Newspapers / Louisburg College Student Newspaper / Oct. 30, 1975, 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 Two COLUMNS Thursday, October 30, 1975 Editorials By HARLEY DARTT There is growing controversy over Louisburg College’s academic policy. Many feel that the number of students on which the honor of Dean’s List is conferred has become too great. Also the standards set for academic probation are too low during the first three semesters of school. Recently a platform was presented in a faculty ad ministration meeting that attempted to do something about these problems. It would have raised the stan dards for academic probation after each semester and raised the necessary attainment for Dean’s List to a 3.25 on the 4.00 scale. It would also have insitituted an unlimited out policy for students on the Dean’s List at the discretion of the individual instructor. Also suggested was the idea that drop period with no grade notation be extended until mid-term. This entire plat form was soundly defeated. It is my opinion that the acceptance of this policy would have been the greatest boon to Louisburg College academics since the advent of the textbook. At first glance it would appear that this change in policy would be bad for the students but in actuality it would be anything but. The Dean’s List may be raised .25 points, thereby losing some students, but the students would have the added impetus of liberalized cut restrictions. Some instructors feel that this unlimited cut policy would lead to empty classrooms, but I feel that it would be self regulating. The student that abused the privilege would be hard pressed to maintain his 3.25 and keep his cut freedom. If he can never show up for class and maintain his grade average, whose fault is that? The grades of students involved could be checked at every quarter and they would be allowed to continue depending how successful they have been. The unlimited cut policy could be coupled with special assignments, not necessarily for grade enhancement but for added interest. Louisburg College should take a long look at its present academic policy particularly in regard to it’s higher achievement students. An experimental measure such as the one above might be helpful. VOL. XXXV No. II MEMBERS OF THE STAFF Sam Register Randy Lordi Bobby Brandon, Swade Sanders Jonathan Phillips Fred Hall, Jeff Jospeh X)ebbi Lewis Libby Lewis, Susan Right Alice Smith, David Edwards Susan Right Editor Asst. Editor Bus. Managers Sports Editor Sports Staff Cultural Events Editor Staff Writers Mary Typist Advisor Mr. Umphrey Lee COLUMNS, a member of Intercollegiate Press, is published monthly. It is printed by the Henderson Daily Dispatch of Hen derson. TRICK OR TREAT Dear Editor, For the past few yars Halloween at louisburg has been an experience that people talk about year after year. Hopefully this year will be the same, perhaps finer than the past because this year the night for witches and wild people falls on a weekend. So to you the student, this means you can make a night out of it and worry not about the classes the next day. All you have to do the day after is get yourself together enough to make to the Annual Day After Halloween Party. You’ll get to listen to some good music, drink a couple of cups of liquid sun shine, meet with your friends and hopefully make some new ones. Some of you said, “Spend the whole week in Louisburg? No way.” Those who made it to the first party know you can have a good time and they seem to have had one. For all of you who decided to go home or wherever you just missed it. But you do have another chance and if you don’t enjoy it, it’ll be your own fault. So make a mark on the old calendar for the weekend of Oct. 30-Nov. 2, and plan to spend it here. You have to give everything, including school, a chance. Who knows, you may enjoy it. TRICK OR TREAT, Theodore Kent State: Five Years Later (CPA) — When national guardsmen killed four students and wounded nine at Kent State University more than five years ago, a new dimension of horror broke into the lives of many American, both young and old: the spectre of battle-ready soldiers shooting students on campus. Ever since that day, in court houses and jury room, newspaper columns and legal brief, the argument has raged as to who, if anyone, was responsible |or 13 seconds of fatal gunfire on May 4, 1970. Did state and guard officials set the stage for the tragedy through a combination of malicious, thoughtless and inept policies and actions? Did guardsmen intentionally fire into the crowd of students following them? Or were dangerous, rioting students unlawfully assembled properly dispersed by soldiers who feared for their own lives? In what for many culminated the Kent State debate, a $46 million civil damages suit charging Ohio Gov. James A. Rhodes and 28 present and for mer state officials and guard smen with depriving the dead and wounded students of their right to life and liberty went to trial last spring. On August 27, after 15 weeks of testimony and five days of deliberation, jurors for the case voted 9-3 to absolve the officials and guardsmen of responsibility for the shootings. For those closest to the case, however, Kent State was not closed. “Thanks to these jurors, murder by the state is correct,” lamented Arthur Krause, whose daughter Allison died at Kent State. Lawyers for Krause, the families of the three other dead students, and the nine wounded students filed September 13 for a new trial as a first step in ap pealing the August verdict. Their motion claimed procedural errors by the court and in the judge’s charge to the jury. “Everybody’s hands were washed clean (by the jury’s verdict), as if there was nothing wrong,” said David Engdahl, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. Engdahl said Kent State is cited as the worst example of how to deal with civil disorders by guard officials outside Ohio. “Yet the jury tells us nothing was wrong,” Engdahl said. “That just can’t be.” Many close to the case looked to the civil trial as a forum where “the truth about Kent State” would finally come out. Yet testimony during the trial was almost always conflicting, especially on major points such as whether the guardsmen’s lives were endangered and who was responsible for guard activities on campus. “Many of the guard were in fear that the crowd would take away their guns and bayonet or shoot them,” argued defense attorney Charles Brown. “This was not a Mayday picnic but insurrection, rebellion.” “I felt my life was in danger,” testified S^. Lawrence Schafer. “I saw no necessity to shoot,” countered guardsman James W. Ferriss. Prior to the order to disperse the rally, there was no violence of any kind on May 4 and the rally did not present any danger to any person or property, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued. They also contended that Gov. Rhodes made inflammatory statements contributing to the atmosphere which spawned the shootings. Jurors heard a tape recording of a press conference 26 hours prior to the shooting in which Rhodes called those responsible for campus unrest “worse than the brown shirts and the com munist element and also the night riders and the vigilantes.” “Kent State has probably the most vicious form of campus violence and we are going to employ every force of the law that we have under our authority,” Rhodes said. “They (the student activists) are the worst type of people we have in America. We will employ every weapon possible.” Rhodes denied his remarks were inflammatory. In addition, a former guard sergeant testified that Gov. Rhodes told a meeting of officers the day before the shootmg that he had gone to Kent to assume full conmiand of law enforcement activities there. According to the sergeant, Rhodes said the guard was in control of the campus, that classes would remain in session “even if it meant keeping an (Continued on Page 3)
Louisburg College Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 30, 1975, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75