Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Sept. 24, 1980, edition 1 / Page 6
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
OThe P-"y Tr HesVYYednesday, September 24, 1380 .CS GlCZCE SlIADXOUI, &T DiNiTA Jamts, Managing Editor Ex ad Kutrow, Associate Editor Thomas Jessiman. Associate Editor 9 ICaiin PvO-xtey, News Editor Pam Keuxy, University Editor Mastiia VAGGCNia, City Editor Jim Hui SizJe zi National Editor o 1 f i 1 1 it ' IS - O I i ks lj j A' ' V ' ''bi Bill Fixlds, Sorij i;.'.?r Maix Musxix, Features Editor Lausa Elliott, !rjj J.ror IcOTT SltAlPE, Photography Editor Milanis Sill, Weekender Editor dr Vfr-vlr . jear o editorial freedom 1 IIS .1 eoates Fewer than 30 people sat in the Carolina Union television lounge waiting for the first nationally televised debate of this year's presidential election. At first it seemed a bit anitclirnatic. President Jimmy Carter, the cold calculating campaigner that he is, would not be on hand for discussion of the issues. The debate didn't seem to mean a lot. But once it began, Carter was forgotten and Ronald Reagan and John Anderson had to be weighed and compared. At the outset Reagan's delivery style served him well. On economic and energy questions he stated hjs views clearly and confidently. Initially, Anderson's voice sounded strained and harsh, making him appear tense. But by the second question, Anderson's depth of knowledge became clear as he aggressively distinguished his views from those of Carter and R.eagan. By the end of the debate Anderson was consistently making points while Reagan skirted some questions, resorted to apple-pie homilies and basically allowed himself to be viewed as foolish (or so it appeared to the audience hi the Union, which laughed at Reagan's patriotic spiels and cheered Anderson's quick wit and lashing style.) It would be safe to assume Anderson won the debate, right? Not necessarily. While college students may look for intellectualism and quickness in a candidate, others who constitute a large percentage of the voting public may look for humility, patriotism and the old twinkle in the eye. While Reagan did not seem to possess that twinkle Sunday, the general public might have perceived it. Winning a debate for political purposes does not depend on fielding question after question, but on the perceptions of the public. So while Anderson won the debate in the Union hands down, he may have lost it in numerous homes all across the country. More importantly than who might have "won" the debate is Carter's reaction to it. Anderson stressed throughout that he was . more than a spoiler, that he offered voters a choice. But Carter is not" likely to debate Anderson under any conditions. To elevate Anderson to the same stage would hurt Carter by suggesting to voters that Carter himself considers Anderson a force to be reckoned with. And it is unlikely that Carter could out-debate Anderson anyway. Carter's position may rob the country of much-needed discussion and it may do nothing to enhance people's perception of his leadership ability, but it could deny Anderson the major boost he needs. Whether voters will fault Carter for avoiding Anderson or simply deem his position as politically realistic will determine the extent of the damage to the candidates. As of now, it doesn't appear that either Carter or Reagan has been substantially hurt by the current situation. Any way you debaie it, that's Sad news for Anderson. School is fun There has to be a conspiracy out there. They are organized and know how to use their power. And though we thought Their reign of domination was over, that somehow summertime was still here, it is time now to acknowledge our mistake. They probably had a meeting this summer. Somewhere in the Caribbean on a golden beach, They worked out all the details. They devised a system that guaranteed" a test or term paper for each course the fourth week of school. The pledge They signed was more binding than the Honor Code. "As responsible faculty of. the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we hereby vouchsafe a deal whereby no students shall sleep or eat for the time period of Sept. 21-28." Kenan professors were there, lying out in Bermuda shorts and smoking the finest Cuban cigars. Department chairmen were there, sipping tropical rum punches and applying suntan lotion to their pale skin (Too much time hibernating behind smiling receptionists and closed doors ruins a tan.) One of Them even had the pretension to quote Prufrock. He lauded their superiority over that poor man who procrastinated and hesitated on his decisions. "Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?" one of them said and they laughed at Prufrock. Their hair was neatly combed and the peaches were yummy. Knowing what was planned for us, They smiled when we appeared fresh and prepared on Monday. They whispered and patted each other on the back Wednesday when our faces were pale with exhaustion and the bags developed under our eyes. And they scheduled a celebration banquet for Friday night after we collapsed into our chairs that morning for the final tests. We did not even mutter when we had not even begun the second essay as They announced only five minutes remained in the period. One student, on his way out the door, suggested to his professor that the system needed to be changed. Obviously, that student had not the slightest suspicion of the master fmmmmmwmmmmmmmmmtmmmmmmmtm.mmmmmmmmm i ' n . i mi in mi i ' i mm n , mini n in 11.11 mm 1 The Bniiy Tnr Heel AsiL!jsl Mis.