’age 2
Inquisition
Reborn
If you were in a position of
some status, prestige and power
and your personality required
that you tie in such a position,
you would want to choose an ef
fective means of deterring any.
one who would question your pol
icies or procedures. If the trait
in your personality which neces
sitated a position of power were
the inability to defeat the rebel
through reason and rational think
ing, this means would have to be
more physical and of course fore-
boding. You, therefore, resort to
what probably has been recur
rently in history the most effec
tive psychology used in keeping
a people or group subservient,
subdued and unquestioning. You
would have to live up to Thoreau’s
observation on the relationship
between the state or government
or administration and the ques
tioning or rebellious individual.
You would have to lay down the
law or policy and hold up what
seems to be an exceedingly harsh,
unfair punishment to all of those
who would sidestep your divine
word. Your tone would have to
be unrelenting and impersonal
in order to be effective.
If you were a college admin,
istrator at Elon you would be
comparable to a bishop of the
medieval church. This institu
tion employed this psychology to
the fullest. It encouraged you to
educate yourself, to use reason,
to contemplate, and to meditate,
as long as your conclusions al
ways came back to what the
church believed and taught. If
your thinking led you elsewhere
you were a heretic and suffered
death at the stake.
Although it has been some
time since we’ve had a witch
burning on campus, we do see
examoles periodically, that this
kind of psychology is employed
here. And the most recent com
munication from the abbey is the
complete embodiment of all said
here. This notice regarded chap
el attendance. If you haven’t paid
any attention to it, I urge you to
reread it carefully. Note the
tone of relentlessness and im
personality. “This policy will be
followed without exception.” Ob.
serve the gestapo-like language
of “Failure to accumulate a to
tal of 30 points by the end of the
spring semester will present a
student with a serious problem.”
This is indisputably threaten.
Ing language -- something Col
onel Kllnk of Hogan’s Heroes
might say. “ I advise all students
to take this communication ser-
lously.” We are presented with
no reason or rationale for this
policy and the tendency is to
comply with such technicalities
just to avoid suspension. It is
here that we plainly see the ef
fectiveness of this psychology of
making ihe stvdent believe that
his success Jr failure depends
upon whether or rio} he will kneel
before tne diroft word. We obey
because it is an official announce
ment from the office of the Pres
ident and to save tiur own necks
not because we agree that It is
a reasonable system which we
should t)e subjected to.
The present chapel system Is
discriminatory. The College
chooses which functions will yield
points and which will not. Only
by attending College-sponsored
functions can students receive
points. This re-emphasizes the
lack of rationale behind the sys
tem.
As thinking students, we should
feel confident that if the student
(Continued on Page 4)
VEr.lTAS
«3tsssot3sststssss38stsossestsaaoe*st*ststs«**^^
Publicus
By EARLE WHITE
In the words of one political pundit Lyndon Johnson was a good man
who might h%ye been great. Therein lies the Irony of the Johnson
Presidency, fle was a strong man, a dynamic man with boundless
energy. This was his strength. But he was also a tragic figure. Tragic
because of the Vietnam war which was based on the premise of an
International Communist conspiracy that seemed less and less valid
as time went on. The tragedy of the Vietnam war may deprive his
Presidency of history’s greatness.
To understand the Johnson Presidency one must understand the
complicated character of Lyndon Johnson. A man of boundless energy,
great physical proportion, he was Indeed a President who got things
done. Lyndon Johnson’s was a world of striving and denials and tri
umphs and compromises, there is no such thing as an all-good man
or an all-bad man. In every saint Johnson can find a hidden sinner;
in every villain Johnson can detect a native good.
It must be said also that Johnson was a prisoner of the past. It was
his undoing to apply solutions formulated In the New Deal at the very
time when many people question as to whether they are still applicable.
The political assumptions in which he was schooled were not effective
in dealing with the nation’s problems. Thus the Great Society expand
ed its bureaucracies when critics were calling for more decentrali
zation. It provided money in order to cure social Ills but this latter
day form of the New Deal was not solving problems.
