Satig
77 Years of Editorial
ROTC Report Irrelevant, Political
The long-awaited ROTC Report
was released Wednesday and called,
among other things, for a new
Curriculum on War and Defense,
and for the present ROTC program
to be affiliated with that program.
The report is long (40 pages) and
the logic for the proposed war and
defense curriculum is slow and
thick. What pervades the report, in
its consideration at , least of the
moral questions regarding ROTC, is
the tone that such a moral
consideration was made more to
appease opponents of ROTC rather
than because it was crucial to the
entire issue.
"Although there is no great
confidence that such matters
(moral positions on ROTC) lend
themselves to solution by
committee investigations, we
recognize a responsibility to give
them consideration."
On April 19, 1969, the Dean of
the College of Arts and Sciences
appointed the authors of the report
"to investigage the accreditation of
ROTC courses and programs at
Chapel Hill and matters relevant
thereto."
Such a charge would seem to
demand a critical examination of
the entire ROTC controversy. It
would further seem that such an
examination; would demand at least
a presumption on the part of the-;
members of the committee that
they were somehow qualified to
consider the moral question. That
was their responsibility.
Consequently, on the sole basis
that the committee apparently felt
it could not, or really need not,
examine the moral question, one
might be hesitant about their
ability to frame any kind of
valuable report.
In any event, the report is build
on some interesting logic. For
example, we present three
statements from within the report:
-"The military, its institutions,
and its ethos have for too long
escaped the critical examination
afforded other aspects of our
national life by scholars in research
and classroom debate."
- "The subject matter of. the
course(taught by members of the
proposed military department) does
not (will not) reasonably come
under the purview of any
department other than a military
department;" .
"Anyone obligated by the
legitimate decisions of ,a given
office (ROTC students included)
performs his proper function (or
ought to) through responsible
obedience. He may assume, in the
absence of compelling reasons to
tne contrary, that the orders he
. ceives have been given for good
reasons by one more knowledgeable
about the relevant matters than he.
In such a situation, the rational
thing for him to do, quite apart
from any consideration of possible
penalties or rewards, is to obey."
Simply, there exists a
contradiction in this report so
blatant as to compel us to just
about deny the validity of that
report. '
Simply, the report recognizes
the need for outside review of the
military. But it does. not feel such
review should be "reasonably"
applied to the subject matter of a
war-defense course, when, there is
good reason to believe the subject
matter of such a course would be
'Qlw:
mm
Freedom
Todd Co Ken
Editor ,
Tom Gooding
Laura White
Bobby Nowefl
Mary Burch
Art Chancy
Managing Ed-tor
News Editor
Associate Editor
Arts Editor
Sports Editor
Bob Wilson
Frank Stewart
Business fvlanager
Advertising Manager
Pit Hatch
Night Editor this issue
directed by the military itself.
Further, the "report feels the
military, and anyone in the
military, is probably "more,
knowledgeable about the relevant
matters" concerning a course than
any cadet who might be in the
course. This last point almost
'cancels out the first point, which
stressed the need for a review of the
military. '
'Sure the military is
well-informed about what is
relevant. The point is that what is
relevant to the military is not
necessarily relevant to this
University or its students.
Those who have warned of the
danger of an ever-more-powerful
military-industrial complex have
not all merely been long-haired
radicals. Former President
Eisenhower first issued the same
warning.
' Yet the ROTC Report tends to
dismiss such argument with the
strange rationale that "if the
argument should be taken as a valid
argument for abolishing ROTC, it
would, on pain of inconsistency,
have to be accepted as an even
more telling argument for closing
down v4he University itself for
- much of what we do here supports
and nourishes, either directly or
indirectly, the 'industrial-military
complex' and the foreign policy of
the United States in more
substantial ways than our two
ROTC programs."
The University may be just as
guilty as ROTC of feeding the
military-industrial complex. That is
a good point. But it does not
explain why the guilt of ROTC in
that respect should not have been
considered by the committee. The
committee was given the
responsibility "to investigate the
accreditation of ROTC programs at
Chapel Hill and matters relevant
thereto." Why then have such
relevant matters as the threat of the
military-industrial complex been
disregarded?
The report did propose that any
ROTC student be required to take
courses taught by non-military
personnel that "will subject the
so-called 'industrial-military
complex' and the foreign policy of
the United States to careful critical
study and examination."
That is all well and good. But
why didn't this committee subject
itself to the "same "careful critical,
study and examinations"?
The committee also asked for a
course to be offered on moral and
political philosophy dealing with
the ethics of force and coercion.
