Page 2
Saturday, November 13. 1965
x::-:::
s A Rule, I Don't Blind Date Either!"
William Otis
b;? Satlg War n
Opinions of the Daily Tar Heel are expressed in its
editorials. Letters and colunns, covering a wide range
of views, reflect the personal opinions of their authors.
ERNIE McCRARY. EDITOR
Let It Alone
The News and Observer
It should be understood right now before any
special session of the legislature meets that if sup
porters of the Speaker Ban Law are allowed to alter
the proposed compromise amendment to better suit
themselves, then the special session may as well not
meet. The additional changes suggested by Gates Rep.
Phil Godwin would amount to nullifying the compro
mise and keeping this divisive controversy alive.
It is not surprising that the compromise offered
by the Speaker Ban Law Study Commission does not
please Mr. Godwin. He should not find it strange that
many equally patriotic and sincere men are dis
pleased and disappointed that the commission failed
to recommend outright repeal of the law. Mr. Godwin
may want to come to Raleigh for this special session
and insist that he remains right and those who dis
agree with him remain wrong. Some of those who
disagree with him will come prepared to take an
equally adamant stand.
Clearly, however, such stubbornness at this point
will not represent intelligent thinking, only continued
posturing.
This issue has moved beyond the time when, as
a matter of legislative debate, it might have been
relevant to focus public attention on speaker policies
at Chapel Hill. Such attention has been given fully
during the two and a half years in which this harm
ful controversy has raged. It is just as pointless, too,
for others to argue that this law grew out of unrelated
racial demonstrations in front of the Sir Walter Hotel;
and pointless now to rehash and condemn the unbe
coming methods used to rush the law to passage in
less than 20 minutes.
The job at hand is to end the divisiveness and
arrest the harmful erosion threatening the Consoli
dated University and other State supported colleges.
The study commission spent considerably more than
20 minutes laying the foundation for this job. Those
who seek substantially to alter the commission's pro
posed compromist are dealing lightly or blindly with
a matter of grave importance.
Grading The Profs
i S - - -a; t Greensboro Daily News i
The Winston-Salem Journal surveyed 11 North " Carolina
campuses this week and found that eight undergraduate bodies
plan, or now operate, programs for grading their professors. It
is a natural offspring of the human impulse to turn the tables,
but hardly a new idea. At Harvard, the Crimson has long is
sued an impish catalogue of candid comment on teachers and
courses. At Chapel Hill last year, 7,000 copies of such a direc-,
tory were published.
Since students alone consume the offerings of the class
room, we suppose they are entitled to have their say, especially
about the kind of teacher, increasingly pushed up by the mad .
premium on "research," who is a whiz in the library stacks
and a drone in the classroom.
But college instruction hardly lends itself to a popularity
contest, and obviously the most pleasing and conscientious
teachers are not always the best.
In fact, it has always seemed to us that the best instruc
tion runs to two rather different extremes; there are, that is
to say, two kinds of reputations that get around. The types
can be suitably captured only in hyperbole, but that hyper
bole may jolt one's memory.
There is the natural teacher whose zest for opening a
closed mind or imparting a truth is all-consuming. He is kindly
and deferent; he listens without cracking a smile to the most
absurd proposition. He has a reputation for making Napoleon
(who he?) come alive, or for shedding tears when he reads
the closing lines of Paradise Lost. He is perhaps a bit of a
ham: most good teachers are.
The other type is known because his name strikes terror
into the heart. His course is known (in less polite words) as
an illegitimate and perhaps he is also. In the classroom he
is Simon Legree with a whiplash, invariably a master of sar
casm and threat. The timid students write their mothers about
him. The dull students hate him. The bright ones tremble and
survive.
Who is better? The Gallup-Poll consensus inevitably shows
Mr. Chips (No. 1) to be wonderful, and the holy terror (No. 2)
as a dictatorial monster who ought to be running a banana
republic. But time has a cruel way of playing tricks. Some
times, m retrospect, the kindly and elegant teachings of Chips
go cloudy. One remembers how he put color into the farewell
of the Old Guard; but as for Napoleon's imperial policy, it
has gone cold. But the brute's trenchant sarcasms, printed in
iron, are unforgettable.
Let us hope that both approaches will have their due.
h 53atUj ar iel
72 Years of Editorial Freedom
The Daily Tar Heel is the official news publication of S
the University of North Carolina and is published by
students daily except Mondays, examination periods and
vacations.
