' i 1
KM
Page 2
THE DAILY TAR HEEL
Wednesday, March 8, 1967
latiy Star 1M
Opinions of The Daily Tar Heel are expressed in its editorials. All un
signed editorials are written by the editor. Letters and columns reflect only
the personal Views of their contributors.
SCOTT GOODFELLOW, EDITOR
24 Percent Inveterate
Cheaters, Liars? Hardly!
When we first learned the re
sults of our poll on Honor Code
violations, we saw visions of the
Code going up in flames. But when
we considered it further, it was
obvious that such was far from
the case.
It was not the Honor System
itself which was being criticized;
the poll did not indicate rampant
disregard for integrity, nor did it
point to an increase in disrespect
for imposed controls.
What it revealed was more im
portant. The poll showed a developing
attitude of pressure pressure
'that I have to do well on this
one test", pressure not to turn
someone in "because an honor
council conviction could ruin his
chances of success for years."
These pressures all boil down to
an attitude which must be recog
nized. "
Students feel that everytime
they are faced with any decision, it
is an extremely important one.
This is the attitude which has
become a vital issue on our cam
pus. This is the attitude which ed
ucational reform is trying to ease.
This is the attitude - which is erod
ing not the Honor Code, but those
who try to live under it. ;
There are some steps which
may be taken within the Honor
System itself which would ease ten-,
sions. First, we must assume that
every one has a sense of honor
I initially -the -Code is something-
!
to guide, not to teach. Second, we
must be aware that one cannot
walk up to 13,000 students and pro
claim, "We trust every one of you."
But the Code has nevertheless
proved very meaningful to many
people, and its effectiveness is
something in which Carolina takes
pride.
What we would suggest to you
is that the reasons why most of
these persons cheat or lie (in an
academic course) are not reasons
which brand them as evil. We
would suggest also to you that sus
pension and expulsion punish
ments for cheating are incompati
ble with many reasons for the of
fenses. We would suggest that the puri
. ishment for breaking the Honor
Code for cheating and lying be an
automatic "F" grade in the relat
ed course, or in some other way af
fecting University standing. Many
professors presently do this with
out bringing charges against the
offender. Such action is wrong be
cause it should be a student con
viction; but the punishment is
more proper.
The strength of our Honor Code
is its idealism. As such, it can
never be rendered ineffective be
cause it will always be? a restrain
ing force. Tensions in university
life today have clouded its mean
ing. Some of this cloudiness can
be reduced by lessening the bur
den upon those who feel strongly
obligate to uphold our H o n o r
Code. I :
Compact Refrigerators,
ashers Come At Last
W
One of our many long lost caus
es seems to have found a success
ful solution.
It was far from our expectations
to. hear yesterday that washing
machines and compact refrigera
tors are awaiting approval for use
in men's residence halls. The pro
ject was one which has been dis
cussed by "promise" candidates
in elections for years and noth
ing was done.
We were incredulous. v
Wasn't there some trustee re,
gulation against it? No. Wasn't .
there some administrative official
who wanted to block it? No. Then
why hadn't it been done before?
Nobody knew. In fact, everyone
was asking these same questions.
The only apparent hold-up for
the washing machines has been a
general lack of space to put them
in, but this seems to ; be an ob
stacle which needs only a small ef
fort to clear up. And the only hold
up for. the compact refrigerators
is that the county board of health
must have means of assuring it
self that health standards are not
lowered in residence hall rooms
because of the machines. This
problem, is fielded by adopting
strict sanitary regulations, the
flaunting of which would mean re
frigerator forfeiture.
The washing machines are
clearly an item of necessity on
South Campus, where. many stu
dents walk great distances to ma
chine launder their clothes. The
refrigerators are just as clearly an
item of luxury, but nevertheless
one which would improve life on
our campus if properly directed.
Today's Thought
We just happened to notice the
location of the new Davie Hall
building yesterday. From a fourth
floor window, you can scan every
'inch of the Arboretum!
i A CIA plot?
Financially, the washing ma
chines would be bought by the
University and would probablyy
pay for themselves very quickly.
The refrigerators would , be 4 rent
ed to students by the semester
from Student Government, which
would use its profits to increase
the stock of available machines.
