description:
Dec. 4,1963 THE SKYSCRAPER Page Five Discontented Students Voice D Day Grievances Demonstrations Fail Editors: The Discrimination Day staged by the SAC had a point, perhaps a rather forced and vague one, but still a point. Many of us were ac tually angry when we were told that we could not board a certain elevator because our hair was blonde or brunette. On the whole, the illustration itself was not very disturbing, but the actions of cer tain students were. Later in the day, the college was subjected to sit-ins and other such demonstrations which were abso lutely ridiculous. Granted that much of it was in fun, but such ac tions are an indication of a far greater issue than what took place at Mundelein. It showed how much we have been indoctrinated today with the philosophy of we don't like it so we're going to march, carry signs and sing to show that we protest. What if the situation had been realistic? What if the rules im posed last Wednesday had been permanent? I doubt very much whether such demonstrations which only serve to intensify hatred and antagonism, would have been effective at all in get ting those rules revoked. The participants would have accom plished only two things: 1) mak ing themselves look silly and im mature, and 2) alienating intel- teligent people who otherwise might be sympathetic to their cause. In my opinion, demonstrations are a gross misuse of the rights of assembly and petition which we have as Americans. They should not be used even as a last resort. If a repeal of the rules was to be accomplished at all it would have been done by students who assem bled in a dignified manner, dis cussed their grievances, sent able spokesmen armed with formal writ ten petitions to those who imposed the rules and presented their argu ments in a way that could be re spected. It would only be through discussion and an attempt to reach a mutual understanding that any thing could be accomplished. It is only through concrete, definite, con structive action that problems of this type can be solved. Lynne Bjorklund Students Miss Point Editors: After reading your Nov. 20 edi torial analysis of the SAC-spon- sored Discrimination Day, I would like to offer my opinions on Social Action Week and on your comments regarding this segment of the pro gram. Social Action Week was bordered on the weekends by the NSA and NFCCS regionals; the themes of both emphasized direct action in civil rights. Monday launched the campus activities with the Freedom to Learn film (SNEA). Tuesday moved in with a student- faculty panel on Civil Rights (YD's). Wednesday was D Day and Thursday was the all-school SAC meeting. The lounge and locker room ques tion of the day seems to be: What does the SAC think it is? And this appears to be the theme of The Skyscraper editorial. This seems to me somewhat unfortunate. The purpose of Discrimination Day was not to tell Mundelein stu dents there is a Civil Rights prob lem that attitude misses the point. Its object was to dramatize Thursday's events. As for the temper of Thursday, there were probably three schools of reaction. The first might be the student faction who abstracted no further than water fountains. The second, probably represented by your editorial, was insulted by the stuntiness of Wednesday. The third is that group who made the Prindiville to Luther King trans fer. It is significant that well over two-thirds of Mundelein could only treat Social Action Week as an inconvenience or a tearoom topic. It is more insulting to the student body that it is willing to punish Civil Rights action by pointing a finger at what it con siders poorly mechanized theat rics. For if that is all we can glean from the week, the gim mick was no insult it was true. There is no point in debating with high seriousness the ef ficacy of Wednesday. It is only constructive to evaluate the trend of the discussion on Thursday. First, it is insulting that outside experts had to be brought in to an swer queries, but can the editors suggest anyone in the student bracket who could replace them on this campus? Second, it is unimportant that we argue like Reformation Sorbonne theologians as to the efficacy of picketing; we've done little in the line of any direct action. Third, it should be more insult ing that Mundelein is content with a tutorial group (noble and well-or ganized though it is) when real in volvement demands more than ex tralegal underground railroad work. Fourth, it is suggestive that few of the contributors in Thursday's discussion substantiated their opin ions with facts; we seldom rose above the level of being comforta bly theoretical or of swapping rac ist stories. The mechanics of Wednesday may have been a trifle flamboyant for some tastes. But this is not where the point of our insult lies. It lies in the fact that we al lowed such an opinion, valid or otherwise, to defend our own lack of awareness to the point of fact, our lack of investigation to the point of resolution and our lack of commitment to the point of direct action. Who has been insulted ? Who has really been punished? And what are we going to do about it? Joann Caracci Editor's Comment: We agree there is no longer any point in debating the efficacy of Wednesday, so let us re-evaluate the discussion on Thursday: 1) You ask us to suggest a student, who could replace outside experts. We understand that it is the respon sibility of delegates to be informed on such matters of student action. 