Page 2-Sundby; November 5,1978-The Midigan Daily
I
Th&Mich1gonk Daily-Sunday, Nove
RAJIPRLINGS/richard berke
In ourselves,
or in our gen
IM OVER-THE-HILL at age 20,
passe.
I reached that ominous age two
weeks ago, but the reality of my second
decade is only beginning to hit me.
Twenty years. I can't help but think,
I'm too young to be 20!
Some say 13, 21, and 65 are the
critical turning points as far as age
goes. I disagree, for the shift from
carefree teenager to elder citizen is an
abrupt and uncomfortable one. I
remember thinking not so long ago that
most people get married in their early
twenties, turn. gray, and fade into a
middle-aged hiatus, when they use
Grecian Formula and Geritol to com-
pensate for their decay. As the com-
mercial asserts, "You're not getting
older, you're getting better."
But I can't buy that. The prospects of
marriage, divorce, employment, and
wrinkles convince me I'm getting too
old too fast. It seems like yesterday
when I agonized over where I should get
my college education. And now, I don't
know where I'll be living in three
years-let alone if I'll be living at all.
Nowadays when I walk down State,
Street licking a double-scooped
chocolate mint and chocolate rippled
ice cream cone I feel as if everyone else
thinks I'm not "acting my age." So, as
of late, I've turned to daiquiri ice and
rum flavors to symbolize the ter-
mination of my teenage years. At
restaurants, whenever I'm in the mood
for milk, I don't order it. I guess that's
because as a child, I was always stuck
with an overwhelming glass of milk,
while mom and dad sipped Coke, cof-
fee, or another "adult" beverage.
What worries me is that I haven't
passed through all the "rites of
passage" most people go through
before exiting their teens. I did manage
to acquire several stitches two days
before departing from my teens. But I
have yet to break a bone, see Gone With
the Wind, or swim a mile. And I'm
twenty years old. Those experiences
should already be behind me. Now that
I'm "over-the-hill, when am I ever
going to have time to break a leg or suf-
fer through a similar mishap?
IT'S BAD ENOUGH that I missed out
on what I should have done as a
teenager. What's worse, I'm too old to
make up for what I missed. In the past I
could justify occasional immaturity,
telling myself I'm only a teenager. That
rationalization would afford me license
to smash a pumpkin in the street or
shriek soliloquies out my*bedroom win-
dow-as I did last year when the school
would overcome me.
These days, if I feel like acting like a
kid, I have no excuse, no age to hide
behind. If I screamed out a window
today, for example, people might Jook
at me and say, "Hey, that guy has
reverted back to childhood," whereas a
year ago, they'd only be correct in
saying, "Hey, that guy is such a
teenager."
My anxieties over the aging process
are heightened when I watch freshper-
sons roam around campus. Sure, I'm
only a junior, but junior precedes senior
and senior comes just before the Real
World. Those frosh seem so uninitiated,
romping about their dorms, running for
more beer, and trekking to the UGLI.
they haven't discovered that to get by
at this University you needn't be
studious except for the few days before
midterms and finals.
B UT LOOK AT ME, already pontifi-
cating on the "kids at the Univer-
sity" when I was one of them just the
other side of Halloween! That must be
what happens when old age takes its
toll.
I have decided to endure my over-the-
hill existence as gracefully as I can. I
refuse to pull out my single gray strand
of hair and I'm not going to start
wearing the surfer shirts that made up
my wardrobe as a green 10-year-old.
And I'm going to try to heed the adage
that age is only in the mind. The
problem for me, however, is that
wrinkles are going to be difficult to
overlook.
But I'm determined to make the best
of it. No one is going to stop me from
grabbing a lollipop from the cashier's
counter at Big Boy's-or from ordering
up a triple chocolate mint ice cream
cone and sloppily tonguing it as does an
unkempt child.
After all, I do have a few good years
left.
ON HUMAN NATURE
By Edward O. Wilson
Harvard University Press
260 pp. $12.50*
By Diane Haithman
And yet it moves
-Galileo
WE, THE ENLIGHTENED, unfet-
tered by Judeo-Christian dogma,
smiled a magnanimous smile as we
welcomed Cousin Ape to the family
tree. Evolution: we are primate
and proud of it. No matter that
our great-great-greats were huge,
hairy, and ate with their hands. The
earth wasn't the center of the Universe.
anyway. And, despite our hirsute
heritage, there would always be Sunday
School and the bright promise of the
American way. We were still in control.
In control, that is, until Edward O
Wilson introduced us to sociobiology. In
his incendiary book, On Human Nature,
Wilson lines up a formidable argument
in support of a radical proposition:
man's social behavior is directly and
completely controlled by his genes.
There exists nothing quintessentially
human; like the ant, the bee, or any
other insignificant social creature,
man's actions can be traced to a genetic
program-the propagation and
survival of the species. The fashionable
"Nature versus Nurture" controversy,
which lately has fueled anthropologists
for happy bickering, pales in light of
Wilson's claim that genetics does not
"relate" to culture, but instead creates
it. This is sociobiology-the systematic
study of the biological basis of all forms
of social behavior, including our own.
