Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Oct. 30, 1958, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / 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
PGt TYTO THt' DAILY TAK HEEL THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1955 An Editorial I hr ( li.u loiic Olm-ruT, if conservative in it viewpoint, is tiMt.illy mild in its presenta tion. Howiwi. s.unew licit it slipped up this week when it e ditoi ialied on the promotion ol llvuun Uickovrr. Ailiuii.il Riekmn won his promotion larth lot the eievtion ol the, atomic suh m.it inc. and although the Observer Rrudj;-in-K "rutted Admiral Rickovcr the fact that he ileseixed the awaid. they proceeded in a p.naMj)h to mn lib; character .into the tound. . I his is not the pbre to discuss Rickovcr's inciits .is a pnvu, and they are many more thin mi ist ol the cooperative individuals the isenei loves so well. What was particular lv appalling in the editorial was the last sen trine v the pai.iraph which alter Riving Ri(kovn"s diaraiter a heating in several se lite m is (oik hided "and besides he is a In tliis (i.i ol rue and religious prejudice n.uhin- a hi;h point, it could be hoped that u ".pons i I le journalism would not fan the litis ol piejudiic and bias. It could very well have been a mistake ol the editor who did not delete the sentenc e ' from the editorial wiiu t copv. but if this is the case both men should be liied. Ami semitistu in the South does not need anothei .idvci. :e. It can only be hoped that the Obseiei could oiler an apology. Riqht To Know I 'ii1 ns soiiii thin'.; mil.'; ti Ions hapjK-ns, the .student I ( uislatiue will not consider the bill (onutiiiu; tuiv trial revision, the most sii uilh.int piopos.d to be cotisideied bv the leg ist, ituic. Mourner, Honor Council Chair iii m llii'Ji r.itieison does not seem to want 'ell the public his obpec lions to the bill until tin Icisl.itnu' (ls acted upon this. 1 loin this one (.in gather that there is not viv tuiuli moui; with the bill, apparently Mi. Pattiison's objections are not adequate .to Mini the public's scrutiny. The ways and iiie.ms (omimttre should take this into con sithi.itiou when it heats Mr. PattcrsonYob je t ion v Auoidiii'4 to .i tc poit. the bill will be held in ( o) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( e in oidet to find a "more teal in " method ol selecting jurors. It seems It nd to Imd m . in people who are acquaint ed with the Tinted States very well, for if thev neie they would tealie that jurors are selected ,u lue Itoiu the entire populace. Indeed, in any dcmociacy, and the campus is a dcuiot r.K v. each citien is charged with the tcspoiisibilitv of seeing it work, ;vud con tiibuiin; to it. Hence, it is only iii;ht that the entile campus be used in the selection ol a jmv. It needs not mentioning further uhv pci maiiciit juiors should not belli the juiv sNstein. Sulliee it t say. that with pcr miiient juiois. the jtny trial system is not a jui v ti ial svstem. I inillv. a wold oiiht to be said about the publii 's iidu to know the reasoning behind the objections to the honor council bill. The public votes in the end of November, for leislattne. This undoubtedly will be rii is sue in the campaign, and the public has a li jil lo see- both sides of the issue. It is too n 1 1 it h to expect that the introducer of he bill will speak against his bill if he is for it. lie nee. the people who arc opposed should surest what is wrotvj;. To withold this from the public is to wiilx.ld the necessary fads lot the campus to make wise choices P't elec tion time. In oidei to acquaint the campus with those who will not jive the public the in humation that they need at the time they cm have it to m. ke their will felt on their le picseiiiatives. The Daily Tar Heel will run ic fuse d to comment" stories on those per sons who will not j;ive their viewpoint on these issues. It is hoped through this process the public will be able to separate the sheep Itoiu the uoats. N.5.A. I he ie h.'ve been several articles about the National Student Association. in The Daily I ar He e l. Net. many coplc seem to be in tin- daik as to how the organization works .did what it stands for. It is the- only oianiation through which students ean voice their views on a- national le vel. lor mote alwiut the National Student Association, attend the meeting tonight. The mote campus participation N.S.A. can get the better oil and the more representative of student opinion thtoughout the nation it will be. ... 