Page 2
The Banner
Opinions
February 13,1997
The Banner
Editorial
Orwell's "1997"
For those of you old enough, remember back when 1984 rolled
around and everybody waited to see whether George Orwell’s
predictions in his novel “1984” made him into a prophet or
some kook? Well, at the time, most looked around at their
environment and chose the latter, noting that their private lives
were perfectly private, their dignity respected, and their work
place an observant, but not prying, place to make a living.
This is an age where nothing is private, where bathroom
conversations in the workplace might be recorded, and where
getting and maintaining employment requires you to urinate in
a little plastic cup to see what you’ve been doing the night
before. Perhaps Orwell’s novel should have been titled “1997.”
Isn’t it bad enough that every erect-standing human being has a
video camera on your every movement, waiting for one of two
scenarios. Either you’ll show up on tabloid television or
America’s Funniest Home Videos.
The drug-testing in the workplace, though, has gone a little too
far. Now, testing for some occupations is understandable. Pilots,
engineers, or those people who could endanger the lives of others
should be tested. But drug testing someone who works at Block
buster is about as logical as having Donnie and Marie Osmond
perform at the Apollo Theater.
It seems like America ran pretty well before the age of constant
supervision. The master plaft to tweak the American “machine”
may backfire when people get tired of beihg treated like chil
dren. Most people are much more responsible than they’re given
credit.
There is some modicum of dignity, privacy, and respect that
needs to be left to humans. But, if not, then everyone needs to
be drug tested, including the President, Bill Gates, your profes
sor, and everybody’s grandmother. When those who make the
rules are forced to live by them, they will truly be able to see how
I ridiculous many of them really are.
L-
ft
Editorial Board
Michael Taylor
Jennifer Thurston
Renee Slaydon
Brian Castle
Kyle S. Phipps
Del DeLorm
Matthew Gibson
Editor-in-Chief
Managing Editor
News Editor
Features Editor
Sports Editor
Photo Editor
Copy Editor
Staff
Rafrica Adams, Bonner Butler, Lara Barnett, Shelly Eller,
Elise Fox, Gary Gray, Robert Hardin, Kristi Howard,
Stephanie Hunter, Trish Johnson, Tracy Kelly,
Erin King, Melinda Pierson, Adrien Sanders, Kristin Scobie,
Chanse Simpson, Catharine Sutherland
Wendy McKinney
Thomas Estes
Nate Conroy
Advertising Manager
Circulation Manager
Electronic Editor
Columnists
Nate Conroy, James Hertsch, Pam Williams, Tracy Wilson
Mark West, faculty advisor
The Banner is the student newspaper of the University of North
Carolina at Asheville. We publish each Thursday except during
summer sessions, final exam weeks and holiday breaks. Our offices are
located in Carmichael Hall, Room 208-A.
Our telephone number is (704) 251-6586. Our campus e-mail
address is banner@unca.edu. An on-line version of The Banner is also
available at http://www.unca.edu/banner/
Nothing in our editorial or opinions sections necessarily reflects the
opinion of the entire Banner staff, the faculty advisor, or the
university faculty, administration or staff.
Unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of a majority of the Banner
editorial board. Letters, columns, cartoons and reviews represent only
the opinions of their respective authors.
The Bannerwtlcomes submissions of letters and articles for publica
tion. All submissions are subject to editing for clarity, content and
length and are considered on the basis of interest, space, taste, and
timeliness.
Letters should be typed, double-spaced, and should not exceed 300
words. Letters for publication should also contain the author's
signature, classification, major or other relationship with UNCA.
The deadline for letters is noon on Tuesday. If you have a
submission, you can send it to The Banner, 208A Carmichael
Hall, One University Heights, Asheville NC 28804.
The deadline for display ads and the FYI calendar is on Monday
at noon. The deadline for classified ads is at noon on Tuesday.
There's red tape everywhere
I’d like to share with you some
stories about bureaucratic bull-
s—t. The first is about an injury
I received last Monday, and the
second story is a tangent of the
first, though the stories them
selves are completely unrelated.
On February 3, 1997 at ap
proximately 9:30 p.m., 1 was in
Lipinsky Auditorium finishing up
my job as sound board operator
when I attempted to leap onto
the stage. I didn’t quite make it.
