2

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