mum , Harry Fulton. Uwy‘ acm- . John llody Sieve am The Scarlet & Black Student Nmpspor of Grinnall College, Grinnall, low. nisiinwhv, An Independ- 3 ; :ul hemp-per Dub- : Iished weekly. : cap: during your .nd examln , non perlndl. by the humongous Onnnell Commincc on Student Publicm nous, Suhscnntlon rate “.MLper school year. mutual Mmur Mun-u». Editor l uyoin Edllor on. Inlchel spam Editor ,. . . John Pepper Toni Greenfield. Tlm rnrm . Cathy mind-k. mm sooicmm.,<:indy Root. ma. Mmyueul. ml smith. 1. c. LIMIIIII. [day than. Rowe cub-m, Xllhryn Hum. columni- Repodeu Liberate The F orum/ Last week we were approached by a student requesting the support of the newspaper in attempts which were in progress to gain greater student con- trol over the management of the Forum. A certain amount of concern was expressed over the fact that operation of the Cafe del Foro had been an uphill battle. Forum personnel had allegedly been making life difficult for the students who were responsible for running the coffee house, We were anxious to do whatever we could in the way of casting light on dastardly deeds or issu- ing a clarion call to action in support of a demon- stration of a student sense of responsibility. We also suggested a few possible avenues of approach to the problem of securing greater freedom in operation of the Cafe del Foro as well as other Forum services, We think coffee and a place to relax are good things at three o'clock in the morning as well as any other time of the day. There are, however, cer- tain logistical problems involved in keeping the Forum open late, and we commend the students who were seeking this goal for their foresight and pa- tience in looking into these matters. Patience ran out a little early, however, and the ugly spectre of “confrontation polities" once more reared its head on the Grin ell campus. After visits with a few, but not all, of the ad- ministrators on this campus who have some say about the way the Forum is operated proved fruit- less, it was decided that a demonstration of student responsibility would have to take place unilaterally. Accordingly, last Saturday night, when the Forum was scheduled to close, the students did not leave. Some of them kept dancing in North Lounge. Some stayed to watch a movie in South Lounge. Others just walked around picking up cigarette butts, con- clusively proving to the administration that they were responsible adults. When we asked the students responsible for this demonstration why it had taken place, they com- plained with bitterness about the lack of immed- iate response on the part of the administration to their demands for longer Forum hours. On asking questions here and there, we discovered that at no time had President Leggett been contacted by these students about their feelings. Since he neither locks his door nor disconnects his telephone when he sees students coming, and since he is, after all, the presi- dent of this college, whose influence would do much to change the mind of even the most recalcitrant of administrators, we cannot help but feel that the students left a few stones unturned when they took their precipitate action. Above and beyond the question of whether or not the action of the students was carefully thought out is a deeper problem which is far too often com- pletely ignored in the heat of a desire for concerted action. The end does not justify the means. This, at least, we should be able to learn from a liberal ed- ucation, In the future, if students wish to demonstrate their responsibility as adults, it would perhaps be better if they deign to try reason before venting their spleen, Otherwise, we would be forced to con- clude that Aristotle was right when he said, “, . the young are not fit to be students of political SCI- ence. For they have no experience of life and con- duct, and it is these that supply the premises and subject matter of this branch of philosophy. And moreover they are led by their feelings; so that they will study the subject to no purpose or advantage, since the end of this science is not knowledge but action.” SCARLET AND BLACK ©97asmnn was in lion: usim Friday, April I0, I970 I'M 50??! MISSDENNING, BUT WU HAVE asARlY FAILED TD OJNVIMI THIS BOARD THAY THE PROPER oormuunucz OF YOUR PREGNANCY WOULD IN ANY WAY IMPAIR YOUR PIP/Sm DR MENI'AL RENEW" . INFACT, ITIS ow; FEW HOPE THATTHE MINOR , HWP OFA FOURTH III£GIT1MATE CHILD WILL GIVE YOU CAUSE Tl.) BENAVE INAMORE RESPONSIBLE WINNER INTHE FUTURE Letters to the Editor . . . To The Editors: M the editorials you have written, I have noticed two which were about subjects with which I am well acquainted. The