1jc JBntty ar Heel Thr official student publication of the Publication Roan! of the University of North Carolina,-where It is published daily except Monday and examination period ( and summer terms. Kutered as second, class matter In the prsl office in Chapel IM1, N. ('.. under the act of March 8, 1370. Subscription rates: $4.50 per se mester, $3.50 per vcar. I I . Chapl! I (ill V K 1 1 Letters Dear Mr. Greene: Sincerely in the spirit of friend-ship-for as you so rightly suggest, hate-morgering is despicable may I ask you some questions? In your first 20-odd years, how deeply imbedded have your cus toms and traditions become? Have you not had occasion to change your mind during them? In your next 20 or 40 years, do you think you will have occasion to change or modify any of your present views? If the majority of southerners is against integration and this is perhaps debatable what about that major majority of the nation and of the civilized world? Much as we might like it, it is not possi ble to discount the also deeply imbedded views of the rest of our country and of the rest of the ' world, that social or ecomonic dis crimination on the basis of color is violently anachronistic, and morally and socially and intel lectually wrong. (Governor Fau bus and segregation were the first topics we were questioned about from Copenhagen to Istanbul, in trains, schools, private homes, all during the autumn months of last year.) You understand, I know, the part white "superiority" has played in the post-war surge of nationalism among colored peo ples 'of the world, which has re sulted in the sometimes bloody, always costly overthrow of white colonial rule. And it is not that the colonial ists never did anything for their natives. They raised considerably education and health levels, they brought to backward areas the fruits of higher European civiliza tion. They even took promising -youths out of the jungles and sent them to Faris, Amsterdam. Lon don, and gave them excellent edu cations. Dut somehow the proper gratitude and complaisance did not appear, even after all this, when these colored recipients of white generosity were told, that while they had much promise and many line qualities, they were not quite ready to associate freely with their benefactors. May I ask you Mr. Greene, sincerely and without sarcasm, have you ever tried being devil's advocate? Have you ever put yourself in the place of a young college-educated Negro living in the South, say in Chapel Hill? Have you ever been kept out of a place for a reason you consi dered invalid? Have you '" been jeered at because of some unremovable characteristic you were born with? What must it be like, Mr. Greene? How can we possibly know? Of course we can't but because we've never been in the Sahara doesn't mean we doubt that we'd fry there in Au gust. As for your conclusion that not integration but states rights is now the primary issue, I am forced to feel doubt. Your very placement of reasons seems to indicate that your prior concern, Mr. Greene, is really integration. And it then seems too possible that the states rights issue is a morally less controversial blind behind which to shelter your in tentions to maintain the status quo. You rightly say, "If integration is to come, it must come slowly." But, Mr. Greene, it must come. "Overnight?" It is almost 100 years since the idea was stated as law. I am genuinely sad to trink this, and perhaps I am mis taken, but isn't it possible, Mr. Greene, that what you and other honcstly-intentionccT and moderate Southerners mean and want by "slowly" and "time for acceptance of this sudden change is after your generation, and after that of your children? A change is a change. The future state will not be as the past. And it may seem "sudden" and shocking if it is nev er been considered a real possi bility for you yourself. , So we don't like it. So it does take effort. It is not necessary or a law of nature that we like everything.' we do. Though it may have come to seem so to us who have grown up in this fortune blessed country to us white peo ple, that is. It may be that in do ing something distasteful, but something which very many peo ple in .many different places and for many years have decided is right, will prove to be less horri ble than we feared. But we will never learn to do it if we con tinually put it off or shove aside until "later' One last thing. To bring this discussion out of theory into ac tuality, may I mention the follow- ram "Did I Hear Somebody Knc Many More Letters Dear Editor: Is it any wonder then that one could simply not give anf cred ence to " Faubus' statements that there was imminent danger to the I'm not mad at you or anyone. The day ha3 been too beautiful to include soapboxes of reform. I've been walking about the campus, scuffing leav pc Hoincr latp for elass. talking with whomever has safety and welfare of the Little Um to talk back and just generally enjoying Rock school children, especially tMs smaU WQrld we have here at UNC. after one considers all that hap pened before and during the time As I crossed the campus here and there, an in question. I did not believe it article in the DTH, printed a few days ago cam3 then as I sat listening and watch- to mind and made me want to laugh. It ended with ing the Governor justify himself something like, "You, snobs! Would it hurt you to by saying that great caravans crack your icy faces and smile!" were converging on the city and rm quite satisied with the status quo on thi? that people (implying the Negroes) STniling issue. My under-graduate college demand had been buying inordinate num- ed a bi smiie and a loud, "Hi!" from everyone, bers of knives, guns, and stilleto- 0ur catalogue insisted on our friendly informal umbrellas. Nor have I believed it spirit. Nothing made me more homesick those first since. The FBI found that fewer freshmen weeks as knowing 1 would have to place weapons had been and were being an insidious