Page 2-B
E The Chapel Hill Weekly I
"// tAe matter it important and you are sure of your ground,
never fear to be in the minority.”
ORVIIiJE CAMPBELL, PaUUher JAMES "SHUMAKER, General Maaager
MhM eroty Saaday aad Wettaeaday by (he Chapel BBH Publishing Company, Lae.
Ml Weat Franklin Street. Chapel Hill. N. C.
P. 0. Bex m - Telephone *B7-7*15
fbManliilinn rates (payable In advance and including N. C. sales tax)—ln North Carolina:
One year, H.IS; six months, $3.09; three months, $2 08. Elsewhere in the United States: One
year, sß.o®; six months, $4.00; three months, SI.OO. Outside United States: One year, SIO.OO.
Thc Odds Are Long, But The Time
Is Ripe For The Governor To Lead
There is an old joke about the col
lege student who turned up at the end
of the semester with four Ps and a D.
When his parents demanded an account
ing, the student blandly replied, “Well, I
guess I concentrated too much on one
subject.”
Something like that happened to Gov
ernor Terry Sanford in the 1963 session
of the General Assembly, although his
saving grace was considerably better
than a D. The Governor’s prime objec
tive in the 1963 session was progress in
higher education. That was a highly
commendable objective and one worthy
of all the influence the Governor could
bring to bear, but his overriding con
cern for it cost North Carolina a decent
minimum wage, Senate redistricting,
and other major Sanford proposals.
Now we have a special session of the
Legislature coming up which will be de
voted to Senate redistricting. This is the
way Governor Sanford wants it, because
if other issues were cut loose, the legis
lators might jump the traces and re
districting would be jeopardized*.
There were political realities the Gov
An Unintentional Blow For Democracy
Assistant Attorney General Ralph
Moody, in confiding to the citizenry of
Harnett County that the real purpose of
the gag law was to force the University
to function as the “political agent” it
actually is, probably had no wish to
hasten the law’s repeal.
But, by saying that “the University
is merely a political agent,” presumably
serving no purpose but to buttress the
political philosophy of the state in which
it exists, he has argued as cogently for
repeal as any of the law’s liberal op
ponents.
It would be pointless to tabulate the
number of demagogues, past and pres
ent, who have said the same thing about
other universities. The statement could
have been lifted intact fj-<jm the writ
ings of Marx, Lenin, or Stalin. The sub
jugation of German universiti&s by Hit
ler or the vigor with which Mussolini
rinsed the free-thinking taint from
Italian universities are echoed with sym
pathy and precision in Mr. Moody’s defi
nition.
Os course those Universities were
notably unreliable perpetuators of the
political systems to which they were
bent. To some extent universities, no
Hurrah! A Quarantine Against Words
The Vineyard Gazette
“Words, words, words,” said Ham
let. Words have mystery and beauty,
says J. Donald Adams as one more
spokesman for a great and lofty tradi
tion that is also meaningful to all who
speak and read.
With this choice of texts, we will pro
ceed to declare that nothing can be form
alized, stylized, socialized, blueprinted
(except in a precise literal sense), up
graded, or downgraded in the columns
of the Gazette. These are words of a
sort, typifying an unfortunately preval
ent tendency of our time, but we will
venture to say that they are jargon ra
ther than members of the family of
proper English. Moreover they suggest
the urban sprawl of the intellect which is
accompanying the urban sprawl of ac
tuality.
j Dm Gazette will continue to main
tain a strict quarantine against the word
contact, used as a verb, and against the
word itself in most circumstances, be
cause of its evil associations as measur
ed by the standards of good taste in lan
‘lpidge.
Wednesday, October 2, 1963
ernor had to face in the 1963 General
Assembly and there will be more fac
ing him in the special sessioi Even
tually there comes a time, however,
when political considerations no longer
can take precedent over what is right
and wrong.
As far as Governor Sanford is con
cerned, this seems to be such a time.
It is time for the Governor to take a
strong and forthright stand on North
Carolina’s gag law and not only agree to,
but to sponsor personally a major effort
to repeal the law in the special session
of the Legislature.
Obviously, such a move on the Gov
ernor’s part might knock the props right
out from under any Senate redistrict
ing plan, and hopes are not exactly
blinding that the gag law could be eras
ed. But it's a dead certainty the gag
law won’t be repealed unless somebody
makes the effort.
