North Carolina Newspapers

PAGE TWO the lance THURSDAY, MAY 7 1970 THE UNCE St. Andrews Presbyterian College Laurinburg, N. C. 28352 Sfaff Editor Sara Lee Associate Editor Charlie Pratt Associate Editor Wayne Warren Assistant Editor Louis Swanson Sports Editor Mark Meber Business Manager - Lonnie Burrell Advisor Mr. Fowler Dugger This staff is committed to the guidelines set up for campus media as recorded in the Code of Responsibility calling for "Recognition on the part of authors, editors and commentators that freedom entails corollary respon sibilities to be governed by the canons of responsible journalism, such as avoidance of libel, slander, impro priety, undocumented allegations, attacks on personal integrity, and the technique of harrassment and innu endo.’’ The opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of the College or the staff of the Lance. Letters to the editor and articles are welcome, subject to space limitations. Subscription Rates $3.00 per semester Advertising Rates $ .90 per column inch Three Days In May The IDS and officers of the Student Association deserve high praise for the job they did in acting quickly and efficiently to plan and produce the chapel service and symposium. The total of perhaps 400 students who attended one or the other must agree. The Progressive Coalition supported the student govern ment sponsored activities and coordinated responsibly at the same time a strong move to end military recruiting on this campus. Approximately seventy-five students In an earlier meeting had voted unanimously to oppose recruiting by the military at St. Andrews. The battle will continue, and we urge all con cerned students, pro or con, to contribute their Ideas to the sub-committee studying the problem. But yesterday’s events posed new challenges to the cam pus. Anyone who heard the various speeches realizes that there are many and sometimes conflicting views about what to do about Indochina. Notice that Is what to “do” and not what to say or think. It is imperative that students, especially, move out of their ruts of saying or thinking and Into the realm of doing, whether it is economic pressures, letters to Congressmen, pic keting or working toward a new system in America. The time for shaking our heads is over. This brings us to yet another challenge—those who not only do not do, but who do not think or say anything either. It seems somehow doubtful that all those who stayed away from yester day’s events support Nixon’s policies or the murder of four stu dents. Are these the “Silent Majority” right here in our midst? If so, then those who are concerned have a gigantic task on their hands, that of challenging and questioning those who don’t do, or say, or think. Neither student government, the Progressive Coalition nor individual students have the right to remain elitist and self-contained in the face of perhaps three hundred stu dents who don’t really give a damn. And we’re talking to the faculty too. Speaking in terms of percentages, it was pretty obvious that the students beat the faculty in attendance. There could be several reasons for this. Perhaps a great number of our faculty know about the situation In Indochina, have made their personal decisions and chose not to hear their colleagues. If so, then they are the ones losing in the exchange of ideas, and it’s a pretty bad sign for the academic freedom and open-mindness that an institution of higher learning is sup posed to promote. Another reason faculty members may not have attended was their wounded pride. The faculty is almost fiercely protective of their rights at times, and there Is a strong reaction to feeling stepped on. This is not to place judgments upon the reaction, but simply to note that class suspension was a fait accompli, and personal pique ahead of Cambodia is a strange set of priorities. And, finally, faculty members may have felt that the events were student-run and student-oriented and, therefore, that they would not be welcomed. Or, con versely, because the activities were student-organized, that they didn’t want to participate. The first assumption Is fallac ious; the whole concept was to learn and share ideas as a com munity, and not simply to inform dumb students. If a faculty member feels that because students are running something, then that is a valid reason for not coming, then students must feel a good deal of pity for them, for they surely must have no confidence in their ability to teach. We students learn and share knowledge with you in the classroom; that is what gives us the Incentive to think about the Indochina crisis, and about mythological structures, economic conditions, polltization, so cial and governmental questions and about our society. Think about it, won’t you? And, finally, we need to question the motivations behind those who ordered the wall to be painted over. Whether the order was for one word, one sign or both signs, there was still direct censorship. If profanity was the problem, reread the Code section on Media. The wall statements are communicatory devices to encourage—once again—the free exchange of ideas. If a quotation from Christ is to be censored as well as of fensive words, then some valid questions need to be asked about the College’s role as censor. SARA LEE Nixon’s High School Patrotism BY LOUIS SWANSON Last Thursday the President of the United States sent the American Army into Cambo dia. The President, in a nation wide speech, which reseit*led in tone and uncertainty those of President Johnson duringhls last year in office, attempted to spell out the reasons which made the invasion of neutral country