Thus, a gentle entomologist from
Harvard presents us with yet another
natural shock to which our flesh is the
biological heir.
Wilson draws on the research of over
Diane Haithman 's genes made a
double English-Honors Psychology
major unavoidable.
r'
._ .
'%
hi
-f
Wilson
the removal
nothing more
of men and
have come a
tendency
specializatior
variables to t
true for
aggression.
occurs becau
exposure,
predispositioi
But what
the poor, do 1
give? Accord
sacrifice sere
purpose. Wil
nepotism, tL
one's own lif
relatives, s(
transference
has general
ethical guidel
to forfeit the i
benefit of the
at St. Francis
the same as yc
Wilson's th(
solution to t
human natur
generalize it
Although W
evidence to
same factual
rationally
theoretical c
innately-or,
"geneticall
factual histor
speak in unis
yes. But supp(
social conta
structure that
he still "agg
that the pre(
behavior exis
not dominat
culturally pro
But, by the s
considered in
See N
AP/ Dorothy I Crossley
sundaymagmdQdzine FICEST PUZZLE
F 32
- I - I - I -
rL
14
0sJ 16JK
___._.
,- --!- -A-- --i-- --!- --
35j 36
I
FPX:Il 701"-
T 1 F 204 21
D 4 F 42 H 43
A 6 z 65 J 66
T 8 Y 88
"f
I
Z 77 z 78 L 79 Q 8 0
A 101 U 10 B 10 0 10
Q 123 K 124 M 12 N 12 T 12 Z:
G 147 H 148 L 149 G I V]
i 70, Y 17, Y 1? Z
U 193 J 194 195 0491 B 19
fB
S ej K
61 D 62 U 63
84 0 85 1 '86
I ~-9'-~ I - 4 -
1051
*1061# 07 IC
108L 109
3
S112
I
I_
E142 It3 H 4
~2 j 2Y24 P25
4 4J 45 X 41 7 48 V 49
K 61.3 68 L.69 w 7p .
. a 90 v 91 X 92 93'^N_94
~ 1
-;-
J 1,
-'-4. - , - i. -
I
13111 1321 x
133 J 134
.. n . - i A .. --4-
154 i 155
a
154 157
Q 1351R 11 Q 114 U 11
V ia 15.1
N 116
K 175x 1761C.
C 17 WN175
+ 19X 1
I
:131ti:
I I
t
U IE
L6T 161 E-Is2
L3#± 75185
SI
t
I
A. Pensive; yearning
B. Body of ecciasticol rulers
C. Remaining within; inherent
D. Touching ato a single point
E. Time without beginning or end
F. Internal exaggeration
G. Rapturous; dithyrambic
H. Intensify; hasten
I. Duplicate; copy
J. Act of seizing or grasping
K. Ground: basis
L. Sources; fountoinheads
M. Fusion; symph sics
7 76 95 101 121 129 139
4 68 82 98 111 131 155 103 197
23 81 108 117 154 178 190 177
15 168 41 39 62 185 187
1 47 94 143 57 192 169 182.
12 99 20 30 42 32 56 138 159
6 93 147 150 166 186 174 105
2 11 26 43 107 148 170 189 64 200
72 160 86 119 181
9 31 45 59 66110130134153194
17 52 67 8.4 97 134 137 164 175
N. Competent; businesslike
0. Author of Block Beauty
P. Sudden outpouring
Q. Self-governing; independent
R. Not at all; no way
S. Bungler: clod
T. Fill or cram again
U. Visualization
V. Be close to or in contact with
W. Tongue: idiom
X. Vermins: cads
Y. Even-steven; fifty-fifty,
Z. Adolescents
8 75 116 140 126 157 163 176 195
18 29- 34 104 196203
25 55 171 112 60
27 40 58 71 114 123 80 135 146 162
5 74 51 113 167 156
BY
STEPHEN J .
POZSGA I
Copyright 1978
INSTRUCTIONS
Guess the words defined at the
left and write them in over
their numbered dashes. Then,
transfer each letter to the cor-
responding numbered square
in the grid above. The letters
printed in the upper-right-hand
corners of the squares indi-
cate from 'what clue-word a
particular. square's letter
comes from. The grid, when
filled in, should read as a
quotation from a published
work. The darkened squares
are the spaces between words.
Some words may carry over
to the- next line. Meanwhile,
the first letter of each guessed
word at the left, reading down,
forms an acrostic, giving the
author's name and the title of
the work from which the quote
is extracted. As words and
phrases begin to form in the
grid, you can work back and
forth from clues to grid until
the puzzle is complete.-
Answer to previous puzzle
"Just as in return the ad-
herent receives a total
explanation of man and this
totality is obtained, not by
actually explaining everything
but by an encasement of its
activity, a severe and absolute
restriction of attention such'
that everything that is not
explained is not in view."
Julian Jaynes
(The) Origin of
Consciousness (In the
Breakdown of the
Bicameral Mind)
IN 0T
W HAT IS COLLEGE for? In a,
renowned book published in 1965,
Laurence Veysey described three dif-
ferent answers to this question, an-
swers which were widely advanced in
the late nineteenth century and which
then conditioned The Emergence of the
American University (Veysey's title).
