Volume 3 - Issue 9

. l

Volume three, number nine/March 8, 1970

..

..

•

t>S I "ON I!WJad "UUO:) 'UaAWH ~~N

P!Vd

·JJ() IYOJd UON ~·~sod

·s·n

2/The New Journal/March 8, 1970

,

More women, yes?

When you stop and think about it, Yale's widely heralded entry into women's education does not really amount to very much. And even if you don't think that's true, you can be pretty sure Kingman Brewster does.

In his address to the Yale alumni just a couple of weeks ago, Brewster gave the clear impression that he thinks of women undergraduates as accessory to the real business of the college: turning out "one thousand male leaders" each year.

"We can't give them women as a new gesture every year," said the King, and the alumni chuckled.

And all betrayed their lack of comprehension of what it's all about.

Not that this misunderstanding is new: it has been present all the way through the long effort to bring women to Yale. The attitude was most typically expressed in Henry Chauncey's statement on a WAVZ radio special "The Year at Yale", when he said that Yale was accepting women because a Yale education was something which ought to be offered to womankind. A combination of a concern for attracting better men to Yale (for the best were going elsewhere, where there were girls) and of a desire to pacify the men who were already here brought the first wave of five-hundred-odd women to Yale. The "gesture", in the president's own words, was made.

Unfortunately a realistic commitment to the direction of a coed Yale was not also made at that time. The same facilities were to be used for an additional five hundred bodies. Everyon.e just had to squeeze over, and for a while no one really complained. They just figured, what the hell, having girls here is worth the discomfort of sharing your triple with a fourth guy. Also, of course, the same faculty had to teach the greater number of students, but that was alright too because the faculty also liked the idea of having a few coeds around.

However, now that the girls have been here a year things look a little different. That room which was once a triple may soon be a quint. That seminar which once had only ten people will have another two or three people signing up every fall who wouldn't have signed up before. Students, some of them anyway, are becoming disgruntled with the results of the president's gesture; girls are fine, but crowding is not.

But did we say "students"? Sorry. We must be wary, for "students" and "men" must no longer be confused. As a rather startled Alumni Day gathering discovered, the student body now includes a healthy contingent of females, who also are not particularly content with their lot. So in addition to the normal masculine agitation, a few feminine ruffles and flourishes have been added to the annual spring rites. At the Alumni Day luncheon the issue was joined.

Overcrowding has been the main source of support for the idea that the number of men in each class should be reduced. But overcrowding does not just mean longer dining hall lines and less spacious rooming arrangements; it means stretching the university's already thin resources still thinner.

The matter of financial aid is the one which makes or breaks the admissions policies. If there is plenty of aid, any qualified applicant can come.

If there is not, then it becomes a case of ftrSt paid, first served. In a recent speech, the soon departing Dean of Admissions, R. lnslee Clark, warned that the university may be nearing the end of the line as far as the "open door" aid policy goes.

Jf the end, God forbid, is ever reached it's back to Dink Stover days once again. And steadily increasing the enrollment is not a good way of keeping that financial door open.

It ouglrt to be remembered as well that the university backed into full coeducation in the first

.~

place. Full integration of women into Yale's daily life was not the original aim. Before coeducation there was talk of transplanting a well-known women's college to New Haven and assorted whispers about superwealthy alumni who were going to set up a coordinate college. We even heard, for a little while, about something called "cluster" colleges, but they disappeared even before they were explained.

When Coed Week happened Brewster plunged ahead with an admirable damn-the-torpedoes attitude ¡ which got girls here in a hurry, but which left the future wide open.

Technically speaking, the future still is wide open. Open admissions is not only desirable: it is possible as well. Dean Clark has repeatedly said he could fmd a goodly number of coeds to take up the slack if the number of males in next year¡~ freshman class is cut. The Yale Daily News has even quoted him as saying an open admissions policy would produce a class composed of forty percent females. Although Clark says he could switch to an open admissions policy as late as the third week in March, he believes it will be ''very difficult, not impossible, but very difficult" after that. The ides of March, then, is a real cut-off point. And the Yale Corporation meeting on the first Saturday in March may well be the deciding time.

If current plans are not changed, the backwards move into coeducation will have more and more side effects as each annual step in Brewster's project of incremental coeducation is implemented. Although the president has asked the alumni for money to build new colleges, they have not responded quickly enough; there are, unfortunately, no concrete plans laid out for the building of new residential colleges.

Instead the university is spending time and attention on building a Social Science Center which probably will be located on the choicest of all possible residential spots: the block across from the Cross Campus, the block now occupied by the Elizabethan Club, Hendrie Hall, DUH and several other universityowned buildings. If plans for the Social Science Center continue as they are now envisioned, then even when the residential colleges are fmally built they will be far away from the center of the campus and far away from the rest of the students..

There is no particular reason why the Social Science Center could not be built somewhere else - up near the admissions office, for example, in the spot now occupied by the geography department building and the political science research library. It would be far more sensible to have the Center up there than on prime residential territory.

The plans as they now stand will put a squeeze on housing in New Haven by encouragin~ students to move off-campus in dissatisfied droves. Housing is already short for graduate students and townspeople. In addition, current plans would destroy the residential college system by moving upperclassmen into temporary quarters outside the colleges and by scattering freshmen all over the place.

Reducing the number of men in each class and increasing the university's residential capacity are sequential rather than either/or propositions. First one and then the other. The real problem with organizing support for the idea of cutting back on male admissions is that the plan is so eminently reasonable: it simply makes more sense in all terms - financial, moral, educational and _ sociological - than the plan which the university has ~us far followed. It has its problems, of course, as every plan does. For one thing it does not deal with alumni opinions on any but a rational level, and we have all learned long ago that alumni prejudices, rather than opinions, are what really count. But if the alumni really expect Brewster to fulfill his commitment to them to produce "one thousand male leaders" each year, then the burden is upon them to provide sufficient funds.

continued on page 14

I -

Volume three, number nine March 8, 1970

\

Editors: Herman Hong Paul Goldberger Managing Editor: Dan Mcintyre Executive Editor: Stephen Thomas Business Manager: William Palmer Copy Editors: Richard Caples Stuart Klawans Production Manager: Jack Friedman Advertising Manager: Charles H.S. Chapman Assistant Editors: Bryan Di Salvatore George Kannar Edward Landler David Meter Sam Miller Circulation Managers: John Callaway Brant Switzler Contributing Editors: Susan Braudy David Freeman Mopsy Strange Kennedy Lawrence Lasker Jonathan Lear Michael Lerner Leo Ribuffo Walter Wagoner

...

Staff: Richard Conniff, W. Curtis Francis, Patrick Lydon, Gus Oliver, Robert Parsons, Manuel Perez THIRD CLASS NON-PROFIT PERMIT: Third Class Non-Profit postage PAID in New Haven, Conn. The New Journal is published by The New Journal at Yale, Inc. 3432 Yale Station, New Haven, Conn. 06520, and is printed at The News Press, a division of the West Hartford News. Published bi-weekly during the academic year. Subscriptions for Yale students are $2.00 per year and for Yale faculty and staff, $4.50 per year. For all others, subscriptions are $7.50 per year ($4.50 for students). Newsstand copies are SO cents (30 cents for back issues).

The New JoumaJ c copyright 1970 by The New J oumal at Yale, Inc., a non-profit corporation. No material from. this publication may be used in any form without written consent from The New Journal at Yale, Inc. Credits: Columbia Pictures: cover, pages 3,4,5,6. c 1969.

J ohn Friedman: pages 10, II.

..

'

'This is all we know about life,' said Peter Fonda, sectioning off a comer of the coffee table with his finger

by William Nelson

,,..

•

...

