Pa Four SCARLET AND BLACK Frlday Octolnr I“! letters to the Editor Student Newspaper of Grinnell College izoz PARK SIREET oiimiim. IOWA 50111 An lndepcndem newspaper published weekly, excepi during holidays and exami» nation periods by the crinnell Committee on Student. Publications. suosoripiiori yaw $6.00 per Ichool year. James Alexander Arlctl . Kirherine Newkirk Jenrcy Shectcr ler, Benson srnirh . aruce Strom . Douglas Earl Mimi Anderson, niedre Prlkopa Michele Canrlght. Don l-iecker ., , Helen Gabon, John Gardner. Rzggle Graham, John Gordiey, Sieve Grow, Allan Hon, Pam Hum, Karen some may Roof, Mark Snbleman, Lynne sierners, Benson srnirh, Maren srewarr, rvor Siookley Editor-inchier Men-ping Editor sporrs Ediror Associate Edllo Business Manager eireulerion Manager cartoonists . sun rhorograpners aeporrers The Administration’s Predicament Because of its past policies the administration of Grinnell College is in a position where it is going to have to yield to students’ demands for a change of rules. In the past, the administration has said that one of the reasons the college did not change its rules was that it preferred not to act before other colleges. Grinnell chose not to be a leader in the general laxity in rules that accompanied the wide acceptance of the “new morality.” Rather, it chose the safer policy of waiting to see what happened to the innovators, and then to change slowly and by degrees. Other colleges in our own conference have re- laxed their rules with respect to open dormitories. Grinnell, in accordance with its “keep up with the Joneses" policy, will probably change its rules, too. Now the administration is not so obtuse as those students mentioned in last week’s editorial, Ex Post Facto Philosophy. They are not so simple as to think that they can change the rules and then adopt a philosophical stand which justifies the change. They will want to change their philosophy beforehand, or seek some provision in their old one, a sort of loophole, which will enable them to change in a way least damaging to them. The administra- tion has such a loophole, and there have been indi- cations that they will take advantage of it. The revision in the residence hall system is the perfect time to review the old rules. You see, the old rules might not be valid under new circum- stances Hence a thoughtful discussion of the rules is in order. It is clear that there are only two stands the administration can otherwise take. The one is to act in accordance with what are probably its true beliefs, it could refuse to change the rules on ac- count of the underlying moral reasons. If the ad- ministration, however, chooses to act in this way, if the president chooses to see that all the rules are enforced and that the rules remain as they are, he will probably cause the same sort of disruptive ac- tivities that occurred at Columbia and forced the shutdown of that institution, An administration simply cannot function unless it has the support of the majority of the students and members of the community. The administration could refuse to take any form of action, to let things fall where they may. They might capitulate as completely as o t h e 1‘ schools have done. This, however, would not be a‘ {wry honorable way to go about solving the prob- em. So probably the best the administration can do is to undergo this period of review, to justify a change of rules because of the revision in hall liv- ing, and thus to capitulate subtly to the demands of the students. Now the student government ought to take note of the administration’s predicament. They ought to realize that if they now go through channels, they would be likely to obtain a large helping of what they want, The administration Will surrender, if it can do so honorably. To force a confrontation on it will force it to take a stern standi If the student government acts with caution and tact, they may win. If they act impulsively and try to force a confrontation, they may lose. Resident Advisor Rebuke: Problems To the Editor: I know lt's a bit early to make sweeping generalizations of the kind I am going to make about Grimell, but as a new- comer whose expectations about the place have rather fallen short, I feel compelled to speak. First, this campus boxes the hell out of me. Compared to campuses I've been on during the past three years (North- western and Yale), the Intellec- tual excitement and ferment here is almost nil. The sell job I got before I came was large- ly based on how intense, bright, and scintillating all these stile dents were going to be. Yet I must say that after nearly six weeks here i have yet to hear anyone talk spontaneously about what he is reading, either in class or out, let alone talk about his classes. I have yet to hear any passionate discussion or race, politics, religion, art, eco< nomics, transplants, or comic strips. In fact I have yet to hear any passionate discussion of anyihihg but the opens “ls- sue", which is little more than narcissism in its worst form coupled with is childish exhibi- tionism (e.g., declarations of home rule and publicized cohab- itation), Whatever intensity ex- ists here is certainly not aca- demic, though there may be a great deal of interpersonal in- tensity. (I will admit that there is a fair amount of booking go- ing on and I am not at all talk- ing about those people who haven't emerged from the stacks for six weeks and have developed a kind of symbiotic relationship with their Carrel. Obviously, these people cannot make the campus a more ex- citing place. Fcr a person to be so fascinated by what he reads that he can never fear himself away from it seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.) The only issue-oriented activ- ity on the campus which reaches to all members of the community is the Pterodactyl. Here I will have to admit that despite all its sexual hangups and worn-out New Left verbi- age, the Pierudaiclyl l5 passion- ate. Despite all its misdirected rhetoric about Administration. Establishment, and other iab- rlcated targets, it is