Seel
Zn s seventieth year of editorial freedom, unhampered by
restrictions from either the University administration or the- stu
dent body.
All editorials appearing in the DAILY TAR- HEEL ar& the
indivdual opinions of the Editors, unless otherwise credited; they
do not necessarily represent the opinions of the staff. The edi
tors are responsible for all material printed in the DAILY TAR
HEEL.
October 25, 1962
Tel. 942-2356
Vol. XLX, No. 30
Cuban Blockade:
Campus Discussion And 1-A
To the student who is 1-A with
his draft board, to the student
whose parents live in Washington,
to the student who has a Navy
friend in the Carribbean . . . the
Cuban blockade crisis strikes him
personally.
The crisis also leads to very per
sonal reactions. The first "quaran
tine" announcement generally caus
ed a dulled feeling of confusion
what does this REALLY mean? Is
is just another move in the Cold
war propaganda battle or is this
something different? How will Rus
sia react will Soviet ships try
to go through?
The headlines Tuesday morning
reinforced an uneasy feeling that
this was different, that this was
playing for keeps, and a resultant
attitude that the President must
be supported "in this time of crisis."
The desire for national unity went
to an unfortunate extreme when
UNC students harshly criticized
several student government officials
for not whole-heartedly endorsing
the blockade of Cuba; and when
students criticized the Carolina For
um for holding a discussion tonight
on Cuba, on the basis that no dis
cussion should be allowed "in this
time of crisis."
The uneasy feeling has remain
ed, despite the casual comments
heard everywhere that the Soviets
will "back down" perhaps this is
heard so often because we cannot
conceive of what would happen if
Russia didn't "back down."
Yesterday afternoon the crisis
became more acute: Russian ships
heading for Cuba, U. S. troops sent
to Florida, propaganda statements
on both sides, frantic discussion in
the United Nations. . . . The feared
incident, when a Russian ship going
to Cuba is stopped by an American
ship has not happened yet (as of
7 p.m. Wednesday).
As the Security Council argues
the issues, as means of compromise
are attempted, as th OAS coordi
nates its proposed action against
Cuba . . . there are still questions
to be asked of himself by every
American.
Is a naval quarantine legal in in
ternational waters and is it the
best way to deal with the Cuban
situation?
How far wTill the Latin American
nations follow the U. S. lead, and
what will happen if and when they
refuse to go along with Uncle Sam?
Can the United States morally de
fend their possession of bases ring
ing the Soviet Union, and simul
taneously (as Ambassador Steven
son attempted with little success)
argue that Cuba has no right to set
up missile bases? .
And how far are the American
people really prepared to go to crush
Communism in Cuba?
These are questions which, it
seems, should be discussed and an
swered, even in this tense and dan
gerous time. There is no time short
of outright war when discussion
is out of place in a democratic coun
try. The President has acted strongly
to curb a menace the menace
of Communist missile bases in Cu
ba. We think he has acted correct
ly we fervantly hope so.
We hope United States action al
ways will allow the Soviets some
"out" so they can retreat from
a dangerous position and yet save
face.
We hope the president will con
tinue in his resolve to keep the
hemispheric peace, together with
the Latin American nations al
ways remaining open to negotia
tions on those issues which are ne
gotiable, within or without the
United Nations.
And we hope the American peo
ple will never fear to dissent, to
question their government at all
times, in hopes of retaining peace
in the Americas and the world. (JC)
"Aren't We Supposed To Be Running
Against Democrats?"
Letter
' t - J - U.U
Future Alumni
The erection of new buildings on
any campus is, indeed, a good sign.
It is a sign of progress, progress in
numbers, and, hopefully, progress
in the educational enterprise.
With the swelling enrollments,
construction of more class-room'
buildings is an absolute necessity
JIM CLOTFELTER
CHUCK WRYE
Editors
EDI Hobbs Associate Editor
Wayne King Harry Lloyd
Managing Editors
Bill Waumett News Editor
Ed Dupree Sports Editor
Carry Kirkpairick Asst. Spts. Ed.
