Page 2. October 1984
The Salemtte
cPrarig THc Futiifc Is Now Dccisioii ^84
By: Dr. Inzer Byers
'111 think about that tomorrow," Scarlett O'Hara
ideclared. But in the case of the forthcoming election,
her advice will not do. Elections are not merely for
today; they are for tomorrow also. And the thinking
about tomorrow must be done now. In truth, the ! 984
presidential election poses three especially crucial
questions about the kind of tomorrow we shall have.
The first question is, "What kind of society do we
want America to be four years, ten years from now?
And how do we best act now to help secure that kind
of sociky?" Much campaign rhetoric thus-far, has
centered on the question, "Are you better off today
than you were four years ago?" The accent is on the
personal dnd on the individual pocketbook; the
appeal is aimed especially at the wealthy and the
moderately well-to-do. But the real question of the
election is about the future of American society at
large.
There have been economic gains for the nation
during the last four years, notably the reduction of
inflation and achieving an expanding economic base.
The economic achievements, however, have been at a
definite social cost. One cost was the recession. The
10% unemployment level reached two years ago has
declined again; however, there are still more people
unemployed now than four years ago. Also, while the
financial well-being of many individual women has
risen, we are today witnessing a massive feminization
of poverty, and thus far no significant action has been
taken to reverse this trend, such as support of equal
pay for comparable work.
One further problem of major concern is the
enormous deficit now facing America, a deficit greater
than that amassed in all previous American history.
That deficit, including the interest burden it brings
with it, threatens not only our immediate economic
future but that of future generations as well. It will
take decisive action now and in the years immediately
ahead to bring that deficit down drastically.
Whatever the past economic gains, the need for the
future is a restored social vision, a vision that is both
inclusive and compassionate. To look only at "What's
in it for me today" is fundamentally inadequate as an
approach to social policy. Only by looking at the
whole of America can we truly determine and respond
to the needs of our society both for today and for
tomorrow.
A second major question has to do with the future
composition of the Supreme Court and the impact its
decisions will have on American life. During 1983-84,
the Supreme Court has swung significantly in the
direction of a sharply conservative, indeed at times
reactionary, approach to the law and in particular to
the Constitution. The rights of those accused of crime,
whether innocent or not, are being narrowed; the
control powers of the state are expanding. Recent
Congressional action for preventive detention in
certain federal criminal cases sounds an ominous
warning of our need to protect our basic civil liberties.
Also, the current court has moved away from stress on
protecting civil rights. And there is mounting pressure
on the court to reduce radically a woman's freedom of
Do We Care At All?
choice in the case of abortion. Given the age and
health of several Justices, it is probable that the next
president will make two or more appointments,
perhaps the most by any president since Franklin
Roosevelt in 1937-41. The views of the two
presidential candidates indicate they will move in
sharply different directions in selecting justices for
nomination. The presidential election this year may
well determine the orientation of the Supreme Court
for the next thirty years.
r, A- third major question involves American foreign
policy. Two major problem areas in particular need
. re-examination. One involves our relationship with
the Soviet Union. The key issue here is how do we
both protect national security and also promote
meaningful negotiations for checking and then
reversing the current arms race? One kind of policy
thinking has stressed the importance of expanding
sharply American armaments, both nuclear and
conventional. When sufficiently overawed, the
Soviets will seek negotiations on arms reduction, the
argument goes.
Another policy approach argues that escalation of
the arms race is not the best path toward future arms
reduction. Indeed, given Russian fears that stem from
two nearly disastrous invasions of their country in the
20th century, the result of our arms escalation may
well be merely a strengthening of the case of the Soviet
hawks for further armaments.
Our concern today must be both protecting security
and also persuasively encouraging de-escalation of the
arms race on the basis of mutual concern for survival.
It is the hard work of negotiation to turn back the
hands of the clock ticking toward nuclear destruction
that must become a prime concern.
Another area for re-examination of our foreign
policy is in Central America. Should we see the
conflicts within these countries as essentially
stimulated from the outside, proxy wars of a basic
U.S.-Soviet conflict? Or does the internal strife arise
largely from causes within the societies themselves?
Again, it is time for a serious reappraisal of the causes
of conflict. What are the legitimate questions which
proponents of change are raising, and how can we
help resolve those controversies in ways to promote
vital, healthy, independent societies?
The problems for the future of American society are
enormous indeed. The ones cited here are only some
of the major concerns. Others such as environmental
protection and the search for ways to promote the
economic well-being of all Americans in a new age of
scientific and technological change will call for no less
serious consideration. To work out the hard answers
for these difficult problems calls for leadership with
broad social vision. Such leadership involves
encouraging pride in America, but a pride based on
facing and resolving the intricate problem of securing
social justice in a complex, pluralistic society. Such
leadership must also take responsibility for trying to
de-escalate the arms race and promote survival of this
spaceship that is Earth. If some of these problems are
not dealt with quickly and effectively, the future may
continued on page 3
By: AUce Griffith
This is my third year at Salem. I transferred from
another women's college after my freshman year. My
desire to be a part of Salem's tradition began when my
sister attended Salem in the late sixties, early
seventies. Ever since my sophomore year, 1 have
grown to love Salem more and more. 1 attribute a
great deal of my enthusiasm to participation in all
Salem has to offer. I have been a member of several
clubs and organizations on campus each year, not to
mention my athletic involvement on the volleyball
and equestrian teams.
