|NCFDigital Home | Search all Groups | Student Publications | Archives||| Help|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
THE CATALYST Special Edition Published by students of New College, March 24, 1965 TO THE NEW COLLEGE COMMUNITY During the past two months, it has become evident that the college isoincreasingly in a conflict concerning the distribution of power. It has been perhaps most evident to, first, the faculty, and, second, the members of the longrange and .committees, as well as other students. But the progress of the conflict has been obscured by a series of symptoms which have as often as not been mistaken for the disease. Yet the problem remains, and it must now be recogm.ized for what it is. The members of the praeceptorial and _committees feel that has gotten so far out of their hands that their activities are that this is one crisis which has not faded, like so many other flash-in-the-pan issues, or dimmed in our memories. Nor should it be allowed to do so. The question is, then, who shall make decision about campus life? Shall it be the administration and trustees, or will it be the faculty and students? In the praeceptorial committee, we were told by then Dean Gustad that we would have "however much power we liked." When we began to meet with Dean Norwine, he appeared -l:o concur. In fact, he continued to concur for the next months, with everyone who voiced any that he was in favor of student freedom; he repeatedly told us that we, as a committee, shouid make tr.e de .. J -, It appeared t,...c> be a able context for the functioning of the committee, and we began to ter;enht:;ha t:_J;?-as.:ll.s !,!!' Theo.:r.bc!!.bb committee and the cornmitteerbegan to meet tog-ether regularly' 1 for the problems--'vhth whfch tney were seb up to had begun to overlap. Dean Norwine told usthat we should "step in arid fill the vdiCl.,'' by creating whatever framewbrk we felt necessary for the conduct stu den t affairs on the east campus. We designed such a framework. This was the so-called "Code of Considerations." We were advised by Dean Norwine that faculty approval of this document was unnecessary; that we designed it meant .it was finalized. The student-faculty committee re-issued the code with additional suggestions for the maintenence of the rooms on the east campus. The following after noon, Mr. Miller, acting for Dean Norwine, put forward : a set of rules which in certain importantrespects contradicted the suggestions of the committee. It was designated "of. yet neither of the committees had previously beenconsulted 'concerning its contents. We set about1 the following .to con struct a new draft, wmich was to go into effect s'IJlbiect to ratification bv the' s .uudent:s and faculty. Today' s meeting was origi nally intended for ratification, but events up tiil1now have made it unnecessary; to.go thr0ugh the motions would be a travesty. How did this reversal come about?
I' "' Page 2 To the New College Community-from On Friday morning, President Baughman called Dean Norwine and Captain Styles to meet with him. Friday afternoon the two committees met with Dean Norwine, Dean Sonnenberg, Captain Styles, and Mr. Helgeson. At this time we were informed that all our work was of no consequence. 1-'The "official" status of ahe committees was made quite clear--they had none. We were told that the authority for student conduct rests with Dean Norwine, and the same authority for housing rests with Captain Styles. Captain Syyles handed us a list of housing regulations, which he had drawn up without looking at what we had issued before. He informed us that if we wished to modi fy his we would have to go to a "higher authority." At the same time, Dean Norwine said he was taking certain issues regarding student conduct to the Board of Trustees. The progress of events indicates to us many things, but of most importance is the now obvious fact that neither committee has any authority in the area of student affairs, and that this authbrity rests primarily with the administration. We do not think that the administration is a group of tyrants; we only wish to ask by whom the decisions concerning the structure of campus life should be made. The administration and the Board of Trustees seem to feel it is duty, for we have been delinquent, they assert, in fulfilling ours. Yet it remains our view that the faculty and students are the ones with whom that power should rest. It is they, after all, who Are most intimately concerned with r the life of the college, for it is they who make the college what it is. President Baughman may stand for the college in the community at large, but within the college itself we must not allow an individual to become a generalizing figure to lead us to an apocalyptic vision: From one point of view the whole of history, and very particularly our own American History, can be seen as a struggle between those who seek a utopia here on earth and those who feel that the life of man is made better by ever-changing institutions carefully shaped and daily renewed by human effort. These are history-old, these alternations and conflicts between the proponents of apocalyptic cults, who deny partial human effort and for a supernatural event ushered in by prophet or party, and those who feel it is the duty of priest and prophet, statesman, artist and scientist, to "cherish and protect the lives of men and the life of the world." ---Margaret Mead We believe that the opportunity to work out our own concepts of what the college should be has been denied to the faculty and students in favor of simpler and more instantly realized solutions to our problems. Throughout the meetings of the past few months, it has become clear that such
