University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Yackety yack [serial] (Volume 1967) online

. (page 27 of 31)
Online LibraryUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillYackety yack [serial] (Volume 1967) → online text (page 27 of 31)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

health student, whether he serves in a local community or in a far away land, employs the tools he has forged in his
intensive training at our School.

One of fourteen such accredited Schools of Public Health in North America, students engage in study and re-
search in ten academic departments of the school; Biostatistics, Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Epidem-
iology, Maternal and Child Health, Parasitology, Public Health Education, Public Health Nursing, Public Health
Nutrition and Mental Health. All instruction is on the graduate level, with increasing numbers of students pur-
suing doctoral studies.

Mjl^^ ^


• Aabel. Ruth E.; Dade Co.. Fla.
Aboul-FetouH.Saleh Mohamed;

Cairo, EgypHU-AR.)
Adam&, Jr., Carllon N.; Winston-Salei
Adams. Margaret E.; Chapel Hill
Ahern, Daniel B.; Bethpage. NY.
Aird, Margery E.; Boca Raton. Fla.

• Alexander. Jr., John P.; Charlotte
Allen, Elizabeth E.; Newport. N.H.
Bagramian. Robert A.; Philadelphia. Pa.
Bali, Ravinder K.; New Delhi. India
Bauer, Linda E.; Walenown. N Y
Bell. Theodore L.Joliel, III.

Boyer. Micheline F.; Geneva,

Branagan, Jr.. Charles A.; Plymouth,

• BuchhoU. Jr., William F.; Arlington

Heights, ill

Bullock. Perry L.; Nashville. Tenn.

Bumgarner, Edwin M.; Mebanc

Burchelle, Joseph H.:Chapel Hill

I Button. Margeory G.; Wilmington, Del.
Callaway, Kalherine A.; Aiiderson. S.C,
Campbell, Janet E.; Raleigh
Carter, Howard W.; Si. Pelcrsburg. Fla.
Chen, Yau-nan; Taipei, Taiwan. China
Chiang, Ruby; Durham

• Davidson, Gary D.; Sidney, Ohio
Denit, Jeffery D.; Hyatlsville. Md,
Devlvn, John E.; Ebensburg, Pa.
Dolfman, Michael L.; Philadelphia.
Dolob. Melvin; Atlanta, Ga.
Drake, Claude W.: Como

• Dressier, Suzanne d'H.; Pittsburgh Pa
Drye. Robert J.; Charlolte
Dunning, John F.; Durham
El Kammash, Gloria F.; Chapel Hill
Emick, Elsie A.; Upper Sandusky. Ohio
Engle. Clara A.; Imlav City. Michigan

Fiser, Kenneth B.; Lexington. Kentucky
Fogel, Mark D.; New York, New York
Ford, Jr., Laurence B.; Philadelphia, Pa.
Francisco, Donald E.: Houston, Texas

(>andolra, Madan M.; Kashn^
Gentry. Gerald W.; Aiheville
Glenn, Tommie E.; Imperial. Tex;
Glenn, William D.: Impenal.Texi


iLf iiilfJt.

Hall. Russell L.; KresionsD
Hamilton, Martin L.; Bni^t

Henderson, Oliver; Cai

Holland, Rebecca M.; Harrisburg.

Howell. Robert B.; Lake Wales.
Howell, Roberl T,; Albuquerque.

I Huniphre>, Dr. Stanley P.;
Albuquerque. N.M.
Hunsberger, Arthur G,; Temple.

Huper, Heinz U.; Zurich,

Jain, Devendra K.; Agra. India
Jasper, William J.; Pillsburgh, Pa
jeffrej. Jr., Clyde C; Linden.

# Johnson, Charlotte M.; Andover.

Khan, Mohammad N.;
Gilgiiacency, Pakistan
KnaufT. J.V.: Raleigh

Kuna^ipakonn,Thira; Bangkok.


Lai. Vudhishter; Delhi. India

Leach. Nancv, J.; Leslie, Mich

Lee, I>onald T.; Neodesha. Kan

eW.; Durham
Lewis, Judith A.; Catawissa. Pa
Little. Abbv E.: Cornelia. Ga
Little. Linda W.; Durham
H\de. Ro\ K.; Birmingham, Ala
Lobdell. johnL.; Montgomery,

• Loflus. Betiv: Kai



McChesney. Col. Don R.; San

Antonio, Tex

McCoi.Dr. Mack L.; Sparlanhurg,


McCracken, Clayton H.; Asheville

• McDonough. AnneM.; Worchester.

