St Andrews Presbyterian College - Lamp and Shield / Bagpipe Yearbook (Laurinburg, NC)

Page 5 text:

THE LANCE THl ' RSUAV. SEPT. U. 197: THE LANCE staff Editor Associate Editor As ovMte Editor Ass (Slam Editor Business Manager Circulation Manager Advisor Jeff Neill Marshall Gravely Elaine Thom.is Ligon Per row Gordon Dixon Cathy Lamont Mr Fowler Dugger The Editorial staff ' s intent is to maintain professional stan- dards within the guidelines put forth hy ihe Code of Respon- sibility Signed articles reflect the opinion of the author, where- as unsigned editorials and articles reflect the majority opinion of the staff. Opinions expressed arc not necessarily those of the College, Letters to the editor and articles are welcomed though subject to space limitations. Subscription rates S250 per semester. Advertising rales S 90 per column inch. Semester contracts. S 80 per column inch. Publications Should Remain Independent BV MARSHALL GRAVTLV ' ■, . . The publications should be under Senate Control. The publications t oard should be done away with, because the mem- bers o( it are so closeb involved thai they aren ' t true repre- sentatives of the student body. The budget should also be under conlrol because the publications are self- per petuallng organ!- zailoQS and need no money. . . , This quote states the position d Rod Brown, Student Associa- tion Treasurer, about another facet of this week ' s tjudget con- troversy. The proposal was lo come tjefore the Student Life Committee this week, which has the final authority In such budget and procedural matters, and all this before the new budget was made public or even reviewed and approved by the Senate. The whole question d student government control at publica- tions runs directly against the opinion expressed by the Joint Statement On Rights and Freedoms of Students d the National Student Association, as follows: ' -. . Whenever possible the student newspaper should be an Independent corporation financially and legally separate from the university. Where financial and legal autonomy is not possible, the Institution, as the publisher of student publica- tions, roav have to bear the legal responslhllltv (or the contents of the fwblicatlons. (SalUre, page 46.1 The NSA proposal expresses Ihe current status o( the organization known as the Publications Board. U the Senate gains control over the allocation and distribution of funds for the publications, as Brown advocates, then they have control o the editorial and news policies at the publications, especially the newspaper. All this does not exactly mean that we of the Publications Board see grave threats to freedom of the press. Afther all, what big issues does the newspaper grapple with ' ' None, at this time. Still, there are reasons why the two should be separate. An analysis of Brown ' s opinion will show two very fundamental reasons why. First, the members are closely involved with the publications simply because there are no other students who are involved in and or interested enough to be members 0 the Ijoard. The total staffs of the newspaper and the annual must struggle to exceed fifteen students. Secondly, the pubbcatloos are not self -per petuallng. There IS no way tor the paper to t e financially independeni because ct Its appeal lo students and because of the current situation that exists between the campus and the town. A third reason for separation would t e that the Senate has enough problems of Its own. If anything around here should be taken over, they shouldn ' t be in charge of the operation. II often seems that they themselves should be dissolved or taken over. Finally, the very definition of publications require the In- dependence of the newspaper and yearbook, ft the respective editors are threatened with financial insecurity and inter- ference byunlnformed,unqualifiedoutsiders, they are not editors, tbey are puppets. Separation of powers is a basic quality at all quasi-democratic Institutions, and we, all (pinions to the contrary, are no different. The publications have their problems, tjui so does the Senate. In this case, each group has only to be concerned about their own. Leaders Need To Realize A Definite Commitnieiit St. Andrews expects a cer- tain degree of social and aca- demic responsibility to be de- monstrated by Its students. There Is an area ofvoluntary respcnslbUlly though that each student should cope with tor it Is not written out for us. That is the area erf responslbUlty each student has toward SA. It seems to us In this area the degree of responsfbUlty- is In direct proportion to what each student pert:elves to be his or her relauoQfiblp ai d commit- ment to SA, The oecesBlty of student gov- ernment leaders to define what their commitment and relation- ship is to the college is more pressing than for the average student for it is these students who make decisions that af- fect the overall welfare and future of the college as well as reflect the responsibility tte student body is capable of. St. Andrews has experienced fi- nancial dUftculties (or the past several years. While most small private colleges have gone further Into the red, SA has made steady gains toward (Continued to Page 3) Yearbook Editor Answers Critics, Explains Plans BV KAFEN KENNELI There seems lo be a raging controversy over the annual -- both last year ' s and this year s. 1 (eel that this controversy Is raging ui spite of the (acts rather than t ecause of them, for the sole reason that the facts have not been made pub- lic yet. A poll was circulated earlier this week, as a Joint effort of the Senate and the ' ' Lamp i Shield . However, my wishes as editor of the ' Lamp Shield were ignored. A poll was drawn up on Sunday night which was satisfactory both to Miles Weaver, president of the Senate, and myself. Between Sunday night and the time the poll was given out the wordli was changed, a (act of which I was not Informed. I also asked Miles Weaver to delay giving out the Ibrm until after this Issue o( The Ladcb so that the students could make their choices on the basis of all the facts involved. Miles told me that be felt it was a waste of time; that a t lalogue could be put out on Tuesday. The ques- tion here arises: If we are not to use our school newspaper to cover school controversies why do we have one As editor of the Annual, responsible (or its Olympic Tragedy UnmentionedHere BY MARSHALL GRAVELY Much has already been writ- ten about the recent events at the Munich Olympics where ter- , rorlst action and police reaction led to the deaths of 11 