ViiVniV* !'*<'■ > *ii• H.iuin’lin nii • iiiii:'Hr< ' -iMil !-^viHW1*,rMHM4*IMm■ ^*■ ***•**■' •Volume 77, Number 41 ...MAROOThe Chicago Maroon ThursdaMarlene Dixon Refu.Terminal Reappointment ifBy Mitch BobkinMarlene Dixon turned down the offer ofD. Gale Johnson, dean of the social sciencedivision, for a one-year terminal reappoint¬ment to the committee on human devel¬opment, at a press conference Wednesdaynoon. The offer was recommended by theGray committee’s report which was re¬leased at 10 am Wednesday.The 29 page Gray report asked for “aone-year extension in the committee on hu¬man development alone of Mrs. Dixon’scurrent appointment,” because the reviewby the committee held up the decision onher case for two months.The committee was appointed Jan 19 bydean of faculties, John T. Wilson to reviewthe decision not to rehire Marlene Dixon,assistant professor of sociology.Johnson said in a statement “I havebeen informed by its chairman that the in¬tent of the Gray committee was that theextension for one year was to be a termin¬al appointment and was recommended be¬cause the appointment of the Gray com¬mittee to review the decision meant that afinal decision was thus delayed almost two:he'December 15 date.”David TravisMARLENE DIXON: In different poses during her press conference yesterday, the focal point of the current crises, rethe many moods on campus.r 1Protesters to Stay in Ad BldgIt appeared at press time Wednesday| night, that the sitters-in would decide tocontinue the sit-in for at least 24 hours.At about 11:30 pm, demonstrators voted[between staying indefinately or specifyinga time for leaving within the next two orthree days. The vote went slightly in favorI of staying indefinitely.Due to the closeness of the vote, thedemonstrators decided to further considerspecific proposals for future action andthen to reconsider the question of leavingthe building.An earlier motion to leave within 24| hours lost by a large majority.Earlier in the evening, the sitters-in an¬swered with a chorus of “No’s” each timethe chairman suggested a vote. The 200 adbuilding residents divided over formulatingresponse to the Gray report.Radical leaders proposed to stay in theIbuilding, drop demands for equal studentJparticipation, and open files in the build¬ing-Moderates and some radicals arguedI that leaving the building to continue themovement outside was tactically wise.Opposition to the Gray report was unani¬mous however.“The Gray committee has reported. Andvhat did they have to say? Nothing!” saidone radical, a WRAP member. “So now wehave a legitimate reason to be in the build¬ing.”A radical who had worked in ad buildingsecurity for 14 days advocated leaving.I’he movement no longer rests on this building,” he said. “The 25 or 30 people weneed on security could be out in the streetdoing the political kinds of things we needto do.”Some argued on a personal basis. “I’msick. I’m sick, actually,” said (me pro¬testor, who had the virus that is going around the building.The Progressive Labor faction urged aprotest at the Beardsley Ruml Colliquiumbecause, they accused, the speakers woulddo little to end white racism. A planningmeeting was called for Thursday at 7:30pm in the Blue Gargoyle. Hanna Gray, chairman of the committeeand associate professor of history, saidthat it was the intention of the Gray reportto ask for a terminal appointment and thatthe committee felt that this was clear inthe report. However, she said that perhapsit should have been more explicitly stated.Mrs. Dixon said at the press conference,“I will not accept the extension. The exten¬sion might be seen as a victory for thestudents, just as the whole ferment in thisUniversity is a victory for the students.But this University is not yet the univer¬sity where I would want to teach or to doresearch.”“Furthermore, as long as one studentsuffers suspension or expulsion or punish¬ment in this struggle, I will refuse thisUniversity; so long as this University re-Continued on Page ThreeGuerilla Theatre Bemoans UC's Fateoavta iravisGUERILLA THEATER: Students put on amateur play in front of ad building. Protestors performed “The Gray Com¬mittee’s Last Meeting,” a guerilla theatersketch, on the Administration Buildingsteps at noon Wednesday before a crowdof about 150 people.The actors slinked onto the steps and,after checking the area to be certain thatit was secure from invasion, bewailed theplight of the University, comparing it to anante-bellum plantation with students andwomen pictured as slaves.The “meeting” continued with satiricalcomments on secrecy in committee proce¬dures, the University’s alleged anti-femin¬ist policies, and the committee’s lack ofpower to make its decisions binding on theadministration. Actors made frequent ref¬erences to “calling Ed” to find out thecommittee’s decisions.The guerilla theater group used dialoguewith a student in the audience to satirizethe disciplinary committee’s arbitrarypowers and lack of student rights beforethe committee.The meeting ended with the cry “Herecome the Chickenshits, run!”People Ask:'Why Did This Sit-InBy Roger BlackThe sit-in is coming to an end.The Gray committee has reported; Mar¬lene Dixon has announced that she prob¬ably wouldn’t accept an appointment fromthe University anyway; six times as manystudents outside as inside the ad buildinghave signed a petition asking them to sur¬render; some people inside, fewer in num¬ber because of factional strife, are gettingtired of the whole thing.And people are asking: “Why did thissit-in ever start?” Hanna Gray says thatthe committee (formed ten days before