Page Two
THE SALEMITE
March 21. 1958
Wluf Qwe.
4^0^ eManmo*uf>?
This year has been termed “one of Salem’s
best”. While we are proud of our accom
plishments, there is danger in becoming too
satisfied with the way things have run this
year and in making harmony the goal of
campus life. Because of industrial and scien
tific advancement, because of the “family
feeling on campus and because of the desire
to be a member of the group, we often de
velop a uniformity of opinion. This, John
Stuart Mill regarded as the principle danger
of a free society. Because harmony and con
census of opinion does not necessitate free
dom, he considered “the mere example of
non-conformity a service.” For the same
reason, Jefferson said, y little rebellion now
and then, is a good thing.”
Th.Gr6for6, every iHiusndl occurrence oi be-
havior on campus is not always a calamity.
Each case offers an opportunity for studying
our traditions, regulations, and practices. It
is from occurrences like these that students
become aware of conditions; discuss them;
and may see the need for changes. Such
happenings also encourage questioning and
trying those things which we’ve always ac
cepted as right. For example, a case before
student government; may raige the question
of who is good enough to set in judgment of
his peers, especially when the judges are all
capable of committing or have committed the
same offense.
So much has been said about student apathy
and so little has been done to overcome it
that any further mentioning seems almost use
less. However, there must be some basic fault
in our campus philosophy which causes this
indifference to campus activities. Two of the
basic faults are the demi-god, “week-end”, and
a misconception of the meaning of education.
College life should be divided between aca
demic, extra-curricular and social activities.
However, it is wrong when the social factor
permeates and controls the other two facets.
Here at Salem we have established a mighty
demi-god, “weekend”, and many a student s
week is spent bowing before his altar. As
signments may be slighted and participation
in campus activities are definitely neglected.
The answer to any request for work usually
is, “I’m busy this weekend so I have to spend
all my time getting lessons done; sorry.”
Then getting the lessons done becomes so
tedious that bridge, TV, or a trip to the drug
store has to be inserted, even though there
wasn’t time to help on the class project.
Though it is trite, it is true—college edu
cation is not limited to the classroom and to
assignments. For this reason, Salem has pro
vided means of augmenting our basic knowl
edge with cultural opportunities, physical ex
ercise, co-curricular activities. A liberal arts
education is designed to prepare the student
for life yet students fail to see concerts and
art exhibits as a part of liberal education.
Perhaps the most recenfi example of student
negligence was seen in the audience for the
second performance of The Glass Menagerie
Here was literature of the times not only pre
sented to but interpreted for the students
Here were forty people engaged in bringing
an educational opportunity to the student, yet
so many people were too busy to come. The
common reason for not attending was tests.
■VVell—so what! Every individual involved
in a concert, play, display, etc. has tests and
obligations which they manage to fill even
though they’ve spent forty times as much time
on tfie project as the observer.
Then there are those who do not have a
misconception of the meaning of education,
they just do not have any conceptions.
These are the parasites who stare blankly^
at the professors during class, who have so
much to complain about and to organize that
they never get around to studying, who are
too busy to attend or to contribute to campus
activities, who never can understand why they
get deficiency marks, who sleep intentionally
in chapel, and who don’t walk but “boop”
along looking like a tabula rasa
Students And Faculty
Discuss Their Relations
In recent months, there has been considerable discussion about stu
dent-facufiy relations. It is true that we do have unusually c ose
contact with our faculty; but do we really have this wonderfully c ose
relationship that we all talk about so much, or is our relationship mere y
superficial? ' , i * the
While roving the campus, I asked both faculty and studen s
following question, “Do you think that the faculty and students have
enough opportunities to meet together in order to mlk over problems,
exchange ideas, or generally to become better»acquainted ?
The majority of the students whom I asked agreed that there are
enough opportunities here. However, they added that the students di
not take advantage of the opportunities that we do have.
Mary Archer Blount feels that the faculty members go out of their
way to achieve a close relationship with the students because the
faculty’s interest in students is not limited to the individuals in their
current classes. Mary Archer said that “it depends upon the needs
and the personality of the student if she has a close relationship with
her faculty.”
