Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / Feb. 18, 1971, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of University of North Carolina at Charlotte 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
the Carolina journal A paper that is entirety the product of the student body becomes at orKe the official organ through which the thoughts, the activity, and in fact the very life of the campus, is registered, it is the mouthpiece through which the students themselves talk. College life without its journal is blank. the Technician, vol. 1, no. 1, February 1, 1920 EDITORIALS OPINIONS the student speaks: Study on student fees was a farce ed wayson to An open letter the junior class When Ed Wayson moved to dissolve legislature first' semester, I voted against it. Now, I believe I made a mistake. At the time I felt I could best use the trust you had placed in me by fulfilling my obligation to you by serving my term as the best legislator I could possibly be. I tried to follow rules set up by legislators of the past and the present, hoping that these plus new bills would make student government an instrument of the student body. Again I was mistaken. Legislators, for the most part, show little or no interest in the proceedings. In fact, more than once the legislative sessions have been likened to a circus. In a recent conversation with a high-ranking S.G.A. official, the conversation turned to student power. This 1 favor. When a university controls so many aspects of our lives, we students learn that participation in university affairs can be pleasant but may also be essential. However, the S.G.A. official acknowledged a lack of power of student government, as well as apparent lack of interest by the present Student Legislators. His justification? Simple. “How can you expect a legislature with no power to take student government seriously?” There is one obvious flaw in his reasoning. This official forgot to consider an important factor, that of what are they doing to give student government power in administering student affairs? There are various methods of making this step. One is to get rid of inequities, and unflattering aspects of the legislature. These detrimental practices include Absenteeism and lack of order in meetings. As your vice president, Marlene Whitley observed “When we (the legislature) don’t live a rule we simply change it.” Yet this legislature is supposed to provide the base of “student power.” I beg to disagree, since “student power” can evolve into “student government power”-and the two are not necessarily the same. I believe that student government should ■ be empowered to play an increasingly large role in student administration, but somehow we must keep the student government from becoming dictatorial. The move to having a totalitarian student government that runs everything from the course evaluation to all publications should be blocked. Since the proper role of government according to the ideals of the United States is to all the people, not vice versa. With a new student government constitution to be unveiled in the near future, let us study it closely to prevent any oversights, since like our forefathers, we want a union”. At the remember should be government represents. more perfect same time, the covenant between the and those it First of a series In reading a sub-commit- tee report on Student Fees by Dr. Perzel, all I can say is “Bullshit”. The Administration and their selected friends did what they called an “indepth report” on student fees. What it really looks like is an indepth study of the administration’s perception of student feelings. The committee report is full of unique statements which represent those whose opinions had a major influence on their findings. The committee stated they could justifiably conclude that the student fee structure “is of no concern to the majority of the student Susie Sutton Jr. Class Representative Editorial policy Opinions of the Carolina Journal are expressed on its editorial page. All editorials are the opinions of the Editorial Board. Letters and columns represent only the opinions of the individual contributors Gym’s policies not geared to student’s needs Dear Editor: I would like to comment on the use of the qymnasium by the students. The gym’s policies are not geared up to the students’ needs. For example the hours that you can swim, most students would swim Saturdays but can not because no one swims if there is a basketball game. Further more I see no ^Power still controlled by men’ The Carolina Journal accepts all letters to the editor, provided they are typed and limited to a maximum of 300 words. All letters must be signed and the address and phone number of the writer must be included. The paper reserves the right to edit all letters for libelous statements and good taste. Address letters to Repercussions, The Carolina Journal, in care of University Center. (continued from page 1) the ‘‘masculinity” personality, “invented just to perpetuate a system.” For her, there is a great distinction between the culturally-acquired areas of masculinity and feminity and the biological differences of male and female. Millett blasted the “plastic hedonism’’ and lYlARCIA WALKSa .... EDITOR JVIIKE WcCULLEY . . • .MANflSING EP^oa MIKE COIviSiy. .. •BU.?TNEjg5 SU.SAJK JjUtTtrON... • IMEW^* E5IT0R (fi.VOTiUFi aaLEY .. . . /’ MIKE -JAMISON .... EDITOR ( B£CKY GLElMlff . . » • ' MIKE WHORLEY. - -.i STAFF oF THK 5AN&* *« SALli ALIISONi rtCftT CALDWELL, JAWIES ClrtHBERTSOAl, POWC/IN , SiePHArt DREYFWi RON roster, joe &ALlACHER. 8fteNiA 6iE«N, IfiUkHOtPfB. SARAH KROHN.LINPA McaRLEy, DIANE AAcKNIGHT, CLAV OWEN, CHARLit rccis DOK A/EtSOAi, DAVE BWHOLOnEW, EDDiE HAKTmM, A4I« SMITH." JOURWAL OFFICES tOCATEP IN C.inflU. “commercialized libertinism” of PLAYBOY and much contemporary writing. In the past, she noted, “sexuality was not based on freedom but upon exploitation.” What is “sexy and erotic to us is shaped by the patriarchial framework of our development.” Actually, according to Ms. Millett, we are still very far behind in our “unsophistic ated approach to sexuality.” The easing of censorship, serious sexual investigation, and the release from imposed morality “is just beginning as 4 ripple in a far greater shift yet to come.” The bigotry and fear and guilt of our society is shown in the ‘‘sophisticated hyprocrisy of our official morality.” One of the most harmful occurrences, Millett indicated, is that “persons disapprove of themselves if society disapproves of them.” She believes in “defying the code of secrecy about sexual matters; freedorii is confronting the rules in this awful society we live in.” After her speech and a standing ovation, Ms. Millett answered some questions from the audience. She stated she had gone through a period of “de-socializa- tion,” and as she learned about “unfairness in the system and met other women with common dissatisfac tion” she became involved in the movement. When asked about her projections for the future, Ms. Millett was consciously not willing to predict any clear-cut limitations to the movement. She did indicate, however, a desire to work toward offering “alternatives to marriage.” She stated, “If you mean the emotional, spiritual, and psychological relationship of those who love, then marriage is not necessary for that.” She suggested communal and collective living situations could be more beneficial ways of life than the present monogamous system. population at UNCC.” This conclusion, alone was not bad enough. They continued with their interviews with representatives of the administration. In trying to contact students, they announced open hearings. However, there were no other attempts to contact student representatives. As far as most students, are concerned, the whole study was a farce. The whole thing was geared towards what the administration thought and was controlled solely by faculty and administration. Next week I will state some facts on the findings of the,, committee, and, probably, you can guess what type of findings were implemented. reason why you can not invite someone who is not a student to swim, play hand ball or shoot a few baskets! There has been much said about maintaining a social life on this campus over week-ends this is just one example of why students have to go other places! I can see the value of perhaps registering visitors as they; enter-a signing in policy-I can not see police-ing for outsiders who might be using the gym. I can see having the authority of removing persons who were not following safety rules or damaging property; I can not see prohibiting my friends from entering the gym after 6 pm Monday—Friday. The gym is unquestionably a marvelous facility; students should use it more-they should feel free to do so and the hours established for it’s use should be reasonable and constantly maintained. I have walked all the way over to the gym to go swimming and found it locked tightly at Vo’clock on a week-night! This is ridiculous. If the gyit* is to be more than a skeleton or for the private use of the basketball players, then it should take in to consideration the needs ot the students and their friends. If it is not going to take into consideration the student and his friends then let’s not pretend it is for recreation. Police-ing tor outsiders is rather an ethnocentric practice of ^ Gestapo not a gym.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 18, 1971, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75