Ernie McCrary, editor; John Jennrich, associate editor;
Barry Jacobs, managing editor; Fred Thomas, news :
editor, Pat Stith, sports editor; Gene Rector, asst. sports ;!:
editor; Kerry Sipe, night editor; Ernest Robl, photograph- g
er; Chip Barnard, editorial cartoonist; John Greenbacker,
political writer; Ed Freakley, Andy Myers, Lynne Harvel, gj
Lynne Sizemore, David Rothman, Ray Linville, staff :
writers; Jack Harrington, bus. mgr.; Tom Clark, asst. bus.
mgr.; Woody Sobol, ad. mgr.
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 :
Heek. Box 1080. Chapel Iffll, N. C. 27514. Printed by the
Chapel Hill Publishing Co., Inc. The Associated Press. is jS
entitled exclusively to the use for republication of all
local news printed in this newspaper as well as all ap
news dispatches. ::
-r4f- daicV ftMLSi&&
Letters To The Editor
March On Washington
For Peace In Viet Nai
Editor, The Daily Tar Heel:
On Saturday, Nov. 27, there will be a
March on Washington for Peace in Viet
Nam. Those of us participating in the
march feel that our government has not
exhausted all means of seeking an alter
native to the ever-increasing human suffer
ing and mounting"- destruction in Viet Nam. " :
A year ago the war in South Viet Nam was
a civil war, even though opposing factions
were instigated, supported and supplied
from the outside, by both the United
States and North Viet Nam. Today the
struggle has become largely a war con
ducted by the American armed forces
against a South Vietnamese revolutionary
movement increasingly aided by North Viet
Nam.
It is said that the United States is seek
ing peace and freedom from aggression for
Viet Nam. Belligerents of all wars claim
to seek peace. The real question is what
peace terms they are trying to impose, and
how. American intervention, both in men
and in war materials, is now much greater
than the intervention from the North. The
terrorism practiced by the Viet Cong is
now vastly exceeded by the terror, death,
and destruction inflicted by American
planes. The only victory to which this mas
sive military action may lead is a conquest
of a decimated South Viet Nam by the
United States, a "victory" that would re
quire an indefinite military occupation of
an Asian country by American troops. Is
this the peace we seek to achieve
American military action is defended
as the only means of preserving freedom
and democracy, as opposed to tyranny and
foreign domination, in South Viet Nam. In
truth, the United States has supported and
armed a government which can make lit
tle claim to represent the people of South
Viet Nam. The Saigon government has of
fered no more freedom and democracy,
and currently receives far less internal sup
port, than the Hanoi government of the
North. The alternative in South Viet Nam
is not between freedom and tyranny, but
between continued destruction and a' ne
gotiated settlement worked out by those
who must continue to live there with one
another a settlement which the United
States or the United Nations might help
to enforce, but which it is beyond our
ability, or our right, to impose.
Dr. Sanford Gottlieb, who will speak on
"Which Way in Viet Nam" at 8 p.m. Mon
day, Nov. 15, in Carroll Hall, is co-ordinator
of the March for Peace. This past summer
Dr. Gottlieb served as advisor to the inter
denominational group of clergymen who
visited South Viet Nam on the fact-finding
t mission sponsored by the Fellowship of
Reconciliation. On his way to and from
Viet Nam, he met in Paris and Algiers
with officials of North Viet Nam and the
South Vietnamese National Liberation
Front. Concerning the purpose of the
march, Dr. Gottlieb has stated: "We seek
to end this war. We affirm that no party
to the conflict, the U. S. included, has done
all it can to bring about negotiations, and
since the war will ultimately end at the
conference table, we ask new actions to
speed that day. These new actions must
be designed to show military restraint, not
military escalation. We disagree with the
Administration's assumption that added
military pressure will bring the North Viet
namese to the conference table. No proud
nation and the regime in Hanoi repre
sents the only Asian people in modern
times to win its independence by militarily
defeating a Western colonial power will
talk peace as the result of aerial bombard
ment. In Hanoi's view, the United States
is the aggressor in bombing North Viet
Nam and should take the first step sim
ply by stopping ... I doubt that we can
be certain of the intentions of those we
facelessly call "the other side' until the Ad
ministration is willing at least to stop the
bombings of North Viet Nam without con
ditions, ultimatums, or deadlines." This,
Gottlieb stated, was "the one deed unani
mously emphasized" by those with whom
he talked that might open peace negotia
tions with Hanoi.