Instead of landing on the stage as
I had done earlier, I landed my
knee directly into the corner of
the stage.
The results were twisted or
strained tendons, a bruised knee
cap, and a lot of swelling. The
people present immediately
started first aid. My knee was
covered in ice and I was instructed
to alternate ice and heat every 15
minutes for approximately one
hour. I did so once I got home.
The next day, I attempted to get
permission to park in handi
capped parking, since I could
barely hobble 10 feet and could
not begin to climb a single stair.
Pam
Williams
columnist
let alone more than one. They
said I needed a doctor’s note. So,
I went to our school’s health facil
ity. And what did I encounter
there? I was asked if I had con
tacted the safety commisssion. I
had not. Then I was told I had to
do so in order to see the doctor. I
did.
I called the safety commission
office and spoke with whom I
believe to be the secretary. She
had many questions to ask me.
The following is a list of some of
the questions and my responses;
“I hurt my knee in Lipinsky Au
ditorium and need to see the doc
tor.”
“Did you notify the staff of
Lipinsky?”
“No, they weren’t theres it was
9:30 last night.”
“Did you go to the hospital?”
“No. I can’t afford emergency
rooms.”
“Was a faculty or staff member
present?”
“Yes.”
“How did you hurt your knee?”
“Jumping onto the stage.”
“Jumping onto the stage?”
“Yes.”
“You didn’t use the stairs?”
“No.”
Anyway, there were a few other
questions. My feeling is that they
just wanted to make sure I wasn’t
planning on suing the school.
Why would I? I jumped. I missed.
I got hurt. My fault. All I wanted
to do was see the doctor.
So after the phone call, I looked
at the nurse or secretary, and told
her I had informed the safety com
mission of my injury. She then
told me that the doctor could see
me at 3:30 p.m. At that time it
was 10:45 a.m., 30 minutes be
fore I had to be in Lipinsky for
the final performance of “Ham
let” for Arts 310.
I ranted and raved for a bit and
received a slip from the doctor
saying I needed a handicapped
parking sticker. I took that slip to
the parking office and received
another piece of paper to put in
my car dash, saying I had permis
sion to park in handicapped park
ing spaces. Lucky for me all
turned out well.
I’d like to take a moment to
thank all the people who had to
endure my brief outrage of our
system. Granted, the amount of
bureaucracy I had to deal with
was a lot less then what’s actually
out there, but that doesn’t make
much of a difference. It sucks to
be an honest soul in a society that
doesn’t trust anybody to begin
with.
How does this story relate to the
second story I mentioned at the
beginning of this column? Well,
I related my knee story to a friend
of mine, just before the “Hamlet”
performance, and she told me a
story about her parents having to
deal with even more bureaucratic
bulls—t. The following is a brief
summary of what her parents are
having to endure.
My friend’s (Jane’s) parents were
having a garage sale. They had set
up nice neat rows of the items
they wanted to sell. The sale had
been going well when a lady who
was looking at a bed backed up
(apparently without looking),
tripped, fell, and hurt herself She
left. But, she came back and
bought the bed.
A week passed and Jane’s parents
were served with papers. They
were being sued by the lady who
didn’t watch where she was going,
the lady who bought the bed. I’m
sure many of us can remember
when sue used to just be a name.
Anyway, this case is still tied up in
the courts.
Jane’s parents, luckily, accepted
checks and have called people who
were at their garage sale to be
witnesses for the case. Hopefully,
all will end well with this case.
What’s wron^ with America?
Nothing? Tons? We all have our
opinions.
I see a lot wrong with America
and next time I’ll tell you why I
think so.
You see, I was charged with a
felony last Thursday.
Crime and punishment at UNCA
Crime and punishment at
UNCA used to be about a stu
dent court, with all the adherent
trappings, trying an accused
transgressor and finding him
guilty or not guilty. Now, infrac
tion and sanction are about a
mixed-membership committee
holding a less formal dialogue
with a student to find out why he
committed an offense, and what
sanctions, if any, should be ap
plied.
Ergo, at the beginning of last
semester, the student court died,
and was replaced by something
else— the student conduct com
mittee. Some of the more impor
tant changes;
Sanctions processing through the
housing office. Cases can now be
processed by the housing office
in a form similar to administra
tive punishments or plea bar
gaining. If a student prefers not
to convene a committee, and pre
fers an expedited form of con
duct processing, they can do so
without dealing with a full com
mittee called for that purpose.