As each year passes, I see less and less involvement
and participation - an overall apathetic attitude
among students. This apathy is in reference to
participation in attendance at athletic events,
membership in clubs and organizations, and even
attendance at what are supposedly mandatory school
functions such as S.G.A. I wish 1 knew why because it
really hurts me. Salem College is a college of which
each and everyone of us can be proud. There are
special traditions here that no other school shares. I
don't think students, upon entering Salem, realize that
you only get out of something that which you put into
it.
Students are probably tired of hearing about the
sisterhood and the traditions so characteristic of
Salem, but students and faculty members that talk so.
enthusiastically of these attributes are those
individuals who genuinely care about this institution.
Athletics is the first area which I would like to
discuss. Having been a member of the volleyball team
for three years now, I can attest to the fact that
volleyball is not a well-attended sport on campus. Do
students feel that supporting their peers isn't worth
their time, or that academics are so pressing that they
cannot take an hour or two to support the college, or
even that their voice won't be heard, so why bother? I
wish 1 knew the reasons why. I hope to express the
sentiments of all the athletic teams when 1 say how
wonderful it makes a team player feel when she knows
how hard she has worked in practice, and when that
game comes around, her peers are supporting her and
cheering her on to victory!
In terms of school clubs and functions, there is also
room for improvement. 1 don't think people care to
attend these meetings because they feel that "someone
else" will take care of things. Some honestly don't care
about getting involved or having a voice on campus. I
can't count how many people I heard before the last
S.G.A. meeting comment "I hate these meetings...
Let's blow it off!" S.G.A. is the one time we, as a
student body can organize to hear about important
issues on campus and make special announcements
(Besides, why waste Leigh Flippin's time? it's not as if
she has nothing else to do.) When there's only 450 or
so boarding students and we can't even assemble all at
once just one time per month, it's sad! Do we not care
at all? .
By: Uz McGehee
In light of our ancestor's unpleasant dealings with England over such
injustices as "taxation without representation" our "founding fathers"
designed a government for our new North American empire "instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed." The Constitution they penned is a synthesis of all of
humanity's experiences with popular sovereignty.
The type of democracy in which we live is based on the republican and
democratic traditions of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, on the
social contract treatises of the political philosophers John Locke and.
Jean Jacques Rousseau, and on England's Magna Carta and bi-cameral
parliamentary system of government.
Our political roots lie in governments that were "accountable to the
people" and that stressed the need for participation of "the people" in the
processes that shaped the events of their lives.
Today, the socio/political machine the Jefferson's, Washington's, and
Franklin's deistically created is winding down. Thomas Jefferson, in
particular, would be troubled by the apathy we exhibit regarding our
right to vote.
The enfranchised American, Jefferson said, should be well educated so
that he might weigh with objectivity the issues confronting the nation-as-
a-whole and those pertinent to his own self-interests. To participate in
societal decision making, one had to have a "stake in the society."
The yeoman farmer, the symbol of the agrarian myth that fostered our
move to the Western frontier and that continues to shape our foreign
policy, was the rock upon which the American Republic was to be built.
Agrarian labor supposedly made one virtuous~in addition to giving one
a red neck and lots of calluses. The farmer was also concerned about the
future; the seeds he planted this year had to be nutured to ensure that they
would produce crops in the next year. The farmer's future-regarding
attitude, Jefferson added, should also be adopted by voters when they
cast their ballots.
But few people in twentieth century America own land; only four per
cent work on farms. We live in the concrete jungles of the cities or in the
polyethylene tranquility of the suburbs. We're too busy to read the local
newspapers, listen to the radio, watch the nightly news, or discuss the
Presidential debates. Between the time we spend eating our morning
serving of Rice Krispies, writing term papers, or preparing for the concert
we just have to see tonight, there never seems to be enough time left to use
to inform ourselves of the events in Washington and in the world that
daily shape our lives.
Rather, when we do vote, we vote for a candidate because our parents
have voted for that candidate. Or we will vote for the person with the
nicest smile and niftiest slogan, as we did when we elected President
Kennedy in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Regardless of one's political beliefs, the individuals who form the
Salem College community do have (as Jefferson would say) a "stake in
the society" in which they live. For the first time in this nation's history,
for example, a woman has been chosen to become the vice presidential
candidate of a major political party. The issues of fairness, of war and
peace, of religion in politics, of deficit control, of civil rights, and of
education pervade the nature of our existence.
The right to vote gives us the opportunity to change those
governmental and societal problems we don't like by electing law-makers
who will be more responsive to our self-interests.
The editors of The Salemite therefore encourage the students of this
college to become more aware of the issues that have been raised by both
Democratic and Republican candidates in the 1984 campaign, then to
vote intelligently and to vote with conscience on November sixth.
>taff
Advertising Manager
Anne Roberson
Editors-in-Chief
Cathy Cass and Liz McGehee
Business Manager
Laura Petty
Circulation Manager
LuAnn Yost
Reporters
Linda Linton, Barbara Teates, Linda Sun, Maryanne
McDonough, Maria Karres, Laney Frick, Linda Surles, Lee Sears,
Mary Bowman, Kristin Vincent, Kathleen Thornton, Pam Shores,
Vicki Gaines, Leigh Flippin, Angie Bostrom, Beth Butler, Amanda
Shute, Jeanne Harkins, Tate Renner, Hatsie Wilson, Alicia Nesbit,
Rene Ivey, Malinda McCall, Fran Spier, Izumf Sekikawa, Lyn
Turner, Alice Griffin
Advertising Staff
Angela Wells, Julie Might, Robin Riach, Alice Sanders,
Marcy Svoboda, Elizabeth Perry
Business Staff
Lynne Daniels, Kathleen Thornton
Photographers
Fran Spier, Lacy Buck, Mary Ann Downs
Graphics
Pam Shores, Malinda McCall