WEDNESDAY
PAGE TWO
The First Crisis:
Economic Reprisal
The advocate ol a cause at cross-drift, with
popular feeling, unless he bears the curse ol
a thick skin, can face threats, shouting, curses,
social boycott, or laughter" and remain un
swayed. lint there is : weapon potent enough to
crack his conviction or smother it: economic
reprisal. Face the heretic witli words and he
is unfaed; but lace him with loss of protes
sional reputation, filch' from him his jood
name or his job, and even consc ience wavers.
Common jjnod -sense and clec'ency on
both extremes of an issue would generally
operate as a check on economic reprisal.
Those who would use it sometimes find their
weapon blunt. e en imprac ticable, lint econ
omic reprisal' was not blunt, deadly or im
practicable enough for the trustees of the
University of South Carolina when they fired
the dean of the school of education. Dr.
Chester -Travelstead. for his views on the seg
regation issue. In a state where reason falls
flat and stability goes by the boards' when ra
cial questions come up, Dr. Travelstead dar
ed siv that "enforced segregation of the races
in our public sc hools can no longer be jus
tified o?i any -basis and should, therefore, be
abolished as soon as practicable." For that
temper e remark, he met a cpiick and in
temperate fate; he lost his job.
line in Chapel Hill, by contrast, we may
be thankful that no professor has been fired
bec ause of his opinions since before the Civil
War.
Rut North Carolina at lane is not un
blemished. The threat, if not the act. of econ
omic reprisal reared its head in the small
friends community at Cuillord, earlier this
fall, when the school board announced its
intent to comply with the Supreme Court
decision on segregation in the schools. Sev
eral members were threatened with los.f of
their jobs.
In Georgia, there has been talk of a 'loyal
ty" oath for pubiic schoolteachers. In Dur
ant, Mississippi, a Presbyterian congregation
filed is minister two weeks ago for heresy
much milder than Dr. TravelstenTs. He had
"defended" twf men, "accused" (sic) of ad
vocating, racial integration.
There is certainly nothing villainous about
honest feelings, as perverted or unthinking
as they may seem. In this. question, the matter,
of opinion is c c:i irrelevant. But growing
pressure, will 1 ring more and more situa
tions into the-South where, in times of rash
ness and shortsightedness sometimes of nia
lic iouMicss ad oc aus of one side of the seg
regate :i ivsue Avill use economic advantage.
T!:e real test of the durability of so-called
"American" values, we can't help feeling,
will come more quickly in this area than in
the 'area of decision as to whether schools
arc to be mixed. Segregated schools, though
unconstitutional and unethical, scan be tol
erated for a while, lint economic reprisal can
not be tolerated for a minute:
THE DAILY TAR HEEL
S - - ' MM HI 1 111
Bssew
No
tion
as
review t rem
11 J i
On
ooth picks;
Buckley:
or Smell
An Unfavorabje Look
At A 'Conservative' Journal
ailp tiuar fte
The official student publication of the Publi
ations Board of the University of North Carolina,
where it is published
X daily except Monday
t and examination and
. 1 vacation nprinH nA
.r r . - i
summer terms. Enter
That vigorous and persistent apologist for Sena
tor McCarthy, William F. Buckley Jr., a college edi
tor at one time, defender of the Faith and the Amer
ica!, college system, has christened a new weekly
'journal of opinion," National Review.
National Review, whose first issue is of un
blemished white, but bordered with the blue of
"truth," begins Volume I as of November ,19.
"Our point of view is frankly conservative,"
say Buckley and his associates (John Chamberlain,.
James Burnham, Willmore Kendall mostly liberals-gone-sour).
In a New York Times Book Review ad
vertisement for a few weeks back, National Re
view represented itself as a conservative counter
part to "such distinguishd liberal journals as The,
New York Times." The clever use of "distinguished" i
will be noted; without directly applying this epithet
to National Review to judge by the opening 30-page
diatribe this would be out and out fabrication
National Review kinship claims indirectly'.