This winter Easy Rider opened in Germany, a land whose economic prosperity, social tensions and moral soul-searching offers the closest parallels of any Westem nation to the cu"ent situation in America. Free-lance writer William Nelson, Yale '66, talked with Peter Fonda during the German dubbing of Easy Rider in Munich and writes about the Fonda phenomenon as it looks to an American abroad.

There was no ivy climbing on the terrace of Munich's Residence Hotel, and the brisk weather hadn't carried a trace of life-giving sunshine aJI day. No L.A.P.D. helicopters were spying down from above, but inside, with Peter Fonda, was California.

When I entered his suite with Petra Pauly, a German actress friend of mine, Fonda rose and smiled a warm greeting.

He was dressed in Levis and a red bandana shirt and barefoot, and his hair was far longer than it had been on the screen.

Lifting his guitar off a chair so that we both could sit facing him, he offered us drinks. I asked for a beer and Petra a tea, which Peter ordered from room service. Happy with a bottle of water, which is all he ever drinks, Peter set out a dish of sunflower seeds, some pine kernel packets, and a bag of dried currants (which Petra called raisins). I asked if he were on a health food diet. He said he wasn't, but his friend Bill Hayward, who was with us at various times during the interview, was. Bill said he didn't eat

meat because he didn't like to think of the animals being killed. It was tough, though; he said he reaUy liked the taste of meat.

As I was conducting a brief interview for Overseas Weekly, a newspaper for American forces in Europe, the military was the first subject we took up. I posed the obvious question that my GI reader might ask: what would you do if you were in the Army now? ''I'd go home," he answered dispassionately, as if the matter were so remote to him that he had to press his imagination to come up with an answer. " I'd go home, and they'd come and get me and I'd go home again and again and again until it just got too expensive for them to keep bringing me back." Then his eye"s narrowed, and he leaned forward to put an end to empty conjecture: "Actually I never would be a Gl though.

I'd never fight for any group - religious; political - not anything like that."

Of course. What kind of an answer had I been expecting? He saw I was smiling as I jotted down the quote. " War is insane," he went on. " I would kill to defend myself, like if somebody was there about to get me or my kids. But I would feel weird killing someone and not eating the body because a man should kill only to eat." " When you see somebody you don't know," he went on, '.' you aJways wonder whether this person wants to hurt you.

So you start to fear him. But what's the point of that, man? Maybe he wants to

love you - you don't know. But it's the nature of our governments to say that he's going to hurt you."

The idea that this man had gained such a large and attentive audience b~tck home - at the time Easy Rider was running number three in nationwide box-office draw - was somehow very satisfying.

I knew there was more to the peace movement than protests; it strives fo r a change not just in policies but in attitudes. If Peter Fonda, as filinmaker and spokesman for the movement, can effect some relief from the fears and frustrations that lie at the core of Vietnam and race discrimination, then perhaps there is a resolution in sight for the schis~s dividing America.

As a former part-time hippie I wanted to bless him. But at the same time, as a thinking man, I felt unwilling to take him on faith . I felt the necessity to challenge his vague abstractions: the peace movement is too important to me to let it be led by a foUower.

The talk turned to Easy Rider, the motorcycle-and~rug epic that has elevated Peter Fonda from house freak \it American lntemationaJ (The Wild Angels and The Trip} to HoUywood's most successful black sheep. Co-author and producer as well as co-star of Easy Rider, Fonda had come to Munich to supervise the German dubbing of the film, which already was running in France and soon to open in Italy.

I had seen the English version at a press showing that morning, and like the critics whose reviews I had read in Amer-

::; '< 0

c:

0 0

:>;" CD

...

CD

;. :r oq 0

=

oq ~

=

0 c: oq

?"

;;;· CD

:r

ciii. :r

-< 0 <

~

=l

!!! ~

0..

} ...;:;'-

:s

...

0

0..

~

n

c:

:=; >

:I

'<

0 :I ~

sc:

s: 0..

0

..;

.. ..a. :r

~ ~

;;·

!!! ~

!.. n 0

3 3

c:

:I

~-

!"

.....

0 :z:

z

~

!Ill 0

ican magazines, I was greatly enthused at the idea. Still, except for its great landscape footage and the novelty of some very realistic pot-smoking scenes, I couldn't really get into the ftlm. What disturbed me about it was that while ostensibly making a plea for love, trust and understanding among men, it did so with plastic mock-ups. The sheriffs and rednecks, presented to us as the embodiment of intolerance, are as anonymous as the hippies, who try to make love work. We distinguish between the two groups not by what they think and do or say as much as by the "role" which they have in the "life" of the ftlm. As a dramatic work Easy Rider fails; it seems more a propaganda piece dependent upon pre-existing sympathies ~nd anxieties - not so much a tell-it-like-it-is statement as a tell-it-likewe-figure-you-think-it-is-too bit.

With an uneasy awareness that America seems to be dividing into two opposing camps, I asked Peter about this long-hair versus redneck polarity. He explained that Easy Rider is not simply about intolerance or injustice towards long-hairs. "It's not trying to say, look what they do to us," he told us. "It says, look what we're doing to ourselves. " Freedom, Peter said, at one point, is learning something, learning about life. He indicated the large glass-slab coffee table before him. "If all of that is life," he said, and then sectioned off a corner of the table with his finger, "then this is as much as we know about it from our institutions - schools, churches, po-

lice, college degrees - or whatever your credo of the moment happens to be. This is what we call 'life.' But it's only a prison.

All the rest of it - that's life too, and that's what we have to learn about.''

The talk soon came around to drugs, which seem to play as large a role in his life as in his film. Petra expressed her surprise that they smoked so much in Easy Rider; she said she knew they used a lot of drugs in California, but she had never seen it as depicted in the film. Peter shrugged in amusement as he leaned back on the couch. "Have you ever tried it?" he asked simply. No, she hadn't; she said she had wanted to, but she had never gotten around to it. Peter quoted the line spoken by Wyatt to George as he urges George to try a joint: ''That's all right.

There's nothing to be ashamed of." He laughed. for a moment I felt a troubled sense of self-righteousness. I knew how nice it is to get stoned; I also know - too well how debilitating it can be if one comes to structure his perceptions and sensibilities around its sweetly numbing euphoria - restricts his consciousness to the continual rediscovery of Old Truths. I wanted Peter to know I didn't need drugs - I even felt an urge to condemn him outright for using them as much as he evidently does. But gradually the abstinence I had imposed on myself since leaving California became ever more suspect - moralistically superficial - as Petra and Peter exchanged questioning grins.

Why not? I had more than enough

quotes for all the anti-war, ·pro-love articles the Overseas Weekly would run in the next ten years. From the cold, clear reality of being "straight" I had a fairly good impression of who Peter Fonda was; I had gained a basic idea of his conception of the film. But the most persuasive argument for going ahead and turning on then and there was my feeling that Peter Fonda's natural state is high. It was a point of journalistic integrity.

I got ripped. But Petra, who doesn't smoke at all, had difficulty getting the hang of it. Always the perfect host - but relaxed, unprepossessing- Peter took pains to explain to her the finer points of inhaling. He was well stoked himself, but entirely in control of himself and the situation.

As we sat back to enjoy the high our roles as journalist and celebrity seemed to dissipate in the moment's happy exhilaration. We all seemed immensely relieved and set about to reacquaint ourselves as friends and smoking companions.

All of a sudden Petra announced, "I'm really very pleased how things turned out." We had both read Rex Reed's lengthy interview with Peter before coming and had expected we would be talking with a floundering, embittered acidhead, which is more or less the impression created by the Reed article. Peter smiled as if to say, "See? This is what I am."

