Page 2
The QuilfonSon
The Guilfordian maintains a free and independent poliey from
the institution within the code of Journalistic ethcis adopted by
the Publications Board and printed by and for the students of
Guilford College.
JIM GARVIN Editor EMILY HEDRICK Feature Editor
PETE BALLANCE Business Mgr. PHIL EDGERTON News Editor
PAT ANDREW Managing Editor TED MALICK Sports Editor
[fRBSHMN 7
I o£cr/wsl
f/
/
I
/ a /to /
y # APPtA L- /
7 \\/07 r
Tell it like it is . . .
Experiment in Elitism, (part 2)
This is the last of a two part article
about the Richardson Program.
In the early part of this century John
Dewey revolutionized educational thought
by proclaiming that education is a process
of living, not preparation for it. Since that
time educators have searched for ways in
which to make the classroom experience
more "relevant" to the students' sphere.
Or, failing this, they have sometimes even
abandoned the classroom altogether, as in
the Richardson Program.
To completely eliminate the classroom,
however, these same educators have
insisted that the students be "very special."
Efforts to segregate the students, then,
began on the basis of their capacity to
perform. For, as most recognized, having
"double-domes" and "dummies" in the
same classroom (this democratic approach
is still employed, of course, in public
schools) leads inevitably to a clash over the
speed at which the class should progress
and also over the content of the material to
be covered. The end result being that the
intelligent students are bored, while the less
gifted ones are frustrated.
Unfortunately, a small school's faculty
resources are so limited that those
professors who are best qualified to teach
the "special" students are also the best the
school has to offer elsewhere. This
inevitably means that those students who
failed to qualify are left to fend for
themselves within the old structure.
This very same thing actually occurred
on a smaller scale a few years ago in
Chicago. There, an elementary school
teacher faced her new crop of shining faces
with their pencils clutched tightly in hand
at the beginning of the school year. They
had undergone IQ tests the week before
and when the results came in she was given
the names of six of her students who
possessed "potential for intellectual
blooming." What the teacher didn't know,
however, was that the six students were
selected at random with no attention paid
to the test scores.
Eight months later, however, the
students were give', another IQ test and
THE GUILFORDIAN
Prof. George W. Albee of Western Reserve
was able to report that the specially
designated children "had made dramatic
improvements. In the first grade, the
average gain was more than 15 points; in
the second grade, more than 10
points..."
Obviously what happened was that the
teacher had acted in such a way toward
those special students as to elicit more of
their basic potential. Any failure to
comprehend by these students was then
treated by the teacher as a failure on her
part, causing her to work that much harder
to make certain they grasped the subject
matter.
The Richardson Foundation's leadership
training program, unfortunately, is laden
with similar problems. These teachers will,
if the students fail to comprehend, devote
extra energies to them. For the students'
lack of comprehension will be seen as a
personal failure by the teacher. The end
result of this kind of saturation education
is that Guilford's other students will receive
less attention from the professors best
qualified to give it, and while they are
training leaders in one sphere, in another
they are losing them.
The point is not that a program of
saturation education will not work for the
Richardson Fellows ... it will. The point is
that the facilities of a small college are
limited to such an extent that the other
Guilford students cannot help but suffer.
$• Letters to the Editor of The &
■
Guilfordian should be turned into #
lij; The Guilfordian office by 4:00 :£
Sunday afternoon. Letters *•
exceeding 350 words are subject to *•
x possible deletion. All letters must
S be signed, but under special g
circumstances names will be I;-:
withheld upon request. Untyped :§•
Cv
letters are accepted. g
%,
" X-:-X-X*XvXxX;XvX-X:X:XS£
Quaker Pulse
Too Damn Liberal
DEAR EDITOR: After
reading the ''Gutsell
Amendment" editorial, a friend
remarked to me, "The trouble
with you liberals is that you're
too damn liberal." Interestingly
enough, his joking comment
captured the essence of the
disagreement between the
liberals and the radicals at the
meeting of the Reform
Democrats the Thursday before
last. We were too liberal to
accept the radical insistence that
all virtue lies entirely on one side
and all vice entirely on the
other. Liberals have a curious
habit of objecting to views
which stuff people and ideas
into pigeon-holes, a habit which
tends to throw both right- and
extreme left-wingers into nasty
fits of pique. We decline to
regard Hanoi or Washington
alternately as epitomes of
viciousness and stupidity or as
paragons of virtue. Moreover, we
don't regard flexibility and
compromise as dirty words.
