Page Two
THE TWIG
September 26, 1968
nt-reditk ColUge.
September 26, 1968
The Meredith Lady
The Meredith Lady is quite a creature. Dr. Heilman described her as
“intelligent, wise, friendly, discerning, cordial, considerate, cultured, and
provocative in appraisal of circumstance.” She, as an image, is doing
well, but what about as an individual? Is she doing any more than
accepting a place in a mold?
The form drawn for this lady is an admirable one, but “discerning”
and “provocative in appraisal” call for more than being grouped. There
is no homogeneous unit involved; instead, there is a combination of in
dividuals who, while sharing the common interest of making a college
community, must also be allowed to be themselves.
Discovering one’s own individuality and identity is not in opposition
to any image. How can enlarging herself do anything but contribute to
an even greater Meredith Lady?
Dr. Heilman stated that “One of the more significant things about
the human being is his capacity to learn without actual involvement.”
True, a human being is able to learn that way, but involvement is the
real issue here. To make the image real as well as ideal requires in
dividual action. There should be no one set line to success. We would
like to be considered “mature and responsible,” but unless we add the
courage to make judgments and decisions of our own, how can we deserve
that description?
Instead of silently slipping into a picture that is, admittedly, fllattering
and ideal in words, each individual needs to first appraise herself and
her own idea of the Meredith Lady. Honest, rational opinions are re
spectable; bold, constructive ideas are mature; considered, useful action
is intelligent. Freedom is needed to analyze and to keep the Meredith
Lady from being merely a paper doll.
S.A.J.
Road To Involvement
The restless generation is “in.” They shun hyporcisy, search for a mean-
ing-orlented society, and effectively challenge outmoded social and aca
demic policies. They support a presidential candidate.
Will Meredith students be among these restless ones? At present we
think not. An embarrassingly meager response to a recent Twig ques
tionnaire concerinng the relative force of two campaign issues in determin
ing voter preference in the 1968 Presidential election is indicative of a
lack of political concern on the Meredith campus. Ignorance of the political
alternatives is a flimsy excuse; apathy is no excuse. Yet many students
retort, “Youth had a candidate—Eugene McCarthy. He psyched out the
real situation—campaigning was exciting. Then came Chicago, the riots,
and brutality. McCarthy lost and youth lost their voice. Why tother now?”
To throw in the political towel is a defeatist attitude, quite paradoxical to
the activist philosophy of the restless generation.
The solutions are not intricate. The road to involment must begin on
our campus where the Young Democrats and Republicans Clubs can
become effective liaisons between the collegiate and national parties given
significant support. A third party campus organization is also needed.
Political activism should extend farther to the community where volun
teer student work at local national campaign headquarters is effective
evidence of support. Participation in an organization aimed particularly
at recruiting student energies in solving national problems, the “Student
Coalition” within the Youth Division of the United Citizens for Nixon-
Agnew, is yet another vehicle for student action.
Fulfillment of an activist philosophy requires active political involvement.
Will Meredith students be a part of the restless generation?
M.O.C.
EDITORIAL STAFF
Editor Shera Jackson
Associate Editor Marilyn Childress
Managing Editor Mary Watson Nooe
Feature Editors Brooks McGirt, Nance Rumley
Lay-out Editors Sue Hubbard, Angie Pridgen
News Editor Susan Soloway
Copy Editor Emma Ruth Bartholomew
Assistant Copy Readers Carrie Frampton, Paula Tudor
Reporters—Peggy Jo Alien, Corinnne Blaylock, Mary Ester Clark, Jane Crom-
ley, Gail Gaddy, Gloria Little, Nancy Rouse, Elna Thompson, Becky Trader,
Abagail Warren, Helen Wilkie.
Interviewers Lois Fowler, Kay Kennemur, Patsy Peacock
Cartoonists Linda Burrows, E>oIores Little
Photographers Edee Ancell, Barbara Curtis
Faculty Sponsor Dr. Norma Rose
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Manager Barbara Pritchard
Advertising Manager Betty McNeill
Advertising Staff—Martha McGinnis. Cathy Moran, Hollis Ann Fields, Kay
Goodrich, Dorice Mcllwain, Sarar Jane Hutchins, Lynn McDuffie, Dale
Ritter, Louise Foster, Ann Singletary
Mailing Editor Martha Lyday
Mailing Staff Peggy Allen
Circulation Chief Pam Lewis
Circulation StafT Kathy Griffin, Jackie Briles, Sue Askin, Suzanne George
Typing Chief Anne Pretlow
Faculty Sponsor Dr. Lois Frazier
MEMBER Associated Collegiate Press. Entered as second-class mailer at post ofDce at
Raleigh, N. C. 27602. Published semi-monthly during the months of CKtober, November,
Februiiry, March. April and May; monthly during September, December, and January.
Thb Twig is served by National Educaiiooal Advertlsini! Service, 18 East SOth Street
New York. New York. Subscription Rates: $3.45 per year.