-'rj r::crs: Edwina Ralston, John Roystcr, Amy Sharpe i;,t.."Il.:5a fcSs2en Terry Cameron lterfJ Afilsiiate: Cudiy Eurniske, Lynn Casey, WUlian Durham Non liz-A: Mc!ody Adarr.s, Laurie Ertdshcr, Ccth Cum!!, Cindy Cranford, Amy Ldwsrds, Anna Hie, Eric frtdrrick, Virginia Friday, Ccth GraybcsJ, Lisa CcUferb, fascia Johnson, Lorrie Howard, Katherine Lens, Darteae O'Drian, Karen Pace, Carol Pearce, till Peschd, Valerie VaaGoeden and Edith Wootea; James Alexander, assistant IVctkci Lr editor. News: ? d.bdc A!v, Mark Arxosa, Ted Avery, Stephanie Clrcher. RoAna Elshop, Jeff Eram, lir.ii r.-own, Laura Carter, Eileen Curry, Elizabeth Darnel, Kerry DcRochi, Arj'e Dorr-an, Lee Duntsr, fUt&'Ie Essoa, Scott Green, Debbie Coodsoa, Karen IbywooJ, Charh-s Hcrndcn, Deborah Hlrtch, Lucy Hood, Ju!e Hubbard, Dale Jenkins, Keith Kir, Karen Kcrr.e-sy, Diane Luptort. Sasaa Maur.ey, Dame McCatchey, Mike MvEail-r.d, Each: I Terry, till Pccchd, Tim Preston, Anne Prosier, Amy Prv;h, Jonathan ' Rich, Rothv-r.e Rltey, Eeverty Sbejherd, Cookie Sheprvi, Rctsl Simmosi, Prances Silvt, Ann ood. U"d.:ey Taj br, David Tc2-.::e. Tra-k Wtlhs, Norm WUkbaoa and rrank J-;.-ctta: Daui Pec!;, a- .Lur.t cd.:cr; Cifton Earnes, Neman Canr.sda. John Drescher. Jchn VIA, Ch Karnes, Ciry fdarum, Geoffrey M-ock, Scott Peterson, Linda Rcbertsoa t"JMarkTti3e. 'c Ill K!t:r..'.n, r . - ;i Vtc'.l Luce, Miry K!cJ:enna, Joe McrrU, Lcri M-crrUn, Ar.n t i p Vr.. A tin T 1M e, t ' i c ' : : r; J. r d .i !! r--: -y. T. Pc e.r .'jpr a':y. r .IV ,.l - m till 'i A. C- . r,. ; .:):: I i" " , t r.i j r I : :r, i By JOHN DRESCHER Vvhea I was a rushee participatir-3 in formzl fraternity rush, I always thought I was experierxixts the worst aspect of the rush process. The tension, the formality and especially the questioningthese' same shallow obligatory questions over and over aain were tolerated as a necessary part of the road to brotherhood. How nice it will be, I thought, when the roles, will be reversed and I will be on the inside looking out. I was wrong, very wrong. Now that I have seen the inside of formal rush, I almost wish I could go back to being on the receiving end of the smile, handshake and hometown question. The process is innocent enough for the rushee. Other than possibly deciding on a house, there is no personal decision involved. One does not evaluate individual brothers; they are evaluating you. All a rushee has to do is be himself, and that should always be a goal, not just during rush. Other than presenting oneself in his usual manner and battling question fatigue, a rushee can go home at night knowing he did the best he could. There was no morality involved. This is not so for a brother. It is a basic fact that not all rushees can pledge the house they want to. Brothers must get together and decide' which candidates "fit in." "Fit in" means basically that the rushess can contribute to the fraternity and that the fraternity can contribute to the rushee. That this decision must be made is an unfortunate but necessary evil of the Greek system. It is not unlike trying out for a team, play or any other special activity. But there is one major difference: When cut from the special activity, one knows the judgment is hzzzd on ability to perform. It is not a judgment of personal character. Ideally, it should not be in rush either. But, no matter what any brother from any fraternity has ever told me, it often is. Since there is no talent to be judged, the person himself becomes the quality to be decided upon. And more often than not, it becomes no longer an objective question of whether the rushee would "fit in," but a highly personalized and biased opinion of the rushee in general, including everything from his looks to his social abilities. The pettiness; can become unbearable. If one is not a good athlete, an excellent student or a possession of a nice smile and conversational gifts, he can find the door. A premature judgment, often made by a minority, has been reached. This point was driven home to me the other day by a highly respected brother in another fraternity. "There are times when I'm ashamed to be a member of my fraternity," he said. "If the guys could just be decent about it and say that the guy wouldn't : be happy here, I'd understand. "But often they're not. They tear down guys and attack them personally. And it doesn't matter if the guy is a friend of a brother or not." ) ' I '''' Rejecting a rushee in humane and dignified language is not enough for some. What they want to do, in short, is play God. Playing fraternity brother is not enough. Some people cannot handle power when it is given to them. They become obsessed with authority. Often these are the same people who have little authority in their everyday lives. They treasure their momentary fling with power and try to get the most out of it. This is by no means a condemnation of any one fraternity, or of fraternities in general. The fraternity system merely provides a more