We had an occasional laugh as we exchanged tales of drug lore, but as for the taking of drugs itself, Peter always spoke

•

.I

5/The New Journal/March 8, 1970

.â&#x20AC;˘

â&#x20AC;˘

with a so mewhat se rious manner, friendly but earnest. Drugs seemed to be neither a simple thrill for him nor the means to greater understanding. At one point Petra referred back to the coffee table diagram of life Peter quickly interjected, "One doesn't learn about life through pot." A short time later, after a pause in the conversation, I asked if he took LSD often. He said he had taken about twenty trips, and then added, "I never take acid to get high." Laughing, I told him I had.

He didn't deem to appreciate theremark, for LSD, as he said at one point, had kept him from complete mental breakdown. When I mentioned that I had been drinking a lot of good Munich beer since coming ove r, he looked at me with a smile of compassion . "I used to drink a lot myself," he said. Later he remarked, :'I don't drink any alcohol because it reminds me of bad times."

A vague se nse of paranoia was beginning to creep over me. It was all too perfect , too comfortable, and in his presence I felt somehow unclean . His statements, sr..>ken with an air both flippant and founded on conviction , seemed so sincere and yet so considered ; his positions so spontaneous and still firm, fixed - unassailable in the terms he was using. The seeming contradictions and frightening implications in what he was saying didn't seem to trouble him as much as the effort expended in articulating his thoughts.

Petra remarked that it must be nice to

have made so much money (Columbia expects Easy Rider, which at the time had already grossed $3.5 million , to bring in over sixty million) from something he believed in. He nodded with a smile, "Yeah, it is." When she asked whether he is trying to fight the system, he reacted with curious surprise. "Fighting the system doesn't get you anywhere," he told her. "They've got more on their side, they'll win. Don't fight the system - become it."

As his face rippled ever so slightly looking now like a long-haired William Buckley, now like a haggard Vanessa Redgrave - it struck me that he might be putting me on. On the one hand he had pitted himself squarely against the American Establishment - at least the rednecks, the militarists, the DDT-sprayers - but on the other he seemed so entirely a product of it that I wondered to what extent he could ever be outside of it. Still, I wanted to believe in his sincerity, and I searched for something that would restore my confidence.

The talk turned back to his film. Here, it seemed, was neutral ground ; we could all share in the pleasure of rapping about that. He told us that he had had the idea for a couple of years. It took him some time to interest others in the project, but Dennis Hopper, who he said had been black-listed in Hollywood for eight years, thought it was a good idea and started working with him on it.

Peter spoke fondly, proudly about the making of the ftlm as if it were a labor

of love that proved something. Whereas several reviewers created the impression that it was a hastily conceived, crudely made ftlm, listening to Peter talk about it showed me how considered every shot and sequence were. Hopper worked with an unusually high ratio of footage shot to footage used; the New Orleans Mardi Gras sequence, for one example, ~as selected from four hours of footage.

As origin-ally conceived the film was a kind of close-up documentary on two modern-day California-style folk heroes, and everything was to have been shown in great detail. When Petra asked whether the bikes - Fonda had designed his own - were comfortable to ride, he said he got so stiff it hurt, and this too was to have been depicted in a sequence where they are barely able to dismount.

The fmished film only hints at Wyatt and Billy's background as stuntmen who tour the rodeo circuit, but as first conceived, the story opens at their last performance. If the film seems trippy as it was released, the heads would have blown their easy riding minds on this earlier version. According to Peter, Captain America was first to have driven through a flaming wooden tunnel on his motorcycle. Not simply a dare-devil stunt , it calls into play technological awareness : the low pressure pocket formed at his back collapses the sections of the tunnel behind him as he races through. The closing feat of the show, announced as Captain America's final stunt, is something called the "Paper Coffin." Wyatt is wheeled out

inside a paper coffin lined with twenty sticks of dynamite evenly spaced out around the framework. The dynamite is exploded all at the same time, and Captain America, lying at the center of the radially counter-balanced explosion, rises up unharmed.

"Of course, if three of the sticks don't go off," he said with a modest grin, " then it's all over, because you're blasted out on that side." He said he sold the ftlm just on a description of the stunt.

"It would have been a great number," he added. "Steve McQueen has been doing his own jumps, and I figured, hell, I'd do it myself."

He had invited us to have dinner with him in the suite, and the silence that followed the dynamite story was broken by the knock of the bellboy bringing the meal. We rolled the table in, arranged chairs before it and sat down to a very fine dinner. We laughed occasionally when one of us looked up to see the others looking up too; we talked about why we had laughed. For the most part, though, the meal was silent since we had to concentrate on the task of eating.

Petra and Peter both had veal steaks, and I had a mixed grill. I guess.

Peter didn't like being referred to as a Californian, and at one point he told Petra rather emphatically that she had to distinguish between southern and northern California. Although he has been living in Beverly Hills for most of his adult life, Peter considers himself "from New York." Towards the end of

l

\ Showings at 7:00 and 9:30 ( unless ot herwise noted I

Thursd ay, Ma rc h 5 J ames H orne's COLLEGE Friday, March 6 Jean R enoir's A DAY IN THE COUNTRY I 19 36 ) Cha rles Chaplin's THE PILGRIM I 192 3 I Satu rday, March 1 Kenji Mizoguchi's UGETSU MONOGOTARI ( 19541 Tuesday, March I 0 Fritz Lang's SIEGFRIED and KRIMHILDE'S REVENGE I b oth 1923) (shows at 7:00 and I 0:00) Wednesd ay, March I I Howa rd Hawks's BRINGING UP BABY I 1938 I wit h Ca ry Grant a nd Katherine H e pburn Thursday, Ma rc h 12 Josef von St ernb erg' s THUNDERBOLT I 1929 I with Fa y Wray

Wednesday, April I Robert Aldrich's THE BIG KNIFE I 1955 I with J ack Palance, Rod Steiger, and Shelley Wint ers Thursday, April 2 Buster Keaton's BAnLING BUTLER I 1926 1 Friday, Apri l 3 Sergei Eisenstein's A LEXANDER NEVSKY I 1938 I with Nikolai Cherkassov Saturday, April 4 Howard Hawks's RIO BRAVO ( 19591 with John Wayne, Dean Martin, Angie Dickenson, with Ricky Nelson, and Walter Brennan Tuesday, April 7 Kenji Mizoguchi's SANCHO THE BAILIFF ( 19541 (showings at 7:00, 9:15, and 11:301 Wednesday, April 8 Anthony Mann's MAN OF THE WEST I 1958 I with Gary Cooper and Julie London

the dinner I asked him if he felt at home in New York. " I've lived there on and off since I was fourteen," he said. "I was about to flip out there once when I was sixteen. When I was there I would go out and walk around for hours and then come home. But no, man, I don't feel at home there. I used to look at everything, but there was nothing there, man, nothing on the streets. No bread, nothing."

After dinner he took up his twelvestring guitar and played for us "The Ballad of Easy Rider," the song written for the film by Roger McGuinn. A left· hander, he had reversed the strings on the guitar; he said he couldn't really read music, but he had picked up guitar playing sitting around hotel rooms in the evening.

The rest of the music of Easy Rider consists of populai songs that Peter told us had been selected for theii appropria~ness, not because they were in. l asked if he had tried to get Bob Dylan to sing his "It's Alright Ma" himself in the ftlm's soundtrack (the song is done

by McGuinn in the ftlm). Peter said that Dylan was going to do it at first, but he thought it would be too depressing; " It wouldn't leave the audience with a feeling of hope." Dylan told him he didn't like his own voice, didn't think it would contribute to the end of the ftlm. So in· stead, he wrote two new verses for it.

Peter sang the song with the two new verses.

The evening slipped away with Peter playing his guitar and singing a number of songs by Dylan, Mick Jagger and the Beatles. Every so often he would

apologize for making a mistake;.we assured him it sounded great, and he continued. He likes playing for people, he said at one point; " It's hiding behind my act. Usually I have a camera o r my acting to hide behind , but when I don't have them, I pick up my guitar."

