PAGE 2
THE BELLES
MAY 1984
EDITORIAL
/s» ale
“This is my last editorial,
my last chance to be vocal,
liberal, feisty, and on top of it
all, a pain in the brain will
simply be to the point.” These
are the words of The Belles
1982-1983 Editor, Mary Glenn
Berwick, who really was Quite
‘vocal and feisty’ in editing The
Belles. So I honor Mary Glenn
in this last issue by quoting her
and saying that in being liberal
and vocal, she taught me how
to express an honest opinion in
the one place that it can be ex
pressed. So this is my last
chance to make a statement to
St. Mary’s, and to be ‘vocal and
liberal.’
It seems amazing that I
have spent two complete years
at St. Mary’s. My days here will
always be fondly remembered,
even if they have passed so
quickly. When I look at the time
spent here I realize, however,
that I have learned much more
than academics. The academics
will sustain me throughout my
career, and I have received such
a solid base here that I will be
able to fall back on it, even as I
leave for Europe and prepare to
face a completely different edu
cational system. When I look
back to my SMC days ten years
from now, I know that it will be
the friendships that I remember
nnost. St. Mary’s has taught me
how to edit a newspaper, enjoy
team sports, and write a term-
paper. But most importantly,
St. Mary’s has taught me what a
friend is, and what a friend is
not. I used to laugh at my father
when he told me, “If at the end
of your life you have two true
friends, you will be very lucky.”
I thought, ‘I will always be sur
rounded with lots of friends!’
living with your friends and
going through the best and
worst of times, however, shows
who your real friends are, and
how important they are once
you know who they are. It is so
true that you find out who
friends are in the worst of
times. It is very easy to be mis
lead, but the ones who hang in
there are those who will be
there for the rest of your life. I
am lucky to have gained these
friends at St. Mary’s. I will al
ways remember my friends, and
I will share the good times over
and over with those people who
I have come to know and love.
They have stood by me through
thick and thin, and it has not
been easy. But I have been re
warded with some ‘true-blue’
friends that I will always love. I
could not have gained that at
any school but this one. So as I
bid ‘adieu’ to my alma mater to
leave for foreign shores, I thank
everyone here for making St.
Mary’s the school that it is and
for making me a part of it.
ABB
^etten:
Kiss and Tell?
To the Editor:
There is a new law being
proposed these days that would
affect many,people, especially
those under the age of
eighteen. The “squeal rule,” a
law that would inform parents
of youths attempting to acquire
contraceptives, seems to be a
ridiculous and patronizing rule.
Backers of this rule feel
that parents have a right to
know if their sons and daugh
ters are engaging in sexual
activities. But is it right to force
youths under eighteen to give
up their privacy? It seems
foolish to inform parents of
actions that are mature and re
sponsible. Young adults are
The Bdles
StMary’s
College
900 HILLSBOROUGH STREET
RALEIGH. NC 27611
PHONE 828-2521
EDITOR-Annabelle Brandeaux
SPORTS EDITOR-Ann-Marie Campbell
ADVERTISING EDITOR-Della Jones
REPORTERS-Maria Bardnt, Susan Gardner, Beth Morris. Anne de
Rossett, Susan Stephenson, Ann Fitzmaurice, Suzannah Higby.
Cathy Hancock.
TYPISTS-Lara Gribbs, Ann Campbell,Rebecca Rogers
The Battle for the Ballot
To the Editor:
Is this a race or a war? Are
the candidates aiming to reach
the top or to gun down their op
ponents? Yes, the election year
is upon us once again. Our ears
are full of campaign promises,
but they also ring with the ver
bal insults which the candi
dates fling at each other. In the
words of Walter Mondale, the
election race is a “marathon
battle for the nomination.” It
certainly is a battle - a battle of
put-downs. Is it necessarily a
good sign, however, when the
candidates verbally abuse each
other? Most likely, it isn’t.
Democratic presidential
candidates Walter Mondale,
when speaking to a group of
students at Emory University,
urged them “not to be taken in
by Gary Hart and his tinsel.” He
took a stab at Hart on another
occasion, too. In referring to
Hart’s “new ideas,” he asked,
“Where’s the beef?” Gary Hart
got into the act when he refer
red to Mondale and candidate
John Glenn as a “pair of old
hacks.” That these grown men,
who are all vying for the most
imfluential political position,
must stoop to exalting them
selves by cutting down others is
deplorable. Do these men think
that they can engage in peace
talks or make a state of the
union address with this childish
mentality? This is a question
worth careful consideration.
These back-stabbing can
didates are not only indigenous
to national campaigns; they are
also present at the state level.
Jesse Helms has televised
many ads in which Jim Hunt’s
opinions or decisions are belit
tled or made to seem wrong or
even harmful to the State. At
the end of each ad. Helms
poses the question, “Where do
you stand Jim?” Is Helms plan
ning to continually contradict
and ridicule other Senators in
hopes of receiving public atten
tion? These overly-competitive
qualities are not traits Helms
should wish to make public
knowledge. If he does not agree
with Jim Hunt, he should keep
it to himself.
