Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / March 6, 1962, 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
I attp tta Seel In its sixty-ninth year of editorial freedom, unhampered by restrictions from either the administration or the student body. The Daily Tar Heel is the official student publication of i the Publications Board of the University of North Carolina. All editorials appearing in The Daily Tar Heel are the personal expressions of the editor, unless otherwise credited; they ure not necessarily representative of feeling on the staff. March 1962 Tel. 942-2356 Vol. LXIX, No. 107 Even From Bucltley We Expected More The National Review, last week quite by coincidence carried a "re view of author-politician Gore Vid al's latest Broadway show, "Romu lus." Also by coincidence, Vidal hap p e n e d to be the gentleman who loosed some rather pointed com ments about William F. Buckley, Jr., on the Jack Paar show recently. Buckley, by coincidence, edits the National Review. Strange as it may seem from all this, "Romulus," by coincidence, was panned by the re viewer. Beyond all this coincidence, there is the question of the review itself. Roughly half of it was devoted to the play; the remaining half was dedicated to the vilest sort of smear of Vidal himself. Pointing out that "the author of the play is far more interesting than 'Romulus'," the re viewer, Noel Parmentel, Jr., lets loose with a snickering, back-room-smut attack on Vidal that would better grace the pages of Confident ial than anything faintly resemb ling a respectable publication. Relying for the most part on not-so-veiled innuendo, reviewer Par- mental goes right to the ftririk of libel in an attempt to undercut Vid al. Some of the less vicious com ments : "Gore Vidal's concern with ('ef feminate') theater would seem to follow from some of the things he has concerned himself with in the past." "During his early career as a "serious" novelist, he evinced an in t e r e s t in homosexuality equalled only by that of . . . the editors of "One." Many of his novels and stor ies are clinical, apparently informed commentaries on the problem." Other comments by the "review er" are considerably more pointed, and couched in much more colorful to say the least language. This sort of vicious back-biting and smearing is not even worthy of the . National Review which is saying quite a lot. The attack is vicious, vulgar and thoroughly in bad taste. We expected more than this, even from Buckley. A Unique Opportunity - Russian Visit The visit of twelve Russian grad uate students to the University the latter part of this month represents a unique opportunity for us to ob- serve close-up what the experts call the cardinal danger of communism: The religious dedication which moti vates its adherents and orders their thinking. Only the irrational can even hope that our guests will not be superbly trained highly-intelligent young Party men who are ultra-trustworthy devotees of Russian Commun ism, determinted to do their part in eventually "burying" capitalism. It does not make the crudest kind of sense for us to believe otherwise. After all, if we were sending a group of American students to Rus sia on a trip such as this, we would send none but the .best. It is absurd to think that the communists have I M m m I PA U EDITORIAL STAFF Wayne King Editor Harry Lloyd, Harve Harris- Managing Editors Lloyd Little Executive News Editor Jim Clotfeltxr, Bill Wuamett News Editors Jim Wallace Photography Editor Chvck Mooney. Feature Editor Ed Dupree. Sports Editor Cgtkry Kikkfatrick Asst. Sports Editor Garry Blaiichard Contributing Editor BUSINESS STAFF Ttm Burnett Business Manager Mike Mathers , Advertising Manager Jim EvAN3..Subscription Manager Jim Eskridce-. KireuuLiion manager j Tot Daot Tas Em la published dailv 3tceDt Monday, examination periods Hd vacations. It ts entered as Becond- j class matter la toe post office la Chapel tr-n tj C pursuant wlta the act or March 8, 1870. Subscription rates ttU B semester. $a pe year. m P Tm D Tah ia a subscriber to f: United Press International sad m fn VhW services of the News Bu- rSoi fee University of North Caro- J 0f tbeUniversity of fcorth Carolina. m II I 1 not done likewise. And facing up to the facts of the students' visit, as those facts ap pear from here, is not to condemn the students. It is simply to be real istic. If anyone is to be condemned, it must be the Russian leaders who have forged a system that turns people into semi-automatons a s many persons expect our guests will be. It seems the most we can try to do, where the students are concern ed, is ventilate their stereotyped notions of us by receiving them warmly, according them the hos pitality for which Americans Southerners in particular are justly famous, not going out of our way to try to convert them to our way of thinking, and getting all the insight we can into what makes them tick. We are almost certain to be frus trated in our attempts to befriend the students, it seems to me, and in our attempts to compare with them the relative advantages of our re spective ways-of-life. One of the sterile beauties of communism ia that its leaders have perfected the art of rationalization, and the stu dents undoubtedly are well-vacci-nated against any