Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Feb. 10, 1966, 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
pafre 2 Thursday, February 10, 1966 h Satlg ar 1M Opinions of The Daily tar Heel are expressed in its : editorials. All unsigned editorials are written by the g jij: editor. Utters and columns reflect only the personal jx : views of their contributors. ERNIE McCRARY. EDITOR Tovarich And The Tobacco By JAY JENKINS In The Charlotte Observer RALEIGH One little rag-tag Communist, who scarcely knows where his next theoretical meal is coming from, certainly can stand the State of North Carolina on its ear. So it's in order to conjure a tableau of the future in the Tar Heel State, one that is purely imaginary. . . The first hint that Tovarich had been invited to speak on the university campus at Chapel Hill came when a number of legislators suddenly filled the lobby of the Capitol. "Another one's been invited," a legislator said darkly. "A festering Red sore," said another. "A Red nest," said another. There was much milling around. At long last, the chairman of the trustee executive committee emerged from the governor's office and said quietly, "The speech has been cancelled." Great was the rejoicing. But over to one side, a stranger looked glum and shook his head sadly. "Don't believe I've had the pleasure," said a leg islator. "Smith, from the U. S. Department of Agri culture," said the stranger. Then the stranger added, almost under his breath, "Tovarich was gonna talk about Russia's plans to buy surplus tobacco." 4 'You mean flue-cured tobacco. ' ' "North Carolina flue-cured tobacco," said the stranger. "Moscow isn't interested in the Virginia or the Georgia leaf. "Tovarich says they want only the Tar Heel va riety. He says it's something in the soil or atmosphere, a sort of rancid flavor." It seemed all at once that a rump session of the General Assembly had been called. All the legislators were talking simultaneously. Then the governor ap peared, smiling at his office door. "You can go home, fellows," said the governor. "We took care of that little matter." His smile changed into an expression of alarm, as the legisla tors rushed toward him. Only snatches of their torrent of words were de cipherable. Phrases like "free speech" and "academic freedom" were spliced into shouts about "90-cent to bacco" and "disappearing surplus." "Wait a minute now" said the governor, examin ing the faces in the crowd. "Every one of you told me personally you didn't want Tovarich to speak in Chapel Hill. ' "That's right," said a perspiring legislator whose car carried a dacal reading 'Largest Tobacco Mark et in the World." The legislator added, "we want him to speak at East Carolina College." There was a lot of confusion. The governor said the trustees would "lose face" if they rescinded the ban, and a legislator shouted his county would lose a lot more if the ban stood. The governor and the legislators finally went to the Hall of the House to talk some more. Smith, the Agriculture Department man, was quizzed at length. "Yes, Tovarich is a hard-core Communist" he be gan. "Get on the tobacco angle," shouted a legislator. Smith said that yes, Tovarich was ready to pay cash, for present and future orders. "Governor, this talk clearly would serve an 'edu cational purpose'." said a tobacco-county lawmaker. "This state is committed to education. Our boys and girls deserve the best. They can separate the wheat from the chaff when these Commies talk . . ." "But, gentlemen, you passed the law giving the authority to the trustees, and they have decided that Tovarich has been invited only for the sake of con troversy," said the governor. In the end, the governor capitulated. When the special session convened, the badge of the Easterner was his fur headpiece and the "Volga Boatman,, lapel pin. A section of U.S. 74 in Pitt County already had been named "Tovarich Drive." Chowan County com missioners decreed that henceforth shad roe was "Leningrad caviar." Tovarich's speech was sparsely attended, and picketed by non-smokers protesting the section of the "open-end speaker law" that prohibited them from asking him questions. But he bought the surplus to bacco. (Hljp Satlij (Ear 72 Years of Editorial Freedom ?: : The Daily Tar Heel is the official news publication of the University 6f North Carolina and is published by 5: students daily except Mondays, examination periods and g vacations. : : : Ernie McCrary, editor; Barry Jacobs, associate editor; :: Pat Stith, managing editor; Andy Myers, news editor; : Gene Rector, sports editor; Jim Coghill, asst. sports : editor; Kerry Sipe, night editor; Grady Hubbard, wire : editor; Bill Fesperman. religious editor; Ernest Robl. :: photographer; Chip Barnard, editorial cartoonist; David 5: Rothman, columnist; Carol Gallant, secretary; Ed :: Freakley, Bob Harris, Glenn Mays. Steve Lackey. Steve S iji Bennett, staff writers; Wayne Hurder. Ron Shinn, Mike S g OLeary, copy editors; Gene Whisnant. Bill Rollins, Bill Hass. Sandy Treadwell, Drummond Bell, sports writers. S :j Second class postage paid at the post office in Chapel S Hill, N. C, 27514. Subscription rates; $4.50 per semester; : g $8 per year. Send change of address to The Daily Tar S g Heel. Box 1080. Chapel Hill. N. C, 27514. Printed by the g Chapel Hill Publishing Co.. Inc. The Associated Press is :? g entitled exclusively to the use for republication of all ? local news printed in this newspaper as well as all AP S news dispatches. TIWtIn " ' Alike Jennings UNC Lacks Trust Of State "What's wrong with those people in Chapel Hil? "Who do they think they are down there, anyway? Maybe we'll just show them who they are." They did. They showed us who we are. Just like they've done so many times be fore, the people of this state put us in our place. They showed us we don't deserve to be trusted. The Trustees