Newspaper Page Text
November 17,1967
THE MERCER CLUSTER
Editorial
The GBC Did Not Consider
The Baptists that control the
purse strings of Mercer met on
Jekyll Island the past three days
and discussed .nany things.
One of the things that was not
discussed this year is the possibility
of Mercer cutting its ties with the
Georgia Baptist Convention. This
possibility though not in reality
very radical is not a topic of intelli
gent debate in Georgia Baptist cir-
les. It is not a topic of debate, but
it should be considered today for
appropriate action tomorrow.
In past editorials this year we
have considered the question of
Mercer’s physical expansion and
havee introduced the advantages of
federal aid. Subsequent articles
have followed on the BEST report
of the Southern Baptist Convention
that says when the Baptist influence
cannot adi-quately support their
colleges and universities they
should release their bonds to help
these same colleges and universi
ties find economic help elsewhere.
We cannot say that the GBC does
not want to adequately support
Mercer or that it does not intend
at some later year to adequately
support Mercer; we can only say
that at this time and past years, the
convention has not adequately sup
ported Mercer. The total GMC help
has been and is 3.25 per cent
Mercer’s total yearly budget
The Convention has claimed
greater support of Mercer but it has
been claiming the "designated and
miscellaneous gifts” in its figures.
These gifts are not from the Con
vention itself but are rather from
private individuals, in many in
stances not Baptists. The GMC this
year is dividing $403,000 between its
six institutions of higher learning.
We see the $403,000 pie as too
small to be cut into six chunks. Be
cause it is obviously small and be
cause the other five universities and
colleges of the GBC need more
funds, we propose that the Conven
tion follow the Best Report’s con
clusion and release Mercer so that
she may find adequate help else
where.
Mercer must take her place with
the better Universities of the South.
She can only do this with adequate
finances which at the moment are
being denied her by the GBC which
also does not increase its own co
operative program allocations part
$132,000 this year.
Editor’s Note: The $500,000 given
by the convention toward the
science building represents half the
total capital outlay funds Mercer
will receive from the convention for
seven years.
‘(Eljr fflvcm Cluster
November 17, 1967
Volume XL IX, No. 7
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Tom Cauthorn
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Wright Deris
BUSINESS MANAGER MANAGING EDITOR
Bob Lanier Steve Wright
Copy Editor .. Claudia Young
Contributing Editors a Becky Sims, Ed Beckwith
Business Specialist Christy Tyler
Exchange Editor - - Russ Drummond
Executive Editors Bill Dayton, Bobby Phillips
Sports Editor Art Hapaar
Feature Editor Dan Newell
Feature Staff Karen Rivers, Milton Moore, Clyde Hoover,
Judy White, Steve Darby, Roger Bell, Raid Benin
Social Editors Leonard Bone, Carol Bruce
Cartoons Roger Poston
Photographer Bob Johnson
News Editor Dianne Downer
Staff Wardlyn Mills, Dori Ripley, Chris Grab,
Susan Scott, Pam Warwick, Claudia Wheeler, Carolyn Hamil
ton, Cathy Geran, Dianne Downer, Charlea Goolsby, Sharon
Young, Cornelia Bennett, Ginny Scherer, Lob ScheDer, Anne
Rougman, Linda Poe, Ed Ward
Special Correspondents Bill Wehunt, Ed Bacon
Faculty Advisors Prof. Anthony Stansfeld, J. O. Paine
In Explanation
By Tom Cauthorn
t
Students and people connected
with education today are all work
ing toward an awakening. This
awakening should include the best
of all the academic communities
and their students. Students are
the products of their academic en
vironment and their backgrounds.
Given this information most of
us stop and wonder just what the
ideal is that we are daily forced to
strive for. Could this indeed be a
generation of the best informed
human beings that the world has
ever seen or merely a group of cru
saders tromping through traditional
values and ideas seeking to destroy
them just for the thrill of changing
something? One presumes that the
latter of the two is not true and that
the former is the object of our new
education.
We should develop a conscious
attitude toward just exactly what is
valid; and on the other hand what
earnestly needs change.
At Mercer there are so many
things that are traditional and ef
fective but there are others that are
not what we want to be legacy in
our educational results.
Mercer provides us with safe
guards, new frontiers and an oppor
tunity to broaden our minds; but,
unfortunately there is often times
a consensus by us to resist the bet
ter chances of our education. If one
tries to point out the missed
chances one is apt to become trite
because the examples must be spe
cific and taken by themselves Beem
trite and small Let us now review
some of our missed chances as a
group and then the whole aggre
gate group will probably amount to
quite a case of need for change.
First, because we are human and
because we are sensitive let us not
think that this is indictment is a
charge against individuals. It is a
charge against the "immorality of
the group”. One of the theologian-
political scientists of our century
(Reinhold Niebuhr) wrote some
yean ago of the dangers of the
group called society (Moral Man
And Immoral Society). We are not
crusading simply for the sake of the
crusade but rather we are viewing
the group as an insensitive mass
that can only be pictured by ap
peals to each of the individuals that
compose it.
Let it be that we are not dissatis
fied with the individual nor more
accurately is it our right to be dis
satisfied with the individual, it is
rather our duty to become concern
ed if the group does not exhibit any
impulse toward inquisitiveness or
experiment. The group or society
called the “student liody” can be
the greatest single influence
America today or it can develop a
complacency that will stifle all ex
periment and inquisitiveness by its
tactic internal censoring. The free
group can be free or it may, as is
the instance often at Mercer, crush
freedom that would lead to reeval
uation by the impenetrability of its
un-evaluated ideals and group sat
isfaction with the status quo. (Re
member, you as an individual may
not be complacent but you must in
fect the group with your concern.)
