OCR Text |
Show community" could and would contribute to the solution of society's problems. It was presumed that big business and big government were of different body and different ends. The role of the American corporation in helping solve the problems of society, we were told, would be best fulfilled by those corporations doing more of what they do best build, sell, service. For some mystical reason, the audience was told that it had reason to "hope" that corporations would "limit" themselves, and thus somehow contribute to the curing of society's ills. Incredible! It is almost incomprehensible that American business can continue to get by on such drivel. Even more amazing, however, is the wholly unreal and irrational premise from which the argument of American business springs. How can anyone who purports to be concerned with the solution of the "problems of society" fail to consider the overbearing problem of advanced monopoly capitalism and its relationship to the impoverished majorities of the world? No such issues were raised by the panelists, which is not surprising, since no such issues are raised by American corporation. If we are, indeed, to "Challenge," then how about attacking the guts-issue: "The Role of the American Corporation In Creating the Problems of Society?" Sincerely, '!. J. K. Morrison Violates free speech Editor: The people in favor of the Don't Go sheet which was circulated on campus Thursday obviously do not agree with the views of Barry i Goldwater, Jr. ; But the "Don't Go" reaction is anti-intellectual. Instead of burying one's head in the sand and calling a boycott, such people ought to go to the meeting and confront Mr. Goldwater. The purpose of Challenge Week is to present a variety of views on a number of different issues. The point of free speech is that all sides be heard! How can the Committee for Free Speech on Campus condone boycotting a speaker? - Because the committee does not agree with his views? Don F. Scheid Enforcement committee Editor: So as not to invalidate my testimony as a single case, I am speaking for all those students who have been "burned" by the fires of the "Traffic Enforcement Committee." This is the Univeristy group you will talk to after receiving 15 parking tickets on the car you sold six months before. What used to be simply "Traffic Appeals," where a tired little man would listen patiently to your explanation, has grown into a creature where "enforcement" is the singular consideration. The tired little man was granted presence on the committee but the gavel and scales of justice have been lifted from his office in the Park Bldg. Whoever lifted them, and wherever they are now no one seems to know. What is certain is that the "Traffic Enforcement Committee" was not the party in question for the justice in their office only vagudy resembles what Webster defined as the "quality of being just, imparqal, or fair." For those who have not yet had occasion to appear before them, would be well to describe one of the five-minute sessions allotted to each person who vainly appeals his traffic ticket: ' After a lengthly weight in the hall you are allowed to enter the "Enforcement" room. You are directed to a chair and told to state your case. Just as you begin to explain the situation which unjustly brought you there they inform you of your time limit and ask you if you deny that there was a violation. Well, unless the particular officer y was inflicted with a writing spasm there must have been some reason for his issuing the ticket. It seems logical, then, theat there was indeed a violation of some sort, you can't deny it. The committee informs you at this point that it was, by definition, your sticker on the car that received the 15 parking tickets. And suddenly you are hit by the reality of the situation these people of the "Traffic EnforcementCommittee" are there solely to "enforce" the punishment, rightly or wrongly placed upon you, regardless of what is just, impartial or fair. And what was once the awesome responsibility of one man is now the impossible task of an entire committee. Peter Bruce Letter to the Editor What's the problem? Editor: I would like to publicly endorse the invitation Harris Vincent offered in the action and where it's at column on April 7, 1971 to have any interested person contact me about the Union Parking Proposal I worked on with the Chronicle, Union Board, ASUU Executive Council and the Parking Authorities. We would be more than happy to supply the necessary printed materials and answer any questions on the system. In response to Mr. Vincent's closing statement "...dream child. The logic fails Action Line." I would like to ask Harris which part of this "complicated" system baffels you the most? Is it driving your little Volkswagen on a one way street or figuring out 35 cents change? Jim Davis A weak Challenge Editor: J "Challenge Week?" Might not "Weak Challenge" be more appropriate? appro-priate? Much of the challenge seemed rather shy and misdirected, and none moreso than the presentation on "The Role of the American Corporation In Solving the Problems of Society." The speeches, the questions, the answers; all were little more than an apology for American corporate enterprise. It was assumed that the "corporate |