PAGE 2
THE TWIG
MARCH 4. 1981
THE
MEREDITH
Editor
Managing Editor
Assistant Editor
Reporters
TWie
COLLEGE
Sonya Ammons
Deborah Bartlett
Ann Stringfieid
Nan Davis, Wendy Fisclier,
Features
Pliotographers
Sports Editor
Business Manager
Circulation
Layout Editor
Layout Staff
Cartoonist
Advertising Manager
Advertising
Steplianle Georgallis. Beth Giles, Shirene
Hritzko, Maynell Johnson, Susan McDonough,
Heidi Nill, Linda Sellers, Sandra Vail
Ann Stringfieid, Marcia Vickers
Mary Katherine Pittman
Jackie Duong. Terri Hoffman.
Kelly Sullivan, Susie Thompson
Darla Stephenson
Mary Jacque Peterson
Terri Hoffman,
Susan McDonough
Susan Jones
Allison Honeycutt, Lori Howell.
Maynell Johnson. Kathleen McKeel, Heldl
Nill, Michelle Sherlock
Wendy Fischer
Carolyn Dunn
Kellie Farlow
Faculty Advisors
Mr. Bill Nortmt. Dr. Thomas
Parramore, Dr. Dmald Samson
Letter to the editor
New committee erodes
student responsibility
Dear Editor:
The changes outlined in
the TWIG of Feb. 12 for
electing hall proctors are a
bad idea that ought to be
dropped. By whatever
euphemism designated, the
new committee, including
members of the Student
Development Office staff, is a
screening group wherein the
staff gets a shot ^at
discouraging from candidacy
certain of the nominees for
hall proctor. It represents an
erosion of student
responsibility in the process of
self-government for Meredith
staff to exercise this kind of
influence and the student
leaders should not have
agreed to this concession. No
doubt the staff sees the office
of hall proctor as a key
position, but it is likely that
from the student viewpoint
other positions such as SGA
president, Judicial Board
chairman and so on are still
more important. On what
grounds should Student
Development be denied an
influence in the nomination of
these other offices once it has
established its influence in
hall proctor selections? If
Student Development has full
faith and confidence in the
ability of students to govern
themselves, let it signify this
by removing itself from the
nominating processs. If not,
then perhaps we should
dispense with the illusion of
sel^government altogether
and turn that business over to
the wiser heads in Student
Development. Needless to
say, the same objections
apply to the new plan of
encouraging and permitting
faculty nominations for hall
proctor.
As matters presently
stand, it is difficult to find a
phase of student goveriunent
without the heavy hand of
staff and faculty influence in
guiding its deliberation and
warping its objectives. Go to a
Judi Board or Student Life
meeting, for example, and
observe thesubtle persuasion
that can be exercised by the
mere presence of staff or
faculty personnel. I believe
that what student government
needs is not more of this kind
of thing but a great dtel less.
Student leaders should not be
placed in the position of
currying favor or future
employment in the exercise of
their duties but should l>e free
to reach decisions based
purely on the aims and goals
of the student body. No doubt
it is healthy for staff and
faculty to take an interest in
student government, but they
must be careful to
demonstrate that interest in
ways that avoid even the
appearance of manipulation.
Sincerely,
T.C. Parramore,
Department of History
Seniors angered
hy guest speaher
The first time we graduating seniors were allowed to wear
our robes. Founders' Day was supposed to be, and usually is, a
time for reflecting, rejoicing, even crying. So what was Uie
common emotion on the faces and in the voice of the seniors as
they left Jones Auditorium Friday morning at 11:30? Happiness
or sorrow? No, the most frequentexpressionslsawwereangerand
disbelief, emotions which I myself felt. With all due respect to
Dr. Cecil Sherman, I beg the opportunity to disagree with him. I
think, at least 1 hope, that either I totally misunderstood or Dr,
Sherman did not clearly explain the points he was trying to make.
