2

Page Two.

THE COLLEGE NEWS

Wednesday, February. 16, 1955



2

THE COLLEGE NEWS

. FOUNDED IN 1914

Published weekly during the College Year (except during Thanksgiving,
Christmas and Paster holidays, and during examination weeks) in the
interest of Bryn Mawr College at the Ardmore Printing Company, Ardmore,
Pa.,, and B Mawr cor

Det College News is fully protected by copyright. Nothing that appears
in it may be reprinted either wholly or in part without permission of the
Editor-in-Chief.

EDITORIAL BOARD

5 I eka i aN ee cde aden deda dae deed U ea cea Marcia Case, ‘57
COPY. voce rccccceccccnceccresecrevrecsesesseveeszes Epsey Cooke, ‘57
Managing Editor ...............eeeeeeee Cilincsewsas Carol Hansen, ‘57
PRAM once rc ccc ccrercccevccrsereceesrcersepsorcss Ruth Rasch, ‘57 -

Molly Epstein, ‘56

EDITORIAL STAFF
Paula Dunaway, ‘58; Marcia Goldstone, ‘56; Anna Kisselgoff, ‘58; Joyce Mit-
thell, 55 (League Representative); Linda Notkin, ‘57; Joan Parker, ‘57 (A.A.
Representative); Helen Sagmaster, ‘58; Leah Shanks, ‘56; Catharine Stimpson,
58; Harriette Solow, ‘56; Elizabeth Warren, ‘55 (Alliance surges

Staff Photographers ...............-2. Ann Harris, ‘56 — Amy Heinel,
Business Manager ...........5..0scececseeseaeees Gloria Strohbeck, 157
Associate Business Manager .............-.eeeeees Virginia Gavian, ‘57

Business Staff: Annabelle Williams, ‘56; Rachel Epstein, ‘57, Christine Wallace,
Ss

»

Manager ....... Carlene Chittenden, ‘56
Board: Norma Harned ‘56; Polly Lothman, ‘56; Micky Nus-
baum, ‘57; Christa-Lovise Vollmer, ‘56; Ann Anderson, ‘57; LeoneEdricks,
‘57; Jennie Hagen, ‘57;. Lucille Lindner, ‘57; Betsy Miller, ‘57, Nancy
Starr, ‘57.
Subscription, $3.50. Mailing price, $4.00. Subscriptions may begin at

any time. tered as second class matter at the Ardmore, Pa., Post Office
under the Act of March 3, 1879.

Pudding For Whom?

“The first purpose of the professors in this particular
pudding is to please the students,” emphasizes the faculty-
contributed article on their theatrical enterprise. “But,” it
continues, and here’s the rub, the very large rub, “the proof
of the pudding will be seen in the contributions to the new
science building.”

Proofs range in price froth $10 to $3 with large pieces of
evidence available at $7.50 and $5. These are expressed in
other terms; by carefully computed faculty figures, as equal
to from five to seventeen hours of toil. (A vital statistic
omitted in the computation would double the man-hours of
output to ten to thirty-four, should it be desired that a sliver
of pudding be extended to an escort.)

By establishing prices such as these, the faculty will
simultaneously cut profits and afford few students the op-

portunity of seeing the show. The number of $3 and $5 seats
is limited and the quality of these seats is acoustically and
visually low. Because of these facts, the number of students
who will be able to attend the show for a reasonable fee is
not very great. Only a small'number of Bryn Mawrters can
or will pay more, thus limiting the profit from student ticket
sales. Ticket prices certainly seem to be prohibitive as far
as the students are concerned.) __

The faculty, in advising us to seek employment, did not
consider the students who now work. for as many hours as
they can to cover their day-to-day expenses. In addition, few
jobs, especially 17 hour babysits, are easily obtainable. The
fact that “a quadrennial tga is not an annual drain on the
student pocketbook” serves neither as a logical justification
for the price, nor as a financial assistance to paying it.

Tickets to the 1951 faculty show, “Kind Hearts and Mar-
tinets”, sold for a maximum of $5 with the entire second sec-
tion anil balcony priced at $1.80. ‘The new science building
_ is definitely important enough to justify some sacrifice on
the part of the audience. . It is not important enough to jus-
ify raising the prices right out of the range of the students
into the limited sphere of out-of-college demand.

If, as both Miss-Lang and Mr. Dudden seem to feel, the
primary purpose of Faculty Show is the entertainment of the
students, then why deny a large percentage of the undergrad-
uate body the opportunity of seeing it? The introduction of
a secondary purpose, that of contributing to the proposed
science building, is logically irreproachable so long as it does:
not undermine the basic premise. When conflict does arise,
it would seem only reasonable to put “first things first”.

