Newspapers / Meredith College Student Newspaper / Jan. 28, 1981, 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 2 THE TWIG THE MEREDITH Editor Managing Editor Assistant Editor Reporters Features Pliotographers Sports Editor Business Manager Circulation Layout Editor Layout Staff Cartoonist Advertising Manager Advertising Exchange Editor Faculty Advisors JANUARY 28, 1981 TWtG COLLEGE Sonya Ammons Deborah Bartlett Ann Stringfleld Nan Davis, Wendy Fischer, Beth Giles, Shirene Hritzko, Maynell Johnson, Susan McDonough, Heidi Nil], Linda Sellers, Sandra Vail Ann Stringfleld, Marsha Vickers Jackie Duong, Terri Hoffman. Kelly Sullivan. Susie Thompson Darla Stephenson Mary Jacque Peterson Terri Hoffman, Maynell Johnson, Susan McDonough Susan Jones Allison HoneycuU, Lori Howell, Maynell Johnson, Heidi Nill, Linda Sellers Wendy Fischer Carolyn Dunn Kellie Farlow Ann Stringfleld Mr. Bill Norton, Dr. Thomas Parramore. Dr. Donald Samson From the editor Letter to the editor To the TWIG Editor, other students, and staff at Meredith: As spring approaches, a young lady’s fancy ttirns to thou^ts of Valentine’s Day, or so I’ve been told. As Valentine’s Day 1981 approaches, I would like to suggest, as I did last year, a plan to make Valentine’s Day an even more lasting and meaningful occasion. Roses are beautiful. Most of us like them and other cut flowers very much, and we think they are a fine expression of affection on Valentine’s or any other day. But besides thorns they have other drawbacks. In a very few days they wilt, and they are very expensive. An enfiployee of one of Raleigh’s florist shops has told me that her firm plans to charge $70 to $80 for a dozen roses this Valentine’s Day. Last year some students, faculty, staff, and friends of Meredith chose an alternative to roses: the cherry trees pi last spring along the ^ front of Johnson Hall. The trees were given to Meredith on behalf of students and others, in lieu of flowers or some other Valentine's gift. Instead of a dozen roses which would have wilted in a few days, many students, staff, and friends of Meredith received a most lasting gift, a cherry tree which will bloom each spring for years to come, and a more meaningful one, which will give pleasure to all who visit the campus. I would like to encourage students and others at Meredith to participate in the same project again this year. Pick up a TREES FOR MEREDITH form from my bulletin board (outside Joyner 110) or from the receptionist at Cate Center and send it to the person or persons you think might be sending you flowers for Valentine’s Day. (If you are not sure they will be sending you flowers or some other expression of affection, perhaps this form might serve as a hint.) The form provides information about the project, asks the names and addresses of the recipient and the sender, and indicates .how to send payment for the tree(s). All you need to do is pick up one (or more) of these forms and send it as soon as possible to the persons who you think would like to give Meredith a Japanese cherry tree for you for Valentine’s Day. I shall take care of everything else, I know that it is customary for females to receive such a gift on Valentine’s Day; but it seems to me totally appropriate for a woman to send such a gift to a boyfriend, her parents, or any other friend. Perhaps a hall might wish to give Meredith a tree. Or perhaps you just might want to give someone a present; I shall be givii^ my son Devon a tree. I think he and you would rather receive a cherry tree, which will cost $20 for a four to five foot tree and last for twenty years or more, than an $80 dozen of roses which would wilt in four days. I hope you will join me in this attempt to giv$ all of us at Meredith Valentine’s Day gifts of lasting beauty. Cordially, Donald C. Samson Along with the feelings of joy and relief which have accompanied the release of the American hostages from Iran are feelings of anger. The reports of abuse of the hostages have incensed Americans. Some have suggested that the U.S. should break the agreement with Iran. Even former President Richard Nixon has suggested that such an action be considered. The implications of such a reaction should be carefully weighed, however. The statement that the Iranians are barbarians and criminals may not be dramatically opposed by U.S. citizens, but it is not valid justification for backing out of an agreement. The Iranians were wrong to abuse our citizens. They were also wrong to hold them captive. When the agreement was made, Americans generally believed the Iranians had violated international law in taking the hostages. Americans generally t)elieved the Iranians to be illogical and unreasonaMe. It is doubtful that many Americans bought the “Christmas cheer tapes” without suspecting pressure to have been placed on the hostages. The stories of abuse, then, should be horrifying, but not a great surprise. The agreement was made with a government with whom Americans were outraged. We are still outraged, but we must keep our agreement. Already the Soviet Union has accused the U.S. of brainwashing the former hostages in order to encourage their abuse stories and back out of the agreement. Despite the absurdity of the accusation and the speculation that the Soviets are only trying to win the favor of Iran, the U.S. must face the fact that other nations may question our honor also. Finally, it should be suggested that to break the agreement with Iran would be to lower ourselves to the Iranians’ level. Americans can and must rise above such game-playing. Let us now look ahead to the, perhaps, more important problem of helping the hostages to readjust to life out of captivity. While Iran should be punished for their criminal actions, such punishments should emerge from outside the realm of an agreement already made. S. A. ANGCt V ’T5IA y X Know‘it's 0^. *iyee,k. sco\pi'ove, Ih but I'm not" if waS f\CovDC. Letter from December grad Dear friends, I want to say thanks to each and everyone of you, I would call you each by name-if that be the case, But, you know who you are and I do too. So, that would be a waste of space. You included me as if I’d always been with ya’ll, I was so fortunate. To end up on your hall, I believe that it must have been fate. Each and everyone of you have become a valuable friend, And I am sad to see the end. Wait, don’t get me wrong, People on other halls have become dear to me too. Oh, this is getting too long, I just want, from the bottom of my heart, to thank each of you. Love, Mae The Great Sexist Language Dispute by Frank Pntrlck Mr. Patrick teaches Political Science in an obscure Eastern college. Men! We-you and I-have been guilty of a grievous fault. We have been speaking sexist language all our lives, to the gross injury of the female sex. Ladies! Forgive us, for we knew not what we did. When we used such phrases as “All men are created equal,’’ we did not realize that we were leaving you out. We honestly thought that “men’’ covered all human beings, male and female alike. What chauvinist pigs we were! But, you must admit, we were not alone in our error. Many a woman has reached a certain age without being aware that she was the victim of sexist language. She probably talked it herself. It is only recently that her consciousness has been raised and she has come to see that using “man” and “he” to designate a human being- without distinction of sex is a studied insult to women. But now the dawn has come and we all s^-*do we not?-that in fairness we must always use “person” and “he or she” instead of the old, offensive "man” and “he.” “All persons are created equal” lacks the crispness of Jefferson’s phrase, but it says exactly what it means. There is some loss to Shakespeare’s poetic quality in saying, “What a piece of work is person!” There is a definite loss in making the Psalmist ask, “What is person that Thou art mindful of him or her?” But this may not be too high a price to pay for sexual equality. When we come to Alexander Pope’s line, “Presume not God to scan; the proper study of personkind is person,” however, we can’t help feeling that something has gone wrong with the way we use the English tongue. What has gone wrong is the feminists’ insistence that “man” and "he” refer exclusively to the male sex. In fact, the primary meaning of “man” is “human being”. The name of our species is Man, and it is applied only secondarily to the two sexes. What, after all, is “woman” the word “man” with a prefix (“wo”) meaning “female”? If we' want to (Continued oh Page 3)
Meredith College Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Jan. 28, 1981, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75