Newspaper Page Text
2 DECEMBER, 1965
The Panther
The Clark Panther
PURPOSE
A journal of college life published from September to June
by students.
To fill the vacuum of lack and effective
communication be-
tween students and administration; students
and students.
An instrument for fostering constructive
ties pertaining to college life.
criticism of activi-
Reporters:
Millicent Bethea
Jimmy Johnson
Earl Butler
Jimmye Vaughn
Eddie Embry
Jerrilyn McGhee
Wimbley Hale
Lorraine Neal
Alma Hosch
Shirley Slocum
Carrell Smith
Editor-in-Chief
Antonio Thomas
Co-Editor
William Hammond
Feature Editor
Marie Banks
Greek Editor
Elijah Solomon & Rufus Hudson
Sports Editors
Rozclle Poignard
Secretaries:
Lorraine Neal
Marie Banks
Proofreaders:
Cartoonist
Millicent Bethea
Betty Stembridge
Joethel Cooper
Typists:
Jimmye Vaughn
Willie Lou Furges
Lelia Marshall
Bernice Little
Teresa Thomas
Advisors:
Ivy Sims
Miss Magby Mr. Hakeem
Mr. Fishman Miss D'Sousa
Mr. Black
Friendly Competition?
Neighbors Beware
Antonio L. Thomas
It is interesting to note the similarities and differences which
characterized the football games that were played between the
Colleges of the Atlanta University Center — Clark-Morehouse
and Clark-Morris Brown. In both games there were some delight
ful as well as disgusting incidents.
Both games were played between teams which had experienced
poor seasons from the standpoint of the won-lost records. When
the final whistle was blown on “Turkey Day,” the three teams had
a combined record of three wins, nineteen losses, and two ties. This
record, however, did not prevent the local sportswriters from fore
casting games to be rated among the best of the intercity rivalry,
nor did it prevent the fans from anticipating games to be remem
bered.
Of course, the games will not be rated among the best of the
intercity rivalry and the only thing that will be remembered is the
fact that more action occurred in the stands than on the field.
The differences between the games were far more apparent
than the similarities. Even though both games are a part of a long
tradition, the absurdities which preceded the Clark-Morehouse
game were more numerous than those which preceded the Turkey
Day Classic.
Thanksgiving Eve saw none of the C’s and the M’s that were
burned or painted in conspicuous places on the campuses. Thanks
giving Eve did not produce the scene of two groups of students
from neighboring colleges standing on both sides of Chestnut Street
throwing stones and shouting obscenities. Thanksgiving Eve did
not see the arrival of a squad of police cars and patty wagons
dispatched to Chestnut Street to arrest the kids who stood on
opposite sides of the street. Thanksgiving Eve did not see a fleet
of fire trucks speeding to the comer of Fair and Chestnut Streets,
only to find that there was no fire, but that one of the kids who
had been throwing rocks and shouting obscenity had foolishly
pulled a fire alarm. What the Eve of Turkey Day Classic did see
was students on both campuses going to class in the usual manner,
reading a few posters on the games, and glancing at the effigies
of the “Panthers” and the “Wolverines” which hung from two
trees.
There were also noticeable differences on the day of the games.
Even though the place of the battles was Herndon Stadium, it was
not the same on Thanksgiving Day as it had been on October 30.
On the day that Clark won, the sun shone brightly and the dust
which came from the field brought back memories of sandlot foot
ball. However, on the day when Clark lost, there were clouds in
stead of a sun and mud instead of dust. I found it to be ironic
that I still thought about the neighborhood sandlot team.
Nothing, however, differentiated the games as much as the
spectator outburst which took place in the third quarter of the
Clark-Morehouse game. Nothing can describe the sight of empty
beverage bottles being thrown across the stadium by angry college
students and flocks of spectators running for cover.
I find it interesting to note that the same incident which trig
gered the Clark-Morehouse outburst — the burning of the losing
school s pennant by a student of the winning school (an impudent
act) did not kindle a similar outburst on Thanksgiving Day. For
this, we should be thankful.
This article was written with one eye on the future and one on
the past. This means that as responsible students we owe it to our
selves as well as to our school to see that some of the events that
occurred during the traditional games do not reoccur.
^ditotonilcf Sfaea&oty.. . .
Constructive Protests
Carrell Smith
Students constantly complain about certain aspects of college
life such as the dining hall food and service, dormitory life, and
administrative rules and regulations. Daily, we are confronted with
undesirable situations and often think there is nothing that we can
do about them or we fear the consequences of any attempt to im
prove these conditions. If students, faculty members and school ad
ministrators were to show more cencern about the problems, ex
amine them more carefully and then act
accordingly, I’m sure that many of our
most prevalent problems would be elim
inated.
Many students are forever complain
ing about certain undesirable situations,
but most of the time this is as far as they
will engage themselves in showing a con
cern for or an awareness of the problem.