thesit-in) would have come to the same rec¬ommendation, sit-in or not. Edward Leviand Morris Janowitz, to name two, weresaying the week before the sit-in that aformal student role in academic decisionswas necessary and inevitable. Gale John¬son who is, after all, a dean, was ready totalk about student power in faculty ap¬pointments and called a meeting for thepurpose. Most of the students (if the Ma¬roon poll is any indication) didn’t think asit-in was appropriate. Half the people inthe mass meeting the day before the sit-inweren’t ready for one. The question is —why did it happen? Some of our faculty believe it is part ofthe International Communist Conspiracy.Many more think that students are crazy(the administration thinks they’re meglomaniacs; Bruno Bettelheim says they’reparanoid). A few have the idea thatthey’re ail wrapped up in some romanticconception of revolution. All of which, isnot wrong-headed, is unfair. There may besome mixed-up people in the adminis¬tration building now (there were somemixed-up people there before the studentstook it over), but most of them are as ra¬tional as any administrator (perhaps that’snot a very good simile).They took the ad building because theysaw the official university making thesame kind of motions it does every timethe students become angry about some¬thing. Sure Gale Johnson called a meeting— but he called it at the same time as thecommittee of 85 called one to talk aboutMarlene Dixon. (And he refused to talkabout her case and when the students in¬sisted, he along with most of the other fac¬ulty stomped out). Sure the Gray committeewas appointed — but any number of com¬mittees have been appointed and few oftheir recommendations have been imple¬mented (the Kalven report on discipline ANALYSISfor example, was reported to be ready twoweeks before the sit-in, but Dean O’Connell,figuring there might be one, has held itup). And sure Levi and Janowitz and thecommittee of the council were talkingabout an “institutionalized” student role infaculty appoints the last week in January,but the deans and the department chair¬men called no official faculty-student meet¬ing so the details could be worked out —not then and not since.People joined the sit-in for different rea¬sons. The most determined of the dem¬onstrators want a radical university, pe¬riod. The strongest of them want simply afree university, where radicals could studyand teach. Some just want Marlene Dixon.Some want student power. But they neverwould have gotten together and they neverwould have attempted a sit-in if they didn’tthink that Levi and Wilson and Johnsonand Janowitz and the official UniverstiyJoint Councils to Consider ProposalsA joint students councils meetingWednesday morning decided to meet againSunday to consider several proposals andheard a report on a letter from PresidentLevi.Proposals to be drafted by the steeringcommittee before Sunday are expected toinclude a reply to Levi’s letter to the jointcouncils and a recommendation of clemen¬cy for demonstrators.Other recommendations, on the functionof the joint councils and the nature of fu¬ture discussions with administration andfaculty, may be presented for discussion.The meeting is scheduled for 2 pm in thesocial service administration building. Alldivisional and school council representa¬tives were asked to attend. be expected in these days of hurried con¬ferences, I did not state — at least certain¬ly I did not mean to state — that it wasnot possible to discuss the substance ofyour proposal. Indeed I thought I did dis¬cuss it with you.”Levi went on to say, according to Stone,that “in my view there is an area — limit¬ed but vital — where conduct is so threat¬ening to the existence and basic purpose ofthe University that the University’s dis¬ciplinary procedures, which provide aca¬ demic due process, must be the responsi¬bility of the faculty.”Stone said that Levi’s letter concludedwith the statement that “I am pleased thestudent councils are functioning. I hopewith the related faculty groups they willhelp perfect institutionalized processes ap¬propriate for the academic areas, con¬sistent both with the ultimate responsibilityof the faculty and with the importance andvalue which must be accorded and builtfor student participation.”Blum Committee ContinuesBoucher Apartment PlansThe joint councils did not have a quorumWednesday morning and took no action ex¬cept to plan the Sunday meeting. Dis¬cussion centered on the future relation ofthe joint councils to University-wide issues.A1 Stone, divinity school representative,read the letter from Levi commenting onhis discussions Saturday with four mem¬bers of the joint councils on proposalspassed by the councils Friday.As reported to the joint councils, Levi’sletter included a comment on his attitudetoward the proposals: “While I realize acertain amount of misunderstanding is toGrassThe House judiciary committee ofthe Illinois legislature unanmouslyapproved a bill Wednesday that wouldreduce the penalties for the posses¬sion of marijuana.Rep John Merlo (D-Chicago) spon¬sored the bill which if passed wouldlower the minimum sentence for afirst offense from two years to one.Merlo called present penalties “toostringent and rigid.”Cook Couty Narcotics court judgeKenneth Wendt, who testified for thebill, said “If a pot smoker is not apusher, we should be able to givehim a light sentence.”Ruml PapersApproximately 100 pages of ma¬terials on racism, prepared for Fri¬day’s Beardsley Ruml Colloquium,are available without charge to stu¬dents and faculty in Gates-Blake 428.Dinner and luncheon tickets for thetwo