To those who consider this march detri
mental to the morale of our forces in Viet
Nam, if not disloyal to our country, we
would call attention to the words of Sena
tor Fulbright, speaking in the U. S. Sen
ate, Oct. 22: "Responsible dissent is one of
the great strengths of democracy. France,
for example,' is unquestionably in a strong
er position today in her relations with the
emerging nations of Asia and Africa be
cause during the years of colonial wars in
Indochina and Algeria a large and articu
late minority refused to acquiesce in what
was being done and by speaking out, point
ed the way to the enlightened policies of
the Fifth Republic. The British Labor Par
ty, to take another example not only pro
tested the Suez invasion in 1956 but did so
while the invasion was being carried out;
by so doing, the opposition performed the
patriotic service of helping Britain to re
cover its good name in the wake of a dis
astrous adventure." We see the present
March on Washington in these same terms
and urge all who have misgivings about the
present course of the Administration's pol
icy in Viet Nam to join this call to mobil
ize the conscience of America. The tone of
the march is affirmative and creative, and
civil disobedience is prohibited. Among the
sponsors of the march are Arthur Miller,
Dr. Edwin Dahlberg, John Hersey, Erich
Fromm, Saul Bellow, Martin Luther King,
Jules Feiffer and Dr. Benjamin Spock,
some of whom will address the marchers.
Those interested in participating in the
march may contact either of the under
signed. William Wynn
Lewis Lipsitz
Chapel Hill
Recent Liberal Victory
In New York Does Not
Indicate National Power
Since the recent elections, liberals every
where have had a vertitable ball celebrat
ing John Lindsay's ascendency to the office
of Mayor of New York City. Surely, they
gloat, his victory shall lead the Republican
Party away from the reactionary madness
which seized it last year and inter once and
for all whatever ideological dispute remains
in the party by burying one faction of the
disputants the conservative faction, of
course.
Conveniently, if not surprisingly, the lib
erals have overlooked a number of signifi
cant facts of both the New York City race
and other contests. Foremost among these
if the fact that William F. Buckley, Jr.,
the Conservative Party candidate for may
or, drew some 340,000 votes. This is about
46,000 more than were cast for Lindsay on
the combined tickets of the Independent
Citizens and Liberal Parties, and well over
twice the margin by which Lindsay won.
That Buckley received any votes an all is
astonishing when one considers that his op
position comprised one candidate, Abraham
Beame, who had the endorsement of every
important Democrat from LB J to James
Farley, and whose party enjoys a 3-to-l
registration advantage and operates an ex
perienced machine; and a second, John
Lindsay, whose press was hearty in its ap
probation of his candidacy, and who repre
sented the only feasible alternative to a
city administration which had been at best
lacklustre and at worse entirely incompe
tent. The fact that Lindsay defeated Beame
is much less surprising: they were about
equally matched in political advantage and
indistinguishable in political ideology; so
people simply voted for the tall, handsome
liberal rather than the short ugly one.
There have been many efforts made to
gauge the effect of Lindsay's victory on
the future course of the Republican Party.
There can be no doubt that it portends well
fo the liberal, urban wing which last year
was so inept in persuading the party to
choose a candidate other than Barry Gold
water. It will not cite Lindsay's triumph as
evidence that the party can win if it but
runs a tall, handsome candidate, well prac
ticed in mouthing the usual liberal plati
tudes, somewhat more self-righteous than
the Democratic nominee, unconcerned with
such political archaisms as "principle,"
and quick to grasp the expedient above all
other alternatives.
. Conservative. Republicans though, will
point out that Lindsay's victory was en
tirely local in character. In New York City,
he may win success by embracing extreme
liberal Republicanism while suffering no de
cisive loss of more conservative GOP votes;
but a Republican of the Lindsay stripe will
be in trouble nationally. He can expect no
help from the conservative and traditionally
Democratic South and will be eyed with dis
trust and disdain by the Old Guard Repub
lican of the middle west and plains states.
Further, conservatives will rejoice that
even in New York City, their candidate
could receive such an astonishing and sub
stantial number of votes.
The net result seems to be that it will
be harder than ever to reconcile the con
servative and liberal factions of the party.
Yet there is no reason for the Democrats
to take cheer. After all, they did lose the
most important mayoralty in the country,
and lost it decisively. Their numerical su
periority and party organization sputtered
into defeat. In Philadelphia, with like ad
vantages, the Democratic incumbent candi
date for District Attorney was defeated by
the Republican nominee, Arlen Specter. In
heavily Democratic Virginia, the Democrat
nominee won over a determined Republican
bid only with the combined, simultaneous
support of such strange bedfellows as urban
Negroes the AFL-CIO and Harry Bryd.
Even at; that, his victory was by plurality,
as a third candidate, William J. Story, got
about 13.5 of the vote.
