Swarthmore College - Halcyon Yearbook (Swarthmore, PA)

Page 10 text:

yWist favoKh wy ifc Kh If I were merely a reader ot The Phoenix, I would be in a state of utter confusion over the Ad- missions Committee -SASS -Student Council controversy. From what I have read, it would seem as % if each of the three antagonists have done something wrong — the Committee for putting the report on General Reserve, SASS for walking out, SC for hastily endorsing SASS ' s demands —and therefore I would not have taken sides. Alas, I am a member of Student Council. However, it is not only this fact that has made me see the issue more clearly; looking at The Phoenix analytically, what I have read by Jeff Spielberg and Peter Zimmerman verges on absurd nonsense — or, as it is more commonly known, liberal rhetoric (maybe in Peter ' s case it ' s conservative rhetoric ?). First, let me say that I do not care to carry on this running battle in the same way in which it ' s been discussed on these pages before. This will become clearer below. Second, I do not want to make the editor an enemy, although I intend to criticize his editorial. It ' s not that I ' m against having enemies ( There ' s a time and a place for everything — including enemies. ). It ' s just that when you are trying to deal with power, you confront those in power, not another who is as weak in the struggle as you are. Third, I do not know how many other SC members will agree with this article as it is written, but I feel that a majority would agree with it on fundamentals. What Jeff, Peter, and especially Dean Hargadon in his angry letter to SC members have all stressed is their concern with Student Council ' s hasty endorsement of SASS ' s four demands. However, not once in Jeff ' s editorial or in Hargadon ' s letter — and only slightly in Peter ' s comment — were the substantive issues ever discussed. The editorial said, The Phoenix is highly disturbed by the content of the SASS recommenda- tions, but is concerned even more by the broader questions of the proce- dures by which the demands were endorsed. Why doesn ' t The Phoenix discuss the content of the demands? Tactics can only be discussed once the position on content is known. Discussing form to the exclusion of content and disguising matter with manner is a great ruse of the liberal rhetoric. (George Kennan and Sidney Hook say that it is not good to be passionately opposed to poverty and racism, but it is all right to be pas- sionately against those passionately opposed to poverty and racism.) As long as procedural problems can be argued about, substantive content — the real issues — can be avoided in- by Hank Levy definitely. My challenge to Jeff Spielberg and to Dean Hargadon is to come out and state clearly what their reasons are for being against SASS ' s four (or two, in Mr. Harga- don ' s case) demands. Then we will be able to see clearly on which side of the issue (i.e., right and just vs. wrong and unjust) these people sit. I praise Peter Zimmerman for at- tempting to discuss the substantive issues, although he, too, concerns himself primarily with procedural matters. It is to his discussion of the issues that I now turn. SPLIT Zimmerman, unfortunately, is as afraid as the Admissions Committee — or the entire administration, for that matter — of giving Black students any power. Moreover, Peter does not seem to understand that there are two distinct interests represented here: admissions in general are rep- resented by Dean Hargadon and the Committee, and Black admissions and Black relations are represented by SASS. The first group cannot help but have certain ends in mind: making sure of Swarthmore ' s prestige and that students turn into successful in- tellectuals. The second group, how- ever, is concerned with the Black stu- dent in a white college and the Black man in a society which fosters racism through its institutions. The first group certainly represents more of the students here — since most of us are white. But SASS is really the only group capable of understanding Black admmissions and the large im- plications. Peter contrasts SASS ' s tough stands, its polemics and demands and walkouts with the enlightened and progressive (those are my adjectives, not his) motives of the Admissions Committee and nature of the report. Realizing that he is again guilty of using the liberal rhetoric, it is im- portant to notice the implications of this distinction — The Admissions Committee is trying its best, so let ' s give them a try, even if they do botch things up. However, if SASS is right, why don ' t we give them a try, too? The answer is because too many people here are stuck on the idea of the status quo: SASS shouldn ' t get power because they don ' t have it. Needless to say, they ' ll never be given power unless they ' re given a chance to prove they can make good use of it. And when they ' re not even given that chance, then they walk out. So where are we? To me, SASS ' s demands are reasonable, progressive and potentially beneficial to Swarth- more and American society. Student Council has taken a stand in favor of humanity and justice. How could we have offended so many people? by Han NOW THAT everyone knows that our Vietnam policy proved disastrous and was wrong from its conception, it is time to turn to more pressing issues. (I thought I would start off with a facetious remark to get readers interested.) In my opin- ion, the most important and relevant issue facing Americans at the mo- ment is the electoral system — the very foundation of the democratic k Levy order. It must be said that this 1968 presidential race has put the demo- cratic system on trial. Of those who are disgusted with the farce at Chicago, there seem to be three general types: (1) those to whom the convention