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"