New College of Florida Brilliantly Unique; Uniquely Brilliant



Material Information

Alternate Title:
Catalyst (Number Four)
Physical Description:
New College of Florida
New College of Florida
Place of Publication:
Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date:
March 1978


Subjects / Keywords:
History -- New College (Sarasota, Fla.)
newspaper   ( sobekcm )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
College student newspapers and periodicals
College publications
Spatial Coverage:
United States -- Florida -- Sarasota


General Note:
Twenty four page issue of the student produced newspaper.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.

Record Information

Source Institution:
New College of Florida
Holding Location:
New College of Florida
Rights Management:
Before photographing or publishing quotations or excerpts from any materials, permission must be obtained from the New College Archives, and the holder of the copyright, if not New College of Florida.
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


NEW COLLEGE STUDENT PUBLICATIONS Number Four, March 1978 Editors Layout Copy Editor Advertising Graphics Photogs John Wilke Robert Schiffman Brent Miller Bob Rush Nansy Nadler Kevin Cole Devera Tulcensky Maggie Hall Debbie Serviss Flex Kramer Contributors: ,John Biggers, Butch Me Comb Larry Lewack, Armen Armman, Tahitian Bob Teti, RICKREVER, Lois Brandwene, A. MeA. Miller, De bra Jenks, Brian Albritton, Bob Rush, Bruce Glassford, Pam Drake. "There must be in America a change in the way we look at education. If we continue to inculcate in our young the abysmal belief that the goal of education is a better iob, or that it will bring success (without in the meantime spelling out we mean by success), then the only incentive to learning can be grades and credits. I think there is a finer incentive. It is that incentive we are searchinr, for at New College. 11 Dr. Arthur R. Borden Professor of English "Hell, why not just give them money." Dr. John Morrill Professor of Biology Frograms, activities facilities of the University of Florida are available to all on a non-discriminator baSis, w1thout regard to race, color, creed religion sex y o.rigin, or handicap. The h an a!fumative act1on Equal Opportunity Employer.


LETTERS Dear Catalyst, A math fact of some note: There are say 400 students at New College this term. If we look at all possible subsets or possible groups, we get an amazing figure. The set of people A,B,and C is considered different from the set of people A,B, --and for good reason, as each person in a group changes the nature of the group. Okay, so we're looking at all possible subsets of the 400 (probably more, but 400 will do) students -all possible groups that might form. The number of subsets is 2400. A big number, surely. Row big? Well, if we estimate 1070 (10 with 70 zeroes after it) elementary par ticles in the universe (a gerierous estimate, as science sees it), let's cor.pare the numbers. 2400 =(24)100 = (16)100 which is mil-lions of times bi?ger than 1070. So there are more possible groups of New College students than there are elementary particles in the universe. As they say, the are enormous ... ----Love, Bill sv: .. mson Dear Editor: Myself, David de Freese along with co defendant William Bailey are presently serving sentences of five to fifiteen years for the charge of Sales of Cocaine. We have completed 3 1/2 years of our sentence but won't be elligible for parole until 1980. Since our incarceration our have abandoned us and of us have any families, so we are v.rriUn.g in hopes that you will print a small article in the student newspaper asking the students if they would mind corresponding with two lonely inmates. We are both twenty-four years of age, and we attend the college here at the prison. Race,Creed or color does not matter. Should you decide to print this article, our address is as follows: David de Freese#C-1975 and William Bailey#C19E6 Housing Unit #3/1; P.O. Box 307: Beacon, New York 12508. We thank you for your time and consideration. Very Truly Yours, David de Freese William Bailey The journal monthly QUEST/78 has reserved room for an experiment al:>oard an early flight of the U.S. Space Shuttle. Purpose: to help make the program accessible to deserving experiri:enters who lack resources to develop and finance such projects on their own. QUEST/78 invites groups or individuals to submit ideas for the best use of the Shuttle reservation and will donate it to the winner, in addition to sharing the experimenter's NASA fees and developmental costs, according to financial need. The winning project can be in almost any field, ranging from astrophysics to medicine, economics to molecular biology. But it must be an experiment that can be done only aboard the Space Shuttle, fit into a container measuring five cubic feet, and weigh less than 200 pounds. Most important, QUEST/78 will give special consideration to proposals that promise some tangible, significant benefit to humankind (e.g., the eradication of disease, more efficient energy use, etc.). Sheer commercial or military projects will not be considered. Deadline for the QUEST/78 Space Shuttle Experiment Competition is September 1,1978. If you have sufficient background to design and construct an appropriate project, write a succinct description of your idea in 500 words, enclosing any necessary diagrams 1 together "ri th a resume of any other information that would indicate your ability to carry out such a project. Send your proposal and credentials, with a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: QUEST/78, Space Shuttle Experiment Competition, 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New YQrk, NY 10036. For additional information see the March/ April issue of QUEST/78.


Apologies to Kurusawa DODES KA DUNG OR: IS BOB TETI, AND WHY ARE PEOPLE SAYING THESE TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT HIM About two weeks ago, in the midst of a hot and heavy game of Space Odyssey, someone called to my attention a rather impressive quantity of blood flowing from beneath the doors of the Not wanting to intrude, I tried to peer through the windows, but saw only large clouds of steam about the room Ever on the alert for non-news in the making, I speedily composed myself, siezed a quick sixpack from Mr. Cholesterol --my aide-de-chump, Ms. Brown, calls him FF, but I don't think she means french-fry --and for lack of a telephone booth, burst through the fishbo wl d oors in my s t r eet clothes. ON TRIAL FOR HIS LIFE It was an SEC meeting in session. SEC. Student Executive Committee. Always there, usually fun, and you add, boring. Wrong. SEC meetings are usually quite civil affairs, though not up to Black Tie status. The last thing they did that got into the Catalyst was make a resolution supporting Ron and Jack and some underlying principles calling for more student recognition in such matters. Simple, you say. Indeed. But the life of an SEC member is not all peche la creme. lt isn't even all peche la frog. Wit!1ess: the last four sessions. February 8: (Reconstructed from the Official Minutes of Armen Amirian, Clerk and graduate of the Professor Irwin Cory School of Stenography) Film Guild squares off against Film Committee. Comments about Jack and Ron. Dull, eh? Then the Chairman, Bob Teti, brings up the subject of salary for the SEC Chair. Teti leaves the room, and the debate is off. Rever, the last paid Chair, explains that it takes a hell of a lot of time and patience to be SEC Chair, so much so, that in his case, he was prevented from working any other paying jobs. And he needed the bucks. Mr. Vickers recalls that wher. the idea of pay for Rever came up, Rever suggested that it was a non-precedentsetting action, and that in the future all cases of salaried Chair would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Various grandiose matters of political principle come up, and slowly merge themselves with the case of paying Teti. Mr Rever (God that sounds funny; he's always either "REVER" or "Rickrever") Mr. Rever motions that the SEC pay Teti $20 per WPPk SEI. \-hair and table that motion until the 8th week, at time Teti' s per-


