(EolUgtate
A NEWSPAPER OF IDEAS
The Great Debates?
Last Thursday night nearly one-hundred million
Americans watched a debate between two men running
for this nation’s highest office, the presidency. What we
saw was not impressive. It did not inspire confidence.
One quickly realized that these two men were not of the
intellectual elite, as were our forefathers; one also
realized that these two men were one step away from
the presidency because they were very wealthy, were
willing contestants in the dehumanizing game of
politics, and were able handlers of the mass media.
Neither contestant exhibited the gravity of personality
or the unshakeableness of ideal and conviction that a
man like Abraham Lincoln must have exhibited as he
stood at the podium in Freepwrt, Illinois in 1858, in a
similar debate with Stephen A. Douglas. In short one
saw that the Republican Gerald R. Ford and the
Democrat Jimmy Carter were not necessarily the two
men most capable of creatively handling a job as
complex as the American presidency.
For this reason all Americans who are eligible to vote
should carefully consider all of the minor party can
didates. It is unfortunate that our democracy has
developed a fairly rigid two party system. The can
didates of the minor parties often go unheard in the
monopolized roar of the two major parties. It is again
unfortunate that these candidates, who often speak
directly and plainly to the issues, are ignored while the
general populace is force-fed the garbage created by the
major candidates “media-men.” Is Susan Ford having
an affair? Do Jimmy Carters’ eyes brighten when he
thumbs through an issue of Playboy? What does it
matter?
So when you go to the polls this November, go with a
good understanding of all the candidates, down to the
smallest party, and vote for the man or woman you feel
most truly qualified for the job, even if you know that he
or she will almost certainly be beaten by Ford or Carter
(if they are not your choice). This represents a true
vote, not one “bought” by the effects of the mass media.
Fred Claridge
Are Senators Responsive?
The senate is probably the most exclusive club in
America. It seems that besides the requirements set by
the constitution, the requirement of wealth has also been
added. Of the one-hundred senators, thirty-eight are
millionaires. The mean average of the other sixty-two is
above the two-hundred thousand dollar figure. The fact
that so many senators are millionaries and that the rest
are of considerable wealth raises an important question.
How sensitive can the senate really be to the problems
facing middle-America?
Those men are experts in various fields and they
bring to government vast amounts of knowledge from
their fields. They understand the stock market, tax
bases, and defense contracts; but can they understand
how it feels to be unemployed, paying high utility bills,
and living in poor housing? Senators are too far
removed economically to properly understand the
issues that confront the majority of Americans. The
senate is supposed to be a representative body, but who
do they represent? Can they speak for people they do not
know? Can they speak for people they share almost
nothing with?
The fallacy equating wealth with leadership must be
put to rest! Unresponsive, rich bureaucrats must not
continue to be elected. Men and women who know and
share the problems of middle-America must be elected
instead. If they are not, cries for assistance will continue
to fall on deaf ears.
Alfred Sutton
The Gradeless University Examined
The Collegiate
FREDERICK CLARIDGE
Editor
•Associate Editor Michael Walker
Business Manager Robert Wilson
Photographers Chamness, Douglas Hackney
■\rt I'-d'tor Darrell English
Guy Hyatt
Proofreaders Dale .Adams, Terry Bossley
Staff Writers Raoul Benoit, Jones Fuquay
The Collegiate is published nearly every week each regular
semester by the students of .Atlantic Christian College,
Wilson, N.C. 27893. The views expressed herein are not
necessarily those of the faculty or administration.
By ROBERT M. PIRSIG
Phaedrus’ argument for the
abolition of the degree-and-
grading system produced a
nonplussed or negative reaction
in all but a few students at first,
since it seemed, on first
judgment, to destroy the whole
University system. One student
laid it wide open when she said
with complete candor, “Of
course you can’t eliminate the
degree and grading system.
After all, that’s what we’re here
for.”
She spoke the complete truth.
The idea that the majority of
students attend a university for
an education independent of the
degree and grades is a little
hypocrisy everyone is happier
not to expose. Occasionally some
students do arrive for an
education but rote and the
mechanical nature of the in
stitution soon converts them to a
less idealistic attitude.
The demonstrator was an
argument that elimination of
grades and degrees would
destroy this hypocrisy. Rather
than deal with generalities it
dealt with the specific career of
an imaginary student who more
or less typified what was found
in the classroom, a student
completely conditioned to work
for a grade rather than for the
knowledge the grade was sup
posed to represent.