LETTER
TO
Nixon, Humphrey Backers
Take Election Stance
Editor's Note: In active cam
paigning for their presidential
choices, the presidents of the Mere
dith YRC and YDC have stated
their reasons for supporting Richard
Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. Any
discussion of their views or the elec
tion in general is welcome.
I support Richard Nixon because
his platform is forceful and includes
a definite stand on all the major
issues. He hopes to stop the war in
Viet Nam, and not to encourage
future aggression. He has proposed
means of educating and preparing
those on the now too lengthy welfare
lists for jobs. Mr. Nixon believes the
present federal government is much
too large and has taken over con
trol of areas that should be handled
by the state or local government.
He wants to separate these powers.
One of his prime concerns is to
regain the respect of other nations.
Richard Nixon’s policies are far
more realistic that those of the
present administration, for he
promises no extravagant measures
that would benefit only one class.
For these reasons, I support the
candidacy of Richard Nixon.
Carolyn Langhorn
President,
Young Republicans Club
As the 1968 Presidential election
draws near, I would like to express
my views on the candidates. After
much thought and thorough study, I
am actively supporting Hubert Ho
ratio Humphrey.
THE
EDITOR
Since the platforms of the Re
publican and Democratic candidates
are very similar, the question a voter
should ask himself is: “Which candi
date has the ability and is in the
position to best execute his pro
gram?” Humphrey is my choice for
the Presidency because of his con
tinual role in politics and govern
ment over the past 20 years. From
1949*64 Humphrey played a vital
part in the Senate, and then in 1965
he became the Vice-President. This
record of Hubert Humphrey’s con
trasts sharply with Richard Nixon’s
who has been absent from the po
litical scene for the past eight years.
For example, take Vietnam, the
major issue of this campaign. Both
candidates as well as the American
people, have expressed a desire for a
settlement as soon as possible.
Humphrey is in a better position
than Nixon to achieve this goal be
cause he has been personally in
volved in the governmental decisions
concerning the war and knows hrst-
hand the political and military back
ground.
Although the present administra
tion is under a great deal of criti
cism, I feel that under the circum
stances, Johnson could not have
acted differently with the interest of
America at heart. Humphrey could
have attempted to alienate himself
from the present administration, but
his loyalty is admirable and cou
rageous.
Betty McNeill
President,
Young Democrats Club
The opinions expressed io (he editorials and columns in the TWIG are
not neccssaril)' those of the administration, shidenl body, or the entire news*
paper staff.
Dear Editor:
When we returned to Meredith
this year we came with high hopes
of many changes in student life. One,
of the foundations of these hopes
was the previous effort by students
to initiate changes in policies gov
erning students and to inform
faculty and administration of student
thought on these policies. If we can
interpret from President Heilman’s
speech in chapel on September l^
that he as president of this institution
is satisfied with the status quo in
relation to student policies such as *
the drinking rule and bachelor’s
quarters rule, we as students fear
that past work and that which we
anticipated this year will be futile.
In the speech the President in
timated that there were more im
portant realms and issues to be
sought beyond changing the apart-
ment rule or the drinking rule. Some
students are self-seeking in their
desire for change. When the pres
ence of the policies, however, causes*
a girl to question her sense of
personal honor or integrity and
brings the breakdown of the Honor
System socially, it seems that the,
policies should be examined and
altered. No radical change is called
for here, simply one which could
both represent the change which*
has taken place in society and yet
maintain the ideals toward which a
girl at Meredith strives and for
which the college is known. There*
is a problem when a large number
of the student body find their value
of honor inhibited by two policies.
A sense of responsibility is the'
answer to living under the Honor
System as it is now, but this obliga
tion hardly helps a girl change her >
habits or moral convictions.
A few years ago the need for a
dialogue among students and beT
tween students and the faculty and
administration was seen by our di
rector of religious activities. This
need has become even more urgent.
The frustration that students feel
when they cannot communicate their
ideas and sense of values to'
faculty and administration is wors
ened when they feel there is an
effort to regulate even their dress
and their display of affection with
the opposite sex. This criticism of
student life was a vague but
major theme of President Heilman’s
speech.
We as students feel even more
disturbed when faced with pro
verbial “Meredith image.” -In the
classroom we are taught to be in
dividuals, to think for ourselves. Yet
in other areas of college life con
formity is the only accepted “lady
like” behavior. How can we have,
personal integrity when we are not
given the opportunity to be in
dividuals and to think through issues
for ourselves and act accordingly?
We, like President Heilman, seek/
and value freedom — not a freedom
which runs from that which it fears
or from troubles or responsibility.
We want a freedom to be ourselves
and to find what we truly believe in
for it is only through finding and
knowing yourself that you can be
free to give the best and most honest
part of yourself to society, the world,
and to God. Malcolm Boyd in Free
to Live, Free to Die said “I want to-
be free. Free to laugh, to cry. Free
to die, to live. Free to be responsi
ble, and care and dig in. Freedom.”
Can we find freedom this year?
Judy Campbell and Susan Hout
I
1