Newspaper Page Text
Student
^Tiougkt
KENDRIX’
KAND1D
KOMMENT
Moss Hyles Kendrix
DO WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION?
Because the Regulations Governing the Student Ac
tivities Committee, which were adopted May 15, 1931,
were becoming somewhat obsolete, last year the Student
Body of Morehouse College assembled a Constitutional
Convention in which it vested the power to “revise and
adopt’ the Constitution of the Student Body of More-
Although the primary issue of debate was one pertain
ing to methods of election, there existed certain profound
weaknesses in the former constitution which the Conven
tion deemed competent to “revise.” And. after a number
of hectic sessions which were aptly termed, “On to Con
flict,” by one member of the body, the Assembly pro
duced a document which was by far the superior of its
predecessor.
When this document was returned to the Student Body,
there followed a prolong and heated controversy concern
ing the duties and extent of authority that was vested in
the Convention. Developing episodes gave definite proof
to the assumption that certain factions were not satisfied
with the limitations and qualifications which the Con
vention had taken the liberty to impose upon future of
fice-holders. It was further seen that these parties wished
to be granted the privilege of “ratifying” and changing
if necessary that which had been “adopted” by a body
that was elected by the classes and activities and endowed
by the general Student Body.
This writer has yet to become familiar with the law
that gives a people the right to “ratify” that which it had
dedicated a given body to “adopt.” In his estimation, if
there were to be found additional defects even in the re
vised Constitution, the Student Body’s only alternative
was that of returning the new document to the Conven
tion along with the recommendations it deemed neces
sary to make the Constitution acceptable. However, this
was not the employed procedure. Instead the revised
Constitution remained pending for a short time and was
later voted out by a majority faction.
Since the “old” Constitution has lost its identity, due
to its undergoing revision and adoption, and the “new”
Constitution has been refuted, the question remains: “Do
we have a Constitution?”
“THERE IS CONFUSION”
Recently a group of Morehouse men were told that
Morehouse students are “most disrespectful.” On other
occasions, we have been informed that Morehouse stu
dents are “most respectful." Although neither of these
assertions can be accepted as scientific truths, surely the
former can not be taken as a true generalization. It would
be useless to deny the fact that there does exist an un-
4
wholesome element in the student personnel at More
house. And, likewise, it would be useless to make such
negative assertions concerning the student personnel of
other institutions.
With no attempt to justify the short-comings of More
house men and with due respect for the person who has
provided food for this discussion, this writer is forced
to assert that the former of the fore-going statements is
utterly fallacious and probably over-stressed for em
phasis.
In the University System there are certain rules and
regulations that are common to certain institutions. Con
sequently, persons who violate these “traditions,” delib
erately or not, are subject to the unpleasant compliments
that might be cast against them. Here of late, it has
been made definitely clear that there are certain rules
and regulations that must not be violated. This depart
ment shall do that which is possible to further the real
ization of such desires. Yet if a sufficient degree of satis
faction is not attained through the maintenance of the
discussed regulations, we sincerely hope that the general
character of Morehouse men will not be misinterpreted;
we hope that the whole will not have to bear the yoke of
its rebellious components.
“ ‘JIM CROW’: BY A NEGRO”
The article, “ ‘Jim Crow’: By A Negro,” which appears
elsewhere in this publication, was written by Professor
C. B. Lindsay, and was first published in the Michigan
Daily—the student organ of the Llniversity of Michigan.
That “letter to the editor” was the direct outgrowth of a
North versus South—white versus colored equality dis
pute of which this writer shall attempt to give an histor
ical insight.
During the last week in March, 1937, the Michigan.
Daily reprinted an editorial from the Daily Northwestern,
the student organ of a sister institution. The Daily North
western commended a young Negro student, William Bell,
who had filed suit against the University of Northwestern
for its having denied him the permission to swim on
the University beach.
A few days later, a Southern student (white) at the
University of Michigan wrote an article in which he took
issue with the Daily Northwestern for exhibiting a ten-
dacy of liberalness toward Negroes in general and toward
William Bell in particular. And as this writer has been
told, he went so far as to advocate jim-crowism at the
University of Michigan, as well.
Mr. Lindsay, who was at this time student at the Uni
versity of Michigan, although he didn’t relish the idea of
enlering a controversy, felt constrained to reply to the
vicious attack that the young Southerner had made upon
his race. Following the publishing of Mr. Lindsay’s ar
ticle of April ], 1937, there was a flow of articles dis
playing opinions both for and con by Northerns and
Southerns. It was noted that even the members of the
other race were astonished to know that one of their
groups harbored such an intolerate philosophy toward
Negroes as that exhibited by the young Southern who
merely signed his name, “W. B. O.” Mr. Lindsey refutes
“W. B. 0.” in debate form.