Word: rule
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Moral indignation against the war in Vietnam is so justified that when, a year ago, hundreds of students violated a University rule in their demonstration against Dow, many professors did all they could to put that incident into its context and to prevent excessive punishment. Moreover, the Dow affair had largely resulted from, and was pointing to, the inadequacy of channels in which students and professors together could discuss issues of public policy involving the University. But I do not believe that the sit-in of last Thursday, which led to the cancellation of the Faculty meeting, can be defended...
...come out with similar recommendations that did not endorse the SDS position, the sit-in could only be interpreted as an attempt to impose by pressure what was not obtainable by free and rational discussion. This is a form of moral absolutism that amounts to intolerable political tryanny. Majority rule has its flaws, and I have heard ad nauseam the argument that moral issues cannot be settled by majority decisions. But what was at stake was public policy--which entails a judgment on different moral stands and a consideration of multiple values; this cannot be settled by minority rule...
...open is a view well worth exploring. But it is not a simple question, and even if it were, to impose the solution by the fait accompli of a sit-in decided by one group of students is not a method acceptable to nay self-respecting Faculty: A rule cannot be changed through its coercive violation. Had the Deans not decided to cancel the meeting, it would have been the Faulty's duty either to do so, Faculty initiative to hold an open meeting could be taken, the sit-in had to end-and the least...
...Administration repressiveness would then be vindicated. The escalation of bitter confrontation is in nobody's interest. What happened here was not at all of the same order of magnitude as what was done by others at Berkeley of Columbia. Here, there was coercion, but no violence; violation of a rule, and a kind of obstruction, but no real occupation or damage. I do not think that most of the students involved want to destroy this University: they sincerely belive they're just trying to improve it. But when beliefs spill into unwarranted disruption, a professor's duty is to refuse...
...serious obstruction of Faculty business" was not the only course of action open to the Deans. They could have converted the special meeting to an open forum with no votes. They could have allowed the whole Faculty to convene and decide whether or not to waive the closed meeting rule. Professor Michael Walzer told the the students afterwards that he had planned to introduce such a motion. If some one had told that group that before, they might well have voted...