Page 2
Sunday, February 6, 1966
I he Satin Uar
Opinions of The Daily Tar Heel are expressed in its
editorials. All unsigned editorials are written by the $:
editor, letters and columns reflect only the personal
views of their contributors.
:i ERNIE McCRARY. EDITOR
The Student Speaks
Academic Freedom At Stake
,'fw t i ,-,-r,'
Don't Lose Your Cool
No doubt about it. The University is embroiled in
a full-blown controversy.
Tempers are prone to blaze and rationality tends
to evaporate under such strained conditions. Rumors
are flitting about campus rumors of demonstra
tions . . . strikes . . . marches . . . lawsuits.
Such rumors are received with joy around the
state by those who harp about the lack of student re
sponsibility. They say such threats prove students are
too immature and reckless to be allowed to hear a
Communist. .
They are right if the threats are real.
Such talk right now is the result of sheer emotion
alism our own version of the same kind o( emo
tionalism which is leading the oppostion to Herbert
Aptheker's appearance here.
We have no hope nor reason to expect considera
tion if we approach the problem with a "we'll-show-em"
attitude. These threats, either real or potential,
constitute such an attitude.
It is a poorly conceived idea for a horde of stu
dents and faculty members to descend on the trust
ees' meeting in Raleigh Monday. We have taken our
stand in support of the freedom of the University and
the trustees are aware of that stand. Flocking to the
meeting, or carrying out any other threats, will neith
. er win friends nor influence people.
Such actions are an indication of panic. If we pan
ic now, we do not have a chance.
Ban Perversion, Lust
The time for action is long overdue. How much
longer can we afford to let our complacency endan
ger the healthfulness of the psychological environ
ment of our children? When will we rid ourselves of
this insidious threat to moral decency?
"Little Red Riding Hood" must be banned.
For years we have allowed our youngsters to be
subjected to this gruesome tale of lust, perversion
and violence without so much as the bat of an eye.
In fact, many children become acquainted with the
story at bedtime when their parents tell it to them for
jun.
Worse yet, some of our school teachers confess to
repeating the tale in public school classrooms. Is it
any .wonder then, that the courts have ruled that the
classroom is an unfit place fof prayer? 1J . ' - . i
Maybe you're among that vast majority of naive
adults who has always taken the story for granted,
as just another fanciful children's legend. That's just
why it's so dangerous, though it reems so innocent.
Stop a minute and really think about the implica
tions of the story. What's wrong with Little Red Rid
. ing Hood? Why does she continue to place herself in
danger by making these frequent trips to Grandma's
house? It's obvious that she is severely maladjusted
and has a strong death-wish personality. At the least,
she is a born trouble maker.
The wolf is definitely a sexual pervert. If he
weren't a transvestite, why would he want to dress
up in Grandma's clothes? Furthermore, he tries to
lure the little girl to his bed to "gobble her up"
transparent symbolism for sexual assault.
, Disrespect for elders is taught poor old Grand
ma is manhandled and shoved in a closet like a sack
of laundry. But the woodsman tops it all when he
enters and "saves" the "helpless" girl by whacking
the wolf with his ax. Such undiluted bloody gore is
shocking, even to mature adult minds. Think what
it must do to those youngsters. Some of them may
suffer personality damage from which they will never
recover. Look what happened to Lizzie Borden, or her
parents, anyway.
Hanover County, Virginia, has set a recent notable
ban example by outlawing To Kill a Mockingbird. If
Chapel Hill is to retain its reputation for progres
siveness it can hesitate no longer in the face of such
competition from our northern neighbors.
The only way to build strong character in our
children is to protect them from ideas which might
damage their development. We must rid our homes
?and classrooms of this filth.
"Little Red Riding Hood" has to go.
