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.

?opinion Number obsession _ I A. > .JL B ODSCUVBS uraycuy Numbers fascinate the news media. The recent crash of Pan Am Flight 759 is an example of such fascination. Associated Press and Washington Post articles in Saturday's, Sunday's and Monday's The State reported in the second paragraph that the crash was the second worst air disaster in U.S. history. Radio and TV broadcasted this fact. It's important to the news media that the public know this particular fact so it can judge the gravity of the crash, as if sheer numbers can convey the grief of those who lost relatives and friends. The figures bombard the public. An initial statement that 136 people were on the plane was wrong, a report declared Saturday. Actually, 145 people perished on the plane, and inspectors had already counted 149 bodies. By Sunday, reports said "at least 153" died as a result of the crash, but stay tuned. More bodies may be uncovered. It was also learned 47 of the 145 people on the plane were foreigners, which is only fair since one of the first facts given about a foreign plane crash is how many Americans were on board. The press relayed other important details Sunday. Some passengers carried large amounts of money. One possessed $11,000 and another $4,000. A sentence in an AP article Monday described the "worst" air disaster in U.S. history, which occurred May 26, 1979 in Chicago. The crash killed all 272 people aboard and three on the ground. The most gruesome numbers were contained in quotes in articles appearing Sunday and Monday. "The coroner's office has advised it has 19 identified bodies. They have another 89 KTVWKW* A-arvrt^ UA'<Q UAUi/j 111 yCAA.lv/LtO places, 95 unattached body parts." "We think we have 130 torsos or major portions of bodies...We have more than 212 body Dags." The "merits" of these last auotes focuses thp problem of the media's number fetish. Certainly all the facts listed earlier, including those in the last two quotes, informed the public about the situation in New Orleans. The question must be asked, however, "How well was the public served by the information?'' How useful is it to know that exactly 95 unattached body parts have been counted, or that there are 59 more bodv baes than npnnl^ knrm/n ? o- I 1 ' """ "" dead? These facts inform, but the graphic detail is unnecessary. One can assume a violent crash will result in dismemberment. One does not need to be told this in a cold matter-of-fact manner. The initial reaction to these quotes is shock. But ultimately, the quotes dull the response to the tragedy. The facts do not present a clear picture of the /irooh'o hnf r>nr- r - 1 '1 ' ' ~ viwk?i o uv/i i wi. luiiuci , mcy uiuc nit? iaci mat iu minutes before Pan Am Flight 759 plunged to the ground, at least 153 people did not know they were going to die that day. I?-?Gamecock-?t Kditor-in-Chief rxicriuru ivivyers Copy Desk Chief News Editor Entertainment Editor i David DeWitt Forrest Brown Sally McGill Opinion Page Editor Photo Editor Advertising Manager Chris Handal Capers Hammond Linda S. Haines Business Manager (ieneral Manager Production Manager Jean Hatchell Jerry Brewer Mark McEwan Adviser Mark Ethridge Jr Nc ;.room 777 7181 Advertising 777 4249 Business Office 777 3888 Production 777 2833 Tltj Gamecock welcomes letters and guest editorials. All letters and guest editorials must be typewritten, triple-spaced on a 65 space-line. Letters should be no longer than 300 words and guest editorials should be limited to one newsworthy subject no longer than four typed pages. Letters and guest editorials MUST be signed with the writer's name, telephone number, mailing address, class standing or faculty position and major Pseudonyms are unacceptable, but the writer's name may be withheld upon request. We reserve the right to edit guest editorials and letters. Address letters and guest editorials to: Opinion Page Editor, Gamecock, Drawer A, USC, Columbia, S C. 29208. 6000 e I a A _ieuers Gifted studc By William Mould About two weeks into the fall semester, a bright young freshman slipped into my office. He was pure Carolina Rustic?poor, untutored, from a milltown with a population smaller than his college dormitory. He was the first member of his family to iinisn nign scnooi, lei aione aitena a university. He devoured every piece of writing he could lay his hands on; his hometown librarian had told me that he had read every book in the small local library. But I knew that the adjustments he would have to Kleins fli me university were enuimous. He perched on the edge of my guest chair, ready, I felt, to take flight if I made any quick movements. He was clearly happy, so I felt safe asking him how things were going. He grinned broadly (having already shed some of his rural shyness) and replied, ''Everything's great? especially now that I don't cry so much." I took a startled second glance at my strapping student, and had some difficulty seeing him swept away Dy nomesicKness. I asked him what he meant and if he missed home so much. "No. It's just that for a couple of weeks I would start talking with somebody, and get really deep into a discussion, and that's when I'd start to cry. It got to be really embarrassing. But, you see," he continued in a matter-of-fact tone, "I never had anyone to talk to before." NOW, THIS YOUNG MAN was bright, and motivated, and frankly joyful to be in an atmosphere where he did not feel like a freak. He had finally found other people who shared his interests and his excitement. He had been living so long in a kind of intellectual hothouse of his own construction, unaoie to communicate his growth and his excitement at discovery with anyone around him, that he was surely close to losing his enthusiasm altogether. What happens when a fine mind or a gifted creative talent is left without encouragement or response of any kind? Well, what happens when a field lies fallow and is never cultivated? Or a symphony scored, but never perfnrmfi/i') f~\v> n - ? 