Page 2
The Banner
January 22,1998
Opinions
The Banner
Editorial
Roses and thorns
Mullens try to make a difference
Two UNCA professors are trying to make a difference in the
Asheville community. Dwight and Dolly Mullen of the political
science department are part of a 100-member task force charged
with improving the performance of students in the Asheville City
Schools. The Mullens, both longtime civil rights activists, are
seeking to remedy the plight of African-American students,
whose numbers are suffering from staggering dropout and
transfer rates and the few who make it to their senior year are
proving to be ill-prepared for standardized college entrance
examinations.
Unlike some members of the panel, the Mullens are not too shy
to discuss the potential hard solutions to these hard problems.
While the possibility of an Afrocentric school is controversial to
most people and unconstitutional to some, the statistics that
show the plight of African-American students in Asheville beg for
a thorough investigation of a scheme that has worked in many of
America’s major cities to improve the performance of African-
American students via culturally-sensitive education.
The Mullens should be commended for having the courage to
face the turbulence that always meets any sort of race-based
solution to one of society’s problems—even though the problem
in discussion may be affecting a particular race of people in a
disproportionate way and a race-based solution is the obvious
choice. j
Asbestos removed sans warning
Some UNCA students were shocked to discover danger signs
warning of asbestos removal in progress as they returned to their
dormitories early from the winter break. While administration
officials have assured us that the presence of asbestos in the floor
tiles in some of the Governor’s Village dorms poses no threat to
the residents, the administration should have told the students
about the presence of this known carcinogen before its removal .
What would the harm be in telling the students before they find
out purely by accident?
According to UNCA safety officer Tom Goddard, more asbes-
tos-laden tiles may be found during the ongoing survey of cam
pus buildings. We ask that the administration be a little more
forthcoming on future discoveries of asbestos on our campus,
particularly in the dorms.
Generation X awakes at last
After facing many years of contempt and ridicule at the hands
of the once socially-conscious baby boomers, some of the more
enlightened members of Generation X are trying to change the
world right here at UNCA. Led by a diverse group of visionaries,
GRASP UNCA is ruffling feathers and earning kudos from
fellow students during their daily demonstrations in the Quad.
What makes GRASP UNCA so different from past attempts at
campus activism? Whereas groups in the past have met with mild
success at their campus rallies (a short-lived burst of enthusiasm
for a worthy cause), GRASP UNCA is reaching for a long-term
commitment to changing the campus community for the better
as these groups are pooling their resources and joining forces to
make a difference. Yes, there is strength in numbers.
Phone rate hike proves ominous
UNCA cannot afford to cover the costs of BellSouth’s dial tone
charge, a necessary commodity for most of the university’s
resident population, yet the school can afford to foist the un
wanted $94,000 voice mail system on the dorm residents. While
UNCA Bookstore manager Mike Small, who oversees the
university’s phone and voice mail system, says that the voice mail
service is free, it appears that the students will be paying the
costs—just in another way.
The administration justified the implementation of the voice
mail system with a bogus survey that included the opinions of
commuter students, who should have had no voice in a program
that would more greatly affect the resident population. SGA
Senator Alphonso Donaldson has proven just how much the
residents want the voice mail systemhis own survey that included
only those opinions relevant—his fellow dorm residents.
Donaldson is a lone voice in the wilderness, but he has the
backing of the silent majority on campus and the administration
should listen to his concerns.
In remembrance of Dr. King...
Finally, this has been a week to remember the achievments and
celebrate the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, perhaps the
single greatest affector of social change that this country has ever
seen. While we all look back on the contributions of Dr. King in
our own ways, we canfeel his spirit of active, peaceful protest for
positive change all around us.
So, in remembrance of Dr. King, The Banner salutes those
students and faculty who have chosen to raise their voices in
peaceful dissent to those policies at UNCA and the Asheville
community that they see as significantly impeding the progress of
the people.
The logic of "pro-life feminism"
Jim Kirk
columnist
Twenty-five years ago, on Jan. 22,
1973, the United States Supreme
Court passed a ruling that would
radically change the American
moral landscape. It would set the
stage for a conflict that would di
vide the American people for de
cades to come.
That ruling was, of course, Roe vs.
