“OUR IDEALS
SHOULD BE
OUR OWN”
Our University “is committed to recognizing
maturity. It is assumed that students will formulate
their own ideals and standards.” It also felt that the
University “should not attempt to direct the
formulation of these standards and ideals.” “Our ideals
should be our own.”
Should not university residents be allowed to
determine their own limitations? Should theynot take
responsibility for their own actions? What are the
responsibilities of university life which demand a listing
of hours which do not educate, but, as stated in the
1967 hours proposal,restrict university women until
they become acquainted with these responsibilities?
How do they become acquainted with responsibility
when they are sheltered from, not educated toward, its
assumption?
The University and administration refuse to assume
the parental role. Why should students presume to
legislate as parents for other students? College years are
not a preparation for life that demands parental
guidance. They are years of living and learning, and
every one has the right to live and learn without
meaningless restrictions upon this freedom of the
individual.
The responsibilities of university life accepted in the
Rationale for Women’s Hours (1967) entail deciding
curriculum and outside activities. Many students have
gone beyond this and have assumed financial
responsibility for their education. How are these
responsibilities affected by established regulations?
They are not. Obedience to a meaningless rule
conditions nothing more than obedience to a rule. The
present residence regulations are not a challenge; they
do not stimulate individual growth, thought and action.
Education is a lifetime process which is a vital part of
all human development. How can a University educate
when the students place restrictions upon education?
Responsibility is a capacity for confronting
situations - a capacity which grows with a life time of
thought and experience. Experience is the environment
in which thought is stimulated; the background against
which it is applied and modified. Without it, thinking
stagnates and a complete education cannot exist.
The entire university community is entitled to the
assumption of responsibility beyond the academic, and
the opportunity to receive an education in living, which
comes by living.
Supplement
“Part VIII
Residences
Group living offers a significant contribution to the
total educational development of each student as he
leas from individuals of varied backgrounds and
experiences. Harmonious living, broadened horizons,
and’ increased human understanding are all desired
results of the residence experience. The challenge
accepted by the residence staff is to develop an
atmosphere which stimulates growth, encourages
individual responsibility in decision making and
judgement formulation, and provides for acceptance of
others as persons of worth to whom the individual has
something to give and from whom he can gain.” (p. 29)
“Individual responsibility and initiative are essential
characteristics of communal living.” (p. 39)
“Part V
Standards of Student Conduct
(Non-Academic)
The regulations and procedures described herein
apply to all student conduct and behavior except those
associated with academic performance, academic
standing, and associated regulations” (p. 25)
Introduction
“Specific regulations governing the activities and
conduct of student groups and individuals should not
be limited fo the prescription of procedures for
meeting the practical, routine requirements of an
SUPPLEMENT FOR STUDENT ASSOCIATION
ALBANY, NEW YORK NOVEMBER 15, 1968
academic community. They should direct their
attention to those acts which cannot be tolerated
because they seriously interfere with the basic
purposes, necessities, and processes of the academic
community. By formulating a code of ethics, rules and
regulations, the University does not absolve each
student from accepting responsibility for his own
behavior. Rather, it reaffirms the principle of student
freedom coupled with an acceptance of full
responsibility for individual action and the
consequences of such action.” (p. 25)
“The student is not only a member of the academic
community; he is, additionally, a member of the larger
society and thus retains the rights, protections,
guarantees and responsibilities which are held by all
citizens.” (p.25)
“1.1, To protect student rights and to facilitate the
definition of student responsibilities, a series of
guidelines is established:
1.1.2. All regulations shall be based upon needs
which are related to the basic purposes and necessities
of the university.”
“(Such preparation presupposes) an environment in
which the student is encouraged to explore freely and
to accept the co-requisite responsibilities which such
freedom affords.” (Undergraduate Bulletin, SUNYA‘
1968-69)
The above quoted sections, except where otherwise
noted, are taken directly from the University
publication, Student Guidelines.
