' 1
Page 2
Sunday, October 3. 1965
'..'.v.::
(i atUj War
"I Wonder If This Means We're Gonna Have A Housemother?"
Letters To The Editor
Opinions of the Daily Tar Heel are expressed in its
editorials. Letters and columns, covering a Hide range
of views, reflect the personal opinions of their authors.
ERNIE McCRARY, EDITOR
JACK HARRINGTON. BUSINESS MANAGER
g
I'AVWMVW.XvliM
Musta Been A Real Party
There's nothing new about a social fraternity
catching hell for being too social.
But we certainly have to give credit to Sigma Nu
at the University of Texas in Austin for originality.
The city said the fraternity owed $2,300 in back
taxes. The fellows said they thought they should be
tax exempt.
But the city won by threatening to make pub
lic some photographs made at a Sigma Nu toga party.
Obviously there had been some tuggin' at the togas
during the festivities because the fraternity paid up.
As Austin lawyer and Sigma Nu alumnus John
Cofer said, the pictures were enough to "prejudice me
against my own fraternity."
The injustice of it all is at least partially offset
by the grounds under which the fraternity claimed
tax exemption.
For this, we give these Sigma Nus the Originality
Award. They said, "We shouldn't have to pay taxes
because we have a study hall, a swimming pool (to
maintain our physical fitness) and we have a Bible
class."
Good Old Discrimination
One of the rankest examples of flat-out discrimi
nation has come to light in Rockingham County.
It happened Thursday night in Wentworth at a
meeting of the county Good Neighbor Council, of all
places.
David S. Coltrane, head of the North Carolina
Good Neighbor Council, attended the meeting and
so did a dozen picketeers who were demanding rep
resentation on the council. They claimed no represen
tative from their group had been asked to participate.
The sheriff met the protesters and suggested they
submit a list of members to the council to be con
sidered. Such a display of courtesy can hardly undo this
brazen affront to that noble organization, the Ku Klux
Klan.
Maybe there's something to be said for discrimina
tion after all.
Those Theatrical Politicians
Whatever happened to the good old days when all
a movie star was expected o do .was, flash his smile
across the big screen? I
It seems that famous folks just aren't satisfied
anymore by the glittering marquees they've decid
ed to branch out into polities', of all things.
. In industry, they'd call it "diversification," but
when the stars begin turning in their make-up kits
for the speaker's platform, it's time to raise some
doubts.
Two of the most conspicuous theatrical politicians
are George Murphy and Ronald Reagan.
; Murphy, a freshman Republican senator from
California, defeated former Kennedy press secretary
Pierre Salinger for the job. Actually Salinger never
had a chance. He just couldn't compete with Mur
phy's potent campaign publicity weapon the late
night movies on television.
Reagan is another Californian, who would rather
be governor of the state than have a new television
series. An outspoken conservative, he's trying to take
the stage as the Republican gubernatorial nominee.
Actor Gary Merrill, 48-year-old former husband of
Bette Davis, announced a few days ago that he will
run for the Maine House of Representatives as a Dem
ocrat next year. Why is he running? He's "always
been interested in politics."
Back in Hollywood, there are strong indications
that Steve Allen will run for the House of Represen
tatives seat being left by Democrat James Roosevelt.
Television star Dan Blocker, "Bonanza's" big
"Hoss," isn't making any secrets about his desire to
play a role in government for a while.
The list continues, but the point should already
be made.
All these naive, inexperienced box - office types
are just going to ruin that dirty old art of politics.
If worse comes to worse and more of them get
elected, there will have to be some sort of retaliation.
We can just see it now.
Everett Dirksen singing "I Used To Be With The
In Crowd," accompanied by Lyndon's Longhaired
Five.
Sty Satlg (Ear UfWl
72 Years of Editorial Freedom
The Daily Tar Heel is the official news publication of
the University of North Carolina and is published by
students daily except Mondays, examination periods and
vacations.
L Vv -rli-y!.uM If ,L Jv v&T. v
-1 Mm$Mi mm jslito&&i&k3
Judiciary Clears The Air
Editor, the Daily Tar Heel:
The student judiciary of our University
has, of late, been in hot water. Even
though it commands a long history of re
spect and effectiveness, these qualities are
now being overlooked due to certain popu
lar misconceptions. First of all, the mock
trial presented by the Women's Honor Coun
cil during freshmen orientation was "harsh,
unfair"; therefore one logically concludes,
all student courts are conducted in similar
fashion. In my opinion, this trial was not
typical. It was planned in poor taste, pur
porting to emphasize the Honor System
while, in effect, doing injury because of its
false image. Secondly, legislative leaders
have proposed numerous judicial reforms,
many of which will strengthen the court
system; meanwhile, students believe that
the judiciary, as it presently stands with
out these reforms, is violating their rights.