forrnance can be properly evaluated. Much discussion ensues, and discussion is tabled until next week, when Teti can present his case. Why I'm writing this, I don't know; all the prurient blood seekers like myself were there, and the rest of you probably don't care and aren't reading this. February 15: (This time I'm here) More of business as usual, you know, the peche la stuff. Then, the issue. This time, Teti does not leave the room, but stays to argue his own case. More debate than before, which I won't try to reconstruct, except to say that the various persons arguing seemed once again unable to separate the case of paying Bob Teti as SEC Chair and the case of paying the SEC Chair in whatever it might take for the next seventeen hundred years. Motion is made to pay Mr. Teti retroactive to his first meeting ($20/ week), which is then ammended to pay him from the current meeting until the end of his term. The vote is four for, four opposed, and one abstention: which left (guess who!) Mr. Teti, the chairman, to cast the deciding vote, which he did: For. Motioncarried. Mixture of sounds is rapidly filling the room: applause and boos, laughter and moans, cries and whispers. But no bloody grins. Yet. Members suddenly begin to realize what has taken place. This Intrepid Reporter suddenly has the feeling that Charlton Heston has smacked the doors of the fishbowl with his cloak, because instantly the room divides politically like the proverbial (Exodusial?) waters. A motion is made to recall the vote, which is either not recognized or is tabled (I forget). At any rate, this raises some ire, and there is a motion made to overrule the Chair. Strong stuff here now. Resident Parliamentarian Josie Martir comments that a motion to overrule requires a 2/3 majority. The 2/3 majority does not materialize, so Teti's vote to salary himself stands. After the meet ing, Intrepid Reporter begins to gather his thoughts and realizes that besides a tricky political situation, there are intense personal factors at play here. The paint is peeling the ceiling of the fishbowl. --P.S. The big complaint is now not paying Teti, nor not paying SEC Chair, but how the meeting was run. Well, it was run with strict procedural correctness: Ethically? That depends upon which side (you see? even I'm mentioning sides) you were on to begin with. February 22: The Intrepid (Insipid?) Reporter is really prepared: I stake out a table in the corner 15 minutes before the meeting is scheduled to begin, armed with pad, pen, beers, and 40 cigarettes. Meeting time and Good God where is Nero? I see the smiling potential martyr, and a peanut gallery full of frighteningly sanguine faces. Intrepid hopes that the boring preliminary bouts will reduce the crowd, because I've got cheap seats and want to see too. Unfortunately, that was roughly the atmosphere: Beach Blanket Bloodbath. The opening bout (dubbed by my aide-de-crap Mrs. Brown as the First Annual Crucify Armen Amirian Night) was a kicker. Nail #1 (left hand) was an official censure of Armen's last set of SEC minutes. Those devotees of Pei Glass Reading will note a significant lack of fictionalized humor in the sets of minutes following the censure. But one stigmatus doth not an Armenian martyr make. Thus, Nail #2: A letter from Jeff Eckert about Palm Court Parties and Media Center equipment. No details needed here this one: Teti can do an excellent Clint Eastwood under pressure. The skillfull reader will note that that's only two nails, and any self-respecting crucifixion requires a third spike to pin down the martyr's feet. In true short-story fashion, I'm withholding the toe nail until later. Cheryl Breadboard comes in. In brief, we're getting new soccer nets, up boats, coffee houses. Guggenheim was denied $43 more for Space Follies. (Hence all the mail fraud propaganda, which I still don't understand. But listen, Mr. Houska, I've seen Mudge rip Ron Bergwerk to shreds, so be on your toes or call Darrow.) Rever calls Cheryl Breadboard "inept" and asks for her removal (an act that was soon to prove unnecessary). To prove that there is at least a little peche la frog left, Teti mentions that Frank Dolan says prices for the purchase of cookies by the University must be subjected to competitive bidding.


