w
PAGE 2
THE DIALETTE
MAY 1967
r ■ “''
EDITORIAL
I* >
A LOST CAUSE
By A! Weisiger
A Christian is sometimes defined
as one who does not drink. The
equation of Christian ethics with
total abstinence is a curious hang
over from the ninteenth century
temperance crusade. The claim of the
legalist and pietist that drink inevit
ably means drunkenness is at least
debatable, although staunch Presby
terians continue to urge prohibition
even in Him who was credited with
turning water into wine.” The above
passage is from Beach’s Consci
ence on Campus and illustrates one
reason the Student Government
drinking proposal never was given
serious consideration by the College
President. Before this author at
tempts to piece together the whole
matter of drinking — or the lack
of permission to drink — he wants
to thank the College Deans for their
effort on behalf of the students, and
although we were not in full agree
ment with each other at all times,
we did agree that some change was
necessary.
Early in the year, a poll was
submitted to the student body con
cerning their views on such matters
as to “Whether alcohol is a moral
issue,” “Whether Montreat’s drink
ing rule is a workable one, and “Do
you as a student drink?” The results
were tabulated, and it was found
that 71% of the students felt the
present drinking rule was not work
ing. 70% of the students said they
drank. And almost unanimously, the
students said that drinking should
not be a moral issue.
A committee was soon set up to
try and determine how a workable
proposal could be submitted to the
administration. While the committee
was working on a preliminary report,
the President released his now fam
ous “five points” as to why drinking
should play no part in Montreat’s
life. 1. Montreat is the center of the
Presbyterian Assembly. 2. Montreat-
Anderson college is owned by the
church. 3. Survival of the college is
dependent on the financial donations
of conservative Presbyterians. 4.
Montreat Anderson college faculty
is opposed to drinking as a matter
of principle. 5. Drinking and immor
ality run hand in hand.
While we do not wish to incur
the wrath of any conservative Pres
byterian regarding his donation to
this college, there are several issues
we feel are wholly unorthodox.
The first deals with Montreat
being the center of the church. Mar
tin Luther, who was incidentally, not
a Presbyterian, (and who liked to
drink his beer with the boys) often
spoke of the distinction between the
“Sinners of the right” and the “Sin
ners of the Left.” The latter are
the Saturday night brawlers, the sign
stealers, the loud drunks who call
the dean in the middle of the night
to tell him a dirty joke — who seek
prestige in the eyes of the gang.
The “Sinners of the right” are the
self consciously pure, who seek pre
stige by the conspicuous display of
virtue, in holier than thou postures.
According to the Biblical and the his
toric Christian view, drink is fine in
moderation.
“Drinking and Immorality run
hand in hand” should not be used as
a reason against drinking, for if we
are truly a Christian school we would
understand that it is necessary to
have self discipline and a love of our
neighbor. There are exceptions, of
course, but only we should judge
ourselves and our actions.
Following the release of the
committee’s recommendations, the
Administrative committee immedi
ately tabled the matter for later
consideration. When students learn
ed what the administration had done,
they felt something dramatic should
be done to portray their feelings.
A march soon followed, supported by
the majority of the male students in
this College. There was no violence,
it was orderly and organized with a
united purpose: To make the una
ware more aware.
We are all familiar with the
chapel program in which our presi
dent stated that “An angry mob be
sieged his home with hate in their
eyes.” Perhaps his speech was more
emotionally oriented than realisti
cally oriented, for the facts were a
bit misrepresented.
The late President Kennedy
once said, “Those who make peace
ful revolution impossible make vio
lent revolution inevitable. “We are
now forbidden to further demon
strate on this campus, with a pro
mise of being expelled if we do.
' Perhaps the college does not
wish us to drink. We get that im-
nression.
SGA 1966-67
The Student Government of
1966-67 is one that the students can
be mighty proud of. Each member
who served under Fred Jenkins can
be as equally proud of him. Each mem
ber gave Fred their sole support in
the many issues that came up thr
oughout the year.
The Student Government work
ed for the students this year more
than any other in the past. This
governing body showed the admin
istration that young men and women
are capable of being qualified lea
ders. This could not have been possi
ble if the students had not co-oper
ated as well as they did.
Fred’s administration had its
ups and downs, as any administration
will have. When things went bad the
(Continued on Page Four)
THE LAST OF THE
VICTORIANS
By Mike Clark
FORCED CHURCH
It is stated in the college cata
log, (1966-67), that Montreat was est
ablished to be a college in which
students would “encounter God as He
is revealed in Jesus Christ —” This
still remains the purpose of this col
lege, as has been stated at varying
times this year by the administrat
ion. The question is: Is Montreat ful
filling its stated purpose? When stu
dents state, in effect, that they have
lost part of the religion they came
here with, the answer is in dispute.
