Page Two THE COLLEGE NEWS Wednesday, January 16, 1952 THE COLLEGE NEWS FOUNDED IN 1914 Published weekly during the College Year (except during Thanks- giving, Christmas and Easter holidays, and during examination weeks) in the interest of Bryn Mawr College at the Ardmore Printing Company, Ardmore, Pa., and Bryn Mawr — The College News is fully protected by copyright. Nothing that appears in it may be reprinted either wholly or in part without permission of the Editor-in-Chief. EDITORIAL BOARD Sheila Atkinson, ‘53, Editor-in-Chief Claire Robinson, ‘54, Copy Frances Shirley, ‘53, Makeup Margaret McCabe, ‘54, Managing Editor Helen Katz, ‘53 Mary Alice Drinkle, ‘53 Judy Thompson, ‘54 EDITORIAL STAFF Emmy Cadwalader, ‘53 Nancy Fuhrer, ‘55 A.A. reporter Margaret Page, ‘55 Joyce Annan, ‘53 Barbara Drysdale, ‘55 Ellen Bell, ‘53 Marcia Joseph, ‘55 Ann McGregor, ‘54 Anne Mazick, ‘55 STAFF PHOTOGRAPH? Judy Leopold, ‘53 BUSINESS MANAGER : Sue Press, ‘53 M. G. Warren, ‘54, Associate Business Manager BUSINESS STAFF Vicky Kraver, ‘54 Julia Heimowitz, ‘55 SUBSCRIPTION MANAGER Barbara Goldman, ‘53 SUBSCRIPTION BOARD Lee Sedgwick, ‘53 Jo Case, ‘54 Bobbie Olsen, ‘54 Suk: Webb, ‘54 Marilyn Dew, ‘54 Molly Plunkett, ‘54 Liz Simpson, ‘54 Joy Fox, ‘54 Barbara Rasnick, ‘53 Karen Hansen, ‘54 Peggy Hitchcock, ‘54 Subscription, $3.50 Mailing price, $4.00 Subscriptions may begin at any time Entered as second class matter at the Ardmore, Pa., Post Office Under the Act of March 3, 1879 For Preferential Listing Preferential listing is an asset to our college: election system. It is very difficult for an individual student to say which one of four candidates whom she does not know is best qualified for a certain job. The ones she knows best are those she has met in her class, her hall, her courses and her extra- curricular activities. Even if she is acquainted with the nom- inees in these capacities, the student seldom knows which nominee would be most competent in a special position. Therefore, some guidance is necessary to help the stu- dent decide. The general capabilities of the candidate, often equal, are revealed by the reports from the nominating com- mittee. The class, however, determines the particular differ- ences that prove which girl is best qualified for the specific position. The opinion of the candidate’s class seems much more valid than the opinion of two or three friends of the voter, especially if the voter does not know the nominee. It is essential to have preferential listing to help students know the candidate as a candidate for a certain office. Alert students will consider the qualification of the nom- inees under any system. Those who do not bother to inquire about the candidates now will vote according to their person- al opinions or the views of a few friends, if the candidates are not preferentially listed. Existing student apathy can not be avoided by abolish- ing the present preferential system of voting. If it is abol- ished, elections by only personal prejudice will result. There are many flaws in the present election system, but until these flaws are corrected, preferential] listing should remain. Against Preferential Listing Listing candidates in preferential order on the ballot is a poor practice because it does not present the candidates fairly to the student body. It gives the class undue weight in the voting procedure. As the system stands now, a class nominating committee presents a slate to the class, which can nominate from the floor. The ballot is narrowed to four candidates by a class quorum. It is this ballot which is presented to the student body with the nominees listed in the order of the class’ pref- erence. _ Often only a few votes determine the position of names on the slate. But yet, these few class votes frequently decide the election since students who do not know the candidates LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Letter Writer Finds Articulateness Lacking (Editor’s Note: The ideas express- ed in the following letter are those of an individual student, exclusive of her affiliation with the COL- LEGE NEWS, or Counterpoint.) In the January 9 issue of the COLLEGE NEWS is a review of Counterpoint, thorough, full of ex- amples, and with two main points. Mr. Berthoff claims that the mag- azine is “suffering not from a lack ot talent but from a lack of in- verest”’, and that the writing “lacks discipline, solidity, and minimal tougnness”. What he says is fair enouga, but 1 would like to bring to the tore two points that Mr. Berthotf has only touched on, and which seem to me to be the root ot the problem: why is the writing in Counterpoint the way it is? Mr. Berthoff has said: “The sub- ject-matter of the five original poems is recognizable.” Trace this statement to its source and you have in one word, half of the reason for Counterpoint’s failure to satisty — communication, Why should the subject of any piec¢ of writing be only recognizdble? Because the writer is too inter- ested in eloquence and phrasing to be articulate. You cannot be elo- quent before you are articulate. The second point Mr. Berthoff covers in one sentence, which I found submerged in his comment on only one story: “Any writing, especially satire, is difficult when you don’t know that you don’t know what you think of your sub- ject.” This is an example of a true statement in bad phrasing— what I think it means is that stu- dents don’t know enough about their subjects to be genuine, and hence, convincing. You write for Counterpoint because you have something to say, and there is no integrity or vitality in a piece of writing that is solely words, with no genuine feeling behind them. ‘(Now for the problem of the statement of Mr. Berthoff’s criti- cisms. I have no quarrel with the intent, but with his communica- tion. Why, if he feels all that he writes, does he add to the confus- ion by writing in the same man- ner he seeks to correct? And why has he not assumed or pretended that the average reader of his re- view _ stupid that phrases and senterices like “But the other- wise lapidary poem demands this last unblemishing, and the (when badly pronounced) ambiguity is legitimate”; or “makes fine use of the chance she has for montage” Laura Knipe Lightens | Unsolicited Literature NEWS with Comic Cartoon To the Editor: The prize for Life Brightener of the Week goes unquestionably to Laura Knipe, whose cartoon in