Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

Gutenberg experiment Please by HARRY HOPE As we look in, the poor, beleaquered Gamecock stai around its typewriters in a cold drafty room in the mldc winter. They are burning their All-American Awards to kee A hush descends on the crowd. "He's coming," whispers Calabrese of the front row bad r "Oh nol" echoes the crowd. "'Not Massa SolIl" The door is kicked in to reveal an angry little man wearl is wearing waist high black leather boots, riding britche ruffled body shirt open to the waist. He carries a cat-o-nine him are four slaves carrying the sacred South Carolina Blatt carries with him at all times in case he wished to make spot. Handcuffed to the mace is an inconspicious SLED c socks and red US Keds, drinking an RC cola and eating a mc "Boy" The room is silent. "Boy, I told you never to gel my mace. That's one of the first laws of Uncle Sol's Cabi little J. Pete unmercifully. He turns from the task with eyes aglow. "Awright, which one o'you little buggers been saying bad Uncle Sol?" The sports staph looks around in dismay. '"But Uncle Sol you things you wanna hear." "Quit slobbering on my 'spensive boots, bubba."' He surveys the room until his eyes rest on the editor. '"A% know you done printed that letter from that there enginee dergound railroad. Now, 'fess up, bugger. Massa Sol knov lying." "'"We done nothing, Massa Sol. We exercising our f guaranteed by the first amendment." M1ernber criti Joe Lewis Secretary, Board of Publications AUTHOR'S NOTE: As secretary and voting member of the Board of Student Publications and Communications, my responsibility is to the students of the University community, rather than the Board itself (as some would say). I am writing this critique as I feel students should have the information contained herein. Some will say I am violating ethical responsibilities imposed by the Board. But my respon sibilities are to the students here. So I break the slence. The Board of Student Publications and Communications reached the peak of ineptness with a statement Sunday urging "review" of Gamecock "administrative and fiscal structures." The statement is typical of the Board's character during the 1970-71 school year --- inefficient, vague, obsessed with rhetoric, often con tradictory. After reaffirming part of its charter favoring freedom of the press, the statement said the Board found no violations of state or federal law or University principles. But In the closing graph, the Board states the Gamecock is not "adequately serving the communications needs of the University community" and should "be reviewed with the thought of bringing their (Gamecock) procedures more closely in line with current practices in student journalism." Nowhere does the Board delineate how one adequately serves University "communications needs." And what are University "com munications needs" according to the Hoard? How should the Gamecock .be reviewed? Who should review it? How has the Gamecock veered from "current practices in student journalism? What are these "current practices" of which the Board speaks? Its principles? The Board's biggest failure lies in the contradictory nature of its statement. Initially it speaks of press freedom. Then it speaks about restricting that freedom; why would "review" be needed If censorship were not in the Board's mind? The Board has contradicted Itself in four paragraphs. It is interesting to note the statement carried names of all Board members, indicating all were not only aware of it but agreed enough to put their name on it. But one member is listed as absent. Did he support the statement? Was he ever lnfor'med about the meeting at which the statement was presented? Was he given an opportunity to present his views? NO. It is nocoincidence that this "absent" member is the. most vocally opposed to any act of censorship. One member said the absentee's name had to appear on the statement simply "because you're a part of the Board." One of the few things a person can call his own is his name; only he has the right to use it unless he grants permission. Application of "absent" beside a name is no excuse for violating its use. Cleady -the May 17 statement was made to appease certain high rankiisg Mnlintsity and:'state officials. At the May 12 meeting, one Board Massa Sol f Is huddled "The only rights you got is the ones I gi, Ile of a dead immedilate revocation. Besides, I ain't paq p warm. "Well, its been around tor a few years. C "Gimme the mace, boy, I gonna pass a I nouth. Little J. Pete pulls out an aerosol can an "You little fool. Not that mace, the othe ng black. He in a minute, Bo. You pushing, Bo, you pust ; and a pink Turning back to the staph, he looks the e tails. Behind gonna pass a law right on top of you folk Mace, which ratify it when I tell 'em. We gonna give yot a law on the same day. You in trouble, Bo." hief In white He reaches for the mace as if to atta onpie. given you everythin? I give everybody in moonple on witha few exceptions, of course. I give yo n." He flogs write on it with, money to spend and air to I even sent my very own son to walk amoi Trustees. OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH, Sod things about "But Massa Sol, we the Gamecock!" "Shut up, Bo, you in big 'nuff trouble a! -we only tell Massa Sol." He lifts the Holy Mace of the State above right boy. I humans. Lightning flashes and thunder ro r on the Un- rolls down his face and veins bulge in his b is when you with rage. He is poised, mace suspend strike.... reedoms as Will no one save these poor miserable w Is John Brown gone forever? Terrible T need you? cizes Board member said suggested "a general statement that will make everybody happy." The Sunday meeting was not the first time the Board considered criticism of the Gamecock. The