A repeal movement led by Governor
Sanford would be consistent with his
intense interest in higher education.
Even more to his credit, it would attest
to a very real concern for democracy.
matter how badly mauled by political
dogma, have mulishly persisted in pur
suit of matters that have little to do
w'ith the preservation of doctrine, unless
truth bulks large in the doctrine itself.
A university’s basic concern is knowl
edge, we are told; knowledge is truth,
the truth of things as they happen to
be, and the political content of truth is
negligible. On the other hand the per
centage of truth in politics is vital, and
cannot be determined without unfet
tered inquiry. We have adequate proof
of this principle in that every totali
tarian system has found its perversion a
necessary condition of survival.
If we accept Mr. Moody’s borrowed
definition of a university, we accept with
it a philosophy that enjoys current
vogue in Moscow, in Prague, in Peiping.
We say, moreover, that freedom and
democracy are dogma. Just as well to
say black is white, up is down and out
is in.
We may harbor no hidden affection
for Mr. Moody or his ilk, but we should
feel gratitude toward him for asserting
with pith and conviction that he has no
faith in truth nor any wish to entrust
the survival of democracy to the un
trammeled pursuit of knowledge.
We extend our apologies and complete
good will toward those, and they are
many, who have joined in an addiction
to the adverb “currently.” There is
nothing wrong with “currently,” so far
as we know, but the Gazette is incur
ably in love with “now,” its sound, its
appearance, its thrifty three letters, and
its commanding tone. Let things be done
currently elsewhere and in the world at
large, if that is a wordly preference,
but in the columns of the Gazette let
them be done now.
iws For Today
The error of the ages is preaching
without practice.
—Mary Baker Eddy
The best sermon is preached by the
minister who has a sermon to preach
and by the man who has to preach a
sermon.
—Cervantes
Dissenting Book Review, Manners
SPAIN: THE ROOT AND
THE FLOWER. P.g John A.
Crow. Harper & Row. hi 2
Pages. $6.95.
Dear Editor:
The esteemed and much enjoy
ed CHAPEL HILL WEEKLY for
Aug. 11 1963 carried a featured
review of the above mentioned
book by my young friend, for
whomj have the highest regard.
- •». . ■ ™
... - * - -M
•£'&}"' \ - - -ABH .■; .•j.-Vo, '-v;-.-',
C 'Jt \ ", 1 | J prft WMM , , , ' , -? i
The Rolling Hills Os Orange County
.... Off Smith Level Road Near Chapel Hill
Story With A Moral For North Carolina
Many people are worried about
the North Carolina gag law which
restricts freedom of speech on
the campuses of State-supported
institutions.
Miss Mary Gilson of Chapel
Hill is one who is worried. Miss
Gilson is in her eighties, bht time
has not dulled her edge. She is
one of Chapel Hill’s leading tal
ents for letting people know with
crystal clarity what she thinks
of them and where their errors
lie. Miss Gilson is worried that
the creators of the gag law and
the would-be investigators of the
University will gain greater as
cendancy than they already en
joy.
In this regard Miss Gilson has
a story to tell. Its implications,
which are interesting, speak for
themselves.
In the 1930’s (Miss Gilson is not
sure of the year), she was teach
ing economics at the University
of Chicago. At that time the
president of the University of
Chicago was Robert Maynard
Hutchins. Mr. Hutchins was not
a conformist. He abolished in
ter-college football at Chicago
for example, pointing out to the
students that they could have all
the intra-mural sports they want
ed, but that he was tired of ma
jorettes and the student exodus
on weekends.
Also at that time. Miss Gilson
said, Mrs. Elizabeth Dilling and
Father Charles Coughlin were
talking publicly about the Univer
sity of Chicago faculty in some
what less than complimentary
terms. Their comments were
generally to the effect that the
University of Chicago faculty was
a hotbed of at least potential, if
not active subversion.
"They spread a lot of poison
in the air,” is the way Miss Gil
son described their activities,
with graphic simplicity.
At about the same time Miss
Lucille Norton entered the Uni
versity of Chicago. Miss Norton,
who came from Seattle, was the
niece of the president of the Wal
green chain of drug stores. She
lived with her uncle, Mr. Wal
green, in Chicago while attend
ing the University.