Such beliefs are wholly in error. And third
ly, the recent Paul Dickson issue has
brought many attacks upon our Honor Sys
tem. I would like to point these out in some
detail and hopefully bring to light their
superficial nature.
In a letter to The Daily Tar Heel' on
September 24, William Rogers made it
clear that Paul Dickson received a light
sentence and instead, because of the sen
tence given his accomplice, should have
been suspended; that Dickson, because he
is president of the student body, did not
have an ordinary trial; that Dickson was
guilty of a "campus honor code" viola
tion; and furthermore, that "supposing he
did receive the same consideration that
Carolina Commei
.he Dickson Case
(Carolina Comment will appear from
time to time whenever there is a single
campus issue which is the subject of edi
torial comment by several of the North
Carolina news media. Guest editorials from
state newspapers will continue to be print
ed occasionally in the DTH editorial col
umn. With regard to the Dickson case,
many North- Carolina newspapers have car
ried news stories. As of Friday evening
when the DTH edit page went to the print
er, two newspapers and WRAL-TV had
written editorials on the subject.)
RALEIGH TIMES
si
t
Ernie McCrary, editor; John Jennrich, associate editor;
Kerry Sipe. managing editor; Pat Stith. sports editor;'
; Jack Harrington, business manager; Woody Sobol. adver
; Using manager.
i Second class postage paid at the post office in Chapel
;Hill, N. C. 27514. Subscription rates: $4.50 per semester;
!$S per year. Send change of address to The Daily Tar
'Heel. Box 1080. Chapel Hill. N. C. 27514. Printed by the
Chapel Hill Publishing Co., Inc. The Associated Press is
entitled exclusively to the use for republication of all
local news printed in this newspaper as well as all ap
news dispatches.
One factor overlooked in the general up
roar over the fact that the president of the
Carolina student body has an honor council
conviction on his record is the double stan
dard which seems to have been applied in
this case.
The male student, Paul Dickson, was giv
en an official reprimand by the male stu
dent government honor council on a charge
of visiting a fraternity house with a coed
during unauthorized visiting hours. The girl
in the case was tried by the woman's hon
or council and was suspended from Caro
lina. The incident occurred during the sum
mer session.
Without having access to the full testi
mony in the cases, it would seem reason
able to assume that since the two made
the visit together to the same fraternity
house at the same unauthorized time, that
the punishment should be identical. If the
male student deserved only an official rep
rimand and was allowed to remain in
school, the coed deserved that and no more.
And just as surely, if the coed deserved
suspension from school, so did the male
student.
People who have been students at Caro
lina in recent years say that such a double
standard of student-administered justice
isn't unusual. The woman's honor council,
they say, traditionally hands out much
rougher punishment than does the men's
honor council. The prevailing opinion, they
feel, has been that it is up to the coed to
draw the line and to make the line stick,
and that if she doesn't do so, she merits
the tougher punishment.
This is a dreadful way to administer
justice. Two persons who participate equal
ly in any transgression of any law are
equally guilty and should receive equal
punishment. In fact, they should be tried
by the same court, not by separate courts.
It may be that the woman's honor coun
cil has been too tough, though there are
those who feel that some tough discipline
toughly administered might not be out of
place on many of today's campuses. And,
it may well be that the men's honor coun
cil has been too lenient in its seeming lean
ings toward slaps on the wrist for the men.
Be that as it may, it would seem that
the time is long past for the Chapel Hill
administration to not only take a long look
at this situation, but to straighten it out.
THE NEWS OF ORANGE COUNTY
The hassle among the students of the
University campus in Chapel Hill as to
whether the President of the student body
should resign is not just a "little" matter
of concern only to the students themselves.
At this crucial time in the 176-year his
tory of the oldest state University it is a
statewide concern. And it is of especial
concern to the citizens of the University
community.
University Student Body President Paul
Dickson was recently convicted in a stu
dent court of violating the Carolina Code by
illegally taking a woman student into a
fraternity house. Dickson does not deny his
guilt. The penalty administered in this -case
was a formal . reprimand, which was at
tached to her permanent record as a Uni
versity student.
Because of his being guilty of conduct
unbecoming the elected leader of 12,000 stu
dents at the University, a number of his
fellow student leaders formally asked him
to resign his post. Dickson refused, and
apparently has his mind finally made up.
However, a formal recall election may be
held, in keeping with preparations initiated ..:
late last week by petition of a good num
ber of Dickson's fellow students.
,,. : The issue was unfortunately jctouded
when :ihe hrversity-VdmmBtrtiolreal-
izing the significance of the situation, is
sued an ultimatum to Dickson to resign.
This usurping of student authority was sub
sequently rescinded by the administration.
