Page Two
THE SALEMITE
April 28, 1961
Leaird Calls Attention
To Birch Society, HU AC
By Linda Leaird
With the continued cold war there has been a growing alarm
about the Communist threat, many people being especially con
cerned with Communism on our own shores. Recently two
groups active in this realm have received much publicity, and
both merit our consideration.
The first is the John Birch Society, started by Robert Welch,
a former candy manufacturer, in 1958. Among its objectives
is the promotion of “less government, more responsibility, and
a better world”, as well as fighting Communism; but its means
of achieving its ends are questionable. Organized in local
chapters, members of the Society follow closely Welch’s book.
The Politician, which he tried to get out of circulation soon
after it was published. In this he emphasizes that the members
of the Society are a minority and they need to obtain a voice,
which he suggests they achieve by infiltrating groups and or
ganizations, eventually to controling them. His other methods
include letter writing and public opinion campaigns, establish
ment of reading rooms and circulation of publicity. It was in
this same book that he threw Communist accusations at many,
from Dwight D. Eisenhower to the Protestant ministers, and
even Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. Mr. Welch is skeptical of the
democratic society, saying that a democracy is “merely a de
ceptive phrase, a weapon of demagoguery, and a perennial
fraud.” Because of his distrust in the individual, the John
Birch Society is under strict authoritarian control, with direc
tions and appointments in local chapters straight from the
head. Where these groups are active, there is often a sense
of upset and confusion within the community because of the
insinuations and accusations made by the groups without foun
dation. This lack of facts and proof and misinterpretation of
these facts seems to be characteristic of many individuals
within the John Birch Society. It also appears that their me
thods and motives are kindred to those used by the Communist
Party in many instances, except that they are extreme rightist
rather than leftists.
Another controversial subject dealing with this same reaction
to Communism is the movie, “Operation Abolition,” put out by
the House Un-American Activities Committee. In recent months
it has been shown on college campuses all over the country,
those nearest to home being Wake Forest, Davidson, and Duke.
Delegates at the recent NSA convention at Duke saw the movie
and a debate between law school professor. Dr. Dan Pollett
and Fulton Lewis, III, a former member of the HUAC and
director and narrator of the film. In the past few years HUAC
has raised criticism from many sides, much of it based on
valid reasoning. It seems from the tactics of the committee
that it has overstepped itself in many ways, violating the
liberties guaranteed in the Constitution by having hearings
and making accusations without allowing the protection of
court procedures and punishing those who may disagree with
the committee by harassment and exposure. There is the sus
picion by many that the committee will use its power of sub
poena and accusation to deal with those who oppose its exis
tence.
The subject of “Operation Abolition” is the riots that took
plaee last year. May 12-14, in protest of the HUAC’s meeting
in San Franeisco. The film pointed out Communists in the
crowd, trying to show that the rioters were all Communist
dupes, failing to recognize that many of these might have had
other valid reasons for opposing the hearings in San Francisco.
The majority of the rioters were students, depicted in the film
as misguided eggheads. The film failed to mention, however,
the fact that the year before, June 11, 1959, the HUAC had
•subpoenaed 110 school teachers, an act that so aroused the
citizens of San Francisco that the committee decided to call
the hearing off; much harm had already been done for the
names had been published in the paper and suspicions con
cerning these people had been raised, no matter what their
opinions might be.
The directors of “Operation Abolition” have been charged
with cutting, misinterpretation of facts and sequence of time;
but these are minor in view of the fundamental questions about
HUAC, what is being accomplished and its relation to the Con
stitution and basic liberties of the American people. HUAC
has won two major victories this year, in spite of violent op
position to it in many quarters. On February 27 the Supreme
Court upheld the committee’s power to require witnesses to
testify whether they are members of the Communist Party,
and recently the House of Representatives approved the com
mittee’s $331,000 budget for another year. This leaves no
limitation on HUAC but its own self-restraint and the attitude
of its members on the purpose and tactics of the committee.
It is important that the public be informed about these
groups because with their totalitarian methods they may move
so far to the right as to violate the basic personal liberties on
which this country was founded. Close observation of their
activities and public opinion can play a great part in their cur
tailment if they seem to be endangering our democratic process.