On a given Wednesday night,
roughly five per cent of the student
body can be found at Prayer Meet
ing. The turn out for Vespers is usual
ly about twelve per cent, depending
on the program. These are the two
non-required religious programs.
(Continued on Page Four)
On Friday, April 28th, a state
ment was given concerning the
drinking rule (if you can call it
that) to the student body. Even be
fore the students heard the verdict
they knew what it would be. But
what they heard besides this state
ment was shocking and revolting.
The song that began chapel on
this gloomy day was hand-picked.
From the words in the first line one
could plainly see what was coming
and come it did.
Next year’s freshman class, it was
implied, will put the present one to
shame when it comes to academics.
If this is so, one will have to be
given some proof before he believes
it.
The opening sentence of the
speech made the men of this campus
sound like something out of a horror
movie. Also it implied the men were
fixing to storm the house as the
Mexicans did the Alamo. Then too,
the men were a lynch mob waiting to
hang anyone that stepped out of the
house. Here was the place the speak
er said that one of the men, “angrily
slung me aside and there was hate in
their eyes”.
Moving from this quiet place,
the mob moved on to assault the men
staying in Assembly Inn and a teach
er’s home.
Later in his speech, the speak
er laid the blame of what happened
on the transfer students. “The stu
dents who led this demonstration be
long in the middle class and they do
not have the intelligence to do col
lege work.”
Concerning these students it was
said, “I suggest that you voluntarily
withdraw from this college before
you are asked to leave.
Then the speaker read downgrad
ing students and demonstrations a
quote from the Pulitzer Prize win
ner in 1957.
It was also stated, “There is no
great thirst here for knowledge and
God, only for alcohol, and the stu
dents who were in this demonstration
should apologize for their actions.”
Now that the facts are turned
around, let us look at what really
happened on the night of April 26th
and what the men were demonstrat
ing for.
The reason the men were in such
an uproar was because the issue of
drinking had been tabled and not
voted upon at that time. If it had
been voted on, probably there would
not have been a demonstration.
The “howling mob” that came
“slashing its way up the drive-way”
was orderly, except for the yelling.
No profanity was yelled out, as you
hear in a lot of mobs.
When the lady of the house ap
peared you could have heard a pin
drop. If there was hate in their eyes,
the group would not have stayed in
the drive-way.
The men carrying the flag did
not lay a hand on the President, in
fact, it was the other way around.
One of the men was grabbed around
the neck and angrily shaken by the
President. Here again, if there was
any hate in the group, this provided
them with a golden opportunity to
show it.
Next, the “beastly mob” ascend
ed through the night to “reign terror
in the hearts of those staying in the
Inn,” or was it terror? Many of the
guests thought it was funny. When
the march first started, three of the
gentlemen were standing in front of
College Hall. One of the men suggest
ed that the marchers go across the
lake and tell the rest of the men
what they were protesting about.
When the group went to the
home of the professor, they did not
know his wife was sick. Had they
known this they would have stayed
away.
No damage was done to any pro
perty and there was no violence of
any sort. This may have been the
first time in history that a mob as
“violent” as this mob had an orderly
and peaceful demonstration.
When the speech was over an
entirely different picture had been
painted.
Transfer students who come
here are supposedly very stupid.
Wonder what the other schools think
about students who transfer from
here?
Why should the words of a 1957
Pultizer Prize winner apply today?
Time, customs, fashions, morals,
etc. have made drastic changes since
then and people should begin to
realize this.
Concerning the statement about
the proposed drinking rule, there
was no clear reason given why it was
turned down. Unless one could say it
was turned down because Montreat is
a church school and acceptance would
hurt the Christian image here.
One thing that is evident to
everyone is that it is fine for students
from Davidson, Presbyterian, Wof
ford, and Mars Hill to come onto
this campus and drink. If the stu
dents here cannot drink, then those
from other schools should not be al
lowed to do so either. It is a known
fact that even the people who come
here for church conferences drink,
but the students cannot, for it is
wrong.
There is no way the present
(Continued on Page Four)
THE DIALETTE
MONTREAT-ANDERSON COLLEGE, MONTREAT, N. C.
Editor Mike Clark
Assistant Editor A1 Weisiger
COLUMNISTS
Political Dan Bayluss
S. C. A Carson Norton
Fine Arts Jane Maples
Staff: Deane Zitzmann, Pat Elliott, Ruth Shane, Bill Nanny,
Becky Ray.
>
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those
held by Montreat-Anderson College.