Newspapers / Louisburg College Student Newspaper / April 17, 1967, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Louisburg College 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
Page 2 COLUMNS MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1967 Editorial Comment ...Under The Influence... In light of the recent emotional tangent much of this campus was involved in last week as the result of the sus pension of two women students, there seem to be several reflections worth noting. The students themselves are to be congratulated for finally rallying en masse and voicing their feelings, opin ions, and questions concerning the situation. We, as stu dents, have the right to question any aspect of the rules and regulations in the handbook and their intrepretation. Also, the right of the students to question the actions of the S.G.A. officers, being as they are the elected representa tives of the student body, is undeniable. This is precisely what was done. The long awaited and overdue unification of the student body for a cause is very encouraging. It shows how working together can possibly result in action. It’s unfortunate that it took such unhappy circumstances to arouse the students from their often apathetic slumber- ings. Yet, aroused, they went about the questioning of the case and the rule upon which the conviction was based through the proper channels open to them- the S.G.A. It was done in a responsible and orderly manner, except for one regrettable and uncondoned rock throwing incident. It is rash actions like this that could ruin any future possi bility of having the wishes of the students realized. It is hoped this type of irrational action will not reoccur. This brings up the question of the rule on alcohol. It states “....use of alcoholic beverages, containers, or being under the influence of alcohol in any of the buildings or grounds of Louisburg College is grounds for expulsion." The women's Judicial Board based their decision concern ing the two coeds on this rule. They should not be criticiz ed for this. These women have a job to do, and the office they hold demands that they do it. Apparently, the Board acted in a way they believed was just. The question is, what does this clearly ambiguous state ment "under the influence" mean? For the women, accord- to Sam Perry, it means "roudiness, being unladylike, or having the smell of alcohol on one’s breath." Thus, it appears that a person can consume a teaspoon of alcohol and be considered "under the influence" and expelled or suspended from school, as can a person who is undoubtedly intoxicated. This is ridiculous, as are the "Gestapo" type tactics used to determine whether a coed has alcoholic odors on her breath. This clause is unclear and can be used to fit any argument concerning any case. It is understood that the rule is passed down to the governing bodies from year to year. It is about time this rule was looked at and reinterpreted. It should be reinter preted objectively, realistically, and in light of the feelings and way of life prevalent today, not those of five years ago or ten years ago or longer. This desire for reinterpretation should continue to be channeled by the students through the ways open to them in the S.G.A. This should be done now, before some other student is caught in the ambiguous web of this rule and its questionable interpretation. Letters To The Editor COLUMNS Volume XXVI Number 7 MEMBERS OF THE STAFF Editor-ln-chlef James E. Donahue III Editorial Assistant Duncan Collins News Editor Stewart Hobbs Sports Editor James Lanier Cartoonist Scot Cameron Photographer Bush Enos Circulation Bonnie Turnage Reporters: Tom Rowe, Sandra Rook, Rlckl Dye, Ruth Peele, Lynda Wootten, Harold Preas, Harold Smathers, Jim Simmons, Max Gainor, Sallie Mower, Bill Harles and Howard S. Booney. The views expressed on this page are not necessarily those of the faculty or administration. Dear Editor: A word of thanks to the Stu dents of Louisburg College. I would like to thank all of the students of this college who were beside me in my time of trouble. I hope you will al ways stand up for your rights and fight for what you think Is right. I love Louisburg College and all of you kids. Please be good and I’ll see you all next year. I am coming back to prove that I’m not all bad. Sincerely, Barbara C. Nelson Editor, COLUMNS: That mockery of student self- government, the Woman’s Council, has done it again. They’ve given Diane Hudson and Barbara Nelson the ax. To quote Jean Perry: “The ruling that has been handed down to us is that if a girl is acting rowdy, unladylike, or has the smell of alcohol on her breath, she is considered under the in fluence of alcohol.” I daresay that we will all agree that rowdiness and unladylike behavior can be the result of many Influences other than that of alcohol: happiness, anger, love, hatred; and that these are invalid criteria for determining whether or not a person is “under the influence of alco hol.” Smelling alcohol on the breath? Well. The SGA’^s de finition makes one swallow of beer as incriminating as a fifth of liquor. Fair? Then consider. This interpretation was made to please the North Carolina Methodist Conference, which supports our school. They give us cash, we follow Christian doctrines. But remember: wine was the only safe thing to drink two thousand years ago. Ac cording to Louisburg’s defini tion, then, Jesus spent