Page 4
THE TAR HEEL
Thursday, July 8, lq
In Gas Controversy
Olar sd
The Tar Heel is the official news publication of the University
of North Carolina summer school, and is published each Thurs
day. Offices are on second floor, Graham Memorial, telephone
933-1011 or 933-1012. Subscription rates are $1 for both sessions.
MIKE YOPP
Editor
KERRY SIPE
Business Manager
Ernest Robl, assistant editor; Ann Streightoff, editorial assist
ant; Ellen Robinson, Carol Weil Gulbeukiau, John Olsen, Re
becca Berger, Ronald Shinn, Allen Turner, Patty Nash,
James Chesnutt, Julia Parker, Paul Schaffer, Emily Folger,
staff writers; Bev Coleman, secretary.
Educators Seen At Fault
A Wise Move For CORE
The Congress of Racial Equality, for over 20 years
a leader among civil rights organizations, took a giant
step toward retaining that position Monday when dele
gates to the national convention in Durham tabled a
resolution "condemning U. S. policy of racism abroad
and the priority given by our federal government to
defense spending rather than solving pressing social
problems at home."
This position is one held by many Negro leaders
and would have gained convention approval except for
the intervention of national CORE Director James
Farmer. Although his personal views are in line with
the resolution, Farmer said: "The matter would frag
ment the Negro community at a time when unity is
extraordinary ... I feel it the duty of all Americans
to be concerned about foreign policy, but I don't be
lieve the civil rights movement and the peace move
ment should be merged."
Farmer's line of thinking is in direct opposition to
opinions of Dr. Martin Luther King, president of South
ern Christian Leadership Conference. Last week King
delivered a stinging attack against U. S. policy in
Viet Nam. He believes that now is the time for the
civil rights movement to involve itself with peace ef
forts. It was wise for CORE to choose the more practi
cal stand of confining its activity to civil rights en
deavors. Farmer pointed out that the association of
CORE with the peace movement would have tended
to disrupt Negro unity. Rut he must have likewise real
ized that the linking of the movements would have
jeopardized the advantage of widespread public ap
proval, the Negro's most important asset in his fight
for equality.
But the peace movement has not met with this suc
cess in the public eye. Such displays as the march on
Washington and pickets at the State Department have
left it the target of widespread scorn.
To merge the two would undoubtedly harm the
civil rights effort.
Aside from practical considerations, we hope civil
rights leaders realize that United States involvement
in Southeast Asia and the Dominican Republic are
complex issues which cannot be easily dismissed with
pleas to spend the money used to support these ven
tures on "pressing social problems at home."
The Debate Must Continue
The heat under the speaker ban controversy has
been turned down and the debate has cooled from a
boil to a slow simmer.
The commission appointed to study the law has
not yet met, and Gov. Dan K. Moore has said he will
have no comment on the gag until the commission re
port is completed. It seems that fewer speakers in the
state are taking the ban as a subject.
One of North Carolina's leading newspapers has
cut the volume of letters concerning the ban, saying:
"Practically everything constructive on both sides of
the controversy has been said."
We don't agree. The issues raised by the ban are
so numerous and complex that all facits could not
possibly have been explored. Even if all sides had
been aired, many of the arguments would bare re
peating. During the verbal conflict the ban has remained
clouded by misunderstanding. The best way to clear
this haze is through continued debate on the issue.
As additional dialogue is carried on, perhaps more
North Carolinians will be made to see that the law is
merely an affront to freedom and an insult to the
people of this state.
By JAMES J. KILPATRICK
The Richmond News Leader
They have been having a
terrible flop lately in North
Carolina over what is known
a bit clumsily, as the "com
munist speaker - ban "law."
The first conclusion to be
drawn from this unhappy af
fair is that it is difficult to
teach educators anything; they
are the last to learn.
The row started two years
'ago, when the N. C. legisla
ture approved Chapter 1207 of
its Acts of 1963. This provided
that no college or university
receiving state tax funds could
permit any person to use its
facilities for speaking purposes
if such a person (1) were
known to be a member of the
Communist Party, (2) is known
to advocate overthrow of the
Constitution, or (3) ever had
pleaded the Fifth Amendment
before any legislative or judi
cial body in order to avoid an
swering questions dealing with
communism or Communist
party activities.
The N. C. Assembly's action
"Wliuzza' Name Of Your Gang, Stud?"
How Many 'Hitchhikers'
Stalk The UNC Campus?
By ANN STREIGHTOFF
Tar Heel Editorial Asst.
"Stop the world, I want to get
off" . . . blatant cries of a
notorious "professional stu
dent" of the 20th century.
