8 The Daily Tar Heel Friday. February 1.
David Stacks. Editor
MlCHELE MECKE, Managing Editor
Michael Wade, Associate Editor
Gary Terpening, Associate Editor
Martha Waggoner, News Editor
Eddie Marks, University Editor
Carol Hanner, City Editor .
Kathy Curry, State and National Editor
Reed Tuvim, Sports Editor
Susan Ladd, Features Editor
Laura Elliott, Arts Editor
Andy James, Photography Editor
Dinita James, Weekender Editor
No guarantee
Elsewhere on this page today are two viewpoints on the Graduate and
Professional Student Federation referendum to be held next Tuesday.
Both graduate and undergraduate students should study the opposing
arguments, consider the perspectives from which they come and realize
that the referendum issue comprises much more than guaranteeing one
group a set percentage of student activities fees.
The fundamental question raised by the referendum is, of course, the
nature and scope of the overlap between the graduate and
undergraduate populations at the University. This question has no
unequivocal answers, and many proponents of distinct populations cite
the $2 less per-student per-semester that graduate and professional
students pay in activities fees as proof that the populations are indeed
discrete.
But how discrete? Academically, the more than 6,000 graduate and
professional students at Carolina are, to a great extent, very different
from undergraduates. The academic life of many graduate and
professional students rarely escapes the confines of department study
lounges and Wilson Library carrels, while the typical undergraduate
roams far and wide during four years of study at Carolina. Many 100
level courses in most departments are offered to undergraduates as well
as graduates, but an academic distinction remains: graduate and
professional students have completed undergraduate programs and
thus have inherently different academic needs.
Stemming directly from the academic differences between the
populations is a social distinction. Coupled with the propensity for
graduate and professional students to live away from campus (though
not necessarily by choice), academic sequestering in department offices,
laboratories and libraries effectively isolates graduate and professional
students from campus life. Except for sporadic department-and GPSF
sponsored activities, campus social life has been fairly ineffective in
responding to the immediate needs and wants of graduate and
professional students.
Advocates of the GPSF referendum contend that the $2 disparity in
student activities fees does not reflect adequately the social and
economic distinctions and that some guaranteed percentage of the
activities fees paid by graduate and professional students should be
controlled by GPSF. On the surface, this argument does seem to make
good sense; as GPSF President Roy Rocklin argues, it is graduate
students' money. But harsh economic realities and the fact that the
populations are similar despite some pronounced differences preclude
any claim to guaranteed funding.
How are the populations similar? Academic and social distinctions
blur when put in the context of shared services and opportunities
provided by the University. No goons are stationed at the
Undergraduate Library to prevent graduate students from entering, and
undergraduates enjoy equally unhindered access to Wilson Library. No
restrictions are placed on who may read The Daily Tar Heel or who may
seek counsel from Student Legal Services. No academic criteria defines
who may sweat, swim and run together in Woollen Gym. No academic
distinction matters when a student seeks care at the Student Health
Service or adds a voice to the tumultuous cheers in Kenan Stadium and
Carmichael Auditorium. And the differences that four years of
schooling bestow magically disappear when all students, no matter what
their academic standing, enjoy the beauty of the Carolina campus
beauty that all members of the University community have an economic
obligation to preserve.
The referendum also points to what historically has been a disturbing
apathy and indifference to the needs of graduate and professional
students and not just by the undergraduate-dominated Student
Government. GPSF itself has been less than dynamic in working to
improve the lot of graduate and professional students; participation
does not seem to have been the forte of many of the 65 GPSF senators
we have heard time and again reports of meetings which were attended
by as few as four senators. And the fact that the filing deadline has
passed and no candidates have announced for GPSF president is in itself
a condemnation of GPSF's claim to be a truly representative
government and not just another student organization.