McFJroy, Jr., Kenneth E

Richmond. Va.

McGowan, Joanne C; Wakefield.



i«n. Jam

s. Jane ^

,. Una; Toi



• Mello, Henrique S.B.; Rio de
Janeiro. Brazil
Michalak, Barbara J.; Camdei

Mulligan, Jr., John B


Nagi, Mirajuddin; L;i


; Berlin, Germany
Oplesba). Flcivd B.; Sprmgneld.

Oloupalik, Frank A.; Pueblo.


Parekh. Lilia K.: QueionCay.


• Paupe. William F..; Rockvllle, Md.
Ptak. Donald W.; Welumpka. Alu.
Peoples, Robert F ~

Pullig, Mary R.; Slumps,

Purvis, James K.; New Orleans.


Radford, Jr.. Norman D.;

Woodbridge, Va

Rakshit, Sippa; India

Ra>. Catherine I.: Arlington. Va

• Sadltr. Flossie F.; Hickory

Sampson. Neil H.; Mjiden. Mass.
Sauls, Ann R.: Asbcvillc
Sehgal, Jag M.; New Delhi. India
Seidel. JamesS.: l.illle Neck. N.Y.
Seuvoutong, Boonsone; Bangkok,

Smith, Jerrv L.; Detroit,


Sugathan, Thatlaruparambil N.;

Parur, Kerala, India

Suksawasdi, Rampai; Thailand

Sweitzer, John H.; Rome.Ga,

Todd.Mar> L.; Lai

Tultle, Carl D.; Frankiorl. Ky.
T>ler. Emily T.; Charles City. \
Varavej.Porapan; Dhonbum,

# Vtnkalesan.Cropalan; New
Delhi. India

Van Wie, William A.; Whcelrnc.
W Va

Vesiland.P.A.; Beaver. Pa
Wagner, William L.; McLean, V.
Walker. William C; Asheville
Wallace, James D.; Sparlanhurg.

tlls.Birt> C; Fi (\

iok>. Ralph R.; Pine Blull

Wra>, John D.; Raleigh

Ziecler, Frederick G.; Camden.


in others seems to me no more unreasonable than to criticize,
as I often do, others' faults in myself. We should denounce them
everywhere and leave them no place of refuge."



The title of this section is "Viewpoint," and it is rather obviously taken from a local show that
is known throughout the region for its intellectual commentary. This editorial, in one sense, is
directly inspired by Uncle Jesse, for it is a direct attack on him and his philosophy; but it is more
than that, it is a general critique of the place of the University in the State, and its relationship
with the people of North Carolina. The situation of the University has been rather precarious as
an institution of North Carolina; it has been under fire since the Speaker Ban Law passed in 1963.
The following is an attempt to discover what effects the controversy has had on Carolina, and to
set forth some outline of what its role in the community should be.

In the fall of 1965, the Legislature of the State of North Carolina met in special
session to consider repeal or amendment of the Speaker Ban, which prohibited Communist speak-
ers from lecturing at state-owned campuses, buildings, etc. Under pressure from the Southern
Association of Schools and Colleges and other organizations, the law was amended to put the
control of speakers in the hands of the Trustees, who subsequently turned the authority over to the
Chancellor. This move was hailed as a complete destruction of the law and victory for academic
freedom. When American Communist theorist Herbert Aptheker was invited to speak on campus,
however. Acting Chancellor Sitterson denied him the right to speak, following the advice of Governor
Moore whose reason was that the invitation was extended solely to cause controversy. Why was
this decision made?

In the fall of 1966, Jesse Helms announced on his television program that a UNC freshman
English instructor, Michael Paull, was indoctrinating the virgin minds of good little North Carolina
girls with prurient tripe. Shameful, sexually stimulating literature was assigned as the model for a
composition; this horrid material was Andrew Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress" — a poem which
this author read, studied, and analyzed in depth in the tenth grade. Mr. Helms issued a challenge
in his broadcast, demanding to know what the University would do to purge itself. Chancellor
Sitterson (no longer Acting) took what certainly was not a very courageous or carefully considered
action in dismissing the instructor from his teaching duties with very little, if any, investigation.
Upon subsequent study by a departmental committee, Paull was reinstated; but why was the almost
direct interference into the academic realm by a television announcer tolerated?

