Without Information, Complaints are Counterproductive
Lara Ramsey
Staff Writer
When I heard that the Union spent
sl,ooo+ on renting the movie "The Hunt
for Red October," I felt the acid of injustice
stirring in my stomach. It costs $2.50 to
rent the same thing on video cassette, and
$i if you catch it at Quaker Twin. I can't
even fantasize about the things I would do
with SI,OOO, let alone what the Guilford
community could accomplish with that
much money.
I am further frustrated by monstrous
movie fees because I know that I am par
tially responsible for that expenditure.
While 1 continue to feel that spending
hundreds and thousands of dollars on oth
erwise available movies each semester is a
waste, and ethically escapes justification, I
have to realize that I never once offered
positive input to the film committee before
Deliberated Drug Policy: A Set Community Standard
Wayne Nash
Guest Writer
Being in London, I must respond late to
the letters regarding the new judicial pol
icy. Though I know little of the actual
judicial hearing as I write this letter, I
helped to formulate policy and sat on the
Judicial Board for two years. I read two
main concerns in the September 17 issue.
First, Bill Covert implied that we on the
Judicial Review Task Force did not seri
ously consider the social repercussions of
the so-called "One-Strike" policy. Sec
ondly, Jonathan Lawson and George Brand
believe that the revised system favors the
plaintiff. I stress that I am responding to
policy decisions, and not to the actual case
THE GUILFORDIAN
Editor-in-Chief Jacob Stohler
Managing Editor Peter Smith
News Editor Courtney Roberts
Assistant News Editor Justin Cohen
Features Editor Lara Ramsey
Editorials Editor Lisa Pope
Sports Editor Butch Maier
Photo Editor Charles Almy
Layout Editor Bruce James
Assistant Layout Editor Jennifer Watts
Copy Editor Suzanne Moore
Business Manager Erskine James
Advertising Director Lesley Funk
Faculty Advisor Jeff Jeske
The Guilfordian is the student newspaper of Guilford College, Greensboro, N.C.
Submitted articles are welcome. Opinions expressed in editorials and letters to the
editor do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff and editorial board. The
editors reserve the editorial licence to The Guilfordian staff. Please address all
mail to: The Guilfordian, Box 17717, Greensboro, NC 27410.
2
THE GUILFORD IAN October 8, 1990
PERSPECTIVES
the decisions were made. The Union that
I voted for exists to represent my views,
but it would have to be telepathic to know
them. However, since the fall 1990 semes
ter lias commenced, no student who is not
an officer V>f'the Union has attended the
Wednesday meetings. And according to
Scott Thomhill, director of the film com
mittee, a single student has yet to offer a
film suggestion.
Lack of communication leaves one indi
vidual in the precarious position predict
ing which movies will go over with suc
cess. Thornhill can research what movies
were popular all summer, and that is the
most solid criteria he has to go by. He can' t
know when he schedules movies three
months ahead of time that the dollar thea
ter will show the same flick during the
same week (as happened with "Pretty
Woman"). His best judgement tells him to
take heed from past success: thus we end
up with the most recent releases which are
involved.
To Mr. Covert, I ask if he ever attended
a meeting of the Judicial Review Task
Force. I also ask him if he attended the
Senate meetings in which the Judicial
proposal was analysed and critiqued. If he
had, then he would know that we discussed
the long-term social effects of a suspen
sion/expulsion towards first-time convicted
offenders. If Mr. Covert missed the meet
ings, then I am informing him now that we
discussed penalties in the last four months
of the two-year review process, both in the
Task Force and in the Senate. And in
making these decisions, we the student
leaders/student government/administration
formed policy in consideration of the
common good, not in accordance with
consequently the most expensive.
Before I could write this article fairly, I
talked to Thornhill for verification of my
understandings. Our connection enlight
ened me on two levels.
First, I found the hear-say to be inaccu
rate. "The Hunt for Red October" will cost
around S7OO in actuality. It is a SI,OOO
movie but the rental company cooperates
with Guilford's budgetary limitations and
for every movie, we receive a discount.
