North Carolina Newspapers

Wednesday, February 3, 1965 Volume 72, Number 78 72 Years of Editorial Freedoa OfiSces on the second Goor of Graham Memorial. Telephone number: Editorial, sports, news 933-1012. Business, cir culation, advertising 933-1163. Address: Box 1CS0, Chapel niH, N. C. Second class postage paid at the Post Office m Chapel HOI, N. C., SobscripMon rates; $450 per semester; $8.00 per year. A Published, daily , except Mondays, examination periods and vacations, throngbout the aca demic year by the Publications Board of the University of North Carolina. Printed by the Chapel E21 Publishing Company, Inc., 501 West Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, N. C. The Air Force. Honor And Us . . Last Of Two Parts " Yesterday we examined the recent cheating eruption at the U. S. Air Force Academy in an attempt to discover some of its possible causes, including "big-time athletics" or undue academic pressures. Concluding that the blame cannot be at tributed totally to either of these causes, we undertake today to approach from a more subtle direction by asking ourselves "Could it happen here?" The answer, unfortunately, is that it could. ' . As with the Air Force Academy, how ever, a cheating uproar here probably could not be blamed successfully on spe cific factors, be they high-powered athlet ic recruiting, academic pressures or what ever. Rather, it appears that we must look far deeper to find the real, source of such revolts against accepted morality past "honor systems," grades and stu dent pressures. We must look into the very moral heart of our society, for it is there that the answers seem to lie. There is strong evidence that what we are now witnessing at Colorado Springs, as well as upheavals seen elsewhere in recent years, is a product of some basic attitudes of the American society with its emphasis on "cutting corners." Almost daily the nation's headlines ring with terms such as "price-fixing" and "influence peddling." In New .York City, dozens of bystand ers watch a young woman die at the hands of an assailant, but take no action because they 'are unwilling to "get in volved." We would rather try to fix traffic tickets than pay them, industrialists try to squeeze put competition by fair means or foul if they can get away with it, union f eatherbedders do nothing and ex-' pect; pay for it arid our Senators take a 'hands off" attitude in an investigation into corrupt government employees. As Edward P. Morgan, ABC news com mentator, observed last week, "we have become a nation of eribbers." "We fudge on our expense accounts, our income taxes and our wives and husbands," he said. "The embarassing fact is that for most Americans, honesty is not always of necessarily the best policy." ,. . -v Like Mr. Morgan,, we are not attempt ing to. advance a blue-nosed argument to the effect that the ultimate demise of the American civilization is just around the corner. But it does seem that certain basic American attitudes are due a re- examination. - Consider, for example, the attitude taken by the parents of several now defunct Air Force cadets. They cringed at the thought that their sons might, in some casei, have been expelled not for personal cheating, but for fail- Fred Seely Hugh Stevens Co-Editor$ Mike Yopp Managing Editor Associate Editor . Business Manager Asst. Bus. Mgr. fkoio Editor Pete Wales Jack Harrington Betsy Gray Advertising Manager Asst. Ad. Mgr. - : Sport Editqr Nevm Editor Jock Lauterer Woody Sobol Jim Peddieord Larry Tareton Alan Banov Asst. Zjaniging Editor Night Editor -1.'. ' " -Sports JZep&rters Ernie McCrary Fred Thomas Pete Gammons Pet Cross, Tom Han'eyt Al Kaplan 'Art Editor . Chip Barnard Intramural Reporter ; : ; BiU Lee ing to report cheating which they had observed. "We haven't brought up our sons to be 'tattletales,' " they screamed. Then they proceeded to blast an honor system which required their sons to "snitch" on offenders. To anyone with a true concept of a college honor system, this parental dis gust is itself disgusting. Have we become so immune to the consequences of cheat ing that we can condone it in others even if we avoid it personally? If so, then the Honor Code under which Carolina students have lived and worked for years is not worth the space it con sumes in the Student Constitution, and we should consider it an obsolete monu ment to a past in which responsibility was encouraged, not frowned upon. Our honor code is identical to that of the Air Force Academy, and it requires a slightly warped sense of values to deny that it is both equitable and practical. Parents of UNC students who feel that it is somehow improper to be intolerable of cheating here should remove their sons or daughters today, for there is little to be said for public morality which sneers at "tattletales" who report dishonesty in . their midst. ,. r In summary, then, there are indeed cracks in the " system of "honor"; which governs this and similar Universities. . Some of the faults are specific and easily discernible, . such as the' constant em- t phasis on "grades" instead of learning, and the pressure of, intercollegiate athlet ics which causes the frequent acceptance, of marginal students. But if the University of North Carolina is ever rocked by a cheating , scandal, these obvious shortcomings will