Chris Farran Matt Weisman
Feature Editors
Harry DeLnng N'ght Editor
Jim Wallace Photography Editor
Mike Robinson Gary Blanchard
Contributing Editors
DAVE MORGAN
Easiness Manager
Gary Dalton Advertising Mgr.
John Evans Circulation Mgr.
Dave Wysong Subscription Mgr.
Txa Daily Tab Em la published dally
xcept Monday, examination period
and vacations. It is entered as second
class matter In the post oSlce in Chapel
Hill. N. C pursuant with the act of
March 6. 1870. Subscription rates i M-SO
per semester, $3 per year.
Ths Daily Tab Hzk. Is a subscriber to
the United Press International and
utilizes the services of the News Bu
reau of the University of North Caro
lina. Published by the Publications Board
9t the University of North Carolina,
Cnapel Hill. N. C
if the University is going to do its
share in the higher education of
the state. Thus, the continuing con
struction of buildings on this camp
us, an event too often merely taken
for granted by students, should be
cause for some immediate, if not
lengthy, reflection on the part of
everyone now attending classes in
these buildings.
There are numerous old saws
about contributing alumni, but this
continues to be if not absolutely
necessary then at least an essential
means to furthering the hopes and
aspirations of present and future
students. Trite as it may seem, we
too often as undergraduates over
look the fact that progress requires
backing, not the least of which is
financial backing or more col
loquially put money.
The University continues to
gratefully receive gifts from the
Kenans and the Moreheads, but this,
alone is not enough; the burden of
backing continual advancement in
all areas of University undertakings
should willingly be borne upon the
shoulders of all who have been for
tunate enough to receive education
at UNC.
And it is now now as under
graduate students benefiting from
the gifts of others that we should
pause, look around and understand
why we should do "our part" after
graduation. (CW)
Steno To Council
'Wait A Mi nu
To the Editors:
(Note all honor council members:)
To quote a recent Daily Tar Heel
editorial, "come on fellows, let's be
serious." I read that you boys are
going to spend $400.00 to buy a steno
machine to record future trials.
"This machine is operated by a
clerk who speaks into a steno-mask.
He identifies each speaker and re
peats the exact words by persons
at the trial." (See yesterday's Tar
Heel for further information.) Pic
ture this scene at the next honor
council trial where this $400.00 won
der is being used for the first time.
Presiding Officer: I guess we're
ready to begin. Are you ready with
that machine?
case is the University versus John
Stimson Koznosky. He is charged
with entering a girls dorm after
hours. How do you plead Koznosky?
Kosnosky: Not guilty! I was in
that dorm during visiting hours. I
just got lost and couldn't find my
way out.
P.O.: We'll have to clear hat up
later. Our first witness is
Steno.: Wait a minute, wait a
minute!
P.O.: What's the matter?
Steno.: What did Koznosky say?
P.O.: He pleaded not guilty.
Steno.: (Into the mask) "He
pleaded not guilty."
P.O.: Our first witness is Adolph
Gruber, Koznosky 's roommate. Will
you tell the council what Koznosky
was doing the last time you saw
him on the evening in question.
Gruber: Well, he was walking . . .
Steno.: Just another damn minute!
Don't go so fast. I can't talk in
shorthand.
Thus I reach the point of the
drama. Court reporters are paid
good salaries to use this machine and
keep records. Are you going to get
a trained person to use the machine
or will it be somebody who may
forget to plug it in? I would sug
gest buying a good $200.00 tape re
corder and have a reporter jot down
the names of the speakers. It would
be no trouble to add the names to
any transcript of the trial, which I
presume, is typed up after the trial.
A home recorder would give you
four hours of recording time if you
used both sides of the tape. The
$200.00 saved could be turned over
to the Daily Tar Heel travel fund
which I'm sure is somewhat de
pleted. Or perhaps given to another
worthy organization such as the Red
Cross Cancer Research or even the
Campus Chest. I would hate to see
you boys waste $200.00 of the stu
dents money on a project which may
or may not prove successful.
