Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / April 5, 2000, edition 1 / Page 12
Part of University of North Carolina Wilmington 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
1 O OPINION/EDITORIAL * ^ April 5,2000 • the Seahawk ‘‘"Excellence Through Truth and Dedication”...Since 1948 Thomas M. Ruyle - Editor-In-Chief Lyndsey M. Bland - Managing Editor Martin J. Smiley - Advertising Director Heidi Bwg - News Editor Megan O’Brien -A&E Editor Hugh Fisher - Sports Editor James Flint - Photo Editor Mai Hamrick - Copy Editor Hank McCauley - Webmaster Kevin Knight - Adviser Bill DiNome - Student Media Coordinator News Staff Writers: Allison Biggar, Somer Stahl, Rachel Healy, Anna C. Broome, Melissa Farquhar A 6 E Staff Writers: Jeff Grissett, Tori Boone, Kristi Singer-The Scene, Rachel Cruz Sports Staff Writers: Kevin Farmer,Wes Melville, Amanda Breedlove, Rosa Ty sor Photogra phers: Kathryn Schley, April Vamam, Corey Accardo, Chris Clapper, Natahe French, Laura Lett Layout/Production: Lisa Williams, Lindsay LaClair Advertising Staff: Kim Byrd, Adam Wright, Jigna Patel Disribution: Jeff Durham- Mgr., Angela Bjork, Lex Fennell The Seahawk Is published by the students of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, as a source of news for the University and surrounding community. As a forum for free expression, 777eSea/ian*and its staff operate with editorial freedom; the views contained within The Seahavk are those of its staff and do not represent those of the University. Material In the paper is produced, selected, and edited by the editorial staff and writers of The Seahawk. Unsigned editorials represent the opinions of the editorial board. Signed edito rials are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of The Seahawk Advertising content does not constitute an endorsement of the service by members of The Sea/iaivk staff. The Seahawk Is a member of the Associated Collegiate Press. Some individual staff members are affiliated with the Society of Professional Journalists and the fvlational Federation of Press Women. The Seahawk utilizes the Associ ated Press Newsfinder Service and Tribune Media Services for portions of content. Thomas M, Ruyle “View From the Dodo’s Nest” Liberty still reigns ■ even in the U.S. Senate Editorial Viewpoint... Administration chooses cameras over classes Last Wednesday, for the fourth time since 1989, a proposed amendment to our Consti tution that would make burning the Ameri can flag a federal crime failed to pass the United States Senate. It's nice that the ideals of liberty and free dom are still held by some members of our Congress - at least enough of them to pre vent a two-thirds majority in favor of the amendment, the brainchild of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Hatch and his ilk, notably Sen. Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), have taken it upon themselves amend the Constitution in order to make an act illegal. Unfortunately for them, this is the only tact they can take in order to curb the oh-so- common sight of flags being burnt. Back in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law banning flag-burning went against the First Amendment right of free speech and expression, and was therefore unconstitu tional. The only way around the Supreme Court is to amend the constitution. But the Constitution was not written by the founding fathers as the basis of criminal law; it was written to define what the rights of Americans are. Almost without exception, amendments to the constitution have been made for the benefit of all Americans. The notable exception was the 18* Amendment, which prohibited alcohol - an amendment that lasted a mere 14 years before being re pealed. And why do these men believe that such an amendment is necessary anyway? It’s not like there’s been a massive rash of group flag-bumings on the steps of the Capitol building. To make a bad joke, it’s really not a burning issue. How often do flags get burnt? The act of burning the flag is quite re pugnant. I don't think that burning the flag is a very good way to express dissatisfac tion with any given issue. It just looks stu pid and does not lend any real credibility to the one doing the burning. Heck, it’s down right dangerous, too. But in this nation, the home of true free dom of speech and expression, we have the right to air any grievances against our gov ernment, provided we do it in a civil, non violent fashion. Not everyone will like it, not everyone will agree, but that’s the way we’ve done it in the United States for well over two centuries - and there’s absolutely no reason to change it now. If any fires do need to be lit, it’s under the rear ends of these legislators who show such complete disregard for the First Amend ment and principles of American freedom and think they must force their version of patriotism upon us. There are much more important issues our Congress needs to spend its valuable time on. Once again, the administrators at UNCW have taken a step which could negatively impact the very student body they are employed to nourish and promote. About ten thousand of us, residents and com muters alike, utilize the buildings, roads and paric- ing facilities on campus each week. It is bad enough to have to contend with awkwardly de signed roads, inadequate parking, and cyclists and drivers who don’t follow the rules of the road. But several times a semester, in addition to the above, we must also endure the production company which films Dawson’s Creek as they use our grounds for scenes in their television show. This causes entire sections of the campus - not necessarily vital ones, but nonetheless parts of the University we pay to attend - to be crowded and in many cases off-limits to vehicles and even pe destrians. In at least one instance, a classroom building was used - and classes relocated - in order to ac commodate filming. This is completely unac ceptable. What makes it worse is, now they can do it for fiee. For the privilege of coming onto campus and filming, each production group has been paying the campus $ 1,000 per session, which according to a press release issued last week was used for “scholarships and grounds maintenance.” The university announced last week that it will waive these chaiges from now on, in exchange for filmmakers’ “contributing to an archive.. .of movies, television shows, [and] commercials.. .shot in Southeastern North Caro lina,” as well as “providing greater visibility for UNCW and the UNCW Him Studies Program whenever possible.” Congratulations, Seahawks! The same uni versity that recently raised student fees by $120 have now given away the potential to make more than $10,000 in an academic year, all in the name of self-promotion. How can we justify allowing this to happen? Although the companies will still pay fa iaj. dental costs such as traffic control, it seems as if they will now have carte blanche to film at UNCW without providing any substantial return, except for some film clips here and there, and the chance for some film studies students to get closa to the camera. And whens will the moneys fw grounds-keq> ing and scholarships come fiom in the fiiture? Where else? Stand by for another hike, as UNCT' works to keep its position as the university with the highest student fees in the system. It is true that the city of Wihnington and New Hanover County don’t charge filmmakers forihe privilege of making their movies around town ■ although they do charge for the same traSBc-re- laled expenses as UNCW says it will. But con sider the impact on Wilmington versus the im pact on our campus. If they block off Front Street for an afternoon, a few cars get rerouted and perhaps a store ortwo is closed. On the other hand, filming draws people downtown, where they most likely also dine or shop at businesses there. There’s reason to allow fi^e filming there - because filming in that area might actually serve to strengthen the local economy. But filming on campus dismpts students’ rou tines, clogs the campus with fiirthCT traffic, and diverts security and infrastmcture resources away from their intended use: edMcaftbn.Andnow.our administrators have chosen to forego even the smallest payment in exchange for the disruptions that filming causes. This University exists to promote learning and enlightenment, not films and TV dramas. But once again, UNCW has chosen to pn> mote something other than the purpose for which it exists. With less money for more hassle, once again the students end up on the short end of the stick.
University of North Carolina Wilmington Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 5, 2000, edition 1
12
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75