PRESIDENT LOFTMAN` S REPLY dent Body President Guy Loftman

I
I
PRESIDENT LOFTMAN' S REPLY
Last Saturday, the Daily Student printed an editorial criticizing Stu-
dent Body President Guy Loftman. The editorial asked five questions, and
concluded by soliciting Mr. Loftman's reply.
President Loftman prepared a reply, and was told on Tuesday that it would
be printed in today's IDS.
However, you will not find it there. About 5
o'clock last night, the outgoing and incoming editorial staffs decided not
to print it, but to save it for next semester--nearly a month after the
critical editorial.
Here is the President's reply in full.
With less than a week to go as Daily Student staffers, Lightning Kent
Dove and Magnificent Margaret Craig have pulled out their political guns
and laid down a full-scale barrage on--surprisel,--Guy Loftman, noted radical
and troublemaker, initiator of open-stack libraries, and the homosexual who
"had to get married." And it's about time, too. Thankfully for the school
of "objective journalism" which they so well represent, they have allowed me
to reply to the questions they asked.
But before I answer the five specific questions, I would like to dispose
of the sadly typical inaccuracies which grace the first part of last Saturday's
editorial.
It is true that I have accused certain members of the Administration of
dishonesty, incompetence, and even dereliction of duty. I did not really
expect to have to do this when I was elected,
as I will point out below.
but events left me no choice,
While I may have acted as "prosecuting attorney,"
I have not acted as judge and jury.
Rather,
:that role belongs to the Univer-
sity community and the Board of Trustees. The position of Student Body President is actually very weak, with publicity being its principal source of power.
I have never said that I "didn't care what the IU students thought." All
I said--as the editors would have found out if they had read their own news
coverage of a few months ago--was that on certain matters people have rights
which cannot be legislated away by a majority vote. The right to come and go
freely, which is drastically infringed upon by women's hours, is one of them.
All I advocated were the principles of limited majority rule and maintenance
Even journalism students should recognize these
of individual civil liberties.
But more importantly
as, in the "American tradition," and hardly subversive.
for IU, I know of no issues this year on which. I have taken a stand opposed
This has made my term of office, though
to the wishes of most students.
stormy, unexpectedly calm.
(I might point out that the Student Senate, dominated 2-1 by, Impact!, has approved all the major PRP legislation put before
it, and most of it by close to a unanimous vote.)
The IU employees' strike was over weeks before my term began.
The only substantially accurate statement in the editorial is that my
term of office has been stormy. But many of the policies. and practices of IU
need change.
And change seldom comes about unless some boats are rocked.
As
surprising as it may be to the IDS, not all boats are seaworthy.
The most ludicrous statement in the editorial was that I seem to be folRather
lowing the "SDS resistance movement" outlined by Mr. Carl Davidson.
than being based on facts, this assertion is instead based on the following
syllogism:
1. Carl Davidson seeks to "tear apart institutions."
2. Carl Davidson is in SDS.
3. Guy Loftman is in SDS.
Therefore, Guy Loftman seeks to "tear apart institutions."
4.
Of course,
Undeniably, there is a certain appeal to this line of argument.
pseudo-intellectuals and "nit-pickers" might criticize it, but we all know
Now let's
see, how does it go?
about that lot.
People who write incompetent editorials eat mashed potatoes.
1.
Lighning Kent eats mashed potatoes.
Therefore...
2.
3.
You may think that the above proves that Lightning Kent writes incompetent
ditorials.
It does not.
Instead, it proves nothing at all, like one of
lightning Kent's editorials.
The fact of the matter is that I first heard of Carl Davidson from Dean
Shaffer, who recommended that I read one of his articles in an SDS publication,
which of course I did.
I found it interesting, but not worth saving.
My
xuxt contact with Mr. Davidson's name arose in the -curse of last fall's campaign, when Impacts party informed me and the campus that Davidson's ideas
InterControlled my political actions, which was quite a revelation to me.
:stingly enough, Lightning Kent neglected to credit Impact: for creating this
rumor,
much as he forgot to remark that Dob Turner authored last week's war-
mongering editorial.
