Page Two
THE TWIG
November 7,1968
Mtreditk College.
November 7, 1968
A Curious Reversal
“Victorian” and “conservative” are descriptive student tags for the
faculty, while “contemporary” and “liberal” most frequently describe
students in their own self-evaluation. Yet no longer can we uniformly
categorize the faculty and the student body, particularly in social policy
decisions. The faculty committee has made a surprising reversal—the
case in point being the apartment ruling. A vote to eliminate the present
apartment ruling was cast by the faculty committee; a vote to liberalize,
yet qualify the present ruling, was cast by the legislative board.
While the faculty and student approaches are fundamentally in agree
ment on the need to liberalize the present apartment ruling, they are at
odds on one point, specifically on the need to restrict freshmen and
sophomores from visiting bachelor’s quarters at their own discretion. It
is our belief that this point is of utmost importance, for two main reasons.
First is a fundamental distinction in the level of maturity and responsi
bility. Juniors and seniors by the age of 20 or 21 and with two years
of college are more capable of assuming the responsibilities involv^ in
visiting bachelor’s quarters than freshmen who, at 18, have just been
removed from close parental supervision. Indeed, it is our observation
that freshmen and sophomores see the apartment restriction as a welcome
crutch. Secondly, juniors and seniors have few upper class privileges,
with the exception of car access. Gaining the right to visit bachelor’s
quarters for the juniors and seniors would therefore provide such a dis
tinct reward.
If the liberal faculty committee stance and the conservative legislative
board stance are a curious reversal, this is perhaps a healthy sign. It is
our hope that the dissimilarities in outlook will not jeopardize a rule that
is a most effective means toward developing in Meredith students a re
sponsibility toward the “whole of life.” MOC
Little Things
This week a man accepted a great responsibility. Whether or not we
originally favored him, we now recognize the need to support him in
his four-year task. In his term of office, the president must fulfill a myriad
of duties that constitute his overall responsibility. We certainly can see
the complicity of the president’s duties, but can we see our own?
Our four-year task is as a college student. This role involves the
areas of study, recreation and community living; each of these phases
is a responsibility with responsibilities. Study and recreation are more
individual matters, but community living, obviously, involves other peo
ple.
In general, Meredith girls handle the group life well, but there are some
evidences of inconsiderate actions too. On the halls, how many people
are careful with recording telephone messages and keeping the chain
system going? How many think about anyone but themselves when they
feel like making noise? In the lunchroom or beehive how many think how
long others have waited in line when they want to get in? How many
remember to thank the servers for the food or to help the cafeteria staff
by returning trays? Around the campus, how many put trash in a recep
tacle instead of carelessly tossing it on the ground?
When there are inconsiderate actions, however small, there is irritation.
For a real community one must remember the little segments, for large
responsibilities are made up of smaller ones. SAJ
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—Corinne Blaylock, Gail Gaddy, Gloria Little, Nancy Rouse, Elna
Thompson, Becky Trader, Abigail Warren, Helen Wilkie, Debbie Brown,
Patsy Brake, Jean Jackson, Vivian Matthews, Linda Kimbrell
Interviewers Lois Fowler, Kay Kennemur, Patsy Peacock
Cartoonists Linda Burrows, Dolores 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, Sarah
Jane Hutchins. Lynn McDuffie, Dale Ritter, Louise Foster. Marianne Johnson
Mailing Editor Martha Lyday
Mailing Staff Peggy Allen
Circulation Chief. Pam Lewis
Circulation Staff Kathy Griffin, Jackie Bnles, Sue Askin, Suzanne George
Typing Chief Anne Pretlow
Faculty Sponsor Dr. Lois Frazier
MEMBER Associated Colleeiate Press. Entered as scconiJ-cluss matter at post ofTice at
Raleieh N. C. 27602. Published semi-monthly during the months of October, November,
February March, April and May; monthly during September, Decumber, and January.
THi! Twio is served by National Educational Advertisint! Service, 18 East 50th Street,
New York, New York. Subscription Rates: $3.45 per ycur.
Letters
to the
Editor
CHAPEL BEHAVIOR
Dear Editor:
As a result of behavior observed
in chapel over the past few weeks,
I feel compelled to comment to the
student body.
The amount of noisy rudeness
to the speakers on the part of the
student body seems to be increasing
at an alarming rate. The validity of
its very existence is certainly ques
tionable, but its present volume and
direction is my present concern.
In short, students do not cease
talking and moving about when the
moderator begins speaking. Fre
quently they don’t stop when the
guest speaker starts, but it has been
observed that the student body has
a particular tendency to be rude to
any speaker who is a member of
the student body, faculty or ad
ministration. Opening remarks —
often announcements of general
interest — are lost because they
can’t be heard as a result of the
chattering still going on.
I realize that we students are
hostile towards chapel — and at
tend only because attendance is
checked — and that we enter
chapel with apprehension about
the “interest” of the program —
but this is no excuse for the rude
ness exhibited toward those in
charge.
Since chapel is required and, ad
mittedly, some of the programs
aren’l worth listening to (although
we have had several excellent
ones) it is almost excusable for
students to engage in activities
other than listening. Studying is at
least quiet! But 1 can find no ex
cuse for talking 5-10 minutes after
the program begins and then inter
mittently — at length — throughout
the program—with one’s roommate
—even though you’ve not seen one
another for all of two hours! Cer
tainly lengthy comments can wait.
As a senior I am particularly
aware of talking going on in my
area, but I’ve seen the “heads to
gether” in other areas that indicates
conversation among other students.
