Newspapers / Montreat College Student Newspaper / Feb. 23, 1968, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Montreat 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 DIALETTE FEBRUARY 9, 1948 Letters To The Editor T^fiQt* ^J^/^l♦■/^■*» • _1 •■! ^ ^ . i». . A. Policy '‘The Dialette” is a student-oper ated publication published for the Montreat - Anderson College student body. Editorial opinions, clearly identi fied and centrally located, represent the opinion of this publication as de termined by the editor. Other opin ions such as news analyses, opinion ated columns, and certain features represent the views of dedicated in dividual members of “The Dialette” staff. Columns not by-lined represent a collective opinion of the entire staff. Under no circumstances does an article or opinion not clearly mark ed as being from non-student sources represent the opinions, views or be liefs of the administration, the board of trustees, the faculty or the fac ulty advisor. This newspaper has as its self- imposed editorial objective the re sponsible and constructive criticism of various campus and student-relat ed areas. In addition, “The Dialette” seems to enlighten its readers as to points of view concerning various campus and student - related areas that are generally cosidered popular. In certain cases, “The Dialette” will utilize its editorial space to praise and commend events and persons deemed worthy of the same. This publication, with regard to editorial opinion, is independent of any particular group, institution, or organization. A high ethical code and a strong sense of responsibility guide the entire staff in its news gathering and editorial activities. Individual non-staff opinions will be printed in the form of letters to the editor providing the letters are sigpied, responsible and pertinent to Montreat-Anderson College, its stu dents, or events of interest to the same. Names wrill be withheld upon request if responsible justification for such can be submitted. Under no circumstances will the name of the author be furnished without his con sent. Carl Sturgis. A Time For During Convocation on Thurs day, February 15, the Student Gov ernment Association leaders an nounced the general failure of the S. G. A. to effectively communicate with the students of this college and as a result, the S. G. A. President Bo Lowry called upon the students to reaffirni their faith in the S. G. A. leaders, and pledged that the S. G. A. would begin working with great er unity. Mr. Lowry reminded students of the necessity to abide by the rules of the college- to do otherwise would cause a state of mass disorganization in which no student would have his rights upheld. Len Hull, President of the Honor Court, gave a synopsis of the pro gress that the Honor Court has made during its second year of existence. The Growth Of Montreat On February 7, 1968, the Student Committee of 9 met with the Faculty professional Growth and Improve ment of Teaching Committee. These committees are assigned the job of determining what can be done to ward improving the learning exper ience and academic atmosphere at Montreat. The Student Committee of 9 is the equal of the Faculty commit tee and it seeks to present student views on improvement problem areas. Most students loot at the commit tee of 9 and ask what it is and why it was organized and why it is im portant to them as students to be involved with it. I ask the question whether this committee is effective or not. By effective, I mean whether these stu dents on the Committee of 9 are re flecting the views of the rest of the student body. f The idea behind the Committee Vof 9 was to give the students and .c^faculty an opportunity to express i their problems and see if the prob- ’ijems could be feasibly solved. If the commiteee is effective then the students will discuss freely, and openly about the problems which face this college community. Then the faculty would express their views about the problems and then together set about to determine the fate of the college community. One way in which the student can help this com mittee be more effective is for the individual students to go to the mem bers of the commitee and express ffipes and then ask committee mem'bersto bring them up at com bined commitee discussions. If the committee is not effective, then We only have ourselves • to blame. We can not saddle the blame on just the students on the commit tee or the faculty because both would be responsible for the failure of the committee. It seems in discussing school problems there is always a communication blank which keeps the faculty and students from under standing fully the problems of the campus. So this is a joint under standing or the committee will fold. If the students want the faculty views or vice versa then we cause the committee to fail. If the com mittee fails it is 'because the student body did not talk to these commit tee members and tell them what their views are. In conclusion this committee can be effective only if the two factors work together toward the good of a better environment for education. Dear Editor: When one enters an institution, whether it be a government, a re ligion, or a college, there is or should be, a set of rules which apply to all in that institution. This conception is not a new one and has, since the days of the “Glorious Revolution,” been one of the basic principles of modern democratic thought; in short this is a rule of equality which ap plies to the individual and group