Page 2
Letters to the Editor
To the Editors:
I am very much opposed to
the Guilfordian's policy of
printing unsigned letters. A
printed letter is a personal
opinion made public, and
therefore the writer should
take personal responsibility for
what is said. Public opinions
should not be relegated to the
same position as rumors,
graffitti and lies.
We should discourage the
false concept that opinions
can exist unattached to a
person. Even the claim of
expressing group opinion does
not provide an excuse for
anonymity. In a community
of our size it is glaringly
obvious that group opinion
can and should be followed to
its source: the individual
members of the group.
Fear of public censure is
not an acceptable argument
for unsigned letters. Differ
ences of opinion must be
tolerated. If this tolerance
does not exist, this in
itself is one of the most
important issues to be made
public. This is especially true
on a college campus, where it
is the function and duty of the
institution to ensure that
personalities are protected and
public opinions are examined
critically.
Finally, I have been disgusted
by the personal potshots taken
by anonymous writers. I feel
that the paper should not be
a public forum for insults, and
hopefully a "signed-ietters
only" policy would discourage
such behavior.
Very sincerely,
Kathy Becker Freeman
Editor's response:
The policy of the Gui/fordian
regarding letters to the editor
will be changed. Ar, of our
next issue, all letK.s must be
typed, double-f>aced, with an
authentic signature.
To the Editor:
After this past student
election it is easy to see that
the students of this college
have some political concerns
about their school. These
concerns, asuming student
opinions are voiced, will
soon reach the new Senate
Executive Council. No doubt,
this presents a clear chance to
gripe that many students will
fail to see. More importantly,
is that the students present
their concerns with the same
enthusiasm they expect from
the Executive Council.
The symbolic truths offered
by the Williams regime must
be represented by material
results. In the case of the
Eliott Good party for change,
the truths which the students
deserve were mocked by larking
the advertising medium. In
the case of the Williams party
the truths were not expressed
in the least. On Candidates
night the parties had an oppor
tunity to stand before the
students and allow one voice
to cover the opinions of all
three. The reason, whatever
it is, evades the common and
simple question, can the other
two speak in public?
Let us consider the lack
of rhetoric of this ticket may
indeed have contributed to
the efficacy of Williams'
electoral prowess, but it may
also contribute to the "do
nothing" Seante which she
mentioned and which, up until
the election, had upset the
students.
The effect of the Good
Party Campaign will last (they
claim to have had a good time
and to have raised the elector
ate turnout by some 20%)
while the victorious Williams
Party must still prove its
strength to itself and the
school.
The clear plurality shows .
that the students were infected ■
by a strong sense of desire for '
or against some form of '
government. It is not too
much to hope that the choice 1
made by the students will not '
be retroactive and swamp '
students with a continuation .
of inactivity.
Then, let us anticipate the ]
best. Let's expect when the ,
Williams Party begins in office •
that their electoral strengths •
will stand them in good stead '
in dealing with the needs of ,
the students. And then if .
something goes wrong I'm •
sure that our public campaign '
night request will be remem- j
bered and honored. The .
request put to the four ■
presidential candidates was, '
"If, after a month and a half, |
you fail to please the students, ,
will you resign?" To this all •
four candidates, eventually, "
responded that they would. If j
this new student regime fails .
to be as active as the students •
desire and if the students "
include this Consitutional right ]
of democratic coup in their J
political satchels, it will be :
the students turn to look at "j
themselves and make the ]
choice, or, find out a cold J
truth: That they may be the •
provocators of laziness and "
inactivity on campus. j
Rimbaud J
■i
The Guilfordian
To the Editor:
I would like to offer my
congratualtions to Amie
Williams, Chong Lee, and
Nicky McLemore on their over
whelming victory in the
Senate elections. Of course I
am a little disappointed that I
didn't win, but that is neither
here nor there. I hope to be
able to help out the new
Community Senate executive
council in any way possible
and I will try to do so.
Now that the winners are
decided, I would like to reflect
on the campaign. Some
things came out inthe cam
paign that I feel have no place
at Guilford. Specifically, the
personal vendettas waged by
Dear Readers:
At last Wednesday's
Community Senate meeting,
Hugh Stohler introduced a
new proposal. That proposal
was "that the Community
Senate adopt a clear policy
which establishes that it will
not fund student political
organizations or religious -
denominational organizations
in the annual budgeting
process."
This is a rather powerful
piece of legislation which
Hugh Stohler is bringing out.
