Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.