Now,
to answer the five questions.
What are my real ultimate objectives as President of the Student Body?
1.
To help create an Indiana University in which each student will have maximum
opportunity to develop himself intellectually and personally as he sees fit.
This involves creating an environment in which all in the University community
work together in mutual harmony and respect: faculty, students, staff,
Crn
cnd yes, Virginia, even administrators.
2.
Why, if I believe in participatory democracy as I outlined in my cam
paign, dis T lag behind in making student appointments to University comitt:a s
I did no. lag behind my predecessor, President Aulick, in making my appointr:.
l was a w;sk ahead of him.
I would have liked to have made them even earlier,'
but; AulicL did not inform me of this particular duty.
Also,
I made my appoint-
ments to these committees in many cases before President Stahr made his.
And,
,ost important, very few of these committees are of any real significance in
They are just for token recognition of stude..t partickingg policy decisions.
ipation in University affairs.
Many have not met for several years.
And when
-hey do meet, they usually ratify previously-determined decisions.
3. Why, even after a summer student referendum showed that students favored
gildingg the Assembly Hall, did I continue to oppose it? First, the summer
eerendum was not supposed to be binding, and it had a very small turnout-only a fear hundred summer students.
The petitions in the fall, on the other
hand, had over 5,000 signatures and--wonder of wonders- -more students opposed
the Hall than favored it.
Second, and most important, I felt (and still
feel)
enat building the Assembly Hall was a severe misallocation of student fees
Khich should properly have gone toward improving the academic quality of our
niversity rather thanfor building an expensive "white elephant" to be used
s.iainly for athletics.
Incidentally, the State Budget Cormittee held up approvel of the Hall for several weeks, indicating that they also had strong doubts
,gout
4.
it.
r
publicly criticized such men as President Stahr, Dean ShafWhy have
President Stahr, for
Because they have deserved it.
her, and Col. King?
breaking- -st
law by denying direct
distance, deliberately broke-ard is still
k student access to financial informr.tion about the University.
This denial, of
course, applies only to students who might rock the boat. Dean Shaffer has on
occasion flagrantly disregarded basic s udent rights to due process, as is
obvious to anyone who has heard the tape recording of his disciplinary hearing
4th
Robin Hunter following the Dow demonstrations.
And Col.
of the checklist has 'ored3 re to see' his
::e
t a.
'1e
d,
I)o
I
be,lie..ve
the
pu0-4Y
ed
pr'ivtebelica
o_f
a
M ._4
King's extreme
a
can and should be separated? No, I believe they should be the same.
should believe in private what he believes in public.
}
}
A person
I wish that I could say that last Saturday's editorial achieved a new low
in the history of the Indiana Daily Student, but unfortunately I cannot.
We
have but to hark back to the summer of 1965 when then-IDS editor Mary Ellen
Straub (who flunked her English proficiency exams) refeTred to a commemorative
arch
for the Hiroshima dead as "festivities," or to when an anti-Vietnam
tar advertisement signed by over thirty-five faculty members was censored for
"tending to endanger the public."
Unfortunately, the IDS has maintained an
abysmally low quality of reporting and editorializing for my five years at
Indiana University, with ever-plummeting low points, and n~o yet detected high.
In its ongoing policy of ineptitude, the Daily Student has managed to
avoid reporting what is probably the most significant development this year
in the field of student rights and freedoms: the development of concerned
and active faculty participation in the determination of University policy.
This is exemplified by the formation of the Continuing Committee, a group of
faculty members who feel "an overriding commitment...to formulate constructive
ide-as which will help clarify and humanize University regulations and activities
Gs they are threatened by bureaucratic growth." This committee, acting in
coordination with various groups of students, portends a very major revision
of University regulations, student and faculty participation in decision-making,
and organization of the Daily Student. Such changes have been recognized by
an ever-growing group as mandatory if the University is to fulfill its responsibilities to society. I expect that the IDS will, as usual, recognize this
about twenty years late.
1-17-68