Newspaper Page Text
THE UNIVERSITY BUMBLE-BEE.
Until last commencement it had
pity. Day after day we watch you
stammer and stutter, rub your fore
head and bow your head, and think
each time that at last something im
portant is coming. But daily are we
disappointed. We expect bread and
get a stone. The familiar and tire
some song, “I think you ought to un
derstand that,” is about all that greets
our ears. Your labors remind us of
the traditional mountain who went
into all the throes of parturition and
brought forth only—a mouse.
In conclusion, Dave, let me urge
you to think “on these things.”
Think on them, and think on them
hard! It has been a long time since
you imbibed the idea that you are a
great mathematician, and I know it
will be difficult to rid yourself of that
illusion. But, Dave, be a man ; ex
amine yourself; ask yourself if you
teach “math” as it should be taught,
and if not, why, for the sake of us
whom you daily afflict, and of those
who are coming after us, resign and
give away to some man who not only
knows “math” as it is said you do,
but who can tell what he knows, as
certainly you can not do. The paths
or duty he in that direction, Dave ;
follow them. That you may do so, is
the sincere hope of Rex.
UN FAVORITISM.
If there be one thing essential to
the good government of a University,
it is that all men stand equal before
the law—that no distinctions be made
in rewarding and punishing, but that
all be dealt with according to their
merits or demerits. This fundamental
principle the present Chancellor of the
University seems to have utterly lost
sight of in a great many instances.
His prejudices and passions sway him
to such an extent that very little ex
aggeration is used when we say that
he has mercy on whom he will have
mercy and grants favors to whom he
will grant favors. Behind this appa
rent caprice, however, some order may
be observed. Knowing the circum
stances in a given case—the boy’s
wealth, parents and social position—
it can generally be predicted what
line the Chancellor will pursue. The
charge of favoritism, we know, is an
old one which students often bring
against their instructors, but in this
case we ask the reader to examine
carefully the facts presented below
and see if the present charge is not
justified. Here are the facts in the
case.
been the custom for only honor grad
uates and speakers to occupy seats on
the stage. Boggs recognized the pre
cedent and it seemed established. We
all remember how sorry we were be
cause Pickett, a “distinguished” stu
dent of ’91, was not given a seat on the
stage. Now, when Adam, the Chan
cellor’s son, came to graduate an en
tirely new ruling was made on the
subject. Adam and another “distin
guished” student of unquestioned
ability were allowed to differentiate
themselves from their fellow Seniors
and occupy places among the four
honor men. Moreover, last year Sib
ley lead every department except
metaphysics, and who should lead
this department but the son of the
man who taught it? Of course it
would be highly improper to say, as
many have done, that Adam did not
truly lead metaphysics, but the cir
cumstances look peculiar to say the
least.
Again, it is a law of the University
that no one shall receive an honor un
less he comes “distinguished” in every
one of the studies required for his de
gree during his Junior and Senior
years. This law is plainly stated in
the catalogue and no one can mistake
its meaning. In 1891 B. F. Pickett
was refused an honor because of fail
ure to come “distinguished” in one
study. But in 1892 Julian Lane, who
missed distinction in two studies
during his Junior year, was given first
honor in the B. E. course. Now, the
question arises, why was Pickett re
fused and Lane given an honor ? The
reader must excuse us from answering
such a direct question, but we will
state, as a matter of information, that
Lane’s father is General Manager of
the Georgia Southern and Florida
railroad, whereas Pickett’s is a com
paratively obscure tiller of the soil.
Until 1891 the literary societies
elected their own anniversarians. This
was considered a sacred right vested
in the students, and none of the great
and good men that have preceded the
present Chancellor in office ever
thought of interfering with a custom
handed down from the fathers of the
societies. As long as events took no
turn in violent contradiction to the
Chancellor’s wishes, this ancient land
mark was allowed to remain untouch
ed. But in 1891, when the Phi Kap
pa Society decided to elect as its an-
niversarian M. C. Horton, one of its
most prominent members, this Doctor
of Divinity suddenly received a new
revelation concerning the evils of
political scheming and decreed that
election should be by competition in
stead of by ballot. Political schem
ing had existed before this, and not a
word was said. After this election,
in spite of its renewed existence, not
only was no effort made to check it,
but permission was granted to the so
ciety to reinstate the old system.
What, then, caused the scales to fall
so suddenly from the Chancellor’s eyes
and grow back equally as sudden?
What strange light lead him to see
the crying evils of political scheming
in one case and left him in utter dark
ness in others? That light, gentle
reader, we are inclined to think, is one
upon which the Chancellor frequently
dilates, viz., the false and deceitful
light of his own passions—his well-
known dislike for Horton and his af
fection for his opponent. But why go
further ? ‘ ‘Time would fail to tell” of
the expulsion of Thompson for resent
ing an insult offered by Harry’s
nephew ; the refusal to give Lewis a
speaker’s place, thus stultifying last
year’s action, and many other instances
of favoritism “too?namcion8 tc
tion.”
In the important matter of “send
ing boys home” the favoritism of the
Chancellor is especially pronounced.
The present writer, for the life of him,
cannot understand how certain boys
in the University have been requested
to withdraw and others equally negli
gent in their duties allowed to remain.
Here, as in other cases, the ways of
the Chancellor are “past finding out,”
It may be that my intellect is too
weak to penetrate into the workings
in^s of such an eminent mind; but
every one, as the Chancellor continu
ally reiterates, must necessarily rely
upon the powers that he has, and
using these powers, to the best of my
ability, I say that, in many acts scat
tered through his four years’ adminis
tration, the present Chancellor has
been guilty of fearful stupidity, gross
negligence or moral culpability. If
my faculties have deceived me, then,
like Ajax of old, my prayer is for
light.
“Proty” has had a very melancholy
look since his grand march from Athens
to Atlanta and from Atlanta to Au
gusta with his University Glee and
Banjo Club. He cannot be blamed,
though, for the poor fellow had to put
his best Sunday, spread-eagle,, claw
hammer coat in the pawnbroker’s shop
to get money to come home on.