Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

2 MAY, 1965 The Panther The Clark Panther A journal of college life published from October to June by students of Clark College, Atlanta, Georgia. A promoter of school spirit by encouraging projects and ef forts among student groups and individual students. A medium through which an opportunity is provided for stu dents to obtain experience in newsgathering, reporting, review ing and writing. An instrument for fostering friendly and constructive criticism of campus activities. Leondria Epps Editor Robert Holloway Feature Editor Jacqueline Bennett Co-Editor Gloria Lester Sports Editor Patricia Hudson Secretary Ellen Magby Wan Hakeem Advisors ScUtariailcf Sfrea&itty— Expression of Opinion A Sin? By Carrell Smith During the past year since I have been at Clark, I have noticed an annoying situation existing in various classrooms. In my observation of different classrooms, 1 have discovered the lack of orderly student disagreement between students and with the faculty. I believe it is absolutely essential to disagree in telligently with another student or an instructor providing the person who disagrees is reasonable in his thinking. Usually when a student participates in class discussion and he opposes other opinions, there is an enormous amount of clamoring and harsh criticism carried on by many other students before that person is able to state his position. Is this the honest way to disagree? Of course not! Disagreement and mistreatment of this nature are thwarting, and they weaken the motivation of a student. Most important is the extremely disrespectful attitude displayed toward a fellow student. That some young men and women of college level would indulge in such activity is both heretical and inconceivable. Nevertheless, the problem is prevalent and we must eliminate it. If we disagree with a student or an instructor, we should first allow him to finish his statement, and second, to be acknowledged before we express our disapproba tion in regard to his statement. The time for making disparaging comments about a student between neighbors has ended; let no ambiguity exist as to where you stand on a specific situation; let your disapproval be exposed to everyone in a classroom in an intelligent manner. The Free Thinkers Speak Out: Why Not Music? Why not music? Is this a legitimate question? Well, on Clark’s campus I think it is. Let's see why: There have been several students who have said, ‘1 really miss the programs we had last year, and I wish we could have more’. Well there has been two programs which the students on the campus did not attend in full numbers. They were the band concert and the opera and if the students were so thirsty for culture, they would have attended. But instead they chose to stay in the dormitories and claim they were studying, which is not true. I think that the students can not really be blamed for this cultural apathy, I feel that the school has tried to feed them only one kind of culture and that is Bach, Shakespeare and Rembrandt. This should not be. There are people who will not go to the af fairs just to get even with the school. I advocate a more diver sified program of events, and this is when a change will be seen. The dilemma of the arts is not limited to Clark's campus but the nation in general. Cultural apathy is a problem that the late President tried to help by having his administration to take a part in and sponsor certain cultural programs, and at the same time diversified ones. As I conclude this short paper, I would like to say that it is evident that until the cultural programs are diversified and at tempt to meet the taste of a majority of the students, it will always be “not music for me’’ on the Clark College campus. The VALUE of VALUES By LYN PALADINO Lamentable is the everyday human situation of the child who must be taught, even after repeated parental admonitions, the difference between wrong and right. Unpardonable is the everyday societal situ ation of the adult who, ostensibly a reflective, rational, concept-making being, has not learned the difference between wrong and right. Clearly the latter needs to appraise his values and nurture his values, allowing them to come to full flower. Were he to commit wrong deeds fla grantly and continuously, he needs expert assistance, not condemna tion. Condemnation is pitifully weak refutation. Psychologists and penologists, in their attempt to define the elusive word “psychopath,” are agreed on the workable definition “a person who does not know the difference between wrong and right.” Some pragmatic psycholo gists believe the psychopath is “one without a conscience.” Granted, the term “psychopath,” both its denotation and connotation, defies stringent and precise meanings. But for the observer to adopt a faked stance of objectivity in asserting neither the wrong deed, nor the perpetrator of the wrong deed exists, because one clear definition is nonexistent, is utterly fallacious. Proving the negative is not tanta mount to disproving the positive; it is an appeal to ignorance and the observer may believe what he wishes to believe. Minimum space requirement hampers detailed analysis of morals and ethics. The following compendium in the realm of values is offered as background only. Since general agreement is lacking in how (or what) a value is to be defined, one must provide the area of accord, even if for the sake of semantic clarity. The term “value” referred hereafter will mean “that which satisifies a human need” or a human desire. Judgments are of two kinds: factual and value. Factual judgments describe observable characteristics of a thing, i.e., “The height of Mt. McKinley is 20,300 feet.” The truth or falsity of the assertion can be checked for authenticity — consult a current world atlas or climb the mountain. Value judgments appraise the worth of objects, i.e.. “The paintings of Picasso's Blue period are superior to the paintings of Klee.” Here the judgment cannot be corroborated nor negated because the qualities of Picasso's paintings evoke appreci ative responses in the viewer. No two viewers experience the same emotion awakened by the idea and the object; that is, the idea embodied, as it were, visibly in the object. Although philosophers have made great strides in their herculean attempts to codify values, new difficulties emerge in a rapidly chang ing world, necessitating changes in the scale of