Miss Norton, according to Miss
Gilson, somehow got some dis
torted ideas about what was go
ing on at the University. Day
after day she went home and told
Letters To The Editor
Mrs. Janet Wineeoff. I will al
ways support the right of my
friend to entertain and publish
any opinion of any book what
ever, but in this case I think
ner review was unfortunate in
statement and expression. A life
time devoted to the study of
Spanish culture leads me to dis
agree with practically every
paragraph of that review, and
I think amends should be made
her uncle about the University
faculty’s communistic leanings
and other depraved tendencies.
Faculty advocacy of free love
apparently was reported by Miss
Norton, among other things, and
finally Mr. Walgreen got worried.
He went to the Illinois Legisla
ture in Springfield and demand
ed a full-scale investigation of
the University of Chicago faculty.
President Hutchins scoffed. He
didn’t care if there were com
munists among his faculty, he
said, and he didn’t care if com
munist faculty members were
carrying cards. Nobody was go
ing to be fired.
But the Illinois legislature ob
liged Mr. Walgreen by sending
eight of its members to Chicago
to hold hearings. Whether by
chance or whimsical design it is
not known, but the hearings were
held in the Red Room of the
LaSalle Hotel. There the eight
legislators sat in a semi-circle on
a raised platform and questioned
witnesses.
The hearings turned out to be
quite a popular pastime. You
had to have tickets to get in,
Miss Gilson said, to watch the
legislators “grill” the faculty.
Miss Gilson particularly recalls
the day when Miss Norton took
the stand, wearing a pink hat
with a blue rose over one eye.
A legislator named Baker who,
Miss Gilson said, wore his spec
tacles on the end of his nose,
asked Miss Norton to tell about
the time a faculty member said
he was in favor of free love.
Miss Norton complied.
“And did this alter your con
duct at the University?” Mr.
Baker inquired.
“Oh, yes sir,” said Miss Nor
ton.
At this, Miss Gilson said, there
was a roar of laughter from the
audience, particularly from the
row of students from her own
class whom she had escorted to
the hearing. President Hutchins,
who was sitting in front of her,
reached back, pinched her on the
,leg, and told her to keep those
students quiet.
“The. only time I ever «ot
pinched on the leg,” said Miss
Gilson.
Frederick Schuman, then a
Chicago faculty member and now
a professor at William College,
was called to testify about the
to the distinguished Mr. Crow.
My colleagues here, as well as
others, seem to agree with me.
The same book was reviewed
with considerably more favor by
experienced and knowledgeable
reviewers in The New York
Times, The Los Angeles Times,
The Herald Tribune and other
papers.
Readers of the CHAPEL HILL
WEEKLY should be particular
free love affair. As Professor
Schuman explained it, he had
spoken to a group of students
one evening on the economic
causes of war, and after his lec
ture and the subsequent question
answer period were over he col
lected his notes and was about
to step from behind the lectern
when a student rose and jokingly
said, “Well, now I’d like to hear
what you think about free love,
Dr. Schuman.”
Dr. Schuman, joining in with
the joke, replied, “I’m just like
everyone else. Religion for the
other fellow, free love for me.”
Miss Norton had taken the re
mark seriously.
The hearings dragged on to
their end.
They were not ail peaceful.
Gangster John Dillinger was ac
tive at that time, and at one
meeting Mrs. Dilling’s husband
happened to be standing at the
back of the Red Room listening
to the legislators question the
faculty. Somebody reportedly
spotted him, said, “Oh, you're
Mr. Dillinger, aren't you?” and
a fist fight ensued which resulted
in both parties being dragged
out of the Red Room.
The investigation. Miss Gilson
said, never turned up any com
munism or free love or any of
the other debaucheries and sub
versions among the University
faculty Mrs. Dilling and Father
Coughlin had been .talking about,
and which Miss Norton had been
reporting to her uncle.
Mr. Walgreen was so chagrined
about the whole affair that he
went to Charles Merriam, then
chairman of the Department of
Political Science at the Univer
sity of Chicago. Miss Gileon said
Dr. Merriam told her that Mr.
Walgreen came to him almost
weeping. His friends had de
serted him, Mr. Walgreen said.