As I listened to him play I was moved to think again about him. I doubt he could knowingly do harm to anything, except perhaps himself. Always pleasant; when challenged, always self-effacing while bearing out the higher truths of love and peace. Always trying to be honest and open, but somehow, I thought, not really there. He didn't seem a· person a~ much'as a composite of the right ideas, the embodiment of so many good - even Christian - virtues. To say that he has hang-ups of his own is only stating the obvious, and Fonda himself, would be the first to decry his failings: humility, another Christian virtue, asked as much of him. But the person who can come to grips with these hang-ups and try to effect some sort of resolution, the person who can do something about the problems confronting America beyond making very generalized comments and emotioncharged assignations of guilt, seemed to me, sadly, not to be present.

At one point he told us about a sound technician at Bavaria Studios in Munich where easy Rider was being dubbed.

The man, a friend had told Peter, had been a Communist all his life, something like seventy years. Peter chuckled when he thought about it ; he looked up with a grin: "Man, can you imagine being anything for seventy years?"~

Schooling h as nudged out religion as the opiate of the masses

by Sam Miller

If, as they say, a man can be judged by the enemies he makes, then Ivan Wich is a man who must be taken seriously. Accused of witchcraft, interdicted as rebel and heretic, dismissed as hopelessly Utopian, condemned as a raving madman, Ivan Illich has succeeded in reaping the bitter criticism of an extraordinary array of people, ranging from the Pope to assorted presidents of the PTA. Who is th is man Illich anyway? Ordained a priest (and later relieved of his priestly duties upon his own request), he has turned his brilliant wit and Thomistic training against the traditional hierarchy of Rome and the new theologies of middle-class consumption and formal schooling. He recently unsettled overflow crowds at the Yale Law School Auditorium with a three-day lecture series in which he challenged both conventional and current orthodoxies and called for a moratorium on institutional education. lllich has become the unwilling and perhaps inappropriate hero for reformers of the Catholic left. Yet he considers himself to be quite traditional. Feared as a revolutionary, he does not advocate violence and refrains from embracing a fLXed ideology. He is just as ardent in his criticism of socialist Cuba as fascist Brazil.

Trained in and dedicated to the traditional teachings of the Church , Illich seems closer to an early Christian than a modern dissenter. For this reason, he poses perhaps an even more unsettling threat to those who uphold the status quo, be they Red or Red-White-and-Blue.

The essence of his statement leaps ideological barriers. His commitment is to a radical humanism and his challenge is to conventional hierarchies, whether in Moscow or Kansas City. lllich does not favor one government over another; rather he blasts all ideologies and promises which alienate men from their traditional sources of dignity. He is especially vehement in his criticism of the liberal, middle-class assumptions underlying the "fundamental mindless simplicity of Ame~ican reformers" who wreak havoc throughout the Third World in the name of progress and democracy.

He was born in Vienna in 1926, the son of a Croatian Catholic father and a Sephardic Jewish mother. The lean , dark-skinned Illich has lived on three continents and professes to be "illiterate in

eight languages." He was educated in Vienna, Salzburg, and Rome (where he was ordained). In his career he has served in a Puerto Rican parish in New York, as vice-chancellor of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, and for the last eight years, as director of the Center for Inter-Cultural Documentation (CIDOC) in Cuernavaca, Mexico.

CIDOC was established in 1961 as a training center for North American priests and nuns assigned to parishes throughout Latin America. Under Illich's tutelage, it has also become a gathering place for intellectuals and radicals from all continents and a publishing house for documents relating to violence and insurrection in Latin America. As such, the Center has attracted the scrutiny of security agents and provoked the Papal ire. Illich further alienated Church officials by condemning North American missionaries as the ignorant vehicles of United States cultural imperialism.

In June 1968, Vatican authorities summoned Illich to Rome and subjected him to a Gothic inquisition on his theological and political views. The questions prepared by the Vatican reflected a combination of fact, rumor and innuendo concerning Illich and his center. He had fallen out of favor with Rome some time ago, when he turned away from a promising career in Church scholarship and diplomacy. Papal displeasure turned to suspicion of witchcraft after Illich told a Latin American bishop in a casual airplane conversation that he had been initiated in some of the rites of Haitian voodoo.

CIDOC , which had become associated with criticism of the Papal policy of priestly celibacy and the use of contraceptives, had come to be regarded as a dangerous threat.

Among the eighty-five questions of the written interrogation were the following: What is your thought on the nationalism of states, on international Marxism and o n Catholicism in religious, political, social and economic world order"!

What do you say about those who say you are "restless, adventurous, imprudent. fanatical, and hypnotizing - a rebel to any authority. disposed to accept and recognaze only that of the Bishop of Cuernavaca"!

Is it true that in the neighborhood of

8/The New Journal/March 8, 1970 I.

CIDOC, gatherings and parties are held, even at night, in the private rooms of young girls, either guests or employees, and that priests and nuns are present at these?

Is it true that various publications of CIDOC readily and avidly print articles containing communist propaganda, as well as qualified comments on religion in general, and anti-Catholic thought in particular? . Illich refused to take an oath of secrecy or to answer the questions. He argued that since he had been relieved of his priestly duties upon his own request, the Vatican lacked jurisdiction over his activities. As a result of this encounter, the Vatican declared CIDOC off-limits to clerical personnel in January 1969 and all but branded Illich a heretic.

Despite this controversy, Illich, now officially a layman, still considers himself a Catholic. He does not regard "a mere disagreement with one Pope or another, as grounds for abandoning the Church.

Unperturbed by his¡run-in with Rome, Illich has continued to press his attack on the cultural imperialism of Western reformers. In an interview published last July in Saturday Review, Illich stated his views as follows : The war fought to preserve the values of the West is one war fought in three theaters (Vietnam, ghettoes, and the Third World). It has one purpose - to protect and expand the style of life and the style of death which affluence makes possible for a very few and which the affluent declare obligatory for all. It is not the American way of life lived by the millions which sickens the billions, but the growing awareness that those who live the American way will not tire before the superiority of their quasi-religious persuasion will be accepted by the underdogs.

In his recent visit to Yale, under the sponsorship of the Lyman Beecher lecture series, Dlich focused his attack on what he considers the most subtle yet most dangerous instrument of cultural imperialism - the American "eight-lane" school system. Across all frontiers of culture, ideology and geography, he believes nations of the Third World are becoming hooked on the conception that learning can only take place in school. lllich believes that the need for formal schooling ~as become an almost universally-accepted

sacred cow, a world-wide religi~n to which all pay homage. And without education, no one is saved.

Illich argues that by accepting the need for schools, Third World nations pursue " the absolutely certain way of remaining inferior., The high cost of building schools and training teachers, says Illich, turns education into a scarce resource which can only be enjoyed by the rich. All Latin American nations, for example, are frantically intent on expanding their school systems in an effort to assert their national identity in the international educational hierarchy. No country in Latin America spends less than the equivalent of eighteen percent of their tax-derived public income on education, and many countries spend almost double that amount. But in spite of such huge investment, no country yet succeeds in providing five full years of public education to more than one-third of its population.

"Bolivia,, IJJich says, "is on the way to suicide from an overdose of schooling."

In this miserably poor and backward country, one-third of the public budget is dedicated to education. But because schools are accessible only to an infinitesimal portion of the country's inhabitants, one-half of all funds allocated to public education are spent by only one percent of the school population.

While less than two percent of all Bolivians finish high school, university students, almost exclusively from the upper and middle classes, receive 1000 times the share of public expenditures enjoyed by the average citizen.

This situation, common though perhaps not so pronounced throughout the Third World, is what Hlich terms "chronic educational underdevelopment."

Utterly convinced that education cannot be separated from schooling, the illiterate masses provide tax monies to school the privileged few. The inevitable result is what lllich calls the "school pyramid" in which the vast majority of the population surrenders their right to learning for the schooling of the rich.