Thus the best that our extremist
friends ever have to say of us is
that we are wishy-washy; at the
worst, we get simultaneously
labelled pinkos and fascists. We
console ourselves with the
observation that in a democratic,
pluralistic society, progress
requires compromise and
tolerance; consequently, we
direct our energies toward
achieving the most progressive
solutions that we can
realistically hope for.
To return to the editorial in
question, I confess I am puzzled
by the fact that the writer
seemed more interested in
directing a sarcastic personal
attack at me than in explaining
to his readers exactly what I
wanted left out of the original
resolution and why I wanted it
omitted. Such a pristine example
of an ad hominum argument is
hard to come by these days.
Perhaps his motive was to draw
an outrage reply to spice up his
next issue with. In any case, I
enclose a copy of the resolution
which I would like to have
printed along with my letter so
that Guilfordian readers may
judge for themselves the effect
of the "Gutsell Amendment" of
the resolution. Incidently,
contrary to the publications of
the editorial, I do oppose the
administration handling of the
War, and because of this I helped
to organize the McCarthy
campaign in Greensboro last
spring. However, I have not
decided to give up on the
Democratic Party just because
my candidate lost.
The attached copy of the
resolution is the original version;
the sections in brackets were the
ones omitted by the Gutsell
Amendment. In the case of the
two "whereas" clauses, I felt
that these were overly emotional
and were based chiefly on
opinion rather than on factual
evidence. Incidently, although I
did not include this in the
amendment, I felt that the sixth
"Whereas" needed revision, since
technically, both major parties
and candidates have committed
themselves to ending the War.
The nature and degree of
commitment may be open to
question, but nevertheless, a
commitment of sorts was made.
As for the words "permanent," I
felt that it made the position
unnecessarily rigid. And as for
the last sentence, I felt that
there are at least some other
issues besides the war which are
at stake in the election, and that
Friday, September 27, 1968
on these, the Democratic Party's
policies and practices are more
viable than the alternatives. If I
did not believe this, it would be
pointless for me to continue to
work as a Democrat, which I
fully intend to do. The Reform
Democrats can hardly hope to
change the Democratic party if
we remove ourselves from that
party, yet this is in effect what
we would do by making our
loyalty to and interest in the
party dependent solely on its
behaving exactly as we demand
on the War issue. Moreover,
extremist ultimatums such as
were strongly implied in the
original of this resolution (and
such as are apparently endorsed
by the Guilfordian editor) rarely
achieve their goal. ("Doves"
ought to know this from
observing the effects of U.S.
attempts to deliver ultimatums
to North Viet Nam.) Instead, the
effect is usually the opposite—to
stiffen the resistance of
opponents and to offend people
wno might have been
cooperative in other areas.
I hope that readers of the
resolution as amended will give a
fair hearing to his explanation of
the Gutsell Amendment, and
will also be open-minded enough
to actually compare it to the
Democratic Party's Viet Nam
plank to see if the resemblences
are as close as the editorialist has
implied.
In addition to criticizing the
amendment, the editorialist also
seems to suggest that it was
inappropriate for anyone calling
himself a Reform Democrat to
express an opinion that Mr.
Humphrey might be preferable
to Mr. Nixon or Mr. Wallace as a
presidential candidate. Is this to
be interpreted as a suggestion
that the Reform Democrats
might find a more congenial
home with the Republican of
the States Rights Parties? Or
that in spite of the smallness of
their power base that they try to
form a fourth party? Or that
they simply pick up their
marbles and go home if the
Democratic Party refuses to play
according to their rules? Or is
this an expression of the
anarchist philosophy that one
should boost the least worthy
candidate in order to help create
a situation which may hasten the
demise of the whole system?
I feel that I must correct one
misstatement made at the end of
the editorial. Several members of
the group do prefer Mr.
Humphrey to the other
presidential candidates, but to
suggest, as the last paragraph of
the editorial does, that the only,
or even the main concern of the
group is entirely incorrect and
does a great disservice to those
Reform Democrats who have
worked and will continue to
work within the party for such
"changes in ideology and
program" as, for example, a
ward system for Greensboro. At
this particular historical moment,
I feel that the N.C. Democratic
Party is ripe for progressive
change by means of an infusion
of new blood. If we make
overemotional and extremist
statements, especially about
issues that we can't hope to have
a noticeable effect on, we run a
grave risk of uselessly
aggravating party workers and
officials who might otherwise
cooperate with or at least not
obstruct us in areas other than
national policy. If we muff this
chance, we may not have
another.
i.iarnie Gutsell