OK,OK! I know. (But I had to sit through this stuff too, before the main event, so why shoudn't you?) Main Event: George Depaolis calls for a strict motion on the payment of SEC Chair. (But I thought we were taking this on a caseby-case basis, thinks Intrepid.) George also mentions academic credit as a means of lightening the workload. (An aside to Intrepid is to the effect that George is full of shit.) Mr. Smyth (of the Constitution Committee) mentions that if 11SEC Chair is not paid, he is not accountable to the body," or something like that. Kaplan (proxy for Goldwin) moves that SEC Chair be paid. Random (hot) debate. Rever in disgust calls for vote immediately; Kaplan clarifies his motion. Intrepid makes 45 second oration from the floor, feels he has shot Armen in the writing hand, shot Cheryl and Teti in the back with the selfsame bullet, and shot himself in the ass. Vote. Teti is denied salary. Rapidfire motions revoke salary from (here's the third Nail you've all been waiting for) Armen as Secretary, and from Cheryl Breadboard as Chairperson of herself. Various rumblings of random resignations. And we're adjourned. March 1: No Teti at the meeting, but that doesn't mean he's resigned. So, it looks like the Bob Teti Bloodbath has ended with tempers flaring on several sides, and nobody getting paid. Two or three things: One: there's going to be explicit information on Private Fund stuff coming out (Irm a staunch PF supporter, so read it and give, or wear a scarlet A, for asshole). Two: various SEC sub-committees have been formed to deal with University encroachments on matters affecting New College (so watch the mail for this information, and pay attention, or brand your forehead with a C for clone.) Three: Herbie comes back to collect his $43 for Space Follies again. Herb attacks Glen. Armen rolls his eyes back into his head. Mr. Rever suggests that SEC will reimburse Herb for of his expenditures: Guggenheim then produces receipts for $24.48. Rever moves that Herb be paid $24.47. And it passes unanimously. So why all this bullshit? Because nothing was said about Teti's salary. Intrepid removes his "Bob Teti Fan Club" badge and sticks it on the board. (Interjection of a non-journalist which has no even in a non-article. But what tl:e fuck?) The Pay Teti/Do Not Pay Teti question became inextricably mingled with the Pay Chair/Not Pay Chair question, and the whole thing was muddled by undercurrents of Support Teti Regardless/Screw Teti As Bad As We Can sentiment. The whole SEC and Intrepid Reporter and Peanut Gallery should be flogged with a wet tort for allowing this thing to assume such proportions. Mr. Teti may have stretched the friendly atmosphere of the SEC a bit, to its procedurally correct limits in fact, with the handling of some meetings (but then, I can show you scars where my own fucking dog chewed my calf after he'd been hit by a bus, and thought the whole world was going to kick his bad leg.) Currently, everyone on the SEC and breadboard is without pay, and will probably remain so until the ratification of the new student constitution. (The new constitution will purportedly state which positions will and will not be paid.) For the time being, let's sum it up this way: SEC Chair is a tremendously demanding position, and any student who is not an utter masochist should want, and should get, some form of compensation for taking on the task. Mr. Teti defended himself nobly, and whatever the personality conflicts within the current SEC are, and whoever they apply to, they should be restrained in the future. The new student constitution is forthcoming and should eliminate a lot of this shit. We've lost Cheryl Breadboard and Kaplan; we stand to lose Teti(and God knows nobody else is going to step in as Chair at this point) and Rever, and Armen, and others. Take a deep breath and count to ten. I think that it's over for the time being, and so SEC can go on with its appointed rounds. Intrepid goes on the wagon, and abandons forever the use of the convoluted syllogism as a form of reasoning. Jut .. t.rte ... o-Complete Musicel o!r Professionel Equipment 11:17 MAIN STREET/SARASOTA, FLA. 331n.II13J JM-H11


ABSOLUTION O.K., Fuckers, you've gotten us really pissed off this time. You slanderous turds have accused us of everything from theft of private funds (what's the figure now, boys, $100 or $500?) to unfair distribution of public A & S monies to monetary self-interest at the expense of the public good --everything from rampant megalomania to latent homosexuality. From Herbie to Lewack we've heard nothing but the paranoid ranting typical of those who create imaginary grievances when their own lives become abysmally dull. Well, We've had about all we can take. Here it is -for the. last time --a list of S.E.C. allocations for the entire year. Whether you take it as the purging of a guilty collective conscienceor an honest accounting of the truth doesn't matter to us. If you are dissatisfied with how we have spent our paltry budget, vote us out of office. Meanwhile, keep a lid on the slanderous allegations. Sincerely, Address all comments, replies, and contributions to: Rex Rever Meyer Lansky, Box #1 S.E.C. Allocations Hamilton Center Telephone Plays (Don Richmond, Herb, Merzer) The Catalyst \>lomen' s Studies Palm Court Parties Radio Station Pizza Night Trail Association Basketball Team (DEVO) Yearbook Yoga Madrigals Save the Fine Arts Rally Sailboat Repairs Dance Classes Medieval Fair Soccor Goal Nets Seth's Keg Party Private Fund $550 $500 $600 $190 $850 $300 $225 $370 $195 $200 $200 $500 $ 50 $136 $400 $ 56 $128 $100 Before you start criticizing how quickly we went through the money, take a look at what it was spent on. This is not the era of the nickel cigar. The SEC operated on $9000 of A & S money this year, \-Thich is something like a third of what we used to get before the merger (or BM as its known). There is no way we can provide a wide range of social, cultural, and academic events on that amount. Also, the red is ridiculous. Funds take 4-6 weeks to clear, almost anything over $50 has to go to competitive bidding. There is no Tetus Maximus Bookstore Account Movies Bin Ramke Poetry Robin Hood School of Ballroom Poetry Coffeehouses S.E.C. Chair (Term I) S.E.C. Chair (Term II) Breadboard Chair (Term I) Breadbo&rd Chair (Term II) S.E.C. Secretary (Term I) S.E.C. Secretary (Term II) P.C.P. Taped Music International Affairs Conference Registration Printing Coffee for Study Week Total Allocations $ 40 $ 500 $ 300 $ 60 $ 30 $ 120 $ 20 $ 150 $ 87 $ 150 $ 75 $ 7 $ 16 $ 150 $ 100 $7356 such thing as cash on hand for emergencies. Worst of all, if something goes wrong with a funding request or the billing and processing there is basically no way to remedy the situation. Sound too Want a few examples? How bout deese apples? Dave Kramer requested $200 for the yearbook as a subsidy (so that we wouldn't have to pay $10 bucks a shot, or something ridiculous like that). The SEC granted him the money. A month later (processing time) the request was rejected by Tampa--it seems that Dave was supposed to have put the job up for competitive bidding. The Catalyst


