two
Editor's Editorial
Snow causes problems;
pandemonium ensues
By SUSAN SHUFORD
Snow! Last week an amazing eight inches of fluffy whiteness blanketed
Guilford College.
Hundreds of student belly-flopped down campus hills on cafeteria tryas,
consumed gallons of hot chocolate, and bombarded each other with
frozen ammunition.
Besides bringing winter merriment, snow forced administrators and
faculty to cancel a number of classes in an unusual deviation from school
policy. Still, few day classes were canceled during what was the most
severe winter storm to hit Greensboro this winter.
Currently, Guilford policy dictates that classes will not be canceled
because of inclement weather. Commuting students who miss class
because of hazardous driving conditions will have their absences excused,
and special arrangements will be made for making up work.
The legitimacy of Guilford's bad weather policy has come under fire
along with the advent of numerous ice and snowstorms.
In some ways this policy discriminates against day students. Although
their absences are excused, day students have the disadvantages of missing
important lecture time.
Copying someone else's notes just isn't condusive to a thorough
knowledge and understanding of class material. Thus under the current
policy, inclement weather could put commuting students behind in their
studies.
In order to be fair to all students, classes should be canceled on days
when driving conditions are extremely unsafe.
Greensboro doesn't have an unduly severe climate, so revising Guilford's
current bad weather policy wouldn't mean canceling more than a few days
of class a year.
Since students do pay for a certain number of class hours, per course,
the school calendar could be modified slightly to incorporate the few days
missed for ice and snow. Although the current policy has recently
been modified with regards to night classes, that isn't enough. Roads can
be slick during the day also.
Which is better, canceling a few classes, or having day students risk
their safety driving on hazardous roads in order to make it to a class they
feel is too important to miss ?
Disco fever is contagious
By BETH EAKES
In just one short year, disco has exploded from an underground scene
down on the New York Waterfront and out in the heavily ethnic
neighborhoods of Brooklyn and the Bronx into a vast international enter
tainment industry. Today, disco is right up there with spectator sports,
tennis and skiing as one of the ideal contemporary forms of recreation.
This one year old fad is elitist, pretentious and stupid.
Elitism can be seen in any discoteque. People who are not 'properly'
dressed are made to feel inferior. Take Studio 54 in New York City for
instance, probably the hottest disco in the country. Here people wait
outside the door flocking nightly, sheeplike and perfumed, seeking that
all-important nod, craving the flush of social success that comes with
admission.
The pretentious aspect of disco can be found anywhere on the dance
floor also. Dancers create a totally dream-like world in an attempt to
boost their ego. Saturday Night Fever demonstrates this. The movie
shows how totally fulfilling it is to dance by yourself against how frustrat
ing and infuriating it is to have to work out something as intimate as the
way you dance with some cranky bitch.
What differentiates discomania from most of its predecessors is its over
tendency to spill over into orgy. Such behavior in my opinion is really
not conducive to the betterment of mankind. To those who partake in
such action - well I guess it just shows their level of intelligence. Orgiastic
encounters (disco included) are animalistic and degrading, decadent and
debauching.
The search for pleasure in the modern world is not a search for decadent
and insatiable hedonism but precisely its opposite: a displaced quest for
certain spiritual values that can only be attained through intellectual
growth.
What could possibly be gained from the stunning profusion of lights,
sounds, rhythms, motions, drugs, spectacles and illusions that comprise
the disco ambiance?
Is this the contemporary formula for pleasure and high times? Its essence
is the concentration of extremes, and we all know what extremes did to the
Roman Empire.
Guilfordian
At 4k* "Vof 4' "4k*. Ntk*i •••!>*
ov paro 1)1- scotil.Ki ui t 'v
&u\\Jor4 Colley is kc\d;*oyclar,s4*..
f ) , . l lort L 4 *' ' I "'' * r ' I
Colloquium speech questioned;
Views should be supressed
Dear Editor:
Last Wednesday, during the
weekly IDS 101 "mass meeting,"
attended by perhaps 150 freshmen,
a few upperclassman TA's, and
some 10 faculty, we viewed a startl
ing example of acquiesence to sup
pression of personal views.
