Newspaper Page Text
I
v
si-
page 2
THE MAROON TIGER
February, 1954
The Maroon Tiger
FOUNDED 1898
Published monthly during the school year by the students of More
house College, Atlanta, Georgia. Entered in Post Office at Atlanta 3,
Georgia, as second-class mail matter under the act of Congress, March
13 1879
Member of Associated College Press and Intercollegiate Press.
Represented for national advertising "by National Advertising Ser
vice Inc., 420 Madison Avenue, New York 17, New York.
Advertising rates furnished by request. Subscription rates—One
academic year 85 cents; by mail $1.00.
Office—Room 113 Graves Hall. Phone—RA. 9420
EDITORIAL STAFF
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
ASSOCIATE EDITOR-
NEWS EDITOR
FEATURE EDITOR--
SPORTS EDITOR.
COPY READERS
ARTISTS
...Ezra C. Davidson
Ira Harrison
.‘...James Goodman
Richard Johns
Patrick McClain
EXCHANGE EDITOR .
George Johnson, Marion Mar able
....Robert Cheeseboro, Archie Meyer
..Samuel Allen
NEWS REPORTERS—
Peter Chatard, John Covington, Donald Moore, Amos Cheese
boro, Major Owens, James Crump, Leroy Aikens, Donal
Jones, Allen Williams.
SPORTS REPORTERS—
Alfred Willie, Jackson Sheptall, Willie J. Davis.
FEATURE WRITERS—
Howard Moore, Lillie McKinney, Donald Hickman, Charles
Jones, James Jordan, Eugene Austin, English H. Irving, David
Hickman,-George Johnson.
TYPISTS —
Hassel Harris, Donald Hickman, David Hickman, Howard
Westley, Samuel Allen, Robert K. Anderson.
BUSINESS STAFF
BUSINESS MANAGER..
. John W. Simmons
ASSISTANT BUSINESS MANAGER Harry Smith
ADVERTISING MANAGER ..Willie Brawner
CIRCULATION Jefferson Mathis, Ronald Johnson
FACULTY ADVISERS G. Lewis Chandler, A Russell Brooks
THE EDITOR’S CORNER
AND SO TO
PRESS AGAIN
We do not have the same excuse as the bears for' not
showing our faces the last two months. We hibernated not
because of the cold but because of our capital—a chilly fact we
must admit. But the forecast is warmer, so says our weather-
man —our Business Manager—and the Tiger is out to stay.
While limbering our muscles by the way of a big yawn,
awakening from our sleep, we recall the tremors in the news
world like vaguely distinguishing the elements of last night’s
dream. Since, shall we say, we “retired” last November many
things have happened:
The truce continued to lag in Korea; Santa made his usual
secret invasion; amid the traditional gags and noises little
Mr. ’54 had to face it too—like the rest of us. The constitution
ality of wire tapping was argued; the Vietminh forces pushed
back the French in Indochina; Cupid observed his annual day
for official business—Valentine; Ike lightened up on his golf
and went hunting; while editors of the Red and Black resigned
at the University of Georgia and the first semester ended.
The persistent Bricker upset the Senate; Republicans step
ped on the toes of the Democrats—they squealed; Rockefellow
gave up 5.5 millions; while Jimmy Roosevelt swore he was
broke and Molotov toyed with the Berlin conference.
Morehouse celebrated its 87th anniversary; tribute was
paid to “Honest Abe”; McCarthy concerned himself with
“Twenty years of Treason”; Washington’s birthday passed as
the deadline for income tax reports approached. And of
course, we got two hot dogs for supper in the college dining
hall.
We are wide awake now—those semester finals were since
last November too! But of course we don’t publish those
letters from home.
Coming out of the daze now, we can look forward to the
S. I. A. C. basketball tournament, some good collegiate debat
ing, spring holidays and ... oh well, we might as well mention
it—Graduation.
But no matter what the occasion is, its good to sing, “And
so to Press Again.”
DOO-DOODLING
by Ira Harrison
THE LITTLE THINGS
The little things . . . the thank
you . . . please . . . and how are
you . . . the pardon me . . . and
welcome . . . even howdy do . . .
the excuse me please . . . for
give me please . . . and thank
you just the same . . . the little
things we fail to say . . . some
times cause us much pain . . .
much needless pain and woeful
shame . . . and chances we have
lost . . . When only these . . . the
little things . . . could have paid
the cost.
THE WINDOW GLASS OF JUSTICE IS OPAQUE
by DONALD HICKMAN
(These are the attitudes and approaches of the author.)
The editor of the Earlham College campus newspaper in
Richmond, Indiana, was ousted from that position by the
paper’s advisory board, because he okayed the publication of
a front page article in that newspaper, urging the practice of
interracial campus dating by non-staff members, despite regu
lations of the college denouncing that practice. Also at the
same educational institution, another student, Robert McAl-
lest^r, was asked to vacate from the campus after he announced
his engagement to Miss Grace Cunningham, a Negro coed. Is
this what should happen in a college which should be a labora
tory for life?
Also William Shipp and Walter Lundy, the ex-editors of
the campus newspaper of the University of Georgia in Athens,*
expressed, liberal views on the problem of integration. They
approached the question with a liberal and logical outlook.
Some of the articles that contained their views were published,
but of course such articles of that kind would upset the big
conservatives, and the great non-integrationalists; therefore,
the “big-wheels” of the institution began to roll. They in
structed the editors that henceforth, every article of that kind
had first to be read and approved by some member of the
faculty beford the publication of that article. Naturally the
articles read, would not be published. Then, as men, the
editors maintained their stand and resigned from their posts.
