Swarthmore College - Halcyon Yearbook (Swarthmore, PA)

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.

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 12 text:

ALUMNI ISSUE, APRIL, 1969 SWARTHMORE COLLEGE BULLETIN President Courtney Smith 1916-1969