grab bag
By Glenn Dromgoole
Student unrest: Part 6
The Berkeley demonstrations in the fall of 1964 and
the anti-war, anti-draft protests last fall have left many
Americans with a bad taste in their mouths for any kind
of student activism.
With television sets beaming peace marches, civil rights
demonstrations and draft card burning right into their
living rooms, the public has associated practically all student
protest endeavors with the bearded group. They have
overlooked the potential and actual good that much stu
dent unrest causes.
These same adults follow devoutly their favorite col
lege athletic team, hardly realizing that student unrest
was responsible for the birth of intercollegiate athletics
back in the 19th century.
They do not know that Alexander Hamilton began his
public career as a student agitator.
They criticize civil rights activism which is not the
invention of the present college generation, but rather a
holdover from student debates 40 years before the Civil War.
They don’t take into account the many youths like Joe
Barela, student at Fresno (Calif.) City College, who organiz
ed and convinced the Fresno mayor to proclaim an Oper
ation Lifeline Week to provide food and clothing for Viet
Nam orphans.
They forget about the thousands of college youth work
ing in poverty camps and the Peace Corps, serving the
United States’ vital needs at home and working to promote
better understanding abroad.
All these activities are student protests against a
society that students say has become increasingly self-
centered.
Or, at least that’s the way some of the students see it.
Others take a more commanding approach, some frown on
their fellow students’ actions and others just don’t care.
SOCIAL UNREST: It prevails on nearly every campus
toady.
From public demonstrations to alley speeches to soap
box orations to dormitory bull sessions to private conversa
tions, students analyze and criticize the society in which
they live.
Among their favorite topics are the Viet Nam War, the
draft, civil rights, sex, religion, the war on poverty and
narcotics.
Who are these social protestors? What are they like?
“Todays young Americans are a generation of consci
ence, of conviction, of involvement in the issues of today,”
Vice President Hubert Humphrey has said.
His high praise has been tempered somewhat by others
who urge college youth to combine wisdom and energy.
The Christian Science Monitor has stated: “Youth’s
promise lies in youth’s ability to carry through its hopes
and plans with vigor and enthusiam whenever these plans
are tempered by wisdom and knowledge Together
youthful enthusiasm and wisdom are an unbeatable combina
tion.”
LIFE MAGAZINE: “For the first time the students
are pushing out to move the world in new directions. Some
of the new campus activitists are professional authority bait
ers, some are social outcasts, some just fuzzy-minded. A
solid majority, however, are serious and hard-headed, chal
lenged by the poverty, discrimination and materialism they
see around them.”
The Nation: “Their revolt is not only against capitalism
but against the values of middle-class America; hypocrisy
called Brotherhood Week; assembly lines called colleges;
conformity called status; bad taste called Camp, and
quiet desperation called success.”
The New York Times: “On the one hand, there is the
academically well prepared, sophisticated but permissively
brought up mass of students who resent being neglected,
computerized, IBM-processed but also resent being super
vised. They want the personal attention without rules about
personal conduct.
“On the other hand, there is a relatively small group
of students, possibly including the Communist activists
and nihilists . . . who have perfected the technique of
attention-getting and disruption — at least partly because
of the depersonalized neutralization of the great mass of
uncommitted and uninvolved students.”
ROBERT O. SCHULTZ, dean of students at Brown
University, draws an analogy between the Negro revolution
and current student ferment:
“Similarly, Negroes and students have been passed over
and forgotten .... until recently,” he was quoted in
Moderator Magazine.
“It was the Negro and the student who forced others
to look their way — sit-ins at Greensboro, the rallies at
Berkeley.
“Integration was accomplished for Negroes in the Korean
war, for students in the fight for civil rights.
“Both are impatient, seldom show gratitude for token
change, are anti-establishment.
“Whites have shown extreme paternalism toward the
Negroes in the same way that the "in loco parentis’ policy
has controlled students.
Often, neither group is prepared for the new responsi
bilities that they gain .... the burden of guilt rests with
whites, and likewise, with administration.”
