University of Michigan - Michiganensian Yearbook (Ann Arbor, MI)

Page 31 text:

michiganensian t93t pation in athletic spectacles, possibly because he now gets his individual exercise in legit- imate sport. Of course he realizes that what was once a rivalry between intimate and enthusiastic student bodies with complete undergraduate coaching and management is now competition between high-powered coach- ing staffs and those few students they consider the best material for a winning team, so his feeling for a school represented does not detract from his enjoyment of a splendid spectacle; he is detached and intelligently appreciative of the fine points of football science. Even the men ' s chorus rountine of the boys in white flannel doesn ' t interfere with his enjoyment of the show unless some philistines should yell. Now that the successful execution of football tactics requires even a certain delicacy, cheering cannot be an asset to a team, what with the performance incentive coaches in- terested in their positions give try-outs for the team; and if it were, would its use against a visiting team be gentlemanly, and finally, does it make any difference whether or not Michigan wins? (No sour grapes this.) Foot- ball is definitely no longer a competition between universities and their supporters. The local stadium reform movement is definitely retrogressive to the evolution of the stadium. President Ruthven ' s ideal that attendance at the stadium be limited to those interested in the university as an educational institution would give intercollegiate athletics a significance they no longer possess, a sig- nificance as a part of the educational system. The practical separation of education and athletics would seem to be a compliment to the former. All stadium-conscious publicity created by the university perverts the stadium from an altogether excellent athletic theatre supporting the intramural athletic program into an educational white elepha nt. If the public is able to take the stadium for what it is worth and not feel that it is back stage on the university scene when in it, so should be the administration. THE DORMITORY THE fraternity, which in its early Ann Arbor history brought about an amend- ment to the state constitution to win a fight for its existence challenged by the university, has devolved into a convenient unit for con- trol of the private life of the student. What some people are probably talking about when they opine that the local fraternity is doomed to extinction went years ago. But the Greek letter super-dormitory is destined to exist at least as long as the administration ' s philosophy of discipline as an integral part of that theory. The administrative reign of terror is vitalized by the group responsibility inherent in the fraternity organization. Brother W keeps XX from Brother Y lest the Bogey Man get fraternity Z. The fact of blanket discipline was emphasized this year when one fraternity was penalized for the conduct of some of its guests and five were padlocked for a collective possession of liquor which was but a drop in many a local keg. But the question of equity involved in the incidental punishment of fraternity members who miraculously keep on the dictated line is minor to a consideration of the general university maternalism. Aside from creating absurd student in- hibitions and lending a deplorable provinciality to Ann Arbor life, the parental policy of the university is detrimental as to its own interests. The continuous abortive exposal and discipline of student life before gleeful reporters has built up a press bread line that is responsible for the public metamorphosis of our glorified boarding school into a debauched Valhalla for high school rakes. The noble red man took the last long drink in this district ex- cluding the legendary pre-war bachannals. This fictional resurrection of Pan in cap and gown not only injures support of the university but also causes the parched student mouth to water at what might be but is not. Why rub in the fact that the student ' s allowance based on the parsimonious catalogue estimates does not allow him to drink with the rest of the nation? The university assumption of the role as super-parent of the student off campus pre- vents the action of the most powerful social regulation force: college opinion. Although the independent ' s actions need only be com- patible with the local bourgeosie, the inde- pendence of the fraternity or sorority member is ingeniously riddled by insulting rules of conduct. Surely the opinion of his group regulates his actions to its standard, above which no force is potent, and the actions of the group are governed not only by the opinion of the campus but also by the necessity of appearing attractive to entering freshmen: fraternities are constitutionally rival organi- zations competing for members. Deferred pledging should emphasize the necessity for making a legitimate appeal for membership, which will amount to fraternities measuring up to the freshman ' s standards. Unless the university is undertaking to raise the student ' s standards as a noble experiment comparable to the automobile ban, it is substituting its own for his. Grafting ethics is a serious business. To transpose Luke vi:42: Thou hypocrite, cast out first the spy glass out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pulloutthe mote that is in thy brother ' s eye.