days of sessions on “What CanBe Done To End White Racism?”are also still available. Plans for apartments in Boucher Halltook a step toward final approval in thelast few weeks through positive action bythe Blum committee.Committee members asked architectGeorge Hinds to prepare detailed devel¬opment drawings for apartments with theunderstanding that the apartments will beready this fall.Apartments in Hinds’ scheme rangefrom one to eight bedrooms. Each apart¬ment has a living room, kitchen, and bath¬room.The plan is flexible and, according tostudent housing director Edward Turking-ton, the apartments might be occupied byCollege students, graduate students, singlestudents, married students, and faculty.The west wing of Boucher Hall, nowunused, would house the 23 apartments.Of the 109 people who would live in theapartments, 48 would occupy eight-bed¬room apartments and 44 would be in four-bedroom apartments.The rest would live in one-, two-, andfive-bedroom apartments. Each personwould have his own bedroom.The apartment plan does not have finalapproval, and it must pass other decisionpoints.If the Blum committee learns that theapartments cannot be completed by thisfall, the committee intends to reexaminethe proposal.The plan is unlike traditional apartmentbuildings and dormitories, Turkington ob¬served. He called it a “unique, ex¬perimental, exciting kind of plan.”Whether the apartments will be fur¬nished, the rental arrangements, and thecost to occupants have not been deter¬mined.The architect lists the total cost at $1,-000,300 with the cost per bedroom at $9,180.The relationship of the plan to the stu¬dent village proposal, according to Blum committee member Steve Cope, dependson a person’s point of view.Cope, who favors apartments over dor¬mitories, feels that the Boucher plan takespressure off the housing situation, allowingtime to revise the student village proposal.To a person who favors the student vil¬lage proposal, Cope commented, the Bou¬cher plan answers part of the need forapartments.I 111 C NIC ACiO MAROONEditor: Roger BlackBusiness Manager: Jerry LevyManaging Editor: John RochtNews Editor: Caroline HeckPhotography Editor: David TravisNews Board:Ad Building: Wendy GlocknerUndergraduate Students: Mitch BobkinMarlene Dixon: Sue LothFaculty: Sylvia PiechockaGraduate Students: Rob CooleyDisciplinary Committee: Leslie StraussProduction Staff: Mitch Bobkin, Leslie Strauss,Robert Swift, Mitch Kahn, Sue Loth.Ad Building Bureau: Wendy Glockner (bureauchief), Jim Haefemeyer, Bruce Norton,Paula Szewciyk, Leonard Zax.Contributing Editors: John Welch, Michael Sor-kin, Jessica Siogcl, John Moscow, RobertHardman, Barbara Hurst, David Aiken.News Staff: Marv Bittner, Dobby Dobish, ConHitchcock, CD Jaco, Blair Kilpatrick, StoveCook, Gerard Leval, Proida Murray, Rich¬ard ParoutaudPhotography Staff: Phil Lathrop, Paul Stelter,Howie Schamest, Stove Aoki, Ben Gilbert.Sunshine Girl: Joanne Wiklert-ounoea in ibvz. published by University 01Chicago students dally during revolutions, on Tuesdays and Fridays throughout the regular schooyear and intermittentlythroughout the summerexcept during examinatiorperiods. Offices in Room:303, 304, and 305 in Ida Noyes Hall, 1212 E59th St., Chicago, III. 60637. Phone Midway3-0800, Ext. 3269. Distributed on campus and irthe Hyde Park neighborhood free of chargeSubscriptions by mail $7 per year. Non-profllpostage paid at Chicago, III. Subscribers t<College Press Service.2/Th* Chicago Maroon/February 13,1969 were delaying and sticking rather stead¬fastly to their notion of the status quo.Out of the confusion of the last monthtwo things can be clearly seen: First if theofficial University had not been so con¬vinced that it was right, that the Univer¬sity’s processes of rational discourse (andif that phrase is never uttered again, I atleast will not complain) were working fine,there wouldn’t have been a sit-in. (Herethe faculty protests that they see lots ofthings wrong with the University, that theywant change, too, that they’re not con¬servatives, they’re liberals). A few of themgot upset when the Maroon suggested thattheir University was not the best of all pos¬sible universities; the sociology depart¬ment cetrainly got upset when it was sug¬gested that their decision on Marlene Dix¬on was effected by their politics. But if anymember of the faculty (and Edward Levi,are you reading?) doesn’t understand whystudents regard their stand as con¬servative, not to say reactionary, let himsit down, drink a cup of coffee, fix in hismind if he can the attitude of a student,and then read over the statement issuedMonday by the committee of the councilabout “full faculty responsibility.”Second, if the sit-in has not succeeded,and it seems it hasn’t, it is because thedemonstrators have been unable to winover most of the rest of the students. TheMaroon poll shows that nearly half of thestudents are uncetrain whether MarleneDixon should be rehired to any faculty ca¬pacity. That’s astounding. Four hundredtake over a building because they all be¬lieve that one woman should have beenreappointed, yet they haven’t been able toconvey their conviction to a majority ofthe students. How do they expect to con¬vince the faculty?The other day I was in the ad buildingtalking to some of the people of the sit-in,and they were indignant because the Ma¬roon has to them seemed intent uponquashing the demonstration. They sayamong other things that the Maroon is al¬ways intent upon quashing demonstrations.