In one view, undergraduate
education was understood as part of a
larger university function, namely the
discovery, preservation, and tran-
smission of knowledge. This view, often
associated with the profoundly influen-
tial model of the German university,
presupposed the commitment of faculty
and students to truth as the fundamen-
tal institutional ideal. Within them, the
university community struggled to ex-
plain the structure of past and present
reality, to identify the needs and oppor-
tunities of the future, and also to train
others to carry on this struggle.
In a ,.second1 and more charac-
teristically American view, the univer-
sity (especially the public university)
was understood as fulfilling a
predominantly social function, namely
to prepare its students to assume
careers which would be both in-
dividually and socially rewarding. This
view was utilitarian. In it, the univer-
Bruce Frier is a professor of Clas-
sica/ Studiesa~t- ' , , % 1 1,
(ER
WORDS/brute f
.$3 54 145 165 16 188
40 behavioral scientists to support his
theory, including B. F. Skinner,
Richard Herrnstein, David Premack,
and the University's own biologist and
Curator of Insects, Richard Alexander.
Using factual examples from
anthropological history, Wilson
illustrates how his theory of biological
determinism may be applied to
"explain" a range of cultural
developments. When we put faith in
Darwin's evolution, we accept
"survival of the fittest." But Wilson
asks us to believe that all of our most
"human" characteristics are produced
merely for the survival of the fittest
genes.
Wilson opens his exposition with an
sity existed primarily to furnish society
with the skilled men and women that
society required, and in this and other
ways to assist society's stable change
and improvement.
A THIRD VIEW, derived from
Greco-Roman discussions of edu-
cation, focused neither on the
acquisition of knowledge nor on the
needs of society. In this third view, the
primary aim of education was student-
oriented; the curriculum was designed
to acquaint students, on a broad scale,
with the range and substance of human
achievement, and in that way to fill
them with a sense of their own in-
dividual worth. This was the concept of
humanism, often coupled with the catch
phrase "liberal education."
I think onerneeds only to state these
three views in order to perceive how ex-
traordinarily tenacious they have been,
despite their basic irreconcibilit,
within a modern university such as
Michigan. Deriving from the time of the
modern university's creation, all of
them continue to have their advocates
(some vocal, most silent) within
Michigan's faculty and student body.
To ask which view is "right" is almost
pointless: for each view has its own in-
trinsic appeal and it is unlikely that any
of them will prevail in the near future.
Indeed, the very tenig noes!L ' of'
examination of heredity, which turns
out to be a relatively innocuous essay
on primates, chimps, and their
behavioral similarity to man.
Behavior. Thesword commotes such
biological necessities as grooming,
yawning, mating, and sleeping. ,But
what of hope, religion, altruism? Surely
something is sacred to the human
race. And what about love?
Wilson becomes more controversial
as he explores this "human" behavior.
Love wasn't made in heaven, but seems
merely an adaptation that increases the
likelihood of parental harmony and
thus the chances for the offspring's
survival. We don't hear bells; we only
hear genes. Romance, like bathing and
these three views reflects a crucial fact
about the modern American univer-
sity: the debate between these views
has never been resolved. Rather, ex-
cept for a few instances, modern
educational policy has tended to involve
compromise, and hence - indecision
about the ultimate purposes of
education.
Much of the educational debate at the
University of Michigan can easily be
recast in terms of these conflicting
views of education. LSA's curricular
requirements, especially : as to
distribution and concentration,
inevitably reflect compromise bet-
ween views; the last major study of the
University's undergraduate education,
in 1975, declined to commit itself to any
single view. Also, outside the
curriculum, radically differing views of
the university and of education have
underlain, for instance, last year's
dispute on DNA research, this year's
arguments over the University's in-
vestments in South Africa and over
Prof. Samoff's tenure, and the impen-
ding debate about LSA credit for ROTC.
If there is no consensus on the fun-
damental goals of education, it is easy
to understand how each successive
educational decision provides the set-
ting for never-ending controversy over
fundamentals.
T HIS PLU
objectives
and disadvan
pluralism ha
university a s
experience,
educational.-i
United States;
been able' to
changing tim
sight of alter
promise has b
teristic of lM
policy.
On the othe
general con
educational pr
the Universit
measure of
tiveness; diffu
greatly increa
taming any a:
this is a good
depends on ind
any event, the
sity's faculty t
matter has shi
structuring ed
defining educe
dividualestu
become large]
choice, and the
laid a great p:
telligence in I
objectives°.
28 87 96 161 19 141 201
13 22 158 48 63 85 115 144 183 193 136 102
35 91 180 151 127 49
44 61 179 36 106 132 70 90
37 46 73 92 122 133 199
24 120 75 191 198 .88
33 128 202 '77 65 173
10 53
79 50 109 14 149
3 21 38 69 89 100 125 118 142 172 152 184
] 1 leia1 .. 'i..* . *I'4 °e J* ,.iI, L tt I
L"