And it hoped its own discussion in
the .report would be taken "as an
impetus for further debate, rather
than as a device for closing the
issue."
That is noble of the committee.
But they might have examined
more carefully precisely those
questions of morality and
philosophy before arriving at their
decisions, which were supposed to
have been the result of some
"investigation."
The ROTC Report, despite its
length and apparent complexity,
does not face basic questions in the
ROTC controversy. It cannot,
consequently, be taken as less than''
irrelevant-and political.
(Eddor's note: Mr. Johnson served cs
business manager of the Daily Tcr Heel
from May to December, 1969J
Dear Editor:
It is well known that when something
goes wrong, you try to "pass the buck."
However, if you actually look at yourself
you will often discover that at least part
of the blame is yours.
I think it is time for "the
Establishment" on tlie second floor of
the Carolina Union to look at themselves
for a change. They need to realize that
they are not beyond making mistakes.
I feel that many members of your
Student Government a, doing their jobs
well. However, some ave doing these jobs
too well, others think Uliat they are doing
better than they actually are, and still
others just hop on the bandwagon. They
need to realize all the facts before they
make accusations, and remember that
accusations can cause the explosion of
' personal feeling and relationships which
could last for life. The accusations may
, not even be true.
The Student Legislature and
Publications Board has accused THE
DAILY TAR HEEL of the
'mismanagement of funds and the
. receiving of "double salaries" by three"
: editors. The two bodies are united in that
Vat least three, and possibly more,
- members of the Publications Board are
members of the Student Legislature.
They make their rules and do not abide
by them. Or, they make their rules and
later decide to change them according to
the situation. If some energetic legislature
wants to jump on a bandwagon, try this
for size.
First, the rules and regulations which
the Publications Board and Student
' Legislature are supposed to abide by are
found in the STUDENT GOVERNMENT
CODE of 1966. Maybe after more than
three years, it is time for a revision.
Secondly, the basic failure in this case
is a lack of communication between the
two governmental bodies and THE
DAILY TAR HEEL, and vice versa.
However, it seems that many members of
the two bodies think they know howr the
paper is run. They should, but they don't.
Thirdly, without adequate knowledge
of the internal workings of the paper, the
Student Legislature hopped on yet
another bandwagon last spring. After
John Agar
6
UNC
Occasionally someone asks me why, if
I dislike UNC so vehemently, I don't go -elsewhere.
I find the question
disagreeable. It's one of those fallacies so
potent that people recur to it again and
again, as if to draw sustenence from it for
a rational faculty which no longer digests
solids. You take it like a pill: pop it into
your mouth, "swallow it, and don't do a
thing. ' . "
Once in a long while, however,
someone is honestly puzzled by what
seems excessive or, intemperate criticism.
He feels a kind of patriotism for the
University, and it "hurts him to hear it, as
he thinks, maligned. I tell him this:
I don't hate UNC. If anything, I love
it. I'm proud of UNC's tradition as the
first state university and the aspiration to
intellectual things that it implies. I'm
proud of Chapel Hill, too proud of its
reputation for combining the virtues of a
classical city, as a congregating place for
men of bread and creative intelligence,
with the pleasures of a small town.
The University , of course, divides my
praise with Chapel Hill. Its campus is one
of the most beautiful in the nation. Its
faculty is one of the most competent in
the world. The physical plant of " the
University is constantly being updated
and is as modern and convenient as the
inventiveness of Vday will allow.
As for the range of knowledge
en compassed fHn the University
community, it is bread and incredibly
Open Letter On The DTE Controversy
.Mill
i 5
conferring with past and future business
managers of the paper, the Finance
Committee submitted a budget for THE
DAILY TAR HEEL which Legislature
slashed into one of the most
unproportional budgets possible. Jobs
requiring more work were cut while those
easier jobs were boosted financially.
How can the Publications Board or
Student Legislature accuse the TAR
HEEL of mismanagement of funds?
."The Pub Hectic lis Board shall have
overall financial and administrative
responsibility for all funds
appropriated it by Student
Go vernm en t. ' St uden t Governmen t
Code, Title V, diopter 1, Article V,
Xo. l,p. 91
According to the present Student
Government budget, the funds used by
I "The Daily Tar Heel is not $8500
, in the red . . . f it) has paid its bills.
Is this mismanagement of funds?"
THE DAILY TAR HEEL are
appropriated to the Publications Board.
