OPINION/EDITORIAL
Excellence Through Truth and Dedication”...Since 1948
April 12,2000 • the Seahawk
Thomas M. Ruyle - Editor-In-Chief
NDSEY M. Bland - Managing Editor
Martin J. Smiley - Advertising Director
Heidi Bing - News Editor
Megan O’Brien -A&EEditor
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&E Staff Writers: Jeff Grissett, Tori Boone, Kristi Singer (The Scene), Rachel
Cruz Sports Staff Writers: Kevin Farmer, Wes Melville, Amanda Breedlove, Rosa Tysor,
Lakesha Hatcher, Laura Southerland Photographers: Kathryn Schley, Corey Accardo, Laura
Lett Layout/Production: Lisa Williams. Lindsay LaClair Advertising Staff: Kim Byrd. Adam
Wright, Jigna Patel Disribution: 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, The Sea/iaw*and its staff
operate with editorial freedom; the views contained within The Seaha\^M. 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
editorials are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of The Seahawk staff.
Advertising content does not constitute an endorsement of the sen/ice by members of The Seahawk 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 National Federation of Press Women. The Seahawk utilizes
the Associated Press Newsfinder Service and Tribune Media Services for portions of content
Thomas ii. Ruyle
“View From the Dodo’s Nest”
“No commenf : SGA slogan of the week
As we get into the final month of the spring
semester, it’s apparent that not much has
changed around here from years previous. The
birds are singing, the bees are buzzing, and
the SGA presidential candidates are bickering.
Folks around here often complain that
UNCW doesn’t have much tradition. They just
haven't been looking in the right place.
Every year about this time, room 200 of
the University Union becomes a hotbed of ru
mor, petty politics and immaturity - a sure sign
that SGA elections are underway. Two or three
students campaign for the top spot, the SGA
presidency, a seat that carries huge responsi
bility, prestige and publicity; the race to win
that seat almost invariably devolves into a mess
just short of having “Monday Nitro” in the
SGA office.
Instead of the candidates concentrating on
runrung a clean, fair, and tactful campaign, they
seem to want to focus on their opponents’ cam
paigns, looking for the most minute violations
of SGA election rules. Rather than actively
addressing the issues of student concern, can
didates are busy filling out violation forms they
hope will get their opponent disqualified.
Now we have a situation where not just one
but two candidates have been disqualified, both
have appealed their disqualification, and the
SGA Elections Board has suspended the presi
dential election until “further notice.” To com
plicate matters even more, almost no one in
the SGA will say a word as to what the truth
behind this mess really is.
“No comment” has become the SGA
huzzwond of the week. Why the wall of se
crecy? What is really going on in room 200?
We can all take a lesson from that great sage
George Carlin, who once said. “No comment
is a comment.”
Even though only 417 students cared
enough to cast their vote, those 417 deserve to
know why the election is such a mess. Those
who voted, while they may have voted for a
variety of reasons, have earned the right to an
explanation. All students deserve it for that
matter; the students fund the SGA - it’s their
money.
There’s been some frustration lately to the
effect that SGA has no real power or influence
with the administration. Situations like this, a
simple election gone awry (which is becom
ing a rimal here), aren't helping the smdent
voice. Furthermore, it alienates the students
from their own SGA...if this keeps up, will
there even be a point in having the organiza
tion?
The SGA can take the fust steps to restor
ing their credibility this week. First, the Elec
tions Committee needs to be decisive about
candidates’ appeals and hold another presiden
tial election - rapidly. Additionally, suspend all
inaugurations until the presidential matter is
resolved. If the matter does go to the SGA Sen
ate for a final decision (like it did last year),
they need to have the legislature that was in
effect at the time of the elections decide the
outcome of it.
It’s too bad - for everyone at UNCW - that
the elections had to come to this. The SGA
has too much potential as a solid student voice
to waste time on petty politics.
_11
Editorial Viewpoint.
"J .tiJlliBW*
We agree: The “Mike debate” was good for campus
Ever since last August, The
Seahawk's op-ed page has played varia
tions on the theme that students at UNC
- Wilmington need to take a bigger stand
for things they believe in, that students
should express their opinions in larger
and more diverse numbers, and come out
in crowds for discussions even when the
words “FREE FOOD” are not present.