If you are concerned, ask your
self: Are we doing what we can do
ns an American and a Mercerian
to acquaint ourselves with change
outside of and within Mercer and
we are exercising the much more
important freedom we possess;
that of infecting the group with self-
examination?
Have we exercised our freedom
aa students by deciding the issues
of daily student life in choosing our
S.G.A. and WJ3.G.A. representa
tives? Have we attempted through
the information available to us to
understand the problems facing
Mercer University in the fields of
physical expansion and endow
ment? Is it possible for us as a
student body and as individuals to
make our demands known to the
correct powers? Do we intend to
shift the locus of responsibility for
our daily lives to ourselves or to
leave it to a dictatorship of the
deans? Do we realise that in the
surmounting of small problems that
the larger problems of smAmii-
freedom will prove soluble?
We are, in the final analysis, a
group of differing philosophies rad
personalities that can and will be
cause of the opportunities available
make this experience at MeroeT
more of an influence by aggregate
ly “building a better Mercer."
Now 4 hoA
IoWSKolA ^I’oe G^f\c\u
: HVirsVs "J’W TecxcVy
Q-\ e A
V\t»e
I-
Viet Nam, A View Of Insight
Clyde Hoover ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I
There might be serious question
raised as to the validity of the title
Insight" given to the series of lec
tures and debates on the subject of
the Vietnam conflict. On closer ex
amination, it is obvious that al
though there were rough spots in
the program, much was to be gain
ed from the speakers.
Correspondents Hardy and Rob
inson led off the series with a de
bate in Convocation concerning the
validity of United States presence
in the situation. Speeches were
well delivered, rebuttals were caus
tic, and emotions ran high. This
team was unquestionably enter
taining. But the question is, how
much insight to the Vietnam situa
tion was provided. The general
opinion of most who attended the
morning event and of those who at
tended the evening session is that
very little insight was provided. Al
though the speakers presented
themselves well, they failed to pre
sent any information of outstanding
quality. Robinaon advocated re
maining in Vietnam with a cliche
ridden speech bubbling over with
commitments, obligations, moral
debts and the usual vague argu
ments presented in behalf of stayii*
in Vietnam. Ha waa close-minded
and irresponsible in his rebuttal to
Mr. Hardy's piea to get out Hardy
was equally as cliche prone as Rob
inson but was so in an infinitely
more dynamic and entertaining
fashion. He fumed and fussed and
exhorted with great vehemence and
vigor. He snarled and growled and
accused. He cited and illustrated
and explained, largely without sup
porting his convictions on any
thing. As has been mentioned, the
spectacle was entertaining, and save
for one important feature, could
hardly be called a means by which
insight could be gained. This one
factor, one probably not considered
by most members of the audience,
was that these two men offered the
means for discussion and contro
versy. They supplied fuel to a fire
going out rapidly. They added
stimulation to a nerve too tired and
too full to feel of its own accord.
With this stimulation Hardy and
Robinson indicated superb refer
ences for those who might be in
teres ted. They both dropped numa
after name, authority after authori
ty, who might be corwultod if the
presentation was not suitable. Per
haps after all, the initial phase
•erred its purpose admirably—to
stimulate interest and to rake ques
tions, to nuke minds receptive to
forthcoming information.
Major General Wright provided
the second link in the chain to “In
sight.” He presented the milit.uj
viewpoint of commitment and pro
greas in Vietnam, unemotional])
but sincerely^ unsensationally but
excitingly. Strangely enough, for
military individual, his ideas an
general presentations were general
ly unbiased. He seemed to have
just aa much difficulty in graspin
the significance of current militnrj
action in Vietnam as the averag
pedestrian authority on military
tactics. His manner was cool In
firm, informative but not pedant
and convinced but not close-mini led
Wright considered almost every i
pect of the situation which couk
have been questioned—legitimacy
of the invitation to the Unite
States, the share of the war lost
that the United States should carry
the “gamble” of waging the v
the cost to the United States
lives and money. Every aspect wn
beautifully supported, documented,
and presented for criticism
commentary. Every item in his ar
gument was tied to his basic prem
ise which must be the premia,
any fighting man, "We are on tin
proper course.” Wright was
vinced of this statement althmigi
it could in no way be seen to effect
his objectivity and sincerity in re
porting the facts.
The third and most thought-pro
voking of the three speakers w
foreign correspondent D a v i
Schoenbrun. Mr. Sc hoe nb run pro
vided undoubtedly the most dynast
ic and influential insight to the lec
ture series. His attitude, thougl
somewhat reproachful, indicate
the immense responsibility thd
every American citizen has in tlx
Vietnam issue. No claim or state
ment was ever made without fir
support and clear explanati-
throughout the lecture and queetior
period. Clearly, Mr. Schoenl
was well informed, eager to -
vince, and personally concerns
with the current crises. His witel
presentation was aimed against
apathy and disgust of the America!
people in regard to current aff iiu
As he indicated at one point, tb
thing that complacent America*
should be concerned with is the f*i
ture existence of their country, ns
personal inconveniences and pett
squabbles.
Mr. Schoenbrun served to coord
nate and synthesize the divers,
sence of the entire series,
aroused interest, presented tk
facts, and made a plea for person
involvement In his speech and
marks afterward may be seen tk
convergence of the separate parts
the purpose of “Insight" Hardy *
Robinson specifically aroused I
toraet in their entertaining pres*
tation. Major General Wright p*
rented clearly the facts of the use
and Mr. Schoenbrun tied the te
together and added hk not too sri
tie plea.