(It is all a conspiracy.) The fact that thepaper has not served as a propaganda or¬gan for either side has annoyed a greatmany people. But the Maroon is no moresolidly behind the faculty, no more solidlydetermined to stop the Revolution than themajority of the students.Most students see major things wrongwith this University. The undergraduatesare bored with most of their classes andparticularly with the common core. Thegraduates are increasingly unconvincedwith the Chicago rhetoric. They are willingto submit to the stringency of the scholar¬ship required here and the resulting Spar¬tan way of life, but thay are not convincedthat that is the only way to learn. They seelarge gaps in the Chicago spectrum (forexample the exclusion of any considerationof communication theory in the humanitiesand the study of the future in the socialsciences.) They see wide areas for reform,if not revolution.There is a lot of talk in the ad buildingabout building a student movement, but astudent movement is never going to bemade of scattered raids on the Universityby small bands. There is talk about “radi¬calizing” the majority, but this kind of sit-in only makes the radicals more radical. Ifwe are going to have students movements(or a UC student movement), we are goingto have to talk together about what wewant in our University. SDS is going tohave to talk to us and we are going tohave to talk to them. And then if the Uni¬versity won’t move, maybe we will besitting in together.SuspensionsOnly 60 students have been suspendedsince the takeover of the ad building — not115 as a supposed University spokesmanreported Wednesday.One suspension has been dropped be¬cause a stolen ID card was involved. About130 students have been given summonses,and so as many as 50 more may be sus¬pended if they fail to report to the specialdisciplinary committee.itteeContinued from Page Onefuses to recognize the justice of the stu¬dent’ cause, I will refuse this University,”she said.Richard Flacks called the one-year ex¬tension offered to Mrs. Dixon, customaryin such cases, citing the similar case ofhistorian Jesse Lemisch two years ago.Flacks radical assistant professor of so¬ciology who is up for tenure next year,spoke at the press conference.He called the committee’s decision nar¬row in examining the Dixon case in termsof the standard procedures of the Univer¬sity. Flacks said he would have hoped thatthe committee would have re-evaluated thestandard procedures before making itsjudgement.Mrs. Dixon said that she might “find ajob or end up selling apples.” She also saidthat she did not now have any definite joboffers.Mrs. Dixon said that the only circum¬stances under which she would have ac¬cepted a three-year appointment to the fac¬ulty were those in which the Universitywas responsive to the students’ grievances.She did say that she would honor her con¬tract and continue teaching until the end ofthe school year.Mrs. Gray said after learning of Mrs.Dixon’s refusal, “The recommendation toMrs. Dixon was something which we feltshould be available to her if she wanted it.”“The Gray committee was not, so far aswe humanly know, influenced by the sit-in,” Mrs. Gray added. The sit-in, she said,was not the central issue that the com¬mittee had to deal with, and said that shehoped that the specific recommendationsof her committee would not get lost in theaftermath of the sit-in.The report of the Gray committee wasdivided into two main topics, the specificsof the Marlene Dixon case and the generalissues that have revolved around it. In theintroduction the committee states that al¬though their primary responsibility was toreview the decision reached in the reap¬pointment of Marlene Dixon, they also hadto deal with the “issues of general aca¬demic policy and of university-wide con¬cern which arise out of or are highlightedby the Dixon case.”Dealing with the specifics of the case,the committee decided that there was nodiscrimination against Mrs Dixon eitherbecause she is a woman or because she isa radical. The report stated “In reconst¬ructing the process of recommendation anddecision in Mrs Dixon’s case, we find nodeviation from normal procedures.”In deciding that there was no dis¬crimination against Mrs Dixon because sheis a radical, the report listed six criteriaBy Sue LothTen students sat in silence on each sideof the first floor corridor connecting Har¬per library and the social sciences build¬ing.“Do you just let people go by?” I asked.“No, we tell them about the strike andask them not to go in,” a history studentanswered.“It’s a lot better today then yesterday,though — at least we’re sitting inside. It’sreally cold out there.”“What’s terrible is how many peopledon’t care that they’re breaking a strike.”Just then a first-year girl reading theMaroon began chuckling. “Look, it sayshere ‘Demonstrators who picketed, how¬ever, felt that the strike successfully led tomeaningful discourse with students con¬fronted at the picket line.’ Meaningful dis¬course — that’s a laugh.”A girl approached the door. “Miss, doyou know there’s a strike going on?”“Yes.”“Why are you crossing picket lines?”Silence.“Are you going to class?”“Yes.”“Why?” including that Mrs Dixon was a knownradical before she came on the faculty,that there is another faculty member insociology who is well-known as a radical,that two radicals on a staff of 22 is prob¬ably more than the national percentage,that Mrs Dixon’s writings included no radi¬cal literature, and that the University doesnot have any copies of the reported policedossier on Mrs Dixon’s activities in a freeuniversity.The committee also decided that MrsDixon’s research was not considerableenough to warrant reappointment and thatMrs Dixon is “an energetic, warm, dedi¬cated, open and compelling teacher” butthat her teaching of graduate students ishampered by inadequate research.