Page 2, The Salemite, November 20,1981
Salem Ambassadors’ Purpose Is Explained
When one hears the word
“ambassador” visions of
Henry Kissinger probably
come to mind. Yet, on
Salem’s campus about 17
different images of am
bassadors appear.
Ambassadors is an
organization which was
founded in the fall of 1980 to
serve as a liason between
alumnae and students and to
work conjunctively with the
Development Office and the
Alumnae Office. Their
ultimate functions are to
assist with the seven-year
fundraising Salem Challenge
and to give alumnae better
campus support.
Ambassadors work directly
with Martha Carlyle and
Laura Esleeck of the
Development Office and
Doris Eller of the Alumnae
Office. The students
represent the college at
alumnae functions and
fundraising kickoffs in neigh
boring states. This semester
they will have traveled to
campaigns in Greenville,
Spartanburg, and Columbia,
S.C. The Ambassadors also
Express Your Opinions
The purpose of a student editorial page is to voice
opinions about issues concerning its student body.
Therefore, The Salemite editorial staff hopes that
students will take advantage of this opportunity either
by writing editorials or letters to the editor.
The deadline for the final issue of The Salemite for this
semester is 4:30 p.m., Monday, Nov. 30. The Salemite
office is located in the basement of Lehman Hall.
assist with the Salem
Challenge phonathons.
Alumnae Weekend and Senior
Pledge in the spring. This
weekend they will give
historic lantern tours of the
Salem campus.
New upperclassmen
members are selected in the
spring and freshman
members are elected in the
fall by old members.
Ambassadors remain in the
organization until they
graduate from Salem.
Members for 1981-82 in
clude; Angeline Fleeman,
president; Ellen Hamrick,
vice president; Janie Parker,
treasurer; Libby Glenn,
recording secretary; Valerie
Reibel, corresponding
secretary; Fordham
Baldridge, Muffie Barksdale,
Laurie Davis, Mitzi Dooley,
Lynn Winston, Susan Hem-
mingway, Lynn Tate, Beth
Waters, SaUy Hill, Susan
Britt Murphrey, Martha
Pritchard, and Katherine
Baldridge.
A Practical Solution
To a Costly Problem
For many years, the Salem College library has been
plagued with the problem of missing books. Recent
inventories indicate that the problem may be growing
more severe. Because the library is one of Salem’s most
valuable resources, funds should be appropriated to
provide the library with an electronic book protection
system.
A protection system for the library’s books would cost
between $15,000 and $20,000 to install. This is not an
unreasonable price to pay considering that the system
would pay for itself in a few years.
One example of the large number of missing books
and their cost to Salem is illustrated in the results of a
1980 inventory. In 1971, volumes in the Salem library
were put on the Library of Congress classification
system, an alternative to the Dewey Decimal System.
Nine years later, in 1980, our collection of books on the
Library of Congress system were inventoried. The
collection had grown to 51,000 volumes and the missing
book rate was calculated at approximately 1 percent. At
first glance, this appears to be a small loss; however,
when the facts are closely examined a 1 percent rate of
loss means about 500 missing books. If all the missing
books were replaced at an average cost of $30 each it
would cost $15,000.
Now, eighteen months later, another inventory is
being taken on selected sections of the collection on the
Library of Congress system. One section inventoried
yielded a missing book rate of 2.2 percent. Although this
is a small sample, it may be an indication that the
problem is getting worse.
Some of the missing books are returned, but the
majority of them are not. The cost of this loss to Salem is
felt in various ways; the initial cost of the books; the
replacement cost of the books - which unfortunately do
not all get replaced; and the opportunity costs to the
student.
The problem of missing library books at Salem is not a
new one. Salem College should install a book protection
system to end this problem. An electronic protection
system is a practical solution to a very costly problem.
Ann Biswell
Dear Editor,
At the end of the last SGA
meeting, I felt an urgent need
to express my disapproval of
the way that students and
student leaders have con
ducted themselves at student
government meetings. At
each SGA meeting, unac
ceptable conduct has been
exhibited by both those at
tending the meeting and those
speaking on the stage. This
situation must be remedied
immediately.
Our student leaders need to
have more pride and con
fidence in themselves than to
stand for the harassment
which they receive while on
stage. I feel that it is not
unreasonable to expect Salem
students to give credit to
these leaders by simply
withholding their inap
propriate comments (i.e.
whistles, sneers, laughter and
defamatory remarks). These
comments can, and often do,
discredit the student’s entire
presentation.
One of the benefits of Salem
is the fact that our own
personal friends represent us
in our student government. It
is disappointing to witness
that our leaders are not
allowed to separate them
selves from being our friends,
for just a few minutes, in
order to assume the roles
which we have elected them
to fill.
In future SGA meetings,
we must express our pride
and concern for student
government by conducting
ourselves more ap
propriately. Those, people
who serve as our student
leaders must demand
respect. We as students who
have chosen them must learn
to give them the respect that
they deserve.
Lee Richardson
Dear Editor: ’
Tuesday, Nov. 2, brought
stunning news to the Square;
Dr. Richard Morrill resigned.
As a student strongly com
mitted to Salem and her
purposes, I felt anger,
betrayal, and concern. Ihe
seemingly pivotal point of
Salem’s fund drives,
changing image, and
progressive nature had
moved. Where that left us
was my question.
Now, though, my per
spective is different. I have
realized that I cannot know
the many variables involved.
More important, though, is
-my second realization; the
pivotal point of Salem has not
moved. This pivot is not the
Richard Morrills, the Dale
Gramleys, the Howard
Rondthalers. That which is
Salem is time-tested and
secure in its victory over
many challenges. It is not
stagnant; it changes with the
passing of time, but retains
its intrinsic character. Our
legacy is this specialness, and
we alone are responsible for
its vitality or demise.
It is left for us l) to accept
Morrill’s decision and his
need to consider his future;
and 2) to look ahead, to
search for the person,
y^f|TTiPvpj.hp or she may be,
^0 will be committed to
Salem’s economic and, more
importantly, educational
goals.
Dr. Morrill will be missed
in ways. However, we, too,
must pursue our ends, our
aims, our goals. Salem is
moving forward; a turnover
in administration may stall,
but cannot stagnate, this
process. Not an individual,
nor a faction, but all of us
here are forces in this
movement.
We must discern our ends
and, keeping those in sight,
require both of ourselves and
of the new president the
committment to achieve
these ends, for we are the
means.
Julie Risher
r
The Salemite
Printed by Lindsay Publishing Co.
King, N.C.
Editor: Allison Buice
Associate Editor: Mary Rogers
Business Manager. Audrey Castellano
Assistant Business Manager: Pamela Sawers
Reporters: Teri Capshaw, Kaycee Connolly, Leila Dolby, Robin
Elmore, Kathy Glover, Beatrice Heath, Cynthia Heath, Barbara
Maskill, Gail Moore, Sunny Nolde, Tricia Patterson, Agneta Perman,
Allison Thompson.
Proofreaders: Ann Biswell, Kaycee Connolly, Kathy Glover, Sunny
Nolde.
Lay-out: Mary Rogers
Cartoonist: Nina Anderson
Photographer: Hollin Owiggins
Circulation: Ann Biswell
Advisors: Laura Edwards, Nancy Stephens.
The Salemite office is located in the basement of Lehman Hail.