Tuesday, May 12 meeting was held specifically to decide if action was necessary against the Gamecock. All members present, the Board decided no law or principles had been violated and therefore no action was needed. At each meeting to consider Gamecock editorial candidates (May 6, 7, and 11), letters or com munications of criticism were considered. No action was deemed ap propriate at any of these meetings. Criticism was heard earlier against Harry Hope's columns (particularly one entitled "Mrs. Jones' Diary") and Mike Ball's article about Winthrop College censorship. One Board member went on record as disapproving of Gamecock writing at the meeting, calling some articles "character assassination." He said he "could not remain a member of the Board in good conscience unless something is done to change the current style of Gamecock journalism," according to Board minutes, Number 6. A committee was sent to discuss points of criticism with Charles Beebe, Gamecock editor, after the meeting but no further action was taken. Most other meetings concerned criticism of the Gamecock this semester without resulting in censorship action. It is unusual that the Board would suddenly take "action" against the Gamecock at such a late date. But then'the most vocal critic was absent. The May 17 statement was only the height of Board inefficiency. The recent Gamecock editorship election meetings were another example. Editorial candidates were told to appear before the Board at 12:30 p.m., Wednesday May 6. All appeared but were delayed for more than an hour by inconsequential Board discussions. Then two Board members said they had to leave by 2:30 p.m. So each candidate was permitted only three minutes to either address the Board or answer questions. The Board read each candidate's letter of application before each appeared. Some Board members had never met some of the candidates before the three minute appearances. All any Board member had to base their judgments on was a three minute acquaintance and a letter. No intensive period of questioning was used to learn how a candidate related to key Issues or how he would react to hypothetical situations - information needed to make any form of rational judgment about the future occupant of a key student office. Tlhis lack of Information obviously influenced some decisions as one Board member changed his vote at the last minute saying he thought the candidate he now supported was the only one who would form a new staff. But the member never considered that either of the other candidates may have plans to do just that. How any Board member could make a concrete decision on such scanty data is highly questionable. But the Board's lack of fairness went further in that they refused to take action for days, creating undue pressures for each candidate and Gamecock staff dissension. The Board held three meetings before reaching a decision and then refused to tell the candidates or announce It for days afterward. The delay was caused In turn by the Board's inability to learn its own rules - the Board discovered It was operating under grade reqluirements that none of the candidates met. If the Board was to recommend someone It would have to get a special waver from President Tlhomas Jones. Grade requirements for editors are clearly stated in the Board's charter as being 2.25 overall GPR, 2.5 in major field. The grade requirements for candidates had been itpquired about by this Board ie you, and they are subject to Psed that law yet." :an't you pass the law?" Bw." d sprays Uncle Sol in the face. r mace. You gonna be janitor in'." ditor straight in the eye. ''I'm , and then the senate's gonna i a fair trial then hang you the :k, but then says: "Haven't . this state anything they need u paper to write on, pencils to breath. I really hate to do this. ig you and sit on the Board of om and Gomorrahl" i it is without interrupting old the huddled mass of petrified Is in the valley. Perspiration 31d head as his eyes grow wild d above his head, ready to retches from this awful fate? Dm, where are you when we Letter to the editor DEAR MR. BEEBE: As manager of the student radio station at USC, I feel compelled t54 -publicly state my views on the present controversy involving the "Gamecock," the USC Board of Publications and Communications, and Mr. Sol Blatt. The "Gamecock," like WUSC, is supported entirely by student activity fees and advertising revenues, not by state taxes. It is, therefore, intended as a media of information and entertainment solely for USC students. I can find nothing in any university publication that indicates the student media are to act as political propaganda for the university. The Board of Student Publications and Communications selects the managers and editors of the various students publications. If, therefore, tlt( Hoard finds fault with a publication, it is because the Board has failed in its responsitility to wisely select and counsel that publication's editor. Let the guilty dog hark loudest. If on the other hand, the Board of Student Publications and Com munications is reacting to political pressure In censuring the "Gamecock," then the Board is guilty of one of the most severe abridgements of journalistic, ethics. The press Is the "Watchdog of Democracy," not the voice of the Mouth of the House. Speaking of the Mouth of the House, when Mr. Blatt contributes__ money toward the maintainence the "Gamecock"-then and only . then will he be entitled to discuss its merits. Judging from his rhetoric recently in area newspapers, Mr. Blatt is hardly qualified to read the "Gamecock," let alone suggest its demise. ShouIld Mr. iat t or any other state official have questions regarding W USC, I will be happy to answer them - just as soon as they pay their student activities fees. .JAMES M. ELLIOTT