Besides that, it’s hard to ignore the
dull roar that accompanies the first
few minutes (not seconds) of each
chapel program. This is trying for
the speakers, even if they do realize
that we are “captive.” It is also
trying for those students who are
trying to give the speaker — or
film — a chance. Many people
couldn’t “tune in” to the first few
minutes of the Ashley Montague
film because of the chatter around
them, and hence missed several
important points of an interesting
film.
This is simply rudeness not only
to the speakers, but also to other
students. If my discussion of rutde-
ness has not raised any feelings on
the part of the guilty parties, let’s
look at it this way: suppose you
were trying to study — but couldn’t
concentrate because of the whis
pering behind you — wouldn’t you
wish they’d be quiet? So ladies — if
you won't curb your chatter out of
respect for, and courtesy to, the
speaker, do it for your fellow
captives, who are trying to study!
Sincerely,
Donna Gant
HUMPHREY BACKER
'Dear Editor:
I realize that this article will have
no real affect on the outcome of the
presidential race; however, I feel
compelled to state my position.
dor\«^ 'TNO'Ji
I
•^>e> v-vsorfi.
A
OLV^ Vxoor .
lead us in these troubled times.
Again and again Humphrey has been
attacked for his position with John
son and the “great Society,” but
why? Humphrey is the individual
running for office, not President
Johnson, and therefore he should
be allowed to run on his own
merits. It is true that in his position
as Vice-President, he was an active
participant in the new legislation,
but even more than this is the fact
that he has been the initiator of
some of our finest programs such as
Medicare, aid to education, and the
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
People claim that they want a
change, a new stability — but the
word change itself connotes action.
Do we, therefore, want progressive
action, or do we want to go back
where we were twenty years ago?
Do the supporters of Mr. Nixon, in
their ardent desire for a change
from the Democratic party and a
new stability, think that the ever-
moving world is going to let us have
a breather from our responsibilities
in order to stabilize our present
policies through inaction?
Vice-President Humphrey has
been endorsed by the New York
Times in a very strong article pub
lished on Oct. 6, with which I
adamantly concur. In this endorse
ment, Humphrey was recognized
as very superior to Mr. Nixon in
three very critical areas. In foreign
affairs, Humphrey initiated the
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and other
such programs toward a desire for
peace while Mr. Nixon took no
initiative toward disarmament. In
the domestic affairs Humphrey
sponsored the Medicare program
and actively worked to solve the
other urban problems such as bet
ter housing and quality education
for everyone, whereas Nixon in the
past has either vetoed such pro
posals or publicly condemned them
by announcing his nonsupport.
The New York Times also
qualified Mr. Humphrey on his
personal capacity for leadership
and firm convictions as opposed to
Nixon’s past evasions on the perti
nent issues and indeed his pervas
iveness. Mr. Nixon has refused to
debate the essential issues of the
campaign, and his professional in
tegrity has been dimmed some
what by the allusion to political
tinue to be a leader by being able to
adapt to change or must we
wait, become apathetic to ideals in
the interest of stability, and be
come stagnant?
Under the Democratic party, the
U. S. has been able to tell a story
of progress. Look closely at the
records of each candidate. Hum
phrey had achieved significant
goals for rich and poor alike, edu
cational and occupational op
portunities, and the support of the
comman man as opposed to big
business. That’s our story — what
will the next edition bring?
JoAnne Crook
RESPONSE TO
EDITORIAL
Dear Editor and Associate Editor:
While I am glad to see you take
a clear and firm stand on the presi
dential election, I am bound to take
strong issue with one of the reasons
you give for supporting Nixon. You
say that “stopping foreign aid to
nations who won’t help us in Viet
nam” is one of the policy changes
which Nixon can be expected to
initiate. You may be right. But is
this not the clumsiest and most
malevolent possible course we
might follow in foreign aid?
Consider these prospects. Nixon’s
policy would perhaps buy for us the
grudging support of peoples who,
agreeing with many millions of
Americans, think we are in the
wrong in Vietnam. It would put us
in the position of trying to pur
chase from other peoples their right
to think for themselves. It would
earn for us the resentment and in
dignation of both those states that
yielded to our intimidation and
those that did not.
More specifically, I think of
Yugoslavia, a nation that cannot be
expected ever to support us in Viet
nam but which must have our aid
in ordei; to remain free of Soviet
domination. 1 think of France, a
nation that sacrificed for years, for
the most part without help from us,
to keep communism out of Vietnam,
only to decide at length that her
own policy was wrong. Should we
now denounce 200 years of Franco-
American good-will? I think of
deals and the nickname he bears of India, a nation which regards our
“Trickv ” Viftfnnmpc»
Tricky Dick.
In this case who presents the
best political image? Whom do you
Vietnamese policy as tragically mis
taken. Would you hold for ransom
pwi.viwai iiiiagcj »*iiwiti uu you llves of mllUons of starving
want to be your leader for the next I'ldians existing on our wheat in
four years? The election is already order to force the Indian govern-
a fact, and I will give my support support a war in which it
to that candidate elected by the ^'sbelieved? I do not think for a
iiipvucu lu oiaic my puMuoit. majority of the people because this ’^■nute that you would advocate
I feel that Vice-President Hubert is necessary in maintaining our de- things. May I harbor the hope
Humphrey is the man we need to mocracy; but will our nation con- your statement on foreign
was merely an ill-considered
snap-judgment?
Sincerely,
T. C. Parramore
Dept, of History
The opinions expressed in (he ediloriais and columns in (he TWIG are
not necessarily those of (he administration, student body, or the entire news*
paper staff.