But it’s more interesting to see what students are
saying about their own role in the social protest.
“IT’S NO LONGER fair,” says Fresno’s Barela, “to
push college students into an ivory tower. We can and
will show awareness of problems and attempt to do some
thing about them.”
“The real question we should ask,” comments a Bow-
doin student, “is how can we find a more appropriate way
for protest to be heard and weighed in the process of mak
ing long-term policy ? ”
For this student, the answers will not be satisfying,
for society has always had a way of listening to and en
during student outcries without inflicting any change.
“Our generation,’ says Angel Castillo Jr. of Stetson
University, “is confronted with obsolete church-oriented
ethics and morals which fail the test of our intellect;
it is lost in an indifferent world where the individual is in
evitably overpowered by the sheer realization of his ultimate
insignificance and thus turns to unusual methods of identity-
quest and inward satisfaction, such as drug intake.
ED SCHWARTZ, synicated college columnist and Mod
erator writer, wrote: ‘I huzzaed at the sit-ins, not simply
because the cause was just; not simply because the time was
overdue; but because the tactic was so brilliantly original.”
While students keep an eye on the world — sur
prisingly to no one’s relief — they are reminded to stay
in touch with local issues.
Paul Goodman, writing his “Thoughts on Berkeley,”
said, “In my opinion, the chief political action of students
would, at present, be intramural — humanizing and mak
ing cultural the academic community.”
Stanford professor W. H. Cowley says student influence
is more effective when focused on campus problems.
More and more, the students are beginning to concen
trate their demands to local confines.
But as long as the issues exist, so will the social unrest.
Thursday: Campus unrest.
Cbe Battalion
Volume 61 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1966 Number 271
Mustangs Gain Share
Of Lead As Aggies Fall
SMU Hands Cadets 82-65
Defeat In Dallas Tuesday
By GERALD GARCIA
Battalion Sports Editor
DALLAS — Every Southwest
Conference game the Texas
Aggies have won this season has
been played on a day when the
weather was miserable.
The weatherman cooperated
with the Aggies last night but
the SMU Mustangs did not and
in the process tied the Aggies
for the Southwest Conference
leadership by defeating A&M,
82-65.
Both teams now have identical
8-3 conference marks with three
to play.
For SMU, it has been a long
climb to reach the top. The
Ponies started with a dismal 1-3
conference record, but now have
registered seven wins in a row.
One of the defeats suffered by
the Ponies was handed by the
Aggies in the conference opener
in G. Rollie White which started
the Aggies on a seven-game vic
tory string of their own.
The big diffference in last
night’s game was A&M’s cold
shooting in the first half which
matched the icy weather outside
Moody Coliseum, overflowed with
9,100 fans.
SMU raced to a 45-34 halftime
lead, mostly on the brilliant de
fensive work of Carroll Hooser
who held A&M scoring champion
John Beasley to five points, and
the hot shooting of the Mustang
guards, Denny Holman and Bob
Jones.
Holman connected on five of
five from the field, while Jones
hit on four of five attempts.
But the turning point in the
game came late in the first half
when the Ponies held the Aggies
scoreless for three minutes and
57 seconds, and they poured in
nine straight points.
A&M’s Dick Stringfellow
scored on a jump shot from the
right wing with 6:35 left in the
half and the Aggies did not score
again until Stringfellow dropped
two free shots with 2:38 left.
In the meantime, Holman,
Hooser, Charles Beasley and John
Higginbotham were hitting buck
ets for the Ponies as they fat
tened their lead to 41-33 with
2:03 to play in the first half.
The score was tied four times
in the first half, at 2-2, 6-6, 15-16
and 17-17. The Ponies held their
longest lead at the end of the
half, 45-34, while A&M’s longest
lead was at 15-11 with seven
minutes gone int he game.
A&M employed a pressing man-
to-man defense at the beginning,
but the quicker and faster Ponies
punctured it so badly that the
Aggies later changed to a 2-2-1
zone press which was as unsuc
cessful as the previous one.