Its implications are many and
varied; if adopted it would
drastically change the life
styles of many organizations
which are presently supported
by the Community Senate as
well as some would be organ
izations. It would seem that
careful consideration and
examination of this proposed
policy via discussion and cler
research ought to have been
the means to a decisionary
process. Obviously, to allow
for this kind of frame-work,
the immediate organizations
which would be affected by
this policy should have been
notified so as to prepare their
participation in the discussion.
This was not the case.
After careful consideration of
his position, Hugh Stohler
chose not to notify any
organization of his proposal
although he did discuss it with
some friends and colleagues.
The signatories below are
just some of the people who
were shocked and upset by his
determined action of not letting
us know that he would be
underlining his concern at our
Senate.
We are concerned that
within our small community a
Director of Student Activities
does not communicate with
the students whose activities
are his concern. Upon being
interviewed, Hugh Stohler
stated, "I assumed some
real anger would come
from some groups, but that
doesn't bother me." Where
some people against some of
the candidates were both
uncalled for and tinged with
mud. If you have some
personal grudge against a
candidate then keep it to your
self. The campaign is no
place for your petty grudges.
We at Guilford must remember
that it is our duty to vote
for the ticket that is most
qualified not the most
personable ticket.
Since the campaign is over,
I would hope the Community
Senate would pass an election
law that puts a SSO limit on
campaign spending so as to
prevent abuses in the election.
communication between
students and faculty does
not exist, pursuit of knowledge
and understanding is impeded.
The Senate is a body
composed of student repre
sentatives not organizational
representatives. Could honest
and forthright dicussion of any
legislation exist without
proper representation?
Hugh Stohler's apparent
attempt at railroading his
proposal in Senate seems to
be while legal, in bad taste.
Since unwritten rules of
etiquette are obviously not
being observed within our
community, some of the
students shall be introducing
into this week's Senate
meeting a proposal which
would insist that: Whenever
any formal legislation
regarding any existing student
organization is submitted to
the Community Senate for its
approval that those organiza
tions which would be affected,
be duly notified adequately
in advance in order to prepare
a defense or rebuttal to said
proposed legislation.
This is only fair.
As to the proposal itself,
Hugh Stohler seems to be
suggesting a policy indepen
dent of adequate research or
understanding. And we quote,
"I am in the process of
looking for literature to
substantiate my uneasiness
with this sort of funding.
Numerous court challenges in
recent years have dealt with
the legitimate and illegal uses
of student activities fees. I
do not yet have the specific
documentation in hand,
however. Nevertheless, our
generally held political beliefs
should guide us: that public
funds not go to support
religious or political move
ments."
While Stohler does mention
court cases he does not clearly
show that his advocated
general principle is directly
related to the general principle
involved in court cases. The
March 1,1977
The national government has
done this for Presidential
elections and I think it is about
time that Guilford did likewise.
Finally, I would like to thank
all those who got involved
and helped the candidates. I
would also like to thank all
those people who ran for office
and made it an interesting race.
And I would like to especially
thank Richard Phillips and
Bob Wells, the other two-thirds
of An Alternative, who
bothered to run with me, for
they made the campaign fun
for me.
Sincerely,
John P. Richardson
principles he appeals to are
applicable to public institutions.
If he is suggesting that Guilford,
a Quaker school, advocate
policies based on principles
presently operating in public
schools, then Guilford would
have to change its very basic
structure and drop its
religious affiliation. But
Guilford's community lifestyle
is resplendant in the Friend's
tradition ranging from free
inquiry to banning public
alcohol consumption to
instituting a moment of
silence before any official
gathering (to mention but a
few) are not founded on public
general principles, but on
Quaker principles.
Obviously, we are not
analogous to a public insti
tution.
However, we are not arguing
that Hugh Stohler's principle
is wrong, just that it is in
no way obvious that we
should be guided by that
principle. His principle may be
good but not his argument.
We don't know what should
be our guiding principles in our
legislative body, but we do
know that only through a fully
open confrontation with the
problems can we advance our
understanding.
Sincerely,
Thomas O'Connor, John P.
Richardson, Bruce Clendenin,
Robert C. Gold, Bobbie
Jones, Catherine A.
Vanneman, Jerry Sowers,
William Bradley Anderson,
Deidre Dempsey,
Howard W. Page, Martin
Block, Garnet D. Maharajh,
Julia McMullan, Richard
Ashley, Amy F. Steerman
(We suggest that if you are
interesting seeing Hugh
Stohler's proposal that you
speak with him or your senator
who has a copy of it.)
[Editor's Note: this concern
will be discussed at the March
2 Senate meeting.)