Page Two
Our Ed. Policy
The necessity for a statement of
editorial policy has become evi
dent during the past few weeks
and although no formal requests
have been made, I would like to
clear up some misunderstandings.
From the beginning of the school
term, an apparent lack of interest
in the student body has been noted
(in fact, two editorials and a let
ter to the editor in the last issue
of the Guilfordian concerned them
selves with precisely this topic).
However, the editorial staff has
recognized no real efforts on the
part of any school organization to
reduce this lackadaisical atmos
phere.
As the main communicative or
gan of the college the Guilfordian
felt that something had to be done
and decided to tackle the problem.
In an effort to produce some
sort of controversy we took specific
stands on subjects which should
have been of the utmost impor
tance to students of this school.
Realizing full well that our views
did not necessarily represent those
of the entire student body, we in
vited comments, articles, and let
ters.
It was of course hoped that the
response would have been favor
able, in support of the manner
in which the Guilfordian handled
the issues. However, this was not
always the case. Still, we feel that
negative response is far better than
none at all, for it stimulated tlie
students and faculty to look at
the issues thoughtfully, even to the
point of taking stands in direct op
position to the ones which we had
made.
This we consider to be a healthy
attitude. For there is a small in
distinct line which separates the
action of a group against a dis
liked cause and the positive action
taken in favor of something else.
We are extremely pleased to see
so many students concerned about
their school, for this is certainly as
it should be. Yet we feel that we
have been perhaps overly criti
cized for our policy which has
been carried out with all good
intentions.
The articles had been written
with the knowledge that many
would be displeased, yet we are
reminded of a uote from Aesop's
Fables . . . "Please all and you
will please none." Hoping that
more will be pleased with our fu
ture writings, we intend to con
tinue our policy of printing con
troversial articles as well as all
letters written and signed by Guil
ford College students or faculty
members.
If you've got something to
say, and don't want to write a
letter to the editor, send it to
Traxy, Box 8543, G. C., N. C.,
and if its worthwhile, Traxy will
see it through. No names neces
sary.
The Guilfordian
Second-class postage paid at Guensboro, N. C.
Published bi-weekly except during vacation and examination periods
by the students of Guilford College.
Editor Howard Krakow News Editor Richard Jones
Assoc. Editor *??? Feature Editor Dianne Stuckey
Photos  . Mike Holt ~ „ „ „ ~
Dwight Thomas Edlt " r f K: ' ren Ba l dwi "
Sports Editor Bud King Exchange Mgr. Penny Smith
Business Mgr. Linda James Humor Editor Dick King
Cartoons Pete Rickards Circulation Pat Mallard
Randy Ihara Layout Harriet Huber
STAFF REPORTERS
Willice Bivens Richard Golby Kay Riley
Ted Buddine David Green Steve Silbert
Gordon Compton Jimmy Hill Beth Taylor
Judy Connor Judy Jones Harvey Tohn
Ward Cross Alan Mabe Eric Ullman
Judy Day Martha Pierce Sally Ann Wyatt
J
( j
poT ON ft COPfT *-~T le -for
Comments
By Traxy
The female population of Guil
ford has won a new first. Smoking
is now allowed not only in the
Student Union but also in the
basement of Founders. But why
is the privilege of smoking limited
at all? Surely the American woman
of today does not look odd with a
cigarette in her mouth. All will
agree that smoking is now an ac
cepted habit. Why then must
Guilford College women retreat to
certain reservations simply to par
take of a cigarette? Curfews and
roomchecks for these unlucky
ladies are understandable if un
favorable, but smoking limitations
for Guilford's other half just re
flects on the poor faculty-student
empathy that today exists at our
college.
To The Executive Council: Why
not appoint a committee headed
bv Alan Mabe to look into the
problem of running a school radio
station, on the condition that he
does not comment further on this
problem in his column. If old Mabe
is really concerned with this prob
lem, he will be more than glad
to comply. And maybe Mabe will
really accomplish the job!
With all the money being spent
for new buildings and improve
ments at Guilford, why doesn't the
school pay a few pennies extra
and buy a better grade of bath
room tissue?