2) It is no fault but your own that little has been done in the line of direct action; 3) Real involvement does demand more than extralegal underground railroad work, but D Day was nothing more than that; 4) How can students be expected to substantiate their ideas with facts if so-called outside experts base their arguments on nothing but emotionalism? Now, who has been insulted and who has been punished? SAC Sees Apathy Editors: Do you really know what hap pened Wednesday, Nov. 13? Does the word discrimination mean any more to you now? Of course, D Day was a far fetched idea, but you brought it on. Can you tell what really happened in Americus, Ga., and Greenwood, Miss.? Do you know what is happening today, not only in the South, but here in the North and in our thriving metropo lis Chicago ? I doubt it. Discrimination Day had a reason behind it. The SAC saw apathy in Mundelein students. Apathy says wait, there is time to consider. We sit in an ivory tower, an ivory tower of our own making, and say, Isn't it a shame that there is ra cial discrimination, but don't let me become involved. It is this apathy which has led to the present situa tion. Negroes are tired of waiting. They have waited long enough for their rights. Did you attend the SAC meet ing on Thursday or did that it- doesn't-concern-me attitude al low you to remain playing cards or gossiping? At the meeting there was a statement that pre faced almost every speech I Student Council Answers Skyscraper Editorial Dear Skyscraper Staff, Yes, staff, there is a Civil Rights problem. And there is a problem of awareness on this campus. Is not the fact that your only constructive action was to slump back in content to evaluate the diversion elo quently indicative of a prevalent content to slump back into? Where is the organ instituted ... to mold public opinion on all issues affecting the college of the 20th century ? Your editorial alleges: 1. that Discrimination Day was not properly carried out. It was. The exact directives may be obtained from any girl who acted as a spotter. 2. that objectives were left undefined. They were not. They re mained unpublicized until Thursday, but hardly undefined. 3. that anticipated results (were left) unclarified and student at titudes misjudged. They were not. But the SAC did not have time to publish beforehand a handbook of expected reactions for a Discrimination Day. 4. that the project quickly degenerated into an apparent insult to student intelligence. It did not. As a matter of fact, it started out that way. But then a few million Americans have felt for years that racial discrimination is not only insulting but unjust. 5. that a number of action-craving Council members had evidently forgotten or abandoned their primary goal. They had not. The Student Activities Council, acting in Council, approved the course of Social Action Week. It made no effort to dictate the actions of individual Council mem bers who exercised their prerogative of acting as individuals on Dis crimination Day. 6. that few missed the evident parallel between this and racial discrimination. They did. You yourselves referred to the entire project as our pet 'game'. 7. that the more sophisticated and mature, but nonetheless genuine, reaction disappointed us. It did not. No genuine reaction could have. But is blind, unquestionable obedience to a sign sophisticated and ma ture? 8. that there were SNCC representatives here. There were not. 9. that the representatives from the University of Chicago tossed around poetic prose. They did not not any more poetic than, The blaze that began sizzling on Wednesday burst into flames Thursday. . . . 10. that it hardly seems logical to assume that when 300-400 stu dents gathered to discuss the racial issue they needed outside avowed demonstrators to point out with propaganda techniques the path of ac tion. They did. Witness the 35-40 persons in attendance at the faculty- student panel on Civil Rights the previous Tuesday. Or the 13 volunteers out of 1,000 students supporting the Wentworth Gardens Tutoring Project. But it would hardly be worthy of Social Action Week merely to re fute the inaccuracies concerning Discrimination Day. The complexity of the Civil Rights problem makes it extremely difficult for us to keep up with its rapid development or to see any clear-cut solutions. It is espe cially difficult for us as students since our first commitment is to academic achievement. Yet it is the aim of a college to train students not only to live in society but also to critically evaluate that society. And a critical evalua tion presupposes knowledge. Knowledge, then, of this problem of Civil Rights is part of our educative process. And it was the intention of the SAC in sponsoring Social Action Week, and particularly Discrimination Day, to promote this immediate awareness of the problem, to stimulate an interest in it, and to provide suggestions for direct action toward affecting its solution. We do apologize for having to resort to inside demonstrations and outside demonstrators. We do not apologize for our motive. Sincerely, The Student Activities Council Editor's comment: The function of the Skyscraper is to mold public opinion. Therefore, the purpose of the D Day editorial was not to incite action, but rather to evaluate the effects of the day. 1. Only spotters were given a list of directives, and they were subject to individual interpretation. 