University of South Carolina Libraries
UtI (6ame tack Editor BOB BAKER Mg E~iser News Editor CARLNAYLOR MARION ELLIOTT Advertising Manager ART FRANK lh m AAWCOCK is a publication of the students of the University of South m 0 is a* am official publication of the University. The opinions expressed bikedDmmessariy represent those of the University, the student body or all the 1ftW ibmbeirs of Ve GAMECOCK. Gas Prices Still On The Rise In 1973, the year in which the United States began to run short of fuel, the profits of the 24 largest U.S. oil companies began to show a precipitous increase, a 53 per cent rise in profits over 1972. In 1974, the same group of oil conglomerates accumulated profits of 39 per cent over that of 1973. And, in 1975, the increases are still coming. 'Tis s-immer with therelikely to be less gas on the market, the industry will probably report profits that compare hand somely with the two previous years. But, there is an energy crunch. Isn't there? Why would they report profits? One reason is that the major American oil companies decided to raise gasoline prices during the July 4th weekend to catch the peak of the holiday season. The 60 cents to 70 cents people paid and are now paying caught many people by sur prise and will add up to nice profits when the final statistics get reported. And if this recent rise isn't enough for the consumer, President Ford last weekend had the gall to announce that he intends to lift domestic oil price controls. This removal presumably means that the price of a barrel of oil will rise from the presently imposed level of $5.25 to the world market level which is now over $12.00. Although President Ford announced that the control lifting might not mean a sudden rise in gas costs, Ford did concede that gas prices could rise substantially. Ford said in his comments, "I'm convinced the oil industry is doing everything under the law to increase oil production." A constant echo for most Americans seems more like, "We're convinced the oil industry is doing everything under the law to increase windfall oil profits." Exxon's $5.5 billion in profits over the last two years seems to play this up. Like it or not, the oil industry is having a field day as the government refuses to challenge the monopoly that keeps the prices rising. The President although seeking election next year (with some campaign monies coming from the oil in dustry, no doubt) seems to have retired from the battle and is not supporting the American public. What's most unfortunate for the U.S. people now is the fact that the large oil-energy corporations that could sit on inflation are letting it rip. And, why not? Fortune Magazine in May 1975 reported that the 10 largest oil firms enjoyed $10.4 billion in profits m 1974 as compared to $7.5 billion in 1973. Even if one accepts the major companies' premise that programs such as off-shore oil, shale, and coal projects will require huge new funds, one need not accept their conclusion that they deserve to get the profits they are getting. Tomorrow's tasks do not require or justify the windfall profits of today. In short, it is a shame to realize that President Ford has abandoned his program to help the American people WIN (Whip Inflation Now), for it appears that the only winner is the oil industry. One thing is certain, however. With rising fuel and energy costs .and growing government support or industry, the American people seem aptly destined to LOSE. It's un fortunate that the policy of this administration is to put its trust in big oil companies and hope for the best. RLB UIe (1amerck 8taff Circulation Manager Production Manager GREG TOWERY TERRY COON Entertainment Editor Sports Editor Photography Editor BRENDA BELL BILLY BAKER .DANE EDENS ContriutorsProduction JOYCE SLATER R. VANCE BUTTS JOHN SHARKEY BRENDA EASTERLING KATHY EDWARDS SANDY SHAIN JACK BAiNE ROBERT HARDEE CHUCK CROMER MARK DILLARD BETSY WILCOX SUSAN CATE VIVIAN DAVIS BECKY CROWE SILL PRATT KAREN PETIT SAL HENLEY '$ENE HOOD DN WHITEYm Natatorium Is Nice TO THE EDITOR: First of all let me extend an overall compliment to you for The Gamecock. Before I voice my views on a particular set of articles in the July 10 issue let me give you my background for such views. Since 1967, I've been a diver. In 1973, 1 received my third class international certificate from the NOB in Holland. With that organization, I was a trainer, and as a member of two of their diving teams, I acted as a life guard at the National Five Kilometer Swim ming Meets involving hundreds of swimmers. Since returning to the States in September 1973, I've received my PAD one senior class certificate, and have assisted in the training of PAD one and other divers. Also I've worked part-time as a life guard, and have done other odd jobs for shrimpers and rescue organizations. One thing a diver must do is keep practicing basic skills. This practice can be done in swimming pools. In fact, I dare say I've been in quite a few pools both here in the USA and in Holland. Upon arriving at USC, I found the new Natatorium to be very inviting. But, after reading the July 10 Gamecock, I got angry. So on July 12, I walked over there to experience the overbearing rules of the place. What I found was exactly the opposite of what your paper describes. The officials were polite, and accomodating. Girls were out in force and even a revealing bikini or two appeared. A locker to safeguard my belongings was provided and the man issuing the keys was ex tremely patient when I told him I couldn't see where to use the key. The schedule of hours is clear and easy to understand, and set up for maximum use of the facilities. As far as the rules of the pool are concerned, they are no different from any other public pool I've ever been in. Please note that I entered the pool as any other student would, not mentioning I was there to see the "dumb rules" for myself. In short, taking into account safety, health, and socially recognized good taste as well as those things other pool managements have found best, the new Natatorium's pool regulations are not questionable at all. PETER G. RAETH Errors Found TO THE EDITOR This is a brief note to clarify some misinformation released in the story on University 101 which appeared in the July 