6 The Daily Tar Heel Thursday, January 31, 1930
David Stacks, Editor
Michele Mecke, Managing Editor
Michael Wade, Associate Editor
Gaby Texpening, Associate Editor
Martha Waggoner, News Editor
Eddie Marks, University Editor
Carol Manner, City Editor
Kathy Curry, State and National Editor
. . ,
Reid Tuvim, Sports Editor
Susan Ladd, Features Editor
Laura Elliott, Arts Editor
Andy James, Photography Editor
Dinita James, Weekender Editor
mm
Politics da-Haas
n
e image ojc ciiii
d 1
Hath
QJar fml
87 th year of editorial freedom
N. Ferebee Taylor
One feels a very keen and deep responsibility to the students. But the
demands and duties of the chancellorship make it almost impossible to
meet all of them.
N. Ferebee Taylor, August 1979
Today is N. Ferebee Taylor's last day as chancellor of the University.
He will leave his office in South Building for the last time this afternoon
amid a flurry of tributes and praises to his eight years of leadership and
accomplishment.
Chancellor Taylor's tenure as the chief teacher, administrator and
fund raiser for the University has earned him a reputation as a builder
and a planner. He has brought to faculty, staff, alumni and students an
energetic directorship; except through his efforts, many positive and
innovative developments in academics, health affairs, athletics and
supportive services may have not come about.
Perhaps the most significant accomplishment of the Taylor
chancellorship has been the expansion of the University's libraries and
holdings. By the time Chancellor Taylor assumed office in early 1972, it
had become evident that much additional space and more modern study
and research facilities were needed to attain the level of excellence
required to launch the University into the 1980s and succeeding decades.
Largely because of the chancellor's labors, a new million-volume stack
addition to Wilson Library was completed in 1977, with renovations
and additions to the Health Sciences Library getting underway in early
1979. The most recent and perhaps the greatest tribute to Chancellor
Taylor's tenure came in the fall of
1979 when construction workers
began laying the foundations for
a new 1.8 million-volume central
library next to the Carolina
Union.
And because of the chancellor's
vigorous efforts to raise private
endowments through the
Carolina Challenge program, the
University has amassed more
than $20 million of its $67 million
fund-raising goal. Under his
confident leadership, schools and
departments in the Division of
Academic Affairs have embarked
on an effort to reshape
undergraduate and graduate
By LYNN CASEY -
During a press conference in November, Gov. Jim
Hunt stated North Carolina had the third largest infant
mortality rate In the nation. Unfortunately, the statistics
did not end with this statement. The governor
continued:
For every 100 students who graduate from public
schools in North Carolina, 40 students drop out.
Seventy-three percent of the children in North
Carolina in their first three years have nutritionally
inadequate diets.
North Carolina has the highest rate of working
mothers in the nation. Fifty-seven percent of North
Carolina mothers with children under six hold a job and
need child day care.
With such statistics, Hunt justifies his support for the
New Generation Act, which sets up state and local
interagency committees to coordinate services to
children and families.
The act calls for the creation of a state New
Generation interagency committee and proposes but
does not mandate the creation of county interagency
committees.
The purpose of the state interagency committee is to
improve communication and coordination among
federal, state and local agencies relating to children and
the family. Through such coordination, local and state
committees would then seek to eliminate the duplication
of services and identify gaps in existing programs.
Many conservative groups and individuals have
attacked the act as being a socialistic approach to health
care that would erode the integrity of the family, and
have asked counties not to support the act.
Thomas F. Ellis, chairman of the Congressional
Club a fund-raising group for conservative politicians
and views criticized the act for its interference in the
family.
The Congressional Club may use the act as
ammunition against state liberals in the 1980 elections,
Ellis said.
State Rep. Patricia Hunt of Chapel Hill said
opponents of the New Generation Act were confusing
"A Child Health Plan for Raising a New Generation"
letters to the editor
V
I
H
The Bottom Line
The Blob Squad
The fine city of Middletown, Conn., is
setting an example that would make
Weight Watchers proud. Cracking down
on that ever-troubling problem of
departmental flab, the police chief has
suspended 18 members of the force for
being overweight.
Some members, as much as 90 pounds
overweight, were suspended for four
days. When it comes to physical fitness,
you can't afford to be slack, especially
when your salary is suspended too.
The department hasn't yet made it clear
what will happen to those officers who
, don't get their act together, but rumor has
it professional wrestling scouts are
invading central Connecticut. It could be
a tough choice for Middletown's finest.
Alter all, who could deny the fame of a
Haystacks Calhoun or Ricky Steamboat?
All they have to do is get a catchy
nickname, learn a few of those tricky
moves and go for it.
