University of Texas Austin - Cactus Yearbook (Austin, TX)

Page 26 text:

ill i)iir|) »so, wantinft the strcnjith and .swiisoiicd fibre of coiisorvativi ' niatilinrid. We liavo plevatod ideals, it is true. Tlie tn iil)le witli them is twofold. They are constantly clianninf;; they are founded on . (Mitinient. rather than reason— evolved for an aristocrae ' of aiifieis rather than for ordinary mortals. ( )nedoes not have to look far for an explanation of this condition. The students have nt) central ;;overnin ; hody or code of customs to regulate their afTairs. . ece.ssarily, their activities are spasmodic and not well-ordered. Conclusions are reacheil hy the lriftinfj process, accelerated sometimes hy corridor habitues, who, as all quickly confess, are misfits on the I ' niversity body politic. Occasionally a l)rij;ht and ambitions student with a better knowledge of human nature than his fellows conies forward, asserts his leadershij), and dominates student o|)iiiion. His reign is always short. iMther his umliitioii spoils liiin. and he becomes careless, or the fickleness of his comrades destroys his iiiHuence. There is no room among us for a student-king. We are democrats in the best .sense of that term. There arc a number of instances of wrecks— .some of them pitiable enough — which have re.sulteil from a failure to recognize this principle. There is a bar of student opinion, l)Ut its existence is vague and its limits niicertain and ill- defined. It should be a flaming torch of golden purity, a i)illar of fire through our dawning jieriod. as a warning to the unwortiix ' and an insi)iration to the right-minded. Itseflicts should cast from us every one whose actions compromise the fair name of the Iniversity. Its creed should be the highest princi])les of stutlent honor; its influence should make us a peculiar people in reverencing the right and exalting the noble. However and whenever this ])owerful agent come.s — as come it will — we shall recognize with its aid the sjiirit. somewhat distinctive, we hope, of the University. Why not allow the faculty to set up your nioilel for you? someone may .sa ' . ()nly. aiiil only becaii.sj we ilo not move by outside infiuences. The governing forces move from inward outward in this student body, as in all well-organized society. The faculty may spank individuals into tem- ])orary submi.ssion and may thus impress the entire .student mind for the time being. No lasting influence is exerted by such action, unless it .squares with what the students deem to be justici-. Indceil, faculty action sonietiir.es results iiulirectly in positive harm to the moral tone of the students. There isa domain they can not touch, where tlieir intervention is even resented. The fountains of student imi)ul.-ie may only be purified by themselves. Other forces may assist, the genu may be stirred to action, but the life-giving, truth-winning sustenance must ultimately and almo.st in its entirety emanate from those mo.st concerned — the students themselves. Do we not respect authority? Yes. with jtroper limitations. , hist of us are men and women with some independence of thought, and with much of the spirit of frediiaii who believe that .so long as our private life does not hanii our neighbor, it is not rightfully interfered with. Coming to the University, we expect to find wi.se. s m|)athetic. and heljjful teachers who will asist in l)roadening our outlook and in fitting us for more eliicient service for oiir time. We are here to be instructed, not to be censiiretl as common malefactors, coddled as babies, or to submit ourselves to a set of artificial rules which irritate simply because they exi.st as a refiection on our c iinnu)n sense and rightmindedne.ss. Such, the writer believes, is the student attitude toward the faculty and faculty regulations that touch on their private conduct. However much we may admire their character as individuals or however strongly their noble- n ess in thought and life influence our own, in certain directions we must nuiintain our indeiiendence orweare less than men and women. Faculty rules can not make a moral or an honest student body. At the outset, however, we confessed the need of something more definite than an indeter- minate, unorganized student opinion. Could not such an object l)e attainetl through the literary 1 I

Page 25 text:

