Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / Feb. 9, 1966, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
The Paradoxical Parable Shown RICKY R. DANCY, Editor HOWARD PEARRE, Associate Editor BETTYE TRAPPS, Feature Editor DON SPRIGGS, News Editor LARRY KEITH, Sports Editor PHOTOGRAPHERS: Chief, Tommy Estridge, Parris Hastings STAFF: Barbara Sue Thomas, Hugh ’J. Horsley, Ellison Clary, Erlene AAabrey, Gloria Roberts, Mary Morgan, Ava Newman WEDNESDAY, FEBllUAKY ft, 1%6 Red Scare In Raleigh (This editorial was written Monday after the UNC trustees executive committee banned Communist Her bert Aptheker from speaking on the IJNC-CH campus. The one below it was written before that development.) We are mighty upset with the recent actions of one Dan K. Moore controlled executive committee of the University of North Carolina trustees. It has made a 180 degree about face from a very recent campaign to repeal the mad speaker ban law. We are more upset over the fact that Gov. Moore successfully pushed through an amendment to the speaker ban law and now seems to have changed his mind about the situation than we are about the injustices done the Univer sity. It was just a few months ago that the University AND Gov. Moore were successful in amending the controversial speaker ban law. Now, when the strength of the amendment and indeed North Carolina legislation itself is about to be tested, Gov. Moore decides that he was just kidding and really didn’t mean what he said a few months ago. To understand the issue, one must first understand what the fight is all about. It is, supposably, to preserve that bell ringing word democracy. Foils taken in North Carolina be fore the ban law was amended indicated that a majority of the people of tlie state wanted to keep the speaker ban law intact. Here we have majority. But the rights of the minority must be preserved. The minority wanted, and had the con- situtional right, to hear advocates of different ideologies than that of our nation. The right seemed to have been given back to that/minority when the ban was amended. But somebody was just kidding. Shame, shame on the backward UNC trustees executive comittee. Trustees Vs. State The speaker ban controversy seems on the verge of resurrection as a result of an invitation by a student organization to Herbert Aptheker to speak at our sister institution at Chapel Hill. Naturally we hate to see the issue dredged up again, but it was inevitable. It seems that the expensive special session of the N.C. Geiieral Assembly merely sidestepped the issue and did not tackle the real problem. The much publicized action of Gov. Moore, the Britt Commission, and the Raleigh politicians served at least to partially pacify the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges. This saved the University system from a disastrous loss of accredita tion, but it didn’t anwer the other important question: Is the University to have real academic freedom, i. e., the right to conduct an intellectual search for knowledge even at the cost of examining alien political theories? Since this question never was answered, the decision of the University board of trustees concerning whether Mr. Aptheker will be allowed to speak will be an important one. It will decide whether the University will replace legislative censorship with censorship by the board of trustees or whether responsible academic freedom wili exist. The Students for a Democratic Society, the group that invited Aptheker, staged in a November press release that the only speaker policy concerning who can and who cannot speak should be the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitu tion. Since the nation as a whole has operated quite nicely, for over 175 years under this amendment, their point is well taken. The SCS has stated that Communist Aptheker was invited because he is a scholar with important views on “basic issues facing our society.’’ The trustees have said in the past that “We recognize that the total program of a college or university is commit ted to an orderly prpcess of inquiry and discussion ... An essential part of the education of each student at this institution is the opportunity to hear diverse viewpoints expressed by speakers properly invited to the campus.” If the trustees really meant what they said why have they waited so long in approving the Aptheker talk? Per haps they fear their charman the “Honorable” Dan K. Mpore has again put his foot into his mouth by issuing a verble blast concerning the matter after he worked so hard to smooth over the controversy this summer. Perhaps he just realized that a North Carolina governor can serve but one term. In any event it seems that Mr. Moore’s true feel ings concerning the speaker ban issue have finally come to light despite the double talk he is noted for. Regardless of what Gov. Moore may think, the board of trustees has but one choice. They must preserve the integrity of the University and permit Aptheker to speak and the student to listen. By BETTY CRAIG Journal Stall Writer Those who missed Dr. Wither spoon’s showing of a 22-minute film called Parable absented themselves from an intellectual challenge. Indeed, this film sup plied no verbal questions nor answers because there was no dialogue, only light accompany ing music. The only interruption of the pantomine was one ag onized cry of despair by the protagonist. The action takes place en medias res, as a small modern- day circus travels down a road, eventually making one of the many performance stops that circuses make. Plodding along behind the circus on a donkey is a clown in all-white make-up and costume. As the parable pro gresses, this clown, through vari ous abortive attempts to help his fellow circus performers, finally finds himself ridiculed, deserted and murdered, by some of his fellow performers, while sus pended in a crucifixed position from the big top. He cries out once, and is answered only by an