’ Two changes might be suggested to make thé show both|
‘available and profitable. The number of low-priced tickets
. could be increased, perhaps to make the entire section and
balcony obtainable. at a uniform rate. In addition, a second
performance, given on Friday night, could be considered. It
should. not. take much more of the time “the faculty. cannot’
afford... to produce the show.”

- A quadrennial event, though no easier to pay for, is “ex-
‘tra exciting”, especially when it’s Faculty Show. wee love

see it if only ‘we-could afford it: “4





~ BUREAU ¢ OF RECOMMENDATIONS 2

| sitions in, Arlington, Virgina,
posted) Fort Meade, Maryland. ,
| & good many teaching positions
- [are posted on the hall bulletin
ad.|Doards as well as. other positions

-| since’treshman year we have heard

| why, |

| case the Dean’s warning was only
or|a caution. However, along with a
| great--many-other people, I find

Letters to the Kditor



Small Hours Predicted For Faculty Show;
Is Performance Mainly For The Students?

To the Faculty
c/o ‘the Editor of the

College News:

Maybe the Profs are in a Pud-
ding, but we are in a stew. Ever

about Faculty Show —the purple
cow decorated our bookshop, the
uw! presided over smoker conver-
sation, and we learned with de-
light that at a school as serene
and traditional as Bryn Mawr, our
faculty, during one evening every
tour years, could be as hilarious as
we have heard they have been.

Now the pudding is being boiled
—it’s our dessert by our own peti-
ss But there are several things
about which we feel very strongly,
that we would like to discuss with
you.

We think that the price of tick-
ets for Faculty Show is prohibi-
tive. The fund for the Science
Building is a worthy cause; how-
ever, there is a difference between
“nnancing” it and contributirig to
it.

The proceeds from our Fyesh-
man and Junior Shows also go to
charity and we have never charged
more than $2.40 for the most
choice seats, an entire section of
which, incidentally, is reserved for
cne faculty.

The campus jobs available to}



students enable some to earn their
spending money, others to pay for
books and even part of their tui-
tion. Out of this money we are
unwilling to pay what we think is
an exorbitant price for a benefit to
which our parents have already
been asked to contribute. Many of
us are too busy with our academic
obligations to “toil”.the necessary.
hours to afford a seat close enough
to be able to hear and see the per-
formance comfortably.

We write and produce our shows
because we enjoy them, but pri-
marily because we want people to
come and enjoy them with us.
Therefore, we gear the price of
tickets accordingly.

We would like to point out to
you that you may be playing to a
house consisting of very few stu-
dents, because those of us who are
not fortunate enough to obtain
$3.00 seats may not come at all.

We have been under the impres-
sion that Faculty Show is primar-
ily for the students; we who have
the most direct contact with you
and campus would be the ones who
would most enjoy your production.

Sincerely yours,
Mary Jane Chubbuck, ’55
Leslie G. Kaplan, ’55
Elizabeth Klupt, ’55



Dudden Upholds Faculty Show Ticket Prices;
Desires Student Cooperation For Fun, Profit

With the new taculty show —
hm PROMS IN ‘THE PUDDING
—scheauled tor Saturaay, Marcn
1¥, 1b Seems appropriate to contrip-
uc a iew tnoughts upon this
Ioruncoming event. 1t may seem
surprising, but there are a great
many wnys and wheretores for
even so Irivolous an occasion. .

Above all else there is the ques-
tlon—asked more often by my col-
icagues than by students, it is true,
puc OL primary importance none-
theless — Why does anyone nor-
maiuy of sound mind and body
want a Iaculty show anyway? ‘I'he
ursc part of this answer is simple.
ine scudents like it. lt has been
1epeavedly demonstrated that the
ecugents thoroughly enjoy the
spec.acle of seeing their academic
mentors im extraordinary attire,
uctering remarkable phrases, being
ridiculous rather than sublime.
Furthermore this student reaction
is valuable for its hignly favorable
impact upon the general morale of
vhe entire college community. No
one associated with the faculty
show of 1951 — KIND HEARTS
AND MARTINETS—failed to ap-
preciate the spontaneous waves of
enthusiasm and genuinely good
feeling with which the students so
amply repaid the amateur theat-



teachers have a substantial. amount

rical efforts of their instructors. At
least one such injection of good-
will is desirable for each under-
graduate generation. It benefits



both the students and the college
in their immediate context, as well |
as in the longer run of alumnae’
relations.

Secondly, a substantial propor-
tion of the faculty enjoy discard-
ing their academic demeanor and
habit to take to the stage from
time to time. It does not seem too
farfetched to suggest that many

of “ham” in them. Hence it is not
unreasonable to expect that at in-
frequent intervals they might be
persuaded to display their dramat-
ic talents on the stage instead of
in the classroom. In short, from
the viewpoint of the participants
in a faculty show, there is an ele-
ment of pleasure and amusement |
which closely parallels that of the
audience. This also is all to the
good for everybody concerned.