ran into the same kind of trouble. Luckily there was a private fund this term to help cover these problems. Face it, we lead sheltered lives. Dealing with a bureacracy is an art which is not easily mastered. Up till last year it was relatively easy to "launder" A & S money, to keep it in a private account so that we could have easier access to it. This is no longer the case. Every request must be legitimate. And alchohol isn't the only thing we can't spend money on. The SEC once tried to give the Admissions department a $1000 dollar grant to advertise in a major periodical (like the New York Times educational supplement) but couldn't because of restrictions on A & S funds. We even had trouble paying for the dance classes this term because the instructor is a New College student now and USF regulations state that a student cannot be a professional, and the maximum we can pay students is $3.75 an hour. On the subject of parties. Palm Court Parties have always cost between $200 and $300 each. We did not spend any more this term than we normally do. The only differ-ence is that we used some of the money directly out of the private fund without having to clear it through the State. Parties have always been funded by the student goverment, and they are on a much smaller scale than they used to be. The private fund was not designed to be used solely for illicit substances. The idea was to have more money to work with. Frankly, the SEC would not have made it through this term without private fund. We need this money if we want to be able to offer a good assortment of activities, publications, films, coffeehouse, and the like. There used to be a position known as Student Chair (not to be confused with SEC Chairperson). This person was an SEC funded visiting professor who taught classes for a term in an area not covered by our OW\1 faculty. This had been stopped because of lack of funds, but is again possible with the private fund. So, please don't feel that because you don't drink (neither do I) that you have no reason to care about this private fund. To be justified one would have to also say that he doesn't see movies, go to coffeehouses and plays, doesn't read the newspaper, go to poetry readings, or do any of the activities. Furthermore, if you are dissatisfied with the activities, or there is something you want--do about it. Ken Holloway is a full time activities director, pa1o for with A & S money: use him. If you either have a general suggestion or definite idea, let him know. He is a qualified activities person, not a mind reader. The SEC has voted on a preliminarJ private fund budget for third term. The extra money would be split about one-third "aca demics," one-third "cultural activities," and one-third parties (parties not to exceed $900). This has been a test term. I think the experiment can be considered successful, at least in principle. Our goal is to have all the bugs worked out by the fall, so that we have an organized process to operate by. With the rewriting of the student constitution and the restructuring of student government many changes will be seen. The executive branch and the judicial branch will have more responsibilities and more power. We must maintain our autonomy instead of becoming just another branch campus. Auxiliary funding is something unique to New College in the USF system. It could make the difference in how much the student's government can do. Anything that is different about Ne\-' College helps us to remain autonomous--legally, financially, and spiritually. Armen Armi rian


Lewack The last number of the Catalyst contained several pieces designed to provoke some intelligent and possibly constructive response, to its everlasting credit. Perfessor Mac tried to mix noble philosophy with an apology for his colloeagues' slipping integrity rather unsuccessfully, I thought (who defines a good college as based on the authoritarian/Socratic model of teacher-student relations? Maybe Uncle Lotzie, but I would hope he is in the minority here). Greg Vickers' indignant commentary on the politics of tenure expressed the growing fears of many students of a faculty witchhunt against the applied arts at New College, bringing out into the open its seamier side: the personality conflict as prime criterion for the negative tenure vote on Jack and Ron. Armen gave us a religious/mechanical explanation for the metaphysical linkage between art, theory, and bricks. And we have a rather polite letter to Uncle George from our august SEC via Tahitian Bob, (the very man who couldn't moderate the original demonstration/meeting effectively and who recently gained notoriety by manipulating himself into a tidy weekly salary.) All these pieces suggested some degree of discontent, but none offered any ideas to deal concretely with the problems ao thoroughly analyzed, especially in terms of the immediate future. By contrast, "two students of heretofore negligible repute" asked for concrete suggestions and opinions on the proposed student constitution they're preparing (what "self-styled radical elites"?), which has the potential of aggrandizing on Lewack by Larry Lewack student powere in relationship to the burgeoning USF bureacracy. And Lee Snyder, bless his heart, has renewed his credentials as a creative scholar by proposing a ''new Statement of Purpose for long term projection," however -r:entative and general. Regardless of their final dispositions, the dehates over a new Student Constitution and a Statemeni: of Purpose would. force us to confront our collective and educational philosophy and thJ power rela tionshi-ps that they presume, for the first time since the merger. Whether this con1 frontation produces intelligent and creative change depends on many factors; certainly the Catalyst has encouraged such a response from the New College community by printing these pieces. The creativ2 challenge offered by Mssrs. Smyth, T.ple; and Snyder will be ignored only at the peril of New College' s future. Our national reputation as an experimental college has dwindled in the face of conservative retrenchment on the part of the faculty and the New College foundation, the two groups that have determined the College's fortunes from its inception. Snyder and Breggren are almost in articulating creative proposals that go beyond mere reaction to USF's encroachments, and nobody else seems willing to do much more to lead the college into an aggresively positive stance towards the state bureacracy. It seems that everyone in the community is so busy with the dayto-day demands and responsibilities of academia that nobody has the time to take positive steps towards ensuring that New Col lege will viable as an alternative to the mindless backstep of most undergraduate education in the U .S. today. By our


silence or by our meek intellectual protests clothed in neutral liberal rhetoric, we lend tacit support to the slow death of the New College ideals that drew many of us here in the first place. The recent death of yet another alternative and experimental college (Franconia, in January) should help us appreciate the precariousness of our position. With all the concessions that have been made, I believe New College still offers an environment quite unlike that available at any other college in the U.S. today. Thus, I stay, along with many others who understand this reality. But I also believe none of us are so naive. as to expect the present to be projected indefinitely into the future. More students and faculty who have no familiarity with the private New College enter each quarter, and the USF hordes and the master plan to deal with them probably will materialize. Unless we are aggressive about securing a constructive identity, we will be swallowed up, much like the Federal govermment co-opted the civil rights movement into inaction. It has been past time that we get off our complacency, seize the initiative, and turn the tide the other way. One means of doing this might be to employ our scholarly tools in a critical analysis of our own conditions, and then have the courage to act upon our conclusions. Having had some degree of training in the liberal arts, we seem to be very good at analyzing the situation, but in a characteristically individualist and scattershot fashion. We are under the false impression that our private melodies of dissent all harmonize into a chorus of unified opposition. The reality is that few of us and almost none of the outside society hear anything at all, and what we do hear is almost always garbled and almost never followed through on intelligently. The outpouring of sentiment over the prospective firing of Jack and Ron provides a good case in point. Many concerned students wrote letters in support of these faculty when they t-1ere called for tenure review. When the PAC recommended against them, a demonstration was organized by a few students to attempt to George to block their removal. One-quarter to one-half of Nev College stti dents currently enrolled (oepending on who you get your estimates from) participated in this action, proving that collectivelyexpressed dissent is viable and has a constructive role. George is to be commended for recommending tenure for Ron and Jack.,but '"hat to the badly-needed increased funding for the music and sculpture and ceramics departments? The sculpture studio is a disgrace, a poorly-equipped and filthy slum that should've been condemmed years ago. Its continGing squalor is a reminder of the low priority that the Humanities division assigns to this important area; the Music departmentis hardly any better off. Even if Jack and Ron stay, how do they facilitate student learning with such poor facilities? It seems obvious that the only way this situation will ever change is if the students who are affected organize to demand increased funding for the departments. Many of us who attended the demonstration felt that not enough attention was being paid to the power issues involved. There is no student representation of any kind on the PAC (the faculty committee that recommended against tenuring Jack and Ron). This is inconsistent with the philosophy of meaningful student participation that structures most of New College's government system, and practically ensures that student opinion will be equally ignored in the future decisions of the PAC. That is, unless students organize to demand elective student representation on the PAC, which would force it to become more responsive and less arbitrary and/or petty. Typically, none of these very necessary organizing efforts is being followed through or planned at this time, as far as I know, by anyone in the community. If this apathy continues, then the good feelings and excitement generated by the demonstration and George's positive response to it are likely to be dissipated until the next reactionary crisis threatens the perceived domain of "rights and priveleges." Sculpture and ceramics and music students will not be any better off than when the whole issue first arose, and may in fact be in worse shape because of the smugness generated by a victory which is temporary and incomplete at best. By failing to take the initiative towards meaningful and lasting change in the power relationships governing


