated from below. Student government must tace a critical decision. Are we to have consensus or commit- ment? - SCARLET AND BLACK Page Seven Proposal for Guaranteed 7' itian By Suzanne Gelber 5&3 Associate Editor ED. NOTE: This column is my planned response to the “News Analysis” article, an- nouncing a tuition increase. More than straight reporting, “News Analysis" articles are intended to serve one of two functions: either to present interpreflve reporting of on event as a reponer sees it; or to report facts which are the necessary background for the presentation of a particular news-based view- point. The previous article served the latter function since it was my hope to announce the tuition rise and the reasons for it in a manner which would allow me to use that {actual background in presenting Ihe toilow- ing editorial view. President Leggett's announcement of next years 8160 cost increase, defended as a response to higher operating costs, raises an interesting question: is an annual fee increase the only sold iion available to the college to deal with rising costs? Economically Sound Alternative 1 submit that it is not the only solution avail- able and that an alternative economically sound and philosophically more justiiiable has been too peremptoriiy dismissed by the administration. That alternative is a 4-year guaranteed cost plan, now in operation at both Beloit and St. Olaf, which insures entering students a uniform 4—year fee. (Former editor John Wolf proposed such I plan in the Nov. 5, 1965, 5&3.) Legqen. Suits: Say "Unmiistie" In an interview last week, both President Leg- gett and Dean Stauss labelled the possibility of installing a guaranteed cost plan at Grinnell "un- realistic” and “more trouble than it’s worth." The administration argument against the guar- anteed cost plan runs basically as follows: 1) The college’s operating costs are sub- ject to inflation and are not guaranteed, so the students should not expect guaranteed costs either; 2) Unlike Grinnell, schools which have guaranteed cost programs are church re- lated. insuring stable endowment; 3) New students would have to bear the brunt of cost increases under such I plan and average fees would be higher at Grin- nell than at competing institutions without the plan; 4) Therefore, a guaranteed cost plan would ut Grinnell in r less desirable position for competition for students, whose parents would jittigc comparative costs at their face value; 5) Finally (added as an afterthought by President Leggett) the application of an en- tering student is not 1! hlnding legal contract with the student guaranteeing particular fees; in fact, an application is merely a one year proposition concerning I student's Iti- tendunce It the college. 50 runs the administration position. It sounds justifiable and realistic — at first, Even a super- ficial investigation of the argument, however, reveals not only logical and factual inadequacies, but assumptions on the part of the administration which contradict the college’s stated aims. Strong Case for Cost Plan There is a strong case to be made for the es- tablishment of a guaranteed cost plan at Grinnell, rather than for the unwelcome continuation of annual cost increase announcements. The case for guaranteed costs can easily be argued on its own merits. However, since the administration has chosen to register only objections to the pro posal, it may be more significant to establish the case for guaranteed costs by answering the argu- ments presented against it. In discussing the economic and philosophical justification of the guaranteed cost proposal, eco« nomics department members Robert H. I-laveman and William Pollak concurred in the opinion that such a plan would be “economically feasible” at Grinnell. Pollak commented more specifically, "it’s basically a question of whose is the ulti- mate financial responsibility for rising costs — the college or the parents.” Pollak contintted, “What the student is ‘btiy- ing‘ at Grinnell is a 4-year college education. The college is in a better posrtion than the parents to make an educated guess, to take the economic risk of projecting cost increases which would dot termine the comprehensive 4-year fee.” Yearly Raises Nor Responsible Perhaps it is time to deal with the administran tlon’s objections to guaranteed costs in their re: spectivc order. First, the fact that the college’p operating costs are subject to inflation and arc not guaranteed does not mean that, therefore, students’ fees must blindly reflect the samd trend. If this college were the socially responslvd and responsible institution it claims to be (so. President Leggett‘s February 8 speech to the Stu- dent Senate) and really wished to produce gradrp ates who reflected the “selfless” character “ilk herent” in the liberal arts, how could it selfishl! refuse to accept the economic responsibility for cost increases? Schools Have More Stable Income The administration argues that schools which presently operate guaranteed cost programs are church related and therefore have more predict- able and stable endowments than does Grinnell, A bit of research uncovered the following inter- esting facts which reflect on this argument: 1) Grinnell, with an enrournent of 1150, has on endowment, according to Couege Treas- urer George Kaufmann, valued as or August 31, 1968 at $16,598,000 (market value; hoolr value is $10,584,000), including endowed scholarship funds of $623,000, according to the present catalog. 2) lioth neloit and st, Olaf have 4-year guaranteed tuition plans, Both schools have larger enrollments than does Grinnell (be. loit, 1350; so Olaf, 2,370). Although St. out is church-related (American Lutheran Church) its total endowment of $2,294,000 pales in comparison with our own and yet, its comprehensive fee ($2200) is lower than our annual fee. Beloit‘s comprehensive fee of 33,000 is only 5100 per year more than our own, Thus, it is not correct to argue that church} related schools are necessarily in a better eco- nomic position and better able to predict their costs than is Grinnell. Moreover, if both Beloll and St, Olaf, which are in relatively Inferior eco- nomic circumstances in comparison to Grinnell, nevertheless assume the responsibility for cost increases, there is no economic justification for Grinnell’s negative position. Guaranteed Fees a Selling Point As for the third objection, two colleges with smaller incomes than Grinnell (and larger stu- dent bodies) now operating on the guaranteed cost plan are charging fees either lower or only slightly higher than Grinnell’s $2900 charge for 1967—68. Moreover, guaranteed cost fees are high- er than average annual fees only for the initial two years of a student's attendance and, in the end, given inflationary costs at Grinnell, probably tum out to be a long-run saving for the student and a more predictable income for the collegc. The public relations effect of a guaranteed cost plan has not proved unfavorable at either St. Olaf or Beloit, In fact, both colleges use Ch! plan as a "selling point" in their catalogs. A thoroughly explained and publicized guaranteed cost program at Grinnell might well become an attractive factor in competition for students. since other colleges would not be able to offer parents comparable economic security. Application Not a Contract President Leggett’s final objection to a guan- anteed cost program contains the most dismaying implications of the argument. While it is true that an application is not a binding legal con— tract, it seems like hair-splitting to reiterate thic point in the face of statements like the toitowing in the Bulletin (P. 22): “Grinnell is devoted ex- clusively to the liberal arts. It offers an inter grated fourvyear program. i ." An applicant to Grinnell is buying, not a year’s dormitory residence, but a Grinnell education, an education which normally takes four years to complete. A college boasting such on “inte- grated” program cannot in all conscience frag. ment its costs and illogicaliy reiuse to consider an “integrated" 4-year guaranteed fee program.