Lone Star Lutheran (Seguin, Tex.), Vol. 50, No. 10, Ed. 1 Friday, November 15, 1968 Page: 2 of 6
six pages : ill. ; page 18 x 12 in. Scanned from physical pages.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Page 2
The " Forgotten?
Americans
By Ken Kramer
Our nation today is beset with many problems and
difficulties, more so now than perhaps at any other
time within the memory of those of us who are now
of college age. One of the most disturbing problems
is the disaffection and disillusionment of many groups
in America, who feel somehow left out of the de-
cision-making process which so affects their lives.
Much Yet To Be Done For Minority Groups
Aside from students, these groups consist primarily
of the various minority groups which are found within
the framework of American society-Negroes, Mexi-
can-Americans, and the long forgotten (except in TV
and movie westerns) American Indians, to name only
the major groups. Often individuals from these par-
ticular groups are left outside the mainstream of
American life, through no wish of their own.
While it is quite true that more and more individ-
uals within these groups are progressing economi-
cally, socially, and politically, it is also quite evident
that there is much yet to be done before all or even
most of the members of these groups will have that
*‘equal chance at the starting gate” which they de-
serve. With the advent of a new administration in
Washington, D.C., one that promises “new leadership
for America,” we are compelled to wonder what the
Nixon administration will do in regard to the pro-
blems of the minority groups.
Little Attention Paid To Minority Groups
If there is any one area in which Nixon’s campaign
for the Presidency glaringly deserves to be criticized,
it is the fact that he paid little or no attention to the
needs of the American minority groups. Early last
spring, Nixon presented a speech called “Building
Bridges to Human Dignity,” which TIME magazine
found to be the most perceptive and reasonable state-
ment on the problems of the American Negro thus
far presented by any presidential candidate in the
1968 race. After the Miami Convention, however,
little was heard about that speech again, except for
a few passing remarks. During the fall campaign,
also, Nixon did not carry through on an earlier-
stated intention to campaign in the black ghettoes.
The President-elect did make some salient points
about the problems of the Mexican-Americans in the
course of the race for the Presidency; but he, like
most national politicians (with the possible exception
of the late Robert F. Kennedy), completely ignored
the destitute situation of many American Indians,
whom we have put out of the way on reservations
and forgotten.
This is not to say that Nixon is a rascist or that
he is not a compassionate man. This is to say that
one of the priorities of the new administration should
be to try to gain the confidence of the minority groups
by working hard to alleviate the problems they face.
Nothing is more important in building the type oi
unity which this nation so desperately needs now.
Necessary Priorities For New Administration
The Nixon administration should do the following
things in this regard: (1) appoint more minority
group members to responsible positions in the fed-
eral government (including the Cabinet and the courts)
in order to build a sense of pride and participation
among the Negroes, Mexican-Americans, and Indians;
(2) push the “black capitalism” idea and enlist the
support of business, which certainly should not be hard
for the Republicans to do, behind this approach;
(3) strengthen and support those federal programs of
which Nixon has stated his approval, for instance
Head Start; (4) encourage a dialogue between the
administration and prominent minority group leaders
LONE STAR LUTHERAN ,
I Letters To The Editor!:::* I
EDITOR’S NOTE- Will the
“anonymous freshman” who
wrote a letter to the LSL this
week please identify himself to
the editor if he wants his letter
published in the paper? Your
name will be withheld if you so
desire, but the editor must know
who you are. (See statement on
“Letters to the Editor” in the
Oct. 18 issue of the LSL.
**
Dear Editor:
In response to the poor at-
tempt at humor in last week’s
LSL - to wit, the “demonstra-
tion” cartoon cm page 6-1
can only counter with «*What do
you want—more Columbia?”
Protestingly,
Rob Sheppard
**
Dear Editor:
While proofreading, I ran a-
cross Mr. Sheppard’s letter con-
cerning my cartoon cm the demon-
stration. I can only counter with
“What do you think you’re be-
ginning—another Columbia?”
Bemusedly,
Fentress Millet
**
Dear Sir:
Am wondering why you refuse
to follow sound practices in news-
papering. Let me explain:
In the editorial, Concerning
the Board of Regents, Nov. 8,
1968, LSL, you say you “char-
ged” the Board “several weeks
ago.” Charges can be made only
on basis of facts, and you did
not get the facts, so you have
no charges.
In the above-mentioned edi-
torial you come up, once again,
with at least one inaccuracy, tc
put it mildly:
When I signed my letter to
you, the letter you printed over
my signature, Kurt C. Hartmann,
that was not “written by former”
student whose father serves or
the Board. That letter was
written by the same person who
is writing this letter; that is,
a member of the Board of Re-
gents. I doubt that my son has
even read the diatribe you con-
cocted without knowledge,without
research, without any of the prin-
ciples which apply to sound and
acceptable newspapering. He
lives at a different address that
I do.