It is a great thrill to see the
spirit of Guilford College awake
from its dormancy at least for a
while, during the events of the
past week, in the form of an effigy
ining outside King Hall. To those
of you who put it up. . . . Thanks.
The Guilfordian has been called
a sad edition of Mad Magazine.
How would our readers prefer it?
Funny or serious? a public opin
ion paper or more on the non
conformist side? We don't know
unless you let us know. Drop your
opinion at the Guilfordian office
any time. ( Just stick it in one of
those little slats).
Yours Occasionally,
TRAXY
THE GUILFORDIAN
Lots and Lots of Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor:
This is in appreciation of your "Let
ters to the Editor" section of the Guil
fordian.
Also, we wish to record our surprise
at one missile signed by two students,
criticizing selection of the date for 1962
Homecoming festivities. Frankly, we
make many mistakes, but we didn't ex
pect to be called on the carpet for this
selection.
We would like to state the following
in explanation.
1. We would expect suggestions and
criticisms to come to us directly, be
fore they are aired in public forum—
this would eliminate time and embar
rassment.
2. Our Homecoming dates have been
carefully selected, taking into con
sideration all factors possible.
3. Our response to the October dates of
the past two years has been excellent
as has been the response to our
"Founders Day Homecoming,"
weekend concept.
4. Our dates are selected witli the
knowledge that an earlier dates falls
too soon after school opens, a later
date increases the danger of bad
weather.
5. The Alumni office successfully ar
ranged for reservations for visitors as
late as Friday before Homecoming
Day on Saturday, so it is not correct
to say that local housing was im
possible. We will render such serv
ice in the future when requested.
6. Homecoming Day dates are selected
before High Point furniture market
dates are selected— or announced.
7 Our dates are published and an
nounced in various media. Make
your plans now for Homecoming
Day to be held on one of the latter
Saturdays in October, 1963. We
don't think you will be pre-empted
by the furniture market it you do.
8. We are in contact with 6,500 Guil
fordians and parents. We fail to see
that more than a handful were af
fected by the enterprise in High
Point. One complaint in two years
is a good record, we believe.
As to the "Homegoing, a Guilford
first" we probably would enjoy taking
part enthusiastically—except for the fact
that a very important element is ignored
—-that is, the visiting alumni and parents.
The occasion is designed for faculty and
students to serve as hosts for our visitors
one day a year. We can't figure a place
for them in "Homegoing." There is a
feeling apparent nowadays that there is
too much "Homegoing" already. Do
away with Saturday classes, introduce
"Homegoing." Enlarge Christmas vaca
tions, Thanksgiving, Easter, etc., and
we might just as well stay at home.
THE ALUMNI OFFICE
Dear Alumni Office:
I am extremely sorry if I have of
fended your staff by my recent letter-to
the-editor in die Guilfordian. Yes, 1 real
ize that you may have made accommo
dations for alumni as late as Friday be
fore Homecoming day, for the local
motels and hotels did have last-minute
cancellations; however, one does not plan
a six hundred mile trip on the chance
of having a place to stay for the night.
If you do not believe my statement that
local public housing was impossible, I
can only ask you to contact any motel or
hotel in Greensboro, Winston-Salem, or
High Point and ask its owner to verify
my statement. Also, I am surprised that
you view the Guilfordian as a public
media; I see it as a communication
among the members of the Guilford Col
lege Family.
ASSOC. Ell.
Dear Alumni Office:
My article on "Homecoming" was
written with the intention that upon
reading the article the reader would fall
to the ground and laugh continuously
for hours or at least chuckle for from
one to four minutes. Therefore I am left
in a state of confusion as to the con
clusions of the alumni office. How did
you come up with the idea that the
article was intended to show prejudice
against the Alumni and the parents of
students? As for too many students go
ing home on the weekend I am sure you
are right, hut what do you have to offer
that will eliminate the desire of many
students to be elsewhere on the week
end? The suggestion on enlarging vaca
tions will be well received throughout
the campus. This has been in the mind
of many students and they will be ready
to act now that they are aware of Alumni
support of the issue. If you want to try
we are right behind you.
HUM. Ell.
