Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / March 3, 1959, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / 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
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 159 FAUt TWO THE OA!LY TAR HEEL Don't Contribute Wit lun thr next few thy, you, the student, w ill hr confronted by collectors of the Campus Chest. You will he asked to contribute to iuis organization which is sponsoring three quite worthy charities. You will he n.iked to give to these charities that the Campus Chest has chosen, and the money that ou give will he divided hy that organization to ho Riven to these three chairities only. You ought not to contribute. In the first place, it is somewhat presumptuous of this organization to say that it can select for you the charities that you want to support. It is more presumptuous of them to say that they will alot the money as they have seen fit. As an individual in society you have a right to support whatever chanties you deem worthy or to support ne charities at all. If the Campus Chest would presume to represent the campus on th i.vsue of charities, then they had better ask every nicndxr of the campus to what charity they would like to contribute, and then include them all 'in propoitton to the number of students who mention ed all of these charities. However, the organization presumes it can decide for you. and this it cannot. Moreover, you as a student might want to give all of your money to one of the charities that are sponsored but would not want to give to all on the list, hut if you contribute to the Campus Chest, your money is divided among the three without re gard to the feeling of the donor. This is not to say that the individual charitic that are chosen are not worthy of donation, but it i to say that how you as a student spend your money is something that is a purely personal de cision, and not something that somebody else can say how you ought to do it. In the very same man nor. you elect a president of the student body or an editor of The D uly Tar Hoc! because your con tribution along these lines demands roprosent.il in In anv case contributions to any one or a hundred charities should he on a voluntary basis and von should have a say in the choosing of these chari ties thai go under your name. Finally there is another consideration. This eon Mdrratmti is the onsideration of the organization that is sponsoring the drive namely the Campos Chest. As a ride this organization asks for contri butions toward educational enterprises and their an nual selection of the World University Service and Cottingen exchange attests to the truth in this state ment. This year, however, the third charity is i home for retarded children. a:'ain a worthy charity. However, the circumstances under which the horn" was placed in the Chest program were not worthy. Last year the Campus Chest sponsored an or ganization to provide scholarships for Negro stu dents Tim organization is a very worthwhile one. However, on campus in certain areas, students would not contribute to anything that would effect the betterment of the Negro, so the drive had to be extended for another week and the Chest fell hort of its goal. Th s rar when it came to consider the scholar ship fond, the Chest decided to leave it out, pro bably largely because it would hurt the receipts the drive a; a whole might garner. However, it is quite ohjvi lotniMe that a group which sets itself op with the noble purpose, of helping charities would have out a worthy charity because it might not enable them to gel the money that they ordinari ly would get. Tor a noble group, this sounds more like money grubbing, something that a charity group should never he associated with. Hence, even though the charities selected are worthy, the lack of courage and perversion of pur pose displayed by the Campus Chest is such that no individual with self respect who believes that it is the thought rather than the amount that counts should support it. If a student wants to give to the World Univer sity Service, the (Iottingen Exchange program, or the home for mentally retarded children separate and apart from the Campus Chest, the editor will provide stamped envelopes to these various chari ties and will send the amount you donate and th proportion you desire. If you want to contribute te the Negro scholarship fund the edior will also provide envelopes. If you want to contribute, do it this way. The charities are worthy, the organiza tion and fund idea are not. Gone, Daddio A concert by Have Ilrubeck Friday afternooi and a dame Friday night will compete with the ACC Tournament this weekend. The GMAB Dance Committee, which is sponsor ing the concert and dance, has named the weekend The Lost Weekend. Unless the committee should decide to put radio in Woollen Gym so students may listen to