Page 3 To the New Community-from P.2 .l solutions are in the minds of the administration" stratification, rigidification, and an externally imposed system of regulations, rules and Thou-shalt-nots which may be suited to dur but come, without due process, from the wrong source. We are so out of touch with the real -work in the field, that in a Dean is-superior to a and a Board of or Regents is superior to q faqulty ... If the univer-. sity. is i..controlled by its Board qf T1:1ust,ees, the student, the o:e,. -the youth in his final period 0f .training, is high dry with no contact with responsible men ---Paul Goodman Are we a bunch of spQiled children? TNhether we are or not, we are aware that in order to grow as in= dividl.lals, an atmosphere cen'hered upon growth must be established. Can anythiag be.more clear that in orderr:.'Po g -row,.we.must.first have the opportunity for' growth1 It is legitimate to treatus asmature adults, for thoough that means we may become Therefore, after two mnths which have resulted in an increase of tension and frustration, we have finally come tooui senses. The praeceptorial committee will not ag to enforce someone else's codifithe student-faculty committee refuses to continue making plans that will not be real-ized. The student. body should that the au thority of;::.othe authorities ultimately rests on our willingness to obey them. Shall we as students, sit passively by while a structure is cast into rigidity before our very eyes, from which there is no escape, or will we act? The first action' is being taken. We, the undersigned hereby submit our collective resignations two for we cannot in conscience remain on l ; which connot function. At the_ same. time, we make certain recommendations, in which we need the help ot' the whole student group, for the next step. Signed: Ray Enslow David Rollow Jill Chamberlin John Cranor Paul Hansma Ken Hammond Anna Navarro Karen Fryklund Jeanne Rosenberg Richard Kainz Thik is a special issue of CATALYST td report the happenings of the student meeting held Monday and to publish the student opinion which has been given to us. There will be a regular issue Friday. .. THE STAFF' For a to the CATALYST: Submit a statement to the Editor in twenty-five words or more; "What I like about New College." I I ;(
Page 4 EDI'rORIAL Whether or not the Praeceptors and members of the Student-Faculty Committee were jl.lStified in what tney did is a moot question. But the action has been taken, so we must make the best we can of the situation as it If we reject the given to us by the administration, we must govern ourselves, and govern ourselves effectively. This means.not only making rules, but also enforcing them. I would like .to suggest that the_ studepts meet, wbth their fiv2 new representatives and ratify the Code of Consideration; making responsible to the 1'Com mittee of Five" with the possibility of referring to Dean Norwine. Matters concerning room care can be worked out with Captain Styles beforehand. However, if this is to be successful, all of the students must accept the responsibility not only for the following the Code, but also for enforcing it with those who do not. This includes the time limit on intervisitation and the prohibition of drinking. If we are to govern ourselves, every student must accept the responsibility for reporting to the "Committe of Five" any offense against the Code that he witnesses anywhere on the campus. The above is just a suggestion and I realize that following it would cost us our "freedom'' to break the law and our 'freedom" to ignore the However, the only alternative I can see at present, is tor the administration to forced to step in and govern us regardless of our objections. If that should happen, then I'm afraid it would cost us far more Freedom. -TH,. COLLEGE eGMMUNITY MEETING --Ed. Note--The following is not just a news article, it is also an speaks of what happens, th1s 1s the objective report at' work;where it speaks of "I think this is an active mind at work. Monday at 4:00p.m. an allschool meeting was held in the music room, purportedly to ratify the sheet on regulations by the Student-Faculty Committee the previous Wednesday. As scheduled, this meeting would been like most of its predecessors, ; ,, merely a matter of form. .However, when Paul Hansma stood up to face the large group of students, faculty, and administrators, a radical change in procedure had already taken place. In a quiet, resolute tone, Paul recounted some of the events that had led both the Student-Faculty and Preceptorial committees to feel a frustrating sense of superfluity in the decisions concerning student life. A few minutes later Ray Enslow was given the floor. He continued: '! neither committee has any authority in student affairs. This authority rests with the ad ministration." Both committees were acting as advisory bodies whose advice was never taken and often seemingly unconsidered. The suggestions for room maintenance on the third and fourth pages of the "Code of Consideration" had been replaced with a set of official rules to be issued--rules with which the committee had not previously been confronted, much less consulted in their formation.