Not only were problems not solved, in the Johnson Presidency, they
were compounded by his apparent deviousness. Was he honest and
forthright to the American people? Was his methods devious or mas
terful. It goes without saying that the deviousness of Mr. Johnson stood
out a little more prominently than anything else. These public suspi
cions undermined his legislative programs.
Mr. Johnson’s Involvement in the Vietnam war funneled funds that
could have been used to solve domestic ills. As Arthur Schlesinger
Jr. stated, “his highly promising Great Society program became a
casualty of his increasing obsession with the futile and ghastly war in
Vietnam.” Even though Vietnam was a major stumbling block history
may vindicate the wisdom of the U.S. policy in Vietnam over the past
five years, Clinton Rosslter’s assessment of Johnson was that, “Viet-
nam is not our biggest problem but it is the one that destroyed this
man.”
As one commendator stated LyndonJohnsonwas“themost militant
civil- rights advocate ever to occupy the White House, reviled by
Negro militants; a Southerner scorned by Southerners as a turncoat;
a liberal despised by liberals despite the fact he achieved most of
what they sought for over 30 years. . .a power.hungry partisan poli
tician who, in the end, shunned power and partisanship to achieve
national unity.”
In a speech on March 15, 1965 Johnson said this of his presidency;
“I want to be the President who helped to end hatred among his fellow
men and who prompted love among the people of all races and all
regions and all parities.” He did not end hatred among men or wars
among countries but who can say he did not try?
»»***»s«satses»sssats8s«ssstaotst3ssssos»s^^
Culture High
By DAVID SPICER
Today in America popular music has reached a point where there
are many types of It. With so many different kinds of popular music on
the commercial market today, there must be different kinds of class-
iflcations or labels attached to them. For example, the best known
types of muslcare“popular(theAndyWllllams-FrankSlnatra brand),
“Jazz,” “folk music” (slowly dying of a complex cancer that would
take too much space to discuss here) "bubble gum rock” (the Mon-
kees, 1910 Frultgum Company, Lemon Pipers slngthls type for tweeny
and teeny boppers), psychedelic rock (progressive music Influenced
by mind-expanding drips), and “soul” music. This last label has been
so damned misconceived by so many people (especially Southerners)
that I think It’s about time to discuss just what “soul” Is.
Soul Is not the finger-snapping, rump wiggling, handclapplng crap
that Is seen at most Elon Concerts. Soul does not include those groups
that just let a sweet-sounding noise float from their mouths and pierce
the audiences’ ear with its nauseating shrieks and ahhhhh uptl^t out-
of.sight garbage. The groups that belong to this mislabeled brand of
music are the Temptations, the Supremes, the Miracles, the Four
Tops, the Tams, the In-Men Limited, and many others. Perhaps this
type of musls should be labeled (as much as I dislike labels) the “Mo.
town sound” but it deflnltly is not “soul”.
"Soul” Is a difficult term to define. It evolves from the Negro
heritage. It expresses a feeling deep within theheart-.that feeling is
of suffering. It Is a sincere feeling--a feeling that Is evident by the
way a person acts, talks, and, In this case sings. Although a “soul”
singer does tell you of his suffering, his harrowing experiences and
his blues, he still has enough “balance” In him to laugh and sing
about it. Another thing a soul singer does is express that feeling so
well--through his projection.-that the audience knows just what he is
talking about and Identifies with him. For example, Janls Joplin or
Aretha Franklin swaggers out on stage, like a lush whore grabs the
mike with feeling, writhes her body a little, and then yells out a
moamng, pleaing blues from her Southern Comfort saturated throat
And by the time she’s half way finished singing, writhing and emit-
ting, every person (especlaHy males) In the audience wants to go up
there on the stage and make love to her, because she gave them her
soul, her self, and her body while singing, and she’s going to do It
fifteen or twenty more times.
Who are some other singers that have “soul”? There are many
Mahalla Jackson, Bobby Bland, B.B. King, Ray Charles and James
Brown and the late Billie Holiday, Bessie Smith, and Otis Reddlne
did, too. ^
Dear
Beverly
Axelrod
ay ^.PH MOORE
The question has often been
brought up concerning the
strength of white support In the
“new” Black movement. Many
feel that those whites now in-
volved will leave the Black Rev
olution when enough outside pres
sure is exerted upon them; pres
sure in the form of those forces,
whether social, political or eco
nomic, conspiring against the
Black Movement.
