PAGE 2
Campaign trail 76
THE TWIG
APRIL 13, 1976
Carter’s image dulls on second look
by Alice Simmons
and Phyllis Burnett
In November many
Meredith women will vote in
their first Presidential
election. At present the
jumble of candidates and
issues is enough to confuse
even a veteran of many
national elections.
This is the first of a series
of articles which will explore
Editorial
each candidate and where he
stands in an attempt to bring
some semblance of order to
the rubble. The first of these
articles concerns Jimmy
Carter, the current front
runner in the democratic race
for convention delegates.
Carter has surged from
virtual obscurity to national
prominence in a few months
by convincing thousands of
SGA’s Honor Code
On the SGA’s second try of getting a quorum to vote on its
most important bill this season, the honor code was changed by
unanimous vote-without a whimper, it seemed. There was no
discussion, no debate. The rumble of ayes was almost mundane:
either we all felt the change was long overdue or we didn’t care
one way or the other.
If anybody has cared about the change in the honor code it
has been the Executive Committee of the SGA, and it deserves
our praise. Last fall, the committee brought in Dr. Charles
Whitebread of the University of Virginia to speak on the ef-
fwtiveness of college honor codes in general. The SGA followed
his excellent discussion with a campus wide survey of student
opinion regarding the effectiveness of Meredith’s code. Finally
after several months of debate and discussion, the committee
came up with a change which reflected student needs and at
titudes.
While the honor code no longer covers social regulations it
still covers “life at Meredith College.” We will have to live with
that paradox in exchange for the good the code brings. For the
first time, the honor code defines what constitutes a Judicial
Board offense and what must be handled in Interdormitory
Board. It eliminates the senseless, almost silly referrals of petty
offenses from Interdorm Board to Judi Board.
The new honor code does not say that unpopular social
regulations will be flaunted or ignored. To be sure, the op
portunity for disregarding regulations is there. But that op-
portumty exists even now. If the SGA acts as responsibly in future
situations as it has in the making of this bill, we will always be
directed by a strong system of academic and social honor.
. ,Af. ^®^cca Askew said in her farewell speech at the in
stallation ceremony Friday, there will always be criticism of new
Ideas, for toe is always the feeling that old ways are the best
inevitably means loss. It is comforting,
no one expects students to promise to “do the
right thing in every situation. It is also reassuring to know that
Meredith student government leaders expect to bear to awesome
responsibility of possibly being wrong. That they have been this
toure is perhaps an indication that their change in the honor
code has been the most respectable change they could make.
MSO
Lettei* to the editor
Dear Editor:
As chairman of the
department of psychology I
was pleased to no small extent
with the selection of professor
Lyn Aubrecht for the award of
Outstanding Christian
Teacher.lt is not, however, as
a colleague, but as a student,
that I wish to write this letter.
For the past semester, I
have participated in Lyn’s
class, physiological
psychology, as a student. I
have attended (almost) all of
the lectures and have taken
the mid-term examination.
From a student’s perspective,
I feel that Lyn’s selection was
more than well deserved.
Despite the fact that most of
my adult life has centered on
scholastic endeavors, I must
confess that as a class period
draws to a close, I have
always been ready to retreat
with alacrity. In honesty, I
can say that my natural
propensities have not been-as
evident in his class. In
essence, I want to state in
public: Well done, good
colleague and teacher!
Sincerely,
R. John Huber,
Associate Professor and
Chairman
Americans that he is the
“middle of the road knight in
shining armor” they have
been hoping and praying for.
He was undoubtedly help^
along the way by his Kennedy-
like smile and the fact that he
was not George Wallace. For
many Americans, especially
in the South, a vote for Carter
was really a vote against
Wallace.
It is time, however, for
Americans to cut through the
political hogwash of
philosophical labeling and to
stop looking for a “pretty
boy” and to look at how each
candidate stands on the gut
issues-if you can get any kind
of commitment on the issues.
Jimmy Carter has
managed to convince the
American people that he is a
moderate without really
taking a definite stand on any
important issue. His only
stand on the economy is a
vague promise of new jobs
through the development of
solar heating units, preven
tive health care programs,
and pollution control. These
areas are important and
should be developed but the
new employment created by
this expansion could scarcely
be sufficient to make a dent in
the present unemployment
problem. If Jimmy Carter is
elected he will have to find an
overall solution to unem
ployment elsewhere. As for
tax returns, I would like to
know what reforms he has in
mind.
If Carter’s economic
viewpoints are unclear, his
beliefs concerning foreign
affairs and national security
are virtually unknown. He
says he wants to cut military
si^nding overseas and to be
friendly to smaller countries.
He would also like to begin
eliminating nuclear weapons.
Cutting military spending
and eliminating nuclear
weapons would be wonderful,
if there were no aggressive
nations in the world. But the
United States must maintain a
balance of power with the
USSR. To do this we cannot
cut military spending.
Carter also lambasts
secrecy in foreign policy
making. He feels that the
people have the right to know
what is going on, but un
fortunately what the people
know our enemies also know.
It is necessary in foreign
policy to move swiftly and
silently.