An equally disturbing aspect of the referendum is, as we perceive it,
undergraduate prejudice on the Campus Governing Council. Although
graduate students make up one-third of the council, the graduate voice
in the past has been anything but effective. Council members have
admitted privately that GPSF budget proposals almost automatically
are given low priority during the bloody, budget-rending council finance
A guaranteed 15 percent of graduate and professional students
activities fees won't solve problems facing GPSF. The alternatives at
best are sketchy, but may include the payment of an extra amount each
semester to be used only for GPSF activities, a legislative action by the
Campus Governing Council which is unlikely or even, as it has been
hinted, GPSF secession from the council. But one thing is clear: To
prosper and attain council recognition (and money), GPSF must attract
committed students willing to follow the example and unique lead of
Rocklin and to work to make their voice heard. Without adequate
representation, a 15-percent guarantee is no guarantee at all.
Human rights
Among the less-publicized tragedies of the Cold War that has erupted
over the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan was the recent internal
exile of Andrei Sakharov. The Nobel Prize-winning Soviet physicist,
who has been an inspirational leader to the small group of dissidents
well-known enough to the West to openly criticize the government, was
arrested for subversive activities.
The Soviets seized the first opportunity to silence Sakharov, who had
dared to speak out against the invasion and call for an international
boycott of the Summer Olympics in Moscow. The White House said his
exile is a blow to the aspiration of all mankind to establish respect for
human rights."
The Carter administration was right, ot course, to join in the
denunciations of Sakharov's exile. But the brutality shown by the
Soviets should serve to remind Americans that the U nited States still has
no right to boast about its own human rights record. Its recent actions
against Iranian students, for example, as well as the heavy emphasis on
defense spending that took a huge toll on social welfare programs in
President Carter's fiscal 1981 budget, illustrate that this country also
tends to put less emphasis on its avowed human rights goals in times of
crisis. Americans unfortunately still cannot feel sanctimonious about
human rights even in the face of the brutal silencing of Sakharov.
I9n
0
ular
87th year of editorial freedom
letters to the editor
Faux pas
To the editor:
Big faux pas-
-Chi Psi candidates
'"DTH, Jan. 30). But
favored by 'DTH'
even, though Lou Bilionis wasn't an
official member of Chi Psi, he was
associated very strongly with the house
and the fact that he wasn't an initiated
member doesn't change what happened.
He still let his personal preference for J.B.
Kelly be reflected in the DTH.
His editorial endorsement of Kelly
should have been the only place where
any indication of DTH support should
have been seen. All candidates should be
given equal space in terms of column lines
throughout the election period,
regardless of their involvement or lac of
involvement in other activities. Page
position of the coverage should also be
considered. Two lines on Page 4 would
not equal the same amount of coverage as
two lines on Page 1.
I refuse to stand by and let my student
paper be used as a doormat for Lou
Bilionis' or anybody else's candidate.
This isn't really a Chi Psi issue now, and
I'm sorry that I incorrectly thought it was.
It's an issue of a more politically involved
candidate, a sort of incumbent, having
overwhelming advantages over a less
politically active candidate who may
prove to be the better man, in spite of his
lack of contacts.
At least the DTH can offer a neutral
starting point for all candidates to present
and promote their campaigns. As a result,
the UNC student body can be fairly
confident that they can weigh the
information they have read and make a
decision that will reflect their own beliefs.
Arlene Aycock'
No.3 Village Apartments
Racial intolerance dismissed
To the editor:
It is somewhat startling to hear
Andrew Young say blacks have been
enormously successful politically on the
local level, where not much expense is
involved, when on the morning of the day
he spoke, The Daily Tar Heel headlined
the fact that of the many student-funded
groups on this campus, the funding of
only two groups encountered opposition
('Poll shows BSM, CGA funding
opposition," DTH, Jan. 30).
Roy Rocklin
Yes
ooo
By ROY ROCKLIN
the Graduate and Professional
Student Federation referendum is the
result of the Campus Governing
Council's failure to meet UNC graduate
and professional students' needs. This is
not surprising, due to the nature of the
CGC. Graduate students cannot vote
for, or against, the two-thirds of the
CGC members who represent
undergraduate districts, so naturally we
lose out in the pressure politics of the
budget process.
First of all, we do not believe that we
should have to ask the CGC for money
that is already ours. The GPSF is the
constitutionally recognized government
of the graduate and professional
students and is made up of one
representative from each of the 65 UNC
graduate departments and professional
schools. As such, the G PSF should have
the right to control those fees paid by
graduate and professional students.
