Newspapers / St. Andrews University Student … / May 1, 1964, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of St. Andrews University 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 THE LANCE EDITORIALS “' Steal The Communists’ Thunder g/^'5 (hosen Evidence that communists are making efforts to infiltrate the civil rights movement cause some people to reach the wrong con elusion. The challenge now is not to abandon efforts to end discrimination but for good loyal American citizens to retain leadership and control of the movement and to redouble their efforts to give every cihzen a fair shake so that no one will be tempted to follow subversives. The challenge to the Congress is to approve some positive legis lation, such as the civil rights bills, with reasonable modifications, 80 that the teeth will be drawn from subversive threats. There is some reason to believe that the American people are ac cepting the challenge, despite disgust with the rable-rousing antics of civil rights extremists. A recent opinion poll shows that 64 per cent of the public, including a small majority of white Southerners, wants some kind of civil rights bill passed. Anyone conversant with Marxist ideology understands that the communists seek to destroy the American way of life. But e or s to keep 20 million Americans in a second class status because ey happen to belong to a minority race should not be part of the Ameri can way of life. It certainly was not conceived by our Founding Fathers to be part of the American Dream. The United States has two options, it seems to us: one, to solve the problem under law, granting to each citizen his full civil and constitutional rights on the basis of equal citizenship; or, two, to give up the idea of Individual freedom under the law and openly pursue a racist policy. . -x • v. White America can destroy the “Negro revolution” if it wishes to pay the price. Whites outnumber Negroes ten to one and enjoy every political, economic, and social advantage. If It comes to a power struggle, in which public morality plays no part, white Ameri ca can win hands down, even if it means herding the Negro com munities into ghettos or arriving at a “final solution” of our own. That alternative would make us roughly three times as evil as the Nazis, who slaughtered only six million Jews, and it would clearly exact ’ a price that no sensible person would pay; namely, the end of American democracy and freedom. Since the second alternative is really no choice at all, we might as well make up our minds to accept some social changes in Ameri ca and arrive at a formula for solution of the civil rights crisis in accordance with our great national heritage, thereby freeing our minds, our hands and our hearts for the many other national problems that cry out for attention. (from The Cheraw Chronicle) The "Dishonor Roll Grows Yearly Of all the grim records of violence and death down through man kind’s long history, perhaps the strangest and most tragic is the story of the automobile and its annual army of victims. Since the first horseless carriage chugged noisily down cobble stone streets, more than 60,000,000 Americans - killed, crippled and maimed - have Inscribed their names on what has been aptly referred to as “the dishonor roll,” By whatever name, the yearly casualty count continues its shameful, senseless growth. Last year was no exception. Infact 1963 claimed the dubious distinc tion of being the worst single year in the history of highway safety. During its twelve months, automobile accidents were responsible for more deaths than the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire Korean War. According to an authoritative report by The Travelers Insurance Companies, the nation’s traffic death toll surged to an all-time high as a total of 42,700 men, women and children died on our streets and highways. The annual countrywide survey based on information provided by state motor vehicle departments revealed that the 1963 carnage topped the figure of nearly 40,000 persons killed in 1941 - a record high which stood for twenty years - and even surpassed the new record of 40,500 deaths established in 1962. What is the solution to this national disgrace? Obviously, no one has found it to date. Statistics, pledges and slogans have seemingly had little effect on the American public. None of these have brought about lasting improvement in any segment of the basic problem. None of them have sparked that dead-serious personal commitment to greater care behind the wheel which is necessary if we are to reduce the spreading epidemic of traffic slaughter. When will we succeed in bringing the scourge of needless casual ties under some degree of control? Frankly, no one really knows the complete answer. . . Perhaps no significant improvement can be expected until the great majority of us learn to look upon the problem as a PERSONAL challenge rather than one which is primarily up to the other fellow! EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Charles Quick BUSINESS MANAGER Roy Wilson EDITORIAL STAFF SPORTS EDITOR — Courtney Shives CONSERVATORY EDITOR Jeanne Smith MAKE-UP Sara Payne, Beth Hopkins PHOTOGRAPHER Mike Mullinnix REPORTERS & WRITERS Mary Fisher, Carol Privette George Davidson, Robert Perry Ted Foy, Alan Hancock BUSINESS STAFF CIRCULATION Nancy Stroupe, Lucylle Crook DISTRIBUTION jini Keylcn, Mary Ellen McLean, Meredythe Lawrence ADVISOR Jack Abernathy The Lance is published every second Friday except during holidays and summer vacation. Offices are on lower floor of the Student Center. Subscription $2.00 per year. Opinions expressed in letters to the Editor and in signed columns are not necessarily those of The Lance. Letters to the Editor should be brief and must be sign- ed. Names will be withheld upon request. On And Off Campus By JOE CHANDLER, JR. The New Residence Assistants have been appointed alter careful review of all applicants by Deans Robert Hester, Gloria Blanton, and Robert Davenport. Basically, selection was based on (1) ability and Interest in work ing with fellow students and collie officials, (2) the desire of the student to be of service to his fellow students, (3) the stu dent’s citizenship record, (4) de monstrated leadership, and (5) academic achievement, (The