Live!
by Melanie Mullins
“Don’t live for tomorrow, it may not come. Don’t live
for yesterday, it has already been. Instead, live for to
day, for in the end, it is all we really have.”
As I reflect upon my two years here at Brevard Col
lege I caij not help but remember the quote above which
was written in my senior high school annual by a very
special teacher of mine.
I cannot believe that just two years ago from this June
1 I was graduating from high school. In almost two
weeks. I, as well as many others, will be turning the tas-
sle again. I think this time it will hurt worse.
High, I felt that I was taking just another “step” in life.
Quite honestly, I thought that I would feel the same way
about graduating from B.C. As my two years come to an
end, however, I do not feel that way at all.
My emotions toward leaving this place are terribly
confused. I am ready to go on and better myself, and,
yet, I am saddened at the thought of actually saying,
“Au Revoir” to Brevard. I think that is what Brevard
College is all about.
There is a certain spirit which evolves around the
Brevard College community, and, if given the chance,
can envelope each and every individual here.
It is a spirit of unity, truth, and, more importantly,
love. That spirit can enlighten a person and cause him to
strive for personal achievement to set and reach goals
in life. An individual can not help but grow while at
Brevard College.
Yes, Brevard College is a place of growth. However,
its strength is its weakness in the case. Brevard is only a
two year college. That spirit of unity, truth, and love
makes a person want to go on and better himself in hfe
and to continue growing. Yet, when the two years are
finished, a person reflects upon his past two years and
realizes it will be hard to say good-bye. I am going to
miss this place tremendously!
No, graduating from Brevard College is not just
another “step” in life. It is a cherished, unique ex
perience; a light, which I hope will be reflected in all of
my life’s endeavors.
To end, I would like to share the following poem which I
was written by “an appreciative, soon to be, graduate.” [
I BID YOU GOOD-BYE
The day is soon approaching
When I must say so long,
To those who’ve been endearing
And Nature’s tranquil song.
To friends of soon past years,
I thank you for memories cherished;
For each is unique and very dear.
And the love for “all” cannot be perished.
For those who differ from my being,
I thank you for the lessons taught;
For I might have gone on unseeing
That “true” friends must be sought.
For those of you I do not know,
I wish you luck in all endeavors.
No matter how or where you go,
May God’s faith be your lever.
To the mountains-I bid a thanks,
For tranquility was always there-
Over each and every bank.
My burden was yours to bear.
My time is almost through
In this mountain valley high,
For now is time to tred anew,
And bid Brevard good-bye.
To B.C. specifically
I cannot repay.
The lessons that have made me
The better person I am today.
Arms Freeze Not Good
President Reagan recently rebuked Soviet presi
dent Leonid Brezhnev’s proposal of an arms freeze
by saying, “A freeze simply isn’t good enough
because it doesn’t go far enough.”
Mr. Reagan is right. A freeze in production of ar
mament just isn’t a sufficient precaution.
We are advancing toward doom-nuclear arma
ment is a grim culmination of our intelligence and a
potential instrument of our extinction; as Franken
stein turned against his mad-scientist creator, so
too can nuclear warheads turn against us.
Produced in the name of peace, nuclear arms
■pose an increasing threat to the world-a threat
which needs to be realistically addressed by the
Soviets and the Americans.
Now the talk of arms freeze surfaces (perhaps a
seemingly easier goal to obtain than reduction); but
this serves little purpose-there would still remain
many warheads capable of annihilating the earth
ten-fold.
Simon Ramo, the chief scientist for the ICBM pro
gram in the 1950’s, said, “Neither nation can hope to
gain any military advantage...Massive retaliation
must be expected by any would-be first striker who
is not insane.” And it probably would require a mad
man (or woman) to push that mythical red button
which would start the end, so say former U.S. presi
dents Nixon and Ford, and former Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger-all of whom agree that such
an act would be suicidal. “It never seriously enters
(presidents’) minds that they really will have to use
today’s missile forces,” said a top Washington aid
of four U.S. presidents.
But history has a tendency to repeat itself. The
wrong type of people have been the leaders; and
such anti-nuke groups as Ground Zero, a nationwide
nuclear education group, think that such a person
could again appear and start a nuclear holocaust.
The essential message of all the anti-nuclear
arms groups is relatively simple: it’s time for arms
reduction, and in the same manner that it grew-in
the name of peace and security. Until then, no one
can feel entirely safe with everybody’s missiles
aimed at everybody else. Now’s the time for
massive reduction.
Letter to the Editor
‘Name Withheld’ Policy
is Undesirable
Dear Editor,
I got such a kick out of seeing
my words in print a few issues
back that I can’t resist trying it
again. Again, I have a reaction to
something in print, this time in
your paper - the letter about the
music department in the last
issue.
What I didn’t like was the
“name withheld.” This is the se
cond time in two issues I’ve seen
this, the first being a letter oppos
ing the way evolution is being
presented in biology classes.
I’m not about to defend the
music department, but I dare say
there are some who would, and
they were denied the forum made
available to this no-name. The
letter could have been written by
some discouraged music students
who sincerely wanted a better
situation for themselves, the col
lege, and those students to come
in the future. The letter could
have been written by one petty,
jealous student or faculty
member who, in parting, wished
to do a good department some
damage. Who knows which in
terest The Clarion has served? I
don’t.
The rights of a free press are
closely tied to its responsibilities,
as journalism throughout
America has recently
demonstrated rather dramatical
ly (Pulizer prize scandals,
Cambodian and Irish staged
“scenarios,” e.g.). The question
arises as to how one can voice dis
sent with impunity, without in
curring the wrath of irate band or
theory teachers or department
heads. Thoreau would say we
simply must take these risks and
go to jail for our beliefs or we do
not deserve the freedom to write
letters at all.
However, I think there are
ways. Let’s assume everything
the writer describes to be pretty
much the way things are. Here’s
what I’d like to have seen done:
this writer ^nd others of similar
opinions go to the department
chairman, the dean, the presi
dent. They present the content of
the letter. If none of those who
are responsible for the conditions
pay attention or show concern for
the plaintiffs’ opinions, they go
tell their story to The Clarion.
The staff of The Clarion do the
best they can to find out whether
or not there’s substance to the
charges and then, with the
editors’ signatures implied, print
their findings.
This process is called in-
^^tigative reporting, and if done
pftperly, is excellent, responsi
ble journalism, and is one of the
bulwarks of a free society. I sug
gest that The Clarion make it a
policy not to print anonymous let
ters. No reputable rag does.
Sincerely,
Guess who?
CLARION STAFF
Melanie Mullins Editor
Jon Zillioux Asst. Editor
Cecil Collier Business Manager
Bobby Baxter, Steve Rabey photographers
Randy Ward, Tim Ellis, Laura Hines Cartoonists
Ken Chamlee Advisor
Staff: Kari Howard, Sandy Hulbert, Gay Harshbarger, Chris
Atkins, DeAnna Johnson, Patsy
Dickey, Craig Wilson, Regina Worthman, Maria Sentelle.