blacks, and studying the menus in thencafeterias to include ethnic food.nThese extortionist sit-in methods,nhowever, are nothing compared to Mr.nDufFey’s reaction. Duffey said the studentsnwould not be punished for theirnactions. He described the confrontationnas a “good education for them,nand me as well. I would have liked tonthink these are things we would havendone [in any case].” A student spokesman,nDwayne Warren, said he expectednthe chancellor to receive cooperation.n”Some students are verynenthusiastic about the whole process,”nhe said.nThat these student violators of thenlaw are not punished is hardly surprising.nIt is almost inconceivable that anuniversity president would expel anblack student for any infraction of whatnremains of the university’s behaviorncode, or the civic code for that matter.nBut what is surprising is the apparentnbelief of one of the nation’s leadingneducators that this confrontation withnstudents was a good education for him.nI wonder what it is that Mr. Duffeynlearned, or was it one of those “peaknexperiences” to which our New Ageneducators are so fond of referring? Toncontend that “these are things” thatnwould have changed even if there werenno sit-in is a transparent hedge. Clearly,nMr. Duffey gave in to the students.nIt is obvious from the statement of Mr.nWarren that students are pleased withnthe result. Of course, any other responsenwould have been irrational.nThe students got what they wanted—ncomplete administrative surrender.nIn his conciliation statement. ChancellornDuffey thanked the students forntheir protest. “During the past fivendays you have engaged in a dramaticnact to express your concern for fundamentalnprinciples on behalf of faculty,nstaff, and students, and we are gratefulnto you for reminding us of obligationsnwe share as members of a communitynof learning.” It might be hyperbole tondescribe Mr. Duffey as the NevillenChamberlain of higher education, butnon one matter there can be no doubt:nstudent demonstrators get their way.nIn the past, there might have beennsome token resistance to the agitators.nA university president would have feltnobliged to say that the student demandsnwere accepted because they were sensible,nthough their methods were deplor­nable. With the lessons of the post-60’snnow firmly in place, even this dissimulation,nthis passing nod to social order,nhas been discarded. Nondemocraticnmethods are now acceptable, perhapsneven expected. The learning that occursnoutside the classroom takes thenform of discovering how to get yournway by disregarding civilized norms.nHollander and Duffey are no worsenthan most college and university presidentsnwho lack the courage and confidencento take on the demonstratorsnand teach them a lesson, literally andnfiguratively. What should be understoodnby the public off campus is thatnthe legacy of the 60’s is entrenched. Ifncampus disruptions don’t make headlinesnany more it is because the battle isnover — the academic center did notnhold, and colleges are in thralldom tonthe radical ethos, despite the yuppieninfatuation with making a buck.n— Herbert LondonnLaurie Dann, a bizarre psychotic whonsent poisoned food to acquaintancesnand former employers and oncenstabbed her husband with an ice pick,nshot up a second-grade classroom innWinnetka, Illinois, murdering onenchild and wounding several others beforenkilling herself. To people in thencommunity, it should have been (andnwas) a source of grief and outrage. Toneveryone else, it should have beennnone of their business; Winnetkansndeserved to be let alone to deal withnthe situation they knew firsthand. Naturally,nthat was not to be; the mediansoon descended on the town, transmogrifyingna lone lunatic’s rampageninto a National Event, complete withnanalyses of its significance and prescriptionsnto ensure that it never happensnagain.nAmong the Lessons to Be Learned,nof course, was the pressing need forngun control. The other preferred recommendationsninvolved medicalnprofessionals—brain research (“newnknowledge and new treatments”)nwould furnish the cure. The relevantnquestions, according to a ChicagonTribune columnist, were: “Could antumor or an aneurysm have interferednwith the neurons and synapses andnbeen reflected in [Dann’s] behavior?nWas there an abnormal mix of chemicalsnor misfirings in her brain’s electro­nnnchemical workings? Did she have subtlenbrain damage caused at birth or by anslight, silent mistake in prenatal brainndevelopment? Was an error coded innher genes set to trigger abnormal behaviornin young adulthood?”nClearly there would be no talk ofnchance, sin, or bad luck here. Thenassumptions were all of Utopian socialnengineers. Evil is a treatable pathology,nwhich can, literally, be surgically removednby human methods — analysis,ndrugs, and other clever techniques.nMan is malleable and perfectible in thenhands of credentialed professionals. Indeed,none much-praised aspect of thenWinnetka affair was that, within 24nhours of the shooting, a large team ofnpsychiatrists had been dispatched ton”counsel the community.” (Just hownwe survived prior to psychiatry is nevernasked — some backward folk think wenprayed a lot.) As editorial writers callnfor other communities to developnsquads like Winnetka’s, it is clear thatnin the progressive future society noncitizen will be without a shrink. It’llnprobably be a mandatory “safety requirement,”nlike seat-belt laws.nSuch attitudes are already morendeeply embedded than most peoplenrealize. Virtually every commentatornfound Dann’s shooting spree not onlynrevolting but surprising — “Winnetka’snUnexplainable Tragedy,” read a typicalnheadline — as if it were expected thatnthe professional classes had abolishednmadness and wickedness. The effort tonconstruct the New Socialist Man, wenmay recall, began in much the samenway. (MK)nFor Immediate ServicenChroniclesnNEW SUBSCRIBERSnTOLL FREE NUMBERn1-800-435-0715nILLINOIS RESIDENTSn1-800-892-0753nAUGUST 1988 / 7n