Newspapers / Salem College Student Newspaper / Feb. 1, 1984, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Salem College Student Newspaper / 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 The Salemite Future Alunmae SjEtterfi ®0 lElittor Hatsie Wilson is a junior at Salem The Salem College Campus has been humming with dissent since the Interdorm decision to change the penalty for noise violations occuring in the dorm. The penalty has been “loss of SDH keys” for a few nights or “lock-up.” These punishments did not seem to be work ing so Interdorm chose hostessing in the dorm lobbies during visitation hours on weekends evenings. The rule is as follows: if one or several dorm residents is thought to be making too much noise by another dorm resident and the noise offender is turned in, then the offender will have to sign dates in and out during visitation on weekends. I believe it is important to analyze why the students oppose Interdorm’s solution and ammend it because each and every boarding student is affected by this new rule. An alternative option for housing (i.e. off campus houses or apartments) is not offered or allowed. If we have to live in the dorms, then let’s make them just, reasonable, and perhaps, even a desirable place to spend our four years. The first problem with this addition is that no warning system is guaranteed. It is up to the discretion of each dorm whether or not they give a noise offender a warn ing before being punished. As it stands now, if someone is loud, the accuser has the right to ask the noisy person to be quiet, or turn in the person for punishment. Obviously, this system will be biased. People will be more likely to ask their friends to be quiet and turn in others without the same consideration. In larger dorms petty warfare has been known to occur. FOr ex ample, a group of quiet students that use the dorm for study versus a group of noiser stereo-oriented students that study in the library and use the dorm as a place to relax and enjoy the company of their friends. These two groups have conflicting interests and constantly lock horns. People supporting no warning system argue that our handbook lists the quiet hours and every student is responsible for being aware of them. This argument is weakened if one realizes we live in the dorm and in moments of jubilation and excitement may forget the handbook. For example, if the man of our dreams finally calls, or, more realistically, if a group of friends is rehashing the weekend events, they are not purposely trying to disturb others during quiet hours. These offenders should be given a warning. Do not think that I condone inconsiderate noise offenders who consistantly ignore quiet hours, but everyone deserves one warning! The second problem is the new punishment: hostess ing. Personally, I believe “lock up”was severe enough a penalty for a college aged student. However, if a new solution must be found, hostessing is an infantile punish ment. Why stick someone in the lobby on weekend even ings? Why not make the punishment constructive? At least “lock up” helped the hall advisors with part of their duties. Hostessing does not appear to be working anyway. What happens when there are more girls than weekends for hostessing? You cannot put all of the of fenders in the front lobby. That would move the noise from the hall to the lobby. I realize it is easy to criticize and harder to come up with workable answers. Interdorm should not put this rule into effect just because they cannot think of anything better than hostessing. I commend Interdorm for their hours of hard work and commitment. I know, ultimately, they are working for the student body. Un fortunately, there will always be a problem with noise offenders. Salem needs to become a more progressive school with more progressive rules in order to keep up enroll ment and decrease transfers. It is risky counting on alumnae sentiment growing as the years increase. I can never give to Salem until changes are made. The students who signed my petition have not read my editorial, but have read the short statement about the petition. Everyone will not agree with all of my opinions and observations, and I do not want to imply in any way that they embrace each of them. I am confident that I could have gotten at least one third more signatures from the students had I separated the lack of warning system and the inapropriateness of hostessing because many agreed with my opposition on one issue or the other. However, I did collect 228 signatures from the boarding students. The object of my petition is to voice the dissention of the students into a written statement. Perhaps the elected representatives will visualize the position of their electors more clearly. lEbttonal Common Courtesy Cure for Quiet Hours It’s close to midnight and there are small whispers filtering down the corridor. Suddenly, the quiet is shat tered by a blood-curdling scream. “QUIET HOURS!!” My body jumps on the bed, but I’m soon drifting off to sleep. It’s 3:30 A.M. The quiet is once again shattered with a scream: “Oh My Gawd! Did he REEEEEALLY say thyat? I cain’t believe it!” I knock on the wall, and the rap is answered with a drunken “Entrez Vous!” These things don’t happen very often. In fact, it’s pret ty rare. There is such a thing as common courtesy. This is something that parents teach their children at a very tender age. It’s really not hard to think of others if your stereo is a little loud or you are particularly excited about a date. Most people are really nice about comply ing with a neighbor’s request. If it’s especially late—remember your neighbor^ so quiet hours can’t be extended. As long as there is no courtesy, the quiet hours restrictions will continue. Editor .Alice Crawford Assistant Editor Cathy Cass Business Manager Anna Shell Assistant Business Manager Anne Roberson Reporters Catherine Antley, Beth Butler, Paula Corbett, Neil McArthur, Liz McGehee, Anne Roberson, Barbara Teates, Hatsie Wilson Cartoonist Catherine Ghoneim Dear Editor, O.K. I understand that January and Febuary tend to drag a bit. People get bored. You could be bored to tears or bored to death, but being bored to the point of dreaming up MANDATORY LECTURE-ASSEMBLY, MANDATORY CLASS AT- TENDENCE, and ridiculous penalties for noise is pathetic. Start jog ging. Get a hobby. Unfortunately, I am writing this on the spur of the moment and in a state of shock, therefore I have not asked the powers that be if this is serious stuff. Hopefully, this is all just a rumor, and we don’t have to start sending our transcripts off in hopes of getting out of Dodge. What happened to “Salem has always cham pioned independence in thought and action” page eight, Salem catalog? Sincerely, Lee Sears Editor: Darlings, I hate to say it, but the subject of Refec tory fare at this wonderful Institution has been brought to my attention again. As a Soldierette on the Battlefield of Public Good, I feel it is my duty to express my (may I say in valuable?) opinion. This past week, on at least 3 occasions, I found it unendurable to visit our gracious dining room at 6:00 p.m. chow time. I know that the staff does its best, but WHERE am I to dine when yesterday’s so- so lunch is served as this evening’s craftily disguis ed (and virtually inedible) dinner? Certainly not Cor- rin Refectory! Must I be perpetually subjected to lonely sardine entrees in my boudoir because so meone has neglected to respond to student ques tionnaires on food preferences? Can such Pecksniffian (look it up. Baby!) handling of Refec tory “vittles” be stomach ed by the students? If food preference questionnaire Cont’d on Page 4
Salem College Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 1, 1984, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75