alike. With the coming of the new se mester, there was a political turn over in the S.G.A., of two dorm presidents; as a result. Lookout Lodge and Fellowship gained new presidents: first Fellowship, by due process of election, and second. Lookout, by appointment (in accorl- ' anee with handbook regulations.) The appointment of the president for Lookout had several motivating factors; the main one was that the discipline problem was acute; this reason alone justifies the appoint ment. it cannot, however, justify some of the policies of the new dorm president. With the zeal of a conquering gen eral about to become a military gov ernor, the new president mouted the throne and, with his hall ^ chairmen, all recruited from New Hall to be overseers, put into effect rules which are not in according with the S.G.A. handbook. The question this writer has is: When does the S.G.A. condone the use of a dorm policy contrary to the handbook? (I am sure the S.G.A. editor will come up with some an swer, in his usual illogical man ner.) I wish to give two examples of the incongruities I have mentioned: Dorm policy: “Upon accumulating 10 demerits, residents will be brought before Dorm Council for further action”; handbook: does not state any action for anything under 15 demerits. Dorm policy: “Absence from dorm meeting without excuse —5 demerits”; handbook: “House meetings (2 demerits for each ab sence.”) A third example is probably the most disgusting and has had a di rect effect upon the second floor of Lookout. Dorm policy states that if a person does not accept responsi bility for damages to property the whole floor is punished. At the first of this semester, just as the new regime had settled in, a door Was broken on second floor. The hall counselor was unable to ascertain who the culprit was, so a generous supply of demerits were handed out to everyone on the floor. along with an 80 cent fine to fix the door. (Why did we have to pay 80 cents out of our pockets when we’d already paid a damage fee?) This, in itself, was bad, but several factors came into play which makes the situation worse. The door was broken between 9:15 and 10:15; several people were able to prove that they were not in the dorm dur ing these sours and therefore could not have done the damage. Why should these people who can prove that they did not do the damage be punished? They are innocent until proven guilty or at least that is the way the Honor System is supposed to work. From here on, the situation really becomes intriguing. When this writer, resident of the second floor, con fronted his hall counselor with the fact that it had been proven that he was not in the dorm and therefore could not be guilty and should not be punished, the hall counselor began singing a rather flat tune. He said the second floor had received de merits for breaking the door and for not telling who broke it. What if no one on the second floor knew of the culprit? This is quite possible, for the incident occurred about five minutes before a dorm meeting when most people were in the lobby. If this is the case, and it is, the resi dents of second floor. Lookout, were penalized for not knowing who did the damage! It is apparent that Lookout’s new occupational govern ment does not believe in Voltaire’s axiom: “It is better to risk saving a guilty man than condem an inno- ment one.” When I asked hall counselor why Lookout was not governed by the same rules as the other dorms, I re ceived this answer: “Lookout is an exception to the rule.” I now present one last question: Why are we an exception?—Joseph Pothier. Dear Editor: How many College cars would be needed each Sunday to transport all of the students who are not Presby terian to the churches of their choice- if FREE TRANSFORATION were available — and who would pay the bill? The Presbyterian Church is al ready contributing more toward our education than we are - would it not be more reasonable to expect the churches we attend to arrange for our transportation if neither we nor our parents are able to do so? In my opinion, and I am not a Presbyterian, we would have to go far to hear better preaching than is heard here each Sunday. Concerned MONTREAT-ANDERSON COLLEGE, MONTREAT, N. C. He felt that the Honor Code was Working for most students, and ex pressed his desire that the students remain honorable to themselves and the college. Also presented during the assem bly was a report on the effectiveness of the newly-created Interdom Coun cil. The Honor Court President ex pressed the view that the council had greatly benefited the college, and relieved the Honor Court of handling cases other than lying, cheating or stealing. —Cent, on Page 3 Business Manager James Moore Social Editor Bev Keith Writing Staff Frank Parrish Sue Bayer Bill Jones Dan Malcolm Linda Ficht Debbie Lentz Layout Susan Bostic Joyce Baacom STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF CARL STURGIS The Dialette is the official Montreat - Anderson College newspaper, published by the student body. Subscription is on a yearly basis and may be obtained by writing: 'ae Dialette, Subscrip tion Service, Montreat - Ander son College, Montreat, N. C. Charge is $1,00 per year., Advisors: Mr. and Mrs. John Ricks Assistant Editor Terry Duncan Sports Editor Bill Sullivan Typists Carol Luckett Jeanie Alexander Betty Green Circulation Carolyn Rickman Jane Hearn
Montreat College Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 23, 1968, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75