The purpose of the GPSF
referendum is to regain the autonomy
we had as the result of a spoken
agreement made in 1971 by the
chancellor, the student body president
and the GPSF president. That
agreement was honored for eight years
but was broken last year by the CGC. It
now needs to be put in writing.
We believe that the best way to divide
this money is to distribute a fair amount
to the graduate departments and send
the rest back to the CGC for
distribution to campus organizations.
The GPSF referendum would retain 15
percent of the student activity fees paid
by graduate and professional students
for the GPSF, and send 85 percent to
the CGC.
Because most of our money would be
going to the CGC, other funded
organizations would not be threatened.
The amount we would retain is less than
we were receiving during most of the
1970s, so there still would be plenty of
do enH change 6DTH
',MWW,'4KWi5WMf " Till m I II Win .
'0M.0M 6UKWOvJUSTVBTtelKT5lSlMON NOTICES..'.
One of these groups was the Black
Student Movement. This group of people
was lumped by students with another
which has certainly never had to
encounter discrimination from the
moment of its birth. After noting that the
Carolina Gay Association and the Black
Student Movement funding was
disapproved of by many students, the
writer went on in the next paragraph to
state that "for the most part" students
believe their fees are used efficiently.
Since when is racial intolerance so
minor an issue as to warrant dismissal of
its existence a dismissal implied by the
writer in beginning the very next
paragraph with the words "For the most
partr
Maria E. Biro
305 Briar Bridge Valley
.keG
TThOTTl
On Feb. 5, Carolina students will have the opportunity to vote on a
referendum proposed by the Graduate and Professional Student
Federation. The subject of the referendum is a proposed amendment to
the Student Constitution which, if approved, would stipulate that "the
minimum amount to be appropriated to the Graduate and Professional
Student Federation shall be 15 percent of the student activities fees paid
by each graduate or professional student each semester and summer
session, to be disbursed according to the Graduate and Professional
Student Federation Treasury awj."The Daily Tar Heel requested Roy
Rocklin, GPSF president, and Rhonda Black, Campus Governing
Council speaker, to respond to the question: Should the amendment be
approved? Their answers:
money left. Unlike the CGC, the GPSF
has not amassed a surplus (through
overtaxation) of more than $100,000.
There certainly is no need for any fee
increase!
Most of the 15 percent will go directly
to the graduate student departmental
organizations, on approximately a per
capita basis, to be used as they choose.
In the past, this money has been spent
on many worthwhile programs, like
lectures, travel to professional
meetings, orientation picnics for new
graduate students and equipment and
supplies for departmental graduate
offices.
The major contention of the CGC is
that some of these expenditures,
especially those for social activities, are
not a valid use of student funds. Student
activity fees should be used for student
activities and to graduate students,
departmental orientation picnics are
just as worthwhile as Springfest or the
Yackety Yack.
Some other reasons that the CGC is
opposed to this referendum include:
They think we are an irresponsible
organization. I find this hard to believe,
because we have had little trouble
managing our money in the past. Just
because we like to spend our money on
activities they don't approve of doesn't
make us irresponsible.
The CGC is afraid that if exceptions
are made for us, then every other
organization will demand exceptions
too. 1 believe it is the job of the CGC to
resist political pressure of this sort.
Last year, the CGC told us to submit
a detailed budget with individual
budgets from each of the 65 graduate
departments. Although we never had to
do this in the past, we attempted to do it
last year. It turned out to require much
more time than any graduate student
could spare. There is no way we will
repeat that experience for next year.
The only alternative to the GPSF
referendum is no funding for graduate
students. 1 urge you to vote for this
referendum so the rights of one third of
the student body are respected.
Roy Rocklin. a graduate student in
chemistry from San Francisco. Calif., is
president of GPSF.
Fair weather friend
To the editor:
I an writing in response to the recent
defection of Tony Adams from the "draft
Kennedy" movement in North Carolina
("Carter can win race, Adams says,"
DTH, Jan. 25). The apparent reason for
Adams' change of position seems to be
the fact that the president has gained
support while Kennedy's decisive
advantage in the polls now is lost. It looks
as though Adams wishes to align himself
with the individual who, at the moment,
has a commanding lead in the election.