Geritol, move over
Andrew Young watch out. A new civil
rights biggie may be looming on the
horizon, lie wasn't ambassador to the
United Nations or a member of the U.S.
House of Representatives, but Arthur J.
Kraus is an activist from way back.
The 84-year-old New Yorker is once
again on the rampage in defense of his
k
1; 1 MM
personal liberties. He claims drivers of
the Sunrise Coach bus company have
refused to pick him up because of his bad
breath, caused by the massive amounts of
garlic he eats daily.
"Garlic is medicine," Kraus said. "It
kills bacteria, it lowers blood pressure,
fights constipation and is a cure for
nerves." How can you deny that?
Bus company owner Bob Brown says
his drivers do not discriminate and
suggests Kraus was not trying hard
enough to flag down the buses. Come on
Bob, give the oF cuss a break.
Kraus admits that some of the
passengers have complained periodically
about the smell, but says there are many
people on the bus who smoke and drink,
causing a fragrance of equal magnitude.
Lest you think the garlic incident is one
of Kraus major acts of activism, do not
fear; the man has been outspoken for
years.
A teacher at the City College of New
York, he lost his job in 1933 after TeacTing
a student demonstration against fascism.
He traveled worldwide for 33 years trying
to clear his name and was finally
successful in 1969. His reward? An
apology from the college, which should
inspire us all to fight for our rights.
As for the garlic dilemma, Kraus has
taken his case to the state legislature. But
in the mean time he has stopped eating
garlic became he's tired of walking.
And that's the bottom line.
with the New Generation act.
"A Child Health Plan for Raising a New Generation"
is a 75-page booklet produced by a task force of
representatives from the N.C. Pediatric Society and the
State Department of Human Resources. The booklet
outlines a child health care service for every county.
The booklet uses the terms "health-care homes," bu.
does not say these services would replace the home or
remove the child from the home. Many fundamentalist
Christians and conservative groups have attacked the
booklet as being anti-family because of its wording.
Hunt, however did, write a letter of endorsement for
the booklet.
aealtJii plain
ji
The New Generation Act does not mention the health
plan, and since strong opposition has arisen against the
act as anti-family legislation, Hunt has reiterated his
belief that government should not support or supplant
families.
Unfortunately, it appears the New Generation Act
will be used by candidates in the upcoming elections as
ammunition against Hunt.
Two gubernatorial opponents, former Democratic
Gov. Bob Scott and state Sen. I. Beverly Lake Jr., a
Republican, have blasted the New Generation plan.
Hunt's deputy press secretary, Brent Hackney, said
Hunt would not back down from his commitment to
children and would continue to support the New
Generation Act.
"One-third of the counties had agencies similar to
New Generation interagency committees before the act
was passed," said Florry Glasser, policy adviser of the
N.C. Department of Administration and staffer to the
state New Generation interagency committee.
The State committee consists of members of state
agencies and is chaired by the governor.
June Milby, of the state Department of Human
Resources said the act leaves the creation of local
agencies up to county commissioners because "Hunt
feels local government can best implement health
policies for children and families."
The Orange County Human Services Advisory
Commission, which was in existence prior to New
Generation legislation, performs the same functions of a
New Generation interagency committee, said Jerry
Robinson, director of the Orange County Health
Department and a member of the commission.
Robinson said he believes the current controversy
over the act is caused by a lack of understanding.
One would only hope the state committee and local
committees which may or may not be set up will be
able to change the state's child health and education
statistics and not be hampered by political games.
Lynn Casey, a junior journalism major from Kinston, is
a staff writer bThe Daily Tar Heel.
curriculums to prepare students for the changing needs of the state and
nation.
Probably the most substantial criticism of Chancellor Taylor is that
the rapport he has maintained with students and faculty over the years
has, at times, been tedious. On occasion, his misunderstandings with
campus leaders have highlighted the businesslike manner that many
critics say comes from the chancellor's endeavors in corporate law
circles in New York. It seems accurate to suggest that Chancellor Taylor
has not always been easily understood by students; but in times of crisis,
he consistently has demonstrated his sensitivity to student concerns. For
example, in the fall of 1 973, the chancellor showed his understanding for
students' complaints of overcrowding in University housing when he
and three other top-level administrators stayed overnight in a crowded
Winston Dorm room. And through his indirect yet influential efforts, a
five-year reform movement culminated in 1974 with the revision of the
Honor Code into a tripartite responsibility shared by students, faculty
and administration.