Elbe Mitchell feels that we have many opportunities to know our
faculty through small classes, drug store chats, and individual con
ferences. But she feels that we could know each other better if the
faculty would take a more active part in advising classes and organi
zations.
Jane Bridges said “that the students who want to know their faculty
do. Freshmen do not care about knowing the faculty. Juniors and
especially Seniors know them because they care. I have found that
it is nice to drop by their offices to talk—they always welcome you.
Anne Fordham feels that we have opportunities for informal talks
which most of the faculty encourages. Gail Landers and Nancy Sexton
leel that while we do have a fairly good relationship that we need
more initiative from students to improve it.
Sara Ann Price and Mary Jo Wynn said that comparatively speaking
we do have a good relationship with our professors. They compared
us to other schools where students do not speak to their faculty when
they meet on campus.
However, all students do not feel that we have a close, relationship
with the faculty. Sarah Fordham said that she does not feel that she
knows the faculty. She asked, “what do the faculty do about getting
a good relationship with the student who is slightly shy? I*don t see
that they do anything.”
Faculty members feel that we do have ample opportunities to know
each other; but many of them suggested that the students do not avail
themselves of these opportunities.
Dr. Africa said that he felt that the opportunity is here, but he
finds it difficult to find much evidence of the Freshmen taking ad
vantage of it. The upperclassmen, however, do have a fairly close re
lationship with the faculty.
Miss Byers said that she thinks we have a good relationship. “The
informality makes it valid. This is one of the things that pleases me
most about Salem.”
Mr. Farley said that perhaps there is too much intermingling be
tween faculty and students. Some of the students do not take advant
age of the opportunities afforded them. For the most part, the stu
dents only come by to fuss about grades, tests, and papers. They
never stop by to have an intelligent discussion about subject matter,
current world problems, or campus situations. Mr. Farley also said
that students expect the faculty to do most of the thinking for them;
thus, they depend upon the faculty to make too many decisions.
Dr. White feels that he has a good relationship with the Freshmen
and Sophomores, because in talking about term papers and special
assignments, he is able to deal individually with the student. He does
not feel that any organization to promote relations should be founded,
but the faculty should make the'student feel welcome. We should
not try to for.ee faculty and students on each other.
Dr. Lewis said that the relationship is fair but could be much better.
In comparison with other colleges, our student-faculty relations are
much better than in many ' colleges. He said that outside of the class
room there is not much real communication. This is largely the fault
of the student. The faculty is more open towards students than the
students are to the faculty. There is not a worth while exchange of
ideas. There should be a feed back from the students. The students
should read and prepare themselves to talk intelligently with the faculty
who welcomes new ideas from the student.
Mr. Meigs feels that the Freshmen do not have as close a relation
ship with faculty as do the upperclassmen. Perhaps it is good that
after five o’clock the faculty and students go their separate ways.
Mrs. Heidbredder said that we could improve relations. On an in
dividual level the relations are excellent. However, on the campus there
is a lack of a central grouping where faculty and students may talk
about campus life and may share ideas. Mrs. Heidbredder suggested
that we form a campus forum or town hall type grouping for the
purpose of exchangiipg ideas on common problems especially about
campus life.
Judging from-this survey, the general feeling on campus is that there
are many opportunities for faculty and students to get acquainted. Both
students and faculty agree that more initiative is needed from the
students. The faculty has expressed an interest in the students and
welcomes us to stop by for informal chats; but the faculty cannot go
out into the hall and call us in to discuss campus life and problems.
—Mary Ann Hagwood
What About Cuts
The question of our cut system has been
under discussion all year and students have
been voicing opinions on the matter.
This afternoon at 3:30, the Student Coun
cil parleyed with the Class Attendance Com
mittee. The question behind the discussion
was this, “Is our present cut system adequate,
or. does it need revising in order to give the
students more responsibility.”
The opinions of the Class Attendance Com
mittee on this matter are not yet known;
however, the Student Council feels that the
students should have more responsibility in
attending classes, and is therefore, in favor
of a more lenient cut system. The Council
has no definite plan to submit to the Com
mittee, for it is hoped that the Committee
will agree to a more thorough student-faculty
evaluation of the cut system.