The News more than offset a pes- simistic review of Counterpoint and a frightening list of subver- sive organizations. More of her work, please; after considering the discouraging side of life, it comes as a great relief to find someone skillfully pointing up the funny side, A Sincerely, Ann Shocket, ’54 Bess Foulke Criticizes Berthoff Review As Unclear To the Editor: I am most interested by Mr. Warner B. Berthoff’s statement, in his review of the Winter Coun- terpoint, that “the work of Miss Forbes and Miss Phipps deserves more serious comment”. Since five paragraphs precede this state- ment, I can only conclude that Mr. Berthoff’s remarks in those para- graph’s were not serious, This seems regrettable, since his fa- cetious comment covers the photo- graphs and three poems. Having laid by a copy of Coun- terpoint, I was able to observe that the reviewer omitted far more than punctuation in his quo- tation from “Beethoven”. He omitted words as well; and I be- lieve it’ is customary, even when saving expense, to indicate word- omissions by dots. Furthermore, it is not. clear to. me why Mr. Berthoff criticizes what he says Miss Forbes did not write, rather than what she did write. Continued on Page 4, Col. 1 are simply beyond understanding. To me, they are beyond under- standing, because a dictionary and an English handbook fail to clari- fy the phrases, the meaning, or the frivolity. As for me, I am stupid, and I do not understand what a “lapidary poem”, “neo- Dada writing’, “pantheistically significant” windows, “minimal toughness”, “a charming scatolog- ism”, and “the Ur Bryn Mawr girl”, are. With a little effort, I can read a dozen things into such generalities, but I refuse to try to do anything except to receive what the writer is trying to com- municate, — and little comes across. I cannot believe that in Continued on Page 6, Col. 1 vote according to the choice of the class. There is not suf- ficient stimulus under the present system to encourage vot- ers to seek out the candidates for questioning or ascertain the opinions of others about them. The reports are stereotyped. Even if a student does take the time to read them, she concludes that all the candidates are equally capable and votes for the class’ choice. If the four final candidates were iisted in alphabetical order on the ballot, it would still be very easy to vote for the top person first and on down the line. It is a proved fact that in elections the first name on the ballot has an advantage. It has been suggested, therefore, that the practice of pre- senting blank ballots to the studeni be adopted. This would encourage finding out about the nominees and make the pro- cess of voting a more difficult one than just writing 1, 2, 3, 4. Under such a system there are two alternatives: a) that the} class narrow the slate to four, but do not list its order of pref- erence; b) that the class’ order of choice be indicated in the reports. The system as it stands is inadequate. Until the present there have been no concrete suggestions for reform. A blank ballot seems to be the best alternative. Surely the four fina’ | candidates are all capable of assuming the position, and a blank ballot would give nominees 2, 3, and 4 a greater chance A blank ballot would also stimulate inquiry and send as ‘sure more intelligent voting. back : Fails to Invalidate Loyalty Oath January 14, 1952 To the Editor of The College News: An arricle in the News last week said that the loyalty oath for gov- ernment employees included 32 statement that they have not re- ceived literature from subversive organizations. This is not our un- derstanding at all. Some agencies now listed as subversive started off life in a perfectly blameless way; and lists of names of all kinds are available to almost anyone. You may be asked if you have ever had such literature but you should be in the clear if you explain that the organization got your name ir some way unknown to you or that you had some connection with it when it was reputable if not pa- triotic. Very sincerely yours, Louise F, H. Crenshaw The Bureau of Recommendations Reader Decries Review for Destructive Criticism Jan. 10, 1952 To the Editors: Before beginning, I want to make it clear that I write this let- ter as a private individual, inde- pendent of my connection with Counterpoint and without its sup- port. _ Even to save expense of quot- ing” it seems scarcely permissible to leave out words and entire phrases in a quotation without at least indicating the deletion by dots or asterisks, as was done in Mr. Berthoff’s review of the Win- ter Counterpoint, with reference to the poem “Beethoven.” Mr. Berthoff says: “There may be a poem hidden in ‘Beethoven.’ Let us cut the deadwood and see.” He then quotes, as an entity, the parts of the poem which he has singled out as essential, neglect- ing to indicate the places where he has amputated. Where dead- wood has been cut, the living trees do not automatically move up next to each other; there are spaces, which in print must be dealt with in a manner immediately obvious to the reader, if a grossly mis leading impression is not to be gained. He continues, “Check your copy for the punctuation; I deliberately omit it to permit an ambiquity or two, notably ‘and deaf creation drags the self.’ This gives the reader (taking the safe assump- tion that he has not a copy of Counterpoint in hand, since it came out over a month ago) the mistaken impression that punctu- ation (a word which, as used here, seems to refer to the original punctuation of the poem itself and not to the punctuation of omis- sion) and punctuation only has been left out. Although he adds, “That is not what Miss Forbes wrote”, it is unclear whether this statement refers to the entire quotation or simply to the phrase he repeats from it. In any case, what Miss Forbes did write is now a matter of extreme ambiguity, “but it,” as Mr. Berthoff has re- arranged it, “seems very promis- ing. She is of course entitled to it.” Leaving the reader confused and very likely repelled by this piece of apparent (since he does not ac- count for its value) jargon, he passes on to the next, having made the fatal mistake—decidedly not unique in this review—of pulling a thing apart without putting it er. The ambiguities which he wishes to point out (pos- siblf with real perception and merit, were he only to develop his Continued on Page 5, Col. 1