Years from now, historians and archivists will face the difficult task of
labeling N. Ferebee Taylor's chancellorship as progressive or backward,
responsive or insensitive, calm or tumultuous. We believe history will
show that Chancellor Taylor's tenure has been one of calmness and
productiveness. His leadership has not been awe-inspiring; he has not
become the focal point for any sort of moral crusade for justice; he has
not been regarded as the guiding light in the stormy sea of societal
metamorphosis.
Yet somehow, amid all the change that has come during Chancellor
Taylor's tenure in office, we sense a spirit of fruitfulness and
inventiveness that is uncommon in our time. More than anything else,
our impressions of N. Ferebee Taylor make us feel more secure about
the future of the University because of the consistently high quality of
administration and direction that has marked his leadership.
Conservation. the answer to energy woes
To the editor:
In a recent letter, "Production, not
conservation the solution," (D77, Jan.
17), Doug Chapman speaks with distaste
about the idea of "cutting our energy use
to match our energy supply." But to my
mind, to advocate anything else is
ludicrous. It is never sensible to continue
to use more of something than you can
replace, in the hope that you will get more
at some later date. But the question
worthy of addressing is not simply
whether to stop economic growth. It is
whether we can continue our growth
totally unchecked, or whether it is wiser
to rationally consider our situation in the
light of physical constraints and develop
a policy that will allow us to pursue the
most reasonable, safe, foresighted course
that is available to us. I contend that
conservation is the only course available.
Consider this: If a man were lost at sea
in a lifeboat with only five gallons of
water, would he be well advised to drink it
indiscriminately, assuming that by the
time it was gone he would have found
means to get more water? Or should he,
while trying by every means to get more
water, conserve every last drop, knowing
that he might never be rescued.
This analogy is useful in several ways.
First, there is no hope of immediate
rescue from our energy crisis. We have
measured amounts of coal, oil and gas.
Nuclear power, even if it can be made
safe, is still a long way from meeting our
present needs, much less future
requirements. Second, the earth is our
lifeboat; the faster we deplete our stores,
the more damage we do to our sole means
of support. It's sort of like burning pieces
of your boat to keep warm. Of course, it is
true that we should search for more and
more efficient energy, but always with the
full realization that whatever we find is
limited. The days of cheap energy are
over. The only logical solution is to use
what we have in an intelligent manner, as
sparingly and as conscientiously as
possible.
Yet,. Chapman says: "This nation
would never have made the transition
from wood...to petroleum to natural gas
if the current mentality of slowing down
when scarcity looms had always been the
predominant philosophy." True. And
now we have, with incredible
shortsightedness, based our entire social
and political structure on a transient
situation, that of having apparently
unlimited cheap energy at our disposal.
What about the sacrifices made in World
War II when goods and fuels were in
short supply? What if the public had
continued its usual gluttonous
subsistence, instead of conserving as they
did?
Chapman says the solution is greater
production of energy. For what purpose,
I ask? Someone should address this
question before we simply decide we must
have more. From where comes the idea
that we need more energy? It is simply the
result of projecting current growth rates:
we are told by the power companies that
by such and such a date we will use twice
or three times what we use now, per
person. But why will I need so many
kilowatt-hours more? Don't I have
enough? I feel that I have plenty. These
projected figures are arbitrary and
dangerous.
Why is energy use essential to
economic growth? Why is economic
growth essential to a healthy economy?
Why do people bandy these platitudes
about without ever objectively justifying
them? Perhaps it is because some people
are never happy unless they consume
more and more and more! The people
who benefit most from growth are those
who have more than they need already.
And who pays the liabilities? Everyone,
of whom many are already suffering
wants and deprivations.
As for producing more energy, there
are alternative methods aside from more
strip mines, more oil wells (with their
requisite spills) or nuclear power plants.
A Rcorvt?
THE JA&tAPif 3jd
Bur nxi losc&cr
n4
GRAMltlE
CAMPUS
HcaKJeV
WC'U. JUST
Right now crude oil costs about $30 a
barrel and is going nowhere but up. The
energy we could save over our "projected
needs," if we undertook a major
conservation effort, could by 1990
amount to nearly the total amount used
this past year, and at a cost of $13 a
barrel It seems to me that that is the
cheapest oil in the world. This is the way
conservation works and will continue to
work.
Chapman asserts that when it comes to
the point of choosing to go hungry or to
buy food, the choice is obvious. Is it?
What if you go to the store and find that
there is no food? Again he states that
since millions are spent by the
government on conservation drives, there
is apparently no shortage of resources
with which to produce more energy. I
suppose that in the end his car will run on
dollar bills. Money does not equal
energy, if the physical substances aren't
there.