the community, students will once again allow others to determine what is best for students. vfuy this doesn't have to happen will be discussed in greater detail below. But first, I'd like to digress briefly to discuss Lee Snyder's proposed new State ment of Purpose, because of its potential for generating constructive debate on New College's long-term direction. As I see it, there are three major reasons for adopting a statement of purpose for this college: 1) To provoke the college's students and faculty into some hard and creative thinking about our collective educational philosophies and goals. 2) To create a concrete expression of these goals that can serve as a bulwark against the encroachment of the state bureacracy, by providing clearly expressed standards against which both positive and negative changes can be measured. 3) To provide a clear expression of the college's long-term intentions that will attract students and faculty committed to their preservation. None of these purposes is presently being fulfilled in the context of the existing environment, which is one of the major reasons why so many of us perceive New College as stagnating. Dr. Snyder's proposal stands out as one individual's outcry against the silent apathy, and a creative and progressive outcry at that. Whether or not anyone else answers is a matter of integrity, I guess; for me, the document raises important questions that I feel bound to respond to critically. My principal objection to the proposal as it now stands is its lack of historical context, which Dr. Snyder should have considered more carefully. No attempt has been made to integrate this statement with expressions of academic and social philosophy from New College's past, which is probably more a function of our failure to undertake a comprehensive institutional history or self-study than any negligence on the part of Snyder. Until we consider what forces and ideas have shaped our present environment, we will be unable to systematically analyze what needs changing versus what should be preserved intact. A history and/or self-study would achieve these ends, and constitute a prerequisite for an intelligent debate on any statement of purpose. My second principal objection to Dr. Snyder's proposal is that I doubt it is enough to serve the purposes numbered 2) and 3) above. Like those genera] and high-sounding statements of philosophy in the New College catalogues over the years that drew many of us here in the first place, Snyder's numerous "this means that" statements sound great, but are simply not concrete enough to allow us to judge day-to-day events as to their success or failure in living up to each goal. There is nothing in the entire statement about the importance of a "sense of community," of preserving the contract system or evaluations, or about the faculty's responsibilities in the learning process (e.g. how many evaluations are you overdue?). Neither is there any attempt to clarify what New College offers that is unavailable at other institutions; such distinctions are an important part of our self-identity, and should speak towards a societal context, not merely to our role "within the state university system." These are only the most glaring omissions; certainly critical analysis will uncover others. Finally, I object to many of the specific terms that Snyder uses in the statement. I'm particularly leery of the phrase "quality education for the gifted" in the preamble. Isn't the concept of "quality" essentially without specific standards that make term quantifiable? And are "the gifted'' those wl-to achieve only in tbe traditionaJ sense, or it also include those cre.F.:: 3nd occasion.:' lly brilliant iconoclast:::: '1-Trn rer'eive bad grades and ot!1er marks of disap, rovctl because thev refuse to knuckle under co tbe System's continued on page 14


SUNDOWN. CHOPPING BACK THE BANYAN. (for n:)l father, b. 18q8} Its first law is redundancy: not one root where three will do; but a tangle of soft brown firmly mounted as the hemp on hawsers loops from trunk to root, then over the dirt and back around the stems, falling. Our machetes are whet-rock solid, chopping as if we were the tree's salvation, for its roots' own fiber cuts in the trunk so the wood heals up around the roots still growing, marred with crisscross scars of woody pulp. "It's hidden half the sunshine from our yard," you said. An hour ago, the tree was a cover of quivering shade; its green crown some five times taller than you seemed, father, when I was five. But now the dark seeps out. 1 As we move in, chopping back the banyan is to be a prisoner of silt and stems; our ankles settle in to the pulpy mulch blown back here last October wind.


ping, kneeling in the spent leaves, are not 'lost in thought' but swallowed redundant fiber, wet with sap the tree that heals itself. We kneel as if to breathe a litany of healing: 'every cell of my body is perfect; there is no sickness in it.' Then our breath comes heavy in the banyan's musk. As our feet work deeper, dark falls out of the branches -black of resin laved with silt. With with the tears that stretching fibers move in our eyes; while the deep wood center of the great tree stirs with the shift of the sun, with the pull of marl-bright water on its roots, while the moon shifts light from its craters and onto the crown of the banyan now canting its bright leaves around us, as dark steeps over the fibers of muscles grown redundant, and we kneel repeating some message of healing the banyan found a need to state again. A. MeA Miller


