"The New Permissiveness and Its Problems" pamphlet

THE NEW PERMISSIVENESS AND ITS PROBLEMS

Fellow Members of the University Senate:

There is an old proverb, often quoted by the Pennsylvania Dutch, among whom I once lived, "Man is too soon old and too late smart." Thoughtful consideration of the implications of the strong modern tendency toward permissiveness leads to the conclusion that a good many members of future generations will never get to be "too late smart" because they will become too soon dead as a result of spuming all guidance in a mad pursuit of "whatever comes naturally" at the particular moment.

The new permissiveness poses serious questions to parents and guardians and to all persons associated with education. As small children many of us resented the restraining hands of our safety-minded elders because safety occupied either a very low niche or no niche at all in our childish scale of values. Whoever obstructed our eager quest for new experiences by keeping us away from open manhole covers, polluted streams, discarded chewing gum, running machinery, loaded guns, dangerous household chemicals, street traffic, and assorted hazards of childhood seemed to be forcing us into an alien existence by destroying our freedom to lead our own lives and make our own decisions. If we deemed it the quintessence of self-expression essential to molding ourselves along lines of our own choosing to tease the neighbor's dog, stick our fingers into the blades of whirling electic fans, have fun with matches, experiment with dad's cigarette lighter, or play with that boy down the street, who had a marvelous command of all those Anglo-Saxon monosyllables once considered taboo in polite conversation, why were annoying adults constantly interfering and trying to shape our young egos along unwanted lines?

With increasing age the destructive forces of youthful experimentation normally adopt different forms of expression. Playing with matches and gobbling assorted sugar-coated pills found in medicine cabinets lose some of their erstwhile attractiveness, to be replaced by a growing urge to experiment with "goof balls," alcoholic drinks, marijuana, LSD, and the enthusiastic spreading of mononucleosis and venereal diseases. At this particular stage of development efforts to impose restraint appear to be the work of meddlesome "do-gooders" and assorted kill-joys. A big, unanswered question now confronting university administrations is whether or not to give up the struggle to protect those entrusted to their care and whether to remove all remaining obstacles to the ever-widening pursuit of more fun today and "never mind tomorrow."

Those who still believe that higher education can operate best and most effectively under conditions involving at least some regulation of individual license are being currently beset by numerous problems in decision making. The simplest solution appears to be to abandon all rules and all efforts to exercise control over individuals.

This policy can be illustrated by the words of the intoxicated farmer who went out to work in a field, and yelled at his team, "Giddap, gee, haw, go wherever you've a mind to; it's all gotta be ploughed."

If present developments are any indication, all attempts to control student bodies may soon become obsolete as, one by one, the right to make decisions is taken over by student groups, government officials, and politicians. It appears that this has already happened in China, where so-called higher education has become largely a tool of political strategy in the communist conspiracy. Incredibly difficult and far-reaching changes will certainly become necessary if Chinese universities are ever to be controlled and administered by brilliant researchers, great scholars, and educational leaders devoted to the pursuit and propagation of scientific truth and historical fact.

When casehardened dogma, political indoctrination, and "brainwashing" become the order of the day, competent administrators in the field of education can only shake in their shoes, while waiting patiently and abjectly for their shoes, From the viewpoint of educational progress it makes little difference whether the cues and directions come from the Red Guards or from the top levels of Mao's politbureau. One of China's most competent musicians, Ma Sze-Tsung, former director of the Central Conservatory of Music in Peking, recently escaped with his family to the United States, and he has given a shocking report on what happens to education when mob rule takes over the universities.

In a large percentage of Latin-American universities left-wing students and persons whole-heartedly committed to communism have been acquiring increasing influence in higher education, and there is no evidence to indicate that planned infiltration is to limit itself to the area south of our border. An important first step in preparing for such infiltration is to create as much dissatisfaction and ill will as possible among students. Anyone who can persuade students that members of faculties and administrative staffs are their natural enemies is preparing the way for this invasion, whether he realizes it or not. Recent left-wing disturbances on U. S. campuses, and particularly those in California which culminated in the dismissal of Clark Kerr, point to serious dangers ahead. Dedication to freedom, which has traditionally been a source of our greatest strength, is in the process of becoming our Achilles’ heel.