He was a laughing stock. His
reputation was shattered. What
could he do about it?
Dr. Merriam suggested that
Mr. Walgreen give the University
of Chicago $500,000 with which to
finance a professor’s chair for the
teaching of “Americanization.”
Mr. Walgreen wrote out a check.
“And now if you want to go up
there and talk about Americani
zation,” said Miss Gilson, "you
can ask to use some of the mon
ey in the Walgreen Americaniza
tion Foundation.”—JACD
ly interested in Mr. Crow, be
cause he was bom in Wilming
ton and attended this University,
receiving his A. B. (Phi Beta
Kappa) in 1927, and his hitfier
degrees at Columbia and at the
University of Madrid. He has
taught here, at Davidson, at
NYU and has been Professor of
Spanish at UCLA since 1937. He
is a rather frequent visitor here,
because his mother, Mrs.
George D. Crow, is a resident of
Chapel Hill.
Beause several of us feel that
you were a completely innocent
party to an injustice to Mr.
Crow, I hope very much that
you will be willing to publish a
very different review of Mr.
Crow’s book. The review will ap
pear in the December issue of
HISPANIA. As an Associate Ed
itor of that journal, I grant you
full permission for this advance
publication. Here is the re
view, which was limited to about
500 words.
Spain has fascinated many
foreigners, some of whom quick
ly wrote books which varied
from merely deficient to very
bad. The enthusiasm of the au
thors was not matched by suf
ficient intelligence, knowledge
of the country and the Spanish
language, power of observation
and interpretation, and ability to
write well. Mr. Crow possesses
all those qualities and more.
His experience in Spain, which
he first visited in 1928, his long
stay incident upon the acquire
ment of his doctorate from the
University of Madrid in 1933,
his frequent subsequent visits,
his lifelong devotion to Hispanic
culture, which he has assimilat
ed as few other foreigners have,
all qualify him unusually well
to speak of his chosen subject.
The result is one of the best
books on Spain to appear in re
cent years. In this case the pub
lishers’ statement is accurate
in calling it “. . . a rich-textur
ed book ... of deep sympathy
and great insight ... It is a
basic and revealing interpreta
tion of Spanish institutions and
art, valid regardless of what
happens to the country polit
ically.”
Mr. Crow graciously dedicates
his book “To the people of
Spain whose culture has absorb
ed my entire professional life.”
That means Hispanic culture in
general, for Mr. Crow has previ
ously devoted noteworthy atten
tion to manifestations south of
Qthe border with his well-known
The Epic of Latin America
* 1946), Mexico Today (1957),
and with several highly esteem
ed and widely used college text
books. In other words, he will
have no truck with any silly idea
of rivalry between Peninsular
and Spanish American studies.
This scholar is quite at home
either south of the Pyrenees or
south of the Rio Grande* May
his example be widely followed!
This volume is not a political
history of Spain, though im
portant events are duly men
tioned and evaluated. It is not
a guidebook and not a series of
journalistic impressions or per
sonal reminiscences, though it
is here and there enlivened by
statements in the first person
singular. The book is an honest
and successful attempt to in
terpret the underlying motives
and realities of Spanish culture
from prehistoric times through
the 27th unhappy year of the
present dictatorship. It is sup
plied with map endpapers, 16
photographs (one longs for more
in a work of this sort), all lump
ed together after p. 146; 64 ref
erences which constitute a use
ful sort of bibliography, a list of
important dates in Spanish his
tory, a glossary of Spanish (ev
en though Spanish phrases are
translated throughout), and a
good index.
The last one fourth of the
book is devoted to the period of
the Second Spanish Republic,
the Civil War (un millon de
muertos) and the Franco regime.
Mr. Crow’s sincere, forthright
and vigorously expressed opin
ions are sternly unfavorable to
the present dictator. (A sort of
minor neo-Philip II?) How can
any true democrat feel other
wise? Official Spanish circles
will not relish the statement (p.
362): “Franco and his regime
epitomize backwardness," or
other statements up tc the last
page (392): "General Franco,
after all, is only a flicker in his
tory, and will soon be forgot
ten.” The very last words of
the book are worth quoting:
“In Spain everything decays
but the race; the problem is
how to project its vital and prim
itive energies over the right dis
tances and in the proper per
spective. When that one thing
is accomplished Spain will rise
like the phoenix and soar again
above the impossfcle present.”