Did these two examples add strength to the principle of “Free
dom of the Press?” No! This was direct infringement, an en
croachment, a usurpation, and a downright violation of that
freedom which democratic America is supposed to uphqld.
You might conceive that after such a heroic stand, people
would respect them for maintaining their liberal beliefs. But
such was not the case. A newspaper publisher called these
editors “sissy squirts”. These men, who had so valiantly, so
splendidly upheld their ideas, and put their views on integra
tion into operation by publishing were given these uncompli
mentary epithets.
These conservatives are to be pitied more than hated, be
cause they live in air castles, put themselves on imaginary
raised pedestals and extoll themselves by virtue of light
pigmentation. Mainly they comprise the older generation who,
because of their ignorance, accept segregation and discrimina
tion, and also, because of their own selfish folkways and
mores. They often forget that society has changed since their
fesfered days. Also they often indoctrinate their offsprings
with this false view and prejudice,-that when they develop
into adults, they will be the fanatics of tomorrow, who will act
upon emotion, and follow the actions of their ancestors of
yesteryear, instead of reasoning with such situations with
a liberal outlook.
But fortunately, as you have seen above, this has not
occurred in all instances, because the parents of the editors
above or the editors themselves took time out to reason and
cope with the situation with a liberal outlook, instead of acting
on emotion. Therefore we, for whom they spoke, must help.
We are not as illiterate as were the slaves before us. We can
and will help the course of integration. For when we allow
people to infringe upon the rights of others in America, no
longer can we say that we are trying to promote the freedom
of speech, freedom of the press, and other hallmarks, for
which the American Way of life is praised. We will help by
using the weapons of truth, democracy, fair judgment, and
common logical reasoning.
Qcrosrflae
JAMES S. JORDAN
A WORD ABOUT OUR WORDS
Dear Editor:
By virtue of conversing with
some of my fellow students, as
well as listening'to conversations
between other students, I have
noticed the widespread use of ob
scene language on our college
campus. This type of language,
moreover, is being utilized as a
means of communication by a
goodly number of our men.
I am sure, however, that these
men did not come to college
for the purpose of developing
foul* methods of expression. I
am equally certain that they have
received no guidance toward that
end here ati Morehouse. I feel,
moreover, that one of their main
objectives for attending college
was to develop sound, wholesome
speech habits.
Let us look at the language em
ployed by some of our men—the
language that we term as being
obscene, base and low. We find
that its main characteristic is
desecration, directed toward eit
her God, a mother, or some other
sacred being or symbol. In any
case, those things which we re
gard sacred, aesthetic, and pure
as portrayed by this language in
an irreverent, ugly, and distorted
manner.
The men who employ obscene
language as a tool could not pos
sibly be practicing the rule of
“thinking before speaking.” Were
such the case, I am sure they
would find more suitable means
of expressing themselves than by
obscenity. These men might also
consider the words of .Jesus: “By
thy words thou shalt be condemn
ed.” (Matthew 12:37), when they
engage in conversation with their
fellows.
—John R. Parson,
Minister’s Union.
THE
BRICKER
DRAMA
A historic battle was brought
to a close temporarily at least in
the Senate of the United States
several days ago that left another
mark in the history of the strug
gle for power between the states
and the federal government, be
tween the president and the con
gress. The issue was the propos
ed Bricker Amendent. The three
pertinent sections of the proposed
Amendment are: (1> “A provision
of a treaty which shall conflict
with this Constitution shall not
be of any force or effect;” (2) “A
treaty shall become effective as
internal law in the United States
only through legislation which
would be valid in the absence of a
treaty;” (3) “Congress shall have
power to regulate all executive
and other agreements with any
foreign power or international
organization.” The measure was
really proposed by those who be
lieve in state rights and want to
forestall the impending impact of
the United Nation’s Declaration
of Human Rights and the Geno
cide Convention agreement. The
Human Rights Document sets up
certain ideals which include the
rights to marriage, social security,
equitable economic opportuni
ties and participation in the pro
cess of government. The Geno
cide Agreement would outlaw
warfare that tends to extermi
nate masses and would subject
the guilty party to trial by an
international tribunal. These
ideals are human enough for the
masses of people but Brickerites
contend that ratification of
them would lead to “Mongreliza-
tion” of the white race and a des
titution of National sovereignty.
The contention is certainly fal
lacious because an international
tribunal has no sovereignty that
enables it to enforce a decision
and of course there is no weight
to such a thing as a “Mongreliza-
tion” of a race of people. The
supposed superiorty of the white
race has been exposed for its
myth and science has demon
strated that racial inferiority is
not a truth. The measure is- an
illogical preversion of the pre
sident’s power in an era where
vast executive power is necessary
to exert U. S. leadership in a
world threatened by Russian at-
temps to monopolize it in the
strait jacket of Marxist dogma.
President Eisenhower recognized
this attempt to deform the ex
ecutive, by delimitations, by a
highly skeptical congress and
states jealous of their power. It
is a dangerous and foolish ven
ture that would have impaired
the peace of the world had the
Brickerites been successful. It
was only after president Eisen
hower took an uncompromising
attitude toward the measure that
it was defeated. The proposal
frankly represents a final stand
for a dying ember, namely, isola
tionism. There are some who
understand and appreciate from
the evidence of history and our
ever accelerating cultural inter
dependency that internationalism
is an evolviug necessity. The
idea of Nationalism is a menace
and exposes humanity to all of
the dire evils of international
anarchy. The proponents of the
Bricker Measure realize this also,
but are blinded by a kind of pre
judice that refuses them under
standing of the changing order in
a rational light. But national
ism, like feudalism, will become
obsolete.