the game Friday night, there is little doubt that this weekend will lc more lost than the Dance Committee intended. M.A.R. The official studem publication of the Publication Board of the University of North Carolina, where U is published daily Mi opt Monday and examination periods ind summer term Entered ai second flat matter in ihc p.t office in Chapel SI ill. N. C, unlet the act of March 8 l70 Subscription rates: $.r) per ? oifster, $850 per The Daily Tar Heel h printed hy the News Inc., Carrloro. Editor Managing Kditor ..... J 1 N. C. CUKTIS CANS CIIUNKFLINNEU STAN FISHER News Kditor ANNE FRYK Sports Editor BUSTY HAMMOND Advertising Manager FRED KATZIN Business And Jonathan Yardley ' On Thursday, February 19, CDS Television and Playhouse 90 pre sented Loring Mandel's "The Raid ers," a penetrating and provoca tive discourse upon modern busi ness practices and ethics. It star ted Frank Lovejoy and Paul Douglas, and in its final impact was as biting as any play this ex cellent series has yet done. "The Raiders- is rue .story of a big, conservative business which finds itself in a proxy fight with cne of the most ruthless and dis honest stock buyers in the nation. More important, it is the story of on man, Arthur Ilennicut, and his gradual dgeneration from an hon est, loyal employee to a scheming, soulless man. Caught between the corporation and the individuals win compose and represent it, he chooses the former; he chooses it because he has no other choice, because his entire being, life, and soul have become so completely entwined with the corporation that he is the corporation and its best wishes are his command. This is the problem in American business, the problem that was bril liantly examined in W i 1 1 i a m Whytc's "The Organization Man" and countless other treatises on current business affairs: the in dividual has come to identify him self with the corporate body, a body that has no soul, no mind, no heart. This is not a body of people, it is an empty building, a machine rolling off a production line, a desk piled with papers, a full page spread in Life Magazine. The mod ern businessman has estranged himself from the human element in society to become totally en- r wit i 1 A ;i -s4Mf "Til . r : : - ;? v y '1: ' - . . . . . . ... ; , BZ i f.. fill Hi"? t t - - - - -...iLJ,;'J.; .' . if :'.4 s- .-vr THE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SCHOOL meshed in the corporation the all holy, omnipotent, unfeeling corpor ation. Today, thousands of men work in these bodys of steel and masonry that are the great corporations and businesses of our land, and many thousands more in our colleges and universities are studying night and day that they too may b ready to fit into the mould which has been made for them. Who are they? What are they doing to themselves? What are they doing to society? The Business Schools Until the year 1930 the Universi ty of North Carolina was minor league in the business world. To be sure, it had its little School of Commerce, but it was not the dominating School on the campus. Then, in 1950, big business came to Chapel Hill; recognizing the trend on Madison Avenue and across the nation toward hyper-syllahi?ation, it was decided to change the name to the School of Business Admin istrationfive more syllables, and, soon to follow, much more prestige and importance on and off the campus. It now occupies three large buildings, with its coopera tive Department of Economics, and in June of 1957 graduated 150 stu dents; into three buildings (Bing ham, Murphey, and Saunders Halls) are crammed the History. English, and all language depart ments, and in June of the same year all departments issuing the Bachelor of Arts degree gave only approximately twice as many de--grees as the School of Business Administration. This alone attests to the present, and growing, im portance of the Business Admin istration School. What is it trying to do, what is it doing, and how is it affecting the University? The administrators of the Uni versity Business School are, for the most part, honest, aware men who realize the necessity for a broad education, but despite their efforts to accomplish this end the school still clings to the ancient purpose of all business schools, training the student in the tools of business, the functions of business, and the place of business in its so ciety. A few of the endeavors of study the student must pursue bear this out: accounting, statistics, eco nomics, production, personnel, and marketing. This is a narrow cur riculum, and it is begun early in the student's career. Before he en ters the school a number of pre requisites are required: two in economics, two in business, and he is encouraged to take courses in other related fields. Once he en ters the school, his schedule is devised in such away that he is able to take, on the average, one