Even more devastating than the grossly inequitable distribution of resources fostered by the school system is the overwhelming sense of school-inflicted inferiority imposed upon those who don't attend. What schools teach, asserts lllich, is the importance of schooling - not worthwhile trades or any humanly im-

9/The New Journal/March 8, 1970

...

portant attitude or skill. Serving as a baby-sitter in which success is measured by the amount of time spent in class, by years and hours, not by human achievement, "schools destroy more individuals than they liberate."

Worse yet, school serves to legitimize existing social and economic distinctions, in which the number of years in school rather than birth or station determines a modern substitute for class and caste.

"Schools," he wrote in an article recently published in the New York Review of Books, "rationalize the divine origins of social stratification with much more rigor than churches have ever done."

Glorifying order and conformity, the school system justifies the position of the middle class. A far more effective and demanding drug than the opium of religion, the demand for schooling convinces the drop-out, the second-rater and the unschooled of a deep-seated sense of inferiority for which he is held personaJiy responsible.

But perhaps the most fundamental critique which IUich levies against the school system is the one which brings his thoughts back home to the United States.

He believes that the age-specific, teacherrelated, graded and obligatory school system to which we are subjected is ultimately responsible for "the death of the imagination and the poisoning of the mind." The school vulgarizes learning much as the whorehouse vulgarizes love, lllich says. One of the great tragedies of modem times, lllich maintains, is that the basic human need for learning has been alienated into the need for being taught institutionally taught. As a result, whores and teachers have assumed the same social function. '-whoring and teaching," he says, "must be seen as the professionalization of the need for Jove and the need for learning."

With the advent of universal , compulsory schooling, education has become devoid of human value and real learning, that is, "the awakening awareness of new levels of human potential and the use of one's creative power to foster human life," has been cast aside. Instead, education has come to mean promotion from one level of a pre-packaged curriculum to another.

In a real sense then, school assumes the vital function of socializing the fledgling citizen to the pre-packaged, engineered

products of a modern, technological society. In that schools have secured a monopoly on modem learning, they have consequently gained an exclusive patent on the generation of common sense. The ritual of compulsory schooling permits the "industrial production of common sense" and promotes an unquestioning acquiescence to an engineered reality.

The student in school is turned into a child. "We need schools," he quips, "to degrade our offspring into children."

And the child is schooled in the three fundamental pillars of our society: speed, efficiency and competition.

Cut off from reality by rigid institutional barriers, the student is trained for the built-in obsolescence of a technological age. He learns to belittle human relationships and discard them. And more important, he learns to need the "package deals" which keep American society rolling. Accustomed.to packaged curriculum, he accepts also the packaged satisfaction of his basic needs. Thirst becomes the desire for a Coke. The need for transportation means nothing else than next year's model from GM. Health comes to mean heart transplants.

Well introctrinated, the student goes from the schoolhouse to take his rightful place among the world's best bureaucrats.

Armed with what lliich calls a "Mega- ¡ hygenic world view," the student becomes a citizen of the modern world: he is \ eady to consume. Convinced that the American way can't be beat (no doubt his high school was number one in the state), he benevolently imposes a straight jacket of traffic jams, production lines and classrooms on the poor nations of the world. and by international agreement calls this "development ."

Perhaps it's already too late. Perhaps we've already been programmed into believing that cars, heart transplants and classrooms are necessary to human existence. So persuasive is the power of the institutions we have created that they not only shape our preferences. but limit our sense of possibilities. Yet if man is to survive, his humanity must overcome his institutions. This is what lllich is saying. His attack on schooling is a fundamental challenge to the accepted precepts of what he calls our "Machined society." In raising his voice against the degrading and discriminatory school syscmttinued on pageâ&#x20AC;˘ l.f

..

Sure it's warm, honey, but is it art?

1 .

\ Filling the sculpture garden of the Museum of Modem Art in New York for a two-month period that ended last week was a complex network of wires, tubes and lights. The electronic apparatus was part of a Museum exhibition entitled "Spaces" and its tangled wires wound their way as far , in one sense, as New Haven, for the seven artists who created the exhibit are all affiliated with Yale.

Calling themselves the Yale Research Associates in Art - or, informally and according to the Modem Museum, ~ - Patrick Clancy, Michael Cain, David Rumsey, William Crosby, William Duesing, Peter K.indlrnann and Paul Fuge began several years ago to develop modes of art aimed at the creation of programmed environments. In the MOMA garden an intricate system that involved blinking lights and infra-red heaters attempted to create new zones of light , sound and heat within the existing dimen-

sions of the garden space. Pulsa artists, seated within the museum in a glassenclosed booth that overlooked the garden, could change and control the electronic zones of light, sound and heat at wiD. The effect of the group's work is to heighten a person's awareness of his environment and his constantly changing relationship with that environment. This is done specifically with the use of various sensory stimulators - lights, speakers and infra-red heaters. These outputs are activated 6y two processes acting either singly or together. One is via a pre-determined program which is fed into a signal synthesizer. The other is through information gathered directly from the environment, i.e., weather, local trafrJC, and movement within the environment. When a person passes by the sensors - video monitors and photo-electric eyes - the mechanism responds ac-

cordingly and defmes the movement in stroboscopic outputs of light, sound and heat.

The Pulsa group's rrrst exhibition was held at the School of Art and Architecture from April to August of 1968. Although not as mechanically and electronically complex as the system is now, the aluminium-foiled modules of the exhibi¡ tion contained speakers, strobes and fluorescent lights which were programmed to coordinate with musiC. Since this farst show, Pulsa has becom~ more popular, and the phenomenon has been exhibited at the Boston Public Gardens, where speakers and strobes were placed underwater, and at the Yale Golf Course. The most recent Pulsa project was the "Spaces" exhibition at the Museum of Modem Art. As with past exhibitions, the MOMA show had something for everyone. For the psychedelic afiJCionado it was an

)

\i

11/The New Journal/March 8, 1970

elaborate set-up of strobes, bleepers and infra-red heaters. The technology buff could de)jght in the synthesizing and lag effects created by a room full of sophisticated machinery . But now that Pulsa has finally found its way into the museum , the question arises: What is its significance to the world of art?

Though the Pulsa group shuns con-. ventional modes of expression and works against many established conventions, their final product should be seen as within western artistic tradition.

Rather than portray an environment in the illusionistic space of a canvas or in physical constructions as in sculpture, Pulsa recreates it in the dimension of our senses- in Jjght , sound and heat. But the exhibition is not meant to be the ~ltimate light show. The project's creators see its effects as an addition to the environment which activates space in order to make the human participant

more aware of his surroundings. For this reason it is signifkant that human presence affects the behavior of the machinery. This self-conscious reference back to the participant captures the essence of modernism.

This is done, however, at the expense of convention. The final creation is devoid of physical support: It does not hang on a wall, sit on a table or stand on its own. It exists in experiential space - indeed, it creates one - not the plastic world of three dimensions. It requires the participant to co-ordinate his senses of sight, hearing and touch and in so doing gives him a defmition of his environment . ln many ways the conceptual level is as radical as the environment produced.

Rather than a single signature, an arbitrary name, Pulsa, is attached to the completed module. Individualism among the creators is suppressed in favor of

the group identity . This image is more than superficial. Within the group, decisions are collectively reached by discussion, rather than by individual contributions. (The members of Pulsa, with their families, even Jjve together commune-style in a farm in the Connecticut countryside.) By using this organic creation process, no one member is directly responsible for a particular invention , giving the creators an anonymity unseen in Western art since the Gothic period.