“Our evaluation of her tenure prospects as a graduate teacher decides us againstrecommending a three-year appointment inhuman development,” the report stated.The report also ruled out a re-appointmentto sociology because no faculty can beforced to take a teacher whom they do notwant.Dealing with the general issues, the re¬port said that political freedom must existin this University, that “confidentiality isjustified on the basis that it allows partici¬pants in appointment decisions to expresstheir views frankly without damaging theself and public esteem of the candidate,”that a University committee should be setup to deal with the problems of untenuredfaculty, that student teacher evaluationshould be institutionalized, that a student-ances: let them be heard, and let them begranted. The Gray committee recommen¬dations make clear , the misuse of juniorfaculty, the discrimination treatment ofwomen.I conclude: I have never wanted to fightfor my job, but I have wanted to fight formy students for their right to the educationthey are willing to risk their whole careersto win. Students have been suspended,many may be expelled: still more studentsfeel there is no hope for creative work un¬less the University changes. Should I ben¬efit from the punishment of students that Ibelieve have a just cause? Should I takepersonal comfort from their sacrifices —made not for me, but for every student onthis campus?This I cannot do, so I will not accept theextention. The extention might be seen asa victory for students, just as the wholeferment in this University is a victory forthe students. But this University is not yetthe university where I would want to teachIRC Studies PoliceRecruitment TestsThe Industrial Research Center (IRC) ofthe University has completed a study forthe United States department of justice todevelop a series of tests to use in recruit¬ing policemen.The IRC began the study in 1966 with agrant from the justice department of $38,-000 and worked in conjunction with theChicago police department. The centerstudied 480 district officers in the depart¬ment, testing them on motivation, intellect,and behavior and then noting their on thejob peiTormance.The study, not released by the justicedepartment until Saturday, has alreadybeen used in testing more than 1000 appli¬cants for the Chicago police department. faculty committee should consider theproblems of women in the University, andthat an office be created outside the hier¬archy of the administration to serve as anexternal review board when conflicts ofreappointment cannot be resolved underthe existing structure.The decision reached by the committeewas unanimous.Members of the committee were HannaGray, chairman, associate professor of his¬tory; Robert Fogel, economics professor;Helen Perlman, social service adminis¬tration professor; Jacob Getzels, professorof education and psychology; Stuart Rice,chemistry professor; Susanne Rudolph, as¬sociate professor of political science, andM Brewster Smith, professor and chair¬man of the psychology department.or to do research. With the students, I feelthe failure of this University to live up toits ideals: it does not. Furthermore, solong as one student suffers suspension orexpulsion or punishment in this struggle Iwill refuse this University: so long as thisUniversity refuses to recognize the justiceof the students’ cause, I will refuse thisUniversity.Council AskedFor ClemencyThe following resolution was formulatedby Bill Griffeth, math department studentrepresentative to the physical sciences di¬vision council. He presented it Wednesdayto the joint councils, with enthusiastic re¬action.The joint councils had no quorum andtook no action on it; but it is expected thatthey will consider it, or a similar resolu¬tion, at their meeting Sunday afternoon.This is the text of Griffeth’s resolution:Although we do not necessarily agree with those in theadministration building that before their sit-in began noavenues of communication or powerful means of in¬fluence were available to them.Whereas many of those entering the building fully be¬lieved their action the only one possible to focus dis¬cussion on certain issues;Whereas some entered the building with the opinionthat a moderate element was necessary inside the build¬ing to prevent serious damage to files and facilities andin fact to the fabric of this University's life;Whereas we value highly the discussions and actionswhich have taken place outside the building in the lasttwo weeks;Whereas we believe that the atmosphere in this periodhas made it possible for many of us to think seriouslyabout our purposes and roles here;Whereas we wish to affirm our commitment to dia¬logue with people inside the building and want them toparticipate as fully and quickly as possible in the pro¬cesses of living and learning and changing this Univer¬sity and our society together; andWhereas we recognize the unique and important ex¬perience people have had in the building, particularly inthe first week, and feel that their communication of thisexperience will greatly enrich all our lives In this Uni¬versity,Therefore, we, being elected representatives to variousdivisional and school councils, acting as a joint council,hereby recommend clemency for all those participatingin the sit-in, with punishment not to exceed probation foeone quarter following the termination of the sit-in.Strike Lacks Total SupportMarlene Dixon Speaks Her Piece,* yTCVC MOMARLENE AND