Newspapers / The Guilfordian (Greensboro, N.C.) / Nov. 14, 1969, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Guilfordian (Greensboro, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Page 2 # 1 # b#P IMJ-^■4p*x^-'-^ The Quilfor£>ian The Guilfordian is printed by the students of Guilford College, weekly except for examination periods and vacations. The office is in Cox Old North. The telephone number is 292-87 09. Address: Guilford Col lege, Greensboro, N.C. 27410. Subscription rates: $3.50 per year; $2.00 per semester. Craig P. Chapman . . .Editor-in-Chief Peter B. Ballance . . .Business Manager Associate Editors: Bob Price News Ted Malick Sports Jean Parvin Managing liaik Lessner Contributing Nancy Mengebier—Feature Phil Edgerton Contributing Jerry Clawges, Stuart Sherman, Jim Willson —Photographers Kelly Dempster Cartoonist Janet Ghezzi--Proofreader flflßKj Frann White, Ellen Turner Circulation General Staff: Tori Potts, Jeanette Ebel, Clare Glore, Jeff Bloom, Helen Macarof, Carla McKinney Patt; Lyman, Deanna Day, Liz Sparger, Carol Adams, Mary Lou Hinton, Minnette Coleman, Doug Scott, Jani Craver, Jim Shields, Eugene Hassett. ___________ SnCfnESENTCD CO" NATIONAL AOVtTIINO y dm National Educational Advertising Services J* A DIVISION OF Yf HADUI WOWT uun • INC. H lap Unlngton Av.. Nw Yorfc. N.V. IQQI7 I 1 The Truth About MIG The MIG Judicial Board's handling of a case charging Bob Wolinsky with accompanying a woman student into the parlor of a 1968 Men's Dorm suite was most unfortunate. Instead of accepting Wolinsky's uncontested testimony that his breach of the rules resulted from his misunderstanding as to the open house hours of New Men's Dorm during Home coming weekend, the Judicial Board chose tc use the accident as an opportunity to vent their prejudice against the violator. The decision of the Judicial Board to sen tence WoLnsky to disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester would seem to contradict the "no case' decision which the WSC Judicial Board handed down after con sidering charges against Wolinsky's alleged female partner. It is interesting to note that the WSC Judicial Board, after accepting the viola tion of college rules as an unfortunate ac cident decided that the incident demon strated the need for an improvement in> the posting open house hours in the dorms. However, the most unfortunate aspect of the entire trial was the tacit decision of the board to allow one of the prosecution witnesses to sit with the board while they deliberated the guilt of the defendant. Perhaps before the Judicial Board dis penses any more of its now infamous justice, they should familiarize themselves with the established procedural precidents of A merican Courts of Law. Letter To Editor Wolinsky Appeals; Asks SAC Review (THE FOLLOWING IS THE APPEAL FILED BY ROBERT WOLINSKY TO THE SAC CON CERNING HIS RECENT CON VICTION BY THE MIG JUDICIAL BOARD.) Dear Editor: I would like to present to the members of the Student Affairs Committee an appeal for a new trial to substantiate or disavow the findings of the M.I.G. Ju dicial Board with respect to Wo linsky Vs. M.I.G. on November 6, 1969. I feel it would be of the uppermost importance .that S.A.C. review the case due tc the fact that illegal proceedings were used during prosecution and deliberation of the trial. According to the written state ment on " Policy for Judicial Procedure" it Is stated in Part 2 section 8 that. "At the con The sentences imposed on Moulton Avery and Evan Davis by the MIG Judical Board following their admission of guilt to charges concerning the presence of a woman student in the parlor of their suite was a sharp contrast to the punishment the Board saw fit to impose on Bob Wolinsky for a like offense. Instead of sentencing the two defendants to disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as was the decision in Wolinsky's case, the Board saw fit to merely reprimand the pair; a penalty def initely in keeping with the relative in significance of their offenses. However it should be noted that the charges involving defendants Davis and Avery were clouded by the conflict of allegiance which faces students charged with the enforcement of rules molded without their participation. On the side of the prosecution was an R.A. who in keeping with the responsibilities of his position enforce an uniust On the other side was an MIG member whose allegiance to the interest of the student body compeled him to warn the students in the suite of their impending danger. Until the students realize, as this MIG member did, that their first allegiance is to the welfare of their fel low students and not to the enforcement of silly rules formulated without their consultation; more silly trials such as these will clog the dockets of Guilford's Judicial bodies. elusion of the testimony and questioning, all but the mem bers of the committee are ex cused from the room and fur ther discussion of the case