Is his reasoning for defection not a sad
excuse for someone who obviously thinks
of himself as a politically active and
knowledgeable individual? From his
actions, one must believe that Adams is
looking to work only for the candidate
who will achieve the presidency, not for
the politician whose policies, both foreign
jt FeireFeiianm:
No..
By RHONDA BLA CK
Each spring, the Campus Governing
Council settles down to the arduous
task of budgeting student activity fees.
There is little money but there are many
top-notch programs. The budgeting
procedure becomes a month-long
process of sorting out priorities among
programs and student organizations
and then setting priorities for the money
that will pay for the programs.
The Graduate and Professional
Student Federation wants to avoid this
process. On Tuesday, Feb. 5, they will
ask the student body to vote on a
constitutional amendment which, if
passed, will guarantee them at least
$18,000 of the student activity fees
annually.
Guaranteed funding means that no
matter what its programs are, no matter
how deserving its programs may be, no
matter how it spends its money, GPSF
will get approximately $18,000 a year to
spend as it w ishes. And it won't have to
account for the money to anyone. If the
funds arc guaranteed to GPSF, then
there will be no more justifying the
benefits of the programs it finances, no
more competing with other
organizations on campus to get apiccc
of the pie" in short, no more
accountability.
GPSF contends that graduate
students do not receive adequate
benefits from the programs supported
by the student activity fees. This
argument ignores the enormous benefit
that graduate students derive from such
organizations as The Daily Tar Heel.
the Carolina Union, Student Legal
Services, the Fine Arts Festival, the
Carolina Symposium, the Student
Consumer Action Union. WXYC
radio, the Carolina Quarterly and
Victory Village Day Care Center.
These organizations alone receive
more than 75 percent of the student
activity fees appropriated each year.
biases
and domestic, w ill be most efficacious for
America throughout the coming critical
decade.
I was always taught to believe that one
backed a candidate for his integrity and
political doctrine, not for his potential
victory. I am not taking sides with either
candidate in this response, although I
personally am a Kennedy supporter. I
write this out of the shock I felt when
reading of Tony Adams quick reversal
last week when Carter won the Iowa
caucus.
Perhaps Edward Kennedy's North
Carolina campaign can find a leader who
will be more supportive of the candidate's
policies and not abandon the fight when
rough seas are seen ahead. Rough seas do
eventually calm when the storm dies
down.
Tom Vecchio
C-6 Brookside Apts.
c.x:-:;::-xv-:
Rhonda Black
Furthermore, graduate students pay
less in activity fees than undergraduate
students; undergraduates pay $11.50
per semester, while graduates pay $9.50
per semester.
GPSF argues that its organization
serves special needs. The federation,
however, is by no means unique in its
responsiveness to specific student
needs. The Campus Governing Council
recognizes that all funded organizations
provide a unique service to the student
body. This docs not justify guaranteed
funding for an organization's programs.
On the contrary, guaranteed funding
would remove only an organization's
responsibility to respond to the
students. The budgeting process
through annual rc-cvaluation, ensures
that an organization's programs remain
responsive to student needs.
The council has been very flexible
with the budgeting process in order to
serve the special requirements of the
GPSF. This year the council was so
concerned that the services of GPSF be
financed that approximately $20,000
was held unappropriated in hopes that
GPSF could make adequate
justification for the funds.
The Campus Governing Council has
given the Graduate and Professional
Student Federation every consideration
possible. The only thing that the CGC
has asked of the GPSF organization U
that it follow the same rules for
receiving funds that other organizations
arc expected to follow.
There is no clear reason that an
exception should be made for GPSF.
Graduate students do substantially
benefit from student-funded programs.
The Campus Governing Council has
been responsive to the needs of the
federation. Guaranteed funding will
mean that the GPSF will no longer be
held responsible for its programs, A SO
vote in Tuesday's referendum will
ensure that GPSF" will remain
accountable to the student.
Rhonda Black, a senior business
aJnuniuruiion major from GaMonia. it
speaker of tlue Campus Governing
Council.
I 1;
I
-l mm i.. " ' mi ' iij
1