THE PRESS: A tired Mrs Dixon addresses newsmen during herpress conference Wednesday.The following is the ext of the statementdelivered by Mrs. Marlene Dixon at herpress conference on Wednesday.Without the students there would havebeen no Gray committee, no extention:There would have been no challenge to thesecond class citizenship of students in theUniversity; people would not know thatteaching was of little or no importance tothe professional life of most of the facultyat this and other universities.Now the Gray committee has said in ef¬fect that in current procedures, teaching isof very little relevance to faculty eval¬uations in the graduate school. It is alsoclear that if the University is to respond tostudent demands, procedures must bechanged — as indicated in the general rec¬ommendations of the Gray report. Finallyaccording to current procedures, dis¬crimination against women and radicalscannot be demonstrated — even when thefacts (position of women; lack of radicalfaculty) ar.e known. Here there are fewwomen and hardly any radicals.I personally am questioning the Graycommittee but I am joining with the stu¬dents to question the very nature, the verylegitimacy of this institution — indeed,with the Gray committee itself in terms ofthe procedural reforms they suggest: onlyI would go further. Teaching must be im¬portant; students at the graduate and col¬lege level have a right to good teachers:the dead stultifying sameness of the in¬tellectual atmosphere must be changed: solet students participate in hiring and fir¬ing: let them contribute to and participatein the life of the University community.The students’ grievances are just griev-The girl had already disappeared intosoc sci.Someone came down to ask for supportcovering the third-floor corridor joining thelibrary and the picketed building. The rea¬son was obvious, as one strike pointedout, “You should see how many people seeus sitting here, then walk up the stairs.”Two students approached. When askedwhy they were crossing the picket line, oneanswered “I’m not going to classes, I justwant to use the john.”“Why don’t you use another john?” astudent countered. “Funny thing how popu¬lar soc sci johns have become.”Talked stopped momentarily — everyoneseemed tired. Then the first-year girl sig¬hed, “I just hope after this is all over Idon’t lose my sense of humor.” Her neigh¬bors answered by tickling her, and as shescreamed and writhed with laughter, anold woman came, stopped, and watchedwith horror.At length the tickling tormentorsstopped, the girl sat up, and the lady con¬tinued to the door.“Ma’am, do you know you’re breaking astrike?”Bitter silence was the woman’s reply.The demonstrators laughed.Fobruary 13, lf6f/Tho Chicago Maroon/3Group Statement? Academic life thrives cm intellectual con-fKbt between contrasting viewpoints, buthere is a danger that conflict reaches apoint where hostile camps lose perspectiveand develop stereotyped images of eachother, to the detriment of intellectual dis¬course and the resolution of issues. Wethink that this point has been reached atour university. Some faculty membersthink of students who criticize existing in¬stitutional arrangements as extremists in¬tent on destroying the university, a de¬scription that applies at most to a verysmall minority of the demonstrators. Somestudents view the faculty as dyed-in-the-wool reactionaries whose work contributesto the oppression of people in this countryand the world at large, a description whichapplies at most to very few among us. Thehostilities such stereotypes generate andthe intolerance of opposing views they im¬ply can only harm the pursuit of knowl¬edge to which the university is dedicated.The advancement of knowledge throughscholarship, research, and teaching, whichis the distinctive contribution universitiescan make to human welfare, requires athoroughgoing criticism of tradition and awillingness to explore new ideas. But italso requires that universities be enclavesin which knowledge can freely be pursuedsomewhat removed from the pressures ofpractical problems, popular opinions, andpolitical demands, whatever their nature.It is the devotion to this principle that hasanimated many of our colleagues in oppos¬ing the student demands recently arti¬culated. The partial insulation of academiclife from the exigencies of everyday life,however, entails the danger that the mem¬bers of universities will not be responsiveto the needs for change created by newconditions, for example, the tremendous in¬flux of students in recent years and theirdifferent educational needs. In respect toour own institution, many of us facultymembers are resistant to change, for wehave become adapted to the existing struc¬ture and find it easier to continue to workin it than to adjust to a new one. Students,less fully integrated into the universitythan we, are more sensitive to its short¬comings than we, and their d’ssatisfactionstherefore constitute an important signalthat improvements are in order.We consider many of the demands madeby student demonstrators unreasonableand incompatible with the important func¬tions of a university, but we believe that itwould be foolish to dismiss their criticismslightly and simply insist that the kind ofuniversity that was good enough for aca¬demic grandfathers is good enough for us.Some of the criticisms students make arejustified, in our opinion. Other demands oftheirs would harm the university and mustbe resisted, bur failing to acknowledge thedissatisfaction with existing conditions un¬derlying these unreasonable demands andrefusing to institute needed