DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Students for a Democratic Society, Herrnstein lecture, February-June, 1972 | 1972-03-01 Daily Iowan Letters to the Editor: 'Reactions to Herrnstein' Page 1

Transcribe
Translate

Students for a Democratic Society, Herrnstein lecture, February-June, 1972

1972-03-01 Daily Iowan Letters to the Editor: 'Reactions to Herrnstein' Page 1

Reactions to Herrnstein

To the editor:
...Those who shouted down Herrnstein prior to his appearance, and those same individuals who raised their arms in glorious victory, following the announcement of Herrnstein's lamentable decision of not appearing, failed eloquently so by contradicting their own specific code of ethics. The Students for a Democratic Society have constantly and consistently exhorted their influences on a multitude of levels crying for those rights exhibited in the Constitution of the United States: freedoms for all with no concealment or impairment of those rights...
...Congruent to those rights specified within the construction of the contitution one must similtaneously comprehend the manifold and sequestered responsibility which is, respect for each other's rights. This quite conclusively is where the fascist organization of the Students for a Democratic Society joyously and realistically differentiate from their resolution...
...The SDS's only means of credulous existence is predicted upon the contitution -- It is only courteous and proper to augment our society by permitting others to cultivate their existence.
Jeff Liddy
235 Rienow II

To the editor:
I find myself somewhat ashamed of belonging to a student body that suppresses freedom of speech and wish to point out one of the many reasons for condemning the actions of a small group of hooligans that have discredited all of us.
It seems to me that the SDS and its cohorts are indulging in a classic example of what Orwell described as politics corrupting language and that language further corrupting politics. The most obvious example of this is their use of the word "fascist" (and to a lesser degree "racist"). By using the word they create intense emotions, obscure the facts, and make serious discussion of complex issues impossible. Their tactic is directly analagous to the right-wing's use of the word "communist". Both groups use their respective word to label people they don't understand, fear, and wish to discredit. In each case they obscure the issues and complexities that ought to be considered. Each results in perversion of individual rights and great injustice. Just as we have learned to condemn the irresponsible use of the words "fascist', and "racist". Perhaps when leftist tacticians discover their tactic is harmful rather than helfu to their cause they will abandon this imoral tactic.
I have spent some time attempting to discover an adequate definition of fascist and have concluded there is non-- it is useless except for emotional purposes. I is not synonymous with authoritarian. However, if we do continue to use the word some respect to historical precedents must be granted. In that case I would argue that stormtrooper hooliganism to suppress unpopular opinions and to break up public meetings is a fascist tactic. Therefore if we are to continue to use the term fascist, the SDS and some other radical left groups are prime targets for it application.
One other consideration. The press in America has traditionally vigorously defended first amendment rights because its own freedom is there preserved. I notice that the DI, by being editorially silent, seems to have abandoned this traditions during the Herrnstein affair. That is lamentable but hardly surprising. Many of the columns in the DI this year have demonstrated that same sophomoric hyposcrisy at the expense of the objective pursuit of truth that characterizes so much of the new left. It is tragic that at a time when we need leadership against these new apparently abandoned an excellent journalistic tradition.
Robert Davis
535 Olive

To the Editor: 
...Perhaps the demonstration could best be summarized as tragic and ironic from both visceral and intellectual levels. Most of the same SDS people and assorted intellectual protestors have been aghast at some projects carried on in the University and have reacted to threats of suppression or budget cuts, etc., by preaching that the role of the University is "to search for the truth." Surely, students and faculty will agree that the way to search fot that elusive dimension is -
-to listen to all viewpoints;
-to observe all available evidence favoring all positions;
-and, to be objectively unbiased when arriving at any conclusions...
...It is our considered opinion that intimidating a noted psychologist to the point where he is unable to publicly present the views at which he has arrived via his research, is an absolute contradiction of both the principles and the practices of democracy. When the far left sets itself up as the judge of what is and what is not fit for others to analyze, it becomes nothing more than a form of dictatorial censorship. Perhaps next they will attempt to burn the books with which they do not agree, to purge the people from extreme points of view and from the freedom to choose. This might lead to rejoicing among those of the far left but it would lead us to mourn!
 Donald R. Mason
Mike Kielkopf Aophen Chistensen
Kirk Buckholy
David Barnett
Lynn G. Fyfe
Michael C. Mueller
John Vasey

lettersletters
Challenges Stuit to debate
To the editor: 
The editorial page of yesterday's Daily Iowan was very interesting. On the right side of the page were several letters, including one form Dean Stuit, that criticized SDS for confronting Richard Herrnstein. One letter even called us brown shirts. One the other side there were excerpts from a real brown shirt's paperthat used the writings of such eminent professors as Herrnstein, Jensen, Shockley, and Eysenck,

Saving...