grinning mask on my face if I wanted bought than usual; and, as to to get to my classes without undue comment. After those 'caravans, I do not thi Q four years of this hi-and grin-and bare-the-lips habit, they have got to Little Rock yet. i had numerous repercussions in New York (not It was all too plainly a political an good) before I learned to discard it. fairy tale. ' ... t . Now someone wants tne coeas nere iu put uu a uniform facial" expression along with their col legiate dress uniforms. Being a girl, I say I prefer the present state and does. But any reasonable person have found the stare-'env back in the eyes the best in Arkansas knows that he created technique for casual attractive approaches there's that support. Witness the recent a certain flicker about the eyelids that tells you Van Buren fiasco; this is a school very delicately if you've made contact. Perhaps it that integrated peaceably; but is less friendly than the wide grin, but who ever when invited to demonstate, it wil- proclaimed sex friendly? In this interesting war between male and fe male, I refuse to be a conscientious objector and smile, damit, smile (except, of course, on a day as beautiful as this). Now you might ask: Does he not now have the support of the majority of the people of Arkansas,, and of Little Rock? Quite so; he lingly obliged. Even most of those whose dormant emotions he a roused are not really fooled by Faubus. If some are they prob ably wanted to be. Yet the question arises wheth er those -emotions, which needed to be demagogued forth in order to express themselves, were real ly very seriously' held in the first place. The passivity of the people prior to Faubus initial action at- NANCY COMBES Editor: UASUmUTO! POST0"- I wish to offer some suggestions regarding the DTH nolicv on publishing "letters to the Editor," tests that either this "social pat- particularly as regards letters similar to the recent as Mr. Greene calls it, was one from a Mr. "Philip S. Malone, Sr." Even More Letfers Several things should first be noted: First, this Mr. "Malone" is not a student at Kditur: . "A few of Mr. Greene's recent criticisms of the intolerance of liberals, almost approach the truth. But I refer here to certain statements he made that are not so close to the truth. He says that Faubus "was forced to defend his and his state's actions and beliefs when the Supreme Court denied the people of Little Rock time for acceptance of this sudden change," and that, consequently, "he J Faubus) sent in the Nation al Guard, not to kill integration and defy a court order but rath er to keep peace and order until integration would be accepted.'" In the first place, the Supreme Court was not, in September 1937 figuring in the Little Rock matter. The first court actions, those in stigated by the local White Cit izen's Council, were decided in Chancery. And the next decisions came from a single Federal Judge. Sandwiched in between the pas sages quoted above is the state- ing incident, which occurred this week, and which brought me up face to face with reality. And can we not agree, Mr. Greene, that at the least it was regrettable? A European graduate student here on one ef the mst highly selective U. S. scholarships, went to a new Chapel Hill restaurant with the girl across the hall. They enjoyed the meal very much, and after it the European student went back to talk with and congratulate the owner, whose forbears came from her country. He was pleased, but asked her not to bring the girl wi!h her in again since she was colored. That she was an attrac tive, well dressed, accomplished UNC graduate student was im material; she was a Negro and therefore her presence might en langer his budding enterprise. Do you feel, Mr. Greene, that since UNC students can tolerate the presence of Negroes in the room next to them in the dorm, or in the seat next to them in class or at the table next to them in Lenoir or Danziger's, that it is morally, socially or intellectual ly wrong to tolerate treir pres ence at tha next table in Antonio's or any other restaurant in Chapel Hill? And what do you suppose the European student thought as she steamed out of the restaurant swearing never to go there again? And what will she tell of the de mocratic US when she returns to her heme to talk with her friends and teach other university stu dents there in a country where the Communist Party has fairly strong" representation? With the genuine wish that some meeting point between your views . and mine may be found, I should like to hear your answers to these puzzling questions. I Margharetta Eldridge ment that the integration program was "well under way, and no one had raised any objections." This is almost true, but it lends no sup port to his argument. Actually there were some objections (by the White Citizen's Councils with in and without Little Rock, and by a few others), but these did not represent the Little Rock peo ple. The very fact that there were few responsible objections tells us that Faubus was not "forced to defend his and his state's actions and beliefs." And whether Fau bus meant only to "keep peace and order until integration would be accepted'' will be seen in due time. But let us look beyond Septem