improvementswould also harm the university as a viableinstitution. We must insist that force is anFaculty ReaffirmsIts Independence inappropriate method for effecting neededchange in an academic community, but wemust demonstrate the validity of this prin¬ciple by our willingness to make requiredchanges in response to widespread dis¬satisfaction and serious criticism.We invite all faculty members in broadagreement with this statement to call Blau(x2963) or any other of the undersigned.Charles E. Bidwell, Peter M. Blau, Mary Jean Bow*man, Edwin M. Bridges, Don Browning, John M.Bui lor, Robert Dreeben, James J. Fennossey, EugeneGendlin, Charles M. Gray, John P. Ham, J. StephenHailett, Robert W. Hodge, Peter Homans, Bort F.Hoseliti, Cyril O. Houle, Robert L. Kahn, Gerbert S.Klein, Victor M. Lidz, Frederick F. Lighthall, RobertMeyers, Manning Nash, Bernice Neugarten, WilliamL. Parish, E. Spencer Parsons, Kenneth Preuitt, ThomasW. Pullum, William J. Reid, Dr. M. Barrie Richmond,Robert W. Roberts, Ken Rothman, Lloyd I. Rudolph,Philippe C. Schmitter, Edward E. Schwartz, Rita G.Spaulding, Irving A. Spergel, David Street, Gerald D.Suttles, Sol Tax, J. Alan Thomas, Dr. Harry Trosman,Sidney Verba, Richard E. Vikstrom, Gilbert F. White,Gibson Winter and Nien-Chu Yang.Stern vs DonneRe OMero G. Stem’s “Marleniad” —John Donne would have beat the shit out ofhim.Chris HobsonHowie Machtinger(Former Englishstudents)Spirit of 76Having personally experienced the lackof communication that exists between stu¬dents and the administration in an at¬tempted discussion with Dean O’Connell,and being quite aware of the thwarting ofan academic community on this campusby physical and bureaucratic barrierserected among the students, the faculty,the administration, and Hyde Park, I wel¬come with enthusiasm discussion and ac¬tion aiming to correct the shortcomings ofthis University. However, I find the move¬ment of the students sitting-in to be plaguednot only by the unavoidable manifesta¬tions of human nature in attempts toseek power and entertainment, but also ina craving to become “Revolutionaries”and “Radicals” in the spirit of the Czechand Cuban revolts as best exemplified byChe Guevara and Emiliane Zapata.The present movement, which “can atbest” be described as a Student Reformmovement, suffers from the contradictionamong its goal of reforms, means of stu¬dent power movement, and quest for revo¬lution. Perhaps the best example of the di¬lemma was presented by Marlene Dixonherself on the Kup’s Show and At Randomprograms. Her analogy between the Amer¬ican Revolution and the sit-in via com¬parison of the “Chickenshitters” to theBoston Tea Party and justification of thestudents’ plea of amnesty in terms ofGeorge Washington not having beenhanged is riddled with irony.I doubt if upon a close examination ofthe movement leading to the AmericanRevolution the students would really carefor the analogy, but if accepted, wouldtheir Nathan Hale cry “Amnesty!” or ifthe analogy is refused, will the spirit ofChe Guevara and his “In a revolution youwin or die” axiom be disregarded in themidst of other pretentiousness? Even if“successful,” I can see no better achieve¬ment for this movement than was the 17thAmendment for the Women’s ChristianTemperance Union.The college faculty defeated a motion tosupport the sit-in presented by RichardFlacks, assistant professor of sociology, ata meeting Tuesday right.The faculty passed a three-point motionput forward by Ralph Lerner, associateprofessor of social science, which reaf¬firmed the position that the faculty is “freeto determine for itself what it teaches andstudies and whom it hires without regardto prevailing fashions and pressures.”The resolution further stated that thefaculty supports student participation inthe processes as called for by the counciland the President, and that the faculty:ommends those students engaged in “con¬tractive re-examination of the Univer¬sity’s procedures.” Nicholas Kovacs '69Black vs FlacksSo now the Maroon has buckled, too.Roger Black’s “analysis” on Tuesdayplays with the English language in a cav¬alier manner reminiscent of RichardFlacks and Dean Rusk at their best(worst?).The letter written by Flacks and somefriends recently finds it shocking that theUniversity could consider closing down inreaction to the sit-in, and finds the act ofclosing down coercive. I find this worthy ofa character out of “1984,” where they playsimilar games with language and with his¬tory: Just what the hell do you call the4/The Chicago Maroon/February 13, 1969 occupation of the building? As one socialscientist to another, I am fascinated by theredefinition of the word “coercion” byFlacks, et al. I can only regret that revolu¬tionary necessity will keep Flacks frompublishing a full exposition of this majortheoretical contribution in the AmericanJournal of Sociology, which is, as we allknow, avidly read by General West¬moreland and Governor Wallace.As for Black: The statement that theUniversity is being obstinate in refusing tonegotiate while the ad building is beingoccupied is exactly what Rusk was sayingall those years when he claimed the NorthVietnamese were obstinate in refusing tonegotiate while we were bombing the hellout of their country. I expect more Rus-kian utterances from Black and Flacksand other hacks in the next few days, urg¬ing the take-over of more buildings in aneffort to force the University to the nego¬tiating table. A few weeks ago I had beenwondering how poor old LBJ whiled awaythe long hours since he left the WhiteHouse, but I now suspect he’s makingsome bread on the side