He does not stand alone, un
heard. Thousands of today's
youth have taken up the cross
with this image finding con
venient way stations for their
lives at Chapel Hill, Berkeley,
Cambridge, and New York
City. In fact, anywhere there's
a college, the hitchhikers seem
to be riding free and easy.
What could be more appro
priate for this type of student
which is becoming so preval
ent in the university commu
nity. An intellectual atmos
phere relatively isolated from
the cares of the world plus mi
rads of students of the same
"professional" status to sym
pathize with plus causes to
shout and riot for equals bliss
ful life under glass for our new
man.
Bearded or shaven, tailored
or tattered, he comes, stalk
ing the campus, living off of
what it has to offer. He thumbs
his way for many reasons, but
two are outstanding disil
lusionment and laziness.
Jobs are hard to come by,
but some men give up easier
than others. Their feet are ten
dererhe world is against them.
The view from the merry-go-
round is uncertain and hazy.
Why get off, when you're on
a good horse?
For many, leaving the fren
zied and stimulating pace of
the academic - social milieu
is a letdown. The cloistered
society offers a unique brand
of satisfaction found readily
in the idealistic setting.
Looking at this new cult from
another view, one cannot help
but pity these people. It is un
fortunate that life in a univer
sity should be so contrasting
ly different from life "outside"
for them.
When a student wants to stay
on the merry - go - round for
ever, one cannot help thinking
that in some way education has
not completely fulfilled its pur
pose. Education should, in part,
be concerned with the integra
tion of learned concepts and
with the practical use of knowl
edge in the world of wage
earners. If this is not possible,
perhaps real education has not
taken place.
Whatever the reason for the
appearance in great numbers
of these professional students
on campuses over the coun
try, the fact remains that they
can't be ignored. They take up
space. They influence people.
They play their part in gov
erning campus attitudes.
How njany hitchhikers does
Carolina have?
in 1963 caught the state's edu
cators off guard. Before they
knew what had hit them, the
bill had passed.
They spent two years de
nouncing the lawmakers as a
bunch of provincial numb
skulls, and endeavored to get
a bill introduced at the legis
lature's 1965 session, just con
cluded, to repeal the 1963 act.
And presumably thinking that
it would help their cause along,
the educators produced a sol
emn threat from the Southern
Association of Schools, and Col
leges: If the law weren't re
pealed, North Carolina's insti
tutions would face loss of ac
creditation. At the prospect of
academic excommunication, no
fewer than 150 faculty mem
bers said they would quit.
If the educators had any
sense, which is a question that
may be left for debate another
time, they would have known
that threats would get them
nowhere. And nowhere was
where they got.
The infuriated legislature re
jected repeal attempts out of
hand, and it took a good bit of
quiet diplomacy by North Car
olina's Gov. Moore to get
agreement on a commission to
study the issue. Some of the
lawmakers were ready to
hang the next accrediting team
that showed its face in North
Carolina. The idea had con
siderable faerit.
Viewed from almost any
standpoint, the "communist
speaker - ban law" is a re
grettable piece of legislation.
In the light of the Supreme
Court's recent pronouncement
in U. S. v. Brown, voiding the
federal law that prohibited
Communists from holding un
ion office, the N. C. law may
be of doubtful constitutionality.
The states, no less than the
Congress, are forbidden to
pass "bills of attainder."
That point to one side, the
law prevents N. C. students
from hearing and appraising,
in the flesh, spokesmen for the
depotism that holds a billion
human beings in its sway. It
' cuts them off, physically, from
a significant group that might
usefully be studied at first
hand.
This, too, should be said,
that the act docs represent an
unfortunate political intrusion
upon academic policy. State
legislators are not equipped,
by temperament or intellect,
to function as college presi
dents or university trustees.
The converse of that proposi
tion is equally true.
But the most regrettable as
pect of the noisy row and
this the educators do not seem
to understand is the gulf
that is here symbolized be
tween the people and their in
stitutions. North Carolina is not
alone in this regard. California
is experiencing the same un
happy situation. So are other
states.
The educators simply will
not realize that many respon
sible persons are sincerely
concerned about what seems
to them a rising spirit of col
lectivism on ahe campus. When
freedom of speech is permit
ted to degenerate into freedom
for filthy speech, decent men
are entitled to be concerned.
The arrogance of some profes
sors, yapping about the sanc
tuary of "tenure" like so many
dashshunds safely behind a
fence, approaches the intolera
ble point.
North Carolina's act of 1963
was no more than a symbol of
this concern. It was a warn
ing flag, a caution light; it was
an expression by the people
whose money supports the in
stitutions that the people are
not well pleased with what is
going cm