1 ?1 1?1 1U1 invu . wi a metalline: llivt'llicu, UUl never built? The waste, both for the farmer, the composer, or the inventor, is compounded by the loss to all of us of the grain, the music, the comfort, and what might have been produced. We injure ourselves when we fail to recognize to develop the talents of the gifted young people among us. MANY STATES and universities, South Carolina and the University of South Carolina among them, run R " li. i rop..,.iTseeN6Keu mts essential guest editorial special programs which bring together groups of middle school and I 1 -i 1 A- r r i iiigu scnooi siuaenis lor a lew weeKS in the summer. Most students who have been through the experience quickly designate that time as the most important?and enjoyable?in their lives. But what place does all this extra stimulation have in a democracy, and in a public school system which has made equal opportunity for all children one of its prominent eXidiaeteriatics? Isn't this just a new form of segregation,, and more pernicious than that based on race? What about all these little intellectual snobs who think they're smarter than the teachers (and sometimes are), and far too grand to associate with the "average" student (if he or she actually exists anywhere)? Why should mey gei ail tne goodies, all the extras, when special advantages are perhaps needed more by the semi-literate, the "minimally competent," the "slow" student? Why, indeed? "Elitism" is the buzz-word, and it is not altogether inappropriate. Any group which is different from other groups forms a kind of elite. Any siib-group is a kind of elite, but surely there is good elitism and bad oliticm \11U~~ : li.-i J * V..WOU1. tTucu c?ii iuuiviuuai or group receives special privileges without earning them, or rewards for deeds not yet accomplished, then elitism has run amok, and outsiders are justifiably hostile. BUT WHEN individuals or groups receive special opportunities to continue developing along lines helpful to all society, then that is good for all of us. When students want more demanding academic w - -w. U? uvtutvo CU1U show themselves capable of handling the new demands, then we do them and ourselves a disservice by not satisfying that need. Gifted students are different, but it is often hard for them to come to grips with that difference. They feel left out "u/pirri " cn tnto'l" "i*1"* , v~, uv vumnjf Ulllinc lllt'ir peers that they camouflage their unique qualities?and they're clever enough to pull it off. But gifted students need to be helped to the realization that their differences are to their advantage, and that the envy their friends feel is not unlike the feelings they may harbor toward the star quarterback or the prettiest girl in the class. A democracy survives not because all of us resemble parh nthor h.t* "viivl | MUV because each of us is different from all the others. Society is that much healthier when its members develop their special talents to their fullest. When each of us contributes our best, Ill iipr7"" I,l? y,* ~ I to society B then our civilization is strong and vital. We must, then, cultivate our differences, the things which make each of us quite unlike any of our fellows. These are not the slight and passing differences of fashion, where some of us strive to resemble each other in our protest against being like everyone else. We need to feed the minds of our children according to their intellectual digestive systems. IT IS FOOLISH to overload a youngster of average intelligence with concepts and work so far beyond him as to frustrate him and turn him away from intellectual development altogether. But it is equally foolish to deny our gifted and talented children the opportunity to grow, to develop, to contribute something special. And it takes a special program, a special set of attitudes, to accomplish those goals. A portion of our future rests in these exceptional young people. While we provide every opportunity for their intellectual and creative growth, we must be sure that they are inculcated with a sense of responsibility to the society of which they are a part. They must always remain in touch with young people less gifted, but no less important to the proper functioning of society. This is not so that the bright students have a point of comparison for their brilliance, but so that they never lose sight of the vast range of common interests which bind i i* i ? mem an logetner as a group. In this way, the "difference" of a gifted student becomes an advantage to all of us. If we overshelter such children, they may be brilliant, but irresponsible; if we fail to cultivate them, they may very well never grow to make the contribution which society today so desperately needs them to give. It is not onlv "OK" to serve the needs of gifted children; it is downright essential to our survival. We do not live in a world so rich in human resources that we can afford to throw away the potential gifts these children bring to us. GIFTED STUDENTS have a place in a democratic society; they are one of the groups of leaders who will provide the leadership to see that our civilization grows richer and more decent. Condemn that student to an ,,OlFOI*infA" J mvmgc cAiaiciiue, anu we sentence ourselves to a future of mediocre leadership, prophets without vision, and life without hope. (The author is master of South Carolina College, USC's honors college, and an associate professor of French in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures.)