10th Issue. First, University 101 was not the design of R. V. Heckel (me), J. Manning Hiers, John Zuidoma, antt Barbara Finegold. It grew out of the Camp Gravatt workshop held in 1971 (an extensive summary of this workshop appeared in the Gamecock). A subcommittee under Robert Mulvaney of Philosophy sought Innovation at the freshman level in the form of an experimental program to the educative process. A committee was empaneled in the fall under Mulvaney and included Richard Rempel, History, Robert Heckel, Psychology, William Caldwell, Mathematics, J Manning Hiers. tters To Social Problems Research In stitute, Francis D. Atkinson, School of Ibrarianship, and a series of invited participants in cluding John Guildes, then Vice Provost and Robert Alexander of Student Affairs. This group designed a program which was enacted with first offerings being presented in the fall, of 1972. In order to provide faculty with training and orientation for his teaching the newly conceptualized course, the first group, primarily Hiers and-Zuidema designed a two week faculty training program. Regarding the first evaluation, as I viewed it, was not so much a question of either the integrity of the researchers or the credibility of the results. Rather, credibility is increased if an evaluation is performed by other than those involved. This would not necessarily affect the level of objectivity. My main concern in writing this note LU you was a concern that those most involved were not credited with their very dedicated effort. Perhaps it is not important anyway. Most of these creative and innovative faculty are now employed at other schools ROBERT V. HECKEL Ph. D. Professor of Psychology Director, Social Problems Research Institute Story Pleasing TO THE EDITOR: I read with interest your article on University 101 in the July 10 issue of The Gamecock. The ar ticle was very positive and I think this exposure will be good for the program. I want to thank Joyce Slater very much for the time she spent and the interest she displayed in covering the University 101 program. I will read her other articles with interest too. JOHN N. GARDNER Coordinator University 101 Another Error TO THE EDITOR: Recent articles in The Gamecock under the heading "History Behind USC" by Susan Cate have been fine and interesting additions to the campus newspaper ; I would like to commend Ms. Cate for her efforts and The Gamecock for its interest in the history of the institution which (we hope) exists primarily for the purpose of serving the very students who read this newspaper. An attempt to make available a capsule histor'y such as this one to those who don't make a habit of browsing around in The South Caroliniana Library between classes is certainly a healthy one, and one which occassionally ought to be recognized and applauded. I do both now. History has it pitfalls, though. In the July 10, 1975 issue of The Gamecock Ms. Cate, describing the administration of A. B. Longstreet at South Carolina College (1858-1861), writes, "The new president's politics were also held in esteem. At the In ternational Statistical Congress in London, Longstreet withdrew as The Edit the U.S. delegate because a Negro delegate was present." Minor point this may be, but it seems to me indicative of a tendency to oversimplify and consequently distort the racial attitudes of 19th century Southerners, such as Longstreet, who were advocates of slavery. In point of fact, Longstreet did not withdraw from the Congress because a Negro (Martin Delany) was present; he withdrew because he felt that the state and the country he alone was representing, and the American minister attending the Copgress, all were callously insulted by Lord Brougham, who presided at the 1860 meeting. What happened at the Congress was this: following a speech by the Prince Consort, Lord Brougham rose and said (according to The London Morning Chronicle) "he hoped Mr. Dallas (American Minister) would not consider it impertinent if he ventured to call his attention to the fact that one Negro was present in the room....The coloured gentleman. . .referred to. . . said: I humbly thank his lordship for the notice which he has taken of me.... I will simply assure your Royal Highness and the company present that I am a man." Dela;ny'c statement met with cheering and applause. The (English) editor of the Chronicle (July 18, 1860) considered Brougham's comment a "pointed insult" to Dallas. "All circumstances," he wrote, "are of a kind that would justify the Government of the United States in demanding a formal apology" from Brougham or the Statistical Congress. What Longstreet resented (besides the insult itself) was the hypocrisy of the Congress who had responded wildly to Delany's declaration, yet hadn't seen fit to invite the Negro to the Prince's reception, or to any of the en tertainments. "In all this," he wrote to the public in the Chronicle of July 21, "1 detect a lurking feeling ever and anon peep.ing out, which convinces me that the coloured man is yet far, very far below the white man in public estimation, even in Europe; and until this is conquered, let not the European assume to lecture the American upon his duty to the slave, or upon the quality of the races." He asks why Delany was not seated between himself and Dallas: "here would have been a scenic representation of thrilling moral effect, more eloquent of Old England's love of freedom and contempt of mastery than all lip compliments of her nobles put together." Or, why wasn't he seated near Lord Brougham himself? "Had I' seen him there, verily my own heart would have swelled with a compliment to noble Old England which no 'lips could have fitly uttered." But to set up, as Brougham did, an insult to the United States delegation was to Longstreet an abomination. He saw no recourse but to withdraw from the Congress as a U.S. delegate. All this is to say that Longstreet was not so simple and narrowminded as to puff up and storm out of a room when he caught sight of a person with black skin. His vision was, I think, more penetrating than that. Brougham's comment and the delegates' reaction to the situation suggested to him that Europeans were as .guilty of racism as Americans. He recognized, cer tainly, that slavery in te Uinited