By AMY ROBERTSON

In the last issue of the Westerner, Mary Ann Crosby warned that violence will prevail in order to accomplish change if conventional methods do not work. She referred to the December 18 meeting of Student Council as proof of her point. During that meeting, several students walked out because, according to Larry Portman, president, they would not be allowed to speak except on open discussion days.

After the group walked out, Council supposedly changed that rule and decided that anyone could speak. Mary Ann, therefore, assumed that the semi-violent method of a walkout accomplished its desired goal. That assumption would be true except for one tiny, minute fact.

Long before the walkout occurred, Student Council had decided that all members of the student body had (have) the right to speak during Council meetings as long as they follow correct procedure. That has been the policy for several years, Larry, unfortunately, misinterpreted the policy thus causing the "shock treatment" of a walkout.

According to Mary Ann, the technique of a walkout achieved the desired effect. In this case that was partially true. The policy was clarified. The walkout, however, was not needed. If those students had remained in the meeting or had come back later, which they have not, they could have encouraged Council to change what they thought needed changing.

Sometimes violence or the shock treatment are the only methods that can accomplish change. (the American Revolution, etc.) Sometimes it is needed. Sometimes it's good. But violence should only be a last resort.

One attempt to accomplish the desired goal through the "system" hardly constitutes the basis for resorting to "violence." We sure are in bad shape when we give up after only one try in anything, especially when all it takes to achieve our goal is to communicate.