Friday, February 28. W69 SCARLET AND BLACK Page Five legality and Moraliy: The issue of Disroliing Analyzed By NEAL MILNER Asslslant Prof. of Political Science Discussions conceming the recent campus disrobing incident usually locus upon the motives of the actors involved. The students are accused of being public. lty-hungry, the attorney general is in- dicted for his alleged desire for political gain, and the local prosecutor is accused of a weaki-kneed capitulation to political ressuie. 0n the basis of such discus sions it is easy to lapse into ad hominum arguments about these participants. (In- deed, is certain local cement mixer whose humor reflects all the subtlety of an amplified Bronx cheer, has developed this ad hominum approach into a finely honed, if monotonously and awkwardly used method.)-Thess rather parochial discussions fail to consider some of the most important aspects of the issue, Two questions are particularly nppropziato and interesting, First, what makes the issue so perplexing to the public? Second, why is the settlement of the issue seem- ingly so dependent upon the legal pro« cess? A common response. to the first ques< tion might very well be, “Only an aca< demicion could ask such a questionl The reason is simply that people don’t like students running around without their clothes on." I suggest that the is- sue is a more complex issue which is related to some basic social and politi- cal characteristics of American society. Public opinion surveys quite conclusively show that very few Americans have any- thing close to a well defined, well de- veloped political ideology. Nonetheless, most of us manifest some kind of basic and quite stable core oi perceptions and attitudes which we use to interpret ihe world around us. The dismbing incident It's THE VARSITY NEWSSTAN D FOR SMO KES, SNACKS, BOOKS. GLASSES Malth and Repaired in Our Laboratory Contact lenses Cases and Solutions Eyes Examined Phone 236-3779 E. J. Jensen, 0.0. OPTOMETR IST Across from Post Office cloud ram. PM. and Sat. PM. is particularly perplexing to the public because if is especially difficult to place Within this world view. The cues the incident generates are not easily related to our traditional core of political atti- tudes and behavior. The Grinnell issues are not easily re- lated to the more common campus oc- currences which are usually associated with the “politics of confrontation.” No buildings were damaged, no papers were destroyed, and indeed no ultimatums were made. Given the political context of the last few years, American society is probably better able to comprehend (but not, i emphasize, necessarily ap- prove of) these more violent acts than. it is able to comprehend the nature and goals of disrobing. Out of necessity this society has been required to cope with a great deal of violence during the past few years, I am not arguing that these experiences have created a greater legi- timacy for violent acts, I am only ar- guing that, regardless of his attitudes to- wards the disrobing, an individual can more easily reldte Violence to his world view than he can relate public nudity. Furthermore, the disrobing becomes more perplexllig because of Ihe diffi- culty of viewing it in terms of tradi- tional religious values. Here again I do not say that this confusion itself neces- sarily creates greater approval or disap- proval, The disiobing gdds a variation to a typical and traditional problem which Julieta—Christian religions face. Tradi- tionally, the church has faced a con- flict over whether to stress physical over spiritual amelioration of the unfortunate. A Hasidic aphorism nicely summarizes the usual two positions in this conflict. “Don't worry so much about my soul and your body. Worry about my body and your soul." The disrobing incident ls cou- fusing because it forces society to con- sider a moral question in a manner con- cerned with amelioration of the body in the traditional sense of seeking protection or sustenance for it. On the other hand, they were quite explicitly telling society not to worry about the actual physical appearance of the body. These are two uncommon and rather sophisticated ideas, and it is little wonder that the stated aims of the nude protesters are constantly misunderstood. (Certainly the media has made little attempt to make these issues any more comprehensible.) Why, then, does society attempt to solve such a particularly perplexing mor- al issue by means of the legal process? The sociologist William Chambllss Sug- gests that “the legal process must be understood as taking the form that it does because of the characteristics of the SO- cial system which are independent of, and which render relatively inconse< quential, the motives. character, or per sonality of the particular people who oc- cupy positions in the system.” Such par- ticipants are only a part of the larger social structure to be resolved by means of the nature of the Conflicts to be re- solved by means or the legal process and to a lesser extent, the sanctions to be implemented. In American satiety we oltcn turn to the legal process as a means of settling moral issues. Recent opinion surveys show that the indivi- dual American most commonly claims that crime is caused by moral break- down. They also show that paradoxtcally the individual American commonly ex- pects that traditional government legal sanctions will correct moral inad- equacies. In fact. Daniel Bell contends that, despite glaring failures, “in no other country have there been such spectacular attempts to curb human appetites and brand them illicit.