grab bag
By Glenn Dromgoole
Student unrest: Part 4.
Today’s students are more aware, the liberals say.
They are radical, claim the conservatives.
And just as “liberal” and “conservative” are often un-
definable terms, so are the tags they place on campus youth.
These generalities — along with such categories as
the “New Breed,” the “New Left” and the “Young Radicals”
— have been devised to describe college students who are
supposedly more interested in the world in which they live.
Many a writer has attributed the numerous student pro
tests and demonstrations to this “awareness” or “radical”
spirit, but few have delved into why today’s youth are
seemingly more interested in reforming their society.
There could be several reasons, several contributing
factors to the general unrest that critics say prevails
among the “New Breed.”
1. AN INCREASING number of college students. More
people are seeking higher education than ever. University
and college enrollment more than doubled in the last decade,
reaching 5,435,000 last fall.
“A little learning is a dangerous thing” and the exposure
to a little learning continues to soar to new heights. Along
with this fantastic enrollment increase comes a proportionate
share of “radicals,” although many critics seem to believe
the proportion is much higher than in past generations.
However, some disagree. Gordon F. Lewis, Vermont
sociologist writing in Saturday Review, said:
“I doubt that the proportion of ‘concerned’ students today
is significantly greater than at any other time since World
War II. The proportion of ‘committed’ college students
changes very slightly, if at all, from year to year.”
A recent survey conducted by the Educational Testing
Service asked 13,000 entering freshmen if they would rather
subscribe to the ‘fun and games” attitude or the “non-
comformist” philosophy while in college. The freshmen
responded 13-1 in favor of the former.
But what about the older students? As they mature,
do they become more “aware?” Professor James L. Jarrett,
also writing in Saturday Review, seems to think so — and
so do many others.
Jarrett said students are more concerned than formerly
with a variety of matters, especially certain social condi
tions in our society and the policies and operations of the
academic institution.
Whether the proportion is increasing or not, at least
the number of concerned or committed students is growing.
2. STUDENTS TODAY have more to be concerned
about. College youth are caught up in the computer age,
the space age, the automation age and a revolutionary era
human relations.
Harrison Salisbury, assistant managing editor of tl
New York Times, claims this nation is undergoing a trip
revolution in automation, civil rights and poverty — a
tempting to improve the society like no other nation ev
has.
One result of this triple revolution has been disser
Automation offers more efficient and less expensive meai
of production to management on the one hand, and a co
stant threat to labor on the other. Civil rights remains
hotly disputed topic — both in the north and south — ai
the war on poverty has its share of debate.
Add to that a physical war in Viet Nam, a war lil
none other fought in this nation’s history, and it is eas
to see why college students might become concerned. Whethi
they are “aware” or not depends on how much their concei
encourages them to think and how little their emotioi
control their heads.
3. FINANCIAL DEMANDS of students are becomir
more rigorous. College youth are constantly being pre
sured to subscribe to this magazine at a discount, this li:
insurance policy at a low rate, buy this after shave lotio
this automobile, this brand of cigarettes, this kind of clothe
etc.
Expenditures for teenagers have exceeded the $14 billic
mark annually, and college youth account for a quite a larg
proportion of it. The older students pay out a simih
sum, often spending nearly as much during their la;
years in college as they do after graduation.
Students are earning more and more of the mom
themselves through parttime and summer jobs, causin
them to incur greater shares of income taxes, sales tax<
and gasoline taxes than other college generations.
They are also paying more poll taxes to help deck
how their other taxes are spent. As they gain the rigl
to vote, they also encounter some of its responsibilitie
And instead of displaying the apathy of their mothers an
fathers and uncles,' they show concern.
4. EXTENSION OF academic freedom to freedom-t<
learn. Since more students are helping foot the bills of the:
college education, they are demanding their dollars’ wortl
Gone are the days of the one-way interraction betwee
student and professor. What little one-way relations rt
main are constantly under fire, from the student group:
Students are demanding more of their teachers. Cours
and professor ratings by student are becoming more commoi
The academic circles, although not quite elated abou
having their students rate them, are accepting the process
5. INCREASING DEMANDS for earlier maturity. A
the student gains more freedom, he also discovers greate
responsibility. If he is allowed to live off campus -— eithe
by a liberal university policy or because of crowded dormi
tories — he finds that he must shift for himself more thai
he ever has.
v He demands to be accepted as a mature individual
and he protests attempts to keep him subdued. But in th<
process, he encounters some difficulty such as “the franth
career-drive, spurred by the anxiety of middle-class parents
leading to conformism, and willingness to submit to schedulec
miseducation, credits and grading in order to get a diplorm
quick” writes Paul Goodman.
Therefore, a conflict evolves.
6. MORE RESOURCES at their disposal. The college
youth has time and energy — and sometimes money — or
his side. He is not forced to devote all his resources to the
hare essentials of life. These are pretty well cared for. So
he has more time to devote to his own particular pasttimes.
Whether it be football, poker, reading or demonstrating,
the student can apply his energies to his favorite endeavor
Although often snowed under with studies, he has tirm
to read newspapers, magazines, pamphlets and books. H<
is presented with all sorts of opinions — sometimes disguiset
as fact — and he finds himself faced with decision.
As he makes his choices, firms his beliefs, advocate:
his theories, he often finds himself caught up in protes
to his society.
Tuesday: Individual unrest.
