To the Editor:
Paul Goodman’s essay, “The Community of Scholars” [March], will strike a sympathetic note with those students (and faculty) whose sense of adventure has not yet been smothered by safe attitudes.
In this connection I would like to point out the paradoxical role of the trustees in relation to the “community of scholars.” Ultimate responsibility for university policy rests with these men who are chosen, not because of any outstanding abilities as educators, but rather because of their ability to raise money either through personal fortunes and/or corporate or government nexuses. Colleges find themselves in the absurd situation where ultimate authority rests with a group whose interests exactly coincide with the status quo (and who, incidentally, often have lifetime tenure). It is not surprising, then, that colleges do not stand for something; that the community of scholars does not “confront reality” in the role of “loyal opposition.” Colleges more and more resemble the efficient “businesslike” organizations in which their group leaders, managers, and board of directors can flourish—while the student is constantly pressured to produce “profitable” results.
Stephen M. Edelglass
New York City
_____________
To the Editor:
. . . On entering one of the East’s eminent universities, I was thrilled to think that I would now know the adult elite—my teachers. For four years I searched for a teacher who would talk with even a group of students without inching his way backward out of the door. For four years I searched for a purgatory where I wouldn’t have to “grow up.”
College left me frustrated . . . two years later, I still feel stunted and cheated. . . .
Ellen Wolf
Brighton, Massachusetts
_____________
To the Editor:
In reading Paul Goodman’s provocative, yet disheartening, article on “The Community of Scholars,” I was struck by the way in which it seemed to echo an essay published in 1922, “Oxford As I See It,” by Stephen Leacock. . . .
There is, however, one basic difference between Mr. Goodman’s essay and Lea-cock’s. Leacock seems to have found his educational Utopia—in Oxford University. . . . According to Leacock, Oxford’s greatness can be attributed primarily to its tutorial system. “It is from him [the tutor] or rather with him, that the students learn all that they know; one and all are agreed on that. . . . Yet it is a little odd to know just how he does it. ‘We go over to his rooms,’ said one student, ‘and he just lights a pipe and talks to us! We sit round with him’ said another, ‘and he simply smokes and goes over our exercises with us!’”
It is just this lack of contact between students and faculty which Mr. Goodman points to as a major weakness in our educational system. . . .
(Miss) Laurel H. Kagan
New York City
_____________
To the Editor:
My compliments to Paul Goodman on his perceptive article “The Community of Scholars.” Despite some amiable ramblings he does successfully underscore the significance of establishing connections between students and professors, and the college and community.
Establishing connections between the school and the community is education in its fullest and richest sense. I, therefore, fail to see why he disparages student concern (expressed in group actions as well as in college newspapers) with national and world news rather than with “home news.” Student concern with free speech, anti-bomb test demonstrations, freedom riders, and other national and international issues are precisely the kinds of connections that reveal increased understanding of the problems of a democratic society. Students are to be applauded when they do understand this connection, for they are then beginning to educate themselves. They are, so to speak, not “growing up absurd” and probably do not need connections with the type of professor Mr. Goodman describes in his article.
(Dr.) Otto Krash
Hunter College
New York City
_____________