Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Oct. 25, 1967, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Pane 2 fflaug 75 Years 0 Editorial Freedom Bill Amlong, Editor' Don Walton, Business Manager She itood For Change . . . And Almost Made It Carol Stein, as Women's At torney General, stood for change. There were a lot of things in her office that she didn't1 think were right, and she set about fixing them. For one thing, she changed the way the Women's Attorney General staff was selected. Whereas before it had been top heavy with the members of a few sororities, Miss ( Stein wanted to spread the representation throughout the cam pus. To do this, she selected her staff from geographical areas: so many girls to a living unit. ' The sororities weren't happy about this. They had been in con trol of the WAG's office before, and thought that things quite naturally should continue that way. Miss Stein claims to have been :o.w.v.v.v.v.v.v.v.y( 0 8 1 Bureaucrats I I Search For . . vvci 1 - j rL..r.i 1 in h is-ii ni i hi 11 S m m a J rt4 . J. 1 a - w ; 0 '.V V $ months. $ I Why? I ;;Becuase nheUrS. Senater r Monday reactivated t h e $ $: Subversive Activities Control $ ... ' w : Liuoiu. uul i.( Jill l) 11 n i 11 'A memoers mat u tnev am not w r a 111 i:t :vi in m .1111111 1111 1 v 1 r r - a 1 ;:: uecemDer 31, iswj, trie tSAVH : would be closed down. : I And as any literate T ig American knows, the best i $ place to find Communists is in $ jg Chapel Hill. I Now how about t h 0 s e & g cookies? Your freindly, g federal government has $ P breathed new life into perhaps $ i& the most useless board in the gj history of this country. : The board members make I a cool $26,000 a year for doing g absolutely nothing. We stress i$ the aboslutely and t h e $ I nothing. By its own ad-$ I mittance, the SACB hasn't ex-1 g posed any commies in years $ jg and years. j That may be because they g haven't tried. Board members g I don't even go to their offices $ jij: for weeks on end. One I reporter in Washington spent $ : more than two weeks trying to 3 gj chase down a Board member $ : any board member. Most of ;i them were out of the coun- i I try. I $ If you got $26,000 a year to gj do nothing, would you stay in :j: the country?) i-ji Of course the Board has the excuse that it was -i; S virtually put out of 8 business by court rulings that 5 subversive groups did not I have to register with the Justice Department . j If it was "put out of business," then let's get rid of : g it, as suggested by Sen. j Edward Brooke. : What worries us is this: : I With the. Board members! threatened that their $26,000 a i gj year may be cut off if they j : don't produce, a witch hunt is j almost certain to begin. ' ! And we don't want any of j : the SACB fat cats messing i I around Chapel Hill looking for j i Southern commies, g So if you see any scared- : looking bureaucrats around the campus, let us know. We'll expose them. ::::: '.............'.v.v.v.v.v.v.' (Mr Don Campbell, Associate Editor Lytt Stamps, Managing Editor Hunter George, News Editor Brant Wansley, Advertising Manager instructed by Student Body Presi dent Bob Travis to put more sorori ty women on the staff. Travis claims he said no such thing. ANOTHER THING Miss Stein wanted changed around here were women's rules. She worked ac tively with the Women's Residence Council, lending it the help of her office. She even succeeded in get ting a WAG staff member ap pointed to the WRC Rules Com mittee, which is only right since the office that must work with the rules should have some say in their writing. She as also quite vocal about how she thought change was need ed in women's rules. She'd say what she thought anytime she felt like it, not worrying about who might or might not disagree with her. And many persons did disagree. There was even some talk, by the persons who did disagree with Miss Stein, that she had "slanted" cases which she did not think should be considered Honor Coun cii offenses, and at least one ac cusation that she withheld evidence in a case.., She denied this. We agree with her. From what we know of Miss Stein, it is totally ridiculous to im agine her doing anything so Sure, she would oppose many of the rules to the hilt, she'd speak out against them. But it is beyond our imagination to think of Miss Stein's not prosecuting a case that was a legitimate case. One of the main tenets of her philosophy of change, after all, was that women's rules can be changed only if they are challenged, and they can only be challenged if they are brought into the open through Honor Council trials. BUT EVEN Miss Stein's very big hope that things would be changed could not effect the way she ran her office so much that it . would change the entire concept of what the Women's Attorney Gen eral was supposed to be. That is why we also find hard to believe the accusation that in interviewing candidates for her' staff, Miss Stein placed undue weight on the reply to her question of "What do you think of women's rules?" , As Miss Stein explained, her of fice worked with rules and it was very important that the girls work ing in it be aware of the present un dercurrent of discontentment with those rules. Even