not bear ' the blame alone. Rather, we will have to attribute it to a degrading and em barassing shift in public attitudes which has somehow made "honor" a dishonor able trait, and revamped the dictionary so that "quick" and "easy" have become synonomous with "right." Finally, however, we might pause to ask ourselves one final question:, why hasn't it happened here? Of all the questions advanced so far, this one is by far the most difficult. Just last week, a Columbia University researcher showed that more than half of the students , in 99 American colleges admitted cheating at some time during their undergraduate days. Yet, a survey of student and administration leaders on this campus turned up only one who thought such statistics were realistic when applied to UNC. The answer may be, of course, that the students and administration leaders were wrong that Carolina students cheat just as frequently as others. Yet, anyone familiar with the student judici-. ary at - this institution probably would doubt that so much cheating could or does go undetected, t Further, the answer that Carolina stu dents have fewer opportunities to cheat holds little waten Triie, a large percent age of quizzes and exams here are "essay" in nature, a factor which dis courages cheating. But it is doubtful in deed that this fact alone could make this University the exception that it appears to be. For the moment, then, this final ques tion must go largely unanswered. Cer tainly we may congratulate ourselves on an unusually effective student judiciary and a usually understanding attitude on the part of faculty and administration members. But in the end there can be no final conclusion. We can only count ourselves fortunate, rededicate ourselves to the system, of honor which has stood us in good stead for so long and proceed in the knowledge that, as Emerson noted, "It is as impossible for a man to be cheated by anyone but himself, as for a thing to be, and not to be, at the same time." . . . .B&isketfoalL Letters To The Editors nspensioi!.- (Editor's Note: The follow ing letters . were written im mediately after the basketball game against N. C. State here January 14. The Daily Tar Heel's printing schedule pre cluded publication until to day.) Outside Help Is Needed Quickly Editors, The Tar Heel . For, ten years I have, been in Chapel Hill and followed closely the athletic teams of the Uni versity. Numerous times over the past several years I have been tempted to speak up re garding our poor showings and tonight, after the game with N.C. State, I feel compeled to speak, i It seems to me that we need to give , some serious consid eration about seeking new lead ership, expecially for our foot ball and basketball teams. Why should they be coached by men who got their job .through their' different, but both untimely cir cumstances? Isn't it time we went out and brought in some outside help? Now I know that both are "Carolina Gentlemen", but does mediocrity also have to be a criteria , for our coach es. In 1957 I thought we were ready to roll and I guess we still are, but not it seems to be steadily down hill. David R. Williams Let Freshmen Have Limelight Editors, The Tar Heel: Congratulations to the coach and his basketball team for their performance Wednesday night! Most of the people in this area missed the Indiana and Wake Forest games so they were un able to see just how badly a team can lose its poise. Not wanting to slight the hometown fans, the team very consider ately gave everyone a demon stration of just how well it can be done. For years. the words "Carolina Gentleman" have been, quite, nebulous to me. Now the meaning is clear. How much more gracious can a team pos sibly be than to let another team have a ball game so a one-loss record would continue unblem ished? For such gentility the team should receive special hon ors. : To make future home , games more exciting, maybe the ath letic department will let the freshmen play the second game so the hometown fans won't en tirely forget what the "good old days" were really like. . . The campus needs a little con troversy. There is no indication that any foment is being direct ed toward the repeal of the. gag law. However, since the team will not have a winning season, maybe they will liven up what might otherwise have been a very dull spring. William E. No vasky It Isn't Smith, It's His Team Editors, The Tar Heel: Carolina, bites the dust in bas ketball ! again,"- and the jeers mount up against Dean Smith. Just like a seesaw: if we win, the team was great, but if we lose, Coach Smith ought to be strung up by his thumbs. Any body could tell last night after the State game what Coach Smith should have done, be cause a lot of geniuses in the crowd were telling everybody. It was just as bad or maybe even worse today (A good night's sleep seems to have helped our fifth period coach es). Nobody can say that Vic Bu bas is a bad coach or that Duke has a bad team, but our coach and team beat Duke. For teams that are in the top ten, or were when we played them, Carolina is three and one. Now second ranked Indiana is the only loss. That doesn't sound like poor coaching by Dean Smith to me. Admittedly the team has not been up" to preseason pre dictions, but let's ; make anoth er supposition, that it's the team and not the