North Carolina Newspapers

fAGK TWt MAROON AND GOLD Friday, March 4 19M I\1 arooii And Gold Dedicated to the best interest of Elon f^Uege and it* students and faculty, the Maroon and Gold is published semi-monthly during the college year at Elon College. N.C. iZip Code 27244), publication being in co operation with the journalism department. KUITUKIAL BOAKU Milie Wyngarden E>litor-in-Chief Hichard Hutchens Assistant Editor William Bradham Assistant Editor Tom Jeffery Dramatics Editor Jack DeVito Sports Editor Carole Popowski Girl Sports H. Iteid Alumni Editor Luther N. Byrd Faculty Advisor Jimmy Pollack Staff Photographer TKCilMCAL STAFF LhiIs Jones Lmotyp.* Opcnitor Carl Owen Linotype Operator Perry Williams I^ess Operator i:'-:i*OKTOBIAL STAFF Thomas Anderson Ui-nnis Howie Charles Avila Howard Johnson William Barker Tim Kempson Marta Barnhart Charles Kernodle John Bennett Donald King Mary Benson William Macey Martha Broda William Moore James Brower Philip Pagliarulo Eileen Cobb Elaine Phelps John Crook David Potter Roger Crooks Larry Rayfield Ted Crutchfield Comar Shields Leon Dickerson Owen Shields Ferrel Edmondson Stephen Sink Kenneth Faw Wayne Smith Daniel Fuller David Speight Ronald George Thomas St. Clair James Graham William Stiles Daphne Hilliard Stanley Switzer Judith Hillers George Weber Ray Wilson FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1966 IS CHIVALRY DEAD? This was the topic of a recent and high ly interesting discussion on the editorial page of another college newspaper, with the discussion triggered by a declaration of a coed at that college that “Chivalry on the part of man or men is apparently a dying art.” For hundreds of years chivalry has been deemed an ideal characteristic among men, and the other college publication began the discussion with the question of the real definition of the word, quoting from the New American Dictionary to define chiv alry as “the ideal qualifications of a knight, such as courtesy, generosity, valor and dexterity of arms.” It was pointed out that modern chivalry could be accepted on the basis of court esy, generosity and valor, but the state ment was made that the days are long gone when dexterity 0( arms was needed to ward off ugly dragons from his lady fair: so the point-black question of the meaning of modem chivalry was asked of the complaining coed, seeking to find her own idea of what chivalry comprises to day. "Well,” replied the coed, “a man who opens doors for women, lights their cigar ettes, buys them cokes and other courtesies and services comprises modem chivalry.” Further discussion of the modern lack bf chivalry, brought out the fact that there 1 arc few Sir Walter Raleighs who would ' lay their cloak or coat over a mud-puddle for his lady fair, partially perhaps because there are fewer mud puddles to make such courtesies necessary. But perhaps the most interesting angle on the presence or lack of chivalry in mod em life was the rebuttal voiced by men students on this neighboring campus, who voiced the idea that when modern women demanded equality in politics and economic life they gave up the very dependence which was the feminine quality that in spired chivalric treatment. TO (JOOD STUDENTS Every campus has its varied student types, including the thinkers, the talkers and the doers, and there are editorials which harangue the non-conformist and prodding the apathetic, but all too few edi torials that praise the every-day “good students.” Who is the good student? He is the true student: the student who is seeking under standing and knowledge. He is honestly weking to leam. There is no one common characteristic that will identify all good students for there Is a great deal of indi vidual personality about each of them. There is also a variety in habitat. In class the good student is first at tentive. He has read his assignment and perhaps done some outside research and reading. Able to offer comment on the topic of discussion he has an insight and understanding into the core of the prob lem. His questions are sincere and his an swers concise and informative. His work is conscientious and complete. The good student Is also active in extra curricular activities. His outstanding char acteristic in this area is his devotion to rContlniiwl CD Paga Four* glorious feast By KICILXRU IIUTCTreVS AN ANACHRONISM According to Webster's “New Collegiate Dictionary ", an anachronism constitutes • anyihing incongruous in point of time with its surroundm^s". To give an example, the torin