and all ideas that do not coincide with their carefully molded beliefs. There is another factor, too. Per haps some of the students will wish to do more than see only what they wish to see. But it does not seem unreasonable to think that perhaps cne of each student's tasks i3 to keep an eye on his fellows and re port on their conduct. In essence, then, we should not expect the students to be overly friendly or especially reasonable. But we should expect to learn from them that which we are told we have most to fear from communism. ' GARRY BLANCHARD M 1 ion buiroreme (bourn a The last judicial prop under the of conflicting local laws was swept said sharply it had "settled beyond effort of Southern states to evade or away by the Supreme Court in its question that no state" can "re delay racial desegregation of public unanimous, peremptory (per curi- quire" this discrimination. And it transportation facilities by means am) ruling of Feb. 26. The Court cited three direct and eight corollary "Wait A Minute That's Not What I Had In Mind IF jr- decisions as proof that "settlement" was made by due process of law. In logical and factual sequence the Supreme Court then instructed a Federal district judge in Mississippi no longer to delay trying the cases of Freedom Riders, who have been jailed for insisting on their right to desegregated transportation, un til state tribunals have passed on the constitutionality of the local laws in conflict. This delay was ordered by a three-judge Federal court, in con sonance with a procedural principle which the Supreme Court itself had sanctioned. But, said the Justices on Feb. 26, this principle could not be applied when its "prior decisions" have, as in this instance, made 'fri volous any claim that a (state) statute is not unconstitutional on its face." And the Supreme Court rul ing strongly implied a notice to the Federal trial judge that jail sentenc es for insisting o n desegregated transport facilities are invalid when this insistence is made peacefully. The per curiam ruling, moreover, completed the funeral services and interment of the constitutional doc trine the Supreme Court proclaimed in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and maintained until 1954. This doctrine, applied in that case also to trans portation, was that if public facili ties are "equal" they constitutionally may be "separate." But, though the Supreme Court in 1954 reversed Plessy in general while reversing its principle as applied to public pri mary and high schools, state school laws have since been upheld whose incidental effect may be racial seg regation. The key statute is the Alabama Pupil Placement Law. It establish es certain criteria health, moral environment, effects on public order, etc. on which local boards may grant or deny the requests of pupils for admission to or transfer from a public school. The Supreme Court found this "not unconstitutional on its face" no statutory device to perpetuate total school segregation but unconstitutional in operation when an enduring and deliberate pattern or single example of racial bias can be established as the rea son for denial of admission or trans fer. The asserted authority of the Su preme Court to ban legalized racial segregation has thus expanded since the 1954 decision. But, though this extension has indeed prevailed, it has not changed the view of many respected lawyers that neither the Federal Constitution nor any United States statute authorized the Su preme Court's 1954 ban on racial separation in the public schools on which its subsequent desegregation rulings is other areas are based. However, once the' Court has as sumed the function of malcing new public policy without specific con stitutional or statutory faunchtion, as it did with respect to segregation in ISSt, the policy can be nullified only by non-enforcement on the part of the Executive, or by acts ci Con gress to the contrary. Rarely has a President declined to provide this enforcement. And nullification, by Congress is effectively restated be cause ever since the Supreme Court found authority to declare both Congressional acts and Executive actions unconstitutional the Ameri can people have accepted this as necessary to orderly government. These are the sources of the su premacy of the iFederal judiciary over the other two coordinate branches of the Government of the United States that has become a fact of our national life. It is cus tomary for lawyers and judges to deny this, but it operates neverthe less with the ' finality Charles E. Hughes conceded in his uniquely candid statement that "the Consti tution is what the judges say it is" at any time. That truth was clear ly revealed in the school decision of 1954. Its rationale was that racial segregation is "a denial of the equal protection of the laws (Four teenth Amendment)" because sep arated school facilities are "inher ently unequal." And this judgment was based on researches by sociolo gists from which they concluded that racial segregation "generates a feeling of inferiority" among Ne gro school children "that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." rbam Affairs epartmemfc No Need. Editor's Note: Although the pro posed new department of urban affairs has been soundly defeated and killed