So far, then, we have concluded,
that most important among the |
various whys and wherefores asso-|
ciated quadrennially with the pro-
duction of a faculty show is the
fact that both students in the au-
dience and faculty on the stage en-

Continued on Page 5, Col. 4





Rhinelander Questions B. M. C. Cut Policy;
Complains Of se asieciaeid And Lack Of Logic

: To the Editor:

I would like to express my dis-
satisfaction with the policy of the
Dean’s office regarding cuts. As
everyone knows, notes were sent
cut at the beginning of the semes-
ter warning those whose number
of cuts was “excessive” that if
they continued at the same rate
they would be put on cut pro.

Having received one of these
communications, I would like, re-
‘spectfully; to inquire the reason
I probably did take more
cuts than I should have, and in any

myself disliking what I understand
to be the principle on — the
note was sent.

It says in the College Calanane

nine

the least, illogical.

} doubt the cause of the present con-
fusion is the ambiguity of the

| student’s work is affected in any
way by absence from class, she
will be warned in writing by the
Dean. If she continues to cut after
the warning, etc.” There is no pro-
vision here for the Dean’s office to
warn a student, the quality of
whose work has not been affected,
and again like many other people,
I am in this category. I do not in
the least resent the warning, but I
feel the Dean’s office is being, at

What I would like to see, as a
first step in the clarification of this
matter, is. a clear and accurate
statement from the Dean’s office,
explaining exactly what its policy
on cutting is. Then I would like to
see this policy adhered to. No







| that “regular attendance at sleaere






- iaehteaie Resp







rules themselves, but I see ‘no rea=
son why such a misunderstanding
‘eepccceage am






Current Events
Girard Discusses Term,
Fall Of French
Premier

The Current Events speaker on
Feb. 14 was M. Girard, who spoke
in the Common Room on the time-
ly subject of “France after Mendes-
France”. “

When Mendes-France came into
office last June there were two
main problems facing France: that
of her colonial policy, and that of
her European policy and the ques-
tion of rearmament. The majority
of the French were against both
of these policies, and Mendes-
France appeared as a saviour. when
he achieved the only possible solu-
tion: truce, and following that, de-
crease in guerilla warfare.

ED@)>Failure

Once he had won their support,
the French were behind Mendes-
France’s Asiatic policy and his
stand on EDC. When this last fail-
ed, however, it was said that he
had allowed it to die in the Nation-
al Assembly. This feeling caused
a great deal of popular disfavor,
and M. Girard believes that it was
actually the beginning of the Pre-
mier’s fall,

Our mistake, M. .Girard believes,
is in placing too much emphasis
on fear of the Germans as a factor
in French opposition to remarma-
ment. In reality, the French have
a tendency to underestimate the
position of their government.

In addition to this, the French,
contrary to popular American
opinion, feel that something more
important than merely the safety
of their country is at stake, and
that the most difficult and cour-
ageous thing they can do is to seek
for a peaceful solution. They see
| World War III as an alternative,
and in view of this, their hesitation
seems quite understandable.

Resentment

There is a great deal of resent-
ment towards America, especially
on policies of which we do not
seem to have been aware. M. Gir-
ard listed three main ones: 1. Our
“exploitation of Dien Bien Phu”,
which they feel we overused for
propaganda purposes.

2. Our attitude toward the re-
cent trouble in Guatemala; it is
felt that we took too seriously the
threat of communism in Central
America.

3. America’s shifts in attitude
toward Mendes-France.

Mendes-France’s policy. has been
based on his firm belief in- peace-
ful co-existence, which cannot suc-
ceed without the sacrifice of indi-
vidual ideologies, and which im-
plies agreement on a modus viv-
endi “on the basis of strategic re-
lations”’.

Mendes-France’s main support
was from the Communists, but he
lost it when he began to work for
the Pact of Paris. M. Girard feels
that, as the French government is
‘subject to considerable pressure
Continued on Page 5, Col. 3

Prof. MacGregor Dubs

Self ‘‘Choosy” Heretic

To the Editor:

Let not. philosophical question-
ing disturb the confidence of Dr.
Adams. Be it conceded that life,
even academic life, is too short for
anything so finicky as the defini-
tion of terms. Let us allow, rather,
that. he has-finally succeeded in es-.
tablishing that his orthodoxy, hav-
ing behind it the authority of an
indeterminate number of the
Founding Fathers, is unimpeach-
able, while Dr. Walter Michels and
I are heretics. I am glad, for my
own part, to find at least one ad-
jective that can be applied to both
me and the Founder of my re-—



Yours gratefully,
Geddes -oreaed ~~
Just