• discussion following the showing of “Operation Aboli
tion at Rutgers, in answer to criticism of students who op
posed the film and HIJAC, a Negro student summed up those
students attitude, saying, “Students no longer tacitly accept
everything that s told to them. We’re not defending Com
munist views if we seem to be questioning, we’re questioning
the good deal we have in this country so we’ll know how to
best protect it.”
Christian Century, March 15, 1961
Resources: Nation, January 28, 1961
Nation, March 11, 1961
Richmond Attacks Reviewer s Opinion
On Salem Production; Boswell Replies
Dear Editor;
I wonder how many students had
the opportunity to see the eigh
teenth century Restoration “tra
gedy” presented April 19 and 20?
By “tragedy”, I am referring to the
review in last week’s Salemite in
which the critic was not amused
by this famous comedy, “The
School for Scandal’. She was so
bored that her interest, especially
in the first act, was in the “gaudy
yellow curtains” and the “pinned
cotton broadcloth costumes”. Most
of the audience found the bright
cheerful curtains a tremendous ad
dition in creating a comedy-like at
mosphere. As for the pinned cos
tumes, I should like to hear from the
readers as to how many of you
actually saw any pins.
Why were the superb perfor
mances of Anna Leigh Thornton
and Brandy Hughes not even men
tioned in the review ? Good criti
cal reviews should include the
worst and the best of any play, and
yet much of the best was not in
cluded in the article. Perhaps Miss
Boswell did not like the play, and
she wrote the review from a purely
personal viewpoint, yet she surely
must have heard the favorable
comments made by students and
facuty.
I also believe the enthusiasm of
the audience was underestimated.
The audience did not guffaw at the
amusing parts of the play, but I
am sure that much of the humor
in a Restoration play is lost in our
twentieth century society, largely
because the humor is obvious, and
we cannot laugh at the obvious.
Our humor must be subtle and
slightly leaning toward the “cruel”
and obscene side. However, the
laughter did come in many parts
of the play, and certainly it did not
come from an unenthusiastic audi
ence ; as, for example. Sir Peter
and Lady Teazle’s quarrel and the
rollicking first scene of the second
act with Charles, Susan Ellison,
and Careless, Paulette Harper.
I would also like to point out
that Maria’s expressionlessness was
due to the script and not to the
actress. Maria is an extremely
weak character in the play, and
even the most talented actress
could do little with the part—
bluntly, it is a lousy part for any
actress.
I think also that Mr. Snake
handled his lines far better than
the reviewer reported. His fellow
players were not aware of sloppy
delivery, and they should know
after numerous rehearsals.
I have been hard on the reviewer,
and there were faults in the play.
Yet it seems to me that, when only
seventeen people audition for a
play which has eighteen parts to
fill, credit must be given for a per
formance which is obviously the
product of very hard work from
both the cast and the production
staff. Despite the pins that the
reviewer saw, I would like to see
her, or anyone else at Salem, make
eighteen costumes from scratch,
and without patterns in two weeks
—Didi Headley did it!
—Marty Richmond
(Editor’s Note: Miss Boswell, be
ing a member of the Salemite staff,
had an opportunity to read Miss
Richmond s letter before publica
tion. Therefore, the answer to the
letter is being printed in this issue
so that readers may compare the
two letters.)
Dear Editor,
A review of a play is supposed
to be an objective opinion on a
production as seen from the audi
ence—not backed by a trip back-
stage and/or personal interviews
with cast and company. The parti
cular problems encountered in the
production of any given play should
not be known to the audience and
it should not be necessary that
they be considered when observing
the final product.
By putting my name on the re
view I assumed all responsibility
for the opinions therein; I do not
intend to shirk that responsibility.
However I feel that I have the
right to ask that all rea.^ers read
the review in full and not
introductory part of a senterif- ... ,
1 • • 1 ^ d
pretend it is the thesis for thS\t,
-11“
tire article, as Miss Richmond'dy
Her interpretation of my commentg
on the costumes and settings seeinis
to fall in this category.
I did not take a survey of the
audience to find whether other peo-
pie enjoyed other performances or
not, nor did I attempt to review
each player individually. Outstand
ing performances — either good or
bad—were mentioned, but I see no
reason to pat each character on
the back merely because he ap
peared on the stage for more than
one scene. That plus the limited
space alloted me in the paper seem
sufficient explanation for ommis-
sion of comments on certain char
acters.