coach that is. not doing its job. The team repeat edly missed open shots and and threw the ball away. The team - lost that game, not the coach. Ben Lamm I BANOV'S BLASTS if. today's student? r -. - j - s. N s - . lit " :,n, -utvr-ih 'Sr , . "i By ALAN BANOV DTH News Editor Hey, wait a minute! I thought I understood this here Ameri can Association of University Professors, but their chapter at Davidson sort of confuses me. The UNC chapter of the AAUP had convinced the Daily Tar Heel that its closed meet ings here in December were in the best interests of the Uni versity. We understood that the AAUP expected to persuade state legislators privately to abolish the Speaker Ban. The chapter's president told this reporter that the AAUP hop ed to save the legislators em barrassment by sending its re commendations t h r o u g h the chancellor, president and trus tees. If the AAUP blasted them publicly, the politicans might re taliate by cutting Chapel Hill's funds or infringing even more upon the rights of the UNC trus tees. With such pragmatic words of wisdom calming our Irish tem per, we relaxed and waited to see if the AAUP's mysterious wand would magically make the Gag Law disappear. We were still waiting to see if the Gen eral Assembly would condemn the law's evils, until Davidson surprised us. Known as the col lege with the South's best bas ketball team,1 Davidson .also is blessed with some of its best professors. The AAUP there urged the legislature to repeal the speaker Ban and successfully persuaded the college faculty to oppose the law. Although the Presbyterian college is immune to the law's restrictions, .professors there have grabbed the loose reins of the Anti-Gag Law Express. : They stated: "We feel that this law imposes unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions upon the officers of the institu tions concerned,- tends to dis courage an open and critical dis cussion of current "issues, and will, in the long run, prove to be extremely detrimental to the reputation ; and good name of North Carolina's state-supported institutions of higher learning." Davidson's professors should be highly commended for their t action. Perhaps it took courage" or perhaps it took a private, church-owned institution. We hope ' that responsible Wake Forest and ' Duke profes sors back them up. The . Bap tists and Methodists can't be shown Up by the Presbyterians. Maybe some "atheistic" UNC professors will join the fight. Editors, The Tar Heel, I would like to take this op portunity to inform all students of U.N.C. about the seriousness of an act I unconsciously com mitted and which anyone else could easily do. On Thursday, January 7, 1SS5, one other student and I were given a sentence of one semester suspension because of a violation of the Honor Code collaboration on an Econom ics take-home quiz. Neither of us realized at the time of the act the seriousness of it, n o r did we consider the fact that it was an action detrimental to the Honor Code. The real reason for my WTit ing this letter now becomes evi dent. I know that all of us have at one time or another done something that is just as bad, if not worse. I .would like to tell everyone how it has affect ed me, so everyone would think about how something like this could affect him or her. I want each of you to stop and think before you ever consider giv ing in to temptation. Of course, I had to tell my parents. And like all parents should be, they were understan ding and . wanted to be of any help they possibly could. My fa ther even took the time and ef fort to come to Chapel Hill to talk with the Dean of Students and find out the details of the crime and the consequences. Now comes the real factors in volved in the action. I was put on a semester suspension and my parents were put to the full est test of being embarrassed. I came home and naturally peo ple wondered why I was home. Several people came up to me and asked," "When do your exams start?" What do I tell them? At first I considered going to Europe or out West just to get . away from the curious looks and questions." I did however, feel that this wouid be a form of cowardice I chad: to stay and face the fact that I had made an error a very grave one. Now comes the next import ant factor concerning my vio lation the financial side. All money was forfeited for the semester. I got credit for hay ing taken one course and I re ceived an F in it. All of my oth er courses were dropped with no grade. Therefore I had spent al most a $1,000.00 of my parent's money and none of it could be regained. Also I have spent a semester of time in which I have accomplished nothing, ex cept being embarrased for my self, my parents, and my friends. I never realized the true con sequences of a violation of the Honor Code which results in a suspension from school. N o u that it has hpapened to me I realize the fullest extent of such an act. It not only affects me, but my family, my friends, my pocket book, my pride in my self and everyone's respect for me. The next point is in going to apply for a job. This is all you can do because if you do get into another school for this per iod, you will receive no credit in transferring it. When you ap ply for a job you tell the per sonnel manager that you need a job and then he asks why you are home from