lould be applied to a spinsterish ^rhooimarm teaching at Harvard Univers- ity. In view of the introduction, perhajw the reader has discerned that this editorial is concerned with such an incongruity. If this is the case then the reader is correct! What is this displaced object of consideration? It is the Honor System of Elon College (or any other college for that matter). The sys tem is anachronistic, because the truly hon orable man does not exist. The last such human to inhabit the earth was Brutus. I>et us now attempt to make a precise as- se'sment of this institution and draw some intelligable conclusions. f'irst, one should take note that all the so called best schools in the country are abandoning this "noble experiment” in favor of the proctor system. Harvard and Prince ton are two splendid examples. As the two universities mentioned are con sidered to be leaders in the field of educa tion, it mijht not ba an understatement to say that tho:e progressive educators who advocate the honor system are, at best, 'Uneteenth Century progressives. Of course, jU't because the Ivy League schools are dis carding the concept of putting the students on their honor while taking a test, many will say that this doesn’t give a strong enough premise to the argument against the sys tem. The people who take this stand are sound in their logic, but the reasons for the negative attitude taken on this strangler of higher education by such institutions do give adequate support to the argument. Primarily, the honor system has been re jected as being much too presumptious. This attitude is completely justified. What motivation does a student have to be hon est during his college career? None! His future depends more and more on the grades he obtains in his course work. He is in competition with those who want the same job with the same company to which he has applied. It could become rather frustrating to see a classmate get a posi tion that you vourself coveted because he had a 3.6 and you had a 3.4, the irony being that while you were being self- righteously honest he cheated on the exam that made the crucial difference. With this element of severe competition in mind it would almost seem that a stu dent has to ciieat to survive! It is true that a proctor cannot remedy the prevalent social conditions in America, but he can give more of the student a more equal chance more of the time. That often forgotten element of the col lege community, the professors, also have a side in the matter. Suppose an instructor has a class in Alamance but his office is in South: Where does he go after he leaves the room as is required? Not only does he have to spend half the period look ing for a chair in which to sit, but he also is bound to “look in” on those taking the test at frequent intervals thus rendering it impossible for him to accomplish anything requiring a minimum amount of concen tration. It is really pathetic to see a Ph. D. wandering around in the halls of Elon with no place to go, Another serious malady of the honor sys tem is that of the student’s responsibility to see that his fellow student don't cheat. Not only is this unrealistic, but it is also a definite impediment to one who is taking a test. No matter how the subject of honor is broached to the members of a class, the student who tells on a classmate is almost without exception placed in an ex clusive claste — for finks. As for taking a test, the student who wishes merely to tend to his own business is com pelled to focus his eyes rigidly on the center of his blue bo^. for if he looks momentarily and sees another student sim ply perusing the end of his toe then he can’t honestly sign the pledge (the pupil might have had some notes under his half-sole). It seems that the value of some form of authority being in the room during a test would now be obvious. Wouldn’t it be much easier on you who take the tests to be concerned only for yourself and not thirty or forty other students? Wouldn’t it be much more convenient to have the in structor present in order that you wouldn’t have run all over the campus trying to find him if a question was in your mind? Let us at least hope that Elon College will set the example for the other schools of North Carolina and innovate a realistic and practical policy concerning the in tegrity of the students when they take a test. ROSTKR OF PHI PSI CLI KDITORS SINCK 1913 Following is a complete list of (he editors who have directed the publication of the Phi Psi Cli through the more than half centry since it was founded in 1913, with latest known information concerning their present whereabouts if they are still living. They are listed following the year of publication of the annual they edited. 