At best, then, the election results are
inconclusive, the ravings of Walter Lipp
man, Evans and Novak, the New York
Times ei al, to the contrary notwithstand
ing. Conservatives did not have the re
venge some of them sought, even if not
explicity; on Lindsay for his repudiation
of Goldwater. Yet it is foolish to assume
that so much as a large minority of New
York City conservatives voted for Buck
ley in preference to Lindsay. The sobering
prospect of four more years of Democratic
decline ut city hall may well have persuaded
many of these to cast their votes for a
heretical but relatively intelligent and in
dependent Lindsay - who had a chance of
defeating Beame, rather than a like-minded
conservative, Buckley, who, though equal
ly intelligent and more independent had
no chance.
The political future of John Lindsay is
another matter of considerable specualtion.-:
He has issued all the usual disclaimers of
higher aspirations, but it is highly doubtful
that he deserted a realtively tranquil and
secure seat in Congress to wrestle with the
infinite problems of the city government of
New York simply out of a feeling of civic
duty. Certainly Nelson Rockefeller has
made clear his hopes for the mayor-elect.
Yet if he intends to become the Republican
nominee for President in 1968 or 1972,
Lindsay will have to cease his reluctance
to bear the title "Republican" and attempt
to make himself palatable to that prevail
ing body of the party which at the moment
views him with suspicion. Lindsay has
shown that his liberalism can win against'
the registration advantage of the Demo- ;
crats. But it is instructive to bear strongly .
in mind that he has won only in New York
City, long a kind of greenhouse for liberal
crabgrass, both Democrat and Republican;
and that Democrats have proven more like
ly to break party lines in local and munici
pal elections in off-years than in major
national elections; and that Lindsay's op-;
position was both unattractive and inept. It
is quite possible, should Lindsay run for
President against Lyndon Johnson, who, at
tractive or not, is by no standard inept, that
the Democrats will vote with their party,
while disaffected conservative Republicans
stay home in droves. Such an election 1
would deal to Lindsay a defeat so stunning I
that Goldwater's showing might look good. :
Of course, all this is merely informed ;
conjecture, but for those of you who believe '
in omens exactly one week after Lind
say's election, all the lights in New York
- City went off.
Mike Jennings
Trial Nearly Over
For Speaker Ban
The trial's about over. There may be a
hanging1 soon. Let's not celebrate!
The speaker ban law seems doomed to
radical amendment. It may even be lynched
and disposed of. In either case, the Legis- '
lature is going to be a reluctant jury. Like
most of us, legislators don't cotton to back
ing down.
We can give the Legislature a break by
keeping very, very quiet until the special
session is over. Catcalling at this late date
would be not only useless but ungrateful
as well. Yep, I said ungrateful. The Britt
Commission worked hard to help clear the
University's name. If the Legislature does
as well, we'll owe it a vote of thanks.
There's no cause to sow the seeds of further
hostility with an "it's about time" attitude.
But, somewhere on campus, there's an
idiot. I can seem him now, in my mind's
eye. He's in his room, working on a sign,
On the day the Legislature rules that the
trustees should have final authority on in
viting speakers, that idiot is going to march
into the state house and go right into the
Senate Chamber so everybody can read
what's on his sign: "Guess you graybeards
won't fool with UNC anymore, huh" -
Then with the gag already hung and
buried, they'll exhume the motley carcass
and create a Frankenstein monster.
People, we've got to great that idiot beC
fore he leaves Chapel Hill. :
LETTERS
The DaHy Tar Heel welcome! letters
to the editor on any subject, particularly
on matters of local or University inter
est. Letters must be typed, double
spaced and must include the name and
address of the author or authors. Names
will not be omitted ia publication. Let
ters should be kept as brief as possible.
The DTH reserves the right to edit for
length or libel.
SNQ0fV?N0. HE
'THE DAl$V MILL
WrWrTKMTiJNiftiT
k MAKING A SrtfeCH -
THIS 1$ t4e DAjV HILL
POPfV ttfflU?riF DlDNTrtOuJ UP?
BVT R LEFT TWO DAYS AGO !
I DON'T UNDERSTAND... He HAD
HiS SPEECH ALLU)ftlTTN,AfO
40UF0RAN AnER-CKNNcft
PcAKtx. DOESN'T IT?
WELL. DON'T VELL
AT ME 11
A
N
D
Y
C
A
P
P
t?MOTHeRrItXE'Ylv-.
C IMi. TW Hal Sraanac lac
mm Cwfe Mmw. I 11I11TM
i
M l I I - W mi M
ake vk sentimental.) JfiZSSfi)
j? rfvsjTv m mi r?