Equally significant is that Pulsa creations are temporary objects. An environ¡ ment is set up, then dismantled and removed. Contrary to one of the fmest traditions of American art , there is no exchange of art for capital. No one "owns" any of the exhibitions. Pulsa, reacting against elitism in art, aims to create something for public use, not private prestige. Pulsa's next project will

take this aim even farther . Sponsored by the Walker Art Museum in Minneapolis, the group will create an environment to celebrate the thawing of Minneapolis's lakes later this spring. The display will be in a public area free of the confines of an institution and free, as was not the case in New York, of any admission charge.

Despite the admission charge and the somewhat parental, elite presence of MOMA , Pulsa functioned well within the museum 's sculpture garden. But one could not avoid a certain irony. The garden of the Museum of Modem Art , where generations had come to see Rodin , Maillol, Calder, Oldenburg, all the very latest in the avant-garde; now, with lights and beeps and bursts of heat, they aU seemed so ve.r y old. For at last , had come in their stead in the words of Claes Oldenburg, an art that did something other than sit on its ass in a museum .~

12/ The New Journal/March 8, 1970

Three books to read before things get worse

by David Meter

The Game of Nations by Miles Copeland.

London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 50 ns.

Iran , the New Imperialism in Action by Bahman Nirumand. New York, Monthly R eview Press. $2. 75.

Intervention and Revolution by Richard J. Barnet. New York, Meriden Paperbacks. $2. 95.

If you are worried about the CIA, you are also worried about Y11le, because so many Old Blues you hear of from time to time have prominently or quietly played the role of national security managers during the Cold War. If you are a ferreting idealist-to-radical, a would-be writer of exposes, you are tantalized by your certain knowledge that so many CIA men - plus many other men who have so inevitably used the CIA in building and protecting their careers - come and go in your local dining halls, lounges and tombs. You may be more tantalized (and quickly disquieted) by your first glimpses of what types of men these are, glimpses which suggest to your introspective mind that these men at least began their careers with moral sensibilities which resemble your own in 1970. At first, reminds Miles Copeland in The Game of Nations, CIA types were seen by the military establishment in somewhat the same light as that establishment sees you today, as "wild-eyed intellectuals whose colleges don't want them back."

If you want to expose bankruptcy in our government, Miles Copeland has already done a good deal of your work for you. He reveals several varieties. To give only three examples: 1. He states that the CIA helped arrange the overthrow of the only republican government Syria had after her independence from French mandate, in favor of a little tin demagogue named Husni al-Zaim, in 1949.

2. He reveals that American generals recruited Nazis for service in the intelligence services of Third World nations friendly to us, when World War II was scarcely over.

3. He reveals that, because of interdepartmental jealousies, failures of one agent to let another know he was in town, and the like, supposedly calculated American . diplomatic dealings with Nasser's Egypt have more closely resembled hide-and-seek scenes in Marx Brothers movies.

The book is an insider's history of American crypto-diplomacy in the Middle East from early Cold War years to J une, 1967.

It concentrates on Nasser's Egypt. One of the main reasons The Game of Nations is such an effective expose is that you needn't have any qualms about the goals of United States policy to be shocked by it.

Miles Copeland was an insider. He was present when the CIA was created in 1949 after having been Vice Counsel at our embassy in Syria. In 1955 he switched to the State Department to become head of its Middle East Policy Planning Committee, where he worked until he quit in 1957 to work for a private consult ing firm in the Mid-east. Copeland continued to do trouble-shooting and consult ing work for our government, and perhaps others. And perhaps he still does. According to his dustcover notes, he is now a

senior partner in a consulting firm. He lives in London , and perhaps for that reason (although if one believes conspiracy theories it is easy to imagine other reasons) his book appeared in England last fall while it is still awaited here in the country - where it should cause the most excitement.

The finest exposes can only be written by such insiders, the few privileged people who were so deeply involved in events that they can weave a convincing, complete fabric out of every thread of nuance and detail from the situations they were in. The major trouble with insiders' exposes is that questions must inevitably be raised about the motives of the authors, who presumably have undergone striking shifts of allegiance as their roles changed from those of privileged participants to muckraking historians.

When Joe McGinnis wrote The Selling of the President 1968, he made it clear that he had only been a pseudo-insider on the Nixon PR team, a journalist in huckste r's clothing. Knowing this, we accept his revelations easily not just because we dislike Nixon, but also because we understand that as a sharp guy on the make he was working for himself through it all.

He had no one's secrets to protect and had not been paid to be more fair to one interest than another.

Miles Copeland 's work is of a greater magnitude than The Selling of the President 1968, because McGinniss simply brought to life what anyone who watched television could have figured out was going on , somewhere. The Game of Nations, however, describes phenomena normally beyond our ken. But of Copeland we are also forced to ask that question, "Why did he, an ex-insider who for aU we know may stm be a professional insider in some counsels, write this expose?" a book which so clearly shows American diplomatic crusaders as Machiavellis, or worse, bumble rs whom Machiavelli would have been the first to sack had he been in charge. The question is not wholly answerable from the book alone, but Copeland provides a partial explanation in the beginning of his book.

He claims his purpose is forthrightly to acquaint the public "and future historians" with a little known and important component o f American diplomacy. He says he has revealed nothing which would violate either United States or British government security regulations - unless, he adds, it has already been brought to light by previous espionage leaks or journalists' coups. And he affirms " I have not...withheld anything because of loyalty to the cabal."

Fundamentally, Copeland seems testily determined not to allow pseudo-idealists to remain idealists in the public's eyes.

He's out to destroy the

â&#x20AC;˘

-

View of our nation's statesmanship which they get, for example, from Robert Kennedy's published account of the Cuban crisis of 1962. Mr. Kennedy would â&#x20AC;˘ have us believe that our government's decisions in this case were made by 'dedicated, intellige nt men disagreeing and f"tgh.ting about the future of our country

AI

I

13/The New Journal/March 8, 1970

offset printing xerox copying paperback binding

.,.

•

~

•

and mankind,' sitting fo r hours in a room in the White House pondering 'our heritage and our ideals' and having reactions of 'shocked surprise' to the instance of Soviet disingenuousness which had just been shown them. I believe that most intelligent citizens would be relieved, not dismayed, to hear something nearer the truth: that there was not a man in that room who was capable of 'shocked surprise' at anything...

He then gives his own view.

The top decision-makers of our government have no intention of letting our futu re be determined by 'chicken' proficients [unpredictable, likely unfriendly leaders] in Africa or Asia or anywhere else. There are limitations on what the government of a democratic country can d o about its internal handicaps; there are none on what we can do in the country of others. Or, rather, when our Government decides what to do about other countries it is limited only by considerations of effectiveness .... If we do not lie about our intentions o r enter into treaties we don't intend to honour it is because such behavior is ineffective - and the fact remains. of course. that we d o lie about our intentions and fa il to abide by our treaties when it is in our advantage to do so and when we can get away with it .... Naturally, I am not defending such duplicity: I have no feeling about it o ne way or another. I only contend that it exists.

Considering his sharp edge, I have a tendency to disbelieve that Miles Copeland has no feelings about that duplicity. Perhaps the evolution of Copeland's personal ethical outlook towards crypto-diplomacy, his transition from insider to outsider , would make another kind of revelation for future historians.

The Game of Nations is more than just a competent account, however. First, it is beautifully, tightly written, full of dramati<" episodes and unexpectedly twisted literary references - "The Game without Nasser is like Hamlet without Polonius." Second, it is really a serious study of Carnal Abdel Nasser as a type of Third World leader, also typified by Nkrumah o f Ghana and Sukarno of Indonesia, who is forced to keep power thro ugh repression of hls countrymen and through demogogic exhortations and exploitation of chauvinistic nationalism and fanaticism. These leaders are forced into this position, Copeland points out, because realistic economic prospects for their nations are so totally hopeless that a constructively liberal course is impossible politically. If they promise their people anything tangible, however small, they will not be able to fulfiJI their promises. Impoverished Egypt, with its skyrocketing birthrate, is perhaps the eacth 's most classically tragic example of this condition.