To the editor:
Freedom of the press has been in
grained within the American milieu for
over two hundred years. The Guilfordian
recognizes this liberty as axiomatic, but
fails to recognize that the responsibilities
of a free press are a prerequisite to free
dom.
The "working press" has come a long
way since the distorted scandal sheets
issued by Hearst and Pulitzer over sixty
years ago. Unfortunately the editor of
The Guilfordian seems unaware of this
transformation.
Criticism on a college newspaper can
serve a useful purpose, especially when
it is intended to serve as a tool for
growth, responsibility, and knowledge.
Thereby it can serve a positive, and use
ful purpose, for the desired end is one
of development, continuity, and balance.
Irresponsible and distorted criticism is
seldom included in the same category.
The editor of a college newspaper has
a responsibility and obligation to the stu
dents, faculty, and administration. Nega
tive views in editorials, honestly pre
sented, based on substance and tact,
could become useful aids for corrective
measures, especially when meaningful
alternatives are suggested. Editorials
which are purposely distorted, based on
selectively ordered and sometimes er
roneous facts designed to placate one's
personal friends, intended to deceive
rather than to illuminate the student
oocly, exaggerates the traditional con
cept of freedom to a preposterous degree
and is an insult to the college com
munity.
A. D. AVEKBACH
Mr. Averhach:
We could not agree with you more.
That is why the editorial staff has
done all in its power to present to the
students of Guilford the facts as they
really are, and not as various members of
the college community would have them
appear.
EU.
To The Editor of the Guilfordian
In the November 2 issue of the Guil
fordian, there was a brief passage com
menting on the inefficiency of the Slater
System. Were the author of this cutting
(and, I might add, rather inaccurate j
statement to bring himself to work in
the cafeteria for a week or so, he would
find that, contrary to his unfounded be
liefs, those who work there do their
best to bring food to you quickly and
efficiently.
As far as waiting in line for a half
hour to 45 minutes (as stated in the
last issue of the paper), anyone who has
the good sense to take the tremendous
effort necessary to glance at a watch
will find that the usual wait for lunch
is less than ten minutes. Even when
the line is out past the doors the wait
is little more than 15 minutes. (Seven
teen minutes by my stopwatch.) Occa
sionally there is a holdup in the kitchen
due to a miscalculation concerning the
number of people who eat there. But,
who could possibly accurately predict
the number of people to expect when
the attendance at the meals is so spas
modic and inconsistent.
The waiting in line at breakfast could
be eliminated if you would come earlier
than two minutes before closing time.
Every morning (except Sunday, when
everyone sleeps) people drift in all
morning from 7:00 until about 7:57.
Then a mob comes in and wonders why
they have to wait in line. They are in
dignant because we don't want to serve
until 8:20. Just remember, people, that
we are only supposed to serve until 8:00,
and then clean up. Then, after we fin
ish this, we get to eat —and you wonder
why we get peeved when you drift in
late! Remember, we have classes to get
to, too. Why should the waiters and
waitresses be griped at because of the
stupidity and carelessness of the people
we serve. Also, do you guys find it
necessary to leave the tables covered
with food at night? None of the girls'
tables are that way, but about nine
tenths of the men's are. I really don't
see how anyone who considers himself
a human being could leave a mess like
that. You do this, as well as come late,
after the food is out, and expect us to
be nice to you, and do you favors.
You people who are so quick to
blame should think where the blame
really lies.
MIKE HOLT
Mr. Holt:
I am afraid that you have misunder
stood the point. Granted that the work
ers are doing their best to bring the
food efficiently and quickly, but the
mere fact that they are trying does not
in any way tend to ease one's hunger
pains. Also, I have serious reason to
doubt the use of the word "efficiency"
when two huge lines of students are held
up because there is only one tray of
spaghetti sauce to serve them both.
Sorry about my miscalculations con
cerning the wait in line (23 minutes by
my self-winding Swiss import) but I was
trying to make a point, not clock a
sprint.
Assuming that the "you" in the third
paragraph refers to the person to whom
the letter was addressed, 1 cannot agree
with yon more fully, for not once this
year have I ever gone to breakfast earlier
than two minutes before closing time.
