PAGE 7
5-Year Man
on Campus
With Ellison Clary
Letter To The Editor
Let’s Try To Clear Up
Beer Ad Controversy
Just about everybody you meet on campus lately seems to
want to discuss action taken by the Publication Board in re
gard to advertising policy of the three student publications at
a recent meeting. Many of these people are at least partially
uninformed, however, as to the details of what took place both
at the meeting and after it.
Since I have been a member of the Pub Board from the time
its conception last year and was in attendance at the contro
versial November 2 session, Pll use this column in an effort
to calm the ripples of confusion.
The meeting of two Thursdays ago was intended to have been
somewhat of a catch-all for publication business which had
accumulated over a period of time. Such items as budget con
siderations, problems of remuneration, contracts, financial pro
cedures report, monthly accounting, and constitution changes
were listed on the agenda which each board member received
before the meeting.
Discussion of advertising policy was not listed on the agenda,
dated October 24, but it was made known to board members
before the meeting that Dr. Bonnie Cone wished that this item
be inserted into the business.
So the stage was set and after the lengthy meeting of the board
reconvened from a dinner recess, discussion turned to adver
tising policy.
Dr. Cone related her distress in regard to two full-page beer
advertisements which appeared in the 1967 edition of the year
book and to the small, tour-column-inch beer advertisement
seen in the October 25 edition of the Carolina Journal. In both
eases these advertisements were the first of their kind to be
printed in a publication on this campus.
Dr. Cone is a voting member of the Pub Board and frequently
sits in on portions of its meetings, told board members she
feared unfavorable reactions to the beer advertisements from
certain Founding Patrons and trustees. She said such reactions
might well be harmful to the university here in its formative
stages.
After a discussion of more than 30 minutes. Pub Board Chair
man Dr. Darryl McCall sensed a general concensus of the mem
bers, both voting and non-voting, to revert to what Dr. Cone
called a “gentleman’s agreement” to exclude advertisements
for beer and hard liquor in campus publications. Dr. Cone seemed
to feel this agreement had been in effect all along, although
publication editors, both past and present, were unaware of its
existence.
No vote was taken on the issue. The members simply agreed
to make an effort to carry on without ads of this type until such
time as they wished to bring up the issue before the board again.
This discussion being finished, it was agreed to adjourn the
board meeting until Thursday, November 16.
Begin To Reevaluate
By the weekend, certain members of the board had begun to
re-evalutate their feelings in regard to the beer ad issue. Michael
Carmichael, newly elected student body representative to the
board told me that Sunday, November 5, of his misgivings.
Carmichael, after discussing the matter with faculty members
and students, began to fear that the board had seriously limited
freedom of the press in arriving at its “gentleman’s agreement.”
He felt this decision was in reality, an act of censorship and that
it should be reversed.
By last Tuesday, Carmichael started circulating copies of a
petition for students and faculty members to sign. The petition
read as follows:
“We, the undersigned, respectfully protest the limitations
placed by the Publication Board on beer and liquor advertise
ments in student publications and request that the decisions on
whether to accept such advertisements be left to the editorial
staff of the publications involved.”
The petitions were eagerly signed by students and faculty
members. The 25 signature spaces on the first copy of the peti
tion filled in five minutes.
In the meantime, faculty members Dr. John Robbins and Dr.
Dan Morrill penned letters to the editor to back up signers of
the petition. The letters appear elsewhere on the editorial pages
Last Friday morning, a new development was brought out by
a story in the Charlotte Observer. Publicity Director Ken San
ford was quoted as saying that no other branch of the university
accepts beer or ha rd liquor ads for its publications
The story pointed out that this statement is erroneous, since
The Daily Tar Heel at Chapel Hilll does accept ads of this type.
Sanford agreed Friday morning that the Tar Heei does indeed
accept the ads but he said this acceptance may be a breach of
university policy.
It Will Be Interesting
Sanford said it will be interesting to see what will happen
when the more than one thousand signatures which Carmichael
hopes to have on the petition by tomorrow are presented to the
board at its scheduled meeting.