To best deal with this question
one might well observe two Im
portant facts. First, those white
persons now involved are of a
“hard-core” select group. Sec
ond, those individuals, or groups
thereof, who do not concern them,
selves with the univeral Black
Liberation movement, as a pri
mary objective, have been asked
to leave the movement. The
“new” Blacks have grown sick
and tired of “liberals” who claim
to be of a benevolent nature to
the movement when in earnest
wish only to satisfy some psy
chological deficiency of their own.
For the sake of simplicity I
have divided these persons into
five classifications. There are
those persons who feel they per
petually must be involved in some
conflict on the side of the under,
dog. These I call the "do-good
ers.” To suppress their own
guilt complexes they hide within
the Black movement, or any other
which might allow them to feel
psychologically satisfied. There
too, is another group involved
only with Individuals. These are
in the movement simply because
they might share a single inter
personal relationship with a sin.
gle member of the Black race.
Included here are those persons
who might be dependent upon, or
share some essential form of
life with, a single member of the
Black race. Of course there are
those persons who do not have
any positive affiliation with the
Black race, but might have de
veloped a negative existence with,
and resulting in their being alie
nated from, the white race. These
persons have entered the Black
movement only as a means of
gaining revenge at a society
which rejected them. Next is that
group which claims to be author
ities on Black relationships and
Black thinking, simply because
they have “lived with Black peo-
pie all their lives,” It must be
remembered it is one thing to
live with Black men, and very
much another to live as one.
Finally we come to the potential
ly most dangerous group of all,
the conformist. That group which
sits and waits to see which way
the “tide Is turning.” If the na-
tlonal trend Is leaning toward
conservatism they lean in that
direction, or the other whenever
it dominates the social and po
litical scene of the nation. They
have entered the Black move
ment simply because everyone
else seems to be doing it.
These persons have all been
asked to make sure that the
Black movement is of primary
importance to them, and that it
is a part of them and not just
they a part of It. We realize in
the event of any pressure being
applied here, these persons
might find that their loyality
might have faded.
We then have left ourselves
with what 1 have called and by no
means is this any literary ere-
(Continued on Page 4)
^jonda^Januarv ?■; in,.„
Veritas
editioria! staff
CO-editors
borton c. show
randall s. spencer
sports editor
chorles t. butler
associat^e editors
david spicer
earle white
contributing editor
rolph moore
advertising manoger
linda I. long
reportorial staff
richard beam
tom Harris
cheryl hopkins
kathy mangum
denny mcquire
edward mcginnis
john mcconnell
carol mckinney
morrow miller
onn patterson
beo skipsey
bruce washburn
borbara waugh
Mnsey wyatt
photographer
jay fisher
publisher ■
s.g.G.
Letters To
The Editor
Editors:
First let me commend you on
your fine paper, VERITAS. I
have enjoyed reading the arti
cles, but I have found one wltli
which I disagree.
I cannot agree with the points
brought up against the Honor
Court in the December 18 issue,
by Miss Linda Long. Concerning
a speedy trial, she must realize
that sometimes there are cir
cumstances beyond the control of
the Honor Court, which do not
permit a speedy trial. Sometimes
it may be, but then again it is not
always the fault of the Honor
Court itself that a trial was not
held immediately.
She also feels that the Honor
Court works on the concept that
a person is “ guilty until proven
innocent.” This I do not agree
with either. The Honor Court is
made up of three students ana
three faculty members. If a mem
ber of the court feels biased,
they take themselves off the.f^^
The three faculty members on
not hear all the “dorm ^ssir
and have only the evideflcfe .
sented at the trial on which w
base their decision. ThSsftidcn..
members do not bring this gos
sip up in the trial either. They
may have an opinion before e
trial begins; but all of them ar
open-minded, fair, and not tear
less when the time °
make a decision. I am sure Mis
Long does not know the agoJ
these six people go through to
sure they have enough
to prove someone guilty an
be sure they are making
right decision.
Lois
Matlieny