Page Two

The Grinncll REPORTER

 

Editorials .

Two more out on morals —

Once again the deans (Richard Winters, Alice Low and 5. Eugene
Thompson) and members or the Faculty Committee on Student Aliairs
~(tlZ'cnis de Coteau, George Zimmar, Benny Neizger, Bruce Thomas and
Joseph Wall) have thought it their place to pass personal (and prtidisli)
moral judgments on others But as modern society gives up the “in loco
parentis” concept, we will eventually reflect “That’s just the way people
were then . . . they couldn’t help it." (See story on page 4)

Still another ”image-maker” on cot mpus

The greatest danger of a facility and administration which has
the “good image” mania is that students themselves may begin to
(oar healthy controversy. The recent letter sent to all outside sub—
soribers or The Reporter and given to all students by SGA President
Ric MacDowell was another attempt to cover up and smooth over
something that should be of much concern to everyone at Grinneli —-
namely the men’s campus problem.

01 course we grant MacDowell the right to say what he wants
to say, but ive don’t think his “personal letter” was the best way
to go about it. A letter to the editor printed in The Reporter would
have been better; things would have been kept in context. And Mac»
Dowell's letter would not have been printed in this week’s Herald
negister, ivhose readership knows little about Grinnell and nothing
about The Reporter or "Spring Riot.” Then too, if MacDowell had
written a letter to the editor he wouldn’t have telt it necessary to
use The Reporter‘s subscription file without permission of The
Reporter. We suggest that MacDoweil try to avoid the common
Grinnell administration plight of worrying about public-relations
more than some at the real and pressing problems facing Grinneii.

There is a serious problem with the lite on North Campus and
“Spring Riot” was it Significant symptom of that problem. The
Reporter coverage of the "Riot” did, in our opinion give a tairly
accurate impression of “Riot” activities. It was not any more sen-
sational than the "Riot” itself; we didn’t show the Vomit-smeared
iloors, unsuspecting girls being bombarded with water balloons and
beer; drunken, violent students being subdued by walkie—talkie carry-

ing ColHP oificials and doors lying shattered on hall floors.

We hope that the newly elected MacDowell is not so' naive as to
be ignorant of what went on with a very large number of stu-
dents “Riot” night. We hope MacDowell has some concern for the
everyday serious problem of North Campus life.

 

letter . . .

Comment on the censorship
Ed. Note:

John \Volf wrote the prologue and
much oi the text to Grinneu College
1966. Shortly before the book was
delivered to the printers Wolf helped
Wilhelm make final revisions and
prootread the entire manuscript.
Woii is currently a graduate student
at the University of Wisconsin with
an assistantship in science writing.

May 14, 1967
To the editor:

Having worked with Henry Wilhelm
during the iinai stages of production of
the 1966 yearbook, I can say that Grim
nell College -— 1966 is a creation that
should be read, not shunned. in its
present state — resting unpublished in a
saiedeposit box — the book represents
thousands of manrhours of work. The
editors did not spend this time thinking
up ways to libel the college or members
of the college community. They did
spend the time making numberless pho-
tographs e excellent photographs - oi
Grinneli students and their environment.
They did spend the time assemblin ,
judging. accepting and rejecting p -
titres. They did spend the time connect-
ing the final 500 pictures with a text
that provides both an explanation oi the
photos and an exploration of some as
pects of “Grinnelll — The Small Liberal

Arts College” that don’t lend themselves
to photography.

Grinnell couege — 1986 is not a super-
iicial public relations too], although
many sections at the book tell happy,
proud stories of Grinnell Students. There
are “libelous” sections, too; but to quote
5. Eugene Thompson dean of men and
former Scarlet 81 Black columnist, “I'm
cnnvrnced that this campus needs more
satire, more intelligent hell-raising,
more cussing and libel, and more dissat-
isfaction in student affairs” (58:13, Jan.
1958). Mr. Thompson will want to read
Grinnell College — 1966!

Student affairs, however, is not the
only target of intelligent hellrraislng,
cussing, libel, and dissatlsiacilon. The
editors have rightfully questioned tenets
of the college’s educational philosophy—-
ond have even agreed with several oi
them.

The book needs no further defense. It
is not legally libelous because it is not a
misrepresentation. Pictures purporting to
be or a pot party are of a pot party just
as surely as pictures purporting to be
of animal ecology students are or animal
ecology students.

President Leggett has made a mistake
in denying the college community a
chance to view and read this legitimate
essay that should provoke every Grin—
nellian. The Grinnell community should
make every eifort to facilitate the print-
ing of Grinnell College — 1966 and to
reject categorically any suggestion of
administration censorship.

John Wolf ’66
Editor Scarlet In Black 1954-65

Friday, May IV. "767

Leggett is currently "considering"
new proposal to allow publication
of censored 1966 yearbook

Ed. Note:

At a Board or Publications meeting
Wednesday, Susan will offered a mo-
lion that the proposal passed at the
special meeting Sunday, which gave the
board powers of censorship in dealing
with the 1966 yearbook, was out of order
as it. violated the lay-laws lit the Board.
Miss Will’s motion was no! voted on.
Dr. Joseph wall, ex-oiiicio member of
the board and recently elected to the
State Board of [he lowa Civil Liberties
Union, has allegedly claimed the Suri-
day proposal was not a motion to cen-
sor the book, but only the Board’s exer-
cising of o ”publisher’s prerogative” in
the alteration of the book ior proper
balance and (one.