“It may well be that the board will ask Chancellor Colvard for
a decision on the matter,” said Sanford.
He added this decision, no matter what it is or who makes it,
could possibly set a precedent for all branches of the university.
Legitimate Concern For Public
Wants Carried To Extreme Here
Editor
Carolina Journal
Dear Editor:
The moment has arrived
when I must speak out against
what in my opinion endangers
the fundamental integrity of this
institution - the tendency of cer
tain administrators and unfor
tunately even faculty members
and students to concern them
selves to an inordinate degree
with the image of UNC-C among
key power blocs within the Char
lotte community. In no way do I
question the good intentions of
this faction on our campus. I
am fully ware that the leader
ship of the institution must be
sensitive to the needs, aspira
tions, and desires of the public.
But it is my contention that this
legitimate concern has been car
ried to an unjustifiable extreme
and is therefore eroding the very
foundations of a legitimate uni
versity - the ability to speak
out freely but always in good
taste on toe critical issues fac
ing our society.
On November 2 toe publica
tions board of UNC-C agreed
that no beer or hard liquor ad
vertising shall appear hereafter
in any campus publication. Cer
tainly, toe issue of beer adver
tising, even though indicative of
a somewhat trivial sense of val
ues is not important in itself.
Its significance results from toe
fact that it stems from a much
deeper illness.
To diagnose toe disease, I
Spirit Of Paternalism
Must Be Dispelled
Editor
The Carolina Journal
University of N.C. at Charlotte
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Editor:
A University is—or should
be—a place where honest dif
ference of opinion can be aired
and discussed. It is in this spirit
that I feel I must speak out con
cerning the November 2 deci
sion of the Publications Board
to ban—or limit—beer and hard
liquor advertisements in toe stu
dent publications at the Univer
sity of North Carolina at Char
lotte. This I sincerely believe is
an unfortunate precedent and is
symptomatic of a far more
serious problem at this would-
be university.
Permit me to turn my atten
tion first to the issue of banning
beer and liquor advertisement in
student publications. The plau
sible reasons advanced for such
action run as follows: they are
in poor taste, only second rate
publications accept such adver
tisement and they somehow harm
toe rating of a publication by some
national board of editors. None
of these reasons seems suffi
cient to me to open what could
become a pandora’s box of
censorship. With censorship of
advertising polity as a start, will
editorial policy be next? If you
think my alarm is an ungrounded
fear oran argument ad absurdam,
consider this: an argument ad
vanced to support the ban on beer
advertisement is based on a
“journalistic canon of good
taste” which bans advertise
ments for products of women’s
hygiene and beer! It does not
seem absurd to me then to fear
editorial censorship from a group
which can somehow equate ad
vertisements for feminine hy
giene and beer. Labeling beer
and liquor advertisements “bad
taste” seems to me to reflect
more on the people making the
charge than on the University
or the publications accepting toe
advertisement. If we cannot chal
lenge here toe long-held narrow
minded views of fundamentalists
who have smothered progress in
toe South, there seems to be
little ho^ that UNC-C will ever
attain university status. Further
more, if only second-rate publi
cations accept such advertise
ment, this places the New York
Times in such a classification.
If the New York Times is second
rate, I eagerly await second rate
status for UNC-C publicatons.
I suggest that the decision
on whether or not to accept beer
advertisements be left to toe
publication involved. This would
then enable toe editor to decide
for himself whether to accept
toe tainted money of beer and
liquor advertisers and thereby
risk national rating for his pub
lication. This seems to me to
be a much sounder policy than
for toe Publications Board to
make what will undoubtedly be
come a binding precedent.
This problem however goes far
beyond toe mere issue of beer
advertisements in student pub
lications. It appears as yet an
other step in toe creation of an
atmostphere designed to shield
and protect toe student - toe
well-known attitude of ^tema-
lism which pervades this cam
pus. Above all it appears as still
another attempt to maintain an
atmosphere which will not up
set toe Charlotte community and
The Patrons. The end result is
an atmosphere which stifles stu
dent freedoms—from dress to
expressions. It is an atmosphere
which brings toe BWOC blanket
concert indoors lest we lost con
trol of the students or offend toe
Charlotte community. It is an
atmosphere which initiates a ban
on beer advertisements so we
won’t offend toe community. It
is an atmosphere in which we are
constantly described as a “ser
vice institution.” It is an atmos
phere in which toe University
too often follows rather than leads
the Charlotte community. It is
an atmosphere designed to nip
in the bud any attempt to build
a truly significant university in
the Piedmont Carolines.