When the candidates begin
to insult each other, the public
tends to close its ears. Nobody
really wishes to hear one candi
date’s opinion of another. Fter-
haps we should listen to what
the candidates are saying,
though, because in making fel
low candidates look bad, they
are often marring their own
public images. Does our nation
wish to have a leader who is
able to find fault this easily?
The candidates should simply
promote their own campaigns,
not attempt to ridicule everyone
else’s. At least the election pro
cess would not their be con
verted to a free-for-all.
Elizabeth Brown
thoroughly educated about sex.
It is up to them to decide to
have sex and obtain contracep
tives, and it should be up to
them to tell their parents. It
should not be the business of
the government. Most of the
time precautions are taken,
because today’s youth realize
the importance of responsi
bility. If the “squeal rule” only
tattled on those who did NOT
attempt to acquire contracep
tives, then maybe this law
would have a place in society.
This is a new generation.
These days, young adults are
capable of making important
decisions that will improve their
lives. They have the education
and the background to decide
what courses to take, what col
leges to attend, and what jobs
to obtain. Why then, should
[Continued on page 3]',
To the Editor:
Having been students for
many years now, it is only
natural to assume that we
should be interested in an issue
such as public school prayer.
After all, even if some of us
never attended public school,
there’s a good chance that
many of our children will attend
in the future. Is it important to
know that your children will
have all the rights and freedoms
you were allowed? And just
what are the chances that they
will be 'faced with required
prayer?
Let’s look at some facts:
the Supreme Court has a track
record of consistent support for
laws that promote education
and that inadvertently benefit
religion. However, the court has
been equally consistent in
striking down those laws
directly advancing or favoring
religion - thus rreintaining
separation of church and state.
What all this means is that the
chances of the high court pas
sing a law requiring school
prayer are slim to none if we
rely on their previous voting
record. Yet, what if they decide
to jump the tracks? What if they
do vote for required prayer?
For starters, all of our chil
dren, regardless of their faith or
ours, will be subject to required
prayer. What kind of a feeling
will be fostered in someone
with an atheistic upbringing
when the children of the future
are told it’s time to pray?
It seems apparent that
while prayer is a necessary part
of life for many people, there
will always be some who do not
choose this way of life. While it
IS perfectly acceptable to nrold
and nurture our own children’s
beliefs, we should not, in a
country of free choice, choose
the religion beliefs other chil
dren should have. In a society
based on freedom of choice,
this course of action, that of re
quiring school prayer, is far
from acceptable.
To those of you who have
brothers and sisters affected by
this issue, and to all of you who
will have children affected by it,
I issue a big challenge. That
challenge is to defend the rights
of those who should not have
beliefs imposed upon them,
just as you would defend the
rights of your own choice, ar>d
not one to be made even by a
Supreme Court judge.
Betsy Niblock
Advertising? Corrupt?
To the Editor:
It seems as though a lot of
people have jumped on the anti
advertising bandwagon clainv
ing that it it a destructive tool
used only by insensitive,
money-hungry producers who
will use any tactic and promote
any product just to make a
buck. This, however, is not
true. Tho business of adver
tising itself is not corrupt - only
particular advertisers are. Cer
tainly every profession can
claim its bad apples.
Advertising is basic and
essential to the success of any
thing sold to the public, be it
soap, cereal, or the Cancer
Foundation. For how else can a
producer call attention to his
product? How can the puttie
know what is available unless
someone tells them? A good ad
tells what the product is, how it
is useful, and why the con
sumer needs it. Some of the ad
vertising methods used today,
however, have given the busi
ness a bad name.
Not all advertisers are
unethical opportunities. David
Ogiivy, ’ for example, who
(according to TIME magazine)
is “the most sought-after wizard
in the advertising business,”
expresses the belief that facts
are the key to effective adver
tising. Providing factual infor
mation about your product is
the best way to persuade the
consumer to buy it. Ogiivy also
explains that, though advertis
ing may persuade someone to
buy an “inferior” product, it
only does so once. If the person
is not satisfied he will not con
tinue to buy the product, re
gardless of the advertisements
for it. And resale is where the
producer makes his profits.
It is only particular adver
tisers, especially those who
promote the perfect and unat
tainable, that cause average
Americans so much dissatis
faction with day-to-day life.
Beauty and maxium efficiency
are just not that prevalent in
today's society. Certainly,
people have dreams of reaching
goals of perfection, and these
dreams give them something to
work towards. But they usually
end up dissatisfied with them
selves because they fall short of
their aim. What’s wrong with
setting a standard that is within
reach of the people, one that
will msrf^e them feel good about
themselves? Wouldn’t that sell
the product more efficiently?
The rrx)st misleading, and
damaging advertisements of all
are those made for political
campaign promotions. And
these, ironically, do not have to
meet the requirements set by
the federal agencies who review
ads. Nor can a broadcasting
network deny air time to cam
paign commercials because
political advertising is con
sidered “protected speech” un
der the First Amendment of the
Constitution. And everyone
krx5ws that where politics ap
pear, truth and facts become
obscure. So at whom do we
point the finger?
Advertising, when used
horxxably, can serve both the
consumer and the producer.
But when abused, it succeeds
only an irritating the public and
desaediting the promoter of
the product.
Beth Morris