Clemson University - Taps Yearbook (Clemson, SC)

Page 17 text:

THE CLEMSON COLLEGE CHRONICLE 375 cannot do less than sustain the position which I have previ- ously taken in regard to social intercourse between students and faculty. This is a subject which well deserves consider- ation, and I am truly glad that the opposing views are being presented, because it will only serve to assist me in exposing the absurdity of the objections raised to social relations be- tween student body and faculty. It was with a view of bringing this phase of college life to the attention of the students and faculty, and with the hope of making the environments more pleasant and profitable for both, that I first mentioned it ; and it is in this same spirit that I answer erroneous and misleading views that may be presented on the opposite side. I do not pose as an unques- tionable authority on this subject, though I have given some special thought to it from the standpoint of a disinterested observer. I say disinterested, because, in common with nearly all of the students, I have received none of the sweets of society by visiting the professors, and I do not hope to receive any. I claim to possess no unusual insight into mat- ters of this kind, but I believe that I can modestly claim for myself the ability to draw as correct conclusions after five years experience as others can from three years experience. I regret to notice that my friend is laboring under a wrong impression. He has charged me with overlooking the argu- ment in his February article, and analyzing his phraseology and exposing his literary short-comings. I am exceedingly sorry that he has so misconstrued my reply, for I am sure I was only after the argument ; I did not intend to point out any defects in his phraseology, because I think that he uses fairly good English. If, however, there was some room for this construction of my reply, it might be accounted for to some extent by the fact that his note contained more elegant language and rhetorical flights than convincing argument. Coming to the arguments advanced in the April issue, my

Page 16 text:

374 THE CLEMSON COLLEGE CHRONICLE Sir James was the second son of Sir William Gordon, and was a general favorite with all who knew him. For years he had been engaged to Alice Mordaunt, whose father owned property that joined Sir William ' s lands. Though James possessed only the meagre income of a second son, all of his friends predicted much happiness for the fair girl he had won. Shortly before the marriage was to have taken place, the eldest son, Sir Cecil, returned from his travels on the Continent. It was soon evident that the course of true love no longer ran smooth, and few were astonished to hear that Miss Alice had broken the engagement, and would soon wed Sir Cecil. James lingered in England until after the marriage was celebrated. Some say that he was in church during the ceremony, though not among the wedding guests. Shortly after he disappeared, and none have heard tidings of him until this day. The reason for this advertisement was that Sir Cecil had been suddenly killed while on a fox hunt, and dying without heirs, it was necessary to seek his only brother. Fate did not reward Alice for her perfidy; she could not purchase the happiness she had denied another. It is but just that she should suffer even as she made that youth whose ' Glorious, chivalric deed Shall not perish as long as men hold this creed — That the hero whose blood for his kind is shed Wins a deathless fame and an honored bed; A monument grander than sculptor e ' er gave, In the glory that hallows the martyr ' s grave. ' G. D. L., ' 03. Another Reply In spite of a natural dislike for controversy, I fed that I

Page 18 text:

o ( THE CLEMSON COLLEGE CHRONICLE friend takes the position that social intercourse is not desir- able, because but few invitations are extended to the cadets by the professors, and. that the cadets do not respond to these with alacrity. Now before this doctrine is accepted we must find out if the students and faculty are pleased with this condition. I know of no better way of finding out than to let them answer for themselves. I have recently gotten the sentiment of enough professors to assure me that the faculty is by no means pleased with the conditions ; and this discus- sion has caused numbers of students to speak to me about it, and nearly all that have expressed themselves to me regret that the conditions are as we have them. This shows that action is not a criterion of inward desires in this case. We may with safety charge this condition in part to hurtful and undesirable influences, which operated in the early history of the college and established a sentiment against social inter- course, which has been handed down to the present genera- tion of students. Speaking in broad, general terms and granting a few exceptions, I feel perfectly safe in asserting that a better social condition is very much desired by both students and professors. The plea that social intercourse engenders partiality, and causes unfairness is entirely unwarranted. I take the ground that social intercourse does not in any way interfere with fair competition among the students. I admit, how- ever, that it. is absolutely impossible for a professor to meet a class of students very long without having his favorites among them. Professors are human beings, possessing hu- man instincts, and subject to human errors. So it is with students. Students have their favorites among the profes- sors just from what they see of them in the class room, and the professors have their favorites among the students from what they see f them in the class room, whether or not they ever see or speak to them at any other place. These