TORRENT . . ' - v
New Haven, Connecticut, where Mr. Buckley
edited the Yale News, has not yet risen from the
torrent of controversy he brought down a few years
ago. He blistered most everyone and everything,
some of which needed blistering: the shameless in
trusion of "white shoeism"' into the vestry of the
college chapel, for instance. But 'sue attacks were
minor, almost incidental, in his larger design. He
mainly promoted the idea of college education as a .
purchasable commodity and as serum for a" short-of-breath
Christian Capitalism. The professor's aca
demic freedom, he thought, ought to correspond to
the merchant's freedom; it should be governed by
the purchaser's demands a minor alteration, to be
sure, since demand isNa little over half of mercan
tilism. From the doctrine that pedagogy ought to
proceed from controlled truths, that the tutor must
not too rudely challenge the cherished, prejudices
which dear junior brings to the groves, Buckley
fought his noisy crusade.
Several years have now passed, and it is imagin
able that in the interim Buckley has gotten lonely
for an editorial soap-box from which it might be ob
served are unrecognizable to some other conser
vatives. Robert M. Hutchins, who draws two attacks
in the first issue of National Review, has continual
ly styl v himself "an 18th Century conservative."
And it will surprise many that so reputable a
prophet of the New Conservatism (which Arthur
Schlesinger Jr., in rare form, called "the politics of
nostalgia") as Russell Kirk would let Iris byline ap
pear cheek-by-jowl with Buckley's. Yet, if Buckley
defended McCarthy with fervor, Kirk winked.
HYPODERMIC APPROACH
National Review, says Buckley in his opening
publisher's statement, will use "the hypodermic ap
proach to world affairs... in a country widely as
svcd to bo n bastion of conservatism." It wi'tl
nobly "stand athwart history, yelling Stop at a
time when no one is inclined to do so." Bully, of
course, for any conservative who makes so frank an
admission of his end-objective: to yell "Stop" to
history.'
But what about the idea that tne U. S. is a
"bastion of conservatism"? A bastion of conservat
ism we may now be, as all natons become arthritic,
varicose, insensate, grasping, with the rearward vis
ion of Lot's wife, when treated to high prosperity.
But we have had radical times. We were anything
but a bastion of conservatism in 1934, just as we
were a bastion of radicalism in July, 1776.
One of Russell' Kirk's favorite themes is that
the American Revolution was conservative. Time
Magazine thinks the same. Well, they can talk from
now till primordial darkness fall again about the
"basic conservatism" of the American Revolution.
They will be double-thinking. A revolution depos
ing a king, rudely. washing the balm of annointment
from his forehead, a revolution by arms and blood
shed, a revolution whose preamble was written by
a man Who believed the tree of liberty must be
watered from time to time with the blood of
tyrants, is hardly "conservative." Quote Edmund
Burke as you will. What did it conserve? Nothing,
or littre, of the economic system; little of the
political system; and very little of the popular
mores, after the last generation of Tories went to "
their graves.
, 'CREDENDA
Mr. Buckley's soi-disant conservative journal,
under "Credenda," lays down sure-heartedly the
plights 'of our time. Some will be disturbed to
know, for instance:
v -; x
ft S S V
Robert Hutchins: 'Conservative'
vs. 'Conservative'
That "the profound' crisis of our era is, in es
sence, the conflict between the Social Engineers,
who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scienti
fic Utopias, and the disciples of Truth (caps theirs)
who defend the organic moral order." National Re
view believes that Truth is "neither arrived at nor
iluminated by by monitoring election returns, bind
ing though these are for other purposes, but by
other means, including a study of human exper
ience." (Strangely enough, so uncompromising an
enemy of Pragmatism as Mr. Buckley seems to be
appealing here to that relativistic quantity, "human
experience," as a criterion of truth.)
You must know, too, that:
"The largest cultural menace in America is the
conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in edu
cation as well as the arts, are out to impose upon
the nation their modish fads and -fallacies and have
nearly succeeded in doing so."
MEDIEVAL GOD
In his eloquent rejoinder to Walter Lippmann's
The Public Philosophy, Archibald Mac Leish main
tains that mcylern art, as innovation from the- tra
dition tum-te-tum orthodoxy in poetry, in painting,
in novels represent man's furthest advance into
individuality, into pure ego. "Modish fads and fal
lacies," as Buckley calls the modern 'products of the
"intellectual cliques", represent jnaK's most distant
advance beyond the Medieval godcommunity, and
the womb of safety-through-orthodoxy; it is under
standable why they are anathema to conservatives.
