I ` Z.
`I .
 c I I.
. I .
I ` .
A l b ’ R I
. Facu ty Mem er s esponse to Focus ’69
s Focus ’69 was a real catastrophe staff at that time. No, it is not a I think those of ns oider than the
· ° I,. one sense. That is, there were so question of who the speakers were present college generation are likely A {
. people who came to hear what or what the speakers had to say to be somewhat envious of the eoni_ I I  
  said so meaningfully by our that resulted in such abysmal at- mitment that many young people g  
_ gsts, The topic. "Focus on Social tendance. have toward othei-sy a ooininitinent   I ‘ 
 0mlity,” provided an opportunity In no way can such attendance that is relatively selfless, a Cornrnit-   I ' I
 y national speakers. clearly COD- fw attributed to lliatléquafe pLlb~ ment not especially related to their fs - .·  
 med with social morality, to pro- lfCfi}’ or the incompetence of those careers. In that sense, preparing for It I I  
 lyte_ to challenge and to further who directed the program. They acareer seems somewhat unrealistic i I I   '
 tivate Olll' Students. IIOWCVCT. tlftl ill] 3(lIHlI‘t1l)le job. What really or unimportant to many young   I 
...- attendance was abysmally low. accounts for the lack of interest people. That is, from my point of · I ’ 
`•.  finds more students every shown by our students in a forum xiew, an undesirable consequence 1 I ·
i-iday waiting in line to cash on social morality is much deeper of their deep commitment. The - I I
 ecks in the Student Center than than that. There is underway desirable consequences, however, I
 found at Focus ,69. The reasons among all young Americans, and far outweigh, in my opinion, the I  
wrt il  this are, I think, unrelated especially young Americans on the undesirable ones. We should keep l
neither 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. transfomiation in their attitudes to- to be happening with young people I I   ‘
Each was a very distinguished ward. and their behavior regarding. in college communities. \Ve should I I I Q
national figure. William Kunstler is questions of social morality. Very not allow the very small minority of I ,   ’
 the most prominent. the most able simply. they do not want to fall into students who are oriented toward I ,   l
 and the most fearless constitutional the trap of talking more and doing violence in expressing their com- I I   —
lawyer in this country today. He less. Debating questions of social mitment to overshadow the much,     I ;
a·•  as the first in the series with morality was simply not as meaning- much larger group of students, still     _ `
l `h8fl considered to be a brilliance ful an experience as acting on ques- not a part of the idle majority, who     ‘
M.  seldom. if ever. has hit this tions related to social morality. I will find other ways to express I
 mpns. 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 I
argc HW lnhn Seigenthaler. for example_ a moral issue would generate ten them to communicate. but that com-   I I