Charles Ericson
C.'s Board Of Higher Education
A
tormy History And A Few Gains
(Eds' Note: This is the second
installment of an article on high
er education in North Carolina.
The first article dealt with the
formation of ithe Board of High
er Education) -
By CHESTER DAVIS
In The Wins ton-Salem Journal
and Sentinel
SETTING THE BATTLE STAGE
This set the stage for the specific-
clashes that were to follow.
For example:
Late in 1957 State College re
quested permission to build 500
housing units for married stu
dents, The board cut this request
to 300. This triggered an outcry.
Officials of the Greater Univers
ity complained that while the
board conceivably has an obliga
tion to decide the policy ques
tion of whether a state-supported
institution should provide hous
ing for married students the
board had no business deciding
how many such units were re
quired. That decision, men like
Bill Friday contended, properly
belonged to the trustees of the
Greater University.
Some time later Eastern Caro
lina College proposed to establish
a four-year nursing school. The
board vetoed this request, point
ing out that the state aready had
one such school and that it was
connected with a four-year med
ical school. Again there were
cries of "excessive interfer
ence," Eastern Carolina went
over the head of the board, tak
ing its case to the General As
sembly. The college, as political
ly potent as it is ambitious, won
in this showroom. Thereafter,
any time either, ECC or the
Greater University had a dis
pute with the board they had on
ly to appeal their case to the
legislature to win more than the
board had originally agreed to
give them. The university, for
example, obtained a boost in
faculty salary scales in this
fashion.
When, late in 1957; the board
sought to send surveying teams
onto the campuses of the Greater
University to obtain information
on physical facilities and the use
of those facilities, the university
refused them admission. Object
ing to the competence of the
people doing the survey and say
ing that the presence of outside
investigators would create prob
lems, the university said it would
gather the desired information it
self and give it to the board.
This it did.
Throughout disputes like these
you heard the same repeated
theme: That the board was so
engaged in regulating details that
it was not filling its function of
creating a system of higher edu
cation in North Carolina, "Exces
sive interference" with internal
problems became a sore point on
the campuses of the Greater Uni
versity. President Friday and others
felt that the board created anoth
er obstacle between the univer
sity and the General Assembly.
In January, 1958, William Ay
cock, chancellor, of the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
said:
"The executive head of this
institution is, in the middle. He
is the narrow neck in an adminis
trative hour-glass. One bulb con
sists of internal administration
and the other bulb is superstruc
ture. For the past few years the
sands of administrative authority
have been flowing from the in
ternal bulb into the bulb of the
superstructure."
One month later W. C. Harris
Jr. of Wake County, reflecting a
common feeling among members
of the university's 100 member
board of trustees, said, "The
university is slipping away from
us . . . We have reached the
point where we either don't need
our board of trustees or we don't
need the Board of Higher Educa
tion." ABOLITION IS ADVOCATED
The faculty of the Greater Uni- .
versity shared this view. In
February, 1958, a petition asking
for the abolition of the Board of
Higher Education was circulated
on the Woman's College campus.
In May of that-year a university
committee, headed by Henry
Brandis, dean: of the Law School
at Chapel Hill, issued a state
ment criticizing the board for its
interference in university affairs.
Such interference, the committee
said, "is direct and ultimately
can be devastating."
By this point two facts were
clear: first, that the presidents of
the larger state-supported schools
felt that the board was abusing
is regulatory functions and ignor
ing its function as an advisor and
as an advocate and, second, that
this fundamental clash was ag
gravated by the personality of Dr.
James Harris Purks, the execu
tive director of the Board of
Higher Education.
Dr. Purks, who has since retir
ed and has been replaced by Dr.
William Archie, was an educator
in the classic arts and sciences
sense. He took a dim view of us
ing the state's colleges and uni
versity as places for vocational
type training. In advocating this
iew he sailed on a collision course
with men like Dr. John Messick
and later Dr. Leo Jenkins of
East Carolina College. To these
men Purks was just one more
"aca-damn-ician."