Part of the problem lies, perhaps, in the nature of the majority of the population of the state.
It is not heavily industrialized, much of the state is still rural. Some of the newer, more progressive

concepts of education have not yet reached these areas. Naturally, these people are heavily biased
toward those concepts with which they are most familiar, toward the status quo. UNC has always
attempted to stimulate thought, to challenge old ideas, to set the standards, not follow them.
This sits about as well with the state's citizens as Darwin did with the citizens of Dayton,
Tennessee. North Carolinians will strike out through Speaker Bans, through Jesse Helms, and
somewhat perversely, through Leo Jenkins. If Carolina is not wary, it will either be bent to
their level, or destroyed; it must tread the thin line between complete effrontery and complete

The essence of the attack on the University is based on most citizen's feelings, whether they be
rural or urban, that they own the University — own it tangibly as one would a car or a house. This,
however, is not quite accurate. A North Carolinian pays education taxes just as he does for high-
ways and for police; he enjoys the services of the educational facilities as he does the use of the
highways and police protection. Yet, he cannot tell the state when, where, or how to put a highway
down, nor can he tell a policeman not to arrest him for speeding. Similarly, it is not his prerogative
to run the University, only to profit from its existence.

What then is the solution to the problem? Chancellor Sitterson's method seems to be to placate
the state by compromising the standards of UNC. The State Affairs Committee under the Executive
Branch of Student Government has attempted to "improve the University's image in the state" by
means of speeches and meetings with civic groups in North Carolina. Neither of these strategies is
very effective; both are assuming that the people of the state are correct in their assumptions, and
that Carolina must in some way apologize for its existence. The opposite tact should be followed.
If there is propagandizing to be done, it should be toward the end of educating the people of North
Carolina to the extent of power that their tax dollar buys them at the University. Moreover, UNC
should assert itself strongly — not offensively, but strongly — as the explorer of new ideas and
the leader in constantly setting new and higher standards of achievement — intellectual and social.
This University has the potential of being equally as strong as Michigan, Wisconsin, or Berkeley;
what it needs is the freedom to strike ahead, unfettered — on its own. One can now look dispas-
sionately at the harsh results of state interference at Berkeley and the rest of the University of
California; he can only hope that the same does not happen here.

R. E. D.


At one of the basketball games this past season, new Head Football Coach, Bill Dooley, was
introduced to the student body and was applauded wildly. When Athletic Director Chuck Erickson
was brought out onto the floor, however, he was roundly booed. Apparently the Bronx cheers
stemmed from the football team's poor showing last fall; but it is an amazing thing to see an athletic
director jeered for one team's disgrace, when his school has won the conference title for the
"winningest" athletic program two years in succession. It is the contention of the Yackety Yack
that Erickson. the athletic department, the members of the various intercollegiate teams (yes, even
football), and everyone connected with sports at the University should be commended for a job
well done.

It is true enough that the football season this year left much to be desired. This subject has
been covered more fully in the football coverage ( See the Athletics Section ) : but suffice it to say here
that a 2-8 won lost record is, if nothing else, an incentive to improve next season. UNC now has
a new coach, and one who believes in the hard-nosed game practiced by colleagues in the South-
eastern Conference and the Big Ten. It seems as though Carolina can play them on an equal basis
under Dooley — something that could not be done while under former Head Coach Jim Hickey.
Hickey was a gentleman and played gentleman's ball; but this brand of football today is good only
for intramurals and the Atlantic Coast Conference. There is no doubt that the Tar Heels will win
the title from here on in (that is, if Clemson will allow us to compete for the championship). About
all that can be said is that Tom Harp had better return to Cornell.

Basketball needs no apologies whatsoever. Asking why. oh why couldn't Carolina have de-
feated Dayton is like being born a duke and crying for not having been king. The team had already
accomplished so much, who could really think of more. For the first time in eight years UNC finished
the regular season ahead of the pack and first-seeded in the Conference Tourney. For the first time in
ten years a Tar Heel team won the ACC Tournament and Conference Championship. For the first
time in ten years Carolina went to the Eastern Regionals, and again for the first time in ten years,
won. The performance of the 1957 team was not completely repeated, unfortunately, as Friday night
in Louisville was the occasion of a disappointing loss to underdog Dayton and the end of all dreams
of beating Alcindor's mob. Ah well, Duke was beaten in its first game at the NIT. Seriously, though,
the whole team deserves congratulations. Of course much praise goes to Bob Lewis and Larry Miller
for great performances all season — Lewis in a new, and somewhat awkward, position. But a lot of

credit should also be given to the sophomores who made up the bulk of the team. This was the year
of the sophomore throughout the nation (particularly at UCLA), and Carolina was no exception.
Bob Lewis may be irreplaceable; but, if he is not, it will be because of the fine effort of the returning
players, and specifically next year's juniors.

