PAGE 2
THE DECREE
MONDAY, APRIL 25,1977
Casandra^s Comment
Responsibilities
A problem that has plagued
small communities is the
tendency for the residents to
gossip and start malicious
rumors. This problem is not
confined to small communities,
but is more harmful in them
because of the familiarity
between the people. Everyone
knows or has heard of each
other. Therefore, when gossip
is repeated, many people know
who is being talked about and
tend to believe the rumors.
This causes trouble for the
victims of rumors because they
usually develop bad reputations
that can ruin their social
standing in a small community
and deny them some opportuni
ties such as jobs, church
membership, active social lives,
or participation in many com
munity functions.
North Carolina Wesleyan is a
typical small community and is
plagued with such gossip and
malicious rumors. Causes of
gossip range from trivial
jealousy in many respects to
outright hate and vengeance.
Some of the stereotyped
images resulting from repeti
tion of gossip are “campus
whores,” “alcoholics,” “homo
sexuals,” “straights,” and many
more. Some of the reputations
of such people who are labeled
with these stereotyped roles
hinder their academic, as well
as their social lives on campus.
When girls come to Wesle
yan, they are usually subjected
to being called a whore at some
time or another. Rumors begin
when a girl goes out with
several guys or a guy “with a
reputation.” The girl then has
to contend with embarrassing
rumors that may cause her to
lose friends and possibly
permanently ruin her chances
to date anyone on campus.
I was, personally, subjected
to an entirely different type of
gossip. Somehow everyone
began to hear about “that girl.”
Rumors proposed that I could
fly, my face glowed in the dark,
I caused someone to be thrown
out of school, I made car doors
open and close w^th supernatur
al force, and other similarly
unbelievable tales. However
ridiculous they were, the
magnitude and quickenss of the
rumors circulated caused peo
ple to believe them. Tempora
rily, I lost all chances to make
friends because everyone was
A Safe Refuge?
Wesleyan College is alive and
recuperating, and any fiu’ther
progress rests entirely in the
hands of concerned and inter
ested students, professors and
faculty. 1 am not talking about
financial progress. Any busi
nessman given authority can
see to it that our pipes flow hot
water, and that the shrubs are
cut for Parent’s Weekend.
Maintenance is at an all-time
high, and the fountain is pretty
at night to cars passing on the
highway. It would seem that
our financial crisis is over. I
hope it is.
What I am more concerned
about, however, is that otir
recuperation after the crisis
hasn’t relegated our purpose as
a college to second place,
behind the need to campaign
for funds. I am beginning to
fear that our need for money is
compromising academic stan
dards, and that present policies
exist to undermine the founda
tion upon which higher educa
tion rests. The foundation of
freedom to pursue intellectual
thoughts, and the opportunity
to witness ideaologies foreign
to an institution with “Metho
dist” and “money” uppermost
in it’s mind.
What I largely fear is that if
present policies of heedless
censorship and biased decision
making go unchecked, Wesle
yan will become no more than a
four-year boarding school nur
sery.
We students are here, it
would seem, to become better
educated, and to prepare
ourselves for the outside world;
a world where everything is not
well-ordered, and where many
people do not have “christian”
scruples. We should be learning
to be independent decision
makers, to learn for ourselves
what is right and wrong, what
is moral and immoral. These
things are not to be inherited,
rather they should be determin
ed individually. When even well
intended censorship threatens,
the only result can be a
perpetuation of ignorance, not a
cancellation of it. When a
college revolves around “inter
ests” outside of the personal
and intellectual development of
it’s students, it is no longer a
college, but a breeding ground
for physically mature infants.
To be sure, Wesleyan is in
many ways an oasis of safety.
We are “protected” against
many aspects of the harsh
world we will soon enter.
“Dangerous” elements are pain
stakingly extracted from our
field of reference, in order that
we make contact with only
those “desired” elements. But
do we want “divine” interven
tion, and freedom from respon
sibility? I think not! It is all
very well that we have
regained some semblance of
financial well-being, but must
our intellectual well-being suf
fer the cost? Not if we, as
individuals, refuse to adopt
those attitudes and priorities
that upset our personal integri-
ty.
There is a safeguard against
any further damage to Wesley
an as an institution, and as a
community of individuals. That
safeguard is the knowledge
that we ourselves are what
Wesleyan is truly made of, and
that we alone can alter the
course it appears to be taking.
There is also a comfort in the
fact that as human beings, we
ultimately determine what we
will make of ourselves.
Jan Wilson
scared to talk to me. The dorm
was in a general uproar because
I was rumored to be “posses
sed.”
The detrimental affects are
typical of the damage that
gossip and rumors cause in a
small community. Fortunately,
many rumors are discredited
soon after they start, but if the
gossip is especially damaging,
the labels and their effects can
last and cause trouble for a
length of time. Also, the labels
become common knowledge in a
small community.