Israe- lis and 5 Palestinian terrorists. The entire world was shocked and sickened at the tragedy-- I except (or St. Andrews. As usual, some students were con- cerned while the great majority were numb lo whatever was happening. This Is not the place or lime j to begin attacking apathy, es- | p e c 1 a 1 1 not by using this tragedy as a pretext for con- clusions. Still, It does seem that K 17 students had been killed by troops In a campus riot, everyone would know what was going on. Why, then, did most peo- ple (all lo notice the events In Munich It seems they are not interested In a bunch of jocks Involved in nauonallstlc contests while covered by the mantle of sham amateurism. Not even when these sports events are used as an Interna- tional forum for all tjpes at political and mUltan ' concerns. Nothing anybody can write will bring back the dead or help ease the sorrow for ihelrfaml- lles. No amount of concern or Information can lessen the problems that drove the Pales- tinians lo violence such as this. At SA we go them ail one bet- ter. No good can be done, but it won ' t matter, since very (ew know what ' s happening anyway, it seems rather a sad comment OD all us Involved students. publication 1 did not (eel that waiting twy or three days toal low all people Interested a chance lo express their views in ' The Lance ' would unalleraM y delay the progress o( the an- nual. Therefore, I do not feel that the poll would be truly representative of the student ' s wishes and I withdraw the spon- sorship and or support of the Lamp i Shield from it. We will be luttlng out a poll of our own In the very near future. In order that the students may make an intelligent response to any further poU I would like to make clear the factors 1 see involved In this Issue. There Is a change planned In the 1973 Lamp it Shield formal as most everyone knows by now. The change was made in order that we could make a cut of 3,00 in our budget which could then be rech nneted Into other student activities. We decided for a paperback cover because of the cut In cost, and I wish to clarify that a paperback an- nual Is not Uke a paperback book. Companies who publish annuals know the function of an annual and are not going to p-jbUsh anything that will Im- mediately fall apart. The paper- back we speak of is a thick, sturdy bristol board. As an- nuals are not In constant use I se ' ? no reasoo why this should not last for twenty years or more. The cut In paper was made, not only for the cost decreases, but because we felt we could cover the year ade- quately In the smaller amount of pages. The reasoo we went to this format was not todeem- phasize the Importance of the annual but to cut our budget In order that the money could be spent on the other projects of the Student Association. If we are really concerned about organizations on this campus, would It not make more sense to let them have more money to be effective lo their activi- ties rather than take this money away from them in order that they could be pictured In a tiard- back yearbook If we revert to a hardback at the present time, we will have to get the 53000 back from a variety of clubs, thus cutting some vital (unctions they have planned for this money. 1 think at this point, It comes down to a question of whether we are in an organiza- tion (or the good we can do and the good times wecanenjoynov, or whether we belong to an or- ga-UzatloD to get o-jr picture In the yeart)ook, so we can have an ego-trip looking tiack 20 years from now. Some of thes clubs will be cut to a zero budget if this money is reallocated lothe Another question being raised Is the fact that some people did not like last year ' s annual and feet they should have beea asked what they would like in 11. These people seem to have forgotten ttiat a poll was given to determine the wishes of other students before that yeart)ook was planned. Of the more than ' j ' given out 1 received ap- proximately 40 ttack. Therelore I a great deal of guesswork as to what would please ensued, as we could not feel that 40 was repvesentatlve of the school. I thought that I detected a change ID the attitudes of students of St. Andrews and tried to alter the yearbook to suit that change. j Our central theme, carried out I In the Introduction and on the dl- I vision pages, was an attempt to ' let the students speak of SA as they saw it, whether posltlveor negative; an attempt at an honest assessment of SA by the people who make up the school, rather than having one perscx) Impose a onesidsd view over many people ' s experiences and thoughts during thai year. In response to Monday ' s dla- ' togue ' s coateotlaD that the an- nual was a , . . complicated collage of unrelated photos. , . carelessly selected without any objective In mind, I can only say that the pictures were care- fully selected with definite ob- jectives, an attempt to capture the everyday spirit of SA rather than an artlflclaliy staged and photographed moment of people standing together. It Is up to you to decide which is a more meaningful memory to you. As to the contention that U was ' ' easy on the annual staff, I can onl) say that putting out a yearbook with only a very mlolmai skeleton staff as has been done (Or at least the past three years Is never easy oi the staff. Perhaps one who has never worked on planning, photjgraphlng, and laying out a yearbook, as well as supervis- ing mailing and picture taking, does not understand the dif- fi culties and hard work in- volved. Those students who do not (eel that the yearbook represented what they wanted and are wor- ried about the contents of this year ' s book should also keep In mind the fact ttiat all positions on the staff were open last spring and we did not have even ooe appllcaUoD. At the present time we would be glad to have any one Interested on the staff of the yearbook. There will be an organizational meeting soon. Johnson: We Can Find Compromise Editor - Everyone Is shouting their opinions about the latest year- book and the proposals (or the new one. The time has come to talk about what we want, why, and how much It will cost us. As [ understand it the annual staff has sou t to cut its own budget roughly 512,000 to about 59,000. The $12,000 figure is atxMit one third o( all the money budgeted to student activities. (Student Center Board, Dorm Budgets, Clubs L Organiza- tions, and etc. A cut in the yearbook budget would release more funds tor such uses. But whal kind o( yearbook do you want Until this present emotional controversy there [Continued to Page 4)

