Newspapers / The Wesleyan decree. / Oct. 19, 1970, edition 1 / Page 2
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 THE DECREE MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1970 Over Troubled Water By BRUCE WRIGHT Bring Us Together It' has been my co-writer the custom of and I to con cern ourselves with issues and problems affecting the Wes leyan Community exculsively. However, i n considering ate for this particular edition of bi-weekly indulgence, Ifeelthat straying from the custom is in order. On October 1, the long-await- ed Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest was submitted on schedule and under-budget, to Mr. Nixonwho graciously, though warily, ac cepted it. It was the purpose of the commission to investi gate the tragic incidents of last May which took place on the campuses, of Kent ^ate Univer sity and Jackson State College. Mr. Nixon and his colleagues had feared that-the report would be so dreadfully one-sided that it would’ seriously impair the Republican Party’s chances at the polls in November. The document which he received was Indeed extremely critical, but it was neither bitter nor ir rational. On the contrary, in the words of one of the Nation’s largest weekly news magazines, the re port was “earnest, soul- searching, eloquent at mo ments, emotional at others— and suited throughout to the counsel of a President who once asked Americans of every persuasion to lower their voic es.” The restrained, nonflam- atory language of the Report, the over-all mood of the com mission, and the open-minded conclusions which were reach ed make this document so beau tiful and fair that it will pro bably be all but disregarded in a political era marked by blaring trumpets, noisy pro testers, and an even noisier Vice-president. What child has not come run ning home from school and eith er spitefully or emotionally re ported to Mother that “John nie called me a so-and-so,” or “Suzie called me a son- ■ of-a- ?” And what mother has not philosophically repeated the familiar adage: Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. So it is with chil dren. But the mood of a na tion is a far different thing; it is a delicate balance of ma jority and minority groups. The Scranton Commission feels that a deep, generational “crisis of understanding” has brought this country to the point of self- \f\M% TUum Mil /IS/ tx xtt OFFiaAL STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF NORTH CAROUNA WESLEYAN COLLEGE EDITOR Julia Robisson ASSISTANT EDITOR Marsball Old BUSINESS MANAGER Chuck Martin ADVERTISING MANAGER Chuck Martin PHOTOGRAMDER Gary Christopher PRODUCTION MANAGER Gail Mabe ARTIST . ..7.-^. Will Thomson SPORTS WRITER Bob O’Keef CIRCULATION MANAGER Barbara Hughes Business Address: Box 3056, Wesleyan College : Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27801 PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY WESLEYAN STUDENTS Opinions Published Do Not Necessarily Represent Those of Wesleyan College destruction: "We believe it urgent that Americans of all conviction draw back from the brink . . . We must declare a national cease-fire ... If this trend continues, if this crisis of understanding en dures, the very survival of the nation will t)e threatened.” In the section concerning Kent State, the commission had some strong words for those students, and there were apparently many, who were acting in vio lation of the law. On the other hand, the report stated that “the 61 shots by 28 guardsmen cer tainly cannot be justified . . The indiscriminate firing of ri fles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwar ranted, and inexcusable.” , (Continued On Page 3) Editorial Are We Children? It is appalling to consider the implication and possible re percussions of the latest plea of the student workers In the cafe teria. Their plea is simple: they merely request that students dining in the cafeteria return their trays to the disposal window. To this time, response to this plea has been rather poor with an average of 35 trays being left per evening or noon meal. This is Indicative of one or two things: either the workers’ requests are not being heard of the persons refusing to cooperate are either too immature or too stupid to respond to such a simple request. And for residents of a liberal arts college this is dis gusting. The student workers who must pick up this trash have confront ed the Senate with this problem and have threatened a student strike unless action is taken. The strike is to go into effect today. Let us consider the implication of these moves: The fact that the Senate has acted upon the workers’ plight is com mendable, but it is none the less appalling to realize that col lege age students must be prosecuted through fines imposed by the Student Government Association. Perhaps the most pathe tic aspect of this is that the student workers have to resort to threat :pf strike before any action is taken. If the workers are forced to strike to improve their working situation, let us gently be reminded that this is not a strike against the administration. This is not a strike against the cafe teria supervisory personnel. It is a student strike against fellow students. Senate Looks