Newspapers / Meredith College Student Newspaper / Nov. 4, 1971, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Meredith 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 Two THE TWIG November 4, 1971 Letters to the Editor l^fcreditK. College, November 4, 197] Gornhuskin- A Meaningful Tradition Another Cornhuskin’ has come and gone! Wasn’t it fun and wholesome? Or was it really? I believe that Cornhuskin’ is one of the most precious of Meredith’s traditions. The functions of Cornhuskin’ arc both manifest and latent. First, it gives all students a chance to be creative and express themselves as they wish. This is evidenced as one observes the variety of themes and the ingenuity of costumes throughout the years. (Freshmen—you have so much to look forward to!) Secondly, Cornhuskin’ gives the students a chance to relieve tension through constructive channels. In short, it allows you to creatively “make a fool of yourself’ in an atmosphere that permits, and even evokes you to do so. Has Cornhuskin’ changed? Within the three years 1 have been at Mere dith 1 believe that 1 have seen change—not necessarily good change. I am speaking of the wholesomcncss and competitive nature of Cornhuskin’. Must the students rely on constant criticism of existing conditions to pro vide a theme? It is such fun, and it should he, for everyone to piek a theme and de velop it. But when the theme is developed at the expense of unduly critieiz- ing conditions or even individuals, the whole eoneept of Cornhuskin’ is dis torted. Let us keep competition from becoming intent and vicious. What are we celebrating at Cornhuskin’ time? Presumably, All Saint’s Day (Halloween). We should be out to have fun and enjoy mild and friendly eompetition—not to cut throats. Yes, another Cornhuskin’ has come and gone! It is my wish that this occasion will continue to be an important tradition in the Meredith Community, and that it will be continued in a tradition that is wholesome and commendable. SVW EDITORIAL STAFF £jitor Susan Van Wageningen News Editor Coleen Erdman Feature Editor Eleanor Hill Faculty Sponsor - Dr. Norma Rose Cartoonist Gail Arnette Reporters — Mary Owens, Ann Wall, Suzanne Oakley, Marilyn Lawrence, Melissa Eller, Linn Weaver BUSINESS STAFF Business Manager Anna Vaughan Mailing Editor Meredith Elam Circulation Managers Jane Lewis, Susan Query Typist Ann Googe Faculty Sponsor Dr. Lois Frazier Member Associated Collegiate Press. Entered as second-class matter at post office at Raleigh, N. C. 27611. Published semi-monthly during the months of September, October, November, January, February and April; monthly during December and March. The Twtg is served by National Educational Advertising Service, 18 East 50th Street, New York. Subscription Rates: $3.70 per year. Dear Editor, We are writing this letter in re sponse to comments made to us con cerning John Pfefferkorn’s ap pearance in SGA chapel on October 15. To begin with, we would like to set some facts straight. John did not come uninvited over to Meredith to tell us how to run our school. He was invited and kind enough to hurry from his class at State to ad dress the student body here with the purpose and meaning of North Carolina-Public Interest Research Group. Why was John asked? John was among the first in the state to become aware of PIRG. He per sonally talked with Nader about NC State’s role in NC-PIRG after Nader’s talk at State on October 7. Futhermore, it was John who first interested students here at Meredith in PIRG before Nader’s visit. Had John not started some early en thusiasm here, it is possible that Meredith would not be among the colleges and universities participa ting in NCPIRG. (Incidently, it was also John Pfefferkorn who headed the book drive for the North Carolina Central Prison, and who made Meredith aware of this book drive, to which our students gener ously contributed approximately 3,000 books.) Therefore let us not label John a busy body. Secondly, students were upset at his suggestion that NC-PIRG could work to change social regulations here at Meredith. He made this sug gestion in response to the discussion he heard in chapel. Concerning so cial regulations for freshmen. John was not aware that unlike State and many other institutions, Meredith’s social regulations have to be altered through an entirely different process from those of state controlled schools. We explained this to him after the meeting. Another point people criticized about John’s speech is that he did not give enough specifics. He gave as many examples as he could, but he could not give black and white specifics, because it will be up to the students at Meredith to decide the issues they wish to work on. He did stress the particular programs which the PIRGS in Michigan and Oregon have undertaken. Those people who did not like John’s presentation should have been the very ones to attend the first PIRG organizational meeting here on campus to make construc tive criticisms, and to learn about or clarify their doubts concerning PIRG. This would seem to be the sensible and logical step for those students to take; however, these people did not show up at the meet ing. This is the very apathy John spoke about in chapel. How can such apathetic people feel justified in criticizing one who has done and is still trying to do so much good, when they themselves do not even care enough to find out all the facts! It is this group of students, those unaware of what NC-PIRG really is, who are saying that NC-PIRG is unorganized, could not work here at Meredith, etc. Finally we would like to stress that NC-PIRG is not a left-wing radical organization. It is a re- evaluation of citizenship. How im portant is the community to you? It should be important! The accom plishments of NC-PIRG achieved through students will benefit the state-wide community, and in a few years we students will be a part of the community fort he rest of our lives. Think about it! —Sandra Whatley Beverly Fowler Co-ordinators of NC-PIRG 117 Heilman Dear Editor, In response to Dr. Parramore’s letter in the past issue of The Twig, I, as a student, would like to make a few comments. First of all, 1 think it is necessary for us to make a few distinctions. The example given by Dr. Parra- more of the four seniors must be viewed in light of its being a social infraction and not an academic one. Jenny Seykora seems to