some of those girls who were a bit too hard-line about present women's rules for . Miss Stein's tatstes were hired. All she asked of her staff, you see, was that they be competent. If they agreed with her, that was nice too, but it wasn't mandatory. The only thing that was manda tory, as far as Miss Stein was concerned, was that the Women's Attorney office do the best job possible, the best that had ever been done. , She worked hard to make this a reality, even setting up a training program to instruct the new staf fers in how. to handle casesinstead of just letting them flounder around as former staff members had done until they learned the ropes through experience. The first meeting of this training program took place Mon day night. But Carol Stein, who as women's attorney general wanted things changed, was not there to run it. Bob Travis fired her Monday afternoon. 32LPAILY Tetters To The Editnr The Natur To The Editor: As a draft counselor in training, i feel that the time has come to clarify SOme misconceptions about the nature of 0ur work. Contrary to some of the (material in The Daily Tar Heel, the draft counselor's services are available to a nyone with any sort of question about the draft, not just to C.O.'s or potential C.O.'s. Much as the lawyer needs to sus pend his personal judgement and defend his client to the best of his ability within the law, so the draft counselor must maintain a rigid distinction between pro- selyting for his own position and offering unbiased information as to h e alternatives and consequences, within!: and. outside of the laws governing the Selective Service. If the Army does not appeal to a particular person, perhaps the Navy or, the Air Force should be considered as' alternatives. If being drafted is morally neutral to someone but would cause grave discomfort for his family, he might ' well qualify for some kind of deferment. If a person cooperated with the Selective Service and registered on his 18th birth day, Jie imay now find that he cannot in good conscience serve in Vietnam and : may choose to refuse induction. A person could also choose not to cooperate with ! the draft at all. . . The draft counselor must be able to tell this person about the possible con sequences of his past or contemplated future actions so that the person can jmake a rational decision about what he wants to do, knowing the likely outsomes for each alternative. 0 is To The Editor: The recent letter (oct. 11) by Mr. Otis on Vietnam seemed vague on certain crucial points. I have the following ques-j tions about his three main arguments: ; 1. Mr. Otis contends the cost of the war is too great, but gives no consistent standard for this judgment. He feels there have been too many casualties, yet previously has judged the ad ministration's rationale for the war to be adequate. If the war is worth fighting, how many casualties is to be the limit before it is no longer worthwhile? At one point the rationale must have become in adequate for Mr. Otis, but he doesn't in dicate where. He then rejects the abstractions of statistics, pleading the individual loss, the death and maiming of each soldier. This is a clear and sufficient argument'for a pacifist; but Mr. Otis has said he is no pacifist. A non-pacifist feels that there are conditions when individual loss as sickening as it may be, is justified 'Mr Otis needs to tell us his justification-or else recognize himself as the pacifist ba seems to be. He proceeds to deplore the President's justifications, yet does not tell us whv they are deplorable. The net result is a melodramatic contrast non-pacifist Mr Otis talking like a pacifist versus a heartless (and cowardly, for not goine battle himself) President. (His comntnt that "the presidency has sustained nn casualties" seems to mean that tZ President should be in battle himself This requirement could have a temperi effect on the conduct of any PredeS? mu x uvpe mr. us is -aware nf ul political dangers in such a requirement and that he also sees that under nrlf maards the President's conduct is heinous as Mr. Otis' words suggest 2. Mr. Otis then enntn ; possibly win the war. His analysis SeJm to rest on two main assumptions- (th t Communist victory is inevitable no m ? ter what; and (2) that "security" s i be defined in such an extreme way that is practically impossible. (Note: p who can presume that Conimiuiist gression, once thwarted J?.f permanently cease? Korea cannot b . . , wc van nnt Are TAR EtEEJ The draft counselor thus needs to know a good deal more than just how to file for al-Oora I-A-0 deferment or the possible consequences for burning a draft card. The counselor must, to the best of his ability, provide unbiased information on all aspects of the Selective Service law, as it applies to the counselee regardelss of the counselor's own feel ings. Roger B. Wells Dept. of Psychology Simpson-Tyndall Proposal 'Absurd9 To The Editor: There is a new joke on campus. It is the Bland Simpson, Bobby Tyndall move ment to abolish class officers. To ac copnplish this holiest of causes they have set up a third political party on campus "to do nothing.''