The whole idea is an exciting
one, both in its simplicity and in the
benefits which the innovations will
bring. We urge all rapidity in
the completion of project.
Iff SatUj Sar Qrel
74 Years of Editorial Freedom
Scott Goodfellow, Editor
Tom Clark, Business Manager
Sandy Tread well, Manag. Ed.
John Askew .... Ad. Mgr.
Peter Harris .. . Associate Ed.
Don Campbell .... News Editor
Donna Reifsnider .... Feature Ed.
Jeff MacNelly ... 1 Sports Editor
Owen Davis .. Asst. Spts. Ed.
Jock Lauterer ,.: Photo Editor
David Garvin Night Editor
Mike McGowan .... Photographer
Wayne Hinder . ... Copy Editor
Ernest Robl, Steve Knowlton,
CaroT Wonsavage, Diane Ellis,
Karen Freeman, Hunter George,
Drummond Bell, Owen Davis,
Joey Leigh, Dennis Sanders,
Joe Saunders, Penny Raynor,
Jim Fields. Donna Reifsnider
Joe Coltrane, Julie Parker
CARTOONISTS
Bruce Strauch, Jeff MacNelly.
The Daily Tar Heel is the official
news publication of the University of
North Carolina and is published by
students daily except Mondays, ex
amination periods and vacations.
- Second class postage paid at the
Post Office in Chapel Hill, N. C.
Subscription rates: $4.50 per semes
ter; $8 per year. Printed by the
Chapel HiU Publishing Co., Inc., 501
W. Franklin St., Chapel Hill, N. C.
Teddy O'Tooie
.Does CIA.- Ruin Foe
o
(Fifth in a series of arti
cles about the KSA-CIA rela
tionship.) We began our investigation.
It consisted mainly of calling
in any - past officers, staff
members, or journalists who
were in positions to furnish
us with facts about the NSA
CIA relationship. Getting those
facts was not as easy as we
had imagined. The CIA, lives
on secrecy, moves one step
closer to death with each col
umn inch of publicity, and
fights pretty hard when threat
ened. Nevertheless, the NSB in
vestigation did manage to un
earth most of the particulars
of the NSA-CIA relationship,
at the same time discovering
fkeletons in the closets of a
large number of other "inde
pendent" organizations rang-
ing from the labor movement
to the international press. But
first, we learned : the amaz
ing truth about what the CIA
is and vhat it does.
Like, the rest of the Ameri
can public, our only impres
sion of the CIA had been
gained through reading spy
stories and seeing cloak-and-dagger
movies. We therefore
saw CIA activities as con
fined to one level of activity
espionage. How wrong we
were. .
The CIA functions on at
least three levels. True, one
of these is espionage. It works
as an . international spy ring
gathering information deemed
to be of importance for. Unit
ed States national security. On
this levei, the CIA's rules for
operating are simple and con
form to the old jungle say
ing: "No holds barred."
A second level of function-.
ing by the CIA is in what I
would call "normal intelli
gence gathering.." It is dif
ferent from espionage in that
it doesn't involve counting air
planes, stealing chemical for
mulas from foreign labora
tories, or taking U-2 photo
graphs. It involves the gath
ering and computerizing of in
formation about political de
velopments abroad that one
might read about in the news
paper if one were there. It in
volves getting personality des
criptions and dossiers on ris
ing new leaders abroad and
collecting up-to-date informa
tion on impending coups and
political upheavals. It was on
this level of functioning that
the CIA used NSA.
The third realm of CIA func
tioning is the one which star
tles the . average citizen, and
startled us.
. The third realm of CIA ac
tivity is in the formation and
implementation of foreign pol
icy. The CIA actually plans
operations such as the notori
ous Bay of Pigs invasion. It
supports or helps crush coups
in Latin and South America.
It negotiates with groups in
foreign countries to sell them
weapons, or, we were told by
one witness, even to sell a
fleet of obsolete United States
bombers in one case.
Why does the CIA, supposed
ly an . intelligence gathering
group, engage in this type of
activity? It is either because
'Studying nothing! I'm preparing for tomorrow's exam.9
i . - : , . .- - - t . - s -v.?. ':'$' - . ?t' v- v-i--f
fi i:" V TV.
