Friday. January 23, 1970 Letters sec Handbook, pp 791.) However, the latter terms are intentionally not defined in the document so as to allow the editor leeway. This is a far Cry from Miss Neuman's allegation that tlle editor must “comply ivitli Board of Publications definitions of good taste. what to print, etc.” As for her contention'that the editor’s opinions must "conform to status quo Grinnell stanr dards." it’s clear to anyone who has read the 8&3 over the last two years that the editors’ opinions have been more oiten Ardent Activist that Archetypal Aristotelian. Indeed one extra polates (with some trepidation)» that we are due to have another Aristotelianl But rather than being evidence of a “compromise conspiracy” between the two main political factions in the college, this is an amusing ac- cident. As everyone knows, the prevailing political persuasion at Grinnell is Old Leftist. Out of all these false premises, Miss Neuman draws her con- clusion: “Obviously the cam- paign for restructuring . . . . Grinnell publications must be resurrected.” That this con- clusion is by no means obvious, however, is indicated by the recently disseminated “Student Position" paper. With respect to the Committee on_ Student Publi- cations and Radio it recomr mcnds: “The membership, structure and duties of this com mittee shall remain as they are presently defined.” Still, lest it be claimed that the faculty’s collective imagination is limited by the studcnts' suggestions (as I sometimes fear), I will present some tbaoke ground for the consideration of one ofMiss Neuman’stwo serious suggestions (the other in- volves printing techniques, which . I am incompetent to discuss): “Investigation of the formation of an independent student core poration which would be respon- sible for all student‘s publi- cations.” This is “not unreal~ istic,” she argues; “the Harvard Crimson is run this way, for inn stance.” Now, even though we know Grinnell as the “Harvard of the West,” I would remind us of one difference: Harvard’s enrollment is about 16,500; Grin- nell’s, 1200. This is a difference which makes a difference when one tries to recruit Students to do the extra work required by an independent newspaper. Besides having to find ones who are willing to act as editor and business manager (positions which the Committee has not been able to fill for more than one semester), the corporation must find some who are willing to sell the publication, Anyone following Pterocactyl’s history SCARLET AND BLA knows that this path is not only arduous, but also strewn with pitialls oiarrcst, seizure, etc, As long as I've breached the ugly subject oi money, l might as well open Pandora's box completely. The monolithic point which must be made regarding an independent corporation is that it really must be inde pendent, not just at the “faculty- administration block,” but also of S.G,A.; not just adminis tratively, but financially as well. For S.G.A. receives 'its funds from that block, and is thus legally inseparable from it. Thus, the fledgling corporation must be cut off from the usual patrons. (Insofar as the oppressive Ad ministration” almost regularly bails student piiblications and radio out of large deficits — a little known [act 7 it must be seen as a Golden-EggrLaying Goose.) It is my understanding that before the Committee was established the possibility of an independent corporation was discussed inrormally with some S.G.A. officials and dismissed by them at least on these financial grounds. Let us assume, however, tor the purposes of further argument that some group of students is willing to tackle these financial problems and establish an inde pendent publishing corporation. What other factors are relevant? <1) The college now uses the student media as practical for its Communications Studies program. This complicates, but need not eliminate. the possibility of an independent corporation. (2) The corporation would have to ask just what the Committee asks, namely, that is as publisher not be involved in suits arising from libelous material in its publications. The difference is, of course, that it may be more liberal in its assessment of What is potentially libelous. Further, by not serving the greater Grin nell community (including alumni, iaculty, and parents.) it need not be limited by that com- munity’s taste in matters of decency, etc. (3) However, as long as Ptem continues to come out, even in the fits and splashes that it does, is there a need or demand for second such publi- cation? One’s impressions that it is neither widely read nor operas tionally supported by students argue in the negative Peter Bowman Physics and Philosophy To the Editor: Although I have had both tran- quillizing and “alarmist” reports on the state of the campus since my return after a semester’s sabbatical 7 spent at the University oi Toronto 7 l have felt most informed by the state age of the bulletin board for the Women’s Liberation League located in the post office. Someone has put up ade vertlsements lor diamond rings and cosmetics to flesh out the austere calls for abortion and fornication which seem to lie at the heart (or should i say “gut?") of those neo» suffragettes. if students can take themselves With a grain of humorous salt 7 the “saving grace of laughter,“ as President Leggett calls it 7 there may be hopeyet. I did not see much sense of humor among students attending the University of Toronto; but then they are suffering right now from an irrational mixture of anti-Americanism, chauvinistic nationalsim, and humanitarian- ism. Despising America, My imitate American students in stridently insisting on their “rights.” Some of the Canadian students have gone almost as far as those at San Francisco State, and have systematically sought to disrupt one professor’s class. After some weeks of this, other students rose up and literally threw them out. I remember discussing with ex»Dean Stauss a few years ago die menacing reality of students pitted against students. If and when that dire day comes to Grinnell, the quest Cont. p. 6 The Future of Christianity in the Post-Christian Era Dr. Andersen is the Professor of Old Testament Literature of the Church Divinity School of the Pacific (Berkeley) and Visiting Professor of Ugcirific of the Univer- sity of California. Born in Australia, Dr. Andersen holds seven degrees. He welcomes opportunity for informal discussion. If you would like To talk with him personally, please contact Jctck Swenson, Science 208, ext. 395. MONDAY — JAN. 26 8:00 P.M. ROBERTS THEATER "The Future of Christianity in the Post-Christian Era." TUESDAY — JAN. 27 4:15 P.M. SOUTH LOUNGE “Will the RealJesus Please Stand Up?” SUNDAY - JAN. 25 11:00 AM. HERRICK CHAPEL “Thank God That God is Dead." 7:30 P.Mi SOUTH LOUNGE ”Think God or Feel God in This Era." PANEL Mri Klausner Mr. Wall Hearn. PhD, Biochemist, ISU Dr. Andersen Mr. Burkle Mr, Nasser Mr. Swanson 9:30 PM. Discussions in various Dorm Lounges — Watch for later postings.