d i .
L l if i
A 1 M is t R l  
F acu ty em er s esponse to Focus °69 l 2
E $ · .
Focus ’69 was a real catastrophe staff at that time. No, it is not a l think those ol: no oltlet than the  
{none sense. That is, there were so question of who the speakers were present oollege generation are likely   ` i
fgtl*l)Q()l)lC \\'lI() CLINIC to llC1lI' \Vl]iIi OT \Vl`|1li il]C Sp€3l(€I`S hlld to Say t() be ggmgwhat glrlvloug gf the Com-   ` E
was said S0 mvtllllllgilllly by OllI' that I`CSl1liC(l lll SllCll &l)ySl'1'l8l Eli- mitmgnt that many ygung people { ; l _
guests. The topic, "Focus on Social tcndance. have toward others, a commitment '   3
l{0t·nlity_” provided an opportunity In no way can Such attendance that is relatively selfless, a commit- l   l 3
[0; national speakers. clearly COI}- l>C tlttfillutcd to inadequate pub- ment not especially related to their I     .- V
cemed with social morality. to pro- licity or the incompetence of those careers. In that sense, preparing for l l · Z
selyte, to challenge and to further who directed the program. They acareer seems somewhat unrealistic i     I »·
motivate our students. llowevcr. did an admirable job. \Vhat really or unimportant to many young       i
llnnttendanee was ahysmally low. accounts for the lack of interest people. That is, from my point of 3 % l I  
One finds more students every shown by our students in a forum view, an undesirable consequence 1 T    
ltnday waiting in line to cash on social morality is much deeper of their deep commitment. The Y E · A i
cheeks in the Student Center than than that. There is underway desirable consequences, however, · i » .
onefound at Focus ’69. The reasons among all young Americans, and far outweigh, in my opinion, the   I i
for this are. I think. unrelated especially young Americans on the undesirable ones. \Ve should keep j
either to the speakers who came or college campuses, a fundamental a very close look at what is going   . ¢
to the messages they had for us. transformation in their attitudes to- to be happening with young people 1     l
Each was a very distinguished ward. and their behavior regarding, in college communities. \Ve should   l l .
national figure. \Villiam Kunstler is questions of social morality. Very not allow the very small minority of   ‘     `
the most prominent. the most able simply. they do not want to fall into students who are oriented toward l , l e
andthe most fearless constitutional the trap of talking more and doing violence in expressing their com-   l l Z
lavwer in this country today. Ile less. Debating questions of social mitment to overshadow the much,     lr . 5
Spoke as the first in the series with morality was simply not as meaning- much larger group of students, still   I ll
what I considered to be a brilliance ful an experience as acting on ques- not a part of the idle majority, who   l lg I t
that seldom. if ever. has hit this tions related to social morality. I will find other ways to express l  
tampus. The others are promi- have no doubt that any event in- themselves. They’re going to com- .  
nent in their own right as well. volving significant social action on municate just as Focus ’69 wanted l I
lohn Seigcnthaler. for example. a moral issue would generate ten them to communicate, but that com-   .
tditor of the Nashville Tennessean, times the number of students given munication will involve SOITIQ form f   —
isa real fighter on questions of the same publicity. The students of action. It’s our responsibility to 1 I
nffltlftl morality. I had the good want to extend themselves into the insure that such action finds others ,
lnttune of working closely with him lives of others rather than talk receptive.    
last spring during the California about the need to do so. Gene L. Mason   ,
Democratic Primary, as both of us This has some desirable as well Assistant Professor   t
were OU Scnator Robert Kennedy’s as some undesirable consequences, Depaftlnént of Political Science I   I
l ;
I r
l I - .
1
`
l
ss . ' .