SMU finished the first half
hitting on 21 of 37 attempts from
the floor for a 55.3 percentage,
while A&M could only find the
range on 12 of 37 shots from the
floor for a 32.5 clip. John Beas
ley hit on only two of 11 attempts.
Besides Holman’s five for five
and Jones’ four out of five,
Hooser hit on four of seven first
half attempts, Bob Begert con
nected on three out of seven and
Higginbotham sank two out of
two for the Ponies.
A&M, now losers of three of
their last five games after play
ing the first round with an un
blemished 7-0 mark, reduced the
Ponies’ 11-point halftime lead to
six with 13:35 left, but baskets
by Begert and Hooser put SMU
out of trouble.
After Randy Matson’s layup
wth 12 :27 to play, the Aggies did
not score again until Eddie
Dominguez hit a jumper from the
left side with 9:40 showing, but
in the meantime the Ponies were
going wild.
SMU increased their lead to as
much as 19 points with two
minutes to play.
Hooser topped all scorers with
20 points. Five other Ponies hit
in double figures. Begert and
Jones had 11, Charles Beasley
sank 13, and Holman and Higgen-
botham finished with 10.
A&M’s leading scorer was John
Beasley wtih 18, while Matson hit
16 and Dominguez had 13. Mat-
son also grabbed 15 rebounds to
take rebounding honors.
The Ponies finished the game
hitting at 48.5 clip on 32 of 66,
while the Aggies could only con
nect on 24 of 66 for a 36.4 per
centage. Both teams took 24 foul
shots, the Aggies hit on 17 and
SMU sank 18.
Even though the Aggies were
trounced by the Mustangs, the
conference schedule still favors
A&M. The Aggies will host Rice
and Baylor and play Arkansas in
Fayetteville, while SMU must
play Texas and TCU on the road
and Texas Tech in Dallas.
Aggies, Mustangs
Confident Of Title
By LARRY R. JERDEN
Battalion Associate Editor
One door is used to gain en
trance to both dressing rooms in
Moody Coliseum in Dallas, with
a left turn leading to the home
team and a right to the visitors’.
With one major exception, that
180-degree difference reflected
the moods of the SMU and A&M
cagers after one of the most
heated games of the season Tues
day night.
But that was a very major ex
ception.
As could be expected, the Mus
tangs were jubilent after their
victory, and the Ags very down
cast, but they shared one common
goal. They each expressed their
desire, and confidence, of captur
ing the Southwest Conference
championship.
“This game helped us a lot,
it gave us the advantage of
momentum, and I think we will
go all the way. It was definitely
our best game all year,” said
Carroll Hooser, the SMU captain
and standout.
Praising his opponents, he add
ed, “The Aggies are a great club,
and the only time I knew we had
it won was in the last minute.
Beasley, of course, is tremendous,
and Matson, well, he can do any
thing.”
“We’ve been looking forward
to this one,” said John Higgin
botham, “so we were pretty fired
up. Our speed helped in this
one, but it was tough all the way.
You could never be sure that you
could hold your lead. I think
now we can win the conference.”
Looking back over the game,
Charles Beasley wouldn’t com-
mitt himself on the outcome of
the SWC race. He just said that
it’ll go to the wire, and both
teams have good chances.
“I thought we were going to
win it when we had the 10-point
lead at the half,” he said, “but
then the Aggies came out all
fired up and I was afraid we
were going to let it get away.
We had to re-adjust.”
The silence of the Cadet dress
ing room was vivid contrast to
the jubilence at the other end of
the hall, but a grim determination
hung in the air as the players
showered and tried to relax.
While most fans are giving the
Aggies an edge in the coming
games, Shelby Metcalf expressed
a note of caution.
“I do think we can win it,
but we still have to play three
more clubs. We have a good
schedule, yes, but those are
games we must get out on the
court and play.”
RANDY GOES UP, BALL GOES DOWN
... as Bob Beg-ert blocks an attempted two-handed dunk
by Matson in Tuesday night’s game in Dallas. John Beasley
(45) and Carroll Hooser (25) vie for position under the
basket.