merely confirm- ed their views regarding the evils and antiquities of the democratic system; (2) those who had been pre- viously skeptical, but not complete ly by Kathy McCarthy ' s campaign strategy certainly was a success: he suc- ceeded in bringing youth back into the Democratic Party, (Remember the full-page ada in The New York Times? Our children have come home. ) The strategy of the Democratic bosses was almost a success. They figured that the liberals would vote Democratic no matter what they did to us or who they nominated, and by and large they were right. Humphrey is going to lose anyway, but not be- cause of defections on the left. Hum- phrey is going to lose because he ' s demonstrated such a fantastic lack of charisma that almost no one but the diehard liberals will vote for him PAST EXPERIENCE We never learn, do we? I had lingering hopes, until the Chicago de- bacle, that Humphrey was, after all, the lesser of two evils. And there, in the midst of it all, was the liberal Minnesota giving a little speech about the importance of the Illinois delegation. Remember when we worked for Johnson back in ' 64? Now there was a peace candidate who really con- vinced us. Remember all that discus- sion about how much LBJ had changed ( matured was the word we used) since his days as a senator from Texas ? He gave really com- pelling arguments against further in- volvement in the war, He was about a thousand times more convincing than Humphrey is now And it was him or Goldwater. A year later Gold- water was commending Johnson ' s handling of the war. I will go anywhere, any time . . . Sound familiar? I don ' t like to admit this, but I was taken in by John- son ' s first bombing pause back in ' 65. Of course, Johnson demanded that the Vietnamese reciprocate, .pre- sumably meaning that they should stop bombing our country. APRIL FOOLS Moore And then there was the night be- fore April Fool ' s Day when Johnson announced that he would not 3eek re-election and would .halt the bomb- ings. They laughed when I wanted to celebrate, and they were right. The tonnage of bombs dropped on North Vietnam immediately increased, and instead of Johnson, we got his mate, sort of like Lurleen Wallace. And now, after clawing McCarthy out of his way and assenting in Daley ' s reply to anyone who didn ' t like it, Humphrey has turned into a slightly soiled dove. Either Humphrey and his friends were convinced that we ' d put up with it all, or they believed that they could win without us. The way things stand now, they can ' t even win with us. The Democratic signs read: Four years of Nixon-Agnew? Four years of Nixon-Agnew is probably what we ' re going to get, and it ' s hard to believe that it makes much differ- en ce. We can vote for the Democrats and hope that they ' ll throw us a bone now and then, but that hasn ' t worked very well lately. And as long as the Democrats can count on our support, they don ' t have to do a damn thing for us. MEANINGLESS VOTE The phrase is throwing away your vote. In fact, the logic of this implies that we should all vote for Nixon because Humphrey is going to lose anyway ( The New York Times gives him four states) , and we ' ll throw away our votes if we vote for him. Actually, we ' ve been throwing away our votes for years, supporting candi- dates we didn ' t really like because there weren ' t any better choices. It isn ' t going to change until we do something about it. We aren ' t going to get candidates we like if the bosses can get us to vote for candi- dates w e don ' t like. alienated from the system, to whom Chicago meant their Waterloo in radicalism ; (3) those who viewed Chicago as simply an atavistic or alien aspect of a basically good sys- tem. It is the last group who should listen to what radicals have to offer in the way of analysis; many of to- day ' s radicals felt — only a year ago — that the Vietnam war was only a simple mistake by a government which was basically honorable. Notwithstanding the many reac- tionary elements in this country (this will be a subject of a future column), it is fairly obvious that a large ma- jority of people asked for a change during the presidential primaries. The Vietnam war, rising prices, black revolution, the failures to cure pov- erty, urban problems, corruption in politics, and other problems turned people away from the Johnson admin- istration. Vice President Humphrey — who did not enter a single primary — was nominated at the Democratic con- vention. What this means to me is that this country ' s political system, if not containing the outright cor- ruption of a century ago, is certainly not the democratic, equitable system it is supposed to be in theory. Do the people have a say in politics Does the majority control? Where is the power in the American system? The answers to these questions seem obvious to me; they should be obvious to most people after Chicago. The lessons that the horror of Chi- cago taught us must not be taken lightly. To those who defend the viability of change within electoral politics and to those who criticize revolutionaries because they work outside the system, they had better either open their eyes or read the Dec- laration of Independence again (if they have ever read it before). Poli- tics — the institutions of society that are recognized as having the most in- clusive and final authority existing in that society (Pennock and Smith, p. 9) — is controlled by a handful of people who represent neither the American people nor progress. The decision-making power, the final authority, belongs to a small group who have certain interests. Be- sides the economic interests of this small group (this will also be a topic for a future column), their most ob- vious vested interest is the retention of their power. .