Jimmy Carter would like
the attorney general to be
appointed for a specific term
in an attempt to keep politics
out of the Justice Department.
Hurray, Jimmy Carter! He
also favors capital punish
ment in limited cases and
registration of hand guns.
Mr. Carter looks on
himself as a representative of
the “new South” which still
preserves the good things
from the past but is moving
ahead into a future of progress
without discrimination.
In an issue pertinent to all
Meredith students, women’s
rights, Carter vows to be for
full equality of the sexes. He
supports equal pay, equal
education, and an end to the
indoctrination of children to
believe that women are
subservient to men. Once
again-Hurray, Jimmy
Carter!
Mr. Carter’s lack of
specific stands on many issues
may be attributed to the fact
that a party platform has yet
to be adopted. If Carter is the
nominee, he will undoubtedly
make his stands somewhat
clearer. In the meantime we
as Meredith students should
keep our eyes and ears open to
any profound evaluations.
Hamlet hits N.C. State
by Vivian Keasler
Hamlet was presented at
Stewart Theater April 8-10 by
the new Shakespeare Com
pany of San Francisco. The
company is directed by
Margrit Roma and is a non
profit organization.
The characters were
portrayed with varying
quality. Kevin Gardiner as
Hamlet was enchanting and
believable. His anxiety was
well conveyed to the audience
as was his usual sense of
humor hindered by
depression. His soliloquies
were not speeches set apart
from the rest of the play, but
were simply points in which a
confused young man became
lost in his own thoughts. Also,
with his pretended “mad”’
remarks he managed to make
other “sane” characters such
as Polonius look stupid.
Polonius himself was
funny and convincing as a
slow-witted and ridiculous old
fool. However, other
characters were not so well
portrayed. Ophelia, after
losing her sanity, was ob
viously disturbed but not
convincingly insane. She
floated about the stage giving
flowers to everyone but would
often burst into tears. If the
intensity of her grief over her
father’s death and Hamlet’s
treatment of her had caused
her to abandon reality, then
she should in doing so have
been able to abandon grief as
well. If she could not, she did
not completely lose touch with
the reality of grief, and
therefore must still have been
sane.
King Claudius was
another character poorly
portrayed. Both his
movements and lines were
wooden with little sign of
emotion. The scene in which
he attempted to pray for
forgiveness for murdering the
King Hamlet, a scene which
should show an emotionally
torn man, was played as if he
were saying, “Now I lay me
down to sleep. . .” before
going to bed.
Special touches helped in
emphasizing desired effects.
Polonius’ death was seen in
silhouette when Hamlet
stabbed him through the
arras. Also, a white cross on
one of the banners was
illuminated in front of
Claudius as he attempted to
pray to God.
The set was very simple, a
series of black steps and
platforms decorated only with
two banners. This simplicity
was an effective background
for the colorful costumes of
the actors. Polonius’ green
and blue velvet robe, Claudius
and Gertrude’s royal red and
black velvets, and the
multicolored costumes of the
players were pleasing to the
eye.
History Department takes
look at American Dream
THE
MEKEVJTH
TWIG
COLLEGE
Editor Maggie Odell
Assistant Editor Kim Farlow
Columnist Sharon Ellis
Reporters Debbie Doss,
Nancy Newton
Karen Britt, Darlene Smith
Photographer Anita Wolf Marti Hollinshed
Advertising Carol Fitch
Business Manager Peggy Land
Circulation Manager Susan Moore
Member AssociatMf Collegiate Press. Published weekly except during holidays
and exams. THE TWIO is served by National Educational Advertising service/18
East Street/ New York. Subscription rates: $3.70
by Allyn Vogel
According to one it is time
for an autopsy; another hopes
for a reaffirmation. The
question for the evening was
“The American Dream: Dead
or Alive?” The faculty of
Meredith’s History Depart
ment discussed both alter
natives in a forum Wed
nesday, April 7 at 8 p.m.
Dr. Sarah Lemmon,
history department chairman,
in opening comments, defined
the American Dream in its
historical perspective.
She noted that the
European immigrant
visualized America as the
only nation with the chance of
becoming the “ideal” coun
try- a land of equal op
portunity and democracy as
well as a nation with a mission
to be the “guardian angel” of
the world.
This smise of mission, she
said, was finally lost in the
1960’s after the nation had, in
several challenges, failed to
“applaud uprisings of people
against oppression.”
Dr. Rosalie Gates,
associate professor of history,
stated that the human-
itarianism expressed through
America’s policy of “in-
ternationalism in
nationalism” is keeping the
American Dream alive.
Dr. Thomas Parramore,
assistant professor of history,
said that tiie American Dream
died in the early 19(X)’s when
America began to determine
foreign policy in “greed and
power terms.” The nation was
more concerned, he said, in
keeping the world balance of
power static than in “making
the world safe for
democracy.”
Dr. Parramore pointed
out that the American Dream
should be discarded as the
myth which it is; it should not
be a consideration in deter
mining U.S. foreign policy. We
should not, fight the “com
munist menace” abroad;
(Continued on Page 3)