However : I hasten to add that I do not
understand your point, for, not having
gone to breakfast once all year, I cannot
comprehend how my not being in the
dining hall has caused so much trouble.
In order to correct this problem, when
I don't come to breakfast in the future,
I will not come at 7:00 so that you
will have plenty of time to prepare.
ED.
To the Editor of the Guilfordian:
There are two things that upset me
in the issue of the Guilfordian which
came out November 2.
One of them is not having excellent
articles—like "Guilford vs. Gov. Barnett"
—signed. Who did write it?
My principal objection, however, con
cerns the editorial section, "On the
Guilford Scene." The third paragraph
is the one I am particularly concerned
NOVEMBER 16, 1962
with. Perhaps it is unwise for the editor
to take a stand on a case that was
brought up before the MSC, especially
if he presented the facts very poorly.
The editor describes certain students
who were reprimanded for "'foolishly
thinking that they were living in a
men's dormitory instead of a monastery"
and had the "unheard of audacity to
have a shaving cream fight and water
battle . . . all in the same evening."
Wondering what those three innocu
ous little dots stood for, I decided to
try to find out— and 1 did. I agree with
our editor for not bothering to describe
the whole situaion; it really is unim
portant. It is only that the abbot of
our monastery, living on the first floor,
in a sound-proofed room, at one o'clock
in the morning, had his meditations
interrupted by the noises of the over
exuberant clerics on the third floor. The
mess made by the group was so bad that
the janitor almost quit in disgust. But
yes, I agree, this was too trivial to men
tion.
There is one good thing that still
stands firm, however the appeals
board. Despite the malicious persecution
of these students by the vengeful MSC,
the appeals board staunchly refused to
uphold their decision.
We suggest, however, that the action
of the appeals board was based more
on inadequate presentation of the evi
dence rather than poor consideration.
Our editor suggests that the MSC is
"virtually powerless on campus." Per
haps it is this sort of blatant disregard
of the MSC's important and meaningful
role in the student government that
helps lead to such an unfortunate situ
ation.
Sincerely yours,
Dennis Guttsman
P.S. This letter is intended for publica
tion. In accordance with your recent
promise on such letters, I expect to see
it appear in the near future.
Mr. Guttsman:
Sorry about the article "Guilford vs.
Gov. Barnett." We fully intended to
give Ted Buddine a byline but it was
left out due to an oversight. No excuses.
It is nice to know that at least one
student at Guilford does not accept
statements at face value, and is willing
to extend himself to the point of getting
to the crux of the matter. However, in
your search for the truth, you stopped
halfway and are unaware of a number of
important facts.
First of all, the mere statement that
noise was present on the third floor in
no way indicates that the six boys in
question were either the only ones in
volved, or the primary cause of the
disturbance. Secondly, you will notice
that the editorial dealt with the under
handed method used by the MSC in
handling the case. The six boys ap
peared of their own free will to clarify
the problem after having been informed
that they were definitely not on trial.
It was after this session that the MSC,
without full knowledge of the circum
stances went ahead and made a decision.
If their judgment had been valid, if it
had been based on sound reasoning, if
it had been intended to improve the
situation, there is little doubt that the
Appeals Board would have upheld it.
I certainly agree that the MSC has an
"important and meaningful role in the
student government" but its misuse of
this role causes me to wonder.
ED.
To The Editor: Don't Cook My Goose
The recent inquiry by the student leg
islature into the writings of the Guil
fordian brought up a matter which
necessitates clarification.
Involved in the discussion was the
relevance of an article entitled "How
to Shoot a Goose" to the life of the
campus community. I can see where
this is a very pressing problem especially
since goose hunting is not allowed on
campus. Now if there is any possibility
of changing campus game laws two
problems could be solved. The campus
sportsmen could hunt geese and my
staff could write about goose hunting
without raising the problem of relevance.
Maybe this could be discussed in the
(Continued on page 3)
Dear Charlie, If I go ...and fame, and success
to Guilford, will jou In business, and Insure
give me peace of ulndT the continental great
ness of my country?
...and give a personal,
written guarantee of Immor
tality for me and all my
family?
Oh- go because .. of a deal
! nm a QunkSr? Is that?