Page 9 text:

tf W£Sf fleW bi| chMes ipaaonL by Hank The students of the United States are at a crossroads. They n either capitulate to the oppres- sive educational system foisted upon them by the power structure or they can liberate themselves by over- throwing the status quo and setting ,p their own free high schools and niversities. WORK I say that the only viable and meaningful alternative is the latter. It is the only way we can achieve self-realization through active par- ticipation by all on all levels of the decision-making process. Moreover it liberates us so that we can study relevant problems in order to relate to the outside world. Since this is the only acceptable alternative, the only question re- mains: How best can we realize it? In other words, what strategy must we, as involved students, to bring about this new institutional restruc- turing? GET AHEAD Again we have two alternatives. We can work through the existing processes of decision-making or we can carry on a decisive clear-cut vio- lent revolution. Both methods have their distinctive merits and drawbacks. Each de- serves careful consideration and study. Only after a thorough and total assessme nt of the objective con- ditions militating against and work- ng for each strategy can we be cer- tain beyond doubt which offers the best alternatives for us, the oppressed students. As far as the first strategy is concerned this is how I see things. We face a very determined opposition among the reactionary faculties and .dministrators. They know what they Levit y want, i.e., to oppress us, and they know how to use the currently used methods of decision-making to thwart our aims. In addition, the present consciousness of the students is such that they do not know their true in- terests, nor are they disposed to working for them. In short they are apathetic. Thus a slow infiltrating process, which the first strategy im- plies, can not possibly enlist the mass of students so necessary for a sustained and successful change. STUDY Instead the correct strategy to fol- low is that of violent re volution. The possibility that it will succeed is great for these reasons. Our oppres- sors — the faculties and administra- tions — are not acquainted with the techniques of terror and violence. These can not be neutralized by soph- istical arguments. In addition, they art indisposed to the use of outside oppressors (the fascist police). The other reason why our violent revolution will be successful is that by is very nature of being fast, different and exciting will awaken the apa- thetic masses of students and will enlist them in our grand design. With the mass of students behind us our victory is assured as it is inevitable. KILL As can be obvious from all relevent considerations, violent revolution is cur way. But violent revolution can only be directed by a email group be torn apart by the oppressing class of intellectuals what have we to lose but an education? So now I call for all oppressed students to unite in revolutionary brotherhood. Together we can create a new order for all Divided we will be torn apart by the oppressing class of intellectuals what have we to lose but an education? by Charli Swarthmore faces a serious challenge to its academic free- dom and integrity. It is not an ex- ternal threat but an internal chal- lenge making it much more insidious and much more menacing. What is this internal threat? Con- trary to the most effusive dogma, it is not the despotic hand of the col- lege administration oppressing stu- dents and faculty alike. No, it is the far more tryrannical movements of black militants and white radicals — faculty and students alike. They are the ones posing the challenge by trying to force their own images on the entire college community. Those images, as is quite obvious, leave little room for the academic freedom and integrity which is too vital for a college to continue to carry out its functions. What makes this threat credible — in fact terrifying — is that it is not being met with firm, consistent opposition by those who hold academ- ic freedom and integrity valuable. In our case at Swarthmore, the stu- dents have defaulted in their respon- ibilities for defending the collgee ' s integrity. This broad sweeping gen- eralization is supported by the fol- lowing concrete examples. FACULTY ACTIO During the crisis in January when the blacks began their militant Spadoni actions, it was the faculty and ad- ministration that acted on the merits of the demands forthrightly and ef- ficiently. They did not capitulate to them because of threat. Such was not the case with the students. They were by and large intimidated to the point of insensibility. The students were in an excellent position to take a moral stand on unfounded black allega- tions of racism on the part of the administration. The students could have passed judgment on SASS ' s unjustified dis- ruption of the college, the take over of the Admissions Office (I need not give a detailed report on the vio- lation of the rights of other members of the college community which arose from this takeover). They refused even to consider the immorality of these acts and to condemn them when meeting in plenary session. Such a default of responsibility illustrates how the blacks intimidated the students with the threat of ac- cusation of racism, the mere thought of which no liberal Swarthmore student could tolerate, even though the accusations would have no basis in fact. Again take for example the recent spate of anti-Semitic material 1 am writing not only of The Freedom. Theater poem but also of Michael Graves ' explanation of