1913—Charles Titus Rand, de ceased. 1914—Marvin Stanford Revell, now of Kenly. 1915—Isaac James Kellam, now of Jacksonville, N. C. 1916—Paul Virgil Parks, de ceased. 1917—J. L. Crumpton, now of Durham. 19IS—No annual published. 1919—No annual published. 1920—Roy J. Morton, now of Rockwood, Tenn. 1921—Claude Marcus Cannon, de ceased. 1922—Ira Otis Hauser, deceased. 1923—Edward Carl White, de ceased. 1924—Paul Dalton Rudd, now of Denton. 1925—Sheffield II. Abell, now of Yanceyville. 19?6—George Chapman White, deceased. 1927—Howard R. Richardson, now of the Elon College faculty. 1928—Clarence Homer Slaughter, deceased. 1929—Hoyle Efird, now of Gas tonia. 193(1—Delos Elder, now of Bur lington. 1931—William Lester Regifler, deceased. 1932—.No annual published. 1933—Emmett I,. Moffett, Jr., deceased. 19,34—Frank Orva Perkins, now of Fayetteville. 193^Benjamin Thomas Holden, now of Charlotte. 1936—Rebecca Smith, now Mrs. William F. Wild, of Albion, Mich. 1937—Dan Watts, now of Morgan town, W. Va. 1938—Harold Hilbum, now of Albemarle. 1939—Frank X. Donovan, de ceased. 1910—June Leath, now Mrs. Charlton E. Huntley, of Richmond, Va. 1911—Dorothy Edwards, now Mrs. David L. Spaulding, of An- nandale, Va. 1942—June Murphy, now Mrs. William Looney, of Rocky Mount. 1943—John Pollard, now of Greensboro. 1944—Virginia Jeffreys, now Mrs. James F. Darden, of Suffolk, Va. 1945—Eliza Boyd, now of Hender son. 1946—Edwin Daniel, now of the Elon Colleye faculty. 1947—Mary Coxe, now Mrs. George Bullock, of Durham. 1948—Daniel B. Harrell, now of Concord. 1949—Jeanne Meredith, now of Greensboro. 1950—Ira Cutrell, now of Wind sor. 1951—Wilburn Tolley, now of •^oxh'ro, Mass. —Page Painter, now of Lur- ay, Va. 1953—David R. Crowle, now of Prospect Park, Pa. 1951—Roger Phelps, now of Tal- mage, Calif. 1955-(CO-EDITORS)-Mary Sue Colclough, now Mrs. Phillip Mann, of Burlington, and Sylvia Jones, last address at Pink Hill. 1956—(CO-EDITORS) — Marie Weldon, now Mrs. Charles Mason, of Henderson, and Lois Scott, now Mrs. James Luke, of Waverly, Va. 1957—(CO-EDITORS) — Shirley Womack, now Mrs. Joseph Holmes, of Cary, and Jeannie Keck, now Mrs. Ed Davidson, of Wexford, Pa. 1958—(CO-EDITORS) — Patricia Coghill, now Mrs. Grant Bums, ol Garner, and Nancy Lemmons, now Mrs. Thomas Elmore, of Charlotte. 1959—(CO-EDITORS — Martha Langley, now Mrs. Paul Shelby, of Annapolis, Md., and Linda Simp son, now Mrs. Richard Lashley, of Burlington. 1960—(CO-EDITORS) — Hannah Wise Griffin, now Mrs. Hannah W. Holland, of Windsor, Va., and Marion Glasgow, now of Burling ton. 1961—(CO-EDITORS) — Teddy Standley, now Mrs. Frederick Far- ham, of Mattapoisett, Mass., and Ruth Lemmons, now Mrs. William Cordes, of Burlington. 1962—Doris Faircloth, now of Fayetteville. 1963—Eeanor Smith, now of Win- ston-Salem. 1964—-Sallie McDuffie, now at tending graduate school at Ap palachian. 1965—Lea Mitchell, now of Fay etteville. 1966—Alex Oliver, who has just concluded preparation of the 1966 annual. College Yearbook Ready For Printers (Continued From Page One) Claire Webb, of Suffolk, Va.; Judy Hillers, of Silver Springs, Md.; Vickie Riley, of Burlington; Lydia Ferrell, of Pittsboro; and Sharon Smith, of Merrick, N.Y. This group of workers carried on in great style the work that was started back in 1913, when Charles Titus Rand, now deceased, directed the first yearbook staff. The business manager of that first annual back in 1913 was Alonzo Lohr Hook, now dean of the fac ulty of Elon College, who has served the college in many posts of responsibility in the intervening half century and more. Only three times since 1913 has an Elon College yearbook failed to appear. There were no editions! published in 1918 and 1919 due to| the World War I restrictions and responsibilities, and again in 1932 in the very bottom of the Great Depression financial difficulties prevented issuance of the Phi Psi Cli for that year. It is interesting indeed to peruse the fifty editions of the Phi Psi Cli, which recall in word and picture the life of Elon College students through the years. The staffs have used various and unusual themes and varied format during the years, but always the annual was a credit to the students of Elon (Allege who prepared it Advance information about the campus is that the forthcoming 1966 edition