values. Again, general agreement between two individuals, even a modicum, seldom if ever, is achieved, because values themselves are interminable in their variety and undergo constant transmutation. Some of the more cogent values that concern all men are economic, social, character, aesthetic, intel lectual and religious. These are classified human values. The ancient Greeks, especially those of the fifth and sixth centuries B.C., who lived in the republican polis rather than in a government of centralized tyranny, believed three values superior to all others: beauty, goodness and truth. Their reason? These values are self- sufficient. Truth does not depend on something else for its worth because it is a good in itself. Truth, therefore, is said to be an intrinsic value. A value that is utilized as a means to an intrinsic value is a con-comitant and insufficient unto itself, and as such, is extrinsic. The former is to be preferred to the latter. The moral quandry, yes. even chaos of our age, adds further confusion to two old viewpoints to the problems of morality. One is the unremitting pursuit of man to retain some moral code, custom or tradition, complacent in his own cultural security — the appeal to authority. The other is diametrically opposite from authoritarianism — ethical relativism. Authoritarian ethics asphyxiate progress and growth in a changing society: they induce the individual to accept custom and tradition as the only standard. To coerce tradition is to subserve the individual in a society. Although many traditions and customs are beneficial, group morality is an immature stage of moral ity. The ethical relativist alleges that there are no common standards among individuals. Anything an individual believes good is good — for him. Whatever is right at one place is wrong at another place because there is no absolute standard. Doubtless, morality is relative to human needs; yet to assume no standard for a morality is untrue. Where then does an individual find the moral law as standard? Immanuel Kant's “categorical imperative” recognizes in man a sense of duty (“I ought”) which emanates from man’s innate nature. The moral law is the will controlled by reason. John Stuart Mill's “utili- taranism” is "the creed which accepts as the foundation of morals. Utility or the Great Happiness Principle . . ." and . . . "holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Jeremy Bentham’s ethical theory espouses “. . . the greatest happiness of the greatest number." He asserts, also, that man is a “pleasure-seeking, pain-avoiding" creature. Because Bentham’s theory antedated Mill’s theory, the latter added a qualitative standard to the pleasure doctrine that modifies and extends the former’s position. Individuals, Mills states, with cultivated faculties, are not satiated with the primal pleas ures of the body alone; they seek the loftier pleasures of the intellect, the moral, and the spirit too. Does one find the answer in Kant, or in Mills, or in Bentham? Does one coalesce the sense of duty theory with the happiness principle for his standard of values? These questions are imponderables until each person seeks and finds the solution that is commensurate with his own human needs and desires. Greek thought influenced Kant. Mill and Bentham discovered the happiness principle in Epicurus, an early Greek exponent of hedonism. Turn to the Greeks and reflect a moment. Inscribed over the temple of Apollo at Delphi was the favorite aphorism of the Greeks: “Know thyself.” Such a rule of life invited speculation. On the literal level of interpretation the rule reminded the healthy-minded Greek that he was a man subject to the limitations of martality. On the ancillary level of symbolic implication the rule meant to the Greek the realization of all his powers — physical, intel lectual, moral, and aesthetic. Values all, they were to be developed and refined to the highest possible degree. The Greek ideal of the individual was self-realization. The Greek was to be a rational, respon sible human being capable of developing and satisfying human desires that ultimately led to freedom, individualism and self-realization. At this point one is cautioned not to confuse the Greek ideal with the (Continued on Page 7) Uiiit prom Spring Alice Henderson Beautiful spring knocked at my door All dressed in green and colors galore, Red, blue, yellow and green were parts of her color scheme. Her golden hair was shining like the sun, It made me want to play and have fun Her feet were of a dark green. The most beautiful green I had ever seen She was the image of the beautiful of queens, And looked as if she could catch any king Whether it was the king of Winter of the King of Fall, Beautiful spring could capture them all Oh, how my heart dazzled with joy To see such a woman who traveled so far. Through fall and winter she did toil. Badly beaten and badly soiled, But how amazing it was to me. To see how beautiful she could be Unharmed by the hardship of the past. Her raving beauty will forever last, Spring only comes but once a year But everyone knows when she's near, For the flowers appear in color ful blooms And the sun is very warm at noon, I was as happy as a bumble bee Because she came just to see me Her eyes were glittering like stars in the sky I smiled as she silently stood by, She smiled and said, “How are You?” And then disappeared into the blue. But then all of a sudden from within the sky A large blue and white hand waved good-bye, But I could not say anything you see For at the moment she’s all around me, With the birds in her arms And the bees in their nest Beautiful spring, I love you best. ^Jlie ^Jorment op (peniu.S I suffer—truly suffer. I suffer from that unquenchable thirst for knowledge, for learning—to know. I learn. Still, I drag on and on and on and on and on . . . I find no peace within myself. I need more. Must have more. Knowledge, learning. Chaucer to Sandburg, Shake- spear to Poe, I read, read—read ’til the clock’s hands close in on midnight. Another day. Gone. No relief. I must have more. Why this writhing, this pain, to be endured only by the gifted? Why, Fate, Why? Is it such a crime to be endowed? Why these stern consequences I suffer? No answer. Silence. Still I trod on and on, suffering as though inner peace were a luxury to be had only by the gentry. Why, Fate, Why? Still, no answer. Silence. Doomed, tormented, no hope . . . Dallas Roland Wingo, Esq.