Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / Nov. 14, 1984, edition 1 / Page 3
Part of University of North Carolina at Asheville Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Wednesday, November 14,1984/THE BLUE BANNER/3 Witness — continued from page 2 "Children of a Lesser God" is not a pretty ideal ized picture of deaf people or of hearing people. It is a play about human beings with slices of reality included: pre-marital sex, marriage, anger, joy, frustration, misunderstanding, and many other ele ments within the conflicting panorama of life. The administrators of the visiting highschoolers balked when the play did not meet their fairytale ex pectations. The play was too wide for their tunnel vision. As the kids hurried out the door, a young person cried, "Why are they (the administrators) do ing this to us?" Hopefully, those (100 or so) kids will remember that Saturday night for the rest of their lives. Maybe they will turn their anger into thinking. They might say to themselves, "I have the right to make up my own mind, to be able to choose for myself. With out choice I am a slave, chained at the brain." We should think about this situation too. Let us join with the highschoolers and ask, "Why are tliey doing this to us?" Next time we feel herded away from a question or hurried away from a conflicting point, let us be strong enough to think for our selves . Tell the narrofw-minded leaders to keep their chains away. Let us have the courage to let reality appear in all its roughness, to let questions con front, us whether in everyday life or in a play. As Victor Hugo wrote, "What matters deafness of the ear, when tiie niind hears. The one true deafness, the incurable deafness, is that of the mind." Let us open our minds to hear despite the actions of those who would tiave us close down and follow one narrow point of view. Signed, Grant Fost BJl. UNCA student Bradley blasts SGA By Carol Ann Bradley Sorry folks, no smiles and giggles this week. Student Government has done some very valuable things, but it also over looks some of the major problems facing students on the UNCA campus. SGA tends to tie some programs up in red tape. For example, wliat ever happened to the RAPE prevention PKCXaAM? It was established Fall 1983, prior to the on- campus rape last semes ter. Also, SGA tossed around the idea of a CHILD CARE FACILITY, but nothing concrete has come out of it. Last spring SGA passed a resolution to obtain ICE MACHINES for the dorms, but whatever be came of it? How many students enjoy walking across the dark camjnis after nightfall? SGA proposed two solu tions: BETTER LIGiiriNG and an ESCORT SERVICE. What happened to these ideas? As an SGA senator I understand that part of the problem is a lack of funding. However, it is possible to obtain money if one is willing to work for it. When administration says "NO", SGA has a tendency to just let the idea slide. After all, it is hard work to obtain money from outside sources. There are many hard working people in SGA this year. However, the cohesiveness of a team does not exist. There is too much political cot^c- tition, too lauch power struggle. The recent case of Doug Miller is just one exara~ pie of how SGA struggles against itself. The pro cess of making rules and regulations lias in many ways taken precedence, over acheiving the goal of a better UNCA. It is for this reason that I, in rny second year as senator, will tender Boy resignation at the end of this semester. SGA's mottO' used to be "SGA: The People Who Care." Now I wonder what we care about. m OA Mi/rtf^ "SAWlWaE ,, VtOLEUCE" waim fmt'ti imtixs 9 ##• " OM eueRR\UA lAAMUU., CHl&F I B&BN WT 'iNtTH A. Betts defends her position Dear Editor: As the faculty member responsible for arranging the film "US vs USSR: Who's Ahead?" for the Humanities 414 classes, I am responding to the Phil Ross "Apology Called For" piece in the Nov. 7 Blue Banner. Mr. Ross and other students are of fended at "our faculty’s brazenness in scheduling such a blatantly political pro gram a day before the election." The film on the arms race was brought to campus by Gary Krane, producer-di- rector. It was a 19d4 first place award winner at the American Film Festival and is being promoted by the Washington-based Center for Denfense Information. The Center is directed by retired US Navy Rear Admiral Gene R. LaRocque. fhe film features President Reagan in a series of statements on American military preparedness (or lack therof), with rejoinders trom fonnor CIA airector William ColDy and retired /klmiral Hainan iackover^ amon- others. ihe rejoinders challenge the president’s interpretation of tlie nations's defense capabilities, ultimately challenging the necessity and desirability of increased defense spending, the arms race, and "peace through strength." A major theme argues that numbers of warheads or conventional weapons are insignificant witlx)ut an overall consideration of defense strategy. Mr. Krane is traveling with his film under a small grant from the Arms Race Education Project. He chose to come to tliis area; we did not invite him. He contacted me with an offer to show the film and field questions. The ^k)nday showing was the best date for both our schedules, given the fact that he con tacted me only a few days before. Since Humanities 414 considers contemporary issues and poses questions with respect to ways in wliich people and society make decisions, I felt this film presented a legitimate opportunity to extend course themes beyond assigned reading, and beyond presentations by 414 staff. As it happened, Mr. Krane brought with his film his own political agenda. If those defense experts interviewed in the film (and I do believe that reason able people would find the "witnesses" credible) question President Reagan's position on preparedness and military spending, it is not surprising tliat the producer-director would also liave an unfavorable view of the president's posi tions. Mr. Krane criticized the president’s positions, and he criticized the president as well. Krane responded in a simplistic fashion, saying essentially that leaders may indeed mislead (lie) and ttiat Reagan specifically is guilty of misleading. It was clear that Krane was no fan of the president or of Jesse Helms. Krane told the audience that they should work for Jim Hunt if they were concerned about the arms race and even noted at one point that the Hunt campaign could use volunteers Monday evening. As I understand it, Mr. Ross's disgust revolves around several points, (quoting from his letter): 1. "The film made Reagan look like a fool." 2. The guest speaker "made no effort to hide his anti-Reagan bias." 3. Krane called Reagan "a liar." 4. Students deserve "objective instruction." 5. The program was scheduled the day before the election. The classroom is no place to furthur personal political objectives. Overall, Mr. Ross was insulted by the faculty's participation in scheduling such a program. He allows that the faculty may have been "unaware that the pro gram would turn out to be a personal attack on Reagan." Mr. Ross admonishes that "more care should be taken in selecting outside speakers to insure a minimum of future ax-grinding." As a sociologist, I often find myself forced to confront issues wherein individuals and groups have strong opinions. Consequently, I liave thought a great deal about "objectivity" and appropriateness of material. I would like to deal with Mr. Ross's points individualy—as I see their merits from my perspec- Continued on page 5
University of North Carolina at Asheville Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 14, 1984, edition 1
3
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75