But its shadow remains, so that this young
man is in some quarters now depicted and
admired as ;a chap who has stood up to
and understandably challenged the admin
istration's ill-considered action.
Indeed there are no doubt some students
who even have admiration for a fellow who
can keep a girl out all night and "get away
with it." (The News does not believe that
Dickson himself harbors this notion.)
So the issue is admittedly complicated.
But there are still some simple maxims ap
plicable to it. There is a well-established
law which strips the legal citizenship of a
person convicted of a felony. By the same
logic a student leader who has been found
guilty of breaking specific moral laws im
posed and administered by his fellow stu
has paid his penalty for this offense. But
. Dickson is more than a "citizen." As an
elected leader he must be concerned with
the effectiveness of his personal adminis
tration. It is obvious that his effectiveness is go
ing to be seriously impaired by the under
standable lack of faith that his fellow stu
dents now have in him as their leader.
Furthermore, in obstinately refusing to step
down because he does not legally have to
do so at this time, Dickson is harming the
status of the University across the state.
The fallacious notion is cast abroad that
Chapel Hill is full of communists, beatniks,
dope addicts, and irresponsible youngsters
who must be protected from alien ideologies
by a Gag Law.
By his personal example of stubborn re
fusal to humbly relinquish the office he
cannot now fill as it should be filled, Dick
son tends to give substance to otherwise
- false concerns about "what's going on down
there at Chapel Hill." He further endangers
the absolutely necessary continuance of
freedom of inquiry and freely - elected stu
dent self - government. And finally, he does
himself no honor as a Carolina gentleman.
When he does resign he will be a far
bigger and better man than he now is in
his mis-guided self-righteous action. And in
exhibiting a true sense of humility by re
signing he will prove that he does indeed
have qualities of leadership a quality he
is not now exhibiting. R. G.
WRAL-TV
No useful purpose would be served by
either moralizing or sermonizing in connec
tion with the conduct of a young couple
involved in a regrettable incident now the
subject of controversy at Chapel Hill. And
we suppose that polite laughter may seem,
to some, the best medicine for squirming
University officials who apparently lack the
imagination to deal with a young man who,
these very officials have declared, is "un
suited" to continue as president of the stu
dent body at Chapel HilL
The picture is blurred with a number of
remarkably intriguing contradictions. It be
gan, several weeks ago, during the Sum
mer session at Chapel Hill, when the stu
dent body president took a coed to a closed
fraternity house for the evening, returning
her to her dormitory after dawn. We do
not propose to speculate upon the details
of what may have transpired; it suffices (o
note that the University viewed this con
duct with enough concern to suspend the
young woman involved.
Unless things have changed, it still takes
two to tango. It therefore seems logical to
assume that whatever guilt may be in
volved, it ought to be shared equally by
j; ; the young woman, and. her escort. But if
r! one imagines that' equal punishment ought
to fit equal infractions of any rule, there is
the disconcerting disclosure in this matter
that the' University takes a somewhat astig
matic view of joint misconduct by young
men and young women. For while the
young woman was suspended for her role
in an all-night adventure, the young man
who just happens to be president of the
student body was given only a repri
mand. And in the face of demands by his fellow
students that he resign, he responds that
he not only intends to remain as president
of the student body, but that he feels that
he has not violated the students trust in
him when they elected him to office.
It may be, of course, that the Univer
sity both hopes and assumes that the stu
dent body will take action to remove the
young man from office. And, at first
glance, this may seem to offer to the stu
dents an instructive lesson in the workings
of democratic procedure. But that course
sets aside the responsibility of the Univer
sity to demonstrate that it will not tolerate
objectionable conduct by any student when
discovered. Indeed, the present posture of
the University is one of reluctance, if not
helplessness, when it comes to imposing
meaningful discipline upon a student if
the student happens to be engaged in cam
pus politics.
What troubles us is not merely the dou
ble standards that have been applied to
the two students involved. Rather, it is the
alarming timidity of the University in
grasping its responsibility of discipline.
The youngsters in this incident are not
the only ones who will be tempted, now
that they are away from home, to stray
from the moral codes to which we must
hope they were exposed at home. And cer
tainly they are not the first, nor will they
be the last, to yield to temptation. This is
precisely the reason that restraints, im
posed and enforced by constituted authori
ty, are important.
There has been too great a tendency to
assume that youngsters in college are ma
ture, that they are not impressionable, and
that they no longer need the protection and
guidance which they were receiving at
home only a year or so ago. College au
thorities cannot escape their responsibility
to serve as substitute parents as well as
teachers. These are difficult years for young
people walking the sometimes shaky bridge
between adolescence and adulthood.