. Obviously, our Student Government is not the greatest political system ever established; if it were, the whole world would probably be using it. Since it is not, I agree with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Tyndall that reforms are needed and some things need to be done cfif - ierentiy. But the reforms their new party advocates are not constructive, they don't benefit the student, they dont even challenge candidates to motivate Of ID) ; Mer co.reW Inspection, r ' uments ouesTioiie cited as evidence for such a position. In the first place, a 13-year old truce does not count as a permanent anything; and in the second place, if Communist ag gression was halted in Korea, what is the war in Vietnam supposed to be? The most Korea can show is' that the Com munist aggression, once thwarted, will subside for a time and shift location.") I find this argument everywhere in anti-war writings, and I have yet to see convincing arguments which would ac count for the self-defeating tone of such an analysis. There are good arguments to support the idea that the North Viet namese could produce a more stable and fruitful country in South Vietnam; it is on these arguments that I see the crucial debate in this war. But Mr. Otis leaps to the irrational conclusion that Com munism is the wave of the future, sure to triumph in the end; and as far as I can see, this assumption is supported only by Mr. Otis' (and others') extreme pessimism: why, really, must we refuse to allow a 13-year old truce as a form of permanence? As far as I read history, this is as permanent as anything gets in relations between nations. 3. Mr. Otis moral dilemma whereby anyone who advocates a war and yet does not fight in it is "somehow dishonest would be a lot clearer if he could see the real source of his problems: namely, the continual problem of how to reconcile a free society with the demand that some people, against their will, be required to risk their life for it. This is coupled with a second problem: the self inclusive nature of the Constitution, creating a society arid yet giving no fully developed guidelines on how that society should relate to other hostile-societies. When the government of the United States feels a (real or imagined--and this is another crucial aspect of the present debate) threat from another country it has no recourse but to use the dreary, yet somewhat successful solutions that surviving nations of the past used: , es pionage, intimidation, war, even against innocent third parties (as Vietnam is, because our government's quar relstated directly by Rusk is with' China): and these solutions demand a Prr themselves and use their office effectively upon threat of abolishment. Instead of a challenging, militant group of over achievers and reformers, we get an im mature group who supports a slate of candidates "to do notliing.'' The absurdi ty of such action is evident, especially when it is seen that the martyr of "the cause" is not even dedicated enough as a legislator to come to the meetings. It is hard to understand a reformer who was not even present to voice his vote or opinion when the legislative com mittee (of which he is a member) which acted on John Williford (abolishment) and George Krishbaum's (restructuring) bill concerning class officers. He then has the gall to attack a system when he is one of the great causes for its failure a , person in it for the name. If it was such a great issue one would think he would have at least come to the meeting even if he did not voice his opinion, his vote would have reversed the decision of the committee on both the bills. Perhaps the Golden Boy of the Durham Student Coun cil Commission is living in the past and has not grown up the the fact that Stu dent Government is like a football team just because you lose a couple of games does not make football "Mickey Mouse", and if a defensive halfback can not cover the receiver, then get someone who can live up to the obligations of his position. If one were to compare what each of the parties stand for it would be evident that the Simpson-Tyndall idea, that class officers should not do anything is ridiculous, and that either party is better compromise of fee constitutional stan dards which fee society is to uphold. In the moral uproar that follows such com promises, the crucial question is overlooked: does the government have any other choice? Merely to say "Be true to yourself, though you perish" is hardly an answer. And this is what fee issue of selective service rests on: it is, yes, a betrayal of what we stand for, a bleeding sore caused by the hostile world in which we live. It is the sort of dilemma that each non-fighting American should feel and be uneasy about. It is one of the in herent dilemmas of democracy, and fee sort of "solution" which Mr. Otis finds seems to me to be an evasion of the. dilemma, an attempt to avoid paying one of the prices of democracy. Mr. Otis does not merely not want to fight; he does not even want to feel guilty. For if he really wanted to end this war, he should use his mind for more fruitful purposes than arguing himself into a position of helplessness. Other points: 1. Mr. Otis' agreement with the ad ininistration's justification of the war is simply unacceptable. This crucial point must be argued out; it can not be settled merely by assumption. By assuming it, Mr. Otis undercuts his powers of reason before he even begins. 