1961

A most impressive response! It appears that the Class of '61 is indeed alive and well. You gentlemen responded at something like 8 or 9 times the normal monthly rate. This does not include two phone calls (long distance) and two letters from non'61 's who were interested enough to write.

Clearly you all are as tired of gossip columns as I am. The new, more thoughtful, format was totally endorsed with the suggested addition that if there are important personal statistics, they should be briefly included. I agree and will comply.

The results: Question 1. "How do you stand - with the 20- or the 40-year-olds?" 86% of those who replied aligned themselves with the younger generation. Some of this might be wishful thinking, some of it might be caused by the current trend for everybody to align themselves with the younger folk. The reasoning accompanying the responses, however, indicated that the choice of alignment was considered carefully. Dick Bailey feels that the Woodstock Generation... is the "only real hope of making the kind of rhetoric we used to get. .. at convocation ... into something more than a kind of specious underpinning for careers in business." Bob Evans made two good points on this question: he is concerned that "at age 30 a generation gap may already effectively separate (us) from college men and women!" Bob also suspected that many more of our age group are drawn to the energy and idealism of the 20 year olds than will openly admit it (the response so far from '61 indicates otherwise).

Question 2, on political stance, elicited the most comprehensive and interesting replies. For that reason I'm going to skip over it now and carry it to next month.

Question 3 concerning personal value priorities was interesting in a couple of ways. Firstly, most of you rated the love relationship (with someone else) most important followed closely by family life/children. Farther behind were job fulfillment, financial security, and spiritual peace. Not too much emphasis was given to self-development, political effectiveness, and future possibilities. Nobody cared much about past memories. The thing that struck me about this was the fact that most of you in Question 1 aligned yourself with the younger generation. Yet, those values most important to that younger generation (from what I know anyway) are self-development, political effectiveness, future possibilities and a rewarding love relationship. It looks to me like a discrepancy. Is our alliance with the younger folk one of passive sympathy, not genuine identification and commitment? Or does the younger folks' interest in self and Political development and our orientation more towards home and family indicate their idealism and our disillusionment with our attempts to change ourselves or our world? I didn't state that very clearly but I wanted to because it's important... try reading it again. Are we fooling ourselves by thinking we're young and liberal when actually we're not willing to jeopardize our personal stability and security to "take arms against a sea of troubles?"

Maybe Dick Lemke sums it up. "Politicall. I am.a pragmatic liberal which is consistent with my liberal engineering upbringing, However, when I walk on Santa Brabara's oily beaches, breathe Los Angeles' filthy air, or listen to stories of social justice as told by my revolutionary psychiatric social working wife, I experience active revisionist tendencies." Art Latimer, from the opposite side of the country, shares the concern, "... on the whole we are members of the most fortunate generation in terms of training and opportunities ever known. If we cannot or do not meet the morally attendant social and political responsibilities, we can hardly complain of the failure of others."

John Damon disagrees, at least in part, "It scares me how the 'younger generation ' as you require we call it, has changed - perhaps evolved - not just with the length of hair, etc., but with an attitude that no longer questions the context of life in a socially and morally conscious manner, but seems to seek an 'atraditional' overthrow, Larry Jakubsen seems to support this position also, "Law and order is essential. It is also essential to have a process for change within the law. I guess I align myself with the establishment, a little disappointed that young radicals who do break the law aren't slapped into place."

I think this is a critical issue. You must have thought long and hard about where you choose to draw the line between (1) the risky proposition of fighting aggressively for what you believe and (2) protecting the security and happiness of those you love If you missed writing on the first poll write me on this question. I'm confused by the information so far.

I have no more space this month. I'll share some of the very excellent thoughts on the political alignment question with you next month. In the meantime, do this for me will you? ...

If you haven't already written in, do so. Instead of spreading our responses over three questions why don't we concentrate for a month or so on this one point, "How do you stand politically? 1. Revolutionary, 2. Revisionist, 3. Middle of the road, 4. Conservative, or 5. Chauvinist, and why?"

In future months, I (for one) would like to discuss with you such things as ecology (which was much on the mind of DuttonFoster, who lives in Colorado virtually on top of a "peaceful" nuclear explosion called "Project Rulison"). Andy Cohen brought up the subject of refusing to financially support the College. There have been a number of '61's who have done so for various reasons, let's find out why. On the other hand, it might be worthwhile to see why '61's who do aggressively support the College are doing so. Sensitivity training interests me a great deal. Mike Butler just returned from a comprehensive week or two at Esalin Institute in California and is both enthusiastic and convincing on this controversial subject.

I'm personally very pleased with what you guys have done in writing so thoughtfully and honestly. It's taken me four hours to write this column (versus the usual one) but it has been overwhelmingly worth it because I've been reading about and quoting YOU —as humans, not frigging statistics.

I can't express my feelings as well as Roy Singer did, "Maybe - it's not too late - and we can still turn each other on - with a vibrancy and relevance of thought that most of us can still draw out of storage."

Secretary 156 West 73rd St. New York, N. Y. 10023

Treasurer, Box 804, Wall St. Station New York, N. Y. 10005