Who is responsible? These funds, as far as
receipts expeditures and payables are
concerned, actually have not been
mismanaged. The problem here is that
many advertisers continuously refuse to
pay there bills promptly, if at all.
At the open meeting concerning the
TAR HEEL funds last Wednesday night,
Bob Wilson, business manager of the
paper, was misquoted, THE DAILY TAR
HEEL is not $8500 in the red; THE
DAILY TAR HEEL has $8500 in.
accounts receivable; that is, advertisers
are. $8500 overdue in paying their bills.
The TAR HEEL has paid its bills. Is this
mismanagement of funds?
The second accusation is the receiving
of .double salaries by three editors. This is
true, but where does the fault lie?
Certainly not on the three editors. The
students have not been informed of the '
background of this situation.
r,; "Student contracts shall be drawn
up for each student who receives
compensation for services, prior to
assumption of his duties, by the
Chairman of the (Publications) Board,
the Business Manager of the
IN Q
Weeds Honest Criticism
varied, yet none of it shallow. The level
of teaching is as high as any large
University in this country can offer. And
the quality, of student life, I'm sure, is as
high, intellectually and emotionally, as
anyone has a right to expect today.
fThis is well and good. The only
problem with this kind of talk is that it's
unprofitable. It gets us nowhere.
Arranging a bouquet of flattery one of
the few things the University is
completely competent at doing for
itself is unconstructive and ultimately
condescending. The highest tribute we
cap pay the University is to bring our
honest concern and uncompromising
criticism to bear on its problems.
The University is under attack today
as f never before. Assaults wash over it
from every direction, and each issue
discovers a realignment of forces, new
alliances, new antagonisms.
Jin the Bievins case, it is the
administration and trustees the official
university ?gainst the faculty and
students Employees and inmates.
When the non-academic workers
slrtick. supported mainly by students and
faculty, it was the "larger university
community" against the university
"bureaucracy "'"the administration.
The double jeopardy issue pits the
administration and faculty, the
"schoolmasters," against the students.
When the Town of Chapel Hill started
indulin3 in various annoyance tactics
ff
?7fT! H 1 (P
I 5
I i
publication on which the student will
assume duties after signing the
contract, and one legislative member
of the Board' The Chairman shall be
empowered to sign the student
contracts after a majority of the Board
has approved the contract." Student
Government Code, Title V, Ch. 1,
Article IV, No. J, p. 91.
In Article 1 of this section of the
STUDENT GOVERNMENT CODE, it
also states that the Publications Board is
to take office on May 1 of the preceding
year. Two of these members are supposed
to be "student legislatures elected by and
from the Student Legislature and three
Presidential appointees." However, this
was not done. Whose fault is this?
At the beginning of the school term,
there was no Publications Board
organized. In fact, it was not organized
for several weeks after school started. For
this period of time, Gunnar Fro men was
the Publications Board because he wras
elected to be Chairman by the outgoing
Board last spring. The Chairman is
supposed to be elected from the present
Board.
Nevertheless, when it came time for a
pay check, the TAR HEEL contracts had
to be signed in order to receive these
checks. The students signed the contracts.
The three editors involved signed two
positions; Editor-staff, Sports
Editor -staff, Managing Editor-cartoonist.
At the time they were doing the work
to be rewarded these positions. In fact,
one member of the Publications Board
has said that one person could receive all
the checks if he did the work and had
signed the contracts.
v The Business Manager signed the
contracts which he alone had drawn up
from the scarce remains of previous
"One member of the Publieations
Board has said that one person
could receive all the checks if he
did the work and had signed the
contracts. "
contracts. (Note the previous quote.) He
went to the "acting Publications Board"
for his signature and also received that of
Mark Evens, member of legislature who
was to be on the Board, in' an effort to
receive pay checks two weeks after school
had 'started. There was still no Board to
have a majority of to approve the
contracts, but the necessary signatures
were present and the checks were
received.
As time passed, a Publications Board
was finally formed, and the "contracts
were approved by a majority of the
Board How was any member of THE
DAILY TAR HEEL staff to know that
anything was wrong if his "boss" had
assigned and approved his contract? The
members of THE DAILY TAR HEEL,
staff
are directly responsible to the
Publications Board of the University
of North Carolina. "Student Contract
The Publications Board realized the
"error" when a salary complaint was
presented to them. They jumped on the
Business Manager for allowing "double
salaries" and having people working who
weren't on contract. The "double
salaries" had been in front of them.