Both communists and their stooges show tremendous admiration for freedom as long as they are not in control of a nation, but, once in power, they begin a systematic program of extermination, as Fidel Castro has so convincingly demonstrated in our own hemisphere. Like most double talk proceeding from the extreme left, enthusiastic support for the proliferation of freedom is loudly acclaimed until the time is ripe for its annihilation. The rights of free speech and freedom of the press are resoundingly applauded by these people wherever they are not in control of administrative machinery.

This is not meant to imply that the incipient revolution now seeking to undermine the foundations of our existing system of higher education is solely the product of a left-wing totalitarian conspiracy, but I do see a clear indication that destroying respect for established authority and nullifying people’s willingness to live within the limits of restraints imposed by that authority is a significant step toward abolition of what we like to call the American way of life."

It may be well to tear down physical structures which have become outmoded, but only after we are assured that they will be replaced by something better. In any case a prudent man doesn’t turn his present home over to a demolition crew until he is fully convinced a replacement of superior quality will be forthcoming. The same kind of prudence should apply with equal force to our nation’s government and our educational system. People have always wanted many things which are injurious both to themselves and to the rights of others. This is why it is important for us to be concerned about where the road to unlimited permissiveness will lead us.

An essential ingredient in any system of social control based upon liberty is the right of minorities to dissent, and to make their desires known, but dissenters need to be warned of the dangers involved in allowing themselves to be used, unwittingly perhaps, to build up dissension to the point where we become a nation of militant minorities, fighting each other to the point of destroying our existing institutions, only to make way for a monolithic totalitarian system under which the right of dissent will be permanently enjoined.

Today a militant minority of college students would like to take over the right to hire, fire, and discipline faculty members. Such an innovation is inconceivable without the attendant right of students to choose everyone on the staff from the President on down. The right to unlimited cuts, free from faculty interference is also desired. There is some clamor for abolition of grades or for the adoption of a system involving only grades of satisfactory or unsatisfactory, accompanied no doubt by the hope that, if student control over the faculty can be established, few would have the temerity to judge anyone unsatisfactory lest he himself fall afoul of the same judgment. A considerable number of students would also like to see the proctoring of tests and examinations abandoned, to be replaced by a so-called "honor system."

Our student Council has voted in favor of having beer served on the campus. If faculty and administration consent is forthcoming, is there anyone so naive as to suppose that, once the camel has got his head into the tent, this will be the end of the matter? At most the beer proposal is only a halfway measure. To people impatient for quick alcoholic effects beer is entirely too slow, and one has to drink too much non-intoxicating liquid.

If the Council resolution on beer is vetoed, both faculty and administration will doubtless be regarded as doddering, undemocratic reactionaries, who take a sadistic delight in prolonging an outmoded austerity at the expense of students trapped in a morass of frustration* However, if the beer proposal is approved, and a later Council resolution- in favor of campus cocktail parties for students is denied, imagine what antediluvian monsters we shall then become in the opinion of thirsty students.

Our University is not unique in being subjected to increasing pressure in favor of relaxing dormitory regulations. Can we hope to settle the matter by making a few carefully chosen concessions? Not as long as there are still regulations on the books. If girls are permitted to stay out all night with boy friends, one might well ask, why not go a step further, and help them save motel bills by authorizing the use of dormitory rooms? In Sweden there is already talk of providing so-called "sex rooms" for the convenience of students in the public schools.

In recent years there has been some talk among members of our faculty and administration about trying to make ours a great University. It is pertinent to inquire whether this objective will be promoted by granting unlimited cuts to students, making faculty tenure dependent upon student evaluation, abolishing the existing system of grades, providing beer on the campus, doing away with dormitory rules, and resolving to rubber-stamp future proposals submitted by the Student Council. Does being chartered by the State of Ohio as a university automatically carry with it the authorization to convert our establishment gradually into a glorified country club, while still seeking financial support from taxpayers?

People keep talking about how far Ohio lags behind some other states in per capita support of higher education, and efforts are currently under way to persuade the State Legislature and our taxpayers to give us more support. We also have a bond issue to provide new capital facilities for higher education scheduled to go to the voters soon. Are we to infer that newspaper reports about panty raids on our campus and proposals to abolish dormitory rules or provide beer service to our students will promote enthusiasm for voting us more funds?