ber, 1957, in Arkansas for a mo-, ment. In 1955 when Faubus won re-election, one of his principal opponents was a certain Jim John son (now, with the direct or indi rect help of Faubus, an Associate Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court) who, With his single planked-platform "let's keep thems out," amassed about 60,000 votes. It was the renewal of this defeated movement by some plantation farmers (not from Little Rock), a Baptist minister, a local politician, and the White Citizen's Councils, all working in conjunction, which was truly the force that prevailed upon Faubus to summon the Guard. This group was forming around the Attorney General, a Mr. Bruce Bennett, who, in the sum mer of 1957, was making over tures fc it that he would gladly accept its backing as a candidate for the next Governor's race. While this was developing, the Mayor and the Police Department of Little Rock and the School were continuing the plans, which had been in the making . for two or, three years, to integrate 9 stu dents into a school which usually enrolls over 2,000. What werethej people of Little Rock doing? They needed one. Was Faubus. then, forced to de fend his people's rights? He was forced by one commanding desire to remain governor. If he had been forced to defend States Rights he had pelnty of earlier chances to call the Guard at Fay etteville, Van Buren, Hoxie, and at other Arkansas cities which have integrated since Faubus be came governor and before Litte Rock. Faubus has always avowed, like a good politician, to do what the people want. Now the question in the Little Rock case is "what peo ple?" Mr. Greene says the "state's actions - and beliefs." Rather, was it not the city's "ac tions and beliefs" which were par amount? In Faubus' earlier poli tical speeches he said that he would not force integration upon the local school boards, but would leave it up to them as to whether they wanted to integrate or to re main segregated. Thus, he was speaking of local rights, not "state's-rights." The; question is whether Faubus left it up to the people of Little Rock, represented by the School Board, or whether his action was selfishly directed. When I returned to Arkansas (about a week before "black Mon day") the first Arkansas Gazette" I saw had an editorial and a spe cial front-page feature describing the anticipated smoothness of the opening of the integrated classes the following week. There had been attempts to prolong the mat ter, as I said, but they failed when Judge Davies refused to con trovert the School Board's plans. It was evident to many even be fore this time that Faubus was siding with the segregationists in their attempts ot stall the open ing of school. He would not make a public statement that he would support the School Board's plan.' Mr. Virgil Blossom, the Superin- tendent, said in his later testimony probably were not paying much' to the FBI that he and the School .ern, dying out, or its holders were giving it up as a bad thing. And there are other reasons why the Arkansans supported Fau- UNC. The Central Office of Records, in response bus in such great numbers. One to two separate inquiries, can find no record of him friend of mine said he voted for Second, a letter identical (minus DTH misspell- Faubus, not .because of Faubus' ings) to that appearing in DTH on October 24 ap- supposed beliefs, but because he peared in the Durham Morning Herald on the pre- (the friend) did not like the North- vious daw. It was postmarked in Greensboro. em liberals and their, to him, in sulting magazines and newspa pers. Others found in Faubus a hero who was fighting the big Northern elephant. It did not mat ter about the cause he was es- Third, these letters were sent to newspapers just prior to "Communion Sunday," a Sunday on which members of other denominations are expressedly welcome at Episcopal services. Fourth, this type of letter has been frequency pousing so long as he was fighting employed by a particular lunatic fringe in the Pro and making headline history. The testant Episcopal Church, in order to either spread cause, well, that would die down, their own rather peculiar beliefs or to gain some but in the meantime Arkansas was prominence for themselves. It can be recalled that niching its notch. such letter provoked a flurry of letters to the DTH No, Mr. Greene, Faubus was as year not forced; he was not maintain- These four things consideredt I am inclined to rag law and order. He was making doubt the "Real Presence" of this Mr. Malone. The himself the third-term governor letter seems rather to be part of a not-so-clever and a little history to go with it. little propaganda campaign, a campaign which em Many people in Arkansas expected harasses many members of the Protestant Episcopal Faubus to begin to look for a way Church and which offends many members of other out of his dilemma after the July denominations. primary this year; that, with his main objective obtained, he would The DTH policy has long appeared to be one of not interfere with the opening of Piisning an tetters, written in good taste, wnica school this past September if he were signed by bona fide students. This is the im- could give in while making it look -.uu F-a. cu.i