Central Central Council
State University of New York at Albany
LAAC POLICY ON RESPONSIBILITY
October 3, 1968
Introduced by: Jay Silverman
I. It is hereby proposed that the following be
supported:
Our University “is committed to recognizing
maturity. It is assumed that students will formulate
their own ideals and standards.” It is also felt that the
University “should not attempt to direct the
formulation of these standards and ideals.” “Our ideals
should be our own.”
Students should be allowed to determine their own
limitations. They should become thoroughly
acquainted with the ideals of individual and group
responsibility and freedom.
President Collins and the University administration
have'stated that they refuse to accept the parental role.
The above quoted LAAC Rationale for Womens Hours
says that “students will formulate their own ideals and
standards.”
Yet we, the students, have usurped a power that the
administration and those who wrote the rationale
(which we fully accept) refuse to accept.
Our job is to acquaint the students with their
responsibilities and freedoms through- education, not
shelter them from these ideals. This education should
lead to two things - a stimulation of one’s intellectual
appetite and a search for human values.
But, we, as a representative student body, have failed
to meet our responsibility as much as anyone. We are
not teaching values, only obedience.
The students at this University are entitled to what
no one has given them. They are entitled to the
assumption of responsibility beyond the academic, and
the opportunity to receive an education in life and
living, which comes by living.
Our Student Association Constitution has
assigned us the responsibility of “codifying and
developing standards of conduct related to the living
areas.” In this respect, let us reaffirm what we have
already accepted.
Il. That this bill take effect immediately.
(The above is the text of Central Council
Living Area Affairs Commission.
State University of New York at Albany
Proposed Changes in University Residences Policies
November 6, 1968
Introduced by: Committee on Residence Reform
It is hereby proposed that the following be enacted:
I. There are no curfew hours for any University
student.
ll. There is no mandatory sign-out procedure for
anyUniversity student. A voluntary sign-out system may
be provided by the residents of the hall/or hall
government.
III. The following is to replace Numbers 1 and 2 of
the Residence Guests section in Student Guidelines:
There is a University Open House and Visitation
Policy with the residents of each hall/ or hall
government/or sections defined by that hall/or hall
government determining its own policies and hours of
Open Houses and Visitations. In order for this policy to
take effect, a system providing for personal security
must be established by the residents of each hall/or hall
government and approved by LAAC or its designee.
IV. During Open Houses and Visitations, students
(both participating and non-participating) may exercise
their right to privacy by leaving suite and/or bedroom
doors closed.
V. That this bill take effect in accordance with
University procedure.
(The above is the text of the LAAC Bill 6869-10
approved on November 13, 1968.)
MYSKANIA Position Statement
MYSKANIA takes the position that the curfew
system imposed on freshmen women has no rational
basis and ought to be abolished.
The present curfew system implies that freshmen
women should be treated differently from freshmen
men. Why does the University make this distinction? Is
it because young men are more mature than young
women? This is clearly false - so the argument on
maturity is not acceptable.
However, regardless of the reason for the distinction,
the result is the same - men are treated preferentially.
MYSKANIA holds this to be a violation (quite possibly
a legal violation) of the basic rights of women.
Secondly, the present curfew system implies that
freshmen women should be treated differently from
upperclass women. Why is this distinction made? Is it
because upperclass women have become acclimated to
the responsibilities of University life and are now ready
for no curfews? This is the argument most often made
by those opposed to a no curfew system for freshmen
women. Is this argument valid? MYSKANIA contends
that it is ot. We feel that there is o necessary or even
logical connection between a woman coming in at 3:00
and her becoming acclimated to the
responsibilities of the University. We hold the argument
to be an abstraction with little or no correspondence to
reality.
Further, if it indeed is the hope that freshmen
women will become acclimated to the University -
MYSKANIA asks, how can this possibly be
accomplished by keeping the freshmen women
separated from the very responsibility we expect them
\ to acquire. The present curfew system therefore is
self-defeating in its avowed objective.
This system should be abolished.
a.m.
LIVING AREA AFFAIRS
COMMISSION
RATIONALE ON
UNIVERSITY
RESIDENCE POLICY
CHANGES
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0