How Far Will This Path Go?

How Far Will This Path Go?

Student newspapers and periodicals

Mello criticizes a previous "Viewpoint" attacking a "Viewpoint" before that.

Mello, Michael A.

The Bullet

HIST 298, University of Mary Washington

1978-10-03

The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.

1 JPG

English

Fredericksburg, VA

David Grave’s “Viewpoint” (Bullet, September 26, 1978) regarding Mark Madigan’s “Viewpoint” of the previous week deserves comment. I don’t know if the entire thrust of Grave’s piece was a response to Madigan, but that was the impression I got. In this Viewpoint, I will be operating under that assumption.

Graves begins by chiding Madigan for “name calling and taunting,” but then he turns right around and terms Marks perspectiveonthe issue grass “irresponsible” and “immature.” This would not detract from Graves critique of Madigan if the latter was in fact guilty of name calling (two fallacies don’t make a right, as the old saying goes). But the fact is that Madigan did not call anyone in his “Viewpoint” any names; he did not write that the Administrative position on the grass issue “seems to many to students to be rather hypocritical,” but within the context of Madigan’s argument, this statement is perfectly correct and justified.

The bulk of Grave’s “Viewpoint” seems to be an analyses of “power.” This discussion confused me, probably because I have taken too few classes in the Poli-Sci department. If I am totally missing the point I trust that David will bring it to my attention. Graves seems to be saying that only the individual can exercise power over himself: “Only authority can employ any real control over the lives of men. True authority rests only within oneself… When you get out of jail you can break that same rule again. Only our implicit self authority can ever ‘prevent’ us from doing anything.” There are two problems with this assertion. First it is inconsistent with other points in Grave’s “Viewpoint.” He writes that “One reason why men have repeatedly witnessed large power factions through history is the continued abdication of this personal authority. When individuals forfeit authority and self-discipline, a void in social harmony is created which power factions seek to eradicate by imposing external controls.” Here Graves seems to acknowledge that personal “authority” and “power” (terms that Graves appears to be using synonymously, but never defines) are not the only forces guiding our actions. He recognizes that individuals can abdicate their personal power in return for a corporate identity, and that it is possible to “forfeit authority and self discipline.”

Secondly, while final “authority” might rest with the individual (assuming that one is not a believer in determinism), it certainly appears that individual behavior is influenced by external sanctions and the threat of sanctions. This is the assumption upon which all penalty systems must rest.

Nothing that David Graves wrote in his Viewpoint in any way refuted Mark Madigan’s opinions as expressed in the September 19th issue of the BULLET. Madigan did not argue that the Administration lacked the power to enforce its edicts; he explicitly stated that the rules about walking on the grass “can and still be enforced.” What Mark seems to be challenging is the correctness of these increased penalties, which he sees as being inconsistent with other College policies. It is unfortunate that Graves chose not to address himself to this, the central point of Madigan’s “Viewpoint.”

Newspaper

Allen, B.H.

Williams, Megan