ustxtxb_obs_1969_10_24_50_00002-00000_000.pdf

for one moment have considered scrutinizing his philosophical competence, because this sort of rhetoric, however “appallingly bad,” on these ceremonial occasions is acceptable. One simply mustn’t play fast and loose with radical ideas such as sex education in the schools, nationalizing the banks, or abolishing the depletion allowance. Caroline seemed then to be advocating one of those political revolutions that are regarded as the speciality of Europe and John Sullivan this issue takes up the question of Lawrence Caroline’s dismissal from the University of Texas at Austin. His three-part series will conclude in the next issue with his consideration of student and faculty power and reforming the power structure of the university. Persons mentioned prominently in any of the three articles will, in a short time, be sent copies of Dr. Sullivan’s series and invited to reply in the November 21 issue following Sullivan’s third article, which will run Nov. 7. The Observer has begun receiving written responses to the series; these are being held for publication in the Nov. 21 issue. Dr. Sullivan has asked that we amend a note that appeared in the previous issue; he is one of several editors not the editor of Anion, a journal of humanities and the classics published quarterly by the classics department at UT-Austin. Incorporating the State Observer and the East Texas Democrat, which in turn incorporated the State Week and Austin Forum-Advocate. We will serve no group or party but will hew hard to the truth as we find it and the right as we see it. We are dedicated to the whole truth, to human values above all interests, to the rights of man as the foundation of democracy; we will take orders from none but our own conscience, and never will we overlook or misrepresent the truth to serve the interests of the powerful or cater to the ignoble in the human spirit. Editor, Greg Olds. Associate Editor, Kaye Northcott. Editor-at-large, Ronnie Dugger. Business Manager, C. R. Olofson. Business Manager Emeritus, Sarah Payne. Contributing Editors, Elroy Bode, Winston Bode, Bill Brammer, Lee Clark, Larry Goodwyn, Harris Green, Bill Hamilton, Bill Helmer, Dave Hickey, Franklin Jones, Lyman Jones, Larry L. King, Georgia Earnest Klipple, Larry Lee, Dave McNeely, Al Melinger, Robert L. Montgomery, Willie Morris, James Presley, Charles Ramsdell, John Rogers, Mary Beth Rogers, Roger Shattuck, Robert Sherrill, Dan Strawn, John P. Sullivan, Tom Sutherland, Charles Alan Wright. The editor has exclusive control over the editorial policies and contents of the Observer. None of the other people who are associated with the enterprise shares this responsibility with him. Writers are responsible for their own work, but not for anything they have not themselves written, and in publishing them the editor does not necessarily imply that he South America, whose results Hilaire Belloc once summed up: The awful power that rests on privilege, That goes with Women and Champagne and Bridge, Broke and Democracy resumed its reign, That goes with Bridge and Women and Champagne. On Revolution There are in fact a number of associations in America which proclaim the validity of revolution and even seem to glory in the bloodshed it entails: the two most notorious are the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Daughters of the Republic of Texas. Their tendency to corrupt American youth is deplored by some, but I suspect that most, perhaps all, of their views are well within the protection of the U.S. constitution. Unlike these bloodthirsty ladies, however, most Englishmen, for instance, don’t have much confidence in violent revolutions. They prefer, as in 1945, to go to the polls. \(On the other hand, they do have a more Their objection to revolution, military or popular, is, I think, that some of the most ghastly people float to the top: think of Robespierre, Alexander Hamilton, Joseph Dzhugashvili, and those terrible Greek colonels and South American generals. On the other hand, one can’t honestly say that agrees with them, because this is a journal of free voices. The Observer is published by Texas Observer Publishing Co., biweekly from Austin, Texas. Entered as second-class matter April 26, 1937, at the Post Office at Austin, Texas, under the Act of March 3, 1879. Second class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Single copy, 25c. One year, $7.00; two years, $13.00; three years, $18.00; plus, for Texas addressees, 41/4% saleS tax. Foreign, except APO/FPO, 50c additional per year. Air-mail, bulk orders, and group rates on request. Editorial and Business Offices: The Texas Observer, 504 West 24th St., Austin, Texas 78705. Telephone 477-0746. Editor’s residence phone, 472-3631. Change of Address: Please give old and new address and allow three weeks. Form 3579 regarding undelivered copies: Send to Texas Observer, 504 W. 24th, Austin,.Texas 78705. Subscription Representatives: Arlington, George N. Green, 1202 S. Pecan, 277-0080; Austin, Mrs. Helen C. Spear, 2615 Pecos, 465-1805; Beaumont, Betty Brink, 2255 Harrison, 835-5278; Corpus Christi, Penny Dudley, 1224% Second St., 884-1460; Dallas, Mrs. Cordye Hall, 5835 Ellsworth, 821-1205; El Paso, Philip Himelstein, 331 Rainbow Circle, 584-3238; Ft. Worth, Dolores Jacobsen, 3025 Greene Ave., 924-9655; Houston, Mrs. Kitty Peacock, PO Box 13059, 523-0685; Lubbock, Doris Blaisdell, 2515 24th St.; Midland, Eva Dennis, 3523 Seaboard, 694-2825; Snyder, Enid Turner, 2210 30th St., 443-9497 or 443-6061; San Antonio, Mrs. Mae B. Tuggle, 204 Terrell Road, 826-3583; Wichita Falls, Jerry Lewis, 2910 Speedway, 766-0409. revolutions are always bad except perhaps the yearly ones in the car industry. It depends on circumstances, really. The French Revolution, as schoolboys say, was A Good Thing; the Russian Revolution was A Good Thing for the Russians, but A Bad Thing for other people; the American Revolution was, presumably, despite Thoreau, A Very Good Thing \(not least because my sovereign liege has enough trouble dealing with the Principality of Wales and rebel Rhodesia, and I don’t know what She’d do with the thirteen 1 I should add that I am not familiar enough with the facts of the Texas Revolution to say whether that was A Good Thing or A Bad Thing certainly most white, Anglo Texans have no objection to it. The trouble with revolution, whether violent like the American Revolution or non-violent like the Glorious Revolution of 1688, is that it tends to be messy think of all that tea floating in Boston harbor! Coups-d’etats, as in Greece, Panama, Thailand, and Argentina, tend to be a little more efficient than popular uprisings, such as the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or the recent Czech riots. So America is probably rather sensible in backing military dictatorships instead of the messier populist movements. It must be confessed however that American thinking on the subject of revolution is fascinating to the foreigner. It is alternately glorified and vilified, depending on the wings from which the actors emerge, and it comes as rather a surprise to find Sen. Frank Church taking a calmer view of the revolutions around the world, arguing that the United States “must and can learn to live with widespread revolutionary turmoil. We must because it is not within our means to stem the tide; we can because social revolution is not nearly so menacing to us as we have supposed or at least it need not be. If we can but liberate ourselves from ideological obsession from the automatic association of social revolution with Soviet or Chinese power . . . We should find, 1 think, that some revolutionary movements including even communist ones will affect us little, if at all; that others may affect us adversely, but not grievously; and that some may even benefit us.” 2 Normally, however, American thinking about revolution is much simpler. That great stand-by of freshmen English courses, Henry David Thoreau, comes right out with it: All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. And this simple revolutionary philosophy seems to lie behind the avowed positions of groups opposed to stiffer gun laws in the United States. Roughly, everyone must be allowed to have guns because, ‘one day, there may be an THE TEXAS OBSERVER @ The Texas Observer Publishing Co. 1969 A Journal of Free Voices 63rd YEARESTABLISHED 1906 A Window to the South Vol. LXI, No. 21 7’77:7 October 24, 1969