“ Since the disrobing inCldent involves some 50- pliisticated moral issues, and since we often tiy to resolve these issues through the political-legal process, it should not be too surprising that participants in the legal process are involved. individual motivations thus explain only a pan of the story. My purpose here is not to suggest solutions but merely to consider the im. pact of the disrobing incident. However, 1 would like to point out two problems which often evolve from any attempt to resolve such’ moral issues by means of legal process. First, lt is all too easy to define the morally of the powerful as the customary, acceptable moral behavror. Such a definition could be particularly costly to a pluralistic society. Second. the frustrations which develop from art attempt to enforce laws based on legal moralism- can often lead to a dangerous impatience with the tenets of due pro- cess. Tiriiersaii euce Awards of up to $50 will be given for individual works of verse or fiction, if submitted in Mr. Moore (ARH 32), by March 3, The judges Will be Mr. Andrew Lytle, speaker for the annual \Vriters’ Conference (March 12713), novelist, critic, and editor of the Seivanee Review; and professors Kissane and Lihet‘man. Win— ners will be announced at the Writers’ Conference. Pollsters Examine By KATHY BULL and MOLLY MCGUIRE After the “give ’em hell” SGA mesh dential candidates‘ speeches on Monday night we undertook to listen to the voices-of the overwhelmed students. Freshmen Carol Sigmund and Jim Bel< move and sophomore John Gardner. were spotted just inside or ARl-l. Miss Sigmand’s political stance is in the middle of the (straight and narrow?) road. She calls for vigorous pursuit of a responsible, moderate (not antagonistic but wishy»washy), capable of compro« mise, approach to student government. She berales Mark Allen for his claim that studenis should not have a hand (or foot), even, in academic decisions. This year Miss Sigmond’s vote will go to either Jamie Trotter or John Herr because she likes the issues they didn’t raise and the solutions they didn’t pro- pose. She was impressed by their sug- gested comprehensives, bookstore coop. and interdisciplinary studies programs. “The problem is not the system but the people. Thirteen members could not be more or less democratic than forty.” Jim Bellilove is throwlng up his sup- ]Jprt (0 Jim Lew. “I didn't think I'd like anyone when I came to hear the speeches, but I liked Jim's idea of mak- ing the campus more friendly. Different factions on campus don’t know how to talk to each other and don't understand each other," John Gardner liked John Herr's “gen- eral tendency toward unification of the student body." Student. bodies should be imifiedi (Remember Tom Thomas' “warm body approach") Gardner said that he liked many measures of the Thomas regime, and he thinks that it’s Election Attitudes important to vote to elect someone who expressed his own views with as much clarity and conviction and vaseline as Tom has, In the warm and lively atmosphere of the Forum, Phil Sampson and Roger Doenker were buttonholed, These two fault the courave so typical of Grinnell, to disagree. These hardy souls dared to question the worth of the office of SGA presidency. Mr. Koenket feels that it is indeed worthwhile ii there is someone competent to make decisions. The qual- lty of the,oillce, he conjectures, is de- termined by the people who fill it, Mr. Sampson,~dissenting, thinks that the of- fice is too powcrtul, hilt does not feel an attempt at decentralization would be successful. Their choice of candidate was the Grim Reaper, by acclamation. Their reasoning was that he “comes closest to your heart and head, dresses most stylishly, was the least deathly of the five, and has the courage to lie down and Say what he thinks.” They con< curred on the idea that the Strident gov- emment needs people who are not afraid to say what they think, to stir things up, to be so bad as to incite a riot, and to give rebirth to the student government. "People are going to have to quit play- ing this game and start playing their own. If enough students want a student government there should be one, if not, there shouldn't” Mr. Sampson suggested that there be a general senate, including elected student, faculty and administra- tion representatives. At this point Tom Thomas ambled over, and “the Old Guard" discussed the distinct decline in political fervor from last year. Also found drinking in this convivial setting was Bill Thomas. In response to the battery of incisive questions, Thomas quickly formulated his two thoughts and shot back, ”The conservatives don’t seem to be Very articulate and intelli. gent. which is reasonable. We need some- one to maintain diversity and keep things petty. He wouldn’t have to be elected, just run.” Thomas felt that the office of son president does not have any inhei. ent importance except in financial mat- ters (providing funds for beer blasts etc); the importance is dependent on the specific events that may occur and his response to them, and the represen. tative image he portrays to the World. Thomas holds that specific ideas are less important than personality in this race for office. He sums up by saying something that has been festering inside all of us for too long. “What this College needs is more nepotism.” Having finally roved to the Youiikei- study room, we came upon Tom Merrill, sophomore, quenching his voracious thirst for knowledge. His full written text follows: "I'm for Jamie Trotter. From the opening speeches it appears that, tir’st, a kilid of conservative reaction has set in with the student body — the emphasis was on reconciliation and a “happy community” rather than on confronta- tion, and revolutionary change. Secondly there was a rather strong resentment expressed toward what was described ‘as an elites: SGA, Jamie Trotter dem< onstraicd a painful sincerity and de- termined naivete that is perfect for im- plemenling a quixotic program along these lines. He was also refreshingly un- hip, sort of low»camp in his own right. An enthusiastic high school approach in just what Grinnell needs."