Most of the movies we watch in S ternbergcr
are in the blue-light-special range of S2OO.
Secondly, I took inventory of my per
sonal attitude. 1 learned of the whole issue
through someone else's idle complaining.
I was quick to inform the next person I saw
of my recent scandalous discovery. It
wasn't even accurate information, yet I
was willing to bum somebody else out by
coaxing them to affirm my own negativity.
Complaining has a tendency to do that.
"Doesn't it suck that..." and "Can you
popular opinion or popular desires. Our
role forces us to defend the community's
health from the few deviants who defy
social standards. Judicial policy is not set
by popular opinion and Guilford should
not liberally deviate from that precedent
To Mr. Lawson and Mr. Brand I judge
their example in paragraph three to be
weak. Justas they argue that more plaintiff
witnesses will imbalance justice against
the defendant, I retort that more witnesses
for the defendant would seemingly then
prove the defendant's innocence. Luckily
for the students, judicial decisions are based
on evidence and not the number of wit
nesses which a person brings to the hear
ing. Mr. Lawson and Mr. Brand further
state that, ultimately, "students must be
trusted." If students are to be fully trusted,
then we would not need a testimonial sys
tem, only punitive measures given to those
trustworthy students who, upon commit
ting crimes, arewilling report themselves
to a college official. Do you really believe
that all offenders report themselves? Stu
dents may only be trusted to a degree
without incurring social damages. This
includes both plaintiff and defendant As
evidence is presented to the Judicial Board,
no group has priority evidence.
Furthermore, I want to address these
policy issues as Senate and the Task Force
debated them. For several years judicial
penalties in drug/alcohol cases were little
more than a slap on the wrist with non
restrictive probation and, occasionally,
some community service (a penalty which
developed in the last three years). For an
RA, it is hard enough to actually catch a
student using drugs. A judicial process
which gives no substantial penalties to
believe..." are leading questions, literally
asking the listener to join in the 'fun' of
complaining. It's all fun and games until
someone loses a positive outlook.
The way I see it, complaining usually
brings more people down, or else it indi
rectly asks someone else to solve the prob
lem for you. "Mom, I'm so hungry these
days ..." or "Gosh, Bamhill, I've got so
much work this week you v/ouldn't be
lieve" are requests masquerading as infor
mative comments.
Sometimes complaining is constructive,
therapeutic, even necessary. I just know
that if it's not pure—if it's not researched,
if it's to shirk responsibility, or if it's
merely for the sake of being negative- then
it's not worth the energy that could be
spent elsewhere making a positive differ
ence.
Constructive energy can begin with effi
cient communication.
conviucted offenders turns an RA into an
apathetic non-enforcer. Until this year, the
penalty standard for drug use has not been
enforced because the appellate process less
ened judicial measures, turning the Judi
cial Board into non-enforcers through their
experience of futility.
The Task Force quickly came to a con
sensus to enforce the old policy with the
new process. Senate, however, debated
the issue for two hours. We discussed
whether we should represent our constitu
encies or set community standards. To
represent our constituents would be to set
lenient rules against drugs because drug
users, of course, want no restrictions around
their "recreational activities."
The Senate chose instead to set a com
munity standard against drug use. We
realize that drug/alcohol abuse is rampant
on our campus as it is nationally. As Paige
Mahaney said, to set a lenient penalty is
saying, "It's OK to use drugs," and the
student leaders agreed that this ideology is
not the message which Guilford's commu
nity will promote.
To those who disagree with said policy,
you should have participated in the deci
sion-making process which openly asked
for opinions. Ignorance is not an accept
able plea because anyone, at any time,
could attend the meetings and voice their
opinion. I myself did not join the Task
Force until the last few months before
Senate approved the judicial proposal. An
arguement of "Well, I didn't know about
it" tells me "Well, I was apathetic about it
until it was too late."
Every student decides upon enrolling to
see STANDARD on page 3 >•