The views in question were those
of William Shockley, a physicist
who claimed to have discovered a
genetic and racial component of
intelligence; those with low IQ's
(whatever that measures), who also
happened (he said) to be predomin
antly Mack, should be offered strong
financial incentive to get them
selves sterilized, so that they
would stop polluting the gene pool
with their "low-IQ" genes.
The class and a panel of faculty
were asked to consider the "Free
Speech'' aspects of the issue: Should
Shockley have been allowed to debate
his views at Yale, in response to
an invitation, or should he have
been prevented? As it happened,
he was repeatedly shouted down
by the students at Yale and several
other schools; abbreviated versions
of his views were heard in impromp
tu news conferences after these
conflicts, but the opposition's
side, to be presented by Roy
Innis, of the Congress of Racial
Equality, were never heard.
I was stunned to find that quite
a few of those present thought,
Yes, Shockley should not have
been allowed to speak. His views
would do damage to someone (we
never did say whom), and his views
were unscientific and outrageous.
We should not let ourselves be
forced to dignify his arguments with
a hearing; if his views reflect under
lying prejudice in our society, we
should choose our own time to deal
with those prejudices ... or so it
was argued.
The current reading for IDS 101
is Mill's ' 'On Liberty.'' I would like
to continue Wednesday's discus
sion by quoting our text: "Where
there are persons to be found who
form an exception to the apparent
unanimity of the world on any sub
ject, even if the world is in the right,
it is always probably that dissen
tients have something worth hearing
to say for themselves, and that
turth would lose something by
the silence" (p. 46). "If there are
any persons who contest a 'received
opnion,' or will do so if law or
opnion will let them, let us thank
them for it, open our minds to listen
to them, and rejoice that there
is someone to do for us what we
otherwise ought, if we have regard
either few the certainty or the vitality
of our convictions, to do with much
greater labor for ourselves" (p. 43).
"Never when controversy avoided
the subjects which are large and
important enough to kindle
enthusiasm was the mind of a
people stirred up from its founda
tions, and the impulse given which
raised even persons of the most
ordinary intellect to something of
the dignity of thinking beings''
(P- 33).
Mill suggests three great examples
of cases in which a heretical view
was condemned as incorrect . . .
and the holders of those views
condemned to death for holding
them: Socrates, Christ, and the
Second Century Christians in Rome.
Honest men applied the law to wipe
out the holders of these opinions.
Are we so sure Shockley is wrong
that we will even refuse him a
hearing? Surely the parallels are
evident ?
What if Shockley is right ? Maybe
IQ does measure something and that
something turns out to be environ
mentally, not genetically, controlled.
Couldn't we then concentrate on
helping those environmentally
deprived ? Wouidn't this be another
force for social equity? What if IQ
is genetically controlled? Then
couldn't genetic counselling be an
altlernative to Shockley's proposal?
Are we so afraid of any manifesta
tions of inequality that we can't
stand to look at what may just
be the facts?
What if Shockley is wrong ?
What if we can throw out the
whole concept of IQ-testing as a
valid way of measuring/comparing
individuals? Maybe Shockley
would be a valued public servant for
February 13,1979
pointing the way to better gauges d
personal worth than the IQ test.
What if Shockley is wrong, bi
a large fraction of the society
believes he is right (which I thirk
is the real case in our society)? Hon
are we ever going to root out the
prejudices if we don't examine then
publicly, widely, openly? How dil
the equal-rights legislation ga
passed that is on the books todi
except by wide public sentime
developing in its favor?
I would like to come out square
in favor of letting Profess*
Shockley speak out. I'd like to s
him here . . . and I'd like to Gui
ford leading the way in dealin
with the issues his opinions raisi
not helping to suppress thoi
opinions. I hope those who eithi
differ with or support these argi
ments will answer them.
Donald L. Gibbc
Geology/IDS st£
Dionne
Warwick
says:
"Get your
blood into
circulation?
Call
Red Cross
now for a
blood donor
appointment.