Lew ack con. 't definition of good and bad? We need to know what is intended; trey ere simply too ambiguous in their us13e. And whose definitions of "flexibh" and "freedom'' apply--Mac Miller's, or Russ Borden's? And is "solid academic achievement" defined in terms of numbers of books read and papers produced, or also by personal growth and creative challenges to existing ideologies and methodologies? These are issues that can only be resolved through critical collective debate: hopefully this critical commentary is only the first rebuttal in an extended series. Having endured my blather for this long, the reader may wonder how I intend to tie all these divergent critiques together in a positive manner. The basic need is for intelligently planned and executed efforts at change, which have been a relative rarity in New College's past and pre sent. For all the reasons discussed earlier, we seem to lack both the energy and leadership to pursue the changes that maP-y of us can agree are necessary. The Social Change Study Group is one of the only groups in the college's present environment that is attempting to fill this vacuum, but it can't do so alone. Having made a commitment to collective action pursued through the methodology of participatory democracy, we must of necessity reject the narrow interest-group labels that so many in the community assume we subscribe to. We would like to become the focal point for efforts towards change through collective action in the college community, and our means are the fostering of creative analysis and organizing for constructive change. Our interests include helping music and sculpture and ceramics students organize for increased funding for their departments, lobbying for elective student representation on the PAC, initiating an institutional self-study/history, working with neighborhood action and other community groups on local issues, and many others too numerous to list here. He are open to the suggestions and participation of ali community members, and welcome those of all academic and political orientations. Effecting meaningful change will require the interest and participation of all of us; we cannot shirk this responsibility. CAMPUS lOOK STORE FOR ALL YOUR BOOK NEEDS 5350 N. TAMIAMI TRAIL


Leftovers Unwrapped Leftovers, an original two-act play by New College's own Glen Merzer, carries on in the tradition established by such earlier Merzer efforts as Happy Couples and First Born on Main. Raising the sardonic throwaway to the level of an art form, Leftovers attempts to portray the human wreckage produced by a misantrophic economic system, a system which produces human rejects or leftovers. The play's strategy places a variety of social types (advertising exec, spacedout hippie, off balanced Vietnam vet, pregnant cheerleader, etc.) in dramatic confrontations which highlight their own crippling idiosyncrasies. Glen succeeds in capturing the audience's attention with a continuous flurry of oneliners and ironic juxtapositions. This aspect of the writing is crucial in that the plot is kept to a minimum. As a result, the rather long two acts move along with rapidity and never In the course of the play we see the development df several characters personRl growth in understanding in a way that lends some offering of hope to what Merzer feels is an essentially meaningless and ironically cruel world. The whole of the dramatic action is contained in a series of reasonably coherent vignette, a form \vhich Merzer finds particularly appealing. While this technique provides the play with several memorable moments --the Rosemary and No-Nam scene comes to mind --the results are, on the whole, incomplete and as such unsatisfying. The problem arises most apparently in scenes where the individual characters have not been fully realized. The entire father-daughter relationship of Lucky and Rosemary comes off flat. Yet another problem of characterization arises from Merzer's whole approach to humor. Too often we find characters on the verge of believabiljty handcuffed to an atrociously bad Merzer pun. (It should be noted that the puns are, of themselves, quite good. But they are simply inappropriate in a number of instancet The performances, turned in by a mixed cast of veterans and novices, were engaging and professional. Perhaps the most note-worthy were those by Cliff Cullen as Joe Castle, Phil Lumsden as Brian, Cynthia Tucker as Mrs. Wiggins, and Seth Goldwin as No-Name. Also worthy of note were Bruce Glassfiord as Johnny, Stephanie Gillespie as Jane, Sande Sharlet as Minnifer, and Clair Robinson as Rosemary. These roles suffered somewhat from a lack of full realization. Whether this was a difficulty in writing or acting is difficult to say. Leftovers is a play with a statement. Glen's ideas about social and.economic forces in America are effectively reenforced by the characterization and performance. To the extent one can engage in detailed economic criticism through the theatre (an extremely difficult proposition) Merzer's Leftovers is a success. Glen's improvement in creating characters is notable. While I have some reservations about the humor given the characters, one can see a defin ite progression in the facility with which Glen creates characters. Glen has moved well beyond the stereotyping which mared Happy Couples. Glen's sense of humor needs to be restrained somewhat. The fault lies not in the humor itself, which is accurate and sharp, but in its over deployment. Leftovers is a strong play but could be improved upon by a sharping of dramatic interaction and restrained humor. It is encouraging to see an active theatre here at New College. Leftcvers contributes to this movement be an encouragement to both and the community. BY BOB RUSH


SURVIVORS ....... '"""" ...... .. ......... --.. ......-----"" BY BRIAN ALBRITTOI


This paper will cover two interelated topics: what is a survivor, and what isn't a survivor? A juxtaposition is necessary to answer and define these two questions. As will be shown, survival and survivors are not some distant individuals who were victims of a terrible experience. True, the word survivor has most often meant something of that nature, but since the holocaust in Germany, the word, survivor has come to mean someone who had survived the horror and depravity of the concentration camps. However, the terms survivor and survived have been assigned their unity in the image of a victim. In relation to the camp experience, this term, victim, received a whole new connatation. The majority of survivors were said to have been anti-social, passive, infantile, and zombies. Most everyone was described as either a super-egotist, an animal, or a killer having become an accomplice with the SS. Many books were written analyzing the camp experience, and several authors were shocked at the lack of resistance, i.e., the passivity of camp inmates. In turn, they embodied their insight of camp behavior in articles and book which called for greater autonomy and heroic efforts against tyranny. These critics, many of them psychiatrists, spoke of the camp experience, the inhuman behavior of individuals in extreme situations, and unwillingly assigned thier conclusions to the annals on human nature while calling for a greater consciousness of freedom. As an example, here are three observations by one author who has done a broad survey of camp literature: "Perhaps the grimmest bequest of the holocaust experience was that men were driven to choose survival at the expense of their humanity, creating a kind of solipsistic animality as the supreme value ... For without the possibility of honor, death loses its meaning ... nothing shatters the moral personality more quickly, however, than the revelation of what other men are capable of doing in extreme situations when their own lives are at stake, and when they are not permitted the dignity of known martyrdom." In sum, to have been a survivor was not only to have been a victim, but to have become an animal. This behavior in turn was correlated with a call for freedom evidenced in both heroic action, i.e., resistance, and in greater individual autonomy. First, it should be noted that individuals did. exist as described before. However, it is my contention that they were not, and never were, the majority. It should also be noted that the passiveanimalistic description of inmate behavior could also be a description of the behavior of many individuals around us. Concentration camps do not have the patent on passive or animalistic behavior; extreme situations are not the only place such behaviors develop. This characterization of people as cruel, super-egotist, antisocial, animals, or other types of survivor behavior is also a characterization of behavior in everyday life. However, within culture the lack of sensitivity due to the mass existence, its alienating influence on the idea of self and essential freedom, has led, at least in appearence, to such behaviors being the majority. What is needed is a distinction between victim and survivor. I posit that the person who has chosen passivity or animalism, and hence given up their humanity, their essential freed, is a victim, and not a survivor. Althogh there is not exact definition, a survivor may be characterized as an individual; some one who is aware of thier essential freedom of self, for life and the world as such are absurd and devoid of meaning except in the instances in which it is either accepted or created. One camp survivor, David Rousset, in his book, The Other Kingdom, used an expression to describe the camps: "l'univers concentrationnaire, i.e., the concentrated univ 3rse, or the moment and place of