by writing the ma¬terial for you guys.On the same page as Black’s article, wasa pice by Rob Cooley entitled, “Up There,People Are Talking.” In the best Tribunetradition of journalism, this piece of maun¬dering sentimentality, low on news -buthigh on feeling, was placed not on the edi¬torial page as a feature, but on page oneas a news story. This is comparable to put¬ting a story called “President JohnsonGives Medal to Soldier’s Widow” on pageone the day he orders out another 50,000troops in “the quest for peace.” I suggest,Mr. Black, that you run a “hard” story onthe reaction of University employees towhat’s been going on. But judging from myconversations with three or four blackUniversity police, you won’t like the re¬sults.Similarly absurd is the demand for am¬nesty as long as people are in the building.Mercy, yes; but you cannot deny the'legi¬timacy of the University and then ask thatillegitimate organization to sanction youracts.All this tends to back up Elihu Gerson’sthesis that this is no revolution; it’s anattempted palace coup. One guy told methat he wants the university to set up a“free university” division. I asked himwhy he couldn’t start a free university inhis apartment.“But we want course credit,” he replied.“But if you’re in revolt against the uni¬versity, why do you want course credit?”His answer was, “We all want to get ourdegrees.” This was the same guy (nowsporting a “Re-Hire Marlene” button),from whom I asked an opinion of thecourse he was taking with Mrs Dixon lastyear. His answer was, “She stinks.” Somerevolutionary.If Mao Tse-Tung had had you guys forfriends forty years ago, he’d be a retiredHong Kong chop suey hustler today.Tom BlauGraduate StudentPolitical Science DepartmentLiberalsBy any conceivable definition the facultyat this University is an over-whelminglyliberal faculty. Herein lies the explanationof some of the peculiar behavior exhibitedby the faculty during the current crisis, acrisis that goes far beyond the sit-in andwill not end with the end of the sit-in.Liberals are famously capable of han¬dling demands that originate from theirright. Their defenses are well organized,their responses are facile yet firm, theirknowledge of what is negotiable and whatis non-negotiable is unmistakably clear. Incontrast, liberals are almost completely in¬capable of handling demands that issuefrom their left. Complaints from the leftconfuse the liberal. Complaints from theleft automatically weaken him by implica¬tion that he is not liberal enough. Demands from the left make him feel illegit. And theliberal feels this way regardless of the ac¬tual, substantive character of the de¬mands.Facing left the liberal frankly cannot dis¬tinguish a good demand from a bad one,for voices from the left remove his bear¬ings. In his mind organized knowledge be¬comes a mere structure; through shame,all structures curdle into mere estab¬lishments, and all establishments are reac¬tionary unless they can be shown to be inthe process of systematically creating theirown counter-establishment, counter heroes,counter-myths. The liberal faces right withforthrightness and honesty. He faces leftwith hypocrisy.Throughout the crisis President Levi hasacted admirably. At this University thePresident cannot impose a solution upon adepartment, committee, division or Col¬lege. He can only affirm the nature of theUniversity. But in this he has been desert¬ed by the departments and other units, forthey have refused to reaffirm his affirma¬tion. Until they do, the students will nei¬ther gain their victory over the facultynor, in losing, maintain their respect forthe faculty. Departmental silence creates apresumption of negotiability that will makefuture actions appear to be two-faced.Unless the departments and other unitsstand up and clarify just what it is thatcomplete communication can never reachdirectly, we will gain at best a phonypeace. This University, unlike many, restsupon the ideal of faculty autonomy in rela¬tion to all matters involving confidentialpersonal judgements of faculty and stu¬dents. It is difficult to imagine why thisprinciple is so difficult to enunciate.If the demand for student and alumnipower had come from even the respectableright, faculty reaction would have beeneasy to predict. Why is the same demandfrom the left so different?Theodore J LowiAssociate Professor ofPolitical ScienceChauvinists UniteHow much longer are we to accept thisfeminist propoganda which poisons yourpaper, in contradiction to biology, tradi¬tion, and plain common sense? As everysignificant thinker has noted, from Platothrough Marx, the good society is the onein which everyone “does his own thing" —not in the sense of doing whatever hewants to do, but in the sense of doingwhatever he is best at. To permit anythingelse is a luxury which can only lead towaste and economic disaster.Leave the laboratories and positions ofresponsibility to men. Women belong in thekitchen and the bedroom — and occasion¬ally in the living room to vacuum up.CRAP(Chauvinists Rejecting All f etense)SolidarityAs foreign students of the University ofChicago, we wish to express the view thatwe find the level of student participation inpolicy-making here to be underdeveloped.We celebrate any effort by students to se¬cure a greater role in the determination oftheir own education.We also wish to express solidarity withthose interested in promoting the kind ofsocially relevant and concerned teachingthat we understand to be the hallmark ofMrs. Dixon’s work.A BahattinF HernandezR GambiniM MachadoO MarquezL MayerG NtalashoJ OrlandiN Patar reD KeraO Weissmann