A week ago, the amphitheatre in the
commons saw its largest spontaneous
student crowd in months as several hun
dred students turned out at an event
staged by UNCW’s Christian student
groups.
It was promoted the same way that
other universities’ religious clubs have
promoted their events: by posting am
biguous signs alluding to a mysterious
“Mike,” they avoided the shrug-off re
sponse that usually accompanies an
nouncements of lectures and such. And
once it was “leaked” that the subject of
Wednesday’s rally was religion, a debate
was sparked that was a topic of conver
sation for days.
You have to admit that they accom
plished their stated purpose. They drew
a crowd to hear their message - and that
crowd wasn't afraid to debate other sides
of the issue which disagreed with Chris
tian doctrine.
Although there were tense moments
caused by overemotional members of
both camps, and although a week later
the subjects of religion and faith are no
less divisive than they were before the
event, two things deserve to be said
about the rally before it fades into the
collective memory of the campus as
exam week nears:
#\: Tart comments, chalkings, and
fliers aside, the “Do you agree with
Mike?” phenomenon started a mature
intellectual debate among many stu
dents at UNCW; and
#2: The student body proved that,
when motivated by emotion or even
plain old curiosity, it can appear in pub
lic in sufficient numbers to represent
diverse points of view on a topic which
is arguably the most important question
of our existence: "What higher power
is out there, and what does all of this
really mean, anyway?”
Agree with Mike or not. we should
agree that the effort’s result - a more so
cially conscious campus - was a step in
the direction UNCW needs to go.
Letter to the Editor
Why we dropped the filming fee
Dear Editor:
I would like to respond to the editorial titled.
“Administration Chooses Cameras over
Classes."
In the first place. I take some umbrage to
the opening line. “Once again the administra
tors at UNCW have taken a step which could
negatively impact the very student body they
are employed to nourish and promote." That
seems to me a bit of a cheap shot without pro
viding some specific reference to other in
stances where the university has made deci
sions that negatively impacted students. I would
hope that it would go without saying that this
administration is. in fact, dedicated to do ev
erything it possibly can to nourish and promote
the smdent body. We may not always be suc
cessful. or we may sometimes make decisions
students don't agree with, but if there are other
instances where we have failed, please be spe
cific so we might address them.
Second, regarding the general issue of the
issue of filming “Dawson’s Creek” on cam
pus, from everything we have been able to de
termine from Student Affairs, faculty organi
zations. etc. there has been a division of opinion
about whether “Dawson’s Creek” is a distrac
tion or an appreciated curiosity. In other words,
while everyone realizes that there is some dis
ruption when filming goes on on-campus.
many smdents as well as others have enjoyed
the notoriety of telling people that UNCW was
the location for “Dawson's Creek.” In short,
there has been no groundswell of complaints
about the disruplion of the acadeniic process.^/
Third, regarding the suspension of the
$1,000 fee for filming, we were officially re
quested by the state government, as were all
other state agencies, to do what we could to
reduce the cost of production for the film in
dustry. As you may be aware, the number of
productions filmed in the Wilmington area has
dropped dramatically over the last two years,
largely because of competition from Canada.
(In 1W7 production totals equaled $154 mil
lion, while 1999 totals were $89 million.) Since
the movie industry provides a major economic
infusion for Wilmington, we were encouraged
to assist them in every way possible so that
the industry could continue to operate in this
area. Whereas I would like the $IO,(XK) we
would gamer from “Dawson's Creek,” I would
much prefer to continue having the film in
dustry in Wilmington to provide jobs, intern
ships and direct support for our film studies
program. In short, I believe the film indusUy
is a great addition to our community, they have
always been a good friend to the university
and we would like to help them as much as
we reasonably can.
Finally, we have no intention of raising stu
dent fees in order to make up the $10,000 we
might lose for charging the film industry. The
connection between the $ 120 tuition increase,
which will net $2.3 million, and the $10,000
we will lose in this way is tenuous, indeed.
James R. Leutze
.tlNCW Chancellor