2

Page Two



~.









Editor-in-Chief
Nancy Miller ’69

Managing Editor
Robin Brantley '69

Photographic Editor |
Mary Yee '70

Associate Editors ~

Maggie Crosby '70, Cathy Hoskins °71
Kathy Murphey °69

Editor Emeritus Contributing Editor

Christopher Bakke '68 Mary Laura Gibbs '70

Editorial and Photographic Staff

Dora Chizea '69, Sally Dimschultz '70
Ashley Doberty '71, Carol Eddy '70
Bonnie Holcomb ‘71, Ellen Hooker ’70
Julie Kagan ’70, Marianne Lust '69
Mary Parker '70, Barbara Sindel '70

Advertising Manager

Business Manager
Adrienne Rossner '69

Ellen Saftlas °70

Subscription Managers

| Sally Boyd '71, Alice Rosenblum °71 »

Subscriptions $3.00 — Mailing price $5.00 -
Subscriptions may begin at any time.

Offices in The College Inn
LA 5-9458

Founded in 1914

Published weekly during the college year except during
: “vacations: and exam. periods; ~ = eaeer tee
The College ‘News is fully protected by copyright.
Nothing that appears in it may be reprinted wholly or in/
part without permission of the Editor-if-Chief. ~

COLLEGE NEWS is entered as second class matter
at the Wayne, Penna, Post Office under the act of
March 3, 1879. ;







Self Gov Has the F acts |

Three drug cases involving five Bryn Mawr students

have been tried by Self Gov within the past two weeks.
Directly-or indirectly, the entire student body is af-
fected by these cases brought before Self Gov and by
the additional instances of use or possession of drugs
on campus which have not been detected. Some sort of
clarification of Self Gov’s position and actions is ab-
solutely necessary at this point, Rumors are spread-
ing across campus, and the absence of any official
word from Self Gov on the situation has generated a
feeling of secrecy, Students are becoming suspicious
of Self Gov, the very organization designed to represent
them, | :
_- Prior to this time, Self Gov has not had adequate
information to present an evaluation of the problem;
but after three long and carefully considered cases,
particular information must-be available. Perhaps
a petition to Self Gov asking for an explanation pre-
sented in a campus-wide meeting would prove effec-
tive. But still the question remains, why doesn’t Self
Gov take the initiative? The students want a clarifica-
tion, and Self Gov has the facts,

The whole situation is obviously extremely difficult
to handle, and the process of judging peers within the
context of an honor system is a delicate and complex
procedure. But some rationale for current actions and
some indication of how the honor system is working in
the recent cases should be offered, An important point
which has been subjected to numerous rumors is the
possibility of a federal raid on campus, Certainly the
chance of suchan enormous threat to Bryn Mawr should
be examined and presented to the students,

Under an honor system there shouldbe no need for
a statement of absolute punishments for specifically
delineated offenses, Each case is tried individually in
the most liberal context possible. In fact, the idea of
a student deciding her actions on the basis of how
much the punishment will inconvenience her, rather
than on. What effect her actions will have on other.
people, is completely alien to the actualization of
self government. But the drug cases do offer Self
Gov opportunities to demonstrate concretely ways
in which the adverse actions of individuals damage
the community as a whole,

The drug statement called drug abuse ‘physically
and psychologically’? dangerous, and certainly the
cases at Bryn Mawr have caused problems, both in
direct violations of the honor system and in creating
a communications ‘between Self Gov and the stu-
dent body. Definite information ina situation such as
this is necessary to




enable a student to exercise her -



THE COLLEGE NEWS



Friday, March 1, 1968



Self Gov on Brugs

Self Gov, Statement on Drugs, adopted by Legislature on Oct, 24, 1967:
Because drugs are illegal and potentially dangerous physically and psychologically,
Self Gov will deal with every case of drug use by Bryn Mawr students which comes
to its attention, on the basis that illegal actions within a community pose a threat
to the continued existence of the community and that actions potentially dangerous to
individuals. are potentially dangerous to the community in which the individuals live,

‘Serving as a vehicle of campus communication, the COLLEGE NEWS is pre-
senting the following clarification, written and adopted this week by Self Gov, of
the above. drug statement. In response to queries concerning the position and
action of Self Gov in drug cases, the clarification is an attempt to evaluate the

criteria of the drug policy.