be speaking of academic infractions in her letter to the faculty instead of this type of social problem. In fact, her whole statement was presented with the academic side in mind, while Dr. Parramore’s example was from the social. Secondly Dr. Parramore speaks of the moral side of academic in fractions. He writes that he thinks cheating is not a moral problem but a case of “poor scholarship.” Yet later in the same paragraph he speaks of cheating as “academic dis honesty.” Is he not placing a moral judgment with the word dishonesty? It would seem so. Finally, he writes of the keeping of the Judicial Board with the teach ings of Jesus. I believe that here he means the redemptive teaching of Jesus so that the stress is not on the punitive side of infractions but rather on the rehabilitative side. I agree with him wholeheartedly here, for I believe that rehabilation is the more effective of the two possibili ties, yet 1 feel that the Judicial Board is trying to take this view in its changing of social probations in connection with academic infrac tions. The Board seems to be advo cating academic punishment for aca demic infractions rather than social punishment. Perhaps this punish ment is what Dr. Parramore is pro testing, but he did not suggest an alternative, unless, as is suggested, he believes in leaving the problem up to the individual professor. If this is done, however, doesn’t it bring in a lot of ambiguity as to which teacher will allow what kind of action to be taken? And, if he, in turn, fails the student, isn’t that in itself a punitive action? Agreed, the Judicial Board may need to refocus its emphasis on re habilitation rather than punishment. But the Judicial Board as of Jenny Seykora’s letter of change no sen tences are automatically made at the meetings; the girl is given the chance to state her case, she is then questioned by the faculty and stu dents, and she may be allowed char acter references. It would appear, too, that the Board is also advoca ting the instatement of student lawyers for the charged students. It thus appears that the new changes are being made in light of the Anglo- Saxon principles which Dr. Parro- more deems necessary in a board of this nature. Hence, it would seem essential that Dr. Parramore re examine the positions of the Judicial Board before he makes a formal opinion. —Janice Sams Voice of the SGA The participation and attendant at Student Government meetings hr been excellent. The officers of th Student Government want to than everyone for their interest. Sugge? tions, changes, and support are aj preciated. You are reminded th; the most effective way to brin about changes is through th proper channels — your Legislativ board members, the Executive Com mittee, and Student Governmen meetings. Legislative Board meet ings are on Third Johnson on Mon days at 6:15 p.m. These meeting are not only for Leg Board mem bers, but for all students. The SGA offices have beer moved to the other end of Johnson Hall. The offices will now be or Third Johnson west (the end closes to Vann) across from the duplica ting room. Again, you are reminder** of SGA office hours: 1:30 to 2:20 on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. This is another oppor tunity for you to bring your sug gestions and grievances to the E.x- ecutive Committee. The Student Activities Board is sponsoring a Christmas Dance on Thursday, December 2. The dance will be held in the cafeteria from 8:00 to 12:00, and closing hours will be extended to 1:00 a.m. The dance will be semi-formal or formal. Entertainment will be provided by the Atlantic Sound Review. Tickets, $1.50 for couples and $1.00 for singles, will go on sale before Thanksgiving. NCSU Festival A “Fall Arts Festival” is spon sored by the Entertainment Commit tee of the Student Union, is planned for Friday and Saturday, November 12 and 13. The purpose of the festi val is to “give any student or faculty member an opportunity to display any type of art or craft which he or she does well.” The schedule of events is: November 12 — 8:00-12:00 p.m. Folk Festival and Films. Union Ballroom November 13 — 12:00 noon- 6:00 p.m. Arts & Crafts Exhibit. Union Ballroom (Hand weaving. Pottery, Glass Blowing, Wood Carv ing, Leather Working, Candle Mak ing, Rug Weaving Artwork) 8:00-1:00 p.m. Concert: “Tea garden & Van Winkle” and “Bob Seger.” Union Ballroom. Elections Board Logic Questioned By Coleen Erdman If you are a student living on , campus in Raleigh and still finan cially dependent on your parents, and if you are unable to prove your intentions to live in Raleigh after graduation, chances are, you can not . register to vote in Wake County. Kathy Hall, sophomore and resi dent Meredith student, appealed be- " fore the Wake County Board of * Elections when she was denied the right to register to vote in Raleigh. Her appeal was unanimously re- • jected by the Board for the reasons , stated in the first sentence of this article. Kathy was told, at the time of her - initial rejection when she attempted , to register in Wake Co., that she was not a legal resident of the county, ' her parents’ home being in Tarboro. Kathy appealed to the Board pre- ' pared to argue that she is a legal , resident, despite the fact that she ^ is a college student living in a dorm. Several members of the YDC ’ (myself included) accompanied Kathy to the appeal and witnessed , the “trial.” Kathy was addressed several preliminary questions, the' first of which brought out the crux, of the matter at hand. When asked where she was from, Kathy replied' that she was from Meredith. Obvi-, ously, this was not the Board’s de sired answer and they rephrased the ’ question so that Kathy had to state » that her parents live in Tarboro, she lives in Raleigh. The question of Kathy’s inten-, tions after graduation was lightly touched. She was then allowed to ■ state her case. To relate it briefly, Kathy claimed that she had been ' denied her right to register in Wake , County unfairly and unconstitution ally. She declared herself a resident > of Raleigh. The Board asked Kathy _ to present evidence that Raleigh is ' her legal residence. Kathy said that , she has been living at Meredith since the beginning of the summer session ' (Continued on page 5)
Meredith College Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 4, 1971, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75