hV SaUy (Ear w
: :
72 Years of Editorial Freedom :j
:: The Daily Tar Heel is the official news publication of 5
the University of North Carolina and is published by 5
students daily except Mondays, examination periods and $
v.: vacations. :j
v. X
'
g Ernie McCrary, editor; Barry Jacobs, associate editor;
:: Pat Stith, managing editor; Andy Myers, news editor;
Gene Rector, sports editor; Jim Coghill, asst. sports $
g editor; Kerry Sipe, night editor; Grady Hubbard, wire $
editor; Bill Fesperman, religious editor; Ernest Robl, jj:
: photographer; Chip Barnard, editorial cartoonist; David ::
;:j Rothman, columnist; Carol Gallant, secretary; Ed
; Freakley, Bob Harris, Glenn Mays, Steve Lackey, Steve i
:g Bennett, staff writers; Wayne Hurder, Ron Shinn, Mike S
O'Leary. copy editors; Gene Whisnant. Bill Rollins, Bill $
Hass, Sandy Treadwell, Drummond Bell, sports writers, x
x
Second class postage paid at the post office in Chapel x
$j Hill, N. C, 27514. Subscription rates: $4.50 per semester; S
$8 per year. Send change of address to The Daily Tar :
S Heel, Box 1080, Chapel Hill. N. C, 27514. Printed by the x
Chapel Hill Publishing Co., Inc. The Associated Press is S
entitled exclusively to the use for republication of all ::
S local news printed in this newspaper as well as all AP :
: news dispatches.
By JOHN E. D1ETZ
James McCorkel, former president of
the UNC-SDS spoke to a group from our
dormitory Thursday night, and I think that
it was clear to all who listened that the posi
tion of the SDS on the Aptheker controversy
has been misrepresented partially by
them, and partially by a public too ready
to condemn anything which smacks of rad
icalism. This, then, is an attempt at clari
fication, i
Last spring the local SDS had thought
of the idea of testing the Speaker Ban Law
which was then on the books. To do so
they had asked Dr. Apetheker if he would
be willing to speak here, in direct violation
of the law, to test its constitutionality.
He agreed.
The SDS was then prevailed upon by the
Student Government and the Administra
tion of the University to wait: if there was
one chance in 100 that this could be set
tled out of court, that chance , was worth
waiting for. Wait they did, and the Britt
Commission presented its plan for an
amended law which was satisfactory, as it
read, to the Administration and to the Uni
versity. The SDS at that time published a state
ment criticizing the Britt Commission's re
port because they feared that anything short
of repeal would not guarantee the speaking
autonomy which they sought. The SDS state
ment was thought so needlessly fearful that
of all the state news media which received
a copy, only the Orange County News
thought it worthy of mention at all.
The SDS Interpreted the amended law
to be an open door to bring any speaker
to the campus that they wished. After once
again obtaining a note of willingness on
the part of Aptheker, the SDS consulted
Chancellor Sharp, and was given a go
ahead. At that time, Mr. McCorkel thought
David Rothman
Governor Falters On Free Speech
Gov. Dan K. Moore's suggestion that
Herbert Aptheker not be permitted to speak
here makes one fact very evident:
Moore advocated speaker , ban changes
only because state-supported colleges and
universities were threatened with loss of
accreditation.
The Governor is not really concerned
with upholding freedom of speech except ,
when it suits his political fortunes.
He meekly pays
homage to democracy
in his speeches he'd
better, if he wants to
remain in politics).
But his democracy can
only be described as a
"democracy of con
venience." In other words, it
isn't democracy.
Aptheker, granted, is a CJommunist. But
why should the First Amendment apply to
the American Legion or Robert Welch and
not to him? One of democracy's fundamen
tal concepts is equal treatment of citizens
and their ideas.
( 1
Of course, maybe Moore does intend to
be democratic. Maybe he plans to advo
cate also banning God, Mother and the Flag
from the campus. Then, he'd be perfectly
consistent and nobody could claim unfair
treatment.
There's another approach, too. Perhaps
the Governor could still allow students to
worship God, honor their mothers and fly
the flag. ' The sole qualification might be
this: Students would be permitted to per
form these acts only for "legitimate educa
tional purposes."
REPULSION Hollywood movie pro
ducers have always delighted in telling au
diences that their products will shock them.
Most people, of course, don't like to be
shocked, but some mysterious masochistic
desire compels them to attend those re
pulsive movies.
Alas, it was with perfect honesty that
the makers of "The Loved One" prudently
promised that theirs was a movie "guaran
teed to offend everyone"! "So ... be of
fended and have fun," the advertisements
urged. Among those having fun were the
critics, who ! joyously filled their reviews
with phrases like, "It's delightful."
Offending moviegoers in a less intellectu
al manner are the "art" films, whose ads
admit they are "loaded with pure filth."