elective course per semester and four in his department. Other school require as few as six courses in two years in the department and make great efforts to encourage the student to investigate other fields. (To Be Continued) Letters On Many And Varied Subjects AsL Adv, HajngCL LEE A&BOGAST Kditor: I have of late become an ardent reader of the Tar Heel's second page; and I particularly look for ward each morning to some piece or another written by thooe three whom I believe to be your colum nists of considerable interest: Mr. Wolff, Mr. Lessing, and Mr. Rail ey. Mr. Wolff's big words and big ideas often amuse me; Mr. Less ing's peculiar attitudes always con fuse me; and Mr. Bailey, whose relative jnfrequency is regrettable, nearly always pleases me. All, I think, help keep your paper alive, even if in a somewhat puny con dition. But, while Mr. Wolfe at tracts more attention and receives more space than is due him a tremendous review of "Oklahoma" just to mention all the play's weuk points), and Mr. Lessing has a lot of funny ideas about music (the harpsichord is out of date!), and Mr. Bailey surely over - writes (". . . aye, laddies . . ." ". . . go ye to the movies . . . "), still the latter's comments are usually per tinent and, it seems to me. intelli gent. However, Thursday's article "On the Movies" (another unique title), by Mr. Bailey, was a gross disap pointment. Now while most of the "intellectual" folk on campus would judge the cinema a negligi ble topic for discussion, a few, I hope, would agree with Mr. Bailey and me that movi 's, often criti cized as they are. still need a little talking about now and then. When one considers how much time the student body of UNC spends col lectively in movie houses each se mester, he would have to agree that movies deserve some sort of attention outside of the theaters themselves. But Mr. Bailey has said about the same stuff that's been said before; a lot of it is very wrong. I have a few points to make: (1) the movies are not a pretense to Theatre; they are a form in them selves, and a very good one; 2) movies have a beautiful potential which could very well be realized in the "revolting future," to quote Mr. Bailey's pessimistic phrase; '3) movies can be an art form commercialism does not deny this: Van Gogh's bring in thousands; (4) there are good movies, something more than a dozen a year. The trouble is, of course, that there are a lot of awful films, many morn around than good ones. How ever, Mr. Bailey, I think, has, for the most part, chosen the wrong ones to see. Anyone who has seen "The Best Years of Our Lives" or "A Double Life" or "All the King's Men" or "All About Eve" or "Gate of Hell" or "Les Enfants du Para dis" or "Lust for Life" or "Around the World in 80 Days" (a delight that could only be got on film) or "Twelve Angry Mea" or "Paths of Glory" I wish I could go on would have to admit something in the cinema's favor. Far too many people every week choose the "wrong" film to see. Maybe a discriminating choice would change a lot of skeptical minds and would turn a lot of leisure into more than that. I think a frequent movie review in the Daily Tar Heel might help people like Mr. Bailey to see that there are some excellent films around provided your reviewer felt pretty much the way I do. At any rate, television is not all-powerful yet, so .it might be wise to make the most of cinema while it's here. Sometimes it can be fun. And that's the truth. J. T. llargott Editor: Perhaps the editor mussed the report of the speech by Dr. A. Whitney Gr is wold in the N. Y. Times, February 24th. It i worth noting. Dr. Griswold, President of Yale University, said that indiscrim inate athletic scholarships, which aim at entertaining America, are helping to undermine American education. They have deprived ouj highcr education of a sense of pur pose and, I might add, dignity. It is hard for a teacher to rctan a sense of social worth on the I Sat urday of a home game when haTf the 10 a.m. class is absent or, for that matter, on the-morning; after Germans. Vocation courses, ac cording to Griswold, have further confused the purpose of higher education. America does not lack the edu cational . skills needed to correct the present, deteriorated system of higher learning. We here in Chapel Hill could conceivably do something about it. But skills are not enough. First it is necessary to seriously consider altering our values and definition of a univer sity. In my opinion a reexamination of values followed by a rcdedica tion of the univerity is as impor tant, if not more so, than winning more money from donors or legis lators. . JOHN J. HONIGMANN To: Bill Bailey I have always; been an ardent ad mirer of -yours even since your recent plunge into the literary field. I must say that you seem quite sincere and quite determined, each time yours literary genius