In an implicit answer to theoreticia 1S like WaH Rostow, Copeland advances his own multi-stage model for this political economic "progress" of revolutions in poor nations. T here are three stages. In stage one, the revolution begins to transform the traditional socio-po litical structure. Landlords are exiled and their fiefdoms broken up. The leadership begins to mobilize the people. In stage three, the

revolution shows measurable positive influence upon the quality of everyday life in the country, and offers the people a modest new deal firmly based upon technocratic progress and graceful, unique incorporation of some traditional values.But stage three can never be reached.

Because to promise what cannot be delivered would alienate the masses and eventually undermine the Nasser-type leader, the leader exhorts the nation into regressive stage two and an indefinite limbo of political "displacement activity" of totalist propaganda, national campaigns after pie-in-the-sky abstract goals and military crusades. At least, figures the harried (and at heart patriotic) despot, this constantly mobilized, constantly taut stage two is better than the old sleep of stage one. Many of his followers will agree with him, and Copeland shows sympathetically that there is a sort of logic behind their agreement.

There were years when Miles Copeland, the insider. had lunched with Nasser once a week; he may know Nasser better than any other American. His book's most timely gift to outsiders who normally depend on The New York Times for their image of Nasser and the Third World , is a clear isolation and explication of this sort of logic, the logic of fru stration, the logic which, once grasped , can make " irresponsible, irrational" deeds of people like Arabs more fath omable . Even with all the tools of "crypto-diplomacy" Americans don't appreciate have-not systems of logic very much. As Copeland says himself, the failure to understand this logic can render even the powers of the CIA irrelevant.

The best known methods of intelligence analysis- the [political simulatio n) Game, the CIA , the State Department, or Whatever - have not proved up to predicting the actions of leaders of those countries of Africa, Asia and South America where the economic situation appears hopeless, where the gap between expectations and realization apparently can't be closed, where the people are frustrated, and where the leaders, if they are to stay in power, must either resort to demagoguery or discover new ways of squeezing more aid from the rich countries o r both.

Bahman Nirumand was an Iranian leftist student in Germany when he wrote his New Imperialism in 1967. His book is partly credited with stirring violent leftist student riots against the Shah during his German visit of 1967. It has recently been translated into English, and it is excellent. It documents, for example, how Western powers explo it lranjan oil, and how American development plans for Iran do not fit the needs of her people.

The book, however, has to be seen - no matter how solid it is - as a foil to Copeland's classic. When Nirumand (an outsider) tries to document the CIA's role in the fall of the nationalist Mossadegh he is forced to quote old articles in the Saturday Evening Post. He cannot tell you what the engineers of the coup said in the car on the way out of the palace.

The paperback editio n of Richard Barnet's Intervention and R evolution, which

charlton press~··· 288 Dwight S t.

IT I

Tinke r Shop Bowl and Board 75 Whitney Ave.

Sal e an abundance of wools and furs, sheepskins, Icelandic s heepskin, carabou, Himalayan ram, goatskin, fox, wolf fur coats in all sizes. $10-$20

$6.00 Special Youth Fare between ages 12 & 22 to Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark for reservations, information, call 865-5166 Youth fare tickets may only be purchased at Conn. Limo. Office or throug h your travel agent

Connecticut Limousine Service, Inc. 1Q60 State Street Division of U.S. Industries, Inc.

got one? ... need more? that's what we're for! gnomon copy service 244 York St. 777-1429

14/The New Journal/March 8, 1970

has been on prominent display at the Yale Co-op recently, is a good inexpensive tour de force to place next to the copy of the Algiers Motel Incident on your radical bookshelf. Barnet covers the rise of the "National Security Manager" in American society, the interests and fears of these managers, and treats in a general way most of our interventions armed or political, open or clandestine, since the early days of the Cold War. His chapters on Vietnam can't say much new, but his chapters on Greece in 1948 (where·we won) and other more obscure situations are useful. The comprehensive, meticulously footnoted book corroborates much of what Nirumand and Copeland reveal, but Barnet often finds facts of his own. For example, Nirumand tells us that the CIA's director of the coup which deposed the Iranian nationalist Mossadegh in 1953 and restored a more "cooperative" Shah to power, was General Norman Schwartzkopf, former head of the New Jersey State Police. But does he remind us that this same Schwartzkopf had been a figure in the Lindbergh kidnapping case, and erstwhile narrator .of the radio serial "Gangbusters?" No? Well, he was.~

continued [rom page 9 tern, Dlich calls into question the entire social fabric of modern society.

Speaking at Yale, lllich urged his audience "to resist further school-building as some of you resist further war-making."

He asserted that nations raise armies and schools with equal fervor; and that the drop-out is just as much a built-in consequence of the school system as the dead soldier is a consequence of the military. He claimed that the present school system "costs too much and damages too many children."

His analysis was economic, but his concern was ultimately humanistic. He challenged his audience to tear down the educational walls and advocated a "massive redistribution of the social functions pre-empted by schools to the other institutions of society." As an alternative to the formal institution which monopolizes learning and benefits only the elite, Dlich proposed a decentralization of the learning process in order to insure equal access to educational resources for aU citizens. He outlined a system in which each citizen at birth would be issued an "edu-card, a passport to learning" which would entitle him to utilize an allotment of public funds when and where he sees fit.

During the first three years of infancy, a child's "edu-card" could be used by his mother so that she could learn to teach her offspring. Instead of cramming a lifetime of education into a few years of schooling, attendance at a learning center could be made obligatory for one or two months a year for aJI citizens between the ages of five and thirty. The rest of the year could be productively spent working, travelling, reading and experiencing. With his card, the citizen could purchase·access to parks, theaters, museums, libraries, trips, etc. He could

also purchase the time of coaches, tutors, psychologists, or gurus. llHch's proposal is based on the conviction that most learning can take place without the guidance of a professional.

He asserts that an educational system should embody three fundamental objectives: equal opportunity for personal freedom, universal preparation for social and political participation, and manpower development for social and economic institutions. These goals are incompatible with the institutionalized monopoly on education presently enjoyed by the school system. He feels that a citizenry motivated and conscious of the fact that education is a scarce resource will utilize th-eir educational opportunities far more efficiently than under the present system.

He also hopes that by decentralizing the learning process that "educational fraud could at least be reduced to the level of political fraud." He advocates the enactment of legislation in order to protect the citizen in his educational consumption. There might be an extension of the fust amendment to include non-discrimination on the basis of years of schooling, and the establishment of anti-trust laws to prevent educational monopoly.

Dlich foresees the establishment of learning centers catering to specific skills and envisions the breakdown of the traditional barriers between work and education through new forms of on-the-job training. lllich recognizes that the "de-schooling of society" will result in inequities. But he feels that the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. No system, he maintains, can be as unjust and inequitable as the one we aU take for granted.

The chief significance of llHch's message is a warning that we cannot afford to take our institutions for granted.

"Twenty years ago," he remarked, "we did not by necessity believe that a military officer was a mad man. Today, we still don' t believe this of university presidents." Yet schools, undeniably, can be just as lethal as bullets; perhaps even worse, for they destroy the mind. The commuter, caught in a traffic jam, becomes utterly convinced that the only soluti6n is more expressways. Never does he stop to think that he would be better off without a car at aU. lllich pointed out ironically to his audience that "educated" men apply the same logic to schooling. ~

continued from page 2 Furthermore, the plan to reduce the size of each Yale class (either permanently or until new colleges are built) better fulfills Yale's obligation to educate women as well as men. The Yale girls are not here as accessories to the Yale men; they are here on their own. They ought to be treated as full-fledged members of the community - and that means no discrimination in admissions.

