Moldy. October ll. '96! The Schneirov Trial SCARLET AND BLACK illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll } Letters (Continued'irom Page 10) lystem of government that has come along in a good many years. That is to say, the con- servative structure of the gov- ernment of the United States, as seen in its vulnerability to the interests of a well»placed and/or wealthy few and its al- most total immobility when faced by the non-advantaged multitudes, has resulted in tho near-perfect instance of John- Ion, unyielding on Vietnam, capable of determining his suc- cessor, gicrying in his paper triumphs in the field of Civil liberties. Thus, when students and Blacks turn to force, they should not be condemned mere- ly because they invite anarchy. The overwhelming stagnation of this nation cannot be eliminated by the fetid odor that is the self- righteous d e rn a n d for “reason” when one really means "acceptance.” I can only hope that before the edi- torial staff of the Scarlet and Hiack decides to inundate its readers again with Aristotelian irrelevancies, they r e m o v e themselves from the Classics Department and take a course or two from Professor Goldberg on such topics as collective be havior and ideology, power and society. Or they might cease studying long enough to take in such books as Black Power, Dark Ghetto, Black Skin, White Mask, or The Colonizer and the colonized. Then, per- haps, they will have had some contact with social reality and will be less ready to pronounce the Truth of the Ages at us. Andrew Rothsteln Cites Dangers In Open Dorms issue To the Editor: A c a d e in i o institutions in America, particularly the lib. oral arts college, are in grave danger of suppression. The on of our intellectual haven to in- quire into and attack the in- stitutinns of America has forced a moderation of the Vietnam war policy and started people rethinking almost every aspect of American society. These are achievements the academic community may well be proud of. But in the process we have made many enemies: Wallace and Reagan pose a very real threat to our freedom. All students and faculty are well aware of the restrictions on academic freedom created by the involvement of govern- ment in state universities How- ever, the liberal arts college also depends on economic and political support from outside its “ivory tower" -— to some extent from government but also from alumni and interested philanthropists. The rapid rise of tuition is clear testimony that the financial status of this college is very serious, The fact is that the very existence of the school may depend on alle- giance with people who do not like much of what goes on at Grinneii. Continued academic quality and academic freedom is in jeopardy. Yet we make our own de- fense even more difficult by fighting amongst ourselves about issues like the “open dorms problem," Much is wrong with the present situa- tion. Certainly We should talk about our problems and try to make changes. But our attack on these problems is often an cessive, immature, and unrea1< istic. The college is only I small part of a bigger commu< nity. issues in that bigger com- munity are far more important than social issues at Grinnell. The time has come that Grin- nell must begin thinking more of academic integrity and less of ”open dorms." I have spent two years listening and talking about Grinnell and its problems. I’m fed up. I want to leam about America and go out and change it. The liberal arts edu- cation gives a student a unique ability to do this. But if we de- stroy the college in the process, then we have defeated our pur- pose. So then let me urge all students and faculty to join me in saying: GRINNELL, GROW UP! Robert Ashille Corneilian Editor Explains Editorial To the Editor: In reading your editorial of October 4, and then re-readillg my own of September 23, I found that it was indeed possi- ble for the impression of an ex post facto philosophy to be con- veyed. i am writing to point out that this is not the case. The editorial which you quoted contained a comment from Doug Peterson, Student Govem— ment (so) Presidentr He is quoted as saying that student selfcetermination over their pri< vate lives and group living con- ditions is “the overriding princi- ple by which so will be operat- ing throughout the year." This statement, part of an article Doug wrote lot a THE COR- NELLIAN Extra, received campus - wide circulation before the open dorms election. The philosophy of student self-government in these areas was the platform upon which Peterson was elected SG Presi- dent. His election came at the end of a year in which greater student awareness of their own rights and power was manifest. As you can see, the idea of student self-determination was far from new at Cornell. It was not used to justify the SG action. It was the framework in which their proposal was created. Cornell College, that is, the students, faculty, and adminis- tration, are now seeking the best way to embody this prine ciple. Robert Barrick Editor, THE CORNELLIAN (All letters must be signed. Names withheld by request.) Page Eleven l Where the Truth Lies | By DONALD STUMF The evening before Richard Schneirov's trial last week, A pleasant — looking freshman girl greeted me as l emerged from the