were only reflecting this state's ancient, al most morbid distrust of its state university when ' they pulled the rug out from under the invitations to Wil kinson and Aptheker. It's this distrust this unfounded, superstitious suspicion of Chapel Hill and the University that is the real burden of shame our school bears. The rebuttals the Legislature and the Trustee have handed us in the past have been some thing worse than mere injustices. Unjust statutes could at least be respected if they were accompanied by a feeling of concern throughout the state for the welfare of the University. But the feeling has always been, "I guess that'll show those and radicals and communists in Chapel Kiil they aren't go ing to run this state." That's what hurts. That's what makes the statutes mockeries. This writer will try to disprove, in a feature article in the Sunday Tar Heel, many of the charges commonly made against the University and Chapel Hill. The article will use statistics and statements The Student Speaks gathered from law enforcement agencies and from the Institute of Government to show that Chapel Hil has as clcjn a record as any major city in the state on all counts including violence, narcotics usage and communist activity. It's too much to hope, though, that con trary evidence can kill a phantom born of an old tradition. For a long time to come, people across the state will mistrust us. They'll "know" all about the blood on the Old Well, the communist behind every bush, the perverts bohind every bush, the marijuana in the attic and the brothel on the ground floor. And they'll want to know, to our endless frustration, what's wrong with those idiots in Chapel Hil. Thanks To Students Editor, The Daily Tar Heel: I would like to express my appreciation to the students who so quickly and efficient ly gave me first aid and other assistance on Thursday, Jan. 27. Slipping on the ice near Hill Hall about 4:45 p.m. that day really made a mess of my ankle. My stay in the hospital is not over. Due to the quick thinking and kindness of those who stopped to help, I suffered no shock and probably was spared more serious injury. Today many people consider the college student to be thoughtless and self-centered. I feel otherwise, and I have proof! My thanks again to all who helped. Sincerely, Jane Wright, Visiting Assistant Professor, School of Library Science Trastee Action Justified By WILLIAM OTIS A lot of us thought that we had won the last laugh on the General Assembly with the amendment of the speaker ban last year. Once more we could pursue Truth and Wisdom unshackled by the petty and vindictive little minds in Raleigh. The threat of accreditation loss had been too much for even their provincial obstinance, and reluctantly they acceded to the require ments of "academic freedom." "Hallelujah!" we rejoiced. "The witch is dead!" Not quite. In our intoxicated exhulation we over- , looked a few relevant details.' For one thing, J the amendment did not, thank God, make the campus a streetcorner soapbox onto which any variety of cranks could trot to preach their particular Word. Instead it shifted responsibility for the regulation of speaking privileges from a fixed policy (i.e., no Communists, Fifth Amendment pleaders, etc.) to a flexible one, and from the General Assembly to the University board of trustees. So now that latter body has chosen to ex ercise the responsibility and flexibility we demanded so loudly and so petulantly only a few months ago that it be given And what is our reaction? We resume our weep ing and wailing and gnashing of teeth be cause we think that the foot of academic freedom has had its delicate toes stomped on. But I, for one, have heard enough pom pous bombast about academic freedom from students here. Let's get some things straight. First, this University has no academic freedom and never has had any The free dom of inquiry we do enjoy, which we commonly confuse with academic freedom, (and which, incidentally, is a great deal more substantial than that enjoyed by uni versity students in the nations Herbert Ap theker most admires) is simply one of the privileges we are granted by the General Assembly. This is a state-owned and state-supported institution, and as such enjoys only those prerogatives the state sees fit to grant it. No more. Second, we knew that this was the case when we came here. We were not com pelled to come, and we are not compelled to stay. We have chosen, consciously I as sume, to exercise the privilege of attend ance at a state supported university and yet continue to act as if academic freedom were our God-given right. Third, just how much do we make of "academic freedom" when we are not squawking that we don't have any? The truth is that all the "academic freedom" 95 per cent of us ever use is just enough to look at our text books (once in a while, at least), read Monarch outlines, and scurry on occasion to the local quiz file. We use our freedom of inquiry not to examine what are the tenets of Marxism (or utilitarianism or Zen Buddism, etc), but toward another sort of question, i e' how are we getting to Greensboro this week end, can we get to the ABC store before it closes, what is on the tube tonight? The remaining five per cent who actual ly do take an active interest in intellectual questions beyond the immediate scope of their courses are, I feel sure, sufficiently resourceful to provid for nourishing their minds by means other than personal at tendance at lectures given by persons bar red from the use of campus facilities. They could, for example, arrange for these persons to speak off campus, or could tape and re-play their speeches, or could avail themselves of texts, journals, circu lars, and reprints, available in voluminous quantity both on campus and off. in which P'Mnns prohibited from appearing have ex pressed themselves. It is also