One paragraph in your edi-
torial, Concerning the Board of
Regents, stands out:
“As a beginning, the LSL in
the next few weeks will be print-
ing articles on the individaul
members of the Board. Inter-
views will hf> conducted with
the Board members in person or
by letter; information will be ob-
tained on their background, their
qualifications for serving on the
Board, their opinion of the edu-
cational role that TLC should
play, and their view of TLC’s
future.”
That is the point at which you
should have begun. You chose to
begin at “information from some
usually knowledgable faculty
members”, and in newspapering
that might be the wrong place
to begin, because that too may
be nothing more and perhaps
nothing less than hearsay.
Sir, in newspapering we do not
print oi basis of hearsay. In
newspapering we do not depend
on anybody and on anything ex-
cept research, that is, If and when
one begins to tackle men and
women who attempt to think and
speak and make decisions res-
ponsibly, in responsible posi-
tions.
Respectfully yours,
Kurt C. Hartmann, Pastor
Immanuel Lutheran Church
La Vernia, Texas 78121
Member, not Relative of Member,
of Board of Regents.
**
Dear Rev. Hartmann:
To say that I was incensed
at the highly intemperate tone and
the ironic inaccuracy of your let-
ter is to put it mildly. It re-
quires a great deal of restraint
to reply to your letter in any
reasonable form.
For one who makes such a point
of chiding the LSL for supposed
inaccuracies, you have made a
very glaring error yourself in
attacking me personally for the
WRITING of the article “Dogs
Hit On...The Board of Regents.”
If you had checked your facts
beforehand, you would have found
out that I DID NOT write that
article.
The editor’s note preceding the
first “Dogs Hit On...” article
(LSL, Oct. 18) clearly stated that
“this article was not written by
any present or past editor of the
LSL. Nor does the present editor
necessarily agree with the con-
tents of this article.” That state-
ment was made not only in re-
ference to the first “Dogs Hit
Oru.” column but also in re-
ference to all the to all the arti-
cles that would foHow.
I fully accept the responsibility
of PUBLISHING the article, just
as I have allowed the printing of
many articles which were clear
expressions of opinion, because
I for one believe in the freedom
of people to express their views.
Even though their viewpoints may
not always be accurate, they
should still be able to present
them.
As for “Dogs Hit On..,” how-
ever, I have had no part in the
writing of any of those articles;
and as you might have gathered
from my editorial “Concerning
the Board of Regents” (LSL, Nov.
8), I could not pass judgment on
the accuracy of information cited
in “Dogs Hit On..The Board
of Regents” because I and 99%
of the rest of the students on
this campus do not know enough
about your seemingly secretive
group to praise it or condemn it.
This lack of communication be-
tween the Board ond the students
was the only real criticism
offered in MY PERSONALLY
WRITTEN remarks on this
matter, yet you did not even ad-
dress yourself to this criticism
in your latest letter.
May I offer my apologies for
attributing your earlier letter
to your son; it was a terrible
disservice to him for me to do so.
Might I suggest though that I am
not entirely at fault for that mis-
take since you failed to sign the
letter as “Pastor” Hartmann,
and I naturally assumed the letter
was from the only Kurt C. Hart-
mann known to me, namely your
son.
In closing, let me speak to two
other points which you raised.
First, you may rest assured
that you are quite right in ques-
tioning my knowledge of journa-
lism. I don’t know a DAMN thing
about it. Without the benefit of
any journalistic background, I
am trying to produce a paper
which interests the students,
gives them a chance to sound
off when they feel like it, and
raise vital questions about the
status quo at TLC and in the
rest of the world.
Second, the last sentence of
your letter is most offensive.
There are many young men and
women at TLC who “attempt to
think and speak and make de-
cisions responsibly, in respon-
sible positions.” And I, along
with most students as well as
many faculty and administration
members feel that these young
men and women are just as good
if not better than any member
of the Board of Regents. If your
words are indicative of a gen-
erally pious and egotistical Board
of Regents ( and I am hopeful
that they are not), then perhaps
the Board deserved to be hit on
by the Dogs.
The Editor
P.S. Letters of interview will
be sent out to members of the
Board of Regents this weekend
in order to begin gathering ma-
terial for an attempt to acquaint
the students with the Board mem-
bers.
Peeters Performs Remarkably
Well On New Schlicker Organ
AS WELL AS THE AVERAGE MINORITY GROUP
CITIZENS in order to foster a spirit of mutual un-
derstanding and cooperation between the government
and the citizen; and (5) especially study the very des-
perate situation of a relatively small group of citi-
zens, but nevertheless human beings in need of help,
the American Indians.
We may get peace in Vietnam, law and order at
home, a stable economy, and all the other goals
of the Nixon administration; but if we do not work
to alleviate the very urgent problems of our minority
group citizens, America will have gained nothing.
