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.

LETTE Resignation story short on facts TO THE EDITOR: The Gamecock's recent story outlining the events leading to and surrounding the resignation of Dr. Thomas F. Jones was noteworthy in one important respect. It had amazingly few facts. Much of it was merely a re-hash of what has been said so many times before. Much of the in formation in the story that has not already been printed can be at tributed to the fact that more than seven months have past since the last story appeared on the subject. Even the great minds of South Carolina cannot keep obscure facts straight for that length of time. In short the article shed more heat than light on the matter. The result of the effort undoubtedly further confused the issue that has been kept purposely vague by the people in power in the state. And unfortunately, It also appears that the entire resignation issue is rapidly becoming archaic; it is painfully evident that the truth will never come out. While the reporters appeared to be more interested in getting ambiguous confirmations of events that are widely believed to be true, some rather pertinent questions and facts-have gone largely un noticed. For example: 1. Why did Gov. John C. 'Nest disavow any knowledge of the entire matter in his press con ference at the Coliseum Feb. 5? If he was not involved, why did he have to lie about the matter? On Monday, Jan. 21 Board member Michael J. Mungo said he went to West and warned the governor that unless he, West, allowed Mungo to tell Jones of the sentiment against him, that he, Mungo, would blow the whole story (Mungo's words). That means West had to know what was going on but refused to admit it. Why did the governor lie? 2. Why was West so interested in having Jones removed? It seems rather odd that the governor, whose successor would be elected the following November, should have any interest at all. Why was he so obviously involved, despite his contentions to the contrary? 3. Furthermore, J. Crawford Cook, of Cook Ruef & Associates, Inc., had some idea of the resignation, or of the plan to have Jones removed. He spoke abont It to some frie'nds before Jones stepped down. Cook is a confidant of West, a fact that is no secret to people in South Carolina's political circles. Cook even talked about a replacement for Jones--a man he and the governor had in mind. What right does a man like Cook have to enter University matters? 4. Why did Don Fowler, chair man of the state Democratic Party, say he could not discuss the issue right after It was announced? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Fowler's party standard was being carried by the man in the State House, and that to reveal Involvement by West would do some sort of harm to the Democrats? 5. What happened between Monday, Jan. 28 and Wednesday, Jan. 30, when William H. Patterson was named as president? The Columbia Record printed a story on Jan. 28 dIscussing the variance of opinion among Board members as to whom would replace Jones. One thing appeared certan: no RS... . one knew what kind of person that would be. Yet, two days later the Board reached an unanimous decision. The big question here is who made the decision and railroaded it through that Board meeting. Certainly the decision was made beforehand, but by whom? 6. The Gamecock's story of Dec. 5 states that Mike Grier, T. Eston Marchant and Patterson met at Marchant's home the night before the Wednesday Board meeting at which Patterson was named. Taking into consideration the diversity of opinion on Monday and the unity on Wednesday, what happened Monday night and Tuesday that would make Wed nesday's meeting a picture of harmony-if that is what it really was? I can still remember Mungo after that meeting, looking as if someone had wired his jaws together so that the only words he could intelligently utter were "no comment." 7. It is widely known that the powers to be in state govern ment (including Marchant) simply did not get along with Dr. Jones. Why was the week of Jan. 21-28 earmarked as the week Jones was to be deposed? Why at this par ticular time when the anti-Jones sentiment had been so alive for so long? 8. An answer to the above question might lie in the Board election between William Bowen and Mungo. Was the board's opinion of Jones so split down the middle that Mungo was the swing man, the man whose absence could assure Jones would be removed? Would Sol Blatt Sr. have controlled Bowen's vote to insure the president's removal? 9.Why did Jones take the whole thing so calmly? Perhaps it is time to stop accepting Jones' love for the school as his motivating factor for not speaking out. No matter what anyone says, Tom Jones loved the University. But suddenly the right was no longer worth it. Why? 10. Finally if Patterson is going to serve at the "will of the board" what is the use of having a president at all? Tom Jones is no longer among the ranks of em ployed presidents because he wanted to do the job for which he was hired-run the campus com munity. The strings of power were slipping from the hands of the people who wanted them-the state politicians and Marchant-and Into the hands of the person who should have held them--Jones. Why not simply make Marchant president? All of this points to a far-larger question: who in reality runs the University of South Carolina? University personnel have been charged with the responsibility of running the school. Yet It is an uncontested fact that the state government, whose effectiveness has been ranked 44th In the United States, holds the controlling hand. This is Indeed a frightening scenario: the supposedly in dependent educational establish ment becoming strangled by the self-serving aims of a government that at very best, can only be labeled poor. The questions raised In this letter offer only three ne'w facts: The conversation I had with Don Fowler, the fact that Mike Mungo was the Board member that warned West, (The Gamecock printed a story saying a Board member had been to see West but varied sampi Campus opinion never specified wholt was) and the connection between J. Crawford Cook and the resignation. These are all facts. I did talk with Don Fowler within a week of the resignation. Mr. Mungo told me of his meeting with West. And a person close to Mr. Cook heard him make the statements con cerning Dr. Jones. These facts may be denied, as most of the others have been. But they are not conjecture and the denials will further entwine the matter in more lies. If certain people believe their trust has been betrayed, I am indeed sorry. I do not think I have done so. However I or