Moreover, Harris Purks was
unskilled in the art of political
diplomacy. Brilliant and know
ledgeable, he lacked the ability
to sell himself and his program
to the institutions, to the legis
lators or to the people. To ag
gravate matters, he possessed a
somewhat brusque talent for
bruising what, perhaps, were too
easily "offended sensibilities.
By 1958 the uproar had reach
ed a point where Governor Luth
er Hodges felt compelled to in
tervene. He asked a committee
of University of North Carolina
trustees, headed by Tom Pearsall
of Rocky Mount, to sit dowTi with
the Board of Higher Education
and "work out the differences."
The .upshot of these sessions
was less of a compromise than
it was a case of trirnrning the
wings of the board. The trustees
felt that the board was over
emphasizing its regulatory func
tions and that, to correct his,
those functions should be clipped.
The clipping was done by the
1959 General Assembly. That
term of the legislatiure:
Re-wrote the budgetary authori
ty of the board with the intent of
making this function more ad
visory and less regulatory.
Limited the board's authority
to "prescribe uniform practices
and policies" to one of prescrib
ing "uniform statistical reporting
practices and policies."
Specially gave the individual in
stitutions the right of appeal to
the General Assembly in cases
where the board sought to make
an institution dscontinue an ex
isting function or activity.
By new wording added to the
law, insisted that the board meet
its objectives through "the co
operation of all the institutions of
higher education . . . each operat
ing under the direction of its own
board of trustees in performance
of the functions assigned to it."
This wing clipping and it was
designed to be precisely that
closed out the first act in the
story of North Carolina's Board
of Higher Education. It did not,
however at least not in the
minds of men like Leo Jenkins
and Bill Friday settle the funda
mental question.
If it was the intention of the
1959 General Assembly to strip
the board of its regulatory func
tions and, according to men like
Senator John Jordan of Wake
County, this was the intention
the actual changes made in the
law did not do the job.
For example, the 1955 act con
tained these words: "The board
shall make for the development
of a system of higher education
and shall have the power to re
quire such institutions to con
form to such plans."
Those words were dropped
from the 1959 act. But they were
replaced by words almost as
authoritative. They were, "All
institutions included in the State
System of Higher Education shall
conform to the educational func
tions and activities assigned to
them respectively:"
In short, the 1959 amendments
did not settle the question of
whether the Board of Higher
education was to be a regulatory
advisor agency or whether, in
stead,, it was to be essentially an
advisory advocate with a mini
mum of regulatory authority.
The first five years of existence
for North Carolina's State Board
of Higher Education were
stormy.
This agency, created in 1955
to plan and promote the develop
ment of a system of higher edu
cation in North Carolina at a
time of enormous expansion, was
intended to bring order in what,
prior to 1955, was a disorderly
situation; a situation marked by
competition among the state-supported
institutions, by duplica
tions in the programs in those
institutions and by a marked lack
of any overall planning to meet
the crisis a crisis born of the
postwar "baby -boom" then
sweeping down on the state's col
leges and university with the
force and inevitability of a tidal
wave.
By 1961 two facts were clear:
First, the Board of Higher Edu
cation, despite mounting friction
and despite a wing-clipping ad
ministered by the 1959 Legisla
ture, had accomplishments. These
accomplishments included:
A Community College Act,
passed by the 1957 General As
sembly, under which five two
year colleges have been estab
lished.
A series of laws under which
nine of the 12 state-supported
senior colleges were assigned
specific functions. This put a
curb on the somewhat exuberant
ambitions of institutions like East
Carolina College.
Undertook a long-range program
designed to beef up the state
supported schools (both by ex
pansion and by more efficient use
of existing facilities) so that they
would be better prepared to meet
the fast-rising wave of scholars
headed their way.
One part of this expansion was
a recommended $90 million capi
tal construction program. A part
of this program was achieved in
1959. A second part, turned down
by the public in 1961, remains to
be realized.
Between 1955 and 1961, the
board successfully increased sal
ary scales in the state's colleges
and universities, improved the
libraries in those schools, estab
lished a state-financed scholarship
program experimented in new
teaching techniques (closed cir
cuit television, for example) and
all in all, contributed to the bet
terment of higher education in
North Carolina.
