"Rather than extolling his little buddy for
his narrow conceptualization of Black athe-
letes, [he] ought to make sure his little buddy
is aware of other great Black men..."
By Peter Henry
Contributor
On OcL 23,1990, a sculpture
called “The Student Body” was
mounted in front of Davis Library.
Since that time, there has been ex
haustive debate over the merits
and faults of this work. Although
no consensus has been reached as
to whether the statues constitute a
racist/sexist piece of work or sim
ply an innocuous artistic expres
sion, Chancellor Hardin has rec
ognized that more than an insig
nificant portion of the student body
takes great offense to the place
ment of “The Student Body” in
front of their library.
The purpose of this commen
tary is not to debate whether the
decision to move the statues to a
new, less conspicuous site—be
tween Hamilton and Bynum halls
— is sufficient redress to those
were White, because everybody
knows that Blacks can play bas
ketball ...” Mr. Hunsaker also
tells us that when asked why the
player was carrying a book, his
little buddy responded that the
player needed to study in order to
graduate before going to the NB A.
Furthermore, Mr. Hunsaker
ends his letter by asserting that
his little buddy “... has a better
grip on the statues and what they
are all about than a lot of people
on this campus....”
First of ^1, it is nothing short
of amazing that the statements by
the 11-year-old, whom Mr. Hun
saker views as having a healthy
understanding of the statues, rep
resent precisely the kind of nar
row-minded thinking that Black
students are constantly trying to
dispel. This kind of thinking is in
sulting. It is insulting because
Black men do more than play
Endsights
who have been offended. Rather,
this editorial will address a much
larger problem, one of which the
statue is merely a symptom.
Racial ignorance continues to
plague our campus and commu
nity. The letter to The Daily Tar
Heel, “11-year-old has afum grip
on statue issue,” is a disheartening
reminder that all the debate and
protest evoked by the statue issue
has failed to affect at least one
individual.
In the letter, Mr. Eric Hun
saker tells us that he is tired of the
statue ordeal and relays an ac
count of his 11-year-old little
buddy’s reaction to the Black
basketball player. Mr. Hunsaker’s
little buddy (who is Black) likes
the stable and thinks "... it
wouldn’t make sense if the statue
basketball (or any other sport),
and some athletes are genuinely
interested in their classes and do
not simply view education as an
eventuality on the road to a pro
fessional career.
About a month ago, I had the
pleasure of having breakfast w ith
a Carolina football recruit. This
young Black man scored 790 on
the mathematics section of the
SAT and wants to major in math
education. Not once in our con
versation was there a mention of
professional or even college foot
ball. This young man is one ex
ample, although others can be
cited, of the fact that Black ath
letes and Blacks in general, are
capable of genuine intellectual
curiosity. Although thweare some
Black sithletes (just as there are
ics in 1979.)
Unfortunately, the most dan
gerous thing about allowing people
to believe that it is acceptable to
portray Black men exclusively as
athletes (even if they graduate
before they go to the NBA) is that
it brooks racial ignorance. This
writer has no personal quarrel with
Mr. Hunsaker, but as long as he
believes that his little buddy’s
opinion on the statue of the male
basketball player is healthy, then
Mr. Hunsaker is doing a disservice
to that young Black man.
Rather than extolling his little
buddy for his narrow conceptuali
zation of Black athletes, Mr.
Hunsaker ought to make sure his
little buddy is aware of “other great
Black men” such as Marcus Gar
vey, Michael Manley and Mal-
cohn X. Perhaps Mr. Hunsaker
might profit from such an aware
ness himself. He will then be bet
ter equipped to help his little buddy
overcome the forces that threaten
to keep him, and countless other
Black males, from achieving their
academic potential.
some White athletes) who view
higher education as nothing more
than a four-year hiatus between
high school and professional
sports, it is wrong to perceive all
Black athletes in this manner. To
laud a young boy for harboring
such thoughts is patently evil.
The fact that the statements in
the letter that reflect negatively on
Black men came from a young
Black boy underscores the danger
of allowing stereotypical state
ments to go unchecked. The only
statue of a Black male on this
campus is of a basketball player; it
reinforces and perpetuates the idea
that the only impcHlant B lack males
are those who play basketball. The
statue does not let the 11 -year-old
know that there are very few Black
males who possess the talent that
will afford them a level of profi
ciency in their sport that, in turn,
merits their immortalization in
bronze.
Furthermore, the statue does
precious little to make the young
ster cognizant of the fact that
“Blacks can play basketball” not
because their innate gifts lie in
athletic expression, but rather be
cause a cruel system of cyclo-pov-
erty and other factors too exten
sive to enumerate excludes vast
numbCTS of Black males from ad
ditional sectors of opportunity.
Consequently, Black male youths
have concentrated on developing
their skills in other areas.
There are many cases through
out history of oppressed peoples
attaining disproportionately high
success rates in caiain professions
because they were banned from
other avenues of opportunity. This
theory has been espoused by schol
ars such as the great West Indian
economist Sir Walter Arthur
Lewis, who is Black. (His basket
ball career was cut short when he
won the Nobel Prize for Econom
Base Scholarships
On Need, Not Race
To the Editors,
First of all, congratulations for putting together a thought-
provoking and well-written magazine. And what’s more—putting
it together weekly! I hope (and believe) Black Ink will have
continued success.
But this is not my reason for writing. I’d like to bring up some
questions about Debbie Baker’s article supporting racially-based
scholarships. I can understand that many poor African Americans
deserve financial aid to get an education. But why should a pow
African American be given preference over an equally poor white?
Or, for that matter, a poor Asian, Hispanic or Native American? To
say that African Americans deserve special scholarships simply
because they are African American strikes me as degrading and
racist. It seems to imply that African Americans are somehow
disabled and require special help. It may seem to confirm the
patronizing, racist views of many whites. A disproportionate number
of African Americans deserve financial help—butbecause they are
poor, not because they are African American.
One more point: I don’t think Ms. Baker should personally
attack Michael Williams (the federal official who stated that
racially-based scholarships are illegal). Ms. Baker called Mr.
Williams an “Uncle Tom” and said that “...he has no soul nor any
compassion or concern for people of African descent.” I think Mr.
Williams can disagree with Ms. Baker and still have a soul and
concern for other African Americans. In any case, who cares about
Mr. Williams? He’s not the issue. The problems African Americans
face is the issue. Throwing around accusations like ‘Uncle Tom’
and ‘Oreo’ does nothing to solve these problems. In fact, by
attacking the individual instead of the argument, I think one tends
to confuse real and troubling issues.- Grant Thompson
Express yourself about issues that concern
Black Ink readers. Drop your article by
Suite 108-D Student Union, or mail to
Black Ink, CB# 5210, Student Union,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
NC 27514
Black Ink Meeting
Tonight
Room 226 Carolina Union 6:30
All Faculty and Students Invited
s
ST
n
7T
to
O
c
to
•3
to
oo