school. You tell him. Then he says, "I'm sorry, but we have no temporary jobs available." This goes on time sftcr tim6 I hope that all of you will read this and let it soak in. Think before you act. I know that if anyone had told me this I probably would have said "O. K. fine, I wouldn't do anything like that anyway, so what?" But I found out how easy it is to do something hke this. Since it's me speaking and I have com mited this terrible act I hope you will all benefit from it. Name Withheld The Coivs And The Isms Idealism: If you have two cows, you milk them both, use all the milk you need, and have enough left for everyone else. Socialism: If you have two cows, you keep one and give the other to your neighbor. Communism: If you have two cows, you give them both to the Government; then the Government gives ; you back some milk. Imperialism: If you have two cows, you steal some body's bull. Soft-pink Communism: If you have two cows, you're a capitalist. Capitalism : If you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull. New Dealism: If you have two cows, the Government shoots one; you milk the other and throw part of the milk down the sink. The Princeton AlumniWeekly .Berke ey A l i l ine it SLVJLS P art (Last of a series) II Editors' note: This is the lastf in a two-part series of excerpts from a Saturday Review ac count of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. p . The Free-Speech Movement has been described in many ways: as a revolutionary plot and as a kind of socially con scious panty raid; as an inter generational rebellion of son against father, and as an ex pression of pure youthful ideal ism. It is doubtless all of these and more. But whatever the multiplicity of forces at work, there seems little doubt that the central appeal to students who never before involved themsel ves in social or political action is found in the civil rights move ment that has dramatized for an entire generation the issues of free speech and action. And the response to that appeal came from a student body of exceptional competence and sensitivity, whose members had few other .places to give their allegiance. The problems facing the uni versity administration and Re gents in handling so complex a matter are enormous. All state universities must ' constantly combat community and legisla tive pressures, and the problem is especially acute in the na tion's most politically volatile state. In addition, in California the Governor sits as president of the Regents, and the Lieu tenant. Governor, the speaker of the Assembly, and the State Su perintendent of Public Instruc tion (an elective office) are all ex officio members. Within the university, compet ing demands are equally strong. Berkeley's pre-eminent faculty was assembled, in large part, by Raiding" other campuses, and the loyalty of individual members, is primarily to their discipline rather than to the in stitution. Therefore, if the en vironment at Berkeley should cease to be conducive to schol arly work, not only would the university have difficulty in en ticing new men, but many al ready on campus could, and al most certainly wouia, usten to f thf hlnnHichmfvnf c nf nf Vior loarl- f J ing insitutipns. The situation is further com plicated by the complex admin istrative structure of the univer sity in which the lines of re sponsibility . and authority are not always clear between the administration of the Berkeley campus (the chancellor's office) and. the state-wide university administration (the president's office), which is located on the Berkeley campus. To operate ef fectively, the two administra tions must speak with a single voice, but in the present controversy this has not always been the case and both the image and the substance of the university have suffered. As president of the state-wide university, Clark Kerr has emerged as principal spokes man for the administration in the current controversy. A num ber of commentators have point ed out the supreme irony of a situation in which he should be come the focus of FSM invect ive. An industrial relations- ex pert and labor mediator of na tional repute, he became chan f ellor of the Berkeley campus in 1952 and moved to the presi dent's office in 1958. His ad ministration during these twelve years has been one of the most liberal in the university's his tory. He was, for instance, in strumental in resolving the bit ter loyalty oath controversy of a dozen years - ago, and in 1963 was a leader in the moves to liberalize university regulations to allow Communist speakers on campus. Just last spring he re ceived the American Associa tion of University Professors' Alexander Meiklejohn Award in recognition of his "outstanding contributions to the cause of ac ademic freedom." In addition, he has analyzed more completely than anyone else the nature of the huge mod ern university the multiver sity clearly foreseen its con sequences, both human and in situtional. In the 1963 Godkin Lectures at Harvard (later pub lished as The Uses of the Uni versity) he forecast the student revolt against a "faculty in ab sentia," institutional imperson ality, and "a blanket" of rules that smother the individual. Finally, he has sought, unsuc cessfully, to find a means to provide small,, more manage able groupings' of students on Berkeley's campus. And