Mr. Buckley would probably refuse to recognize any
painter since Delacroix : and any poet beyond Al
fred, Lord Tennyson. The interior gfopings of paint
ers like Picasso and Dali, of novelists like Joyce
i
'Oh, Stop Looking So Darn Smug'
:
ILditors
ed as second rlas
matter in the post of
fice in Chapel Hill, N.
C, under the Act of
March 8, 1879. Sub
scription rates: mail
ed, $4 per year, $2.50
mester.
LOUIS KRAAR, ED YODER
Managing Editor
FRED POWLEDGE
News Editor
JACKIE GOODMAN
-
Business Manager
BILL BOB PEEL
Associate Editor
Sports Editor .....
- J. A. C. DUNN
WAYNE "BISHOP
Advertising Manager
Assistant Business Manager
Coed Editor ...
Circulation Manager
Subscription Manager -
Staff 'Artist ..........
- Dick Sirkin
Carolyn Nelson
Peg Humphrey
Jim Kiley
b: '--;
I
9r
: !
Jim Chamblee
Charlie Daniel
EDITORIAL STAFF Bill O'Sullivan, Charles Dunn,
, Bill Ragsdale. ;
NEWS STAFF Neil Bass, Charles Dunn, James
Nichols,' Mike Vester, Mary' Ack'erman, Curtis
. Gan, Ethan Tolman. Joan McLean, Bill Corpen
intf. Clarke, Jones', Nancy Rothschild, Charlie
Sloan, Jerry Cuthrell, Peg Humphrey, Betty
Bauman.
' X . rf
OFFICE , TELEPHONES News, editorial, subscrip
tion: 9-3361. News, business: 9-3371. Night phone:
S-444 or 8-445.
BUSINESS STAFF Fred Katzin, Stan Bershaw,
Hfisa Moore. Charlotte Lilly, Ted Wainer, Darjl
Chasen," Johnny Witaker.
Niht Editor For This Issue
Curtis Cans
.
and Kafka, and poets like Pound and Rilke probably
-throw him into blue chills. ' tji
And,' yes, if you didn't see it coming, National
Review will sing the song of downtrodden Ameri
can business. It, will "oppose the inroads upon the
market economy caused by monopolies in general,
and politically oriented'unionism in particular; nd
it will tell the violated' businessman's side of the
story." How just! For, Injun Charlie Wilson has
wandered unpled these; many months.. Mr. Buckley
might even begin his story of violated businessmen
with dare I blasphemp? the President's cabinet:
ten solid violated businessmen. .
One feature of National Review which liberals
will find nice is the tolerance and fairness with
which the editors interpret the liberal side. Two
standing columns "each number will be devoted to
liberal news. !
PROPAGANDA MACHINE
One is "TheLiberal Line," to be written each
week by Willmoore Kendall, which will, report on
the liberr;s , "huge propadaiid machine" . (italics
theirs), which is "engaged in a major, sustained as
sault upon the sanity and upon the prudence and
morality of the Amrican people its sanity, be
cause the political reality of which they speak is a
dream world that nowhere exists, its prudence
and morality because their, values and goals are
in sharpest conflict with the goals and values ap
propriate to the American tradition."
The second is "On The Left," a column Of rapier-pricks
written by an anonymous character "CBR"
(probably a mockery or copy take your' pick of
The New Republic's Washington Reporter, TUB)'.
Devices used in "On The Left" are lies (eg: "Simple
minded folks, like our naive liberals, conceive that
the Communist aim to overthrow the U. S. Govern
ment involves primarily storming the walls of .the
Capitol with force and violence") and insidious iden
tification (eg: so unimpeachable and militantly anti
Communist a journal as The Manchester Guardian
with The Daily Worker; both are gro'uped together
as spokesmen of the vague "Left"). Everywhere in
National Review, by the way,, epithets like' "childish,"
"infantile," "simple-minded," ?4naive," etc, etc, 'are
kept to , travel with "liberal" as Homer kept
"swift-f opted' for Mercury.
Life Magazine welcomes National Review and
hopes, plaintively, that "the shape and nature of
true conservatism may become clearer to itself and
to-the public." Pejrhaps it will; but a" trip through
the first National Review indicates that we have ex
actly what we could expect of the often-infantile 1
Buckley: A dud, essentially, a Great WTall of China
standing on toothpicks, and, unless, I mistake the
odor, the old musk of Republican reactionism. Ed
Yoder.