Page 4 text:

A - X ' - V. y t y v OLu IE VI sept: ' r| ' ' nFP , l ' 72 rUMpVr ' ANNUAL DISASTEP ' by Tonv Janes David Harris Anne nunlao Jim Iladdix ■ andy Bovd T iley . Errin ' Mickey P Hl r c:f)n nnj.iine O ' feal Dairlyn Chelette Lynn Buchanan Annette K. Lauher As a concerned oroup of St. Andrews students, we A;ou]rI 1 i ko to voice our displc asure and disappointment with the 1972 edition of the Lann j, Shield, and our alarm at the nronosed plans for the 1973 yearbook. First of all, v ' e feel that there is no apparent thene to last year ' s annual. h central ther ' e of some sort would have helped tc give the annual a sense of direction. Thi 5 year, we were presented an annual ' ;hich contained a complicated collaae of unrelated ohotos . The pictures on the whole aopear to be carelessly selected without any objective in mind (conorats on two larqe shots of a jocV pulling up his socks, p. 200). This is easy on the annual staff, but does not make for very interesting readino. There could have been more material and photos included which explained some of the different aspects of the St. Andrews college community. Several facets which plav a very ' arge role in campus life here at SA vrere either sliahted or totally innored. Included in areas not adenuatelv covered bv nrint or nicture were the T ' SAP aivoawav, activities bv our handicapned, our sports teams and their records, and several clubs and orqanizations . In a break from, criticism, and a commendation to the ' Lamp Shield ' staff, the senior pictures T--ere areat, as veil as pictures of faculty and staff, Vc hope that thev v;ill be continued. Turninf now to the projected year -ooV for ' 73, there are some major alterations which have been planned v ithout anv consi ' eration for the opinions of the student bodv which pavs for, and will keep this annual for the rest of their lives, ' est alarming of these changes is the fact that the book v ill be smaller, thinner, and bound in paperback. other changes have been mentioned but these are not definite. It is our thouaht that a college yearbook should be somethinr to last for 20 years or more, and that ' ould serve as a way to revive meaninnful memories. n annual that is both smaller and in paperback, and containing the attributes ' of the recently issued edition would not only fail to brina back any meaninq- ful memories, but would also not likely last for 20 years. ' . ' e realize that the publishing of an annual is not an easy task, • ' e do ask, hov ever, that the wishes of the student body be taken into consideration in order that it minht be said: This is our annual.

Page 6 text:

mm. r rn