in planning new campuses of the university at Santa Cruz, for example he has insisted that undergraduates be grouped in clusters of small colleges, with access to common facilities, so that they may enjoy the ad vantages of .the multiversity without becoming lost in its mass. Yet for all his understanding of the problem and the respect of his colleagues. President Kerr is sharply criticized for his handling of the current con troversy. He is accused of un derstanding the problem but not the people involved. He is re mote and inaccessible even to the faculty, and has virtually no contact with students. President Kerr is criticized, too, for his concept of the role of the leader in the multiver sity as essentially the media tor who seeks effective compro mis among competing forces. Under ordinary circumstances the mediator - leader may suc cessfully avoid destructive con flict and forward the welfare of the university. Under extraordi nary circumstances, such as those that developed at Berke ley, it appears that a firmer, more positive role might prove more effective. But the overlap ping authority of campus ad ministration and the state-wide university administration, also based at Berkeley, may have inhibited firm, consistent action by either. The events at Berkeley have a significance far beyond the confines of the San Francisco Bay area. What has happened there is an advanced example of the ferment on many cam puses. Therefore, we should try to understand the sources of stu dent unrest before it grows to crisis proportions. Ten years ago there was wide- . spread concern with the politi cal and social apathy of the na tion's college students. It w a s possible, then, to wish that more of them would take to heart Oliver Wendell Holmes' admoni tion that, "It is. required of a man that he should share the passion and action of his time at peril of being judged not to have lived." Today, when it seems that many students have heard Justice Holmes' message, we need not shirnk from the re sult. A passion for social justice among the nation's youth is a prize that should be eagerly sought. But we must understand clearly that this is not the only source of ferment. The modern university has to serve the immediate needs of contemporary society. The scholar's skills are no longer ap plied solely to man's past, but in very large part to humanity's future. Notable advantages have been gained by the university from its new role, but there are dangers, too, in making higher education so responsive to the importunate community. And the students, perceiving the role of the university in serving gov ernment, business, industry, and others, wonder why it should not serve their immediate needs eq ually. Almost inevitably students will have a greater voice in the affairs of the university in the future. Certainly today's better prepared and more knowledge able students should have a larger voice in determining the rules that govern them, and in other campus matters. But de mands are also being made by some of the more advanced student groups for a voice in determining policy on the cur riculum, in selecting faculty, and related matters. Surely these are of vital concern to students, and almost certainly their demands to be heard in relation to them will increase. Yet, just as the demands of so ciety for research projects and other services cannot always be met without distorting the ba sic role and function of the uni versity, so the immediate inter ests of students, which seem so urgent, may be better served by a long view of ultimat? ob jectives. Experience in other countries notably in South America demonstrates clear ly that a policy of allowing stu dents a major voice in some sensitive areas of university pol icy can lead to academic chaos. Therefore, university admin istrators, increasingly, must be careful not to confuse the de mands of students that can lead to anarchy on the campus with the desire for freedom to par ticipate freely in the great so cial movements of our time, and the request to contribute a re sponsible voice in university matters that concern them di rectly. These will not always be easy to distinguish not least because the distinctions will sometimes be confused in t h e minds of the students themsel ves. And there will be other bar riers to understanding.- However lofty their morals, student man ners are often atrocious. The etiquette of social protest is changing; new standards of speech and action are beir.3 widely accepted. Therefore, it is doubly necessary to listen care fully to what students say, ra ther than to how they say it. Also, students who are passion ately devoted to attacking in justice in our society are often impatient with tha slow process of orderly procedure. Having learned the techniques of civil disobedience, they will some times employ them to seek goals for which their use is not ap propriate. The objective of the university must be not only to provide an environment of free dom, but, both within the class room and without, to instill a surer sense of responsibility. The administrator's lot has never been an easy one, and certainiy it will be even more difficult in the years ahead. To meet the future successfully will take a large measure of firm ness, sensitivity, and above all, human understanding. 4