the vasi majority of his life under the influence of alcohol. Do we all agree that the pre sent interpretation is unjust, invalid, and superannuated? Let me offer an alternate, referring specifically to a recent Board decision. It is not my intention to even attempt to criticize the kan- garoo-court proceedings which have resulted in this injustice. Everybody knows what is wrong with the holier-than-thou Wo man’s council; and there are very few students outside these groups who concur with the “regulations” which govern student behavior and give these organizations their power. I am, rather, writing to pre sent a few facts which should be brought to the attention of the Wom.an’s Council, which should be helpful in determining what “under the influence” means. I am not acquainted with the details of Diane Hudson’s case, but the facts about Barbara Nelson are so clear as to be undeniable: (1) The Acorn states that “being under the Influence of alcohol in any of the buildings or grounds of Louisburg Col lege is grounds for expulsion.” (2) Barbara Nelson, by her 1) n tvj own admission, drank either one or two 12-oz. cans of beer on the night of April 8. (3) Collier’s Encyclopedia, under an article on “Alcoho lism,” states that “two bottles of beer (24 oz.) produce a per centage of 0.03% alcohol in the blood of a 150 lb. person.” (4) Barbara Nelson weighs 125 lbs. This means that she had 0.036% alcohol in her blood. (5) Patrolman Byrd of the North Carolina State Police, to whom I spoke Tuesday morning, told me that “the North Carolina State Legislature has ruled that a person is legally under the in fluence of alcohol when he has 0.10% alcohol in his blood.” Barbara Nelson was not under the Influence of alcohol on the night of April 8. She had been drinking; but there are no rules against coming on campus after you have been drinking; only against coming on campus “un der the influence of alcohol.” The State Police are surely a more valid source of informa tion than the clearly self-con- tradlctory interpretation of the Woman’s council. It Is, there fore, logical that Barbara has not violated one single Louis burg College regulation. Thus, I feel, her expulsion is totally unjust. It Is, therefore, my advice to the Woman’s Council that they immediately draft a letter of apology to Barbara Nelson, and, more importantly, that they withdraw their invalid decision to expell her. Any member of the Faculty, Administration, or Woman’s Council is invited to attempt to justify this decision in the light of the above facts; in this paper, or to me, at box 976. We, the students, have signed a contract agreeing to obey the regulations of Louisburg Col lege, no matter how “Mickey Mouse” they m.ay be. Most of us do. Those that don’t, get punished. All right. But please, don’t kick out any innocent stu dents. Please? Daniel C. W. Freeman Editor: Any student may drink off campus—no matter what his (or her) drinking habits are. If he comes back on campus, he then may be judged “under the In fluence of alcohol”—no matter the quantity of consumption. Girls who have consumed any alcoholic beverage are caught in a dilemma. (1) They may in dulge off campus, but (2) must return to campus that same day to honor their check-ln time. According to the handbook, she will be found guilty for com- sumptlon of alcohol. How can a college that pro hibits drinking only “on campus” rectify Itself In pro secuting those students who conform to the alcohol rule-- Indulglng off campus--expect them to Invite persecution by honoring the check-ln time rule. This applies to men also. A man who drinks beer may not return to campus. The interpretation of the al coholic rule that was presented to the students last Tuesday night has not been precedented. Instead, the clause “under the influence of alcohol in any of the building or grounds” has been left solely to the inter pretation of the respective councils for each individual case presented to them. With this discrimination left to the council members, the councils decisions may (and have) im pinged upon personal bias. This last clause is definitely obscure with no definite inter pretation; but something may be done--and by the students themselves. This rule is under the Gen eral Rules and Regulations for Men and Women and not an article of the Constitution of the Louisburg College Student Government Association. Therefore, I propose that a motion be passed at one or both council meetings concerning the changing of the rule and car ried to the cabinet (which should be open to the student public). Here the motion should be sub mitted to a committee com posed of a member of the S. G. A. Cabinet, the Dean of Students, and members of the S. G. A. public nominated from the floor. When the motion is ready to be presented as a bill, before the end of the semester. It should be presented to an open meet ing of the cabinet and voted on. The bill, not being an ammend- ment to the Constitution, need not follow the procedure of Article XII of the school con stitution, as was stated at the emergency cabinet meeting. I see no other way, within the framework of democratic pro cedure, that the changing of this rule or any other one under the General Rules and Regula tions for Men and Women may be altered. William C. Barrett III
Louisburg College Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 17, 1967, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75