,&i&-3ft f M ' 1 i i in riiiii" J 'I
7Vf f-i" .... "gM rDiar- rS- IV '
"4 '-. ' -. - !
'I -C ..-
The Credibility Gap
.Re -Opened By
HHH
By ERNEST YANARELLA
Amid the hosannas and hal
leluahs voiced in praise of
Hubert Humphrey's recent
vist to Chapel Hill, I feel com
pelled to add a sobering note
to his thoroughly intoxicat
ing performance.
In his otherwise admirable
response defending the right
to dissent, Mr. Humphrey con
cluded by remarking that "it
does no good to believe, to
make believe, , to make other
people believej that the Gov
ernment is trying to, deceive
the American people." Call
me dissenter of the "Great
Society"; call me opponent of
the Administration's Grand
World Design. Call me what
you will. I must challenge
this statement.
At . a time when the credi- -bility
gap grows ever wider,
it would be belaboring , the ob
vious to catalog the innum
erable lies, half-truths, and
fabrications advanced by the
Johnson Administration re
specting our Vietnam policy. '
So, instead, I propose to enum
erate two acts of deception
put forth by the Vice-President
in his own presentation
at UNC.
The first, and by far the
most specious, involved the
logic of our refusal to halt
unconditionally the "bombing
of North Vietnam. In order 'to
defend our position, Mr. Hum--phrey
drew this analogy. He
asked, how would Ho Chi -Minn
react if, turning the ta
bles, the U.S. asserted that
she would refuse to negotiate
unless North Vietnam ceased
infiltrating men and material
into South Vietnam, while
the United States continued
unabated bombing the North
and giving logistical support
and manpower in the South?
The analogy, however, is
spurious. The proper ana
logue to North Vietnam's de
mand is the following. Assume
that, by some quirk of fate,
North Vietnam was bombing
strategic American cities en
deavoring, let us assume, to
uplift the ebbing morale of
the Vietcong and the North .
Vietnamese regulars fighting
in the South, and for other
vague reasons. Suppose furth
er that Hanoi demanded "just
any step" by Washington to
indicate her sincerity in wish
ing to negotiate. .
The analogy could be flesh
ed out to make it paral
lel even more closely Hanoi's
present predicament.- The
point is: in this light, would
it be reasonable to believe
that President Johnson would
could make any com
, promising gesture while
American cities and transpor-
tation lines were being sys
tematically decimated,' how
ever moderately and with
however much restraint?
Would he, too, not demand un
conditional cessation of the,
bombing before considering
to engage in negotiations?
Surely, viewed in this fash
ion, Hanoi's intransigence on
this matter becomes compre
hensible. A second glaring act of de
ception perpetrated by Mr.,
Humphrey against his audi
ence was manifested in his .
criticism of Hanoi's, use of
the recent truce for the pur
poses of replenishing her
arms supply in the South and
moving her. men to other lo
cales. Of course, these actions are
undeniable. But, what is 1 also
irrefutable is the fact that we,
too, took advantage of the
military respite to transfer
soldiers and to move supplies
to strategic areas.
My point, again, is a sim
ple one. It is surely improper
to attach an onus to the North
Vietnamese build-up during
the truce-period when we and
our South Vietnamese "allies"
were substantially doing the
same thing.
To close, writing in 1952 in
the "New Republic," the then
Senator Humphrey stated:
"Unless we tell the truth and
state the facts ... we betray
our liberal tradition and as
sociate ourselves with a false
bill of goods that some peo
ple have tried to sell the
American people."
That astute observation is
no less relevant today. For,
in a democracy, if we can
not put our ultimate faith in
the responsible judgment of
the American populace and
its capacity to confront harsh
realities, who can we trust?
If not now, when?
Policy?
our government has asked
them to take that pwer or
they have just taken the pow
er. At any rate, one thing is
certain: When the CIA plans
one of its third - realm proj
ects, it is in the position of
both making recommendations
to the president and furnish
ing the " information to back
up those recommendations.
That is called conflict of in
terest, put mildly. I have won
dered what John F. Kennedy
called it. when, after the Bay
of Pigs fiasco, he tearfully,
moaned that he was fully re
sponsible for the entire night
mare, but because of his last
minute turn - about in call
ing back the air cover, but
simply because he, as pres
ident, had allowed an illegiti
mate autonomous agency to
exercise the power of forming
foreign policy.