2. Contrary to Mr. Otis, war is abstract; it. is not merely you and that Vietnamese pointing guns at each other. But for fee abstractions, neither of you would be in such a position; nor would you be anything more than an animal. It is reverse sentimentality td say that war is conducted only or anything is con ducted only at fee immediate level of experience. To claim that is to throw one's mind away and have no effect on the course of fee war. 3. Mr. Otis makes a big thing of fac ing the consequences" of our withdrawal. But he merely acknowledges feat we should face them; he doesn't really face them. Nobody does. And yet this is the government's big emotional block, the dominating fear which determines every decision. Charles Rohl 213 Purefoy Road Wednesday, October 25, 1967 CoumseUmg than the "Do Nothings." To cite ex amples, I may unfortunately only spesfc in specifics for my party's platform: In the course of fee coming year, our slate would conduct a study on the Fraternity Rush System and scholarship pledging reestablish majors seminars where by faculty representatives of every major offered on campus would speak with all students interested in their field, we would with Lloyd Simon greatly push the establishment of a Student Advisor System, We want to more closely allign Student Government with the students moving slowly at first by establishing bitch-ins in every legislative district and by publicizing a synopsis of all bills on which the legislature takes action. From there, there is no stopping us. Once we have a foothold the rest of the climb will be much more simple, plus the fact that we would be so versatile. Since we are not limited to any one field, I would have us work in any area directly affecting the students. As I am already working with Bob Travis on how to improve relations between' Student Government and the students, and between Student Govern ment and the state of North Carolina, I feel I would not only have a peephole to the issues facing this campus, but also an effective channel through which to carry out any needed reforms. I also fed cer tain that any platform put forward by the University Party would greatly outstrip the platform of the Independent Reform Movement merely on fee grounds of con structiveness. In closing, I would ask all discerning students to view all- "three" political parties for what they are worth and for what each would do for the student, before choosing whom to support. I would also say to those reformers who preach that energy wasted in campaigning for class office must be used for the better cause of working in Student Government that they should practice a little of what they preach and better use some of their energy to mobilize their forces through the several prescribed methods available to them to achieve their objectives such as petition and pressure on ones legislators instead of trying to martyr themselves into fee limeiUght; or better yet, to pursue some worthwhile ob jectives. Respectfully, Dale Sims Galling DiRead: : Your Poetry Ails From Lack Of Merit To The Editor: Letters to the editor should satisfy certain conditions before they are, printed. They should offer comment or suggestions, and they should be written clearly, in proper English, so that the average reader can understand what is being said. In addition to violating the above stan dards, Forest Read's letter to the Editor : was severely lacking in poetic merit. The editorial page should not be made into a forum' for faculty members who wish to print shoddy poetry. Respectfully yours, Li am Sternberg 421 James They're Sorry To Disappoint Us To The Editor: This correspondence is addressed in particular to Miss Wonsavage, reportedly an illustrious member of your staff . As a group of "typically Mod boys, who wear their hair long to match their turtleneck sweaters", we would like to question Miss Wonsavage's rather sordid view of Ex eter students, expressed in her October 18th review of "Garrison's GoTinas' Actually, upon arrival in Chapel Hill, most of us sprinted to the nearest phone booth, ripped off our turtlenecks, and emerged with alligator tassle loafers, checked pants, Ban-Lon shirts, and Arnold Palmer golf sweaters, never to change again. Terribly sorry to disap-; point you, though may I ask if you've ever been to Choate, perchance? : Stanley T. Kowalski ; William C. VanderWoIk J.T.Foley Phillips Exeter Academy '67 (Editor's Note: The review was "ap proved" before printing by an "Exeter boy" on the staff, Terry Gisgras.) The Daily Tar Hee! is the official news publication of the University of North Carolina and is published by students daily except Mondays, ex-, amination periods and vacations. Offices on the second floor of Gra ham Memorial. Telephone numbers: editorial, sports, news 933-1011; busi ness, circulation, advertising 933 1163. Address: Box 1D80, Chapel Hill, N. O, 27514. - Second class postage paid at the Post Office in Chapel Hill, N. C.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 25, 1967, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75