Such a student, the demon
strator hypothesized, would go
to his first class, get his first
assignment and probably do it
out of habit. He might go to his
second and third as well. But
eventually the novelty of the
course would wear off and,
because his academic life was
not his only life, the pressure of
other obligations or desires
would create circumstances
where he just would not be able
to get an assignment in.
Since there was no degree or
grading system he would incur
no penalty for this. Subsequent
lectures which presumed he’d
completed the assignment might
be a little more difficult to un
derstand, however, and this
difficulty, in turn, might weaken
his interest to a point where the
next assignment, which he
would find quite hard, would also
be dropped. Again no penalty.
In time his weaker and weaker
understanding of what the
lectures were about would make
it more and more difficult for
him to pay attention in class.
Eventually he would see he
wasn’t learning much; and
facing the continual pressure of
outside obligations, he would
stop studying, feel guilty about
this and stop attending class.
Again, no penalty would be
attached.
But what had happened? The
student, with no hard feelings on
anybody’s part, would have
flunked himself out. Good! This
is what should have happened.
He wasn’t there for a real
education in the first place and
had no real business there at all.
A large amount of money and
effort had been saved and there
would be no stigma of failure
and ruin to haunt him the rest of
his life. No bridges had been
burned.
The student’s biggest problem
was a slave mentality which had
been built into him by years of
carrot-and-whip grading, a mule
mentality which said, “If you
don’t whip me, I won’t work.”
He didn’t get whipped. He didn’t
work. And the cart of
civilization, which he supposedly
was being trained to pull, was
just going to have to creak along
a little slower without him.
This is a tragedy, however,
only if you presume that the cart
of civilization, “the system,” is
pulled by mules. This is a
common, vocational, “location”
point of view, but it’s not the
Church attitude.
The Church attitude is that
civilization, or the “system” or
“society” or whatever you want
to call it, is best served not by
mules but by free men. The
purpose of abolishing grades and
degrees is not to punish mules or
to get rid of them but to provide
an environment in which that
mule can turn into a free man.
The hypothetical student, still
a mule, would drift around for a
while. He would get another kind
of education quite as valuable as
the one he’d abandoned, in what
used to be called the “school of
hard knocks.” Instead of
wasting money and time as a
high-status mule, he would now
have to get a job as a low
mule, maybe a
Actually his real status w'ol”"
up. He would be makin»^°
contribution for a i, ^ ^
Maybe that’s what he wS
for the rest of his life ^
he’d found his level But
count on it. ‘““'don't
In time - six months-
years, perhaps - a ni,
would easily begin to takeS
He would become less i
satisfied with a kind of du5
day-to-day shopworl‘’“ts
See UNIVERSITY Page 3
■Viewpoint
The Possibility of Utopia
The idea of a Utopian society is a dream that has
been with man since the beginning of his
philosophical thought. But we ask ourselves the
question; is a Utopian society obtainable, is it
feasible? If, like me, you are an Emersonian op
timist you will say yes, it is possible, but not
probable.
In order to have a Utopian society, mankind will
have to undergo a drastic and radical realignment
of his ideals, society, and values. Since the
beginning of time man has tried to develop systems
of government that lend themselves to this concept
of Utopia. Every government tries to effect a
Utopia of its own. But governments can not bring
about Utopia. In fact it is a prerequisite to a
Utopian society that governments be abolished.
Until mankind can rid himself of the need of
government, until he can purge himself of an
aggressive nature, and until man cen develop in
himself a deep sense of humanity, brotherhood and
kinship with his environment there can be no
Utopia. When man can elevate himself to the level
of existence in which he can exist peaceably with
all things and will willingly help another because
the other would willingly help him, then he can
begin to think of a Utopian society.
As long as there are governments, nations, and
nationalities there can be no such ordered a society
as a Utopia. While governments exist, there will be
conflict between them. As long as there are con
flicts, there will be hatred. As long as there is
hatred, there will be preiudice. As long as there is
prejudice, we will have to live in this most bar
barous and animalistic form of life we call civilized
society.
Hence, as stated earlier and as pointed out by
Robert Wilson in an earlier edition of the
Collegiate, the changes must come from within the
individual. Each and every individual must con
centrate on making himself a better person, and on
co-existing peacefully with all. We must base our
new personalities on honour, integrity, justice,
respect for life, and respect for each other. This is
an extremely radical concept, but when every
individual in the world does this, there will be a
fusing together of all men in a fraternal (for lack of
a better word) kinship and a Utopian society will
naturally emerge and establish itself.
Mike Walker
5lat50-'
Back to the Collegiate in just one minute, after this
important message.