Beer advertisement is not the
really Important issue here. It
is merely, the tangible example of
a pervading atmosphere which
must be examined, challenged and
somehow overcome before we can
achieve a university oracademic
environment.
Faculty and students together
should chaUenge this atmosphere
and take concrete action neces
sary to establish a true univer
sity atmosphere at UNC-C. We
have waited and delayed too long.
The time to act is now.
Sincerely,
John B. Robbins
Assistant Professor
Department of History.
Double Standard Unfair
Dear Editor:
Several times when I have gone
to the Parquet Room for a lec
ture or a dance the announcer
asked everyone not to smoke.
The reason he gave was that we
have a nice floor and we want
to keep it that way.
Thursday night after a Pied
mont Crescent assembly I went
into toe Parquet Room and found
black smudges all over toe floor
in toe back of the room.
Why are visitors to our school
allowed to disobey rules that we
must follow? A double standards
system is unfair.
Frank Sassar.
must first list toe symptoms,
spell out specifically toe argu
ments advanced to justify this
action. Apparently foremost on
toe list of justification was toe
contention that UNC-C has an
obligation to its trustees and
patrons to communicate toe high
est ideals to its students. First
of all, that toe appearance of
beer advertising in a campus
publication would in any way
violate this pledge somehow es
capes my own limited abilities
of comprehension. But even if
this paticular form of advertis
ing does violate the standards of
good taste, its exclusion might
well serve as a precedent for
toe broad extension of censor
ship. Should restaurants serv
ing beer be allowed to purchase
space in a campus publication?
Should UNC-C students be per
mitted to read Lenin’s Collec
ted Works in toe Library? The
insidious cycle could run on and
on.
Apparently another argument
persuading some members of
toe publications board to support
toe recent action of that body
was toe belief that toe appear
ance of beer or hard liquor ad
vertising would lessen toe
chances of toe year-book to be
judged highly by some national
board of editos
board of editors. As hopefully
made clear above, I content that
toe recent action of the publi
cations board is essentially a
violation of principle. Far bet
ter, therefore, to have a year
book untainted by this ridiculous
and unjustifiable application of
censorship than to sell our cam
pus sould for a bowl of porridge
in the name of a blue ribbon.
What is the disease present on
our campus? It is a misfortun-
ate misunderstanding of toe es
sential purpose of higher educa
tion. It would seem that there
are individuals on this campus
who regard themselves as toe
protectors of the collective vir
tue of toe students. With pail in
hand, they enter toe greenhouse,
careful to allow only toe correct
fertilizers to touch toe tender
young minds around them. Atten
tion students! Descending upon
our campus is a blanket of insult
ing paternalism.
Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Assistant Professor
Department of History.
Reporter
Accepts
Advice
Dear Editor:
I would like to thank Dave
Herman for his letter concern
ing toe Green Garter in toe
November 8 issue of toe Caro
lina Journal. Even though I did
write toe article blasting UNC-C
Students, I agree with Mr. Her
man’s ideas. He is right in say
ing that toe reporter’s first
thought was against toe students
who didn’t attend the function. I
admit that it never occurred to
me to write an article sugges
ting positive ideas to toe stu
dents who provided the Green
Garter.
The coffee house may have been
more successful had the pub
licity been more extensive. The
ticket selling idea is good; how
ever, it may not have worked in
this case due to reservations
that were made. Still it is up
to the students to decide whe
ther coffee houses will con
tinue.
A good reporter should ex
amine both sides of a story.
Thank you, Mr. Herman for in
directly calling this fact to my
attention. In toe future I will
examine both sides of a ques
tion before I report an issue.
Sonia Mizell