In view of the drug cases which have come to its attention in the course of this year,
Self Gov makes the following clarifications of the drug statement approved by Legis-

lature last fall:

1. It is evident that it is impossible to possess or use drugs on the Bryn Mawr
campus and at the same time not pose the following threats enumerated in

that statement:

a. Potential physical and psychological danger to the individual.

b. Threat to the community
* 1. Threat of legal enforcement

2. Possible offense to other members of the community —s__—
THEREFORE, there should be no possession or use of drugs on this campus.
2. Self Gov reiterates that. when off-campus use of drugs poses the above
threats to the Bryn Mawr community, it will act in those cases as well,

Viewpoint





The Marijuana Morass

The officers of Self-Gov would have us believe

that the new drug statement contains nothing not-

implied in the old drug statement, The new
statement is merely a clarification of the old,

I disagree--the new statement is an edict; the
old statement was an attempt to deal in a human
way with a human situation. According to Self-
Gov, the old statement _has failed to ‘‘control’’
the drug ‘‘problem.’”’ Hence the necessity for a
clear ruling: no drugs on campus,

My complaint is that the students on Self-Gov
have not perceived the necessity for this clear
ruling by themselves, They have been forced

-4into their present stand by the college adminis-
tration, Be

Miss McBride made it quite obvious in her now-
notorious August drug letter that Bryn Mawr
students do not take drugs (the letter specifically
mentions LSD ‘and marijuana), Girls who take
drugs are, ex cathedra, not Bryn Mawr students,

Sheer Co-optation

The point is not so much that this is not true,
but that it is the administration, and not the maj-
ority of the students who believes this, and who
is opposed to students taking drugs. It is sheer
co-optation for some students, in the ferm or the
Self-Gov Exécutive Board, to punish other\students

for an activity which a majority of stud them-
selves do not morally disapprove,
The administration is USING Self-Gov.. It is

pretending that the students have the right to
govern themselves, while making it very clear that
self governing is a privilege which will be man-
ipulated when necessary to obtain compliance,
to administration stand, in this case to'Miss Mc-
Bride’s belief that taking drugs and being a Bryn
Mawr student are incompatible, ,

Rather than acquiesce to this masquerade of
self government, students as a whole (each of us,
remember, is a member of Self-Gov) should vote:
Do we or do we not want to make any or all forms
of taking drugs on or off campus an offense pun-
ishable by Self-Gov? If the majority votes ‘‘yes’’
then the new Self-Gov statement is on its way to
being legitimatized, and Self-Gov has a role in
punishing student drug users,

If the majority votes ‘‘no’’, then Self-Gov ob-
viously has no right to be adjudicating drug use,
Miss MeBride’s letter sets to precedent for drug





ear pe PE ee vo ee









in the ideal

use being |

=










administration: if they

by class? by major?), But let’s not have it happen
under the guise of student government, ’
Self Gov’s Quandary

This points out Self-Gov’s quandary. They seem
to think that by keeping jurisdiction over drug
use (by issuing the new statement) that they can
prevent the administration and possibly the Fed-
eral authorities from moving in on the students
full-force, This is not very realistic. Eventually
when the administration discovers that Self-Gov’s
statements and its light punishments for convicted
violators (campusing for a month or so) are not
cutting down student ‘drug use, it will step in any-
way. If the administration is really serious about
having no Bryn Mawr students taking drugs, it will
not be patient with Self-Gov’s performance for very
long. This new statement will fall into the void
that most of the other rules on campus are in,
and it will only convince the administration that
student self government is a farce, and that they
ought to step in, the sooner the better,

In Case of Expulsions

If the administration begins dealing directly with
drug users, Bryn Mawr students must band to-
gether to protect themselves, Any student who is
‘tasked to leave’’ or outright expelled for a drug
reason should immediately _ make hér. situation
public. Leaving quietly will just make the next
expulsion that much easier, Other students must
publically state that they have behaved similarly
to the expelled student, If they are expelled as
well, the publicity will be ten times worse than.
it was over the Air Force Academy’s academic
cheating scandal; Hundreds of Bryn Mawr stu-
dents expelled would literally cripple the school,
I doubt very much if the administration would allow
it to happen,

On the other hand, if only a selected few were

“expelled, EVEN THOUGH hundreds of others ad-

mitted to doing the same thing, the administration
would be in an untenable position, In some parts _
of the country, students are suing their schools
for similar selective expulsions,

The hypocrisy of Bryn Mawr’s handling of the
fact of student drug use is stifling. Self-Gov is
losing whatever autonomy it may once have had,
The administration’s Victorian attitude coupled
with its eye on Public Relations, is contemptible,
Gouldn’t-we, for once, define the situation as it

oo ee