Readers
etorf
Editors:
I note with dismay that the solution to the parking
problem is about to be bungled in much the' same
way Saturday classes were. Student apathy and lack
of responsibility will cause the Trustees to step in
heavy handed and leave the situation irreparably
worse. I have been at Chapel Hill for a number of
years both with and without a car and have been
a dorm advisor for two years. I believe I have a fair
and practical solution to the problem. I will admit,
however,. I see little likelihood of its being accept
ed. .
I would first like to say that I disapprove of any
curtailment of student cars if any other solution can
be found. Chapel Hill does not afford adequate
social outlets for a majority of the students. Ar de
crease in the number of cars at Chapel Hill will
not only make dating almost impossible for many
students, but will have an adverse effect on morale
at the Woman's College, fifty miles away.
If however, some limit must be put on the num
ber of cars at the University,5 a sensible means of
allocation should be found. Taking cars away from
freshmen, andor sophomores is the most unfair,
arbitrary method available. Precisely because there
are so few first and second year girls at school
these are the boys who must rely most heavily on
cars in order to date'at all. The privilege of having
a car should be based on merit, not seniority.
The first thing to be done is to determine the
maximum number of vehicles that can be accomo
dated by present facilities. Then, all students de
siring to do so" should fill out some sort of applica
tion. I think an excellent basis for alotting the avail
able tags would be one of scholastic standing. Thus,
students with the best average would have the first
choice and so on down the line. I believe this meth
od would be fairest to both the students and the
University. People doing well in their class work are
in less danger of being distracted from their studies
than some of their less diligent friends. Secondly,
the added incentive to do well in class might even
raise our academic standards. And finally, the "gen-
tleman's C" might look somewhat less dignified on
a bicycle than in a shiny new convertible.
In order for such'a 'plan to succeed it would have
to be applied impartially, i. e. no special exceptions
for campus wheels, athletes, or unmarried people
living near the campus but not on it. There are un
doubtedly some on the' campus for whom lack' of a
car might cause some unusual hardship-, but these
are few. An occasional execption might be made
where real need exists: Under" this plan' also, first
semester freshmen would not be eligible: This might
will serve to their advantage as many fail to survive
the one semester. After the first semester they could
compete on an equal footing with' seniors. Such-a
system would also mean that people originally given
permission to have a car might subsequently lose
it. This should prevent most from getting too car
ried away with extra-campus activities.
Many universities forbid the operation of cars
by undergraduates. I think such blanket restriction
would be especially unwise at ChapefHill. Orf he
other hand, there are many here who abus what
should be regarded as a privilege. Any realistic' sb
pebple, but someone had better come up with some
lution to this problem is bound to displease some
thing soon.. - .
? Lei E. Paul
Political
Sps3ch Of
The Month
Doris Floeson
WASHINGTON The political
speech of the' month was not
delivered at the big Democratic
doings in Chicago last weekend
nor in any other widely adver
tised forum, but in the town of
Whitney, Tex., population 1,379.
In it. Senator majority leader
Lyndon Johnson announced a 13
point program for the next Con
gress. The working politicians
have looked it over and believe
that with possibly one exception
it is well within his power to pass
it substantially as written.
There is something for every
body in Johnson's program. This
is its strength in Congress whose
members know that .while it is
theoretically desirable to put
first things first, what you can
actually get in a country the
size of the United States is some
kind of balance between opposing
pressures. .
The controversial exception in
the" Johnson progr am is another
bill" to exempt natural gas pro
ducers from Federal regulation.
Texan Johnson piously describes
it as a bill "to preserve free en
terprise and of course provide
legitimate protection of consum
ers." The natural gas issue cuts
across both parties and basically
represents a quarrel between
producing and consuming states.
It still carries enough political
"explosive so that all during the
last session, the Democratic Con
gress and Republican White
House tried to avoid taking re
sponsibility for it.
Johnson believes that if the
Texas leadership of House, and
Senate steers the bill to passage,
and President Eisenhower signs
it, as he has indicated to natural
gas and oil interests he will, its
political charge will be neutra
lized. Democratic liberals will fight
it on' principle, however, and
hope to get enough city Republi
can support to' prevail. They also
argue that it negates the party
cry of "giveaway of natural re
sources" against the Republican
Administration.