interesting to note that those wailing loudest about the fear-ridden closed mindedness of the trustees (before it was the General Assembly, with the Trustees cast as the Guardians of University Free dom and Integrity, if I recall correctly), are careful to include in their current pe tition a statement of their "total and com plete opposition to the Communist Party and all that it embodies." Hardly a very open-minded position, is it? If their opposition is indeed total and complete, then they render the concept of "academic freedom" 4 (which : they, don't have anyway) functionally useless ' After all,- no one bothers to investigate that ' to which he is complete and totally opposed with the idea that his investigation should or might reduce that opposition. Another point: disregarding all other con siderations, it is argued that prohibiting Aptheker's appearance would violate his freedom of speech So we must stand up for Constitutional Rights, Democratic Prin ciples, and the American Way (also, pre sumably, Justice, Mother, and the Flag), and demand that this Communist be per mitted to belch his dogma at us from on campus. This is utter nonsense. To forbid the enlistment and use of the grounds, build ings, and other facilities which are owned and maintained by the state to Communist speakers is not to deny them freedom of speech. Thus the trustees are in no way impinging upon Aptheker's constitutional guarantees; they are witholding the privi lege of the use of state property. This is entirely within their authority. One final point should be added. The student body has seemed all too willing to make obvious its general contempt for the legislature, the trustees, and the Governor. We see them as men of little vision, in telligence, or perspective. (Naturally, these qualities abound in ourselves.) Exactly why this obnoxiously smug at titude prevails is not important here. That we exhibit it with ever increasing frequency is. Campus leaders added to the exhibition when they joined the SDS in inviting Apthe ker. Hardly a prudent move, for it served not to clarify the unity of the student body behind what it incorrectly views as free speech, but instead to blur even further the hazy distinction in many people's minds between the generally moderate and re sponsible course of student government and the rather different course of the SDS. Moreover, our beligerence increases: We'll show them, we will, with mass ral lies, marches to Raleigh, petitions, and if need be, law suits to shake them from their provincial obstructionism. It might be a good idea to avoid an tagonizing the petty little men in Raleigh too much, though. They might decide one day that they'd had enough lip from post teenage know-it-alls, and close this place down. Then we would have something legiti mate to complain about. - ; LETTERS The Daily Tar Heel welcomes Itt ters to the editor on any subject, particularly on matters of local or University interest. Letters must be typed, double-spaced and must in clude the name and iiiiilrcss of the author or authors. Names wiil not be omitted in publication. Letters should be limited to about 250-300 words. The DTH reserves the right to edit for length er libel. Longer letters will be considered for "The Student Speaks" if they are of sufficient interest. How ever, the DTH reserves the right to use contributed materials as it sees fit. David Rothman He Dreamed Of Dissension Dean of Student Affairs C. O. Cathey said recently that Students for a Democrat ic Society is plagued with dissention, and judging from a discusion I dreamed I had with several SDS members, I'd find his ob servations entirely correct. "Is it true your group is dissent-ridden?" I asked one member. "We have trouble aereeine on everv- , ..- X thing," the member 11 ifmm I 1 replied. - f : "In fact," he said, ' x I i ..... . i "we nave more dis sent within our ranks than any other organ ization on campus." "Huh?" "We're against the consensus." Then I talked with another SDS man. "Nonsense," he said. "Everyone agreed on nearly all the points brought up at our last meeting. Our six motions were almost unanimously approved. Nobody disagrees with janybody." At this point still another SDS member interrupted the conversation to ask: "Who said that was the number of motions we pased?" "I did." "Oh come on now. You've probably made it up." "I did not." "The heck you didn't-" "Want to fight about it?" "Please," the second SDS member I talked to pleaded. "Stop your argument. I've just told a reporter that everybody in our group agrees on everything." "But we don't agree," insisted th oth er SDSer. "Of coure we do." "I say we don't." "I say we do." "I say we don't." "Disregard all of what we have said," I was told. "We're really not arguing. Real ly, my friend and I have no differences whatsoever." "But we do have our differences," the other member stubbornly insisted. "It is these varying opinions that strengthen de mocracy, that make our group more effec tive." "Not in my opinion. "Furthermore," he continued, "I was teling the reporter that SDS has no dif ferences of opinion. My opinion always co incides with your opinion. If you don't ac cept this viewpoint, I'll begin beating you over the head." "You couldn't beat me up if you tried." "Sure I could," retorted the SDS mem ber who insisted he and his friend agreed on everything. "I'm heavier than you are." "No you're not." "Obviously, you're a liar," replied the "we agree" man. "If you say I'm a liar, how can you agree with me?" "Shut UP!" shouted the "we agree" SDSer. Then he handed me a press release saying his group is completely without in ternal strife. A Sf-r- i- AN iftE THE KIND V-pfrrrrfi n. A 3; c i :: & 7- fi&i of (same i can . h iHFI'r I i i; II ;
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 10, 1966, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75