The Sun also felt that the student body should have been allowed to solve the problem: "We feel the disturbance caused by the 'no drinking in Schoellkopf Field' rule could have been avoided if the students were given a chance to solve a difficult problem by themselves."

However, no student group, or any group for that matter, will change something it enjoys, and it seems likely that the students would never have taken mass action on their own, unless they had been instructed by the faculty to do so.

The Sun, in another editorial, expressed the feelings of the student body quite well by saying that, regardless of the new ruling, Cornell students could and probably would continue to drink before, after and, with "a little concealment," during the games. Thus the "fun" associated with weekends would in no ways be impaired by this ineffectual faculty ruling.

"Whatever the glories of academic pursuit," the Sun concluded, "nothing can compare with the wild chase of a Cornell house party."

Fifty Casualities

There were undoubtedly some proud Colleges elsewhere in the country which might have disputed such a strong affirmation of the uniqueness of a Cornell house party, but all doubts were dispelled on the following Spring Weekend. Fifty casualties in the course of two days placed the Ithican "wild chase" in a class by itself.

Malott decided this time to remind the student body of its responsibility and called for "immediate and forthright consideration and action." He added that this was "not a condemnation of house parties, ... but an assault on those organizations and individuals who violate the good taste, the good judgement and the rules of good behavior which Cornell University expects of its students."

This statement closely paralled the one made by the Cornell Athletic Association a few months earlier which said that "in the interests of good taste and public safety" the use of alcoholic beverages would be prohibited at Schoellkopf Field.

The emphasis on good taste is notable, for certainly the Cornell man was rapidly becoming a symbol of poor taste and animalism, both nationally and locally. It took the fact of sudden death to convince the administration that it was "time for a change," but once the necessity of change was recognized, it became apparent that the need had been present for a long time.

The opinion of the student body on this matter was quite opposed to the administrations'. Students felt that the death was just an unfortunate accident. One student said, "That was just a tough break. Weekends like that are happening all the time up here. There's not much need for all the fuss."

Another student wrote, in a letter to the Daily Sun, "Fun is, after all, what we seek on a big weekend ... We want the chance to behave irrationally, even to be plain silly, without intolerant glances and critical words from other people .... If you honestly enjoy drinking yourself into limbo, howling obscenities and behaving like an animal, then go ahead .... But please stay away from me and don't drive," she added.

Impelled to Follow

The writer further ventured that most of the girls present at the weekends did not really enjoy themselves in this "blast for blast's sake" atmosphere, where one felt impelled to follow the crowd.

Another person, who seemed fairly representative of the male Cornellian, claimed, however, that "the majority of those girls (who didn't enjoy the weekend) were Co-eds who didn't have dates or those who did but were unfortunate enough not to get pinned or engaged."

This week, as the time neared for social code revisions by the Inter-Fraternity Council to be submitted to the Faculty-Student Committee on Student Activiies, the prevalent attitude of the male student body was that things were pretty nice as they were last fall and that a chance accident should not cause Cornell to throw out its whole tradition of "blast house-parties."