necessity. Mr. Nixon’s list of reasons approximated the theme of a hi^ school his tory text; that the United States had never lost a war, and that the United States has a duty to the history of mankind to main tain freedom, democracy, and the American way. To be more specific the Pres ident stated that “It is not our power, but our will and char acter that Is being tested to night”. He also used the words humiliation and defeat on three different occasions; no Presi dent has used such words so often without a declaration of war. The President did not term this as an Invasion; the truth is he offered no term at all for describing this action. Mr. Nixon accused the North Viet namese of violating the neu trality of Cambodia, which until the recent coup made no attempt to remove these troops. While in one breath announcing that the character and the will of the American people were at stake, he violated the neutrality of Cambodia in the next one; One can only wonder what Mr. Nixon feels to be the will and char acter of the American people, hoping that in his mind it Isn’t as archaic as the one the high school history text seeks to create. The expansion of this war Into Cambodia does not represent a change in America’s policy in Vietnam, only a continuation of it. It is clear now that the President is too conscious of the fact that If the United States does not receive an honorable peace throu^ its conquests on the battlefield, it is certain to meet humiliation and defeat. It is also clear that if this war is expanded Into Cambodia that it will require an Increase of man power, and thus the meager de-escalation program will be reversed for yet a new round of escalation. Somehow, though not expllclty stated by Mr. Ni xon, and not historically foun ded, this new Spring Offensive is to bring peace, where six previous years of war have faUed. The invasion into Cambodia has had an even deeper im pact than the expansion of the war. It represents a constitu tional crisis putting Congress against the President, and the President against the people. As Sen. Fulbrlght stated, Mr. Nixon is the “author of a Presi dential war” in that the Con gress did not consent, nor was It consulted prior to the inva sion of a neutral government. The decision was not made by Congress, not by the dip lomats. Instead the decision represents a clear case In which the military advice has once a- gain been followed In a matter of securing a peace. This is not the first time where the military’s influence has pre vailed; the first was the de cision to attack North Vietnam after several torpedo boats ventured near U,S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. History seems to be repeating Itself once again In Indochina as a result of this most recent mls- Professors Speak Out (Continued from page 1) Mr. Fouke condemned the murders at Kent State as be ing a policy decision mistake, the responsibility of which lies ultimately with the President. He pointed out that the soldiers had the potential and the li cense to kill, and that they re sponded In a “constipated man ner.” In response to the Cam- Ixjdian Invasion, Mr, Fouke no ted that the President was under Intense international pressure, but that Nixon followed a mid dle of the road course, which antagonized many and satis fied no one. He also stated that like most people Nixon is a master at decleving himself. He closed by announcing that the “worst is yet to come.” There were approximately 250 people present at the sym posium. It should be noted that during the activities an Army helicopter tlrcled the library reminding the audience of the reality in which it lives. take. Mr. Nixon, at the end of hi, speech, did not ask for tlw support of his invasion,butoZ that the American people sud port the U.S. fighting men i„ Vietna.rn diid Csinibodia, Xhe “Lance” supports the soldiers but Is diametrically opposed to the invasion of Cambodia. w» feel that if the American people really supported the soldiers In Vietnam that they would brin? pressure upon Mr. Nixon topuii out of that country. The major mistake of the U.S. as well as any person or body who sides with a bellgerent, is the failure to recognize that It is the rl^tot the individual country to seek Its own self-determination, and that it is not the right of any. body exterior to that country to. In any way, aid In Influenc- Ing the direction of that self, determination. Reflections On Violence BY SID ATKINSON The events of the past week have had a unique effect upon students at St. Andrews. Our student government voted to suspend classes for a day and to send to all oursupportlngchur- ches a letter describing our sentiments and the actions we took. This bold step may have more effect than we expected. What brought on this action? Why have we suddenly beet shocked into protest? In Wed nesday’s sympoasium, a point was emphasized that the stu dents’ who were killed were WHITE MIDDLE CLASS. A- nother point was that having guns may have made more available a means for violent suppression by the Guardsmen, Whatever the reasons we must join in our concern and in our efforts to prevent a reoccur rence. Mr. Nixon said about the In cident, “When dissension turns to violence, it invites tragedy", Some say he overlooks the nec essity to turn to violence. When voices are not heard rocks are thrown. The voices of today’s students are becoming increas ingly louder. Yet they are not heeded. Are we left to throw more rocks? Or never to be heard again? Protect Your Bod! With the Best in Sun Tan Lotions SEA & SKI COPPERTONE • & Variety of Otiiers From the Best in Drug Stores SCOTLAND DRUGS MAIN ST.