may take place." It has become ap parent to the defendant that M. LG. Judicial Board has become fraudulent in their procedure. At the time of the deliberations the witnesses for the plaintiff were main* . in the court room wh .ue defendant and respective witnesses were asked to leave. I do not wish to suggest any sort of corroboration between prosecution and court but rather the fact that their presence can put undue influence on the find ings of the court. During the entire hearing it became evident to the defendant THE GUILFORDLA.N that his statement was not being taken as his word or truth. The court exhibited outward bias by trying to read their own inter pretation of the statement. The defendant was found guiity and the punishment pronounced was Disciplinary Probation. In our American Judicial System the criterion for levy of disciplinary action accord ing to seriousness of crime has always been the ideal of our democracy and the pronounced sentence by M.I.G. is an intol erable act perpetrated upon the defendant and his rights as a student and a citizen. I think it of great importance that the M. LG. Board be reprimanded and possibly reminded of how to dis pense justice in a fair Quaker fashion. g||sjP_UNO AT HEEON WHEN moon ees PULL, Eflctf $/ll\ SCHTOOBNf CHAH6& cfternj/fc 2 *^'^ Hooray for Women's Hours. Letter To Editor Alumnus Questions Athletics Report Dear Editor: As a Guilford alumnus of the class of 1964, I was interested in several articles which ap peared in THE GUILFORDIAN handed out at the Homecoming football game November 1, 1969. The articles appeared to be "anti-athletic" in content. Al though lam in favor of a critical analysis when it is done properly and with a constructive goal in mind, I am highly crit ical of any argument that present: only one point of view. First of all, I was unable to locate a clear statement of the purpose for such a study, nor was I able to find any con crete conclusions or construc tive recommendations for a so lution to the problem, if indeed a problem exists. I accept the figures quoted for expenditures as correct; how ever, I have some question as to the percentages you have pre sented in relation to the average amount of aid received per stu dent. You are implying that all 120 athletes and all 930 non athletes are receiving financial I think it also noteworthy to mention that the same trial un der W.S.C. Judicial Board in volving a co-defendant to the alleged crimp was found not guilty of any punishable crime which they felt more to be an ac cident. W.S.C. decided to take a more constructive stand and provided means so that an acci dent of this nature will not hap pen fn the future. It is apparent that M.I.G. has not presented an unbiased hear ing as they would want students to believe, I therefore feel it is my duty and right as a student to ask for a new trial under S.A.C. so that the idea of real justice can be respectfully maintained. 'Sincerely, Robert Wolinsky Friday, November 14, 1969 | aid from the college. Don't you think it fair to give a true pic ture of the situation by using only the number of students ac tually receiving financial aid in your computations? Since you are reporting this aspect, why not publish the amounts of aid re ceived by the Richardson Scholars, Dana Scholars, etc? I believe that you will then have a better idea of the total pic ture. Since you seem to begrudge the money granted to athletes for their efforts, may I sug gest that you compare the hours worked (pre-season, season and off-season conditioning pro grams plus the time spent trav eling and participating in games) to a pay per hour basis. 1 am sure you will find that, if their only purpose for participating in athletics is monetary gain, that any student, athlete or non athlete, could have a more fi nancially rewarding job in some other area. Not to mention, of course, that these extra hours must be given over and above the time spent on their academic pursuits. How many college stu dents give so much of their time to any outside activity which con tributes so much to campus life? Very few indeed! I was both puzzled and ir ritated, to say the least, by your inclusion of the information con cerning violations of campus rules by athletes. What does this have to do with the financial "problem" of intercollegiate athletics? Are you suggesting that the college abolish athletics because a few athletes are in volved in misbehavior? Using this logic, do you also advocate abolishing the Choir or the Physics Department if a certain percentage of their members are involved in campus misbehavior? I fail to see the purpose of this material except as a generalized defamation of character toward the Athletic Department and I consider this to be an unethical procedure for a college news paper. see page 4
The Guilfordian (Greensboro, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 14, 1969, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75