Reactions to Herrnstein To the editor: ...Those who shouted down Herrnstein prior to his appearance, and those same individuals who raised their arms in glorious victory, following the announcement of Herrnstein's lamentable decision of not appearing, failed eloquently so by contradicting their own specific code of ethics. The Students for a Democratic Society have constantly and consistently exhorted their influences on a multitude of levels crying for those rights exhibited in the Constitution of the United States: freedoms for all with no concealment or impairment of those rights... ...Congruent to those rights specified within the construction of the contitution one must similtaneously comprehend the manifold and sequestered responsibility which is, respect for each other's rights. This quite conclusively is where the fascist organization of the Students for a Democratic Society joyously and realistically differentiate from their resolution... ...The SDS's only means of credulous existence is predicted upon the contitution -- It is only courteous and proper to augment our society by permitting others to cultivate their existence. Jeff Liddy 235 Rienow II To the editor: I find myself somewhat ashamed of belonging to a student body that suppresses freedom of speech and wish to point out one of the many reasons for condemning the actions of a small group of hooligans that have discredited all of us. It seems to me that the SDS and its cohorts are indulging in a classic example of what Orwell described as politics corrupting language and that language further corrupting politics. The most obvious example of this is their use of the word "fascist" (and to a lesser degree "racist"). By using the word they create intense emotions, obscure the facts, and make serious discussion of complex issues impossible. Their tactic is directly analagous to the right-wing's use of the word "communist". Both groups use their respective word to label people they don't understand, fear, and wish to discredit. In each case they obscure the issues and complexities that ought to be considered. Each results in perversion of individual rights and great injustice. Just as we have learned to condemn the irresponsible use of the words "fascist', and "racist". Perhaps when leftist tacticians discover their tactic is harmful rather than helfu to their cause they will abandon this imoral tactic. I have spent some time attempting to discover an adequate definition of fascist and have concluded there is non-- it is useless except for emotional purposes. I is not synonymous with authoritarian. However, if we do continue to use the word some respect to historical precedents must be granted. In that case I would argue that stormtrooper hooliganism to suppress unpopular opinions and to break up public meetings is a fascist tactic. Therefore if we are to continue to use the term fascist, the SDS and some other radical left groups are prime targets for it application. One other consideration. The press in America has traditionally vigorously defended first amendment rights because its own freedom is there preserved. I notice that the DI, by being editorially silent, seems to have abandoned this traditions during the Herrnstein affair. That is lamentable but hardly surprising. Many of the columns in the DI this year have demonstrated that same sophomoric hyposcrisy at the expense of the objective pursuit of truth that characterizes so much of the new left. It is tragic that at a time when we need leadership against these new apparently abandoned an excellent journalistic tradition. Robert Davis 535 Olive To the Editor: ...Perhaps the demonstration could best be summarized as tragic and ironic from both visceral and intellectual levels. Most of the same SDS people and assorted intellectual protestors have been aghast at some projects carried on in the University and have reacted to threats of suppression or budget cuts, etc., by preaching that the role of the University is "to search for the truth." Surely, students and faculty will agree that the way to search fot that elusive dimension is - -to listen to all viewpoints; -to observe all available evidence favoring all positions; -and, to be objectively unbiased when arriving at any conclusions... ...It is our considered opinion that intimidating a noted psychologist to the point where he is unable to publicly present the views at which he has arrived via his research, is an absolute contradiction of both the principles and the practices of democracy. When the far left sets itself up as the judge of what is and what is not fit for others to analyze, it becomes nothing more than a form of dictatorial censorship. Perhaps next they will attempt to burn the books with which they do not agree, to purge the people from extreme points of view and from the freedom to choose. This might lead to rejoicing among those of the far left but it would lead us to mourn! Donald R. Mason Mike Kielkopf Aophen Chistensen Kirk Buckholy David Barnett Lynn G. Fyfe Michael C. Mueller John Vasey lettersletters Challenges Stuit to debate To the editor: The editorial page of yesterday's Daily Iowan was very interesting. On the right side of the page were several letters, including one form Dean Stuit, that criticized SDS for confronting Richard Herrnstein. One letter even called us brown shirts. One the other side there were excerpts from a real brown shirt's paperthat used the writings of such eminent professors as Herrnstein, Jensen, Shockley, and Eysenck,