of existence implying an of chaos, of and of meaninglessness. The survivor rejects the dulling affect of the world, and instead realizes that each moment carries the essence of existence; for in mo!'"l.ent we choose ourselves and our relation to the world. To exist within the world is to realize the contingencies and possibilities of life-that death or horror may be forced upon us at any moment. Realizing this results in an increasing awareness and emphasis on exist-ence. The moment is intensified, and life is no longer accepted or taken for granted, but is chosen and determined. In turn, this awareness accentuates our essential freedom of self: the freedom to determine our feelings, and to take a stand in re lation to the absurd condition of life. This determination of self is an affirmation of one's autonomy, and establishes self as self. To exist autonomously is a struggle for self and against victimization, most often without hope of a concrete victory, which provides the survivor with his meaning for existence. One can clearly see the difference between the survivor and victim if one reexamines the normal conceptions not only of victim, but of resistance, heroism, freedom, and martyrdom. Essentially, to reexamine and to redefine such concepts is to also ask for a; different concept of human nature. The justification for this endeavor derives from the exposeure of an invalid interpretive myth. March 13 CATCH22 Asolo U.S., 1970, 121 min., Color }ost"ph ll.>ller' s classic novel brought to the creen and dirtctl.'d hr Mike Sichols. Starring Alan Arkin Martin Jon. Voigt and Orson Welles. March 20 "THE l.lON IN Wll\'TER British 1968. J,'J4 min Cr>k>r \ihat is an interpretive myth? Most often an interpretive myth is an ideology: a set of princeples or expectations, more specifically, a certain way of looking at things. Instead of letting essences reveal or speak for themselves, this certain way of looking becomes a map causality, and the data or account is reduced or fitted to the outline. An example of such an interpretive myth is Freudian psychology. In relation to camp behavior, most of the interpretation has been done in this mode. The camps have been desscribed and interpreted as a "qrotesque patriarchy". Survivors became infants super-ego having bee n emptied of all its former value content-who there upon looked to the SS as fathers which showed the acceptable modes of behavior, cruelty and However, victims were not brainwashed, but chose such behavior; terror and horror required(they thought}that they redefine self in terms of situation. This example shares a common conception with the author quoted earlier: "people choose survival at the expense of their humanity, without honor, death lost its meaning, there was no dignity in martyrdom" ... and personalities were shattered at th0 sight of the behavior of tohers. Here you have a comparsion, for by justaposing extremeity-animalism with freedomheroism, one gets a convincing Winner of three Academ) this epic tells the story of King Henry II and Eleanor of Acquitain('. Stars are Peter O'Toole and Katharine llephum. Shown in <.on junction with the Mediev al Fair. Sarasota, Fla., U.S. 41, N. Tamlaml Trail at 32nd Street yracuse, N.Y., 138 E. Genesee Street


case for us to look inward, and reaffirm our own consciousness of freedom so tht it doesn't happen to us. Correlated with the idea of a grotesque patriarchy is the effect of mass existence on behavior. Thousands of people existed in the camps; new people arrived and people died every day. Per sons were not identified by name, but by number or ethnic-racial category. Hundreds of people were stuffed into a small area; individuals were only signaled out for death. All activity was done in groups; people ate, worked, and used the bathroom in groups of thousands. This mass existence was said to have given way to a mass mentality. People became alienated not only from others, but from themselves. In short, mass ex1stence bred mass mentality which resulted in passivity to the SS, alienation from others, and animalistic behavior. Except in rare instances, there was no overt resistance. These two interpretive myths have obscured camp life. True, there was a mass existence of widespread terror and dependence on the ss. Yet, there was resistance: social bonding and destruction. In short, not only camp life, but the stance of the examiner must be reexamined. One cannot validly interpret and judge both camp existence and inmate behavior while holding that the values and concerns of"veryday existence and camp life are the same. To be horrified at any deviation from normal daily life is to be unrealistic about camp existence. Consequently, easy chair viewing has no place in interpreting the camps, for the values and priorities of camp life and of culture are irnmensley different. Everyday existence tends to obscure the things people take for granted. For example, persons in the camps were only allowed to use the bathroom once a day. There was widespread dysentrey, and if you tried Ml IIICD 't I es around four 'til whenever, in the fine arts courtyard .. iced kegs courtesy s.e.c. private fund. zz noon to go out of turn, you were shot. (Note: The inmates concern about using the bathroom has been interpreted as the chief example of infantile regression.)There was excrement and filth everywhere, covering everyone, but inmates were not allowed to wash. Friendships existed one day, and the next -one's comrades had been gassed. With this in mind, one should understand where vne is looking from. Camp existence was not the same.nar can it be judged in relation to normal


existence. Sadly enough, most camp interpretations have been from these two myths, and this has resulted in guilt being assigned to those who "merely" survived. Resistance is meant to mean why didn't individuals just get up and fight? The question of resistance is probably the most crucial concerning the camps. Resistance to the SS usually is said to be the example of ones autonomy. Critics are more concerned with individual resistance than resistance of an organized nature. Individuals did resist, and true, resistance is very much connected with one's autonomy. It should be emphasized that disobeying the SS in any respect resistance. Social bonding, stealing, and trading, all very much a part of camp life, were in direct defiance of SS rules, and were punishable by death. A conception of resistance is connected with autonomy, but also with the price of survival, death, martyrdom, and suicide. Open defiance on an individual level was not martyrdom, but suicide. Resulting in no gain, tragic death from open defiance was senseless. Death was the norm; to survive mentally intact was the exceptional. The symbolism of the tragic hero was lost in the camps. The hero was the man who stole a piece of bread or clothing, who defied the SS, who stayed alive. In short, tragedy and suffering were the normality of camp existence; to die was to become just another body. one gave in to the purpose of the ss. If one realizes that in the camps disease was rampart, filth was everywhere, people were fed and treated on a level then was thought TRADE IN YOUR JEA S!