Wade, and the abortion battle has
been, and still is, one of the most
divisive moral issues our country
has ever seen. The issue is as divisive
today as it was 25 years ago. The
tensions of the abortion conflict
have grown so bad, the division so
deep, that it seems forbidden even
to talk about it. Abortion is the
ultimate conversation killer.
For many, it has become only a
political battle between two oppos
ing groups. Others have stopped
caring—they just know they’re
“pro-life” or “pro-choice.” In some
ways the issue seems to have tran
scended abortion. To be “pro-life,”
at least in our public consciousness,
seerhs to entail much more than to
believe that the fetus is a real per
son; likewise, to be “pro-choice” is
to associate oneself with an alter
nate plethora of ideas and beliefs.
Apart from the group identity of
“pro-something,” probably most
people would be unable to defend
their position.
If we are to end this divide in our
country, honest discussion, not
political discussion, must take place
between real people. But what is
needed first is a resolution to the
conflict within each of us—a real
resolution to the moral dilemma of
abortion. I believe such a resolution
is possible and attainable within
this generation. Not a forced reso
lution of law, but a real end to the
moral confusion and struggle that
the last 23 years have borne witness
to, and the young people of our age
have inherited.
We may find this resolution in the
growing “Pro-Woman, Pro-Life”
movement, headed by the organi
zation Feminists for Life. Begun in
1972 by a woman forced out ot the
Feminists for Life of America
National Office
733 15''' Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-737-FFLA
Or, at their web site:
www.serve.com/fem41ife/
National Organization for Women
because of her pro-life beliefs. Femi
nists for Life seeks to carry on the
tradition of pro-life feminism.
Pro-life feminism? This may sound
like an oxymoron to many, but, in
fact. Feminists for Life finds its
inspiration in a strand of feminism
that is often ignored by the feminist
mainstream. Early feminists, such
as Mary Wollstonecraft, Susan B.
Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
and many more, understood abor
tion to be morally wrong in-itself,
but within the context of a society
that made it possible and prevalent.
They believed that abortion was a
symptom of deeper social prob
lems, and that it often only freed
men from the responsibilities of
fatherhood.
They called it “child-murder” (Su
san B. Anthony), “degrading to
women,” and “infanticide” (Eliza
beth Cady Stanton). Victoria
Woodhull, the first female presi
dential candidate, said, “The rights
of children as individuals begin
while yet they remain the foetus.”
Elizabeth Cady Stanton connected
the issue of abortion directly to
women’s struggle for freedom:
“When we consider that women
are treated as property, it is degrad
ing to women that we should treat
our children as property to be dis
posed of as we see fit.”
These women recognized the hu
manity of the fetus in a time before
ultrasound, before color in-the-
womb snapshots, before our in-
depth knowledge of fetal develop
ment. They recognized that what
ever the baby looks like in the womb,
which is remarkably like a baby
outside the womb, that is simply
what human beings look like at that
age. They recognized that the fetus
is a living organism. They affirmed
that that living organism was a real
person and to end its life was a
violent act.
In 1911, Emma Goldman, the
radical anarchist, made a sad obser
vation: “The custom of procuring
abortions has reached such appall
ing proportions in America as to be
beyond belief., so great is the mis
ery of the working classes that sev
enteen abortions are committed in
every one hundred pregnancies.”
How appalled would she be today,
when in our country 25 to 30 per
cent of all pregnancies are ended by
abortion?
Twenty-five years have passed
since our country legalized abor
tion. I n that time, we, as a country,
have managed to split into two large
factions. One side believes we are
murdering our children at a rate of
over 3,000 a day. The other side
ignores those people, often by writ
ing them off as extremists, and says
women must have access to abor
tion for a variety of reasons.
I wish there was a compromise
position. However, the sad fact of
the matter is, either that growing
organism in the womb of a woman
is a baby, a real human being, or it
is not. From a “I’ro-Woman, Pro-
Life” perspective, we can affirm both
the sanctity of human life and the
very real conflicts a woman with a
crisis pregnancy faces in our cul
ture. This, obviously, will not please
everyone, but it calls the pro-hfe
movement to do more than protest
and the pro-choice movement to
see that there is something wrong.