in the House, President Kennedy has announced that he has not abandoned plans for a lat er attempt at establishing the new department. The following reprint from the Western Political Quart ly discusses practical, non-political aspects of such a department. Not only are there strong political arguments against the creation of a department of urban affairs, but there is a strong case against it on grounds of administrative sound ness. Creation of a department has come to be regarded as a panacea for all administrative ills. Yet a study of the service departments over the years, and of the Depart ment of Defense in particular, since its creation in 1947, produces con siderable evidence that department alization is not a guaranteed cure for administrative difficulties. Es tablishment of a department, indeed, may only delay the cure or force it to take place in different surround ings. Back of the proposal is the idea that a simple organizational change will provide the answer for urban and metropolitan problems. This is a false belief. The mere cre ation of a new administrative unit is not the answer to a problem as com plex as that presenter by the pheno menon of metropolitanization. Cre ation of a department would beg the most important question of all, what is the federal government's proper role in urban, areas? The answer is not merely to assign urban affairs ta a single organizational unit. It is a matter of principle and philoso phy, not of method. To create a method without first having estab lished a philosophy to base it on is to put the proverbial cart before the horse. Coming as they do at this About Letters Tie Dally Tar Heel Invite readers ta use it for expres fiats f pinion on current topics regardless of viewpoint. Letters ranst be signed, con tain a verifiable address, and be tree el libelous material. Brevity and legibility in crease til chance of publica tion. Lengthy letters may be edited or omitted. Absolutely noire will be returned. time, when the federal government's thoughts about the basic issues in volved are still inchoate, such a proposal is clearly premature. 'Moreover, a department of urban affairs as proposed would be based on a geographical concept rather than on a functional one. To admit it would be to introduce a maverick into the administrative corral. The work of such a department, if all the programs carried on by the fed eral government affecting cities were placed under its jurisdiction, would necessarily cut across the functions of a great many existing agencies and departments. Indeed, once the Pandora's box is opened, how is it to be closed? What pro grams do not have an urban inter est, save those pertaining strictly to agriculture? If housing and related activities and civil defense are the first to be included, how can argu ments for the inclusion of a host of others be denied? Thus in the hear ings of H.R. 1864, the representative of the American Municipal Associa tion declared that in his opinion the new department "should include such items as highways and urban transit, airports and airport admin istration, public health matters . . . water and air pollution, and juvenile delinquency" in addition to housing and urban development and renew al and civil defense. What would be the effect at least on the depart ments of Commerce, Interior, and Health, Education and Welfare of the creation of a department of ur ban affairs? It would certainly con flict with their organization and on going programs, to say nothing of the complexities it would introduce into the programs of many independ ent regulatory agencies. To insert an executive department based on a geographical pattern into a system primarily organized functionally would make for more, rather than less, confusion in the administrative structure. It is argued that the new depart ment would simply parallel the ex isting Department of Agriculture and serve city dwellers in the same way that Agriculture serves the farm ers. But even if it be admitted that Agriculture is principally concerned with farmers, yet its organizational base is strictly functional. A com parable situation would be created if the new department were made simply the department of housing. This title, however, would not give it cognizance over the broad area of urban problems which sponsors of the new department desire. What would fee done with: activities like airports, highways, and water pollu tion? Is it suggested that these func tions too be divided along geographic lines and that urban highways be placed in the new department but rural highways left where they are now? Would highway matters thus be divided between two depart ments? Would the same duplication be repeated for water and air pollu tion, airport construction and main tenance, water supply, hospital con struction, and all the manifold oth er urban programs of the federal government? Indeed, with what de partment and agency of the federal establishment would a department conceived upon geographic lines not conflict? To ask the question is ta supply the answer. To create such a department would be to create an organizational misfit. Moreover, it cannot be conclusive ly demonstrated that merely be cause certain activities of the fed eral government reach a particular magnitude