BIG JOHN FINDS ROUGH GOING
... as four Mustangs put a bit too much pressure on th#^
Aggie co-captain. Carroll Hooser (25), John Higginbotham
(35), Denny Holman (15) and another Pony crowded in
the early stages of Tuesday’s game and Beasley was
awarded two foul shots.
Speaker Series To Begin
With Sociologist Thursday
History Of Coeducation — 6
Board Admits Coeds
Reagan V. Brown, sociologist
for the Agricultural Extension
Service, will be first in a series
of four speakers to be presented
monthly in place of the now de
funct Religious Emphasis Week.
Brown will speak Thursday at
7:30 p.m. in the All-Faiths Chap
el. His topic is titled “The Big
ger They Come.”
Receiving both a B.S. and a
M.S. degree at Texas A&M,
Brown did do graduate work at
Colorado, Cornell and Utah Uni
versities, and is a member of the
graduate faculty at Colorado
State University.
Wounded during the Battle of
the Bulge in World War II, he
later served as county agricultur
al agent for three counties and
helped build fodder seed into a
million dollar business.
Brown is now responsible for
community improvement pro
grams over Texas, and has been
called “Mr. Community Improve
ment.”
Working with agents in over
900 communities, the program
offers cash awards for projects
that make a community a better
place in which to live.
The effort is being accelerated
through the Texas Community
Improvement Program, sponsor
ed by state electric companies
and conducted by the A&M Agri
cultural Extension Service.
Brown is also past president
of the Terrell Chamber of Com
merce, Kaufman Lions Club and
the Lockhart Businessmen’s Club.
He teaches the Men’s Bible
Class at the First Methodist
Church in Bryan and has previ
ously spoken in Nebraska as well
as several Texas cities.
The next speaker will be Texas
A&M Head Coach Gene Stallings
sometime in March.
The monthly speakers’ pro
gram replaces the old Religious
Emphasis Week because of poor
attendance and lack of support
for the RE venture.
By TOMMY DeFRANK
Battalion Managing Editor
Eighty-six years of tradition
at the A&M College of Texas
came crashing down with a roar
that shook the state April 27,
1963.
On the morning of that spring
Saturday the A&M Board of Di
rectors issued a brief statement
smashing the all-male status of
the college.
The Board statement released
to the press said:
“Effective June 1, 1963, the
Agricultural and Mechanical Col
lege of Texas will admit qualified
women on a day-student basis to
all graduate programs and to vet
erinary medicine.
“Effective June 1, 1963, the
Agricultural and Mechanical Col
lege of Texas will accept on a
day-student basis the wives and
daughters of faculty and staff,
the wives of students in residence
and woman staff members to the
undergraduate programs.”
EVER SINCE the school was
opened in 1876 it had been con
sidered an all-male institution,
although a handful of women stu
dents had enrolled during the
regular session in isolated years
of the school’s first half-century
of operation.
But no women had attended
on a day-student basis for nearly
30 years.
So the announcement touched
off a widespread round of pro
test, both on campus and
throughout the state.
But for many persons the move
was not unexpected.
Several incidents in the early
1960’s seemed to indicate that the
end might be near for the all
male A&M.
The changing viewpoint toward
coeducation, championed by Bry
an Attorney John Barron and
Bryan Sen. Bill Moore in the
1950’s, had also been adopted by
Bryan's freshman legislator. Rep.
David Haines.
Haines told a reporter in Jan
uary, 1953, that he would push
for a constitutional amendment
making A&M coeducational.
HIS REASON for support of
the amendment was to provide an
opportunity for local g^rls to at
tend college at home.
“The girls in this area should
be able to take advantage of
what A&M has to offer if they
want to go to college,” he said.
“I went to A&M, my father
went to A&M, and I would like
for my daughter to go to A&M,”
he added. “It is a great disservice
to women not to be able to attend
A&M.”
Two powerful and vociferous
groups — the former students
and faculty — had also begun
leaning toward coeducation at
this time.
The Association of Former
Students hierarchy, which had
long been wrestling with the con
flict between traditionalists who
: (See DIRECTORS, Page 4)