Brown Man's Burden

For the past two years or so, Brown University has been the scene of an intense controversy concerning the limits of student freedom and responsibility. Ranged on the one side is the administration, whose philosophy can perhaps best be summed up as "giving the students only as much freedom as we feel they can handle." Standing on the other side is virtually the entire undergraduate body, which feels that the administration is much too strict, and which, in some cases, purports to see everywhere the influence of a "Big Brother" from University Hall.

If the old adage "Where there's smoke, there's fire" can be applied to this situation, one can assume that the University must be guilty of at least a few repressive measures. A close examination reveals that in some areas it most certainly is--sometimes through design, sometimes naively, sometimes through necessity.

Chastisement Of Paper

The most vocal anti-administration organ at Brown is the Brown Daily Herald. In its treatment of this student paper, the University has often appeared somewhat repressive. Although there is no outright censorship of the paper, the administration has occasionally taken it upon itself to chastise the student editors for criticizing the University. This can best be seen in two specific cases, one concerning a letter to the editor, and the other involving an editorial.

The letter to the editor was written by David E. Labovitz, news director of the Brown Daily Herald and reputedly a radical. After the deans had spoken to a meeting of students and had left unanswered certain questions on parietal rules, Labovitz wrote his letter requesting that they make their policies and reasons more public. He was then called up to see various deans. "They gave me hell and put a copy of the letter in my record," he said.

This was not an isolated case, for several other boys were also summoned to explain their criticisms. K. Roald Bergethon, dean of the college, explained that he called up two or three boys last year for various reasons, but "not primarily because they wrote a critical letter." He said he was mainly interested in finding out exactly what the complaint was so he could understand it better. Labovitz agreed that Bergethon seemed sincerely interested in solving problems, but he criticized the other deans for "rapping him (Labovitz) on the knuckles." At any rate, a dean would have to be somewhat naive not to realize that any call to his office is apt to be intimidating to a certain extent.

The editorial alluded to above was written about an incident involving compulsory chapel. It seems Labovitz and another student got up and walked out of the middle of a sermon on the material advantages of church membership. Labovitz says he was then called up by Edward R. Durgin, dean of students, and told that "if you don't like chapel, you shouldn't be at Brown." The Herald wrote an editorial criticizing various aspects of chapel, and they in turn were criticized. "I didn't feel that that was a very just move on the part of the University," William R. Bollow, editor of the Herald said afterward. "We went to see them and President Keeney spent half an hour bawling us out. He thought we were being irresponsible."

Influence Over Activities

One of the chief complaints among Brown undergraduates is that the University exerts too strong an influence over student activities and organizations. As one talks to the students about this, one hears four examples cited over and over again.

The most popular of these is the band issue. It seems that the University controls the purse strings for all class dances, and that it has set an unofficial limit of around $2000 to be spent on a band. Unfortunately, the students often want to hire a big name band, which usually requires a larger sum of money. But the University feels that a big weekend doesn't necessitate a big name band, Robert Minnerly, chairman of the 1956 spring weekend, explained. "They fear the band would send an inferior group of players for an exorbitant sum," Minnerly added. "They're afraid the students will get gypped by big-time promoters." He added that the only way his committee could get money, even for posters, was to have a requisition slip signed by the associate dean of students.

David Lewis, president of the Cammarian Club, Brown's Student Council, also felt that the University was afraid to let the students take too much of a chance with their money. "The students aren't given enough chances to make mistakes," he said.

A second example frequently cited is the case of the short-lived sports car club. The club was allegedly outlawed at Brown because there were non-Brown students in it, a factor which limited the University's control over it. "The students would like to have more control over their own organizations," Lewis said, "but lately the University has started to clamp down. Had the students more say in the matter, the sports car club would probably not have been removed."

The Nixon Incident

A third example uppermost in the students' minds took place in early October. A request by the Young Republican Club to invite vice-President Nixon to a morning rally on the campus was turned down by Samuel T. Arnold, provost of the University, because the noise "might be very disruptive to classes." The Brown Daily Herald took a very dim view of this and felt the Young Republicans should have protested the decision. But as Lewis explained, "If you are bringing a major speaker here, the University must know all about it before he can come."