unable to support human life, then one can see that the "mere" act of surviving was an act of resistance. To survive was to resist; survival was to defy the expressed purpose of the camps which was death. To survive, i.e., to resist, was also to assert one's autonomy. Autonomy is exercised in choice, i.e., the affirmation of oneself as self. It should be noted that the quote "to choose survival at the expense of their humanity" is to clearly see that a choice was involved. This choice did not lie between compliance-life and autonomy-death as one author, Bruno Bettelheim, has said. To survive in the camps one had to comply with the rules, but one did not have to succumb to the attitude dictated by the conditions. Sur vival was resistance, the refusal of victimization. This raises the question of Martyrdom or overt heroism did nothing for oneself or other inmates. Instead, camp existence, with its horror and terror, accentuated one's existence by stripping away the' normality of everyday living. One could no longer take no longer take living for granted. The difference lies in comparing the overwhelming threat to life, against existence as the supreme challenge. As a challenge, existing and remaining autonomous, the assertion of one's freedom of the attitude, supplied the meaning of and suffering then appeared w1th1n a meaningful context. Individual freedom without meaning is horrifying and produces anomie. But when freedom is the crux of existence, as maintaining oneself as self, it takes on a meaningful context. Camp existence made individuals sensitive to their need for autonomy -their consciousness of freedom-to survive intact as a self. To affirm one's autonomy implied a different realism. The individual did not live by destiny, but was beyond it. The survivor lived moment to moment aware that he or she could New College Film Series Term III -New College Film Series In Conjunction with Medieval Fair 3/26 "Masque of the Red Death" (wit:,_ Vin-cent Price) 3/29 "Passion of Joan of Arc" 4/2-Pasolini's "The Decameron" (x) 4/5 -Murnau's "Faust" (live piano accompaniment by Prof. Ron Riddle!) 4/9 -Costa Gauras' "The Confession" 4/16-Andy Warhol's "Bad" 4/30 -America's Pop Collector 4/30Marcel Ophul's 11The Memory of Justice" Remaining 4 or 5 to be announced foosba\\ P nba\\ IL gs VJ\ne parW "e seer & dw\cheS \ san poo pJ B\9 screen #-ctsota \\: 2831 North Trail Sarasota (Across from Burger Kmg)


be killed or taken away at any time. The survivor rose to meet the challenges of existence. This resulted in the affirmation of self as self, and laid the groundwork for eventual organized resistance. This distinction between survivor and victim is also valid for every day existence. Behaviors of both natures exist around us, but what are the conditions that produce this phenomenon? The key is the normality of everyday life. The victim that exists in day to day life is of the passive nature; the animalistic manifestation is the exception. In normal existence people disallow the role of possibility and contingency. Life becomes patterned, for our expectations of reality are constantly reinforced. The institutions and social structures in which we exist becomes a structure which we accept and within which we work and live, i.e., they define our lives. Life tends to resemble a plot and fulfilment only comes at the end. Meaning is not derived form the process of living, but in the getting. This in turn becomes correlated with the idea of mass existence. Culture is not so much a conglormeration of individuals, but of groups who think and share roughly the same ideas and customs. Individuals are always a of a larger whole, and opinion is exerted by the mass. Existence within both this day to day normacy and mass results, most often, in individuals alienation from self. Day to day living obscures the prominence of self and its need for and instead one be gins to define oneself in relation to the world an l environment. The need to affirm oneself as autono-mous is reduced, and eventually obscured. Instead of defining the world in relation to the self, we define self in relation to the world. Society provides many of our choices and alternatives, and eventually, by defining oneself externally, i.e., to one's job, social interactions, party, we lose our private existence, and hence, we lose self.


Normalcy and mass consciousness alienate ourselves from a concept of self. However, to view life as a plot or destiny, is to realise that "the moment carries the essence of our life11 Jerzy Kosinski, author and a survivor, marks that we are on "a blind date with society", relying on the collective protection of society. Such a reliance, finds Kosinski, is foolish, for the rolec Of chance, of impinging possibility, is not taken into account. The only absolute protection of self "is the strength of character", i.e., the strength of Having as a 11oy lived through war in Poland, is aware of what he the "sheer miracle of existence in a basically hos tile environment". Rejecting the mindlessness of alienating normalcy, Kosinski views life as a drama: he accentuates each moment and the challenges within them. Says Kosinski, "I tend to see 1 my life as being challenged by the forces which the process of being al1ve .. noth1ng bars me from seeing my life as a series of emotionally charged incidents." For Kosinski, a survivor par excellence, it is the awareness of life and of oneself and the intensity involved which determines whether our life is nothing but a barely perceived existence or meaningful living." By creating his own meaning and realizing the contingency inherent in living, Kosinski recognizes life's absurdity. However, as a survivor, Kosinski rejects absurdity while seeking meaning in the essence of each moment of existence. Thus, one can see that the role of both victim and survivor are not only connected.l.\'lith What is normally taken for granted, our existence, is in reality threatened not only by a hostile environment or mass mentality, but by our forgetting who we are. By constantly defining ourselves in relation to our external interactions, we obscure our essential freedom; we, as selves, have the freedom to feel and to take a stand for or against our world. Essentially, we can only rely on self, and to lose this awareness is to choose not an autonomous existence, but an anonymous existence. YOUTH REMAINS Youth remai.ns, Not impetuous now. She all-ways questions \Vhy? No response. A ball-point pen Recaptures faceless men, with open nom:hs ; Empty and dark. Forgotten answers Evaporate from her bedside tab 1 et. T,ois Brandwene

Facebook Twitter YouTube Regulations - Careers - Contact UsA-Z Index - Google+

New College of Florida  •  5800 Bay Shore Road  •  Sarasota, FL 34243  •  (941) 487-5000