Under the old student court, this
was not an option, according to
Nancy Williams, associate hous
ing director.
Composition of the judging body
and the process of review. The old
student court was a peer-review
body, composed of several stu
dent judges. The newer commit
tee is composed of a mix of fac
ulty, staff, and students. Where
the student court used an
adversarial model ofjustice, based
on the U.S. court system, the
newer committee tends toward
an “educational” dialogue focus
ing on showing the offending stu
dent how his actions affected the
James
Hertsch
columnist
greater student community.
Sanctions processing. Originally,
cases were processed through the
office of the student prosecutor.
Now, two student interns em
ployed by the committee process
the cases, and speak with the stu
dents about what will happen
during a committee meeting.
There is no more student defender
or student prosecutor.
By many counts, the newer sys
tem is more efficient, more edu
cational, and more effective than
the old student court. But, I
have serious con-
and would go before the court
with a defender and a prosecu
tor,. in a manner very similar to a
criminal court—a structured pro
cess designed to determine guilt
or innocence, and to assess the
manner of the incident and how
it was reported.
Then, the argument against the
student court goes, this very struc
ture was intimidating and cum
bersome to a student—the very
formality of it would be a fright
ening experience.
On the other hand, the con
duct committee, according to lit
erature, focuses more on having a
“conversation” with a student, to
discover the circumstances sur
rounding his offense, before im
posing sanctions.
about
the rights of the
accused; what guarantee
is there that a student accused of
misbehavior will receive a “fair
shake” under this new system?
On the one hand, the old stu
dent court neglected the desire
for a “speedy” trial—a trial in
which a student’s pre-trial pro
cessing is taken care of in a timely
manner. The conduct committee
changes that. The student interns
process these cases more quickly
than did the old student court.
Also, it’s been noted, the student
court sometimes had trouble ob
taining a quorum to hold a trial.
Was this a reason to eliminate
the student court?
On the other hand, the old stu
dent court had a highly struc
tured, highly focused process in
which students were subpoenaed
I sup
pose there is a
certain value to this, but
I would argue that the very struc
ture that pervaded the old court
also provided a better way to ad
dress student rights, much in the
same way that a very elaborate
dance, with extremely specific
steps, keeps you from stepping on
your partner’s toes at the ball.
Besides, part of the point of all
that formality is to let the student
know that he’s in trouble.
Then, there’s the matter of the
interns, and of representation.
Part of my problem with the new
system comes into play in terms
of counsel and defense: part of
the point of the court, according
to literature, is to establish a “dia
logue” with the offending stu
dent, and to make sure he talks to
the committee, rather than nod
ding at all the right parts as he
used to be able to do.
Is this a good thing? Not neces
sarily. An individual student
doesn’t have the specialized
knowledge of procedure and codes
that an established “student de
fender” has—and, without this
sort of specialized knowledge, a
student may find himself lost,
dazed, or confused by circum
stances that might arise during his
session with the student conduct
committee.
Every effort to change the trial,
session, or whatever, into a “dia
logue” doesn’t change the fact that
any conduct-oriented session is at
its heart a confrontation between
a duly appointed authority figure
and an accused transgressor—and,
as any child knows, a caring
mother disciplining you wi'th love
can still intimidate just as much as
the stereotypical ruler-wielding
nun.
While a student can request the
presence of somebody to assist in
his defense, I happen to agree with
Stephen Gross, senior senator and
one of the critics of this commit
tee; who siad there needs to be an
established student defender, a
person whose sole job is to assist
an accused transgressor in going
before the conduct committee,
and to make sure he knows his
rights and responsibilities. Such
an office would be a great asset to
the process. While he might slow
it down a bit, he would still add a
certain needed brake to the pro
cess—something that could keep
the committee from being (some
time down the road) too efficient.
Whether anybody likes it or not,
the student court is relegated to
the dustbin of history. The con
duct committee won’t be going
away anytime soon. While I do
like the availability of simple sanc
tioning through the housing of
fice (something akin to adminis
trative punishment, rather than a
court-martial), I would hope that
a certain formality might be main
tained in this process, and that a
student defender, or student
defenderesque position, be estab
lished.
After all, there is something to
be said for a little bit of formality.