(Continued on Page Four)
^alemtte
Published every Friday of the College year
by the Student Body of Salem College
OFFICES—Lower Floor Main Hall
Downtown Office—414 Bank St., S. W.
Printed by the Sun Printing Company
Subscription Price—$3.50 a year
Editor-in-chief — -Martha Jarvis
Associate Editor Mary Ann Hagwood
News Editor Lucinda Oliver
Feature Editor Jean Smitherman
Faculty Advisor Miss Jess Byrd
Business Manager Ellie Mitchell
Advertising Managers: Rosemary Laney,
Betsy Ollmour.
Circulation Manager ...Mary Hook
Pictorial Editor Anne Fordham
Asst. Business Manager . . Peggy Ingram
Service Manager Barbara Rowland
Cartoonist Anis Ira
Headline Editor - Mary Jo Wynne
Columnists: Margaret Mac Queen, Sue
Cooper, Shan Helms.
Proofreader — Susan Foard
Typists Betty Hall, Fran Jerman
Farewell To Arms
David 0. Selznik’s cinemascopic production
of Ernest Hemingway’s romantic tragedy of
World War I, A Farewell to Arms, is high
lighted by leading Hollywood performers, ef
fective technical devices, and satisfactory
directing.
The improvement of Kock Hudson’s acting
ability was evident in his leading role of the
American lieutenant, Frederic Henry. Hud
son’s interpretation of the handsome and
courageous Henry, who fought with the Ital
ians against the Germans and carried on a
love affair with a British nurse during World
War I, lacked the depth of characterization
which Hemingway had in the book; however,
this fault could be due to poor interpretation'
by the scriptwriter, Ben Hecht. During the
first scenes Hudson appeared to be more
conscious of Hudson than the character of
Henry; he seemed merely to be ‘reading the
part’. But as the movie progressed, his audi
ence projection improved. His best scenes
were near the last. He played the scene in
the hospital at the bedside of the dead Kat
herine with great compassion and emotion.
Jennifer Jones’ performance of the gay,
carefree and beautiful British nurse, Kat
herine Barkley, who falls in love with Hud
son, was more polished and professional than
Hudson’s performance. However, I left that
she was miscast for the part because of her
age. For this reason, she added a touch of
seriousness to the part which was not con
sistent with the young character in the book.
However, she interpreted the character of
Katherine with charm and vivacity, and her
performance was spontaneous Throughout the
movie. The scene in which she and Hudson
discussed bravery was a forewarning to her
death; she handled her moving lines,' such as
“ . . . but the brave die” . . . very well.
Among the performances of the minor char
acters, the nurses, priest, doctors, and at
tendants, was the exceptionally excellent act
ing of Vittorio de Sica, who played the part
of Major Rinaldi. Although the character
Rinaldi was emphasized in the book more
than in the movie, de Sica handled his part
with great understanding of Rinaldi’s bitter
ness and contempt for the war. He did a
superb job of acting in the execution scene,
particularly when he declared that his rank
was that of “ ... a coward.”
Excellent scenery, effective coloring, and
beautiful background music added to the
dramatic element of the movie. While the
music heightened and intensified the battle
scenes and love scenes, well-directed photo
graphy captured the turmoil of the destructed
villages in Northern Italy and the loveliness
of the mountainous regions' in Switzerland
with effective color. Although these technica
devices were appealing, they often distracted
the audience’s attention from the essence o
the story.
Scriptwriter Ben Hecht’s interpretation ot
this romantic tragedy correlated with the
book. However, the script lacked a depth o
characterization, especially in the character
of Frederic Henry—in the book, Henry 'was
not so quick in telling Katherine he lo're
her. Also, a farcical element was added o
the scene in which Henry was taken to t ®
hospital; in the book, this scene depicted the
inconsideration of hospital attendants instea
of the humorous treatment of Henry. More
over, while Hemingway played up the gory:
tragical aspect of the war and love storD
Hollywood played up the romantic,
aspect—a characteristic of Hollywood
should be expected. —Shan Helffl®