At High Court; Judical Reforms Are Planned With its second meeting of the year, October 12, the Se nate plunged into the task of re - evaluating Constitutional provisions for the Supreme Court at Wesleyan. Bruce Wright, chairman of the Com mittee for Judicial Review, created by last year’s Senate, presented a list of proposed Court changes. A significant suggestion is that interested students sub mit applications for Supreme Court seats, which would be reviewed by the S.G.A. presi dent, then a maximum of 12 candidates would be nominat ed by a two thirds majority vote by the Senate. (The present system calls for direct nomina tions by the Senators.) Under the new proposal, nominees would still be voted upon by the student body to complete a court of seven justices. Once a student is elected to the Court, his term would last un til graduation, but not exceed three years, as opposed to the present one-year term. Further suggestions includ ed specifications of six types of punishments the Court may enforce and time limits for trial dates and filing of appli cations. According to the pro posal, trials must be set no less than five days and no more than ten days after filing an accusation. The proposal also exiges that written accusa tions must be filed within two days of the incident, and the accused must be notified with in two days of the filing. The Court proposals were sent to the Constitution Com mittee for review and clari fication for one week, in ac cordance with the Constitution which states amendments must be sent to committee before the Senate may vote on it. The remainder of the meet ing was devoted to discussion and su^estions concerning those students who cannot han dle the responsibility of taking their trays to the disposal area after eating. Speaking for the student staff in the cafeteria, Dennis Hayek, Wyah Sasser, and Marshall Old explained that it is not the student workers’ job to pick up trays left by other students, and, after an average of some 40 odd trays left per meal, the workers have been planning to “strike”, to simply leave trays on the ta bles. After many suggestings and much deliberation, the cafe teria student-staff agreed to wait one week before a “strike,” after the Senate pass ed Dave Forest’s motion that the sign presently in the cafe teria stating that violators will be prosecuted be put up. An Expressive Expression The “Do Your Own Thing” Doctrine Popular sayings can change their meanings over a given time-span. The phrase “Do your own thing” is a case in point. When it first surfaced in the mid 1960’s, it conveyed a requirement to respect a per son’s behavior choices within the very wide range of choices available in a free society. I also implied the individual’s right to expect such respect from others. In its non-judg mental character, the saying did not originally carry the mean ing of indifference of apathy. It meant, rather, a heightened regard for the individual and his clear right to choose from among a great variety of t>e- havior options. In its ori ginal intent and shades of mean ing, then, the saying was po sitive, healthy, and tended to advance individual freedom and human worth. But in the past half-decade, other meanings have attached themselves to this saying. Pre sent-day commentators may argue that the purity of the original thought has been com promised. The idea has be come perverted. The clear ring of the phrase is now a noisome, disruptive jangle. What has happened? The phrase as used now, in 1970, is often only an excuse for anti-social behavior. H implies license rather than responsible free dom. It demands unearned im munity from the judgment of others. It tends to justify a “don’t get involved” stance and all other forms of apathy and callous disregard for the plight of others. U has been cited as a catch-phrase of self-cen teredness and selfishness. In the thinking of many, it is no longer a laudable mandate. Compare the “?lo your own thing” phrase in its present tainted meaning with our pow erful phrase “Freedom with re sponsibility.” They do not fit together very well. Why? I submit that freedom with’ re sponsibility is a valuable, work able principle only if the com munity attempting to apply this principle agrees upon the ne cessity of concerning itself and dealing with those who, occas ionally, frequently, or hab itually, are irresponsible. This is a vital tough negative part of the responsibility. It necess arily calls for judgment of and action toward the lapses of re- sponsil)ility which may occur in the community. And herein lies the problem in our community. We are all somewhat disin clined in these days to judge our peers. We do not like to be criticized and hence we re frain from being critical of others. We want to be left alone and are more than will ing to leave others alone. But --if we follow through on this course, our community breaks down. We are confronted with the problems and difficulties which touch all of us when so cial controls are not applied or are ineffectively applied to be havior such as stealing books, assuming possession of col lege-owned flags, faihire to (Continued On Page 3)
Oct. 19, 1970, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75