echo. As the film draws to a close, three performers desert, and watch the circus making its noisy way down the road. The major antagonist, who remains with the circus, is shown putting on the white make-up and cos tume of the dead protagonist, and in the last scene, is shown plodding along behind the circus on a donkey. This plot explication is ridicu- X'Kim'p t II Tiui lously simple. The complexity involved in this filmed parable is lost in the necessary omission of many minor points for the sake of expediency. The advertised controversial element of this film depends on individual interpreta tion, since there is no dialogue. Consensus of those who viewed it was that the parable had a Christian message, if not, indeed, a close similarity to the life of Christ. This film could be dis turbing to some, who are pro fessed anti-“church dogma”, who can not reconcile themselves by faith alone to the “myths and miracles” of the Bible, along with an “out-dated” Church. The origin of disturbance is that this 20th Century parable of Parable is a positive step by the church to up-date itself, and its various dogmas, to the complexities of modern society. The film’s suc cess lies in its ability to stimu late individual introspection in order to explore this parable for meaning in a real sense. The Protestant Council of New York City produced this panto- mine that was shown at the World’s Fair. Dr. Witherspoon has several other films related to this subject that he is showing in the Wednesday Breaks. It is more than worth your while to attend these. At the risk of misquoting . ... “a word to the wise should be sufficient.” Editor Wants Some More Mail The Journal received quite an assortment of letters to the editor during the last semester. They covered a wide range of subjects. Some writers were satisfied with things here at the University, and some wanted to see some changes. We invite students to again express their opinions on things during this semester through the pages of The Journal. Letters should be typewritten and of reasonable length. Let us hear from you. \J.S. Has Commitment In Vietnam By HUGH J. HORSLEY Of the many lands lapped by the warm waters of the South China Sea, one. South Vietnam, has become so overwhelmed by chaos that its name alone stands out among the rest. I imagine that many of the young men of our nation shutter in mortal fear at the mention of its name. The words “Vietnam” have come to mean death, suffering, and dis- pair to a nearly universal audi ence. To someone who is faced wih the possible loss of life or limb in a country that be had probably never heard of before 1960 one question arises—why, why are we fighting there, why have we invested so much and why are we so determined to be victorious. In order to answer these questions let me refer you to a map of southeast Asia. Vietnam is located in what is presently one of the most strategic posi tions in all of Asia. It is the only break in an almost continuous line stretching from Communist China to the pro-communist neu tral state of Indonesia, and provides a sort of “back door” defense of the Federation of Malaysia. The future security of all southeast Asia may well suffer from its loss. On Sept. 8, 1954, the represent atives of several nations met in Manila and signed a document known of as “The Southeast Asia Collective Defensive Treaty”. It brought into existance the “South East Asia Treaty Organization.” Its members are, Australia, France, Great Britain, New Zea land, Pakistan, Thailand, The Phillipines, and The United States. The treaty reads thusly; “The parties to this treaty, R e cognizing the sovereign equality of all the parties. Reiterating their faith In the purposes and principals set forth in the charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and governments. Reaffirming that, in accord ance with the charter of the United Nations, they uphold the principles of equal rights and self- determination of peoples and declaring that they will earnestly strive by every peaceful means to promote self-government and to secure the independence of all countries who’s peoples desire it and are able to undertake its responsibilities. Intending to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that any potential aggressor will appreciate that the parties stand together in the area, and, Desiring further to coordinate their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security. Therefore agree as follows;— “Art. II In order effectively to achieve the objectives of this treaty the parties, separately and jojntly, by means of con tinuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack and to prevent any counter subversive activi ties directed from without against their territorial integri ty and political stability. “Art. IV. 1. Each party recog nizes that aggression by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the parties or against any State or territory which the parties by unanimous agreement may here after desig nate, would endanger its own peace and safety, and agrees that it wiU in that event act to meet the common danger in accord ance with its constitutional proc ess. Measures taken under this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations.” “PROTOCOL” “The parties to the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty unanimously designate for the purposes of article four of the treaty the States of Cambodia and Laos and the free territory under the jiuisdiction of the State of Vietnam.” Therefore you can all see that we are bound by this treaty to defend Vietnam with military force if necessary. We are also bound to support that nation for reasons of world military strat egy and finally victory for the Chinese in Vietnam would pro vide a morale booster to commu nist aims all over the world; we cannot allow that to happen.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 9, 1966, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75