Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.