pat- tern in both was (a) to assert “idols" which were untrue, and which could easily have been checked ior accuracy, and (b) to base opinion on these unlrulhs. The iirsl was some weeks ago when you asserted that Miss Edwards' group independent project, under American Studies rubric, excluded males. The opinion based on this “tact" was that students should not be ex- cluded from independent projects because of sex, i suppose that you know by now that your [acts were wrong, though I have seen no retraction. Your lead editorial on April 3 is based on two untrutlls rather than one, First, you say that Mr, Hancock was invited by CBS to “come to Grinnell to help come memorate Black Martyr’s Day ” That, actually, is a compound untruih, He was not invited by CBS, nor was he awarc of Black Martyr's Day. Then you say, compounding untruth again, that “Dean Wall, in presenting the motion, said that the proposal had been brought to him by CBS.” He said that some students had suggested the degree. In fact, cas did not, nor were they aware that such a proposal had been presented -— at least the people in CBS with whom I have talked were not aware of it. These unr lrulhs, however, are convenient to your assertion that the faculty was “pandering” to a minority group I also find your opinion, in this later editorial, open to queslion 7 even if it had been based on Iucis. Did you object to the degrees gIVCH to the very young pliinler and the very young editor during the same weekend when Dr. King got his? (There is a very substantial question about whether their contributions to me culture are as important as Mr. Hancock’s, butthatis yet another matter.) The level of ac- complishment oi Grinnell alumni who have been awarded honorary degrees is probably somewhat lower than that oi outsiders; even so, can you think oi any Grinnell student since Hallie Flanagan who has made so substantial a contribution to the creative field? Can you think of any alumni who have been judged best in the field by a national jury, other than Mr. Hancock? Taste is yet another matter, i feel that in this case your taste was very gross: don’t you supr pose lhal printng that editorial somewhat dampened the homecoming7 The last two paragraphs do not pertain to the clause in your contract about ”accepted Journalistic practice." The first three (10' facts can be obtained by a lhreevmlnute telephone call do not seem to be beyond the capacity oi either oi you or even oi your reporters. Do you really suppose that the freedom to state opinion given you by the editorial page includes a ircedom to misrepresent easxly ascor- talnable fact? Charles F. Cleaver- EDl’l‘ORS NOTE Dean Wall, recalling his report lo [he faculty, stated that, though he had said only’ “some in- ici-cslcd students" brought the proposal lo him, he did tell the incuiiy that Hancock was coming lo oi-nmeii lo help commemorate Black Martyrs' Day. A number of lacully members have told the 5&1; lhal they received the line presslml ii-om Wall's un- noimcemenl that the “interested students" were members of CBS, Nona as H turns out, CBS did not initiate the proposal and Dean Wall was mistaken cone cerning Hancock's purpose in visiling Grinnell. The crucial point was not so much what was really the case as what the faculty believed to betlie case. Technically, the facts were, in part, as you stated them. We sland firm in our criticsm of the facult)‘simprudentactions, To The Editors: To clear up a few points about Glenn Leggett’s part in the censorship of the 1966 Grinnell yearbook in last week’s article: The Committee on Publications had liltle if anything to do with the book's censorship. Leggett insirucicd the Committee to instruct me that the book was cancelled. The Committee never even voted on the matter. Fur- tllel‘more, while the manuscript may have been delivered to the College lawyer in an unopened package, the manuscript was Sitting in an open box in the closet oi Leggctt’s oriice when we lllmlly recovered it, And Leggett did not willingly “hand the manuscript over to Wilhelm" as the article implied. When I originally asked Leggett to return lhe manuscript he refused, I then told him that we were prepared to take the matter of the manuscripts ownership to Court immediately if he did not comply with our request. It was only after an emotional meeting wilh Leggetl and Ben Graham, during which Graham iniormed me lhal “Wilhelm, you ought to grow up," that Leggett gave in and returned the manuscript. The notion that the book "belonged to the College" because, as editor, I was an ompioyce oi the Committee on Publlculiuns is patently absurd LETTERS— Cnminued on page 5