dining room and offered me a mimengraphed sheet. I expected. I suppose, a proposal to have a hike hike; and I got a naked in- vocation of student power. It began, “Students have the power to make the rules that govern them" and ended. "THIS is A TRiAbY OF THE STUDENT BODY'S RIGHT TO SELF REGULATION.” In between there was the implicit assumption that it is the stu- dent’s power that gives the right. To be greeted by such Machia- vellian stuff so soon after dinner unsettled my stomach, especial- ly the line, “If we stand behind Schneirov, we guarantee our own safety." I wonder what kind of safety the Schneirov case can offer anyone, especially the freshman who gave me the sheet. Now I know that “safety" was used in a very limited sense in the article. it meant safety from being punished, and as Plato proves, that is like safety from being healed by a doctor. But ll do not want to argue on the basis of systematic philosophy; few men believe that truth lies in philosophy. 1 want to discuss safety in practical terms, those of the hard, real world. Will student self- reg‘ulution make students safe from the outside world and them- selves? First of all, Will the women of Grinnell have safety from the onslaught of mail from their mothers? Letters about Schneirov'l fiveeday indiscretion will descend on the college by the bagfuii in the coming weeks. Parents have spent 330% to send their offspring t0 Grinnell; and they have done so With the understanding that (ha administration, which writes the bulletins and makes the rules. would be in charge. Not only does the administration have legal responsibility for the conditions in the dormitories, but it has a moral responsibility to parents. How many parents would approve of student rule in the halls? Can one simply turn over control to the students without any advance waming? Should parents be put in the position of having to force their children to transfer in the middle of their college careers it they do not like “home rule?" At the very least, the college should give a year's warning before any release of the reins of government. in a system which changer rapidly and unjustly, no one is safe. Then what about the safety of the institution as a whole? in a year when Richard Nixon is about to be elected President on a conservative platform emphasizing “law and order," the timo hardly seems ripe for B college to bow to Student power. As I un- derstand it, Grinnell. is in very tight financial straits. i wonder it the college can avoid the gold shortage now faced by Antioch and Reed. Radical schools do not attract liberal donors. I hope that in the next few days some of the faculty will explain the effects at past radicalism upon the present treasury at Grinnell. if it is n matter of life or death to the institution, who would hope for self» determination? The examples of Antioch and Reed bring up another pointrl what happens to the composition of the student body at school! which have the reputations for being most liberal, not to say libertine? At Antioch, I know, it has become opptessively ilflmOv geneous. Is there no value in having people from a variety of backgrounds, including such “conservative areas" as the mid- west? is there nothing to be said for having voices to remind us of Edmund Burke as well as Machiavelli? I also wonder about the safety of anyone ruled by a student government with the following record: one member of the C of Ti edits an SDS progaganda paper and advocates polarizing issues so that there can be only two alternatives; another member of the C of T, whether intentionally or not, played the demagogue at the Schneirov hearing, calling for a show of hands and power at what was supposed to be a time of disinterested deliberation; a third member of the C of T said, while considering the use 0! student government funds, “You (should) never worry about the majority;" the C of T as a whole called for hails to discuss “homl rule" when the decision on the Schneirov case was still pending and the administration had not defined its position. Finally, I would ask what satety one would have, under "horn. rule," from people who do not show “consideratio What will happen it a student breaks a rule made by his peers and refuses to be persuaded that he is being inconsiderate? Will students then confine him to his room, or ostracize him, or mug him? Will they turn to the administration and ask that he be removed from the hall? That would be embarrassing to say the least, How would stu- dents have handled the problems in Cowles Hall two years ago without the power to punish their peers? Are most people satisfied with the effectiveness of “home rule” in such matters as quiet hours in which it now operates? Of course I am only asking such questions to be perverse. I realize that what is meant by “home rule" is either no rule at all or rule by a complaint administration, which will only intercede at the request of the student body when a problem has become too ugly to ignore. It means having what one waan without any annoying responsibilities on the side. Oscar Wilde once said there is only one thing worse than not getting what you want, and that is getting it. if students succeed in their power-play for “home rule," they and the rest of the college will deserve to have if.