this poem, The existence of special inter- est groups at Swarthmore has a significant impact on the type of community in which we live. Individ- uals acting in groups press demands on us and take actions which reflect on the entire community. The type of groups we permit at Swarthmore is thus a matter of concern to all. One of the groups whicn has the greatest impact is the Swarthmore Political Action Club. Unfortunately its existence is detrimental to the integrity of Swarthmore as an insti- tution. I intend to show why it is detrimental and I will argue that it no longer should be countenanced. SWARTHMORE VALUES The Swarthmore Political Action Club is detrimental beeause its struc- ture is not congruent with the values and traditions of Swarthmore. Un- like most organizations, its members are non-members. It is as was stated in its last meeting- — an amorphous group appending to itself a name in order to get funds from Student Council. A group of non-members can thus not be held accountable or re- sponsible. No one is liable since any action taken is taken by non-members. The confrontation of non-members with the Navy recruiters is an ex- ample of the lack of accountability and responsibility. Information an- nouncing that a confrontation would take place was unsigned. No one knew who was making plans or who would carry them out. The unfolding of events demonstrated that it was a small coterie of SPAC non-members who made the plans and carried them out. By posing as an organization of non-members it dupes the Student Council. Funds are made available to SPAC non-members to carry out ac- tivities which are not necessarily in the best interest of Swarthmore as a community. CABALS In addition, policies and tactics are not decided in the open in a large group meeting of permanent mem- bers. Tactics and policies are planned in small secretive cabals. The lack of accountability and re- sponsibility, the fradulent way of gaining money from Student Counci and the secretive nature of the or- ganization are sufficient reasons to question the integrity of the organiza- tion. They show that SPAC is alien to Swarthmore ' s traditioto of re- sponsibility, accountability, truthful- ness, and openness. SPAC ' s exist- ence is thus undermining what is essential for Swarthmore ' s integrity. There are other considerations that show that SPAC is alien to what we value at Swarthmore. The first is that SPAC ' s existence is based on the assumption that people here at Swarthmore and elsewhere do not know what is good for them. There is a lack of confidence among SPAC non-members in the intelligence and integrity of Swarthmore students Their plan to canvass all male stu- dents about the Selective Service and the military is an example of this lack of confidence. The function of this organization is totally alien to the notion endemic in this college that the individual has the capacity to de- cide his own future. A second aspect of SPAC which is detrimental to the college 13 that it presumes to act for Swarthmore. They take it upon themselves to act in our behalf. Their efforts to pre- vent the recruiters from recruiting was an effort to protect the insti- tution from the vile blood-stained hands of the military. Their eforts to protect us are not justified since Swarthmore is mature enough to take care of itself. NO CONFIDENCE A third aspect of SPAC which is not congruent with Swarthmore ' s tra- ditions is that it does not have con- fidence in Swarthmore students ' con- cern with social and political prob- lems. Apathy is the over-used word to describe the conditions of Swarthmore students by SPAC non- members. SPAC operates on the principle that no one cares or does anything about social ills except SPAC Such is not the case. Swarth- more has been and will continue to be a place where concerned students can study in preparation to work for liberty, equality, and fraternity not only now but after the brief so- journ here. SPAC does not have a monopoly on concern or action. The issue at hand is whether SPAC should be permitted to remain a special interest group sanctioned and financed by Swarthmore. I have shown that it is wrongfully insti- tuted; and that its existence is de- stroying the integrity of this college. The nature of SPAC demonstrates that it deserves neither sanc ' uary nor money SPAC has no place at Swarthmore College. and worst of all, the posting of a vicious anti-Semitic newspaper ad- vertisement on the SASS bulletin board. Here again such unacceptable action was condoned by the vast ma- jority of students by their silence. Only a few voices challenged the blacks (with the possibility of vio- lence lurking in the background) and only one of them was not of the Jewish faith. WHITE RADICALS Another dangerous situation, pre- sented this time by white radicals, is now before us. Proposals initiated by our Student Council president, if adopted, would prevent military re- cruiters from coming on campus and would center in Student Council the power to arbitrarily decide which outside people should or should not be permitted to speak or recruit at Swarthmore. These proposals represent clear- cut threats to freedom of speech, anyway you cut it. To date, clear-cut opposition to these unacceptable pro- posals has not been articulated by students. The questions remains: Will con- sistent and firm opposition by stu- dents to these internal threats to academic freedom and integrity con- tinue to be non-existent? Will cow- ardice, naivete, and stupidity pre- vail? The answer to these questions can only be given by the future ac- tions of the students of Swarth- more College.