Here's the rest of the Johnson
program: tax cuts for low income
groups; more subsidies for farm
ers; more Social Security, more
and better schools; higher Feder
al spending for roads; Federal
aid to chronically depressed
areas; more housing; bigger
health programs and grants; lib
eralized immigration laws; more
water-resources projects; Feder
al disaster insurance; a Constitu
tional amendment to abolish the
poll tax.
It even has a slogan' which
Johnson said he got from his
father: Take care of the people
and they will take care of you.
Johnson did not mention
foreign affairs, a field in which
all the Democratic Presidential
aspirants are strongly attacking
the. Administration. His own in
stinct will be to move cautiously
there.
In this connection the Repub
lican choice of Henry Cabot
Lodge Jr., Ambassador to the
United Nations, to deliver the
principal speech at their nation
" al committee meeting in Chicago
Nov. 30 is interesting.
Lodge,, a former Senator, is a
practical and astute politician
who, unlike Secretary of State
Dulles, has avoided controversy
with the Democratic Congress. He
plans to point with pride to the
achievements of the Eisenhower
Administration, but he will ig
nore! the recent outcries of Stev
enson, Harriman and Kefauver.
His view is that shin-kicking
makes headlines but is not good
business for a Republican Presi
dent who must shape hisforeign
policy with the advice and con
sent of a Democratic Congress.
The choice of Lodge has this
further significance. It drama
tizes the Eisenhower hold on the
Republican party machinery as it
prepares for its next convention.
Lodge is a prime favorite of the
President and ran his pre-con-vention
campaign in 1952.
H
ye-.
2 '.8 i
Wi;:.-.
N. y.
To the E.
America, a?.;
nantly me!an":.:'
PJain Amer;c. ,
inS compatiV.
Plaifier 0f aC"
ba'l makes Z "
to a trying
AS you ha
ecI people f: ;
arrive armed ?'
ness. They d-," ;
erJ-thing thiv"!;
course, but at ::
quiet about it
ever they Ca i
For some n:-
ness breaks ?
when they f.:. .
sports stadiuif
questionable a?-'
body takes sp;r
way, they prv-. ;
ny as they ca; ;
of the game in -..
While all this
explainer has i :
technicalities a;
fending each o;
gainst the jeers
From time to ;-.
remind his cor:.:;
he is watching j:
after all, and ri
peg on which t:
sickness.
Basebai! is 2
ward business. '
it on sight, wi;:
knowledge of a
The standard
"Why do they
on their hand.-'
palpably soft.)
wear those fur.
nation is also ;
antiesthetic b;;s
they argue v,:
(They haven't
of sportsmanship
The big joke '
that it is '-just i. ;
There is a theory:',
men that America:
ed by this corr.;r
they might be. if:
it meant. "Ron:.:-, j
ticularly degrade:
ed with a rubber:,
small girls. j
During the foe-:':
looks back on
baseball with u":
ness, with the ;
pletely forgci:te: '
somehow acquire: ;
ness over the yer ,
tically defies e:;:;
official rulebxX i
omy of confuN?"
Upward of 15'-" .
be conspiring in!-":
ball from the
ing up and doc .
series of violent
easy to speak r." j
ity about a ?'-' :
able to follow y-
During the g35
expect the ,
"Why do they al :
those enormous P; ,,
again.) "Explain. ; (
stant time-outs
tions." (ApF-'-;-in
a and ovcr-fc? -j
father substitute-:
coach.) "Look aj '
cheer-leaders. .
alumni." (All chij
or another.) "I c;"f
call it football
kicks the ball.j j
people get j
game?' , '
Unfortunate)-
leads inevitably ;; !
sues. However 2- i
forestall the que- ,
come at .. , ;
players come j
for thrm?
university cour-
Falterin.-iy. y?-;:
scholarship
tion courses, a:
ugly rumor,
great game. i '.
out that many
"horrified by t--;-.
that much ;
form it: vainer -i
sort of jt:'A:'.
that offers Me i
poor but
your friend - .
and his ort -erica
have e-; .
circumstances. -;.r
for him to
politeness.
vour ch:-- s;:
When he ScS,;.V
"Extraordinary
ball. Sums up
character: J;; I
frightfully sn;"
like up- And- - .
money, nu
look!"
Well, at '
it's like "rouE-- i