A possible solution to the difficult position confronting our faculty and administration as a result of the new permissiveness is to request guidance from the Board of Regents. They have already endorsed the idea of state-wide uniformity of university calendars, and we are now trying to cope with the problem of converting to the quarter system. Other pressures for conformity will undoubtedly arise in the future. The new permissiveness appears to be an area where state-wide conformity, enforced by central authority, might be to our advantage.

If we approve the sale of beer on our campus, and other state-assisted institutions do not, alcoholically minded students will naturally gravitate to Bowling Green, while parents who object to having their children subjected to an institutionally approved drinking environment may choose to send them elsewhere. Also, if we go all out to facilitate the spreading of venereal diseases and possible pregnancies (in spite of "the pill"), parents to whom this idea does not appeal might be impelled to blacklist our institution, which might eventually emerge as a ritzy, tax-assisted bordello, and only nominally an educational institution.

If we can persuade the Board of Regents to establish uniform rules concerning dubious concessions to students, one serious source of friction between candidates for degrees and our administration will be eliminated. If the Board of Regents refuses to pick up this "hot potato," an attempt should be made to get uniform legislative rulings for all institutions receiving tax support. The last resort would be a referendum carried directly to the taxpayers, asking for guidance as to how they want their huge investment in capital improvements on Ohio campuses and their current tax contributions; to higher education used.

In the meanwhile what answers should we make to those students who complain about obstructionism on the part of whoever refuses prompt consent to unlimited cuts, alcoholic drinks, and an end to dormitory rules? To those who seriously insist that neither the administration nor individual facility members should take any kind of punitive action against those who habitually absent themselves from classes, it could be pointed out that there are, in the United States, a number of correspondence schools which have no classes and hence no problem of cuts. If class instruction is held by some to be a pure waste of time, and if requiring attendance is regarded as an unjustifiable infringement upon the rights of freedom-loving students, then the taxpayers could be saved a lot of money by having some courses set up on the basis of two or three examinations and no classes or class-room teaching. Persons allergic to class instruction could then arrange to take examinations whenever they felt prepared, and could also spare the time from campus social life and having fun. Courses involving regularly scheduled classes could then be reserved for only those who have a cooperative attitude, and who would need no urging to attend.

Those who insist that an important function of a university is to provide alcoholic beverages without the painful necessity of leaving the campus and those who are grievously annoyed at finding any obstacles placed in the way of seducing female students and the promotion of general promiscuity should be informed that there are still a considerable number of taxpayers who do not think they should be called upon to provide tax support for institutions where such activities are looked upon as being worthy of official sanction.

Students should be made to realize that our nation has a large number of privately owned colleges and universities which are neither tax-supported nor tax-aided except by exemption from real estate taxes, and that some of them have acquired reputations for being more like country clubs than educational institutions. One of these, sometimes known as "The University in a Cornfield," has recently gained considerable publicity by accepting students forced to leave other institutions because their devotion to having fun was incompatible with unpleasant educational requirements. If there should develop among Americans a sufficient level of demand for institutions combining the maximum of permissiveness with the minimum of emphasis upon serious educational performance, it is highly probable that more institutions patterned after the one mentioned above will be established.

The problem of what to do about student demands for removal of restraint upon activities still regarded by many Americans as immoral needs to be given very careful study from the viewpoint of public relations. This is particularly true when students seek not merely permission but active cooperation, as is the case with serving beer on the campus. Granting demands will only lead to more demands, and this will continue as long as students can think of anything else for which to clamor. Freedom-loving students may soon be asking for official aid in procuring marijuana, LSD, and numerous other dangerous product for campus consumption.

Karl Marx is said to have referred to religion as "the opiate of the people." In view of the growing demand for pep pills, goof balls, marijuana, LSD, and heroin, both on and off of college campuses, we might offer a revised statement to the effect that opiates are well on the way toward becoming "the religion of the people." It is to be hoped that American institutions of higher learning will not actively participate in setting the stage for a demonstration of the converse of the Marxian proposition.