,THEj-VOICE OF the; STUDENTS
Volume III fll^Deceniber 18, 1964 Number 2
= ...til. ..,.M,;'*t|i7^irr.'..;‘|Nri,jTM.ri!T|rrf*Mrn*r‘-^'h^fMlTc
/-/ NLl J^ /■ Wz./:'V/ /- flHUi- T‘:-:H0> i'-i t-i -Epi TOR t 3
W-'r-
To the Editors:
After finally having had the
opportunity to read the first issue
of THE CAMPUS CRIER for this year,
and what I understand may be the
next to last, I felt an old compul
sion returning—that of writing a
letter to the editor. The first
article which caught my attention,
oddly enough, was the Editor's Plea
on the front page, which stated that
the editors obviously are not
pleased with the student response to
the Crier—or with studejnt interest
in working on the paper. I'm not
certain whether both conditions are
true, but then perhaps one depends
upon the other.
Naturally my first impluse, be
sides wanting to write to the editor
for the sake of it, was to nobly de
fend that which was once my own lol
lipop to lick, realizing that if on
ly the stick is left the, logical
course will be to discard it.
Not being a pessimist (which
no person in SGA can be and remain
sane), I decided that if student
contributions are the correct re
sponses for an A on the next issue,
which the editors promised would be
a test, perhaps I could at least up
the curve a little through contrib
uting. I thought I might also give
a repeat performance as one of Butt's
King Arthurs, whose sword might be
somewhat rusty, but at the risk of
re-firing old dragons, boring con
tent lords and ladies, and being la
beled as a never-say-die martyr, I
decided to let the days of old re-
main so. Therefore, I will make my
point (without rusty sword) and fade
away with the other Arthurs of the
df'-the solid oak round table.
First, I must credit the new
editors with both fresh content and
foresight. As for aftersight, there
is no dovibt that the newsletter has
changed in tone as much as the let
terhead has in style, and inasmuch
as the CRIER was in the past often
"The Gripes of the Students," a
quieter, less critical, less joking
tone mav indicate that all is well
behind the brick wall and that the
campus is laughing instead of crying.
This fact is an encouraging note,
especially to alumni.
Concerning the effects of the
change in tone and student attitude,
an analysis of human nature may be
in order, but it will suffice to the
two questions posed by the editors
in their plea and offer brief an
swers to the editors, please.
1. Are the students interested
enough to support their CRIER
actively? My answer to this
test question is an obvious
one. If many are active e-
nough to pick it up and read
it, a FEW will be active e-
nough to write. Again, hu
man nature. The indication of
lack interest is apparently
being measured by the number
of student articles turned in.
One hint, if I may be so
b6ld,—articles cannot be
continuously obtained through
begging to the masses.*, A per
manent writing staff is a ne
cessity and if a writing staff
is not availcible and no one
member cares to write the en
tire newsletter, obviously