By l-iarold Fnson

Will there ever be a 1966 Cyclone?
This question is not a new one on
campus. People have been asking it
ever since the original publication date
passed last September.

Until last week, the answer had always
been yes. it had become an even more
definite yes when the completed manu-
script was delivered to the printer on
April 2, leer.

But, then, in a Smashing blow dealt
almost simultaneously to the editors, the
Committee on Student Publications, and
the Senate, President Glenn Leggett an-
nounced last Wednesday, May 10, that
publication was to be halted.

He cited legal advice that there was
“considerable libelous material in the
proofs" as the basis for his decision.

At this moment, the official position
remains as it was last Wednesday: Cy-
clone ’66 (or as its editors preier to
call it, Grinnell College — 1966 will
not appear.

Steps are still being taken, however,
in efforts to publish the book either in
its present form or with substantial
changes,

A resolution passed by the tacultystu—
dent Committee on Student. Publica-
tions, Sunday, would have made possible
the publication of the book after reView
by the voting membership at that com-
mittee wtthout the editors' participation.

The committee with the advice of the
college’s legal counsel would correct the
manuscript for potentially libelous ma-
terial. They would then review the book
for “content.”

This idea has been rejected by the
book’s editors, iohn Phillips and Henry
Wilhelm, who now have the manuscript
locked in a safe depOSlt box. Wilhelm
said of the committee’s resolution, “We
rejected that categorically.”

Wilhelm claims he was told that the
committee in its review would concern
itself with matters of “(one and bal-
ance.” He feels this would constitute a
term of censorship.

Both Wilhelm and Phillips have been
dismissed from the college for academic
reasons. Wilhelm lives in Grinnell and
Phillips, now a student at Friends World
institute, is staying with Wilhelm on a
previously planned visit.

A lawyer, Michael Homatt (a mem-
ber of the Grinnell class of 1963) of
Washington, D.C., is now acting on be-
half of the editors.

Wilhelm said, “l-lorwait is in the pro-
cess of attempting to reopen negotiations
with the administration.” Wilhelm would
not elaborate further, saying, “For,
Phillips or me to say anything about it
might hurt the negotiations.”

He added, “We naturally have very
strong feelings on the subject.” He also
said he felt there was “reason for opti-
mism."

in an intervtew yesterday, Leggett said
he had talked to Horwalt by phone on
Monday. Horwatt Said he would send
Leggett a written proposal as soon as
possible. Leggett described the call as
a “very amiable one.”

Horwatt's proposal would reportedly
call for a review of the book by the
college's legal counsel who would note
all material which he considered libel-
ous. Horwatt would then check the re-
port of the college’s lawyer. The two of
them would reach an agreement on
changes to be made. Then the manu-
script would be returned to Leggett who
would have a month to decide whether
to approve its publication.

Leggett is now awaiting Horwatt’s pro-
posal before undertaking further action.
He stressed the fact, however, that the
problem is really in the hands of the
student publications committee.

Leggeti’s letter of May 10, 1967, to the
Committee on Student Publications de«
tails the chain of events leading to his
decision to halt the book’s publication.

An Official of the American Yearbook
Company, the book’s printer, iniormed
Leggett by phone on April ll, 1967, that
he had examined the book and found
parts of it “objectionable." The oliicial
requested a statement train the college
releasing the company from any resporr
sibility.

Leggett told the official that it is “not
the present practice of college oiticials
to review manuscripts oi student publi-
cations before they were submitted to
the printer." He requested that ihs
oitlcial communicate his concerns di-
rectly to the chairman of the student
publications committee, B e n j a m in
Graham (biology)

The official wrote to Graham on April
12, 1867, His letter said, “, . . much of
the editorial content of the copy repre-
sents a major departure irom what ll
normally found in a college yearbook.

“In tact, it is our opinion that much
of the editorial content could possibly
result in libelous situations involving in-
dividual students at Grinnell College 01'
the Publications Committee at Grinnell
College.”

Graham asked the official to return
the manuscript to him so that he could
bring it to the “attention of the com-
mittee and others in a position to judge
whether or not its publication would be
in the best interests oi the college.”

See CENSORSHIP on page It

 

The Grinnell Reporter

(formerly the Scarlet 3i Block)

Grinnell College
Grinnlli. Iflwl soiiz

0P8

A weekly newspaper published each Friday or
the college ycnr by the Grinch committee on Stu-
dent publications.

Represented tor notional raver.

m , using by Naiiormt Advertising Servrce, the, College
M" be “i "" Publishers Representative, in Ensr Shin. Street. New

Coiicgim
floss Servico

EDi‘iOR . .
BUSINESS MANAGER

York 22, NY, Second class postage pout or Grinnell
Iowa. subscription rate 55.09 per xchool year. taint
raid subscrimionl.

.. Krystyna Neumen
, ens-n wlu