of Phi Psi Cli could prove to be one of the best of all. With the copy and collection of pic tures complete, it is now in the hands of the Delmar Company in Charlotte. It is whispered that the 1966 annual will be entered in the national competition conducted under the auspices of Columbia Universities. A complete roster of the editors of the Phi Psi Cli since its be ginning in 1913 is offered along with this brief sketch, and it is interesting to note that two of the former editors have come back to Elon and are now members of the faculty, the two being Dr. Howard Richardson and Prof. Ed win Daniel. Perhaps it is indica tive of the rugged work necessary to prepare the annual that no less than ten of the fonrer editors have died, but their names live on In these printed records of Elon Col lege life in years long gone. A Sleeveless Errand By WILLIAM BRADHAM Mr. Hutchens in his “A Glorious Feast” of last issue mentioned in one phrase in passing “the fal lacies of the honor council.” He chose, however, to speak of fun erals; 1 choose to speak of the Honor Council, the subject he passed up. Where does one begin in a dis cussion of this topic? Each person sees the system in a differeit light. Some praise and some criti cize, for personal as well as ob jective reasons. Many say the sys tem is perfect. Others say that the faculty has the honor, and the stu dents have the system. What a perfectly brilliant way of looking at it. Those who view it in this manner do not deserve mentioning or this columnist’s time. It’s hardly a mature or re sponsible attitude, showing little respect for authority or respect for self, for this system apparently can only work when students are responsible to themselves. Certainly a junior or senior of 21 and 22 years of age should be mature enough to see the worth in an honor system and what it means. For a freshman or a sophomore, however, it is to me an entirely different matter. I feel that they, even the best, succumb much easier to temptation. So we: have two types of students pledg-j ing the honor code. As a result,! failure of the system will be brought about. Lately much has been brought forth regarding a change or re vision in the system. Many ideas and reasons for its change come up, all of them valid. One reason seems to me to rise above the others, that the question of ethics. If a student break a rule, drink ing, cheating, plagiarism and other offenses, should he be al lowed to stay or made to leave on the basis of the rule in the handbook? What I’m attempting to 5ay is “Does the punishment just ify the crime?” In many cases it doesn’t. We are dealing here with human be ings, youth to be exact, those prone to make more mistakes than others. Granted the laws passed regarding all the honor offenses were effected by their peers, but maybe they were a more re sponsible assemblage of young people. Hard and fast rules, I feel, can not work. A better system is need ed, a system which considers the reasons for the student’s actions, his motives and lack of knowledge for his infractions of schools rules. The fact that the student is as good as he makes himself and as good as the school tries to help him to be. This is one of the pur poses of a school; to help the student in all facets of academic and personal life. The problem is “many-folded,” the student’s duty to himself and his peers and the school, the sys tem as it stands and the need" to help the present system work or to find another that wil work. This leads me to a final point. It has been suggested that rather than a cold and impersonal court under the pre.-=pnt system there, should be a tribunal type of sys tem composed of students and fac ulty who will listen to all points of every individual case. However, here it will differ from a court jury which must honestly answer a direct question about the infraction of a rule in that the tri bunal will and should consider the moral and ethical aspects of a case, in order to get at the reason for the offender’s actions. It will also give that much-needed second chance. The jury is too impersonal and removed, whereas the com mittee under a new system may better understand the feelings of the student. f to hand (iown a ver dict of guilty, khowlng in their minds that their decision was right, but knowing also it deprives the offender of his education is a hard question to resolve. Also on this same line, the punishment rather than the one-year suspension rul e can be and needs to be a1 offense and to aid the student. It