The Tar HeelThursday, July 13, 19785
Letters to the editor
Tar Heel in error
on Supreme Court
story, headline
pnnnnoi-inPnnnr)nrnrnnrinix
A r
To the editor:
In the July 6 Tar Heel, the headline of the
lead news story, "Supreme Court finds
CGC rules valid," wa3 totally incorrect.
Some parts of the story were also worded
in a misleading fashion.
Rather than finding the CGC rules to
be valid, the Supreme Court declared all
previous ruling on the case to be null and
void. Specifically, the July 1977 ruling of
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
that declared the minority protection
clauses unconstitutional is no longer
legally applicable.
However, the Court did not actually
rule on what has come to be known as the
Uzzell case. Rather, the Court remanded
the case back to the circuit court
instructed it to review the case again, in
light of the Supreme Court's Bakke
decision.
How will the Bakke decision affect the
disposition of the Uzzell case, especially in
view of the circuit court's previous ruling
against the minority representation
clauses? That clearly depends on the
circuit court's interpretation of the Bakke
decision. Since this latest Supreme Court
decision is very broad, it is extremely
difficult to predict the outcome of the case
in circuit court. But whatever the
outcome, both parties will be able to
appeal the decision again to the Supreme
Court. Obviously we are talking about a
legal battle that could last for at least
another year.
Since the Supreme Court did strike
down the Circuit Court ruling which
declared the minority representation
clauses unconstitutional, Student Body
President Jim Phillips will be appointing
two minority representatives to the
Campus Governing Council this fall. The
other minority representation clause in
question, that of minority representation
on the Honor Court, has been continued
throughout this court battle, and thus will
not need to be reinstituted in the fall.
Craig Brown
Executive Assistant to the Student Body
President
Carrboro "Cs" Red
Bus pass blues
To the editor:
Recently, we", the highly manipulated
but most patient souls who reguarly ride
the Chapel Hill bus system, have had to
swallow one more bit of inconvenience in
order to get to and from campus every
day. Once again, the University has
waited till the last few days before last
year's passes expired to issue annual bus
passes and consequently precipitated a
great rush to the traffic office with the
usual long lines and frustrating waits.
Now, when we students slip up a bit, a
nice $5.00 fine gets tacked on to our
tuition when, for example, we register
late. The converse ought to be true too, I
think, but unfortunately isn't. When the
University slips up, we are still the ones to
be penalized, usually with massive
inconvenience. Apparently, the
inconvenience of students is just chicken
feed in moving the bureaucracy
(particularly the traffic office, which is
always the biggest logjam on campus and
the least respectful of our time and
patience) to become more efficient and
considerate.
Last year, possibly, the university could
argue that by waiting in line, we were
saving $18 over the normal fare, and
perhaps this was a good deal and worth
the wait. This year the savings is only $4,
and the cost of an annual bus pass is in the
range where it is worth considering
parking on campus. So, realistically, the
University isn't doing us any favors now
and most likely is only worsening the
parking crisis. Besides, we are all just part
of one big cost-incentive equation, and
favors aren't included .
1 07-40-1 775
Durham
Student Stores on campus
just about everything you'
need this summer.
Stop by soon. You'll see.
has
There's more in your
Student Stores
Open 8-5 p.m.
Monday-Friday
Closed Saturdays
w swfo
" '