The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, September 13, 1973, Page Page 8, Image 9

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

opinion A Fading Smile The Faculty Senate has passed a resolution which would require USC Athletic Director Paul Dietzel to appear before the Student Allocations Commission in order to receive money from student fees. All the resolution need is approval by the Board of Trustees. Currently, the Athletic Department is receiving $340,000 from student's pocketbooks, the largest amount of any organization on campus. This is a lot of money, but it certainly isn't much in light of the $2 million plus budget the Athletic Department will operate on this year. Now, the point is-four years ago such a move would have been declared sacraligious by everybody from the Columbia Chamber of Commerce to the Southern Baptist Convention. The best season Deitzel ever had here was 1969-7-4. Last year it was 4-7. The man with the baby blue eyes and the Pepsodent smile is beginning to lose his charisma. As a result, more and more people are beginning to grumble about his performance. And the revelations last Spring concerning his contract haven't helped the former LSU coach one bit. People take their football seriously down here.-far more seriously than it deserves yet far less seriously than the South Americans take their soccer. Empires topple; so do athletic directorships. Dietzel may be playing for more than the Peach Bowl this year. -RHH A Lost Forum In our Sept. 6 issue we ran a letter from former student senator, Mike Taylor, in which he he let it be known he was resigning from the Senate because of its "impotence which strangles almost any effective legislation that the Senate is able to enact." It is not difficult to understand Taylor's frustration in that body, which admittedly has not been known for its legislative "potency." But in the same breath Taylor says the Senate, embodying all groups on campus, faculty, students, administration and staff, is the only way to effectively govern this institution. What we want to know is how Taylor intends to work for university governance of this type now that he has cut himself off from his only forum. His action seems appallingly immature in the light of his statement that he is convinced a university-wide senate would be a step in the right direction at USC. We can only conclude that Sen. Taylor now refuses to take the personal responsibility for working for something that he evidently believes. -PET AlthughTheGamecock is a publication of the students ;of the University of Sou Carlia,it s otan official publication of the university. The opinions expresse heren donotnecessarily represent those of the university, the student bot or all staff members of The Gamecock. Editor ............ ....---------------.---------------.------Patrick Tyler ..........................................................William C. Grant Associate Editors.-.........~....................-...-......Bb Craft New Edto--- -" -------- ".------------------*-...Doug Wi m At. News Editor..""""""-"""""-------"...----*""-".Larry Emond Art Director .......................-.........................-Thomas A. Price Phosto Editor..........................-..........-..........-Geoffrey Darling Sports Editor................-----.....------------. ------..Steve Parker Asst. Sports Editor.......------ .-----------------.----.----- - -Jim Hersh Copy Editors..........................................-......Betty Woodruff Aaron Medlock Advertising Manager...~~.............-...--....-...Art Frank Staff writers.....--.............--.------------------------...Marshall Sanso Gary West R. Vance Butts Tommy Fowler Phtgaphiers.............................----. -- - ---..--Tho as A. Price Davi Ale Doug Febr Staff Artist........-.--------.-----------. ..---*-*-.*.RickBaty iuin Manager .........--........ ..--.-------Keth Gressmn Aderis ng tff...-- .............------.--...---.--- ...----------C.P. Patitucci Ed Terrio Hite Miller Pa.utio Stff -.--*--------..-.---- --...-- Valerie Lingg Salley Gihmore Patty M6Qillan Letter To the Editor: I am writing as z memb of the "Carolina Cori munity" to register r dissatisfaction with yoi editorial, "The Openir Shot" on page 5 of the Se tembei 6 Gamecock. In th editorial you candidly tc your readers that you gai the President of tt University the "opportuni to say something to US students . . ." but that y( declined to print his remarl because you refused to " , .be party to a preside tialdodge . . ." I judge yoi decision and action to be poor taste, rude and an inst to the intelligence and i dependent judgement myself and every othf member of the Universi community. First of all, to invite t senior administrative offic of our institution to addre the students and then refu. to print him appears to me be an affrontery and contradiction to the mannei which I know you have ar which mark you as a educated man. Secondly, y( deprive me and every oth reader the opportunity make up our own minds as whether the President remarks constituted "dodge." I thini yoi readers deserve moi respect for their perceptivi than you have shown then I would prefer that you pri any such statements and I me judge myself as to the meaning. Finally, your action strik me as a kind of "censorshil of the worst kind. Usuall student journalistsfuncti4 with a high regard fi freedom of the press. I thh you have violated a mc sacred principle. Your position as editor our student newspaper is powerful and respected on( I have confidence in yo ability and I would hope y would use this position in more cnstructive mannet 'harges Ce It is my belief that we all r must work together on this y campus; I maintain that the [y open airing of all points of ir view is an essential aspect of this kind of cooperation P. which is a pre-condition for is making this the great ,il University of which we all re want to be a part. "The te Opening Shot" appears to Ly me to have been yours and C not the President's. >u John N.Gardner Cs n: OthersNeeds. in t To the Editor: .i At the top of the ramp to )f the Undergradute Library, !r two bikes were parked, ty locked to the railings at either side. One person could ae walk between. It is my mr understandig that the ramps Ls have been added on campus ie to make accessible to han to dicapped persons all a facilities. r We able-bodied can reach id without thinking about it. Of Ln what use is "book learning" lu if in our simplest daily a r ctions we can't think about to the basic needs of others? to Lois R. Shell 's a ir Superstar ty 1. t To the Editor: et Mr. Craft's blunt criticism of ir the movie version of jesus Christ, Superstar, was not B without a good bit of just cause. )P For one thing, the entire thing y was conceived as a rip-off, n even by its authors; I did )r notice flaws in character Ik portrayal that should have st been corrected by the director. And anti-Semitism and racism of are certainly evils ripe for a extirpation. But these flaws would by no means condemn the entire film, especially certain a segments of the film -and this is where Mr. Craft, usually a 0~ 4) nsorship mastermind of piercing satire, has completely balked His admission that he, too, is a Christian dogmatist and hence most assuredly capable of analyzing the film's "error" (heresies,) simply underscores the reason why both the members' of Fundamentalist "hellfire and damnation" religious sects and their escapist proselytizing coun terparts in Jesus freakus fadism (and also those who would often preach but rarely practice,) can NEVER really appreciatethe album, the play or the movie - jesus Christ , Superstar is an experieRce in agnosticism. Its agnostic authors have deliberately worded the play to express an either-or attitude about the divinity of Christ. this is precisely why Craft, despite his great penchant for satire, found the "resurrec tion" of Judas in modern dress and his chorus of "Leon Russell auditioners" a virtual obscenity - for he cannot comprehend the garish materialism of a society not needing "salvation" from want, hunger, misery or despair so much as an avenue of escape from it all-too evident absurdity. When the chorus repeatedly demands Christ to show his credentials - "how .do we know you're what they say you are" - it reflects the endless query of some members of a surfeited society for purpose. Hence it was not at all surprising and rather enjoyable for me to observe this satirical treatment of the modern condition, both in the Judas scene and with Herod and his cohorts. I should perhaps not blame Bob Craft for his failure to perceive this element in the movie. After all, it might be argued that only true agnostices have profound religious experiences. Tim Beall