Wesleyan students do tend to
gossip. The destructiveness is
not always obvious, but while it
is not causing external prob
lem'll, it can be emotionally
painful or upsetting to the
victim. There is no way to
completely halt rumors and
gossip, but people need to
investigate serious allegations
and discriminate between idle
gossip and true statements in
order to stop the detrimental
affects of such statements.
Becky Bame
Responsibilities. Everyone
has them. The trouble is, no one
wants them or so it seems at
this campus. It seems as though
the students and faculty mem
bers have taken a stance which
can be described as hypocriti
cal, to say the least. Not only
have the students been pres
sured by the faculty, but the
faculty has been pressured by
the students into taking away
most of the student’s responsi
bilities.
Do students want freedom
with or without responsibili
ties? If I were to ask some of
you this question, you would
undoubtedly say with, but
apparently your feeling is
opposite to what you say. In
other words, many students
here want the freedom to do
whatever they wish, regardless
of whether it’s against the rules
or not. If that’s so, why did they
come here in the first place?
Why didn’t they go to a
state-supported school which
allows nearly uninhibited be
havior? I will never be
convinced that the freedom to
anything one pleases is sup
ported by the idea of responsi
bility.
N. C. Wesleyan College is
supposed to be a Christian
college supported indirectly by
the Methodist Church, and as
such, it should be teaching its
students how to bear responsi
bility, as well as how to
discipline themselves. The best
education in the world is no
substitute for the moral respon
sibilities each person has in this
society. The recent Washington
sex scandals and the Water
gate episode prove my point.
These men had the knowledge
of how the Federal government
was established, however, be
cause of their flawed nature
and some good newspaper
work, these men were found
ultimately discovered and
brought to trial.
College is not a Sunday
School, and pepole aren’t tied to
home anymore. The college can
not legislate morality. All it can
do is establish certain guide
lines for its students to follow.
It is up to the individual to
accept or reject them.
MikeCoUis
Saccharin Ban
There has been a great deal
of argument over the years
concerning our federal govern
ment and the immense bureau
cracy within it. Many agencies
have come under attack on
grounds ranging from their
procedures to the very need for
their existence. The Food and
Drug Administration is no
exception. Recent develop
ments have revitalized the
critics of the FDA, and it
appears that various compo
nents of the government will
once again begin to take a hard
look at the agency’s functions.
One aspect of the FDA which is
found particularly objectiona
ble is it’s dictatorial influence
over the everyday lives of
Americans. A very sensible
opinion circulating in recent
years is that the FDA should be
required to work more closely
with the Congress in important
matters and at the same time, a
serious reevaluation should be
made concerning it’s proce
dures and conclusions.
The developments alluded to
above are the tests and
conclusions leading to the
FDA’s ban of saccharin, a white
powder approximately five
hundred times sweeter than
sugar, which is widely used as a
low-calorie sweetener. Canadi
an researchers found that
laboratory rats showed a high
incidence of cancer after having
been given extremely large
quantities of saccharin. Appa
rently, these tests alone preci
pitated the ban. The FDA
admits that in order for a
human to receive as much
saccharin as did the test rats,
his saccharin intake would have
to be astronomical. Further
more, there is no way to link
the sweetener’s effect on rats
to it’s possible effect on
humans. That notwithstanding.
the FDA decided to deny to the
consumer a product he has
found beneficial as well as
totally harmless for decades.
This is not the first, nor is it
likely to be the last example of
questionable judgements made
by the FDA. It once made a
statement that marijuana was
deadly because it produced
adverse symptoms in lab
animals. The fact that these
animals were given enough
marijuana in a concentrated
form to keep the entire state of
North Carolina stoned for
months escaped the average
concerned reader of this state
ment.
Yet there is another area in
which I believe the FDA has,
under the guise of consumer
protection, failed to best serve
the American public. This is in
it’s refusal to allow foreign
companies to market products
in the United States, which are
known to be effectively in use
in other parts of the world. CBS
News reported that we may be
five to ten years behind some
other countries in the treat
ment of some common illnesses.
There is no point in arguing
for the eradication of the FDA,
for the benefits it has brought
society are immense. For
instance, it has worked very
hard to maintain quality stan
dards for drugs, and ethical
standards in dealings between
drug companies and hospitals
and private physicians. It has
succeeded in protecting the
American consumer from clear
ly dangerous products as well
as unnecessary medication. It’s
tests have shown precisely
what we can expect a particular
drug to do and not to do. Still,
some popular input into the
FDA’s decision making would
be a great step forward for
consumerism. As it is now, we
have no choice but to accept
FDA dictates concerning what
we may and may not consume.
Fred Frohbose
OFFICIAL STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF
NORTH CAROLINA WESLEYAN COLLEGE
Editor-In-Chief ..
Assistant Editors
Advisor
Greg Allen i;-;
Mike Haskins
Jan Wilson, Mike CoUis
Dr. Paul DeGategno
Business Address; Box 451, Wesleyan College
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27801
Opinions Published Do Not Necessarily Represent
Those Of Wesleyan College