& Lone Star Lutheran HPi
Student Newspaper
of Texas Lutheran College
fit vim i^nsiW kmii'iri Mt eamicrlly *fc«w •! MfM* •xctpt tfcs riltorlal staff
aa4 Mlvifaal writers. THE LONE STAR LUTHERAN b paMbhri waakly Jirtef tbs acataic
faar, txcapt darla« sxaariaaHsa wests jsad batiday partads. Sabstriptiaa rat as ara $4.00
par faar. All carraspaadaaca sksaM ba addrassad ta IKE LONE STAR LUTHERAN, Taxes
Latbaraa Catlaps, Sapaia, Taxes 74155. _
A«*oci*ie EdUor: Cwotya Jackson
Business Msmcot: Bobby Boudreaux
Columnist a: Mike Smith, Fred Biery, Dyne Hilbrich
Photographers: Dean Bright, Karen Bear os
Departmental reporters: JJD. Lewis, Randy Kohlenberg,
Charles Kneupper, James
Scbwarzlose, Tom Keagy , Steve
Carr, Linda Hines, Craig Packer,
Dave Gettig, Dave Wendt, Jim
Sports Editor: Brian Shull
Circulation Manager: Pat Miller
Contributing reporters: Kitty Schultz, Cheryl Shuger,
Nancy Bernhard, Rill a
Rademaker, Melinda Oldfield
Sports staff: Bruce Hedman, Bruce Muller, Donna
Bronstad, Mike Brown
Cartoonists: Pat Lew(s, Fen tree Miller, Jeri Jacobs
Typist*i Bonnie Kluge, Caryl Tagge, Vicki Budgett,
Lydia Wehmeyer, Lynn Serold
The Schlicker organ in the col-
lege chapel will probably never
again feel the “master’s touch”
in quite the extraordinary way
thg.t it did during the recital
last Sunday by the reknow ed or-
gainist, Flor Peeters.
Peeters’ sylistic interpre-
tation of the three major works
during the first half of the pro-
gram proved the organ to be
capable of many different types
of music, as well as it dis-
played his genius and feeling for
the music. The artist must make
the music and the organ helps.
Peeters opened the program
with the “Toccata and Fugue
in F Major,” by Buxtehude
(1637-1707). The liveliness of
this work was carried over well.
The dramatic “B Minor” con-
veyed a completely different feel-
ing, although both this and the
“Bach B Minor Prelude” are
from the same period. The tem-
po at which he took the fugue
made the dance. Bach wrote many
crescendos into his music. The
Germanic method of crescendo
is terrace dynamics, or immed-
iately different volumes by adding
or subtracting stops. In the
Franeh “Piece Heroique,” cre-
By Dan Angerstein
scendo is achieved gradually oy
means of a swell box and coup-
ling manuals. Mr. Peeters used
both of these, respectively. The
French suffered, as did all the
works, from lack of reverbera-
tion. The noticeable absence of
reverberation was caused by the
huge crowd, a bigger-than-
Christmas Vespers-size pack.
Playing more legato helped mat-
ters a great deal.
The various mutations, reed,
and mixture stops were demon-
strated well in the Fantasies on
Flemish Christmas carols by
John Bull (1562-1628) and the
Schuebler Chorales. In them one
color was contrasted against
another color or flutes accom-
panied solo lines of various
colors. There seemed to be an
endless variety of color, mainly
because the Schliker has three
manuals, each having its indi-
vidual sotps. Although each man-
ual has its own color, they are
designed to blend with one another
when coupled.
Mr. Peeters own work, “Sin-
fonia per Organo, Opus 48,” was
long but exciting—almost neo-
romantic in places.
The dramatic urogram was
well-articulated with excellent
registration. Everything went
well except the tuning. Mr.
Peeters performed remarkably.
Student Senate News
j_.ast Monday evening at tht
Senate meeting two resolutions
were passed. The first resolu-
tion to be acted upon was the
proposal of an increase in the
social activities fees to $7.50,
This resolution will now be pre-
sented to the Executive Regents
Committee for further action,
which will be taken this week.
The second resolution to be
acted oi was Pastor Mayer’s
proposal to combine the Cul-
tural Activities, Religious Ac-
tivities, and Social Activities
Committees. The combining of
the three committees into one
committee would reduce compet-
ition, provide a broader repre-
sentation base for campus-wid6
planning , and reduce potential
jurisdiction problems. The Sen-
ate moved to endorse Pastor
Mayer’s basic plan to combine
the three committees. This plan
will be taken before the college
Administrative Council further
action in the near future.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Lone Star Lutheran (Seguin, Tex.), Vol. 50, No. 10, Ed. 1 Friday, November 15, 1968, newspaper, November 15, 1968; Seguin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1170362/m1/2/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Texas Lutheran University.