l: is ET HUMAN/A I846 \fi UM lOWENSE 0“ Editor-inchier Managing Editor Sports tduor . Associate Editon ’NNELLrS‘i circulation Manrg Curtoonist ., Yhotogrhphers srudeni Newspaper of Grinnell College reporters _ Mi Grinnell, lowa ES! Callsllnio Pm service business Manager . SCARLET AND BLACK An independenr newspaper published weekly, except during holidays and exami— nation periods, by me Grinnell committee on Student Publications. Subscription rate 5500 per .phooi year. . James Alexander Arleu Katherine Newklrk . Jelircy Schecklfl. . John Gardner, Steven crow. Mark saoiernan. Benson Smilh . Eruce Strum Dough! Earl mil Andcrson noward Reid. Michele Canright rislopner Anderson, Kenneth Slgci Lynn Adams. mane nllers. Nancy neckett. rue Ericsan, John Gordiey, Reggie orannm, el-~ Allan Hart. Don Hockcl’. Jonathan Jenkins. Paul Lewis, Nan Lower, Paul Miller. Bonnie Nelson. cindy Root. is. K. Scnrnrtt. Lynne suirners, Maren stewarr, Yvor sronkiev. Fred“ Tenferr Barbara Wertz Eric Werner. 50|i1 Assistants . Student Involvement Robert Asbille in his letter to the 5&3 states that discussions on open dorms are dangerous. But the discus- sions have a greater significance than the question. Even such a trivial topic as open dorms gives the students the opportunity to become involved in some form of political activity. In the general gloom following the defeat of Senator Eugene McCarthy in Chicago, it seemed that many young people felt the time had come .to turn away from standard political activity, either to organize into secret and militant groups, or to simply turn in on themselves, in an apathetic with- drawal to abandon the community. ,The system seemed to fail in what many believed to be a clear case of right and wrong. The fact that thus far Grinnell stu- dents are fighting the administration -—the campus’ symbol of the establish- ment—through peaceful means is a Sign that the despair after Chicago was temporary. The Senate’s proposal for 24 hour open lounges, which has now been approved by the Committee on Student Affairs, is an example of this. Of course, we hope that the students here will move on to more worthwhile enterprises. In this week‘s S&B there Dancing Editorial from 5&3, Jan. 21, 1911 . . . The developments of the past few days have forced us to express ourselves one way or the other. So we are giving our personal view, which is that dancing should be recog nized by the College as a legitimate form of entertainment. To those who are didactically op- posed to this view we would like to make a few suggestions: First, that there is nothing inherently wrong about gradually changing or modify- ing any or all of the College tradi- tions, They were formed for us, not we for them. Times change and cus- toms with them. For instance, dancing is regarded entirely differently than it was ten years ago. Anyone living in a small community appreciates the change of attitude. Secondly, dancing in Grinnell is favored by a fairly representative body of people and not, as many would like to suppose, by a lower Strata of the student body. Thirdly, that great numbers of in- stitutions similar to Grinnell, recog- nize dancing and do not seem to find pearl xadoia. sneenn srown are articles on poverty in Grinnell and the Uncle Sam’s Club, activities in which students can do useful work for the community. A Constructive Proposal An article in this week’s 5&3 men- tions that the coffee house has been a failure. The failure of the coffee house is attributable to Americans’ dislike for the finer coffees that exist, and their tolerance for the “dirty Wat- er” served in this country. The coffee house was a fine addition to the forum in theory, but it has proved too un- popular to be profitable. The game room, on the other hand, has been a greater success than the architects supposed it would be. There are frequently long lines of students wishing to use the pool tables, and the bridge tables are often full. It may be argued that the coffee house serves the overflow crowd from the grill. It must be remembered, however, that the grill serves the ov- erflow crowd of bridge players. By constructing another game room, the bridge players would have more room, and there would be more opportuni- ties for those who play pool. It would therefore seem reasonable to convert the failing coffee house into another game room. The college should find the funds for the room’s conversion. the great and insurmountable difficul- ties which people say would ensue here. And, strange as it may seem, these institutions turn out a fairly good type of manhood and woman- hood — not so frivolous and utterly nonsensical as not to compare quite favorably with Grinnell products. Fourthly, that dancing would not strike such a blow at the democracy of the College as many prophesy. Just as it is now, each one would be free to choose his own amusement, be it vaudeville, comic opera, strolling, or dancing. In this respect, we should hope that dancing would prove a de- cided uplift. We are not advancing these as argu- ments in favor of dancing. As far as we are concerned—and for that mat- ter the whole Senior class — dancing is not absolutely essential for a happy life in Grinnell, We should show a sad lack of initiative and individuality, indeed, we did not in four years find something well qualified to take its place. Nevertheless, those who would like to see dancing established in Grinnell have ample ground on which to base their argument. letters to D. M. Gibson's Father Criticizes 5&3 Policy My dear Mr. Editor-lirChief: I wish to call your attention to numerous errors in the news- paper of which you are ludi- catcd to be the editor-inchiei. in doing so. 1 refer to the issues dated September 20 and 21, 1968. Having noted that these are issues No. 1 and No. 2. please know that I recognize the newness of your position and therefore am understanding in many aspects the lack of pre- ciseness and clarity in certain articles. Undoubtedly in the fu- ture your record will be vastly improved. Following are the items that disturbed me the most, Per- haps these same gross lnade« quacies have come to the at- tention of millions of other readers of your newspaper. 