Reveille Near Death
Cbe Battalion
Volume 61
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1966
Number 269
1966 Band Sweetheart Candidates
Connally Urges Officials
To Bolster Local Rule
CONNALLY ARRIVES FOR SPEECH
. . . governor escorted by RV commander Weber
: : History Of Coeducation
Governor Seeks
More Cooperation
Gov. John Connally told state county officials this morn
ing Texas must provide more effective and responsible gov
ernment at the city and county level to combat charges that
local government has outlived its usefulness.
The governor addressed the County Judges and Comis-
sioners Conference this morning in the Memorial Student
Center Ballroom.
Connally stressed the need for local cooperation with
federal programs to realize maximum effectiveness of such
•y,' programs.
Filing Still Open
Election Commission Chairman
Harris Pappas reminded students
Thursday that filing for six Stu
dent Senate positions lift vacant
from the fall term will continue
through Monday afternoon in the
Student Program Office.
Open positions include chair
man of the Issues Committee and
junior and senior representa
tives from the Colleges of En
gineering and Geosciences and
a student from third year veteri
nary medicine.
— 4
“There is no shortage of
planning, and apparently no
shortage of money, in the
federal government,” he
said. “But every federal pro
gram requires maximum state
and local participation and co
ordination if it is going to achieve
its purposes with economy and
efficiency.
“The counties and the cities
must be prepared to give direc
tion to these services rather than
yield this responsibility to some
one else.”
The governor also touched
briefly upon his recent quarrels
with parts of the federal poverty
program in Texas, notably the
Job Corps project.
Appellate Courts
1958 Barron Suit
iy TOMMY DeFRANK
ittalion Managing Editor
; prevailing attitude toward
cation for the A&M Col-
oegan a slow yet revolution-
urnabout in the 1950’s,
r more than 75 years most
nts, former students, ad-
itrators and the Bryan-Col-
Station community dismiss-
ith cynicism and ridicule the
bility of unrestricted admis-
of women into the school,
t in the late 1950’s signs of
lical switch in sentiment to-
the controversial issue be-
readily apparent.
2 subject became a touchy
on campus and a topic for
iuous debate between stu-
, although the Corps of
s generally remained vio-
opposed to coeducation.
Association of Former Stu-
shared the same view,
vever, various college offi-
ind faculty members began
ung coeducation as a nec-
step for survival in an
mass education,
ing the 1957-58 school year
Battalion editorialized in
•t of coeducation and the
Daily Eagle backed the
s newspaper’s stand,
ral prominent civic lead-
so privately and publicly
began backing the possibility of
coeducation.
And John M. Barron, the ag
gressive Bryan district attorney,
brought the issue to a head in
1958 when he resumed the legal
battle that had lain dormant ever
since the 1933 coeducation law
suit was denied by a Bryan dis
trict judge.
“My situation went back to the
Depression in 1933, when my
nieces and cousins couldn’t get an
education and the school was
there with plenty of room avail
able,” Barron says today. “Un
der those circumstances I felt
the all-male policy was arbitrary
exclusion.
“But after talking to many
college presidents and members
of the Texas Commission on
Higher Education, I believed with
them that the great potentiality
of A&M lent itself to a broader
scope of education,” he added.
“While the all-male status was
fine until World War II, I felt
the economy and scientific devel
opment of the nation required
that a school as great as Texas
A&M admit as many qualified
students as possible, regardless
of sex.”
So Barron filed suit Jan. 29,
1958, on behalf of Mrs. Lena
Ann Bristol and Mrs. Barbara
Alice Tittle, in Judge W. T. Me-
Reverse
V ictory
Donald’s 85th District Court in
Bryan.
He was assisted by his father,
W. S. Barron, who had teamed
with Col. C. C. Todd in the los
ing attempt to force coeducation
through court order 25 years
earlier.
The A&M Board of Directors,
named as defendants along with
A&M College System President
M. T. Harrington and A&M Reg
istrar H. L. Heaton, were repre
sented by State Attorney Gener
al Will Wilson, Leon Passmore,
his assistant, and J. A. Amis, leg
al counsel for the college.
The hearings began March 17,
1958, with attorneys for the de
fendants attempting to prove
the writ of mandamus filed
against the Board was invalid
since the Legislature had enacted
no laws requiring the admission
of females.
A far more important con-
A&M Board enjoyed absolute
tention, however, was that the
authority over admission stand
ards through powers delegated
by the Legislature.
“The Legislature has vested
the government, management
and control in a separate Board
and has imposed upon them, and
them only, the duty of governing,
(See 1958, Page 5)
He emphasized that few prob
lems arise where federal pro
grams have clearly-defined areas
of coordination with state and
local agencies. He cited the High
er Education Facilities Act and
the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act as axamples of
smooth joint effort between fed
eral and state government.
But the governor noted that in
some parts of the poverty pro
gram local government through
out the nation has been complete
ly bypassed or forced to struggle
to retain any measure of authori
ty.
“Such procedures not only pro
mote inefficiency, loose coordina
tion and greater expense,” he
added. “They also constitute a
wedge in local responsibility with
all of the inherent dangers to our
established political system.
“We might as well recognize
that there is a very real and
very serious nationwide move
ment to undermine channels of
governmental authority,” h e
claimed.
Connally said advocates of this
movement include some members
of Congress, federal agencies
and private organizations which
he said seek to discredit local
government.
“New federal programs give
them the opportunity to advance
their objectives,” the governor
said. “No matter how sincere
and well-conceived a program
may be, there are always some
who want to use it to reduce
the influence and responsibility
of duly-constituted authority.”