There are other possibilities too. For example it would be possible to increase the university's enroll-

ment by twenty-five percent and run the university on a quarter system, so that the facilities would never be too crowded. They would just be used all year around.

In the end, though, the situation for next year depends on what transpires at the Corporation meeting of March 7th. Either a few more girls and much overcrowding or else considerably fewer men and many more women will result. It's in the selfinterest of everyone at Yale that the Corporation choose the second idea over the fust. But, as you know, Mr. Brewster says they won't "unless it is absolutely necessary."

Margaret Coon George Kannar

Frank talk on TV news Reuven Frank is not your ordinary newsman; he talks and dresses with the understated detachment of a banker. It's because he's President of NBC news. For nine years before that he produced the Huntley-Brinkley Report. His view of television is clearly the product of his experience with the pressures of creating a daily news program. He seems to have come to terms with these pressures through a cool professionalism. He talks softly and smokes Larks, lots of them.

Recently Mr. Frank was at Yale as a Poynter Fellow in Journalism. He showed films and talked about TV news to about two hundred persons in the Pierson dining hall. Mr. Frank was asked to bring the ftlms of the Chicago Democratic Convention. He couldn't, he said, because it was aU live, and there are no archives of news programming. The networks keep everything they broadcast for a week, then erase it and tape again. Transcripts are made but they '1ust pile up." "Besides," said Mr. Frank, "you can never really see it again in context. Television is momentary and instantaneous, and newspapers are for the record."

This exchange is interrupted by the quick appearance of numbers, from eight on down, flashing on a movie screen.

Suddenly Huntley and Brinkley become full-size people in color (movie color).

The film , one of NBC's broadcasts from January of 1968, contains the first live pictures of the Tet offensive. American soldiers rid the American Embassy of VC, and Jack Perkins, the NBC reporter, comments that "we were taken by surprise."

Titters and applause come from the audience.

The Vietnam ftlm is unedited, broadcast from Tokyo through New York without being seen by Huntley, Brinkley or anybody. The reporters assure us that American bases are secure, and no cities could be taken. But the irony is lost in a rush of irate questions about the reporters' presumptions in giving those smug assurances. The audience grumbles. Some ask whether NBC would consider doing a true documentary of the war in Vietnam .

Mr. Frank's answer is another ftlm .

On screen: Frank McGee, March 10, .1 968 - The New Year, The New War.

It is a brutal documentary of the Tet offensive, starting with a peacock in living color and the strangeness of TV on the Big Screen.

First, fJ.lm cHps of President Johnson and Robert MacNamara, each of them saying on successive dates from 1966 through early 1968: "We are doing well."

"We will not have to expand the conflict."

A quick shot of Westmoreland on March .1 10, the day he asked for 206,000 more men saying: "We have taken the offensive from the enemy." There are the knowing cheers in the dining hall.

Then, the war. Again, fJ.lms of the American Embassy attack. This time clearer, well-edited, but the same confusion is there, in the situation, not the editing, Saigon is burning; Hue is burning, and Frank McGee is droning on. All of the suspected VC sympathizers are "rounded up."

A man is standing on the screen in proftle - Vietnamese in a red plaid shirt.

A police chief walks up and shoots him neatly in the temple; he crumples, some· one attaches a piece of red cloth with a number to his belt. John Hersey, in the far corner of the room, stirs uneasily; he did not come for this.

The reel ends, many people begin to leave, quietly - among them myself.

There are few hands, few questions.

Colors in the dining hall are drab, brown tables in disarray - Kodacolor is bright and real. Mr. Frank comes forward from the corner behind the screen, easil¥, lighting a cigarette. He is unperturbed, he is a producer: it was a good ftlm then, it still is. Mr. Frank is watching us. " Journalism is a craft," he had said, ,, "like good carpentry."

Peter Kyros

..

•

)

Everyone's talking about It and we have the book.

•

a very heavy amplifier indeed

The Environmental •s .s Crl 1 Man's Struggle to Live with Himself edited by Harold W. Helfrich, Jr.

Ecological catastrophe threatens the very base of our sociopolitical structure. The combined scourges of water and air pollution, mismanaged national resources and open spaces, increasing and unplanned populations, urban congestion, and mismanagement of our national energies are creating human despair in the midst of unprecedented technological advances. The papers in this book, representing a lecture series presented during 1968-69 at the School of Forestry at Yale UnJversity, deal with our survival in t he face of the rapid deterioration of our natural surroundings.

It has taken us at David Dean Smith a long time to find a medium priced amplifier that we could enthusiastically recommend and guara ntee for two yearsparts and labor .

The contributors are among the most distinguished authorities in the fields of science, law, regional planning, economics, and government. Their commentaries arise from practical experience gained during outstanding careers and each provides a close examination of one of the ecological or ethical problems plaguing mankind, which, in their ultimate significance, overshadow wars, ideologies, and races.

A Yale Fastback. 3 Publication date, April 22.

Cloth $7.50 Paper $1.95

Most am plifiers we tried had the following problems: they could never come near meeting their published specifications; they tended to have a transistory tinny sound; and occasionally they blew up.

But we found the Pioneer 900, and all became well with the world. It easily produces sixty watts RMS a channel with both channels driven. (This is the same as 200 IHF watts.) But most important, it sounds inc redibly fine.

Everyone's talking about it

It costs two hundred and sixty dollars. Bring up some of your favorite Mayall, Clapton or Bach sides and l isten to the Pioneer 900.

Or listen to our copy of the Pentangle.

and we have the book.

david dean smith corner of elm and york

..

a; xerox

by goodway goodway copy center I9G (joJiege Street GS4-0194

Yamaha It's a better machine from the best dealer

Libbyls Sales & Service 1098 Chapel St. 772-1112

LAMont

c. Cole

Professor of Ecology. Cornell University Playing Russian Roulette with Biogeochemical Cycles

lan McHarg

Chairman, Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning. University of Pennsylvania The Plight

David Gatea

Professor of Botany, Washington University Weather Modification In the Service of Mankind: Promise or Peril?

Paul Ehrlich

Professor of Population. Stanford University Famine 1975: Fact or Fallacy?.

Georg Borgatrom

Professor of Food Technology, Michigan State University The Harvest of the Seas: How Fruitful and for Whom?

Jamea G. Horsfall

Director, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station The Green Revolution: Agriculture in the Face of the Population Explosion

Joaeph L. Sax

Professor of Law, University of Michigan The Search for Environmental Quality: The Role of the Courts

Emilio 0 . Daddario

Chakman of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development, U.S. Congress The Federal Research Dollar: Priorities end Goals

Clarence J. Gl•cken

University of California at Berkeley Man Against Nature: An Outmoded Concept

William A. Nlerlng

Professor of Botany, Connecticut College The Dilemma of the Coast a/ Wetlands: Conflict of Local, National, and World Priorities

Kenneth E.• Bouldlng

Professor of Economics, University of Colorado Fun end Games with the Gross Nat/one/ Product-The Role of Misleading Indicators In Social Policy

Charles R. Ao..

Former Federal Power Commissioner Federal Government as an Inadvertent Advocate of Environmental Degradation

Yale University Press New Haven and London

.,.

I·

• ,.c

.

.

•. ,. ~4.,:

.... '.

"It is easy to say, but important, that the world is neither simple nor small.''

JOHN E. SMITH. Themes In American Philosophy; Purpose, Experience and Community

$2.95

JOHN STOVE. Europe Unfolding, 1648-1688; History of Europe

2.95

N. RICHARD NIEBUHR, Radical Monotheism and Western Culture

1.45

JOHN F. BENTON, ed., Self and Society in Medieval France; the memoirs of Abbott Guibert

2.95

CLAUDE LEVI STRAUSS,The Raw and the Cooked; .

Introduction to a Science of Mythology

2.95

Yale Co-op - Seventy Seven Broadway

.,