As for the other problem, the Business
Manager was partly at fault. The staff of
against the University last fall, it was the
civic government of the university
community against a quasi-independent
State agency. ' But earlier in the year,
when Pres. Friday and the trustees
formulated the disruption policy, it was
apparently a case of a State agency trying
to maintain a precarious independence
from the State itself.
What should be clear is that the
University whatever one thinks he means
by the word is suffering an identity
crisis.
There are two ways in which the
University can serve this state. It can
abandon its intellectual pretensions: it
can set its sights in every sport
conceivable, and give only business
degrees. Or it can assume the burden of
becoming a modern educational
institution: it can take up the task of
developing an all-around curriculum to
guide young people in reaching their full
potential as human beings, and become
the educational showplace of an unwilling
and probably recalcitrant state.
Right now the administration, as the
governing body of the University, is
steering a middle path. The result is that
they are satisfying no one.
Anti-intellectualism ;s rampant in the
state, as Orange County Commissioner
Carl Smith's term, "unintelligent
intellectuals" showed us this summer;
while on campus there is student
discontent.
use;
THE DAILY TAR HEEL dunged with
almost every pay perud this fall. The
Business Manager noted the charges or.
his set of contracts and wrote the checks
accordingly. He was never told and never
realized that he had to inform all the
other contract -holders of these charges. 1
know that ignorance is no excuse, bu:
was it entirely the fault of the Business
Manager?
I feel it is lime for the Student
Legislature and the Publications Board to
look at themselves, for a change. There
are many reforms needed tcr enable
everyone envolved to operate with more
accord.
Look at the STUDENT
GOVERNMENT CODE. Maybe it should
be revised; maybe it should just be
followed. If the Publications Board was
formed in the spring, many of the early
fall problems would not occur.
There is a need to fill the
"communications gap" which is present
between the paper and Student
Government. Invite members of THE
DAILY TAR HEEL staff to your
meetings and visit their offices to see
there problems as they really are.
There is a basic need to get advertisers
to pay their bills promptly. Work
together on this problem, and don't
expect one person to work miracles by
himself. Some merchants are very slow
.when it comes to paying students, but
they thrive off of the opposite situation.
Maybe - these merchants with bad
accounts should be made known to the
students. If everyone would pressure
these people to pay, the paper would not
have such a large accounts receivable
total, v
In summary, I think it is time that we
all look at ourselves, as well as at each
other, and learn to work together instead
of fighting. That's terrible. I should
know. I've lost the friendship of fellow
students in Student Government and on
the TAR HEEL staff; I've lost the respect
of a lady I love in the Student Activities
Fund Office; I have a fraternity brother
who is Business Manager of the paper; I
have a fraternity brother who is a
member of Student Legislature; my
financee is a member of the Publications
Board; I am the ex-Business Manager of
THE DAILY TAR HEEL.
I'll admit I'm guilty. Am I the only
one? Let's work together for a change!
Sincerely,
Ron Johnson
:j The Daily Tar Heel is published
j by the University of North Carolina
jg Student Publication's Board, daily
jx except Monday, examination
$: periods and vacations and during
: summer periods,
Offices are at the Student Union
Bldg., ' Univ. of North Carolina,
& Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514. Telephone
& numbers: editorial, sports,
news-933-101 1; business,
circulation, advertising 933-1163,
Address: Box 1080, Chape? HIf
g N.C. 27514: ;
: Subscription rates: $ ) 0 per year;
: $5 per semester. .We regret that we
S can ajccept only prepaid
:.': subscriptior.
'.V
;.v
1
:. 1 Second class postage paid at UJ3,
Post Office in Chapel Hill, N.C.
I
v.v.
A decisive commitment to one or the
other of the courses outlined above
would give the University a
purposefulness it lacks today. Choose:
The University is owned and run by
the state, 'with power delegated to
trustees and thence to the administration.
The faculty is hired by the state and ha
no rights- beyond those ordinarily
accorded employees. Students are
privileged to attend the University and
are obliged to conform themselves to
rules established for their own good. Or:
In supporting the University the state
recognizes that education must fulfill
personal needs before it can benefit
society at large. It recognizes that
education flourishes only in an
atmosphere of freedom, and therefore
dedicates the University to the concept of
education cs "an independent society of
scholars teaching and learning from one
another. "
Again, you may choose. I came to
Carolina because it looked to me far more
lite a community of scholars than
like-the first alternative. Any criticism I
have made, in this column or elsewhere, is
based on this impression. I am a student,
and as such I must be vitally concerned
with the intellectual vigor and freedom of
the University of which I cm a part.
For me, and for anyone who cares
about education and this University,
there is no other way.