gets the best of you,' to cram your foot further down your throat. I just hope that one day you don't choke on it. I am also amazed at your ex tensive vocabulary. Such words as "teat" and "bowels" lead me to think that these are outward signs of your intellect and inward per sonality. May I ask you one simple and honest question concerning your recent article entitled, "A Univers ity Community" which is the latest product of your anatomically and biologically oriented mind. In this article you describe this machine that we as students are the by product of. Are you honestly try ing to become a big wheel in this immense machine, when you are and always will be an an infinite ly small cog? From: Bill Bailey "Whal No Calls From The Supreme Court Me To Serve As Counsel?" Asking rlO EH j Dear Miss Lewis and Miss Wells: Your letter concerning the ad vertising in The Daily Tar Heel was very interesting, but I'm afraid you either have been misinformed or do not understand the situation. First, Air. Gans is not responsible for the advertising. Neither is he responsible for either the inclus ion of or the ommission of the comics and the crossword puzzle. This is the responsibility of the Advertising and Business Depart ments. Second, The Daily Tar Heel is a student publication, staffed by students, and partially paid for by the students. Please notice I said partially. Printing a newspaper is an expensive operation. The only way The Daily Tar Heel can be printed six days a week, with a few six and eight page papers thrown in, is to add to the money from student subscriptions. This money comes from advertising. I would be more than happy to in clude the comics and crossword puzzle every day if you are will ing to compensate the Daily Tar Heel for the eliminated advertising. LEE ARBOGAST Assistant Advertising Mgr. Editor: Our Tar Heel cagcrs have finish ed regular season play with a com mendable 12-2 won-lost record. As a basketball fan and Carolina sup porter, I join other students in the hope that the Tar Heels will emerge as victors in the ACC tournament in Raleigh this week. As much as I would like to see our team triumph in the tourna ment, I would much rather see our team play cleanly and fairly on the court. It is obvious to anyone who has seen Carolina play in several games this season that the players' conduct on the court has been far from commendable on several occasions. Several Tar Heel players have deliberately, fouled their opponents, with Larcse and Salz being the chief offenders. The conduct of student spectators in at least two games has been disgrace ful and even contemptible. Such conduct cannot be condoned under any circumstances if we place any value at all upon good sportsman ship, a quality which is woefully deficient in most UNC students. I like to support a winning team as much as anyone else, but if a team has to resort to unsportsman like conduct to win, then I say "To heck with the conference champion ship." Good basketball and clean basketball can go together. Let's hope thi do in the games to be played I week. iL STEWART Views & Previews Anthony Wolff Several more-or-less apt subtitles suggest them selves for the recent Playmakers production of Moliere's "The Would-Be Gentleman": among them is "Playmakers With a Sledgehammer Versus Mo liere With a Feather"; or, perhaps, as one local playgoer would have it, simply "The Would-Bc Mo liere." In defense of the Playmakers' rather heavy-handed production, all due attention should be paid to the difficulties inherent in the play itself. The obvious but all-important note is that the play is translated from 17th Century French to 20th Cen tury English, and the transition of humor is an al most impossible business. Director Russel Graves' translation has a great deal more bounce ami hu mor than most English versions. Also, the play itself is an unvveildy thing. While there is nothing wrong with violation of the unities and other experimental exercises, Mr. Moliere was doing his directors no favor when he wrote, this one. He gets well into the second act before he even introduces the minor coflict which the play even tually resolves, and he neglects to resolve the ri diculous situation of the hero. This means that the play is mostly a succession of simple gags up to the point where the lovers' problems become the central issue, thus making the first act stand almost alone, if it can; and most disconcerting of all the would-be gentleman is left at the end with all his pretensions intact. This is hardly an example of dramatic construction at its best, arid it presents serious difficulties for any director. These difficulties were considerably compounded in the Playmaker production by the director's stated intention to "teach"' the audience. If the Play makers Theatre was supposedly transformed into a classroom, then one can only conclude