From basketball we turn to baseball, the Ail-American game. We have to return to the spring
of 1966, however, for at presstime the '67 squad is only getting warmed up (though it is off to a good
start with a 6-3 record so far). Last spring was an even more satisfying season than when the Heels
won the Conference with a 12-2 record. Wonder of wonders UNC won the Atlantic Coast
Conference Pennant, defeated strong East Carolina College for regional honors, and went off to the
Collegiate World Series. Coach Walter Rabb's boys deserve as much commendation as the basketball
team, for their achievements are equally as impressive. College baseball may not be as popular with
the spectators as the two "big-time" sports, but where is the star of next summer's Detroit Tigers going
to come from but the UNC baseball nine.

It must be emphasized here that the order of presentation is not at all an order of descending
importance. Coach Skakle's tennis team, for example, is the most consistent winning team on campus.
Year after year he never fails to turn out fine netters. If the University of Miami did not con the stars
at the Orange Bowl Junior Tennis Tournament, UNC would have the best team in the country. One
cannot overlook either the fine swimmers under the direction of Coach Pat Earey; he has excellent
talent in boys like Pete Worthen and Olympian Phil Riker, and has done a fine job with them. There
is also the track (including cross country) team, which has finished second only to Maryland for two
years in indoor track competition.

What is most encouraging is the enthusiasm of the participants in the less noted and less
followed activities — the so-called minor sports. Lacrosse is getting to be a big thing at UNC, and has a
new young coach this year to give it direction. Soccer has certainly done very well, just missing the
NCAA playoffs. Coach Marvin Allen can look for even more interest and attention as soccer becomes
a national sport with the new professional leagues. Wrestling and Sam Barnes are wonders to behold,
worth anyone's trip to the gym. Fencing, too, is a sport one should feel privileged to watch; it is in-
triguing for its ceremony and tradition.

To return to the original statement, it is difficult to understand why an athletic director in
charge of a program like that outlined above, would be booed. There is more to athletics than foot-
ball, and there is more to life than a brown bag in Kenan Stadium. R. E. D.


Women's Rules, even on the surface, are a contradiction in terms, for who has ever ruled a
woman? Seriously, though, the tin god of women's rules is an absurdity which makes the Index of
Prohibited Books seem progressive by comparison. The University admits young ladies of age eight-
een and older, calls them women, but treats them as though they were girls of thirteen or fourteen.
These are supposed to be the cream of the U. S. female crop; just by the standards they have had to
meet to enter UNC, they are among the brightest, the most mature, and the most sophisticated girls
of their age in the state and country. Why then are they treated as too young to make any decisions
on their own. while their less fortunate sisters who do not go to a college or university are considered
adults by the entire community? Does it make sense that an eighteen year old hairdresser can choose
where she wants to live and with whom she wants to sleep, when the intelligent college co-ed is ap-
parently too stupid to make this choice.

It would seem that part of a college education is to learn freedom — what it is and how to
cope with it. The answer from the Dean of Women's Office would be that the girl is given freedom in
limited, supervised doses, so that she will be taught how she should use her freedom. Well and good;
but what assurance is there that what Katherine Kennedy Carmichael believes should be done with
her own freedom is what every co-ed believes should be done with hers. In other words it is a con-
fusing and frustrating situation when the woman student is taught to think independently, not to
believe exactly what she is told, and yet her social life is directed in an exactly opposite manner. If a
person is taught to make their own decisions regarding the appropriateness of America's stand in
Vietnam, or the advantages and disadvantages of socialism in the United States, she should be cap-
able of making her own moral decisions.

The University of North Carolina, however, apparently sees its duty to maintain virginity as a
matter of policy. It is somewhat incredulous that an institution of higher learning — supposedly one
of the leading universities in the nation — would sink to the level of acting like a super chastity belt,
but it is unfortunately true. Again, it must be emphasized that college is where the individual as-

sumes responsibility, and that is a subject one must learn on his own. But what has a girl learned
except punctuality and/or deceit under a system such as the one here? It is an entirely unsatisfactory