2. Objectives were still undefined on Thurs day, they were only alluded to. 3. If results were anticipated, why were SAC officers inconsistently complaining in the morning that students weren't obeying regulations and in the afternoon that they weren't demon strating? 4. Glad you agree that this was an insult to student intel ligence. 5. But, note smiling leaders in picture on Page 4. 6. Whose fault is that? 7. Students recognized a clever gimmick. They did not, however, need to engage in demonstrations. 8. What? Both were from CORE 9. This was English not rabble-rousing propaganda. 10. If this isn't an insult to student intelligence, what is? am not prejudiced. Many times the words following this state ment indicated the direct op posite. But did you hear and really consider another idea that everyone is prejudiced to some degree. Therefore, how can you sit and say that none of this concerns you because you are not prejudiced. Either you are lying or kidding yourself. You are concerned if you are a human being. It was healthy to invite people belonging to and knowing thor oughly about organizations like CORE. An opposite viewpoint can stir up healthy discussion. Maybe CORE does contain a few liberal members. This is no rea son to condemn them. Do we condemn the Federal Govern ment of the U.S. as communistic because it, too, contains liberal followers? I believe that Discrimination Day, the demonstrations and the talks the following day were healthy and good. A few people were stirred out of apathy, and this was worth all the effort. Dare we try it again ? More do we need to try it again ? Lynn Davis Editor's Comment: We doubt that you realize that students here are aware of life in the big city as well as the deep South. Yes, we know there is a Civil Rights problem. Prejudice Emerges Editors: Although some of the girls are complaining against what they sin cerely feel is the childishness of Discrimination Day, I think it has been a very useful idea since it has brought into the open a fact which I had never before noticed at Mun delein, and that is that many of our girls are prejudiced. The number of proponents of the they're all right in their place, but not next door school of thought is a disgrace in a school of supposedly intelligent, Catholic Americans. I am not, in this letter, referring to those who feel unnecessarily in convenienced by the measures taken; the issue goes much deeper than that. I believe it is time for these girls to re-examine their thinking and realize that they're living in 1963 rather than 1863. Sincerely, Sally Carroll Faculty Intermingles Editors: Anyone who ate lunch in the tea room on D Day must have noticed an interesting change due to two Only staff may sit here signs. Rather than moving their usual ar rangements over to another two ta bles, faculty members were com pletely dispersed among the many tables of students. To my knowl edge, both groups found each other's company interesting, en joyable and beneficial. I realize that faculty-student re lationships should not be forced, and that everyone would not want to do this every day, and that often the two reserved tables are a real convenience, but can't we destroy those two unwritten signs saying Faculty sit here. Students sit elsewhere ? Peggy Parent
title:
1963-12-04 (5)
publisher:
Women and Leadership Archives http://www.luc.edu/wla
creator:
Mundelein College
description:
Student newspaper for Mundelein College
subject:
Newspapers
subject:
Religious communities--Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
subject:
Students
subject:
Universities and colleges
subject:
Women's education
relation:
Mundelein College Records
type:
Text
language:
English
rights:
This image is issued by the Women and Leadership Archives. Use of the image requires written permission from the Director of the Women and Leadership Archives. It may not be sold or redistributed, copied or distributed as a photograph, electronic file, or any other media. The image should not be significantly altered through conventional or electronic means. Images altered beyond standard cropping and resizing require further negotiation with the Director. The user is responsible for all issues of copyright. Please Credit: Women and Leadership Archives, Loyola University Chicago. wlarchives@luc.edu
coverage:
Chicago, Illinois
coverage:
Mundelein College