they should automatically be brought together under a single executive department. The Veterans' Administration would seem to be a case in point. In terms of the num ber of employees, size of budget, and amounts of money distributed, it would long ago seem to have de served elevation to departmental status. Yet it has functioned with benefit to the group it serves through the years without cabinet status. What advantages would have accrued to have converted it into an executive department? Proponents of the department of urban affairs claim that one advantage would be better representation in the admin istrative structure. The heads of HHFA and OCDM now sit with the President's cabinet when matters pertaining to them are discussed. What would be gained by giving them secretarial status? But it is argued that instead of occasional participation in the cabi net, the urban affairs secretary would be a full-time member. This argument is based on the assump tion that the cabinet is in fact a policy-forming body. Actually the President makes policy, and the cabinet may or may not be consult ed. Confusing the British system with its theory of cabinet responsi bility and the American system where it is sometimes said the cabi net members are the natural enem ies of the President is responsible for this. Under the American sys tem access to only one man-, the President, is important, because he bears the chief burden for policy making. Entree at the White House is much more important than cabi net status. Harry Hopkins, during World War II, was a good example of a man who did not have cabinet status but who was much more pow erful than any cabinet officer be cause of his entree to the President. Good entree at the White House, good working relations with Con gress, and effective group pressure produces better results in many cas es than a seat in the cabinet. Nor can it be demonstrated that the research and educational pro grams which are so urgently need ed with regard to metropolitan prob lems can be carried out best by a single department. How much re search of a general nature is worth while? In regard to mass transpor tation, for example, must not a solution be fitted to the needs of each individual metropolitan area? Indeed, is there a need for the fed eral government to conduct such research at all? Today there is a host of agencies, public and private, carrying on research on these prob lems. Finally, a department of urban affairs is unnecessary now. Atten tion to metropolitan problems is not guaranteed merely by the creation of an executive department. It can be secured as well under the existing arrangement of agencies, once they aU recognize "that our metropolitan communities provide the environ ment within which the greatest num ber of people live and the largest part of the nation's busines is car ried out." Given the need for focusing the attention of the federal government oa metropolitan area problems, cre ation of a department of urban af fairs or its equivalent is not the way to accomplish the objective. The proposa Idoes not make political sense, it is not in accord with the administrative concepts on which the rest of the executive branch is based, and functionally it would add to the difficulties of effective administration. This Is Fair Representation? The Student Legislature has once again overstepped its bounds and passed a proposal supposedly rep resenting the attitudes of the student body. The recent Test Ban Proposal passed by the legislature and then sent to President Kennedy is a de plorable travesty of justice and in fringes upon the basic rights of the student body. It is not, however, so much the results ofthis proposal as it is the means by which the results were achieved. If such an important na tional issue was upcoming, especial ly around election ":me, a poll of student opinion should have been mandatory. In this case, little ef fort, if any, was used to poll student opinion. As it stands now 18 students (even 15 members of the legislature voted it down) claim to be the mouth piece for over SjDOO students. We have been officially recorded as say ing that we are in favor of the test ban, but are we? This appears not to be the first time that the Student Legislature has decided to play the role of the supreme ruler. Past racial policies also point out the oligarchical tenr dency of this governing body. Even their arguments seem to cry out for an oligrachy' under the pretense of being a Republic. A per fect example of this was shown in the article in the Sat. March Z DTI I. The entire article was a master piece in avoiding an issue, besides being to coin a phrase from its author "pure mush." In conclusion, I believe that the entire student body should wake up, look around and see what has be come of their rights. I therefore urge everyone to sign the circulating petition reprimanding the student legislature. Overlooking an issue as vital as this will only tend to make them step farther the next time. Where it could lead to no one knows. Be sides being totally unconstitutional, they are acting in a manner detri mental to the rights of the student body. DOC FIELD
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 6, 1962, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75