While we wish not to inflate the inci
dent at Chapel Hill beyond reasonable pro
portions, neither can we avoid the conclu
sion that an administrative error of judg
ment has been made. A young woman has
been sent home in what she may regard
as disgrace. Not knowing the details, we
do not quarrel with the University's judg
ment in her case. But it hardly seems fair
that her partner in the incident can re
main on campus, and in office as presi
dent of the student body, with only a repri
mand on bis record.
The University has either done too much
or too little. It should promptly decide which,
and take action to abalance some present
ly unbalanced scales.
anyone else would have received, never
again should a stuaeni ai waruuua ue sus
pended for taking a co-ed off-limits."
As a member of the Men's Honor Coun
cil and as one who heard all testimony
presented in Dickson's trial, I can em
phatically deny all of Rogers' conclusions
about the "partiality" of the trial and his
erroneous concepts about our judicial struc
ture. First of all, Dickson was in no way
charged with an Honor Code offense. The
charge consisted of a two-count violation of '
the Campus Code, both counts dealing with
aiding a co-ed break women's rules. (Be
cause of extenuating circumstances Dick
son was found not guilty of the first count
that he assisted the girl to stay out after
curfew. On the second count that he
helped her enter a closed fraternity house
Dickson received a verdict of guilty and
a sentence of official reprimand.) It is im
portant to realize the difference in the two
codes, for the Honor Code refers to a stu
dent's personal honor and integrity, where
as the Campus Code considers ungentle
manly or unladylike behavior.
One of the most damaging statements
made by Rogers concerns the supposed par
tiality accorded President Dickson. Admit
tedly, the Council cannot completely dis
sociate the accused and his position when
a student as well-known as Dickson is in
volved. But the Council followed normal
procedure during all testimony and delib
eration and did at no times base its de
cision upon the impact or lack of impact
which such a decision would make outside
the judiciary. In fact, the verdict and the
sentence were both precedented in a very
similar case tried not more than one hour
before Dickson's own trial.
Concerning the charge that Dickson
should have received suspension, and furth
ermore, that suspension is not just in such
cases: Rogers has centered his decision
around the fact that the Carolina co-ed in
volved in the case received one semester's
suspension, and Dickson did not. It is im
portant to realize that the Women's Honor
Council handled the girl's case, and the
Men's Council heard Dickson's there
were two separate trials. When a co-ed
breaks a major social rule such as this
one, the WHC has traditionally treated this
very seriously and has given suspension.
The MHC considers this rule violation to
be on the most part the responsibility of the
girl. The Carolina gentleman, nevertheless,
still has some responsibility to see that she
obeys her rules; so he is guilty of a lesser
offense. Only if he has forcibly persuaded
the girl to commit the violation must he
assume the major responsibility. These
are the reasons for Dickson's official repri
mand and not a suspension.
The Men's 'Honor Council has recently
spelled out in more detail the gentleman's
responsibility toward a co-ed. I hope that
all students will attempt to understand this
policy as it pertains to him or her
self, and also, as it pertains to Dickson's
case.
BiU Miller, for the
Men's Honor Council
324 Teagne
Dickson . . . Again
Editor, The Daily Tar Heel:
Last August the Tar Heel reported that
it knew Paul Dickson was being tr'fd for
en Honor Code violation, yet it could not
give the students the facts of the case as
they were being withheld by the Attorney
General's office. In an indignant editorial
the DTH claimed it wanted the story not
for its value as a scandal, but rather for
the noble purpose of reporting the facts to
the public. 3
Now the DTH has the story, and the re
sult has been some-of the highest grade
of yellow journalism I have ever seen. In
its editorials and stories the DTH has made
several obvious insinuations about Paul
Dickson's motives, his integrity, and his
courage. I feel confident that if the DTH
can keep the story alive for a few more
days they will eventually get around to his
lineage. Now that is real factual news re
porting! Good show, Tar Heel. You too are
a credit to our school.
Robert Beck, Jr.
18 Davie Circle
(Editor's Note: On August 19 the sum
mer Tar Heel stated editorially that "the
Tar Heel extends apologies to those read
ers who have inquired about rumors that
a high Student Government official has
been or may be charged with an Honor
Code violation.
"We heard the same rumblings, and off
we went to see if they were valid. But,
alas, an intensive investigation by two staff
ers revealed only bits and pieces of the
story, and it would be contrary to our
journalistic ethics to print only part of the
whob situation."
The first time The Daily Tar Heel men
tioned the D.ckson case was after eight
students publicly issued a letter asking for
Dickson's resignation.)
Lett
ers
Tfce Dally Tar Heel welcome let.
ten to the editor oo may subject, par
tkularly oo matter of local or Ut4
rersity Interest. Letter sbonM be
typed, double spaced and lacrade the
name and address of sender. Names
?l J? ed la pubneatio.
Utters should be kept brtef .
possible. The DTH reserves tbe rfckt
f edit for knjtls, "