In the end we come to a simple
realization. An economy that only
flourishes in proportion to its growth will
only flourish so long as its ever increasing
appetite can be met. But the food is
limited, and thus the growth is limited. It
is a standard American idea, to which
Chapman and millions of other
subscribe, that it is all right to continue in
a certain direction without thought of the
long term results, in the hope that a
breakthrough will come to the rescue.
That is a dangerous hope.
We have two choices, the same two
presented to the man in the lifeboat:
Conserve for the future or live for the
moment. We, like him, already are stuck.
We have built our foundation in sand,
extended beyond our means. We have
reached the point where even if all our
efforts are turned toward bringing
growth and consumption under control
and putting a leash on our rampaging
economy, we will still be hard pressed to
maintain even our present standard of
living or bring the less privileged up to it.
If not, we will continue on like a car in
neutral with a brick on its accelerator.
Either it blows up or it runs out of gas
but neither takes long.
Jason E. Dowdle
Old Highway 86
Review panned
To the editor:
I would like to register my deep
disappointment at Donna Whitaker's
review "Laura Dean show 'boring,'"
(DTH, Jan. 28), of the Memorial Hall
performance of the Laura Dean Dancers
and Musicians last Saturday night.
Frankly, I find it astonishing that
Whitaker even presumes to massacre a
program of dance for which she shows
not the least understanding. Getting off
to a wrong-headed start, the reviewer
claims that the performance put most of
the audience to sleep. Is she perhaps
generalizing from her particular case?
The audience, in fact, was largely
receptive, especially considering the
difficulty of works works not aimed to
please everyone, as Laura Dean herself
will readily explain such as "Pattern"
and "Dance."
Whitaker loses no time in moving on to
her next attack: the dancers, according to
her, displayed "only a touch of
professionalism" a flagrant
underestimation of the amount of skill
and polish consistently exhibited by the
group. Throughout the evening, the
dancers demonstrated a phenomenal
degree of precision, concentration and
charisma, as well as pure stamina.
What Whitaker interprets as a lack of
professionalism is better interpreted as an
integral and essential aspect of Laura
Dean's choreographic style: within the
highly structured overall form, the
dancers are given free reign to infuse their
individuality into the dance. Thcve
sanctioned variations are indeed what
lend the pieces their richness and depth,
and make Laura Dean such an interesting
and experimental choreographer.
Unfortunately, all of this was lost on
Whitaker, who found "Pattern" to be
"pure monotony."
Following several other misguided
pronouncements on the evening's second
piece, "Dance," the reviewer delivers her
punchline: Laura Dean, it vcem
forgotten to add meaning to her
technique. It would only seem fair to the
performers and to the DTI I readers to
accompany such a harsh (and invcavitive)
remark with some substantiating
evidence.
One final comment on this lamentable
review. While Whitaker may have found
the musical instrument not to her taste, it
is a pity that she did not at leau
emphasize one of the great virtues of the
Laura Dean group: its ue of live muvic.a
delightful rchef from the recorded sound
which we are most often presented with
these days.
Lisa M. Kennedy
23 Oakwood Dr.
Wrong question
To the editor:
In his letter, "Murder," (JH, Jan. 29)
Austin Spruill not only asked the wrong
questions, he provides contradictory
answers.
He asks the wrong question when he
suggests another physical criteria as a test
for whether a fetus is a human being: the
etus's genetic distinction from the
woman. How docs that criteria prove a
fetus is a human being? Any other living
entity, human or non-human, has a
different set of genes. The whole inquiry
is silly, because whether an entity is
physically "human" is a different
question from whether our laws should
recognize an entity as a "human being."
The later question cannot be answered by
looking to physical criteria; it is a matter
of values.
Spruill also provides a contradictory
answer. If he truly believes that a fetus is a
"human being" from the moment of
conception, then he cannot allow any
exception to a ban on abortion. Spruill
states he would permit an abortion if the
life of the woman were threatened, but
what justification would there be for
killing an innocent person to save
another's life? It would still be murder. If
Spruill truly wants to argue his prcmivc
that a fetus is a human being from the
moment of conception, he should not try
to soft peddle it by providing for
inconsistent exceptions.
Spruill argues that the so-called "pro
lifers" are not attempting to impove their
moral views on anyone. Whether a fetus
is to be considered a human being at all is
a question of moraU. The pro-Uferi
would decide this question as a matter of
law and ban all abortions without
exception. The pro-choice advocates
would kavc the decision up to the
woman. Pro-choice advocate are not
pro-abortion; we do not advocate
abortion and would resist any attempt to
make it mandatory in any circumstance.
We simply favor freedom of choice on
such a personal matter at the morality of
abortion.
A. Hewitt Rove
National Abortion Rights
Action League - Chapel Hill