I THINK that what Dr. Sherman spent the majority of his time
saying was that it is not possible to be successful at more than one
facet of life, specifically career and family. Now, I find that
interesting. Ever since we have been at Meredith, we have been
encouraged to find our place in the working world, but it has
never been even hinted at that we could not handle a family, too.
In fact, in the Marriage and Family class, we are given statistics
which prove that working married women are happier than non
working married women. And what about a society inVhich the
men have been juggling careers and families for centuries? Are
none of them either happy or successful? Has society been wrong
all along?
Dr. Sherman used the example of his cousin, who was
successful as a professional accompanist and professor at
Julliard but was divorced and had problems with alcohol, as an
example of not being able to handle more than one area in life. Is
this typical of all people who become really successful at their
professions? And what makes a person successful in his career?
Is it fame? Money? Or rather satisfaction? Positive influence on
other people’s lives?
I know that it is possible that Dr. Sherman was trying to give
us some tidbits of wisdom and that the points which I have
addressed were not the only ones he made. I also know, however,
that Dr. Sherman’s speech was not very encouraging or accurate.
There are women here at Meredith who may choose either family
or career, but I think that the majority of us will choose both. Are
we doomed to failing at one of them? And can the women who
choose either family or career succeed in anything else, such as
community or church work, hobbies, or sports?
I personally would have preferred to have been encouraged
rather.than discouraged by the Founder’s Day speaker. True, life
will not be all roses, and we will have to face problems, but we
mi^t as well leave Meredith with a positive outloA. I for one
intend to attempt both family and career, and successfully at
that. G^ luck to all of you who do the same, despite Dr.
Sherman's warnings.
D. B.
Size Up
ACROSS
1 Circus tent
7 Penitentiary
15 Maltreat
16 Fire or Long — (resident)
17 Barney, of comics
18
warns
19 Castilian aunt
20 French “wave”
22 London’s TV network
23 Singer John
25 20th Century ed. (Bible)
27 Fabler
31 Salaried absentees
33 Also — (loser)
35 Thai
36 Onassis
37 Snouted animal
39 At a distance
42 Ferber's prize novel
44 Bitsy’s partner
45 New York City
47 Raises
49 Netherlands city
50 Bread or whiskey
51 Portia’s companion
55 Body part
57 Poet’s word
59 Web-footed animal
60 Corp. officers
62 Trick
64 Loud noise: abbr.
65 Get favorable response
69 Carter-Reagan event (10-
80)
71 A drink
72 Joiner
73 Burl Ives’ role
74 Marital fraud
DOWN
1 Rose Bowl contenders
2 Panay seaport
3 Thinks maliciously
4 Yank
5 Scand. center
6 Hammer's end
7 Gray-blue pigments
8 “Rose ™ rose"
9 Water sound
10 Millinery decoration
11 In reserve
12 Japanese ginseng
13 Cong'l member
14 Hesitation sounds
21 AMA members
24 John or Maureen
26 True, in Toulon
28 Blind part
29 Rower’s needs
30 Dilatory
32 Like some clouds
(Confetti Synd. 1961)
34 Discuss
37 Honest one
38 Go to see
39 Incite
40 Pet name
41 Worry, for one
43 Margarine
46 Proportionate
48 Ancient Greek consuls
51 Latest: prefix
52 Layers
53 Seven, to Cato
54 Main route
56 Place
58 Fake
61 Maneuvered, as in baseball
63 Rub —
65 Police circ. notice
66 Luau ingredient
67 Kind of press; abbr.
68 Fox
70 With Ben or Bertha
TWIG ClRCrLATlOIV SURVEY
(Please retarn to 'TWIG Office on 2nd Cate or
to 118 HeliiBaii.)
1 prefer liaviiig tiie TWfG
broagiit to my door.
1 prefer plclKlng np tiie TWiG
myself at one of aeveml designated
loeations.
1 would lilce to suggest an
alternate method of elrenlatlon.