And if you really enjoy being repulsed, you
can see "Ecco," a movie featuring exam
ples of sadism carefully collected from all
over the worlL -,. 4 -, i ,-- . .T -r'-i' x
Meanwhile, television is eagerly attempt
ing to see if it can be as repulsive as the
movies, and thus far, this approach has
been quite successful even if you take
into consideration the fact that Americans
are so fond of repulsion (which, incidental
ly, happens to be the name of a recent
film). Why, half of "Peyton Place's" audi
ence probably consists of Bible Belt preach
ers whose video fare is usually limited to
material like telecasts of Billy Graham's
revival meetings. And I'm confident that the
other half of the "Peyton Place" viewers is
made up almost entirely of Girl Scout
mothers. v
Let's face it repulsion is a time-honored
tradition in cinematic and video
America.
that there would certainly be controversy
over the speaker perhaps someone apart
from the University would yell; there
would maybe be some vehement editorials
written, again pointing to the so-called
"Communist infiltration" on our campus
but there was never any thought about the
fact that he would be challenged by the".
Governor.
After all, had not the State Legislature'
voluntarily, and at the advice of its own
commission, amended the speaker ban law
to give back to the University the freedom
to choose its speakers?
Controversy for the sake of controversy?
Hardly. It is rather controversy for the
sake of underscoring the state of academic
freedom at this University. This in itself
renders the invitation, and the unexpected
controversy which surrounds it, education
al in value. (And makes one of Governor
Moore's arguments invalid). Now we have
some indication of how sincere that speak
er ban amendment was.
I cannot argue the fact that the ap
proach made by the SDS was not the most
prudent one the Governor should proba
bly have been informed, if for no other
reason than to find out how extensive the
controversy would be. But the SDS is an
ideologically oriented organization, and po
litical acumen is not claimed as one of
their most obvious virtues. Jim McCorkel
admitted his naivete at not foreseeing the
degree of the opposition. But that is past,
and those arguments seem to be irrelevant.
The question now is whether or not the
University will indeed have its right to
ask to this campus any speaker whom it
wishes. Is the amendment to the speaker
ban law to be taken seriously, or is it as
ineffective as the SDS feared it was when
they objected to the Britt Commission's re
port? Jim McCorkel was not completely
naive about the controversy any Drece
dent must initiate some controversy but
he was innocent of its extent, nameiy the
Governor's unequivocal intervention. Des
pite the clouds, the key issue remains: does
the law mean what it says, or was the
amendment a mere sop to a threatening
Southern Association of Colleges which was
going to take away our accreditation.
The case is, of course, a test case; be
cause it is testing the sincerity of an amend
ed law a law which promised us as stu
dents the right to learn from whomever we
desired, provided that we would also lis
ten to opposing arguments. No violation of
the law has been made. Tolerance was
shown on the part of the UNC-SDS through
out (although that was perhaps clouded by
a lack of political savoir-faire).
Now The Daily Tar Heel and the Caro
lina Forum have thrownUheir prestige be
hind the . attempt to bring Aptheker .here.
It is a test which must be passed; in the
name of free speech and academic free
dom. Sincerely,
Letter
More Basketball News
Editor, The Daily Tar Heel:
Here is a suggestion for your new, ex
panded paper. How about listing the ACC
standings and latest scores, as well as the
national AP basketball poll, issued weekly?
Jeff Kuesel
Terry Scott
301, 314 Ruffin
Barry Jacobs
Guaranteed Income Will Hurt Country
The ultimate in welfarism is now in
sight. This week a commission appointed by
President Johnson recommended that the
government guarantee each family a min
imum annual income. The committee, ap
parently with a straight face, recommend
ed $3,000 as a suitable figure and estimat
ed that the cost would run anywhere from
$2 billion to $20 billion per year.
Although even two
or three years ago,
such a proposal would
have been dismissed
as a crackpot idea,
reminiscent of Huey
Long and Francis
Townsend, no one
should be laughing
now. The men on the
committee are too important and repre
sent too broad a cross-section from the
board chairman of IBM to Walter Reuther
to be ignored. What's more, as the com
mittee ominously stated, what seems ex
treme and far-out .now will be common
place in a few years.
No, instead of being ignored, this pro
posal should be mercilessly attacked. Eve
ry argument that can be made against it
should be made. Only in this way can the
program be killed or, if it must come, be
put off as long as possible.
Is there any defense for a minimum
guaranteed income? Of course, there is one
and only one. The picture of children
going to bed hungry disturbs most Ameri
cans. Nobody likes to see poverty. But how
many people are starving literally starv
ing to death? In order to justify anything
like this proposal, the committee should
produce figures to show that this is a ma-'
jor problem. Certainly even one such death
is a tragedy, but it doesn't justify com
pletely changing our economic system.