gives the student the second chance and. if properly '’irected, shows him his mistake at the same time. a few blasts and bravos By MIKE WYNGARDEN CHARACTERISTICS OF REVOLUTIO.N A brief but concentrated study involving any one of the major world revolutions will show that they possess similar character istics, although they do not necessarily fol. low the same patterns. These character istics are lingering grievances, the grant ing of half-hearted concessions, the de sertion of the intellectuals, and, finally, the collapse of the established order. The antagonism generated by lingering grievances is perhaps the clearest charac teristic of revolution. A few scattered griev ances do not seem to cause a large amount of ill feeling toward the established order. However, when these grievances become abundant, when they are repeated with alarming frequency and severity, then an attitude of hostility begins to grow. Nevertheless, reaction to the grievances does not make itself felt immediately be cause of the moderation of those on whom the grievances fall. In other words, revo lution may not break out immediately be cause certain intellectual leaders possess a strong feeling for the very system or in stitutions from which the grievances flow. It is, then, only as a last result that the next phase of revolution begins—the initial violence. The initial violence is the first spontan eous act of revolution. It is usually done at some symbol of the regime or by some person of high stature. In the French Revo lution, the initial violence was the storm ing of the Bastille; the American Revolu tion it was Lexington and Concord; and in smaller revolutions it was the repudiation of the system by some important official. In the revolutions of lesser scope, the ones which involve fewer people, the act of repudiation by a person of high import ance tends to set a precedent. Soon there after feelings of loyalty and dedication are set aside, and practicality and living with oneself assume places of highest concern. The system did not respon adequately; rather it fallaciously gave the impr^siqn of doing an about face, assuming the air of tolerance. This brings about the next step character istic of revolution, the granting of half hearted concessions by the system against which the reaction has started, "'■"ally these attempts at reconciliation ana re form are too late, too ineffective and too few. This attempt at piece-meal refoi-m usually boils down to the system seeking to ingratiate itself with the leaders of the revolution. It is usually seen through and causes even more resentment. Nevertheless, the system usually com posed of a conservative element intoxi cated with their delight of their own pow ers, still does not seem to perceive that trouble is brewing. Rather than to give in to the demands of the enlightened few, they continue to hold to the idea that they are omnificent divinities, who because of their “goodness” allow the revolutionists the “privilege” of the system. The next step in the revolution is the desertion of the intellectuals, and it most important step in the revolution. The desertion of the intellectuals is the most important step, because these intellectuals form the very heart of the system. They are the most educated, the most enlight ened, and above all, the people with the highest principles. They are the represent atives of the system, and they are the re flections to the outside world. , In smaller revolutions, in which telligentsia form the corps of knowleige> it does not take a great amount of tms desertion before the system begins o crack. Replacements of equal calibre are not only hard to find, but they may from entering into any such system wnic forces its members to evacuate. It is obvious to see that the next step is the collapse of the system. The ' ence of lingering abuses, coupled with t desertion of the intellectuals cuts off t very life roots of the system. The peop who cause the revolution are the one we read about in histo’^^’ They the ones who are motivated by certain principles and Ideals which are not under stood by those who compose the system. Wishful Thanking The pastor was rejoicing with a little oU lady over one of her elderly relatives who had finally joined the church after a W®* time of riotous living. When she wondered if the oldster’s car ryings-on would be forgiven, the pastor as sured her: "Yes, indeed. The greater the sinner, the greater the saint.” “Oh,” she mused, “I wish I had learned that 40 years ago.”