The fourth case cited by most students is actually very little understood by them. The general consensus seems to be that the University exercises some sort of influence over the choice of plays put on by the drama groups. But the influence here does not consist of controls from without. As William Talbot, president of the Sock and Buskin, explained, his group has faculty members, and consequently any decision it makes is naturely not a purely student decision.

But the University also maintains a certain amount of outside control over drama, as is reflected in the fact that all play programs read "Brown University presents" rather than merely "The Sock and Buskin presents." One aspect of this control is that the University handles the money for all drama groups on the campus. "It would be tremendously difficult for us to handle the money," Talbot said. "I just can't conceive of how an undergraduate could do it."

The upshot of these various instances of University influence is a feeling among undergraduates that they are not being treated as "Brown gentlemen," but rather as "babies."

In some instances, however, it would seem that the administration is entirely justified in treating the undergraduates as babies. One of the loudest cries raised by some anguished students concerns the liquor ban of last spring. The official letter announcing the ban read as follows: "Because of excess and boisterousness during Spring weekend, the serving of alcoholic beverages at social functions is prohibited for the remainder of the academic year, except for approved senior activities during commencement week."

When one examines the facts of this case, one can readily see why the administration felt obliged to move in. At a jazz concert in the quadrangle that weekend, the state of inebriation reached such a height that a beer can narrowly missed Dean Durgin's wife. Also that weekend, a half dozen "happy" undergraduates tore up bushes in the quadrangle and did damage amounting to about $3,000. Under these circumstances, the ban might best be considered a curtailment of license rather than an abrogation of liberty.

The result of these various University controls has been the development of a rather 1984ish feeling that the "Big Brothers from University Hall" are watching everywhere. This is reflected in the fact that the radio station, which has no editorial policy and is under no visible control by the University, "feels" nevertheless that the administration is ever ready to jump in with both feet. It is also reflected in the fact that the Brown Daily Herald would speak of "apparent overtones of University Hall instigation" concerning the proposed adoption of an honor code. It is also reflected in a statement by Lewis that the administration has "a pretty tight control over everything that goes on."

Power Politics

At times, University policy has leant credence to these ill-defined feelings. One incident about which virtually all students are misinformed and about which they are all very vehement is the now notorious couch ban. On the surface it appeared like nothing more than a senseless and arbitrary use of power by the administration. Suddenly from the office of the manager of student residences came a pronouncement forbidding the use of couches in the rooms. After widespread protest, this was changed to "required registration" of couches. It is understood by some that the whole incident was merely a testing of strength in University Hall power politics, but to most it appeared like just another tightening of the administration's grip, and a senseless one at that.

It is somewhat unfortunate that this feeling should be so prevalent, and it is strange in a way. For though the Brown administration seems to exercise a good deal of control over its students, it has gradually been liberalizing its regime. According to President Barnaby C. Keeney, certain rules have been considerably relaxed over the past five years, notably those on parietals and class attendance, and the Cammarian Club has gradually taken a more and more vigorous role in making recommendations. Keeney also pointed out that the Student Court is empowered to treat several types of disciplinary cases (though it has not handled a single case yet this year).

But beyond this, the administration seems ready to extend student responsibility in other directions, always with the proviso that the students be "capable of handling it."

"I'd like to see the boys tone down on drinking themselves," Dean Durgin said, "and I'd like to see them handle the students who howl like wolves in the quadrangle at 3 a.m."

Although some student leaders view the future optimistically, within the rest of the undergraduate body there is a feeling of disillusionment with student government, a feeling that the administration is too all-powerful. This may be due to the fact that the administration is fairly strict in certain matters. Or it may be due to the fact that the administrators, in an effort to improve things, have spent a lot of time talking with student leaders, and have consequently left themselves open to charges of meddling. But most likely, it is a result of the University's policy of slow liberalization. For once students have been given some freedom, they naturally want more and more, and they tend to regard the denial of it as unjust repression.The Quadrangle: scene of "excess and boisterousness" during Spring weekend.