In our culture, abortion has be
come an accepted solution to crisis
pregnancy. Once it is seen, not as a
solution or a right, but as a painful
symptom, those who call them
selves “pro-life” and “pro-choice”
may come together to help women
in need.
Hopefully, one day soon we can
dispense with the labels entirely
and say with Mattie Brinkerhoff,
another early feminist: “When a
man steals to satisfy hunger, we
may safely conclude that there i.'
something wrong in society^—sq
when a woman destroys the life of
her unborn child, it is an evidence
that either by education or circum
stances she has been greatly
wronged.”
When the government breaks the law
As an environmentalist and park
activist, I have a choice when it
comes to advocating for our parks
and natural resources. 1 can jump
up and down and yell at the top of
my lungs that something is wrong
here, or 1 can convey the facts to
you and trust that your intuition
and intellect will do the rest,
hall began in 1989. Park officials
at the Blue Ridge Parkway decided
it would be more feasible to have
park headquarters at Hemphill
Knob on the parkway itself, rather
than the current location at the
BB&T building in downtown
Asheville. Innocent enough, right?
According to the 1970 National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
any federal action significantly af
fecting the quality of the human
environment must include the fol
lowing: a detailed statement by the
responsible official on the environ
mental impact of the action, any
adverse environmental effects which
would be unavoidable, a list of all
possible alternatives to the proposed
action, a comparison of short-term
benefits versus long-term produc
tivity, and any irreversible or irre
trievable commitments of resources
Julie
Pearson
columnist
involved in the proposed action.
Furthermore, NEPA requires that
the involved federal agency must
solicit comment from the general
public or from potentially inter
ested or affected pubhc or private
agencies before creating such a state
ment, known as an environmental
asssessment or an environmental
ronmental Quality. Here are the
facts.
The environmental assessment,
if you can call it that, was included
in a 1989 report entided. Develop
ment Concept Plan. It is about as
thick as my pinky fingernail is long,
and folks, I bite my nails (inciden
tally, a thorough environmental
impact statement can be about 2-3
inches thick). Aside from one his
torian and one Federal Highway
Administration engineer, the as
sessment was completed by a ream
of only parkway employees. No
publiccommentwassolicited. Con
struction on the headquarters be
gan in 1997; eight years after the
assessment was completed. More
roads and grading have taken place
than are included in the original
Craven Gap ...
3132' Us,
Folk Art Center*4«
.Visitor Center
jr
PAR
parkway
MAtmeNANCE
yN(T OFFICE
ASHEVILLET®"^ /
Dcmn»tw
HEAnOUAFlTERS
REGIOMAi
DESTINATION
CENTER 8
NeWPAR!>,'Ay
HEADQUAR'TeRS
390-
map COURTESY OF PARK WATCH
empact statement.
In August 1997, after much inves
tigation, the Western North Caro
lina Alliance (WNCA) took the
lead on the issue by filing a com
plaint with the Council on Envi-
plan or assessment. There is a fail
ure to justify the cost effectiveness
of relocating the headquarters, and
and the rejection of Alternative
B(continuation of existing condi
tions) remains unexplained and
unjustified. Included in the
parkway’s plan is the idea of build
ing, along with the headquarters, a
Regional Destination Center.
There is absolutely no environ
mental assessment of anv kind on
this proposed project, and yet con
struction continues. I'he superin
tendent himself commented in an
interview that “the visitors’ com
plex, to be called a Regional Desti
nation Center, has been in the
discussion stage since at least the
1 970s.” And yet, it was only briefly
mentioned in the Development
Concept Plan. Why is that? The
parkway clearly sought supporters
of the project, like Congressman
Charles Taylor, Advantage West
(an economic development/trade
association), and state legislators;
but the parkway failed to invite
public comment by local individu
als or agencies.
I think the real question here is
about more than just protecting
our resources. It’s about protect
ing our laws and the reasons be
hind them. The issue is clear.
NEPA has been violated. Oppo-
rients of the construction fear fil
ing an injunction against the Park
Service. For one thing, the con
tracting of the project is designed
in a way which allows the contrac
tor to be paid regardless ofwhether
or not the Park Service requests a
halting of all construction. This
may send some taxpayers into a
drade. Butarewe really going to be
silent and allow a federal agency to
ignore the law?
For more information, contact
Matt Dietz at WNCA at 2 58-8737.