ACHIEVEMENTS INADEQUATE
But and this is the second
point these accomplishments,
and they should not be minimized,
did not add up to a system of
higher education that was any
thing like capable of meeting the
crisis in the colleges that had
become a reality by 1961.
The state continued to do a
poor job of preparing its young
sters for college level work:
Less than half the children who
entered North Carolina's public
schools in 1949 graduated from
high school in 1961.
In 1961 only 37 per cent of the
state's high school graduates con
tinued on to college.
As a result, in 1961 less than
27 per cent of this state's college
age children actually were in
college. The national average
then was 42 per cent.
But even with this sorry record
of preparation for college, North
Carolina's colleges and universi
ties were being inundated by a
flood of youngsters seeking an
advanced education. In 1961 the
number of youngsters entering
college in North Carolina in
creased by 18,000. We can expect
the same sort of an increase for
each of the next five to seven
years. The blunt fact is thst our
state-supported schools the
schools that must assume the
greatest part of the burden of
this rising wave of students
are not equipped to meer. the
challenge.
TnE COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Members of the Board of High
er Education were awrare that
this was the situation. They rec
ognized, for example, that much
remained to be done in the way
of establishing two- year com
munity colleges and, in some in
stances, of advancing existing
community colleges to four-year,
senior college status.
Major L. P. McLendon, chair
man of the Board of Higher Edu
cation, went to Gov. Terry San
ford midway in 1961 to suggest
that the governor appoint a citi
zens commission to study the
community college question.
Other people and the group
included Dr. William Friday,
president of the Greater Univer
sity of North Carolina were in
clined to place the blame for
conditions in higher education in
North Carolina directly on the
doorstep of the Board of Higher
Education. "After all," they said,
"the board was created in 1955
to solve a problem. In 1961 the
problem not only remains unsolv
ed but it i more critical now
than it ever has been."
Friday and others urged the
governor to appoint a commis
sion to study the entire question
of higher education in North
Carolina and to recommend ways
and means for meeting tne chal
lenge born of the postwar "baby
boom." In essence this was the
same general assignment given
the Board of Higher Education
in 1955.
In September, 1961, Terry San
ford appointed a 25-member Gov
ernor's Commission On Educa
tion Beyond the High School. Ir
ving Carlyle, Winston-Salem at
torney, was named chairman of
the new commission. The com
mission's assignment was "tn
identify and define the state's
needs in higher education .
and to recommend the most effi
cient plans and methods for meet
ing those needs."
One of the jobs perhaps, in
the long run, the central job was
to define the place of the Board
of Higher Education, if any, in
the state's educational program.
RADICAL CHANGES FAVORED
A number of influential mem
bers on the Carlyle Commission
Dr. William Friday, Dr. Leo
Jenkins, president of East Caro
lina College, and John Jordan,
senator from Wake County ap
parently favored radical changes
in the entire operation of the
Board of Higher Education from
the outset. Their position was
given a substantial boost by Dr.
Harland Hatcher, president of
the University of Michigan.
Dr. Hatcher visited Chapel Hill
in January, 1962, and spoke to the
members of the Carlyle Commis
sion. In his talk he warmly prais
ed Michigan's Advisory Council
of (College) Presidents. This
council entirely advisory and
made up of professional educa
tors rather than laymen had done
much, according to Dr. Hatcher,
to coordinate higher education in
Michigan. C It might be noted thst
not all Michigan educators are
equally enthused over the ac
complishments of the council.
Some among them say this ad
visory council of professional
educators has done little but add
to the taxpayer's burden and di
lute the standards of excellence
in Michigan's university system.)
Listening to Dr. Hatcher pome
members of the Carlyle Commis
sion began to nod their hea l-,
and say to themselves, "This is
precisely the sort of an approach
we should have here in North
Carolina."
Within a month two subcom
mittees of the Carlyle Commis
sion came up with a proposal.
Stated as kindly as possible, it
was a proposal to gut the Board
of Higher Education.
(To Be Continued)