Sure, complaining about our difficul
ties is absolutely essential, but the most
important thing to keep in mind is the
fact that complaints should stimulate the
right people, that is those persons who
can act as direct agents in solving prob
lems. These people mainly include the
faculty and administrators. Therefore, the first step in attempting
to actually solve problems is to put the complaints into syste
matic group action and thus stimulate administrators, faculty
advisors and other problem-solving agencies of the school. Many
students know what problems exist but say, “So what; what can
I do about them?” There are many ways for the student to take
an active part in solving these problems through organized group
action. This systematic action can be brought about in several
ways such as the following:
1. Voice problems to faculty and administration.
2. Establish administration, faculty, and student discussions.
3. Encourage more students to take an active part in trying
to improve the campus environment.
4. Establish student group discussions about policies and reg
ulations of the school.
5. Write letters to the school newspaper.
When students begin to take sensible action in trying to solve
some of their basic problems, I’m sure that the outcome of these
efforts will be successful. My challenge to the student is to protest
various policies of the school, but protest in such a manner that
benefits can be reaped and a better environment can be achieved.
As college students we must start eliminating barriers of ig
norance and strive toward more fruitful goals through more con
structive thinking and actions.
Are you merely complaining about problems that concern you?
Or are you doing something about it?
Editor at Conference
On November 1, 1965 Car
rell Smith, editor of THE PAN
THER, and Jerrilyn McGhee
attended a reception at the
Dinkler-Plaza Hotel given for
representatives of the 316
Industrial corporations, retail
firms and financial institutions
which are members of the Plans
for Progress Program. The re
ception was only one of many
activities held November 1-4 in
relationship to the Plans for
Progress National College Re
lations Conference which met
here in Atlanta.
Plans for Progress is a volun
tary effort by the leadership of
American business and industry
to participate aggressively in the
promotion and implementation
of equal employment oppor
tunity.
The program was conceived
in 1961 as a cooperative ad
junct to the President’s Com
mittee on Equal Employment
Opportunity, which was coordi
nating the many Federal Gov
ernment efforts in this area.
Dr. Rufus E. Clement, Presi
dent of Atlanta University,
spoke to the group on Novem
ber 2 and our own Dr. Vivian
W. Henderson served on a panel
discussing the topic: “Here Are
the Problems: What Are the
Answers?” Some of the persons
in attendance at this conference
were Hobart Taylor, Jr., Direc
tor of the Export-Import Bank
of Washington; Julius Thomas,
Industrial Relations Consultant;
Dr. Luther Holcomb, Vice
Chairman of the Equal Em
ployment Opportunity Commis
sion; Dr. Jerome Holland, Pres
ident of Hampton Institute;
Adolph Holmes, Associate Di
rector of the National Urban
League.
Viet Nam ...
Student Interview
by Shirley Slocumb
QUESTION: Do you think Great Britain should send troops to
Rhodesia?
ANSWERS:
1. Letyce Hooker — “I don’t think that they should — they
should have their independence — they should give the natives
an equal chance.”
H*
2. Elias Hendricks — “No, I think they should allow them to be
independent and end the archaic reign of colonialism. They
should be making provisions to educate the people and prepare
them for independence.”
* * *
3. John L. Clayton — “I think Great Britain should send troops
to Rhodesia to protect its black majority from being shut off
from the newly formed white minority government.”
* * *
4. Lois Benjamin — “By sending troops to Rhodesia this might
create more problems than it will solve. Since a small group
of British people want the troops sent, it may be a catastrophe
— Wilson’s decisions will have to be in keeping with the
majority of the people of Britain.”
* *
5. James S. May — “It’s a big question, I would have to have
more information. You would have to look at both sides.”
* *
6. Donita Gaines — “Something needs to be done because the
government of Rhodesia doesn’t represent the people you
know, the black people aren’t represented. It doesn’t neces
sarily mean that troops will solve the problem. The black
people need to have a voice in government. 1 may substitute
one evil for another.”
The International Affairs
Committee of the Clark College
YWCA sponsored a community
discussion on Viet Nam on No
vember 29, 1965. The discus
sion, which included a brief
account of the incidents leading
up to the present situation in
Viet Nam, was initiated by a
panel of four persons: Dr. Vin
cent Hardin, Spelman College;
Dr. Brantley, Clark College;
Miss Clara Allen, Agnes Scott
College; and Mr. John Reiman,
Morehouse College. During the
question and answer period that
followed the presentation by the
panel there was a lively debate
on the aims of the United States
in Viet Nam, the role of the
Chinese Communists, and the
possibility of an early solution.
The discussion proved to be an
educational as well as thought-
provoking one for the students
present from Spelman, More
house, Agnes Scott, Morris
Brown, and Clark. Miss R.
Gardner, Regional Director of
the YWCA, was also present.