It does not seem necessary to
enter into a discussion with Miss
Richmond on the appreciation of
humor in either century—18th or
20th. I do not suggest that a play
written as was “School for Scan
dal,” requires “guffawing”; yet the
players should be aware of the
audience in something more than
!a negative manner. Mr. Sheridans
humor was subtle and should have
provoked laughter at lines and
scenes other than those bordering
on the slapstick.
In conclusion, I would like to re
mind Miss Richmond that one does
not have to be able to project one
self into the role of costume de
signer or stagehand to note dis
tractions during the presentation.
Any reviews published concerning
Salem productions should not have
to be judged kindly because they
required hard work or because they
were productions of “Ye Olde
Salem”—this would be an insult to
Miss Battle, her staff, and per
formers. The performances are
usually able to stand alone.
Becky Boswell
Salem Feels Spring In Sundry Ways;
Davidson Frolics, Poetry, Tans Galore
By Mary Eastland
“Spring Frolics” were the magic
words this past weekend for Alice
Reid, Julie Johns, Helen Wollney
Anne West, Tish Johnston, and
many other Davidson-bound
Salemites. Their reports about
Hank Ballard and the “Midnight-
ers” were almost too much—they
must have stopped for breath at
least once during the evening!
After their fabulous show Friday
night, the fraternities had indivi
dual combo parties, and Saturday
had everything from cookouts to
hayrides to the Sigma Chi Derby
Day at which the girls competed in
contests to win the privilege of
throwing whipped cream pies in
their dates’ faces. Judges finally
called the “endurance” event—sit
ting on a block of ice—a draw be
cause nobody would give up. Susan
Ellison was one of the winners in
a greased pig chase, but her date
couldn’t be caught to “receive” his
pie. After that strenuous day,
everyone enjoyed the “Collegians”
featuring Betty Lane Evans, Miss
North Carolina of 1958, who enter
tained at a dance in the gym.
Especially popular on the David
son Campus were three Salemites
chosen as fraternity sweethearts:
Becky Newsome by Pi Kappa Phi,
Beth Norman by Sigma Chi, and
Jane Kelly by Beta Theta Pi.
Though Susie Fobinson wasn’t at
Davidson this weekend, the poetry
she wrote for Miss Byrd’s English
30 class was surely inspired by
some special place:
The silver sea rolled on the
shore—
Angel fingers sweeping the sand,
Then drawing back and seen no
more
As if ’twere only a phantom
hand.
Striking a lighter note was Fran
ces Bailey’s “The Ballad of Fanny
^reshman
Come ’round me college students.
The truth you must know.
The tale of Fanny Freshman,
And why she had to go.
She took part in Dansalems.
She was in the play.
Went to at least ten meetings
Every single day.
Fanny had five labs a week.
Every afternoon;
Fanny was always complaining
Night time came too soon.
Fanny went off every weekend;
She always had a date.
Fanny had quizzes during the
PRESS
Published every Friday of the College yeah
by the Student Body of Salem College
OFFICES Basement of Lehman Hall — Downtown Office-414 Bank St., S.W.
EDITOR: Ellen Rankin
BUSINESS MANAGER: Sue Parham
Printed by the Sun Printing Company
Subscription Price—$3.50 a year
ssocia e itor Becky Boswell Asst. Business Manager Sally
. Advertising Manager Alic
ea ure itor. Circulation Manager Becky
M Ginger Ward Lay-out Editor Becky I
Headline Ed.tors-Susan Ray Kuykendall, Photography Editor Betsy
Madge Kempton, Tish Johnston. t ■ . d i „ . ... w i
i, • e „ Typists—Becky Bartak, Elise Vitale
Managing Staff - Wanda Cervarich, Caswell, Jane Raynor.
Rooney Nelson, Connie Rucker
p r D j ’ Cartoonists Eloise Upchurch, Bett)
Proof Readers Liz Smith, Linda Wall Faculty Advisor Miss Jes
She had always stayed up late.
Come ’round me, college students,
The truth you must know,
The tale of Fanny Freshman,
And how she caught mono!
Applying her talents to a subject
she really knows, Margaret Fonda
wrote:
One day busy T. T. McChem,
Devoted scientist.
Went to his lab at early morn
With experiment to test.
He worked for many hours that
day
Mixing, heating, spilling.
Making up a curious mixture
And began distilling.
Everything went beautifully
’Til a fly did appear
And bothered poor T. T. Mc
Chem
By flying round his ear.
(Continued On Page Three)