I was deeply concerned with Mr.
Golladay's approach to his criticism
of Robert Rosen's "Prospectus For
The University." Mr. Golladay, I
feel, saw only in the article a radical
call for the "use of force to dictate
change." The creator of Rapier did
indeed suggest change but specified
the form of such change by hoping
first for discussion, next, if needed,
for peaceful demonstration, and
then only as a final alternative, for
riot. Mr. Golladay sensibly point
out that the "only legitimate pa
open to (Rosen) is the path of
persuasion." this is the road Mr.
Rosen has effectively chosen.
Mr. Golladay charges rather
abrasively that since Mr. Rosen
"had contributed neither his
money, time, nor intellect to the
maintenance of this university, he
has no rights of ownership to
determine policy." According to
these criteria, Robert Rosen is
entitled to this "right." Through his
efforts with Rapier as founder,
editor, and publisher he has, I
believe, contributed a great deal to
the University in all these aspect
Furthermore, the basis of these
standards is invalid; one's standing
as a student should entitle him the
right of participation in policy
formation.
Mr. Rosen has done much
toward enriching the intellectual
atmosphere of the University. He
has pointed out, if nothing else, an
important aspect of the tradition of
the University and its founder that
has been overlooked too long. Mr.
Golladay allows one who "disagrees
with the manner of operation to try
to convince the owners of change."
Robert Rosen has disagreed; he has
also tried.