Fore - word ( ) I ' l ' T down ill prosaic words what is attempted to l)e told in the following pages through the medium of pictures, songs, quips, grinds, histories, and stories is at best a difficult task. P ' or historians uniformly teach that a chronicler must not only have a i)roper perspective from which to view his subject, but that there must al.so intervene the mellowing influence of time to round off the jagged corners of events — tlie import of which can not immediately be interjjreted — ami to distribute artistically the lights and shadows which, woven together, make up the story of the life and progress of every institution. The Cactus, as someone has observed, may be likened to a many stringed harp whose twanging strings body forth the spirit of the I ' liiversity. If there be a string that produces discord, it is not the fault of the harper, but of its maker. Let us bravely strike them all, knowing, as we must, that beneath the discord — or it may be our false conception of the music — there is a roll of harmony which ultimately will sweep away the false, the ignoble, the impure. This task, coming to one inside the charmed circle of the I ' niversity public, must be done willy-nilly. The C. t ' TUs can not go without its fcire-word. We are forbidden to show our love too clearly; for then we should be denominateil sentimentalists. Neither must we criticise too sharply, lest other critics conclude that we are out of harmony with our environment. A middle course is safest; but, for that reason, the hardest to finil. Like the the camel that didn ' t go through the e} ' e of the needle, we shall perhaps rub smartly against the stone walls of University prejudices, with the comforting reflection, however, that no one is getting hurt save ourselves. Our perspective must be taken from within — a geometric inconsistency. Our verdant youthfulness furnishes no musty archives from which historians maj ' evolve epochs or trace tendencies. There is only left the possibility of an endeavor to interpret the changeful surrounding life, an undertaking unpromising and yet alluring in that it gives an opportunit) ' for academic theorizing. The University of Texas is in its nineteenth year; some of our Freshmen ha •e reached that age. It has an attendance of more than eleven hundred students, anil employs more than one hundred professors, instructors, and officers. It has survived the cries of evil prophets, the sneers of critics, the bi-ennial wail of scurv}- politicians. No longer a theory, a dream of the fathers, it has become an accomplished fact ; and the strong and well-equipped sons and daughters it has sent forth to work in the ranks of citizenship are proof of its prowess in the educational world. And yet — for let us be i erfectly honest and candid, and, for once, eschew sentimentality and meaningless high-sounding phrases — the sudent-mind of the University, when viewed internally, reveals a sur- prising absence of continuity of ideal, and a lack of concerted, systematized plan of definite action in many directions. Fickle as a Freshman is a common college proverb. The student-mind of the University of Texas is yet only that of an average Freshman. It is an earnest, high-minded Fresh- man — a promising, well-groomed boy, who may yet grow to an hoiioral)le manhood — but nevertheless a Freshman. Sentiment, as shown bv the action of the student Ixxlv, is uncertain, illogical, lacking

Page 27 text:

societies of the fraternities (iiieliiiliiiT;. of course, the important and newly introduced societies whidi repudiate the name of sororities)? The literary societies are but loosely inter-organized; their work lies along definite lines, far removed, in most cases, from matters that would interest the entire University community. Their influence on .student thought has, especially during recent years, been waning. Similar argun ents can be used regarding fraternities. Primarily they are social organi- zations, and every departure from this, their legitimate field of activit} ' . results disastrou.sly for them, and is violative of the i)rinciples which called them into existence. As here conducted, political jealousies and the rivalry that exists among them forbids a common connecting bond, and precludes the possibility of concertetl and unanimous action on any object of common endeavour. The.se are the only visible student sources to which we may at present look for help in unifying student life and in establishing ideals of student conduct. Nineteen years seem to have brought us but little nearer to the .solution of the question. During last ses.sion a suggestion was made that looked fruitful, but which was killed by unhappy jealousies among the departments. It was proposed to organize a Students ' Council, which should be officered by the free ballot of the entire student body. The officers so elected were to have control of all matters relating to student conduct, wherein the good name of the University was involved. A student adjudged unworthy of the institution could, bv this tribunal, be recommended to the faculty for expulsion. It was not to be a court of law only, nor were the .students who brought it into existence set as spies upon the conduct of each other; its greatest work was to set up a common standard of student honor antl to hold up that standard as an encouragement to the stumbling, and as a warning to the dishonest. We all know that when a student goes wrong, he ilreads not as much the disapproval and condenuiation of the faculty as the contempt and scorn of his fellows. Such an organization, created and recognized by the students themselves, would add tenfold .strength to the power of this influence. Much wise forethought is needed to perfect the plan in its details. To some it would always be an object of criticism. But to one who stops to consider its power in molding, unifying, and maintaining a healthy tone in student life and action, there can be but little doubt of the good it might do. Certain is it that its creators would respect its findings, and would abide by its decisions. And eciually certain would its affairs be administered in a spirit of generous and sympathetic forbearance. To such a common council all questions of student policy and activity could bereferretl for final settlement. The old-fashioned majority rule could always be invoked and many matters, which in former years have vexed us, because no competent authority existed to handle them, could be quickly and peaceably settled. Right in our midst and almost unnoticed, tluring the present session, the students have hail an opportunity of observing the practical working of an enterprise that carried with it more responsibility than would be imposed on a Students ' Council. University Hall has this year been administered by a committee of ten st udents chosen from the one hundred and seventy five who board there. They have handled all matters of discipline, financing, and general manage- ment of the Hall, including the servant problem. The boarders have been satisfied; complaints of any kind have been few. a comfortable cash balance is kept in the bank, and but few minor cases of discipline have arisen. The most noticeable feature has been the absence of a single instance of malicious conduct on the part of a student toward the Hall or its management. Not a window-light has been wantojMily broken, and violent and disorderly contluct has been absolutely unknown. The Hall has been the students ' home;, they have felt it so and have respected it. Some such feeling alreadv exists in the heart of everv student for the University. For, however unwise or illogical he