Page 30 text:

management of their affairs. They certainly don ' t; they don ' t have a confounded thing to say. We are not complaining of this fact; it is as it should be; the undergraduate body is altogether too large to allow of self-manage- ment. What irks us is that the existence of this body which pretends to effective com- munication between the university and the undergraduate body only serves to obscure from the student vision the absoluteness of administrative authority. The successive in- stances of the automobile ban, deferred rushing, and the J-Hop house parties con- clusively illustrate the absence of student influence on important legislation, to say nothing of actual student control. This fact is overcome in the student mind by random resolutions hastily concocted by the council pursuant to some business before the ad- ministration: Resolved that students need not return to classes following Thanksgiving, and the like. The administration is amenable to the council ' s practice of playing follow the leader since it is immaterial whether it follows or not. Thus we have the illusion of student government. The objection to this myth is that it deters the realization of the inevitable adjustment between the university and students. The control of the campus necessarily lies with the administration now that the size of the student body precludes its effective organiza- tion. If the student council should cease floundering after the senate committee will o ' the wisp, the students could more clearly see the true situation and appreciate what vehicles for communication with the university they do possess. Then a true interest in the student publications would cause the realiza- tion of their potentialities as student expres- sions. Possibly representations of the student mind by honor societies could be included in the president ' s report to the regents, in which the undergraduates are now only interpreted to their governors by the dean of students. Students ' publicity could well be developed beyond reports of their errata. The long overdue removal of the Student Council from the university scene would be only another step in the rationalization of the campus. Increased educational opportunities and demands have put a premium on the student time which is slowly purging the campus of its superfluous activities. The healthy activities are publications, debating, and the theatre, which recommend themselves as communal assets and as being genuinely beneficial to their participants. These activi- ties are tending to operate more intelligently with corresponding units in the university, to their mutual benefit, in contrast to the sterile autonomy of the old campus. This trend in campus values is a genuine compliment to the university. THE STADIUM NOT because college athletics have changed materially in the last ten years have they been under an intense fire of late, but rather has it been due to a recent drastic change in the country ' s attitude toward spectacle sport, from the Davis Cup to inter- national polo matches. This change in attitude is a product of the revolution in recreational sport towards the English ideal. An enormous expansion in athletic facilities particularly evidenced in golf course and tennis court construction has extensively changed the individual ' s participation in sport from collect- ively vicarious to individually actual. Hence the ex-spectator ' s reaction towards his old athletic mainstay. Although the individual ' s emancipation from the reign of spectacle sport has resulted in an unfortunate vandalism of his former idol, this iconoclastic attitude has removed much of the artificiality and cant surrounding it. The stadium is no longer regarded as a temple dedicated to the creation of intercollegiate amity. Such events as the severance of athletic relations between Harvard and Prince- ton, Army and Navy, are significant as punctuation marks to common and more or less intensely antagonistic feelings engendered between schools in the avowed friendly rivalry of the gridiron; and all over an artificial athletic contest not involving any legitimate merit of either institution represented! The question as to whether the stadium or sport hysteria should survive seems settled in favor of the former now that the systems of values our universities exist, in part, to develop have begun to prevail over the issues involved in this mental mole hill. Again, the football season is no longer considered that of the flowering of character, appointed to the player by his coaches, although if athletes who play football because they enjoy the game are able to maintain a surplus of pleasure after a season in which they are mistreated by a juvenile public as its property, then football is emphatically character building; in fact it is producing a group of supermen, if any. That the undergraduates engaged in the sport seem to feel it worth their while is a sufficient justification of football. Sympathy for the hard working athlete pulled off his late pedestal is as absurd as the former idolatry. This stadium debunking process has removed much of the spectator ' s inane pseudo-partici-

Page 32 text:

The characteristic of the boarding-school is that its pupils are in all things in tutelage, are under masters at every turn of their life, must do as they are bidden, not in the performance of their set tasks only, but also in all their comings and goings . . . No one who knows what wholesome and regulated freedom can do for young men ought ever to wish to hale them back to the days of childish discipline and restraint of which the college of our grand- fathers was typical. WOODROW WILSON Twenty-fight