the people involved feel, there simply comes a time when the search for truth outshadows everything else. The game has gone far enough. In fact, I fear that it has already gone too far. DOUG WILLIAMS Editor's note: The author was the editor of The Gamecock during the period following the Jones resignation and was, obviously, responsible for the newspaper's investigation of the incident. Small minority ruin dorm life TO THE EDITOR: I would like to -complain about some of the students living in dorms. To- live together suc cessfully everyone must be con siderate and cooperative with others. Most people behave in this manner but there are a few who ruin it for the majority. Let me give you a few exam ples. There are some people who think it is funny to push all of the buttons in the elevator before they get off. Have you ever been late for class and hopped on the elevator only to take five minutes getting down because it stopped at every floor? Speaking of elevators, how about the people who have a habit of leaning on the alarm button as they ride up and down. This may be amusing to their feeble minds but it is greatly annoying if you are trying. to sleep or study. I'm sure everyone is familiar Gamecoc TO THE READER: As The Gamecock closes down production for another semester, I would like to publicly acknowledge the people who made this newspaper possible. They are: Bobby Aiken, Robert Atchison, Vickie Bagwell, Billy Baker, Joe Barry, Merry Batemnan, Russell Boyd, Chris Bruton, Warren Clayton, Nancy Coleman, Terry Coon, Ray Cooper, Chuck Cromer, Becky Crowe, Charles Cun ningham. Frank nelac.he ,ing of read * S with the many false fire alarms we've had this semester. At the beginning most people obeyed them and went outside. Now, since there have been so many fake ones, most people don't even roll over, let alone get out of bed and go outside. If we ever have a real fire many people will be caught unaware. There is one final complaint I would like to make. Some people have not been taught to flush the toilet after they use it. Besides being dirty, smelly, and disgusting to see, it creates an unsanitary condition for the next person. All of these problems could be corrected quickly if the in considerate, selfish, and immature people would either go home, live off campus, or the best solution, grow up. If everyone became more considerate of the other guy then living in a dorm would be a much more pleasant experience. PAUL NICHOLS Shealy's analysis 'unusually perceptive' TO THE EDITOR: Recently, the generally dissolute editorial section of this newspaper (misleadingly referred to as the "Campus. Opinion" passage), surprisingly featured H. Frank Shealy's profession of dissatisfaction with the current grading and evaluation methods employed by this University. No more of a fortuitous expenditure of ink could have been written. One of Shealy's most stimulating considerations was concerning the demented notion (and one en thusiastically endorsed by man bof this University's frenetic pedagogues) of levying 'bad grades" as a means of exacting punitive measures against "un desirable" or "defiant" students. I am convinced that the collective student majority of this University has been abused in such a fashion. Frequently, "undesirable'' students are the most intellectually acute, and to the ultimate discomfort of many professors, the most learned. Often, our glrious pedagogues utilize such dvces, i.e., inferior grades, as a means by k staff acknowledged by Courtney Dicely and Terry Dugas. Also, Becky Evans, Jim Farrell, Sylvia Poster, Sid Griffin, Debbie Griffin, Kathy Kelly, Mark Leary, Arlene Lipson, Kathy Mason, Billena Sam McKee, Linda McKenna, Patty McQuillan, Hite Miller, Felicia Morawski, George Morris, Mark Morrow and Bruce Murdock. Also, Susan Paquet, Beth Padgett, C. Paul Patitucci, Kristi Phillips, Lee Powell, Bill Pratt, Harold Reames, "Moby" Salahuddin, Mickey Trimarchi, Steve Valk. William Welsh, Betsy ar opinion which to insure their own academic and social hegemony In that nascent social arenacalled the classroom. It is once again a succinct illustratIon of the sup pression of the noble, by the base. That these 'pundits' must im mediately be expunged from the present academic constitution of this University should appear distractingly evident to the ob servant. The most disturbing realization though, is that such intellectually debilitating in fluences are not only popularly endorsed through pronouncement and extollence, but that these in fectious sponges are also finan cially maintained as they extend their leperous contagions! Protestant attitudes as they are now applied to educational stan dards were perhaps adequate in the Kierkegaardean epoch, but in what is commonly considered to be the present age, instructory ar chaisms should be readily dispensed with, along with their promoters. Shealy is undeniably correct in ascertaining that the "system" is in dire need of reconstruction, but it is ex ceedingly more imperative to eliminate those who insist upon mis-applying the functional in struments of that system to bring those to despair who should nor mally benefit from the utility of academic standards. My com mendations to you Mr. Shealy for your unusually perceptive diagnosis of this most severe academic malady existing within our University tabernacle. Perhaps by working together we can effectively remedy the af fliction confronting us. CHARLES ANDREAS ROBERTS Jones coverage excellent TO THE EDITOR: I would like to congratulate The Gamecock for the excellent coverage on the resignation of Thomas F. Jones. In this past year, when everyone has been resigning to "return to teaching and their family" it's comforting to know that those of us who don't believe them are not the ones off base. I find it amazing and quite humorous that so many "big" name politicians could put their feet in their mouths so many times on one issue. Maybe if they would stop using the University as their political volleyball, we could start thinking about academics. The Gamececk is to be commended far their perserverance. At least someone has the "audacity" to stand up to the "powers that be" and win. EILEEN BERLIN editor Wilcox and Kaye Woodie. I also wish to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of my senior staff: Art Frank, Tommy Fowler, David Havird, Russ Jeffcoat, Jim Hersh, Bil Outlaw, Steve Parker and Jack Sowell. To these people who freuetly put up with the long hours, telow pay and what at times must have seemed to be a total lack of organization that Is collectively known as The Gameeech, I wish to express my sincere thanks. BILL GRANT Editer-n-eef