Page 11 text:

Let me say just a few words about what I think we have been doing. In my letter of December 31 to the faculty I asked our entire college community to consider conscientiously and imaginatively the best way to achieve what I believed to be the underlying conce rns of SASS, and of the Admissions Policy Committee. I believe that we have been doing that. Certainly the Faculty, for which I can speak as its presiding officer, has responded in a way that has deepened, if that were possible, my pride in Swarthmore. The fac- ulty met in long sessions — last Tuesday afternoon, Thursday night, Friday afternoon, Saturday morning, Saturday afternoon, Sunday morning from 10:00 a.m. to close to 2:00 p.m., Sunday afternoon from 3:30 to close to 7:00 p.m., and Sunday night from 8:30 p.m. to around 3:30 a.m. I strongly support the actions we have taken as a Faculty, and I will strongly support them to the Board of Managers. I am confident that the Board shares the same con- cerns and values that have motivated the Faculty in their actions. I feel so sure of the Board ' s feelings on these matters that I am ready to begin immediately to implement the actions we have taken. What we have passed is clear to those of us who have passed it, and we believe it to be right. Details will have to be worked out as we go along, just as the details of our Commission on Educational Policy actions have to be worked out every day, but I see no problems in that if, as I am assuming, we can work in a spirit of mutual trust. I hope. I pray, there will not be any who will seek to sow distrust. I am sure SASS will want to work in a spirit of mutual trust, and I call on all of us to seek and work through the good will in each other. It is possible to use our present problem to escalate real and fancied differences that exist in any community. But I would ask all of us never to trade Swarthmore ' s excel- lence and fineness and readiness to hold itself open to new light, from whatever source it comes, never to trade these things for slogans and hate. It took no force to bring about comprehensive proposals for the development of Black Studies. It took no force to bring about our fundamental and comprehensive examination of ourselves in our Commission on Educational Policy. Students were involved, were urged to be involved, in all of these considerations. I realize that some now sneer at the CEP, but there was no sneering in the Danforth groups and no sneering in the referendum which students were urged to take in order to express themselves on every one of the recommendations. We have lost something precious at Swarthmore — the feeling that force and disrup- tiveness are just not our way. But maybe we can see to it that this one time is only the exception that proves the rule. For certainly if there are any who now think that direct action should be used eventually for Black Studies, or Student Week, or any proposals that might come out of Student Week or the Sex Rule, or Dormatory Autonomy, or the University City Science Center, or the Physical Education requirement, or beards, or for the question of institutional structure and the governance of higher education — let me digress to say that I am far from convinced that the prevailing system of govern- ance of higher education in America is right for our times, though I am also far from convinced that it is wrong; and I am very conscious of the fact that the abstractions of the description of government of our own particular institution always obscure the basic humanity and warmth with which we try to proceed; but these matters of gov- ernance are in my opinion ones for deep and thoughtful consideration — then, to come back from my digression, I have to say that I seriously doubt their faith in education, and in the educational process, and I would be saddened to see further acceptance of force as against those qualities of trust and tolerance and humility and anti-totalitar- ianism and willingness to seek the good in others — those qualities that have made, and can make, Swarthmore especially ' fine ' as an institution. This is the text of President Courtney Smith ' s statement to the Faculty and Students of Swarthmore College, presented at 1:45 p.m. on January 13, 1969 in Clothier Memo- rial Hall. It was President Smith ' s last public address.