When the NSB made the
discovery of this third level
of functioning by the CIA, it
threw our entire investiga
tion into another light. It was
a very sobering experience.
For the moment, we forgot
the immediate question before
us, that of the moral implica
tions of the CIA infiltrating
independent national organi
zations. We even forgot tem
porarily the question of the
destructiveness of secrecy in
a free society.
In short, each of us in his
own mind was beginning to
feel the unspeakable dread
associated with the thought
that the United States govern
ment might be run by some
one or something besides the
President" and the Congress.
WTe thought about the recent
book, The Invisible Govern
ment. We thought about the
war in Vietnam, undeclared
by Congress, uncritically ac
cepted by the President, mys
teriously begun sometime in
1S63 unbeknownst to the gen
eral American public.
The question still plagues
my mind. Who makes Ameri
can foreign policy, the Pres
ident, the Congress, or the
CIA? can we as citizens tol
erate it if the answer to that
question is the CIA?
rild
siib;
Thomas Cabarga
Forbidden Frui
Frightens Co-ed
I'm convinced that the Tar Heel must be printing
only the kooky letters it gets about the "pill": the
majority of students at this school just can't be as
simple-minded as some of these letter-writers seem
to be. As I recall, the editors suggested that the in
firmary should prescribe the pill for unmarried coeds,
and this led to a discussion of whether or not pre
marital sex should be considered morally accep
table. Before one can decide whether or not an act is mor
al, he must first know exactly what the act is. Pre
marital sex (for the benefit of A. S. of Detroit
andjA. B. of Ft. Lauderdale) is not adultery, which is
defined, as, "yoluntary .sexual intercourse by a mar
ried man with another than his wife or by.; a mar-
woman with anotherthan her husband." The
ject under discussion is fornication, which is, "il
licit sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried
person." '
The place' to look in the Bible for condemnations
of fornication is in the New Testament, especially in
I Corinthians. The Ten Commandments won't help.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible is
useful for finding the pertinent passages, and one
must use the King James Bible because the Revis
ed Standard "Version uses "immorality" in most of
the places the KJV says "fornication." The word
used by St. Paul can be found in the dictionary of
New Testament "Greek in the back of 'the Concord
ance by looking up the number at the end of each
cited passage (with one exception, either 4202 or 4203).
Word No. 4202 is "porneia," meaning "harlotry,"
which comes from word 4203, "porneuo," "to act the
harlot, i.e., (lit.) indulge unlawful lust (of either
sex)."
It is apparent, then, that what the Bible con
demns is "unlawful lust." The next problem is to de
termine just what is meant by "lust." The defini
tion of Webster's Third seems fair enough: "sexual
desire especially of violent self-indulgent character."
There is a world of difference between the flat con
demnation of "illicit' sexual intercourse on the part
of an unmarried person," and the Biblical condem
nation of violent, self-indulgent sexual desire.
It' seems reasonable to suggest that pre-marital sex
should be considered morally acceptable, provided
that those engaging in it approach each other with
love and respect. It is highly improbable that one
who was promiscuous, could meet these conditions in
most of his sexual encounters, if in any of them at
all. It should-also be pointed out that the Church has
always recognized the fact that one can approach' his
spouse lustfully, i.e., in a violent, selfish way, and has
always condemned such actions. In other words, there
is no magic in the marriage ceremony which will
transform a lustful person into one who is loving.
Morality based on fear is immorality. If a wom
an's only reason for not fornicating is that she fears
pregnancy, or fears what people might say, she has
not recognized one of the most basic facts about
the spiritual life: evis is not a "good" which we are
forbidden to enjoy. Evil is bad in and of itself, re
gardless of whether or not any church or any law for
bids one to commit it. A woman who is not promis
cuous simply because she can't have the pill and
fears pregnancy is not a bit more moral because she
refrains from having intercourse!
In short, the sin is in the attitude, not in the act.
It is doubtful that widespread use of the pill would
result in an increase in immorality, or even in prom
iscuity, for that matter. One need not have inter
course to exploit another person sexually. If all of
those who are presently exploiting each other were
to begin having intercourse, morality would remain
completely unaffected.
4
i
t
i t