College Community Meeting-from p. 4 It was almost as though the whole system were set up to give the students the illusion of a maximum of power while keeping it, in actuality, at a minimum. At any rate, the statement rea
Page 6 College Community Meeting--from p.5 During the meeting there appeared to be a change in feeling-or perhaps merely the delayed expression of an opposing viewpoint. Some students apparently did not want the Student-Faculty Committee to be dissolved. Mary O'Keefe stated that the people on the fiveman communication committee the same ones who had failed to commu nicate previously. Esther Lynn Baraz.zone advocated that we "con sider previous committe members to have failed." There seemed to be some desire to reinstate the-com mittee with new members replacing those who had resigned. Twice motions were made for adjournment. Twice these motions failed. Possibly these motions were intended to block further discussion of reinstatement of the Student-Faculty Committee. At any rate, a motion was made and seconded to hold a second meeting within a week, presumably to resume the discussiort. It seemed to me that this meeting'followed an increasingly evident pattern in concluding without any real conclusion and ing without any true resolution. We have only succeeded in making ourselves look rather silly again and in confusing the issues. The 'dramatic.coup' at the beginning of the meeting seemed to degenerate after an hour and a half of useless arguing into a sheepish, "well, maybe this wasn't such a hot idea after all." It seems that the only thing everyone agrees on is that everyone disagrees, and that the 'obviously right thing' what the person speaking wants done at that particular moment) must be carried out as soon as posible. It seems the diversity of which New College is so proud is the very element that is pulling it apart. Nevertheless, when taking positive,. constructive action, the student body seems uniformly composed of would-be Hamlets. Perhaps Monday's meeting will have some positive results. What, if anything, this new unofficial committee will accomplish rernain. s to be seen. Part of the problem seems to be that neither the ultraliberals nor the ultra-conservatives are willing to give in an inch-the former are obsessed with the idea of absolute freedom ("nobody' s gonna what I can or can't do!"), the latter with imposing their own personal standards on everyone else ("why don't the people around here straighten:up and do what's right!") Neither of the 'views is very tolerant or considerate of others, and neither will work at New College. Compromise is not necessarily a dirty word; nor does it mean a dull, grey uniformity with which no one is truly happy. We will have to accept some universal standards of behavior, hopefully standards with a great deal of room for individual variation. Unfortunately, there seem to be some people who will rebel against anything merely for the sake of rebelling, who will try to go beyond any limit that is set, no matter how lenient. This anrchic element can hardly have anything other than a disintegrative effect. Anarchy has never been mous With1individual freedom, any more than strict regimentation and regulation have been. Tearing
College Communlty Meeting--from things down is not in itself enough. Criticizing violently anything and anyone who deviates from your own personal philosophy is only an uneasy defense and a block to of any sort. After all, we are here to build a college,rather than to destroy one. G. Cimino A COMr-10N All through the year, during any discussion of rules, regulations and enforcement, the question has come up: would such be consistent with the "philosophy of the college"? Just what is the philosophy of this college? At the final meeting of the Student-Faculty and Praeceptorial committees we were informed that there was no definitely formulated to which we could refer as justification for the students having a determining voice in deciding rules for their own conduct. I agree that before we came we were not promised license and no rules. However, I feel that there was a very definite commitment expressed-and that this is the "philosophy" that everyone has been refering to. It is this: students, faculty and administration alike were invited to join together in a common risk to create a new institution. The promise that we as students would have a voice in formulating policy which affects us is what brought many of us here. We were invited to join in creating something, we were not invited to sit around someone else dePage 7 cided what to do with us. This does not mean that students demand and expect the right to hold all power over student conduct. This does not mean that we want to see uncompromising lines drawn between students-faculty. Rather we wish to see that the original commitmentthat students should be assumed to have the right to a voice in their own affairs-is honored. Karen Inge Fryklund Tl$ CATALYST Published weekly by the students of New College Editor Laura Rawson Staff Reporters Linda Benua Glenda Cimino Chuck Hamilton Dennis Kezar George Monoson Charles Raeburn Tom Todd Typists Esther Lynn Barrazone Liz Caldwell Cookie Hoigne Diana Shiphorst Sam Treynor Betsy Yocher Business Manager Richard Kainz