queniiy iacuiiy ana townspeople nave coniriDuieu like a victory for himself or the fault of someone else. But this did not happen. Why? Well, Faubus apparently is not one to count birds in bushes while he has one in his hand. Although he was in effect re-elected in July, there was still the usually perfunctory No vember general election. This was perhaps in his mind when he clos letters, but I can recall no occasions when they have been responsible for letters which did not to some slight degree pertain to previous DTH articles or to university affairs. Such letters may be useless, but they fall far short of the Mr. "Malone" class. A policy of print ing similar wierd letters from non-students opens the DTH to all varieties of cranks, crackpots and fanatics. I doubt seriously that this will contribute ed the schools this past Septem- to the quality of the DTH, and feel assured that ber. Now he is already shewed-in. most f the students do not wish to subsidize the Of course, it could be, too, that Publication of such material. Faubus said that he did not go into These things considered, I suggest an editorial anything without knowing what he statement to the effect that only letters from stu- was doing. For once I want to be- dents will be published, excentins letters from non-university persons only when they pertain di rectly to something associated with the life of the university. And please use discretion in making these exceptions. lieve him." O. B. FULMER NAME WITHHELD BY REQUEST Editor: mind to either side. And what was Faubus doing? He was becoming worried about, his political future. He was afraid, though needlessly I believe, for he Board had tried on numerous oc casions throughout the summer of 1957 to get Faubus to state pub licly his support or his non-inte- ference with the integration plan. probably would have, been rS Mr. Blossom related that on each elected anyway, since the people of Arkansas were not then giving much notice to the : fire-eaters' 2 ells he was uneasy that if he did not appease this segregationist faction it might, with its cotton money, put Mr. Bennett in the mansion and he would have to go back to Huntsville. (If you hai ever ' seen Huntsville you would know why Faubus wanted to stay in the mansion.) Therefore, when he sided with the segregationists, he lowered the sails of Mr. Ben nett's political change's and those of any other segregationist be cause he left them . no rallying pomt. Besides, they" no longer occasion Faubus refused, and that at their last meeting two or three days before the Guard was posted he tried again, biit Faubus again refused. The Governor then said fcthat integration would probably succeed without any trouble, but that he still was not going to let them do it integrate. He told Mr. Blossom that he vas already com mitted to some people. Winthrop Rockefeller quoted Faubus as say ing that he 'had 'to do "it" in or der to be re-elected. As far as I know Faubus has never denied making this statement, xne that has been attributed to him by people other than. Rockefeller. To Mr. Fred Hnrlburt: This is in answer to your letter of October 28. I express some deep concern on this matter for I, myself, am a member of the Episcopal Church that you were in doubt about. Several members of the Editorial Staff seem to I do not know you, but I wish be totally unconcerned with whether or not their I could, for glancing over your arti- reviews and appraisals are fair or unfair, accurate cle, I noticed that there was a or inaccurate, honest or dishonest. As controver- series of questions about our sialists they attempt only to foster a reaction, any church. reaction, in order to "stimulate thought." This is a As far as any weakness in our questionable policy in itself, and in the hands ol church, I would like to state that such immature writers it becomes 'reprehensible. the fact that there are some weal; spots and confusion in our church makes it all the stronger. In criticizing our church you au tomatically criticize the members in it. Such is true in any group. But what about George Washing ton and the greater percentage of our Presidents who were Epis copalians? Our immediate reference is, of course, to Mr. Wolff's review of the Playmaker's production of "Oklahoma!". It goes without saying that the Play makers is an outstanding amateur theatrical com pany, and to anyone not expecting a production equal to Broadway standards, their production was far more than adequate. We feel that a critic has responsiblity as well as authority, and Mr. Wolff failed to exercise any I would like to add Fred that responsibility whatsoever when he tossed his words if you are even mildly interested around as derisively as he did in his review. We in our church, we have a study question whether he is competent to review as many group every Tuesday night at 7 fields of artistic endeavor as he does, and we sug- o'clock in the Parish House. The gest that he at least enough to acknow ledge- fairly the efforts of others. group would welcome you and I, personally, would welcome you. Hubert RL Riddick MIKE ALEXANDER FRANK CARLISLE
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 30, 1958, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75