1. You err in noting that the new physical education plant is not in high priority. Vast sums of money must he spent ii Grin- nell is to achieve No. 1 status among the nation's major col- lege football teams. This is sim ple logic and it disturbs me that it has escaped you and your associates. 2. The name of David M. Gibson is mentioned only three times in the above two issues. This is. of course. completely unacceptable to vast numbers of your readers. 3. Your own name is mention- ed in small print on one or two occasions. I iaii to see why even these references are necessary. These are only a few items that come quickly to mind. The errors are so numerous that I cannot but Wonder where the Editor-ln—Chief might have been while the paper was being put to press. Please excuse me for writing to you in such a direct manner. However, you are undoubtedly a busy man and it occurs to me that only a forceful and truthful letter such as this one will pence train: the barrier that per- charlce has been erected around you by a battery of secretaries, assistants, associates and other riff raif, With kindest personal regards and hopes that the next issues of your paper are more accur- are, i remain kind sir, Your obedient servant. Weldon B. Gibson, PhD. Vice»presldent of Stan- ford Research Institute Editorials Blasted As 'Arisioieliun' To the Editor! I am writing this letter be- cause I feel an intense disgust with the medieval scholasticism that tends to pervade the edi- turial column or this paper. What has finally cracked my erstwhile solid apathy towards the pettiness of the Grinnell campus was that wretchedly thought out and executed edi- torial that ended with a state- ment as simple and foolish as “any rithhinking person must hale anarchy," or words to that effect. The banal triteness (the redundant phrase is deliberate. 1y used for emphasis) of such I comment should be vuouzh in Friday. Octoblr ll, "5’ the Editor make any "right-thinking” in- dividual gag. The dual idiocy of Iuch | statement rests on two powetfi ful misconceptions. The first is that the editor feels that he is capable of determining who in "rightrthinking" and who is no and further. that he knows tha all of them agree with himself, Such an attitude indicates an intellectual conceit that is not only unwarranted (lndee crassly undeserved), but on tremely unhealthy in today’l society. After all. wasn’t it Hit- ler and isn’t it Wallace who pretend to know "what is right for us?" Secondly, and perhapl more subtly, is the assumption that anarchy is the worst evil in the world. Before one make] such an apparently ohviou; statement, that is, obvious m the privileged, he has to my- dersland the axioms that under lie the tenet. The editor hal taken for granted that undo! anarchy. the weak. the pooh the unprivileged Will suffe whereas under the enlightened democracy of the United State. such things would never occun For those readers who do not see the fallacy of this slalo- merit. ! suggest that may t , living in a ghetto, either Blac or Jewish (if the elk-Jewish members of the radical lei: will allow me to be so prosaic). I suggest that they discover that Bobbes‘ view that organized exploitation is better than unv organized exploitation is false. Anarchy offers no horror to those who have had to suffer the well-forged yoke of preju: dice and paternal subjugation that is one of the most clearly defined characteristics of out society. To point out an almost pore fect example of what I have been saying about the petty, scholasticisrn of this campus, I wish to refer to the some subs high school mentality that I happened to hear express in views after Adam Clayton Powell spoke. This perrinesn personified had taken refuge in that trait so typical of the out- classed high school debator -— he attacked definitions in [ha hope of finding a weakness of minimizing his demoralizin- tion when he could not find a mistake in logic and yet did not wish to admit to the acs curacy of his opponent's thrusts. The problem is not that this individual sought to una- lyze the definitions. but that he lost sight of the basic quess mm, and in doing so missed the point that Powell was malt- lng. To he speciiic, one indh vidual resolved his inner cone flicts by saying that it was iinl for Powell to attack the Ad:- ministration (possibly hecause our young tool was a conserva- tive Republican? though I do not wish to salve the con- sciences of those who do ac< cept the Administrnuon), but that he was wrong in confusing (’i’lll) the Administration Wi our form of government. If am not mistaken, it was exacts iy Mr. Powell’s point that iho present Administration is the must refined product of our LETTERS— LCont’d. Page 11, Col. 12