A guaranteed minimum cannot be adopt
ed, in the first place, because we cannot
afford it. Let's assume that the plan cost
$10-$12 billion larger than it is now. Budg
et deficits of $15 billion would become
commonplace during prosperous times.
With such deficits, the national debt
would take off to the moon, propelled by
an exploding inflation. The $3,000 income
would quickly become inadequate. Raises
to $4,000, $5,000, or $10,000 would be neces
sary. The cost of the subsidized incomes
would zoom from $10 billion to $20 billion
to 50 billion. The economy would eventual
ly collapse under the weight of the gi
gantic inflation that is sure to result. We
must not ignore the examples of Jim Law's
Mississippi Bubble and Germany's Weimar
Republic. They show what inflation can do.
There is, of course, one way besides the
printing press in which the government
could get the extra funds to finance this
and other super-welfare programs. Taxes
could be raised. But the only kind of tax
boost that would serve the purpose of the
minimum income is one that increases the
burden on the rich, while leaving the
poor alone.
The simplest way to tax the rich with
out affecting the poor is to raise the rates at
the high end of the income tax scale. Thus
the federal government would become a
kind of modern Robin Hood, robbing from
the rich to give to the poor. In fact, it is
not beyond the realm of possibility that the
rate would become 10Q per cent beyond
a certain level of income. If the govern
ment can set a minimum income, it can
set a maximum income, too.
Should the commission's proposal by
some chance be adopted, the problems in
volved in actually putting it into operation
are staggering. The minimum standard is
3,000 per family. How big a family? What
do single people get?
The plan would almost certainly have
to have a sliding scale to allow for larger
families. Thus a family with two children'
might get $3,000, while one with four chil
dren might get $3,800 or $4,000. There will
thus- be an incentive for poor people to
have more children, and this is precisely
the segment of the population which the
problems of the population explosion affect
most seriously.
The government would be faced with sub
sidizing larger families at the same time it
is concerned with the problems of an ex
panding population. The alternatives, how
ever, are no brighter. The income level
could be fixed, regardless of the number in
the family, in which case some children
will be going to bed hungry again. Or the
government could institute a program of
enforced birth control, perhaps by enforced
sterilization. This frightening alternative,
howeve, would bring us one giant step clos
er to a "Big Brother" type of totalitarian
government.
The foregoing arguments are directed at
the great problems the guaranteed annual
income would cause. The biggest and most
compelling argument againt the proposal,
however, is that it is morally wrong and
dangerous. It is wrong because it places
an unfair burden on the well-to-do to sup
port the poor; it is mandatory charity. It
is dangerous because it weakens the in
dividual's incentive to get ahead on his
own, and that incentive helped to build this
country into the greatest in the world.
The confiscatory tax rates which th i s
program will require (assuming the govern
ment is unwilling to accept the huge budget
deficits that will otherwise result) are like
ly to have the effect of stunting initiative
in successful people. That is, after these
people have made enough to live comforta
bly on, they will retire, rather than give 95
or 98 or 100 per cent of their income to the
government.Often these retirements will
come at a relatively early age, when the
men involved are still able to make signifi
cant contributions to our society.
And what of the effect this program will
have on the poor, the people it is designed
to help? The bad effects seem likely to out
weigh the good. The outright gift of money
and the knowledge that it is guaranteed
is almost certain to demoralize these people.
They will know that their efforts will count
for little, since the end result is $3,000 any
way, no matter whether they earn $1 or
$2,999.
Many of them are certain to become
shiftless. Since it doesn't matter whether
they earn $1 or $2,999, why try to make
$2,999? Why not just sit back and wait for
the government checks? In fact, the dam
age is worse than it appars at first. These
people will lose the desire, determination,
and initiative to work. They will be lost to
society. Some will no doubt turn down high
er paying jobs, if they are available, be
cause they have lost the will to work.
Many of these people will come to des
pise the government that is supporting
them. Our government has been unable to
buy friends abroad, and it is not going to
have any more success at home. People
don't like to have to take charity, and they
don't like the people who give it to them.
The guaranteed income is almost guaran
teed to produce a group of embittered peo
ple who feel that the world owes them a
living.
Our country became great because peo
ple worked to improve themselves. Some
people weren't able to make the grade, and
that is truly unfortunate. Much has been
done and ij being done to help these peo
ple. The minimum income plan, however,
will do far more harm to this country than
it will do good. The poor will suffer as well
as the rich. If this insidious proposal is
adopted, the United States will be the loser.