that "the teacher was mightily confused and disorganized and that the bell rang before the lecture was over. But the important question in regard to Director Graves' approach to this play, as it was announced in his prologue, involved the relationship between art and pedagogy. There is a point of view which holds that one difference between art and academ ics is that art is non-didactic in its educational as pect. Obviously, Mr. Graves, at least for the purpos es of this production, was not of this opinion. By his prologue, which stated that the production to follow was not intended to create any cheap the atrical illusions, as well as by his use of various devices to make the audience keep its intellectual distance, Mr. Graves showed himself to be on the side of those who hold that drama is a histrionic classroom type of thing, equipped with the latest in audio visual aids and devices.. The devices which Mr. Graves employed, and the stated purpose which informed them, are as sociated in the modern theatre with the "Epic" drama which began in Germany around 1924 and was later taken up in this country by the Group Theatre. This "Epic" drama vas theatre-with-a -cause, devoted to social reform and the education of its audience in social problems (Soc. 52). The devices which developed in the service of such a purpose were perhaps ideal, but it is noteworthy that there was never a comedy in "Epic" style. Indeed, it is interesting to theorize that perhaps the aims of "Epic" drama to which its devices are wcQ'&M are antithetical to the comic spirit. This certainly seemed to be the case with th Playmakers' attempt to combine comedy and Epic style. The humor was most nearly successful when the production was most conventional; when it af fected "Epic" mannerisms, it was an epic bore, kept alive by the shallow novelty value of the de vices themselves. Almost without exception, the cast seemed caught between the incompatible poles of the Epic and the comic. Occasionally, one or. more members would gravitate toward one of the two poles, and the play gave promise of being one thing or the other. Thus, the first act scene between M. Jourdain and the Philosophy Master verged on the hilarious, unimpeded as it was by the heavy Epic gimmick?. As just one example of the opposite extreme, there was Bob Kctlcr's excellent rendition of Dorante's song, in which he sustained the theatrical illusion while at the same time breaking the continuity of the play. To be sure, there were other enjoyable portray als in each style. Margaret Starnes was quite succss ful as Mme Jourdain, and Craven Mackic provided one of the high points of the show in the minor role of the Apprentice Tailor but he was rather old to be an apprentice; although he looked more like a television wrestler than a fencing instructor, and he certainly had little knowledge of fencing, .Maris Ubans was a fine Fencing Master. But for the most part the cast seemed caught between the epic and the comic, and perhaps in adequate to cither. Certainly one of the major weak nesses of the production was James Potcat's failure to produce a very enjoyable interpretation of M. Jourdain. Even if one grants the difficulty of the role as Mr. Moliere has written it. It is still im possible to summon up two hours worth of amuse ment, pity, identification, or anything else, in re sponse to the demented child presented by -Mr. Po tea.t The hero is a dupe to be sure, and vain, and practically anything else we may wish to make him: bu as a candidate for an analyst's couch he loses much of his comic appeal. John Sneden's setting and Irene Smart Bains' costumes were quite sufficient; except that it seems legitimate to wonder, in the light of the startling originality of the rest, why Mr. Graves bothered with any set at all, and why, of all things, he should choose J7th century costumes for a 17th century show. At it was, Mr. Sneden's set was appropriately ambiguous, gimmicky, and patently false, and Miss Raine's costumes were in appropriately bad taste The same sort of praise goes to Joel Chadabe's incidental music and arrangements: Mr. Chadabe proved himself a master of discord and shifting rhythm, to the great amusement of all. Director Graves' songs were witty enough: with the exception of the aforementioned Mr. Ketler, the cast failed to put them oyer. Credit is also due Mr. Graves for his staging of the production, and most particularly for the scene in which the four lovers execute an adaptation of Coach McGuire's famouse "weave." Finally, Mr. Graves deserves credit for doing something differ ent, if the difference seemed more for its own. sake than for the sake of the play. The spirit in which this play was presented goes far to redeem its faults. ... .
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 3, 1959, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75