This medieval remnant can be traced to two things. The first is the University's feeling that it
should act in loco parentis, in the place of parents, in its relations with the students. This is the case
with all students, but in greater degree with the female ones. In loco parentis was understandable in
the day when freshmen did not know the difference between a liquor bottle and a mug of moo.
Today's collegians, however, are about as world-wise when they come to UNC as their predecessors
were when they left. When their own parents have given them enough rope to hang themselves for
some time, they are not aided in their maturity to suddenly return to the womb at the University's
command. Ah ha, one says. But what of those whose parents did not believe in allowing them a little
slack in gaining experience, what of those whose parents still feel their offspring should be tethered
tightly by the umbilical cord? This is the second part of the problem — the provincial attitude of
many of the state's inhabitants. Yet, the same applies in the University's relations with North Carolina
in moral and social matters as does in academic ones. Moreover, parents for whom UNC is too liberal
may send their "children" elsewhere. Academe should be the training ground for the state's future;
the treatment of adult women as though they were pre-teen agers does not set much of an example.

Why then is nothing done about women's rules? It is no idle statement that if there were a
genuine feeling of antagonism toward the status quo, the administration might look to change. But the
co-eds here do not want liberalization. They feel safe and warm and secure within the womb and pro-
tected by the super chastity belt. Those who do feel some mild dissatisfaction with the system are too
apathetic to make any active show. Berkeley-style demonstrations and rebellion is not called for; but
one would think the leading women, students would be so affronted by the treatment they receive that
they would make some legitimate protest — and see it through until reform was initiated. Alas no,
Carolina is not so blessed with enlightened spirits. And so, to close this diatribe, one can only say it
was a waste: until the Carolina Co-ed graduates from the Karolina Kindergarten and demands what
she deserves as an adult, intelligent being, she will remain unemancipated. Women's rules are an
unnecessary burden, but she has chosen to bear them.

R. E. D.


The 1966 Yackety Yack closed with the words, "And so, if one should criticize the yearbook,
let him think what he can do for the Yack, not what it can do for him. It is in your hands, fellov? stu-
dents, more than anyone else's that the final success of the book depends, for without your assistance
and support, all our industry is futile." Yet, very few students hearkened to these words: there were
books ripped over cars, others torn in half, and still others left in the Yack office for posterity. Why
was this done? Why was the Yack not accepted? Why was (and perhaps is) it a failure — or, indeed,
was it a failure? Is it the student's fault for lack of aesthetic appreciation; is it the student's fault for
lack of assistance and advice until it is hindsight; is it the fault of past Pub Boards for tying the Yack
to a printer and engraver whose methods were archaic, if not antique; or is it the fault of the Yack
staff, whose attempt at artistry sometimes places the book too "far out" for the average student and
his interest?

The answer lies in a combination of these things. The students, first, are culpable for not de-
siring or accepting anything beyond the good, cleancut yearbook they knew at Podunk High School. It
is rather difficult for a book to present copy, pictures or layout in an artistic manner when the recipient
of the book cares for nothing but his own picture and the funny caption under the frat candid. More-
over, not only is an artistic annua! off limits, but a truthful one is also. Even if the football team is
not the best or Jubilee was not up to par, it seems to be the feeling of most that the obligation of the
Yack is to praise them. This atmosphere, where any new idea is automatically a bad one, is not con-
ducive to a successful Yackety Yack from any point of view. The yearbook is a pictorial and literary
record, and a record is comment as well as fact.

The blame can also be placed on the student body for being, as it were, Monday morning
quarterbacks. Though pleas have been made constantly for assistance, advice, and criticism during the
preparation of the book, these go unheard by the majority, while the Yack is almost forgotten. In
May, however, far and wide is heard the cry that this is the worst yet; only when it is too late do most
students voice their objections. This year the number of staff and secretarial volunteers from the
student body has been excellent; yet, those who are most vituperative in their condemnation never
seem to come down to the office to offer their services. If there was a genuine interest in improving
the book according to their own standards, why have these students not come forth from the wood-

Another very tangible area which has contributed in the past to the detriment of the Yackety
Yack and to its failure with the University community was the poor contracting by the Publications
Board three years ago, which burdened the yearbook with obsolete, expensive, and uncooperative
printers, engravers, and photographers. Since they were North Carolina companies, they believed that
the UNC book would never look elsewhere; consequently they priced themselves far above the com-

petitive market, did poor work, and were generally unwilling to help in any way. No changes for
aesthetic reasons or otherwise could be made with these people; the engraver even had the audacity to
come to Chapel Hill year after year with the same layouts, telling the staff here was the book — just

Online LibraryUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillYackety yack [serial] (Volume 1967) → online text (page 27 of 31)