average grade point ratio of the women appointed is 3.5. It is only slightly lower for the men.) Qualifications for financial aid were also taken into account, A great majority of those appoint ed qualify for aid on this basis although some who do not neces sarily meet these qualifications were appointed because of their demonstrated usefulness to the student body and the administra tion. Next year will be especially challenging for the suite leaders because an experiment In student grouping will affect all students living on campus. There will be three types of suites; (1) those housing only freshmen, (2) mix ed suites divided with about half freshmen and half upper class men, and (3) those with only up per classmen. A “freshman dormitory,” as such, will be eliminated. A number of studies will be made throughout the year to observe the academic progress of students, as well as participa tion in campus activities, to de termine what combination Is most conducive to Ideal living con ditions. The following women have been appointed: Margaret Abrams, Sarah Atkins, Frances Bounous, Eleanor Brown, Rebecca Carter, Caroline Clower, Carol Cooper, Sherrie Crawford, Susan Daniels, Trudy Dawkins, Ann Delfell, Ann Ehrhardt, Mary Ellen Elmore, Mary Fisher, Kay Greene, Carol Sue Harkey, Nancy Hitt, Diana Howard, Meredythe Lawrence, Judy Lutz, Kay McClanahan, Har riett McCutcheft^andra McLees, Helen McPhall, Lillian Phillips, Mary Lou Richardson, Alice Rob bins, Evann Rowe, Carolyn Rob erts, Ann Stradley, Mary Ralne Sydnor, Janice Thornton, Karalee Turner, Janet Wooten. The following are appointed to the men’s dorms; Mike Artman, Ernest Badgett, Walter Barefoot, Bill Barry, Maurice Bowen, Jim Burby, Jack Callahan, Howard Chlpman, Jack Cole, Nick Gordon, Phll Hamilton, Bob Hatcher, David Hendricks, Rick Johnson, James Keylon, Mike Long, Dee Luhn, David McKinney, Duncan Mills, Bob Murphy, Mich ael Owens, Gill Rock, David Sif- ford, Vann Taylor, A1 Thomas, Roy Wilson. “Daddy, you forgot... OUR CAMPUS COURTS This article Is the second of two discussing our campus s of and Ideas about courts. ♦ * * * Only two problems seem of major concern to me recognition of the reality of our situation as described lasIJI These two are (1) the nature of our rules and (2) fair ' procedure The fundamental concept that should be recognized is that our mi, ml regardless of their moral, religious, or social motivation agreements for regulating life on the campus so as to serve! best Interests of the whole campus. Its ideals included. Theji not embodiments of any sort of superhuman code of living, herence to which will guarantee either godliness or bring indivJd, or social salvation. Neither are they dependent beyond the norj limitations of punishment for their enforcement. The relationsiii of our rules to principles of honor, morals, and religion are entirf existent in the mind as Individuals and groups express to vioiab disappointment, disapproval, and disgust for failure to respect to which Individuals through just means have given consent. Hoii is neither in the rules nor the rules principles of honor! Hoi transcends the rules and where It may be found exists and exist even without rules. Therefore, we should be avra.re that our rules are in effect perimental In nature, subject to question and change as dictate. These rules should not be superimposed on any omniscli code or absolute yardstick of Interpretation. St. Andrews' are not embodiments of “The Law” of any sort. For the maximum effectiveness of operation for our campus cour as well as security of protection for the accused, certain bas guarantees must be written Into our student constitution, as Important, these principles of procedure must be recogniz and observed by those who hold ultimate power over these and other judicial matters. These five quarantees at least must be eluded: (1) the right to enter a plea; (2) the right to refuse to ansi questions without prejudicing oneself; (3) the right of one’s rept sentatlve to hear testimony of witnesses as well as the defends and possibly to cross-examine witnesses; (4) preliminary hearm to be held to determine it there is In fact enough evidence to rant a trial; and (5) a detailed, explicit statement of the chat against a student. It is true that the present courts, as well as previous one, notably used some of these practices In their opei tlons. However, none of these are recognized or quaranteed in formal document like our constitution. It would be a serious mlsta if the present constitutional revision committee falls to take ths Ideas Into serious consideration. And what about an “Honor Code?” When one has agreed to this college he or she has agreed to accept the rules and regul tions of the college as binding on him or her. To ask one to malte additional statement of willingness to abide by the rules seems sup* fluous. It might serve to make an Individual more conscious oil responsibilities and pledge. However, this hardly adds a degree to an offense, since if one breaks a rule he has uphold In registering here it Is no more broken If he slmultaneoiii breaks an additional pledge to the very same rule. Most of the signing of an honor code were made mandatory, or if any 1( of actual privlledge resulted from not voluntarily signing the to the Honor Code, the code would be virtually meaningless from outset, * ♦ * * Much In the two articles on the college judicial life has rela deliberately to the underlying philosophy of the problems administering justice on campus. This Is where I believe the problem Is, This campus has not yet effectively engaged itsell solving the fundamental problems of its judicial operation. Web been too much concerned with motivations and ends rather than means. It Is too easy to take advantage of our newness, even consciously which Is perhaps most dangerous, to excuse failor In constructive, effective, workable means we will best pursue ends. Let us do, so by rejecting objective absolutes to whick our actions must be reconciled or rejected; instead may we pi ject a future out of subjective Insight into real experiences. 0 every litter bit hurts!” \ \
St. Andrews University Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
May 1, 1964, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75