gmss, free. opinionated, and sometime: funny. I did mention interpersonal intensity. The serenity of the physical campus obscures what seems to be a permanent and vicious identity crisis in the lives'oi many students. There is a great amount of introspec- tion and discussion of personal problems here, either in ,one’s own o‘ique or with one's friend. But this verballzing of personal problems seems to go on ad infinitum ad nauseam. A vici- ous dynamic develops which Cannot offer its own solution. I am certainly not opposed to talking out problems. Only the Catholic Church can deny con- fession. Many times I need to talk out problems and do so (to wit, this letterl). But it also seems that one way to meet (albeit not solve) an identity crisis is to get out of oneself, to turn attention outward. I am not saying do not take yourself seriously, but I am saying try to take your world a little more seriously. Yours are riot the only problems that need to be solved; in solving others’ prob- lems you unwittingly may solve a few of your own. Second, 1 don’t know why the campus should be so boring. A son of surface explanation is the homogeneity and affluence of the student body, which his ways makes for a boring come hination. There are too many “great kids” here and not enough “kooks," The lack of real diversity in the student body is definitely a contribut- ing factor. Pardon the pun, but well-rounded persons are zeros by definition. The curriculum is another factor. There is more room for experimentation, es- pecially in interdisciplinary studies. There is no reason why course offerings cannot be more issue-oriented, President Leg- gett’s ideas of relevance not- withstanding. (e.g., a course on organ transplants which ex- plores the biological. legal. moral, political, and psycho< logical ramifications, and use: faculty from appropriate doe panments.) Lastly, l hope everyone reads this letter, but I hope no one replies. Not that I can’t stand criticism, it‘s just that this let- ter is a symptom of the prob- lem and not a solution. The sooner we stop talking about our problems to ourselves, the more exciting the campus will become. Mike Finley Resident Adviser Lungan President Describes Policy To the Edllon We feel that we must clarify the Langan Hall policy on 24 hoiir dorms. As was stated in last week's sea, our policy is based on consideration. This term is often used, but seldom understood or acted upon in a mature way. In previous years, hall officials strictly enforced or ignored the rule, but did little further discussion on the difficulties of donniiory living particularly concerning the visi- tation issue, We feel that our policy is succeeding through weekly discussions of the prob- lems of dormitory living, a weekly dinner series with fac~ ulty members, use of hall funds for informal social events, floor meetings, a helpful and honest resident advisor, and an atmos- phere of concern for rho indi- vidual in his relation to the college community. We established this policy of an open dormitory not as an action of confrontation, but in the belief that the value of a college education lies not only in the classroom, but also out- side the classroom in the devele opmcnt of mature, responsible individuals as they live at col- legs. The casual social atmos- phere, which has in part re- suiied from our policy, is a step toward developing the individu- al who makes decisions ol knowledge and concern rathel than decisions based on peel pressure, poor information, DI facility. We would be happy to discus: the living situation in Langal with anyone. Kathy Karlsoli, House President Lynda umber-1h, Vice Preddent Schneirov Hearing Vexes Crossefl To the Edltol-x Since Mr, Lawrence Franll used his power to render ml silent the other day, I am writ- ing to the SM; as a way of ha: ing allowed to express my view. Mr. Frank, in presiding over the open hearing on tho case of Richard Schnelrov’l massive fornication, apparently, thinks that the wages paid by the college to Bliss workers in pertinent to the case but that the moral and intellectual chap actor of the defendant is not. His ruling was only one sign of many displayed yesterda, showing that students are n at present able to govern them- selves, Lhough they are able to insist on their ability. Now the college boasts n 10-! ratio of students to Ieachers't it is necessary, however, to turn the figure around as welli Every teacher is outnumbere by ten to one. And even aftet you bolster up the teachers‘ ranks by adding those allies of dubious value, the administra- tion, the odds are still badly, against the faculty. What ll true of Grinncll is even true! of those large universitiei where the "irrational revolu- tion" breaks out first. Quit! clearly the biological and socio- logical fact of mere, raw nume hers is the origin of the pres< out struggle for power. Mn. Schneirov justifies his action solely in these terms: studentl have the power to make their own rules and therefore they have the right. Some 2300 year! ago Socrates showed two Greeks, both advocates of rhil theory that might makes right, that they were wrong; but truth is powerless against irrational power. As Milton said, truth will always win in a fail- fight, but Mr. Schneirov and his comp rades do not, of course, fight fair. Let us examine the basic ari- gument advanced by Mr, Schneirov and his supportersi] it runs as follows; the present law governing open dorms is unenforceable; it is unenforce- able because it is being dish obeyed by a number of peopl. large enough to make enforce- ment difficult and even impose oiblc; therefore the law is illo- gal. I omit Mr. Schnelmv’s in. ability to distinmlish between “illegal" and "unjusi," since i know what he thinks about law guage: it is a device invented by man for concealing his thoughts, and this brutal and cynical with is then concealed in turn by the constant appeal “Well, you know what 1 mean;‘ which is used whenever any one tries to find out what is really meant. Ml'. Schncirov admitted to me, after tho LETl‘ERs— (Cont’d on Page 5, Col. 1)