This reviewer adds a fervent
OJALA.
This attractively written book
contains a few errors aad mis
prints, none of them serious. Re-
VIMMSNI nun -11 ■
T ivrrvi j VOSI BlWajcl VuSOgrTT Wfffl
a few of an author’s statements,
or his sense of proportion. Some
readers will not like to see that
Unamuno is accorded more
space than Cervantes, though all
would admit the stimulating qual
ity if not the ultimate validity of
Unamuno’s pronouncements con
cerning his native land and varous
hundreds of other subjects. Some
may feel that Ortega y Gasset
is here slightly denigrated. My
summary opinion is that this
Spate is a book of true excel
lence, and that it should be put
in the hands of all serious stu
dents of things Spanish, and
that it will enormously profit all
intelligent travelers who con
template a visit to the alluring
country between France and Af
rica.
Nicholson B. Adams
Mr. Adams taught his first
class (in a country high school)
in I*l3. Since Joining the fncul
ty of UNC In 1*24. he has pub
lished numerous books, text
books and articles concerning
Spain. He Is a past president of
the American Association of
Teachers of Spank* aad Portn
tfucuc in! t C®i responding
Member of the Hispanic Society
of America.
To the Editor:
Several days ago some older
woman came up to me and said
she was Lucille Elliott, former
Law School Librarian. She said
she wanted to thank me for my
work here with the students. She
said she didn’t think much of it
when I began, but she had been
converted. The students used to
let the doors fall on her, and
many other things that were rude
and thoughtless, but, now she
continued, they open doors for
me, and ask me to get in line,
and a general improvement all
around. She was very compli
mentary. I thanked her and
her I thought they had improv
ed, as I told CBS when they call
ed me from New York, in every
way except their table manners.
None of them, I said, have any
backbone. They have to prop
their bodies up with their elbows
and their feet up on chairs. I
wish there was some way the
University could see that every
one of them took sitting-up exer
cises for fifteen minutes every
day. One student told me one
day when I remarked on their
propping themselves on their el
bows, that their muscles were
weak, that they didn’t do any
thing but lean over books. lam
sure that is true.
Another woman spoke to me
yesterday, I didn’t ask her name.
She said she wished I would get
after them about the way they
dressed. She was referring spe
cifically to the many boys who
wear their shirt-tails out. I said
they looked like they had just
gotten out of bed, and should be
sent back for a bath and to put
their shirt-tails in. She said her
two sons taught in a Catholic
University, and that the students
had to dress to come to class,
she didn't think the University
here should allow the students to
come on the campus with their
shirt-tails hanging out. I like to
see students, boys as well as
girls, comfortable and cool in
summer, but they should dww
some sense. I have gotten after
them about so many things, that
I don’t like to start on their
clothes. I don’t know what the
University can do about it but I
think the students should start a
crusade, demanding that the boys
show more discretion in their ap
parel on the campus.
One student back from Paris,
a Rhodes Scholar, said he wish
ed I would write about the stu
dents never taking a bath. In
Paris, he said, a bath was at a
premium, while here, with a bath
at everybody’s elbow, the boys
never bothered to take a shower.
One woman asked me to get
after the girls about going to
church bare-headed. The Episco
pal church requires that women
wear some head covering in
church, and this woman said she
didn't care what they wore, a
veil, a flower, or what-not, so
long as they wore something.
This week I saw one of the
students, whom I am very fond
of, and think highly of, across
the aisle at Lenoir. I hadn’t seen
him since Commencement, so
when I finished eating I went
over to spesk to him. He re
mained slouching in his seat
while I stood I said to him,
“You stand up and speak to me."
I thought I was going to have
to take him by the collar and
yank him up, but he managed
to pull himself up. He is a ma
ture student, and no beatnik. He
is just plain lazy when k comes
to getting on his feet before a
lady. I don’t expect, or want
men, to stand every time they
are confronted by a lady, but
there are times, and this was
one of them. As President Ken
nedy says, “You have to make
a judgment.”
Well, I am just passing along
what has been handed to me.
Keep on improving, young people,
you are headed in the right di
rection.
OteMa Connor