formalized manner of acceptance and rejection. I love my house and I'm, happy to be a part of the Greek system. I realized long before I pledged that there are both positive and negative aspects of the system. Obviously, I feel the positive decisively outweigh the negative, or else I would net be a participant. Unfortunately, as my friend in another house said, I fed that every time I sit and listen to a prejudiced and unjustified comment I have sold my soul to a system I den net believe in. "I really like this place," he said, "except for formal rush. Then I wuh I could go inactive for a few days." Me too. But my inactiveness would only serve to condone the words cf the minority who must degrade ethers. So I stay and hope that rush wiU end quickly. And when it does, I hypocritically place the problem in the far corner of my mind and forget about it until the next formal rush session arrives. John Drescker, a junior jcmr.:!ism major from Rdcigh, is a stzff writzr for The Daily Tar Heel. Anti-Greek sentiment does not cure pro Memo By JOHN ROYSTER I went to formal rush at two fraternities. Neither gave me a bid, but my time was anything but wasted., It was a great learning experience. I emerged from rush with essentially the same attitude about the fraternity system I had going init has both virtues and faults. I don't know why the first fraternity voted me out. It may have been a lot of things. I didn't always remember names. My name tag wasn't on right one night of formal rush. I wanted a bid and pressed some I was nervous. And I'm not much on the social graces under normal circumstances. 7 emerged from rush with essentially the same attitude about the fraternity system I had going in it has both virtues and faults. I'd like to believe I was voted down because of those petty reasons, but I doubt that's what happened. It is -a lot more likely that those who voted against me met me, got to know me to some extent, and thought that I would not fit into the fraternity. I'm sorry about that; I liked every brother I met in both fraternities, and that has not been changed by their votes. The second fraternity rejected me under more unusual circumstances. A week or so before formal rush, I was leaning toward the first frat, but still rushed the second one in case frat No. 1 didn't give me a bid. But by the weekend I liked them both and thought I would be faced with a tough decision. Somebody in fraternity No. 2 got wind of my attitude and confronted me with it. I told them the story and they voted me out. Fair enough. In this case,, the rush system worked better. I have one quarrel, however, with the way the fraternities treat rushees. The two houses I am familiar with sent brothers who had become friendly with the rushee to inform him of his rejection. THat can be a painful experience for all concerned. It would seem that a fairer, more courageous procedure would be to send those brothers who voted against a particular rushee. Many people criticize the fraternity system because it encourages conformity. I see what they mean, but I ' fail to see how they can use that as a valid argument against the Greek system. After rushing, I've got pink and kelly green coming out of my ears. But for every fraternity member with an alligator on his shirt, there's a fraternity critic who owns a big dog with a bandana tied around its neck. There is nothing really wrong with that; I'm just trying to say that conformity is a human characteristic, not a Greek characteristic. Another charge often leveled at fraternities is racism. To this one, the best thing for many brothers and rushees to do is plead guilty. The fraternity system is voluntarily segregated. Whites do not have much desire to join black fraternities, and blacks do not have much desire to join white ones. That is not racism in its purest form. But it is segregation. But as a rushee I met some real, live racists guys who just did not want blacks in their fraternity, because they were black, period. Again, though fraternities ere not zzy more fjiliy than the larger society. I met plenty of people who tre just as racist and are strongly anti-Gree. I've met racists who know next to nothing about 'the Greek system. . .,Tfce. strange .thing is .that a lct.cf.th.s bo are against blacks in general have seme black frfcr.is. But I doubt if they would vote to admit those blacks to their fraternity. Society's impetus to segregate apparently takes precedence over that friendship. Fraternity brothers complain that the positive aspects of the Greek system are net emphasized enough. They do in fact, perform some very valuable services for the community. They promote a spirit of brotherhood among members, and many people get excellent leadership experience by working in them. Those who say there is a lot wror.3 with the Greek system are correct. But it will continue to be difficult to change things by standing aside and tarpir.g cn that. Changes are much more easily niade from within. The Greek system has too much potential for ,good for us to'givc up on it. John Royster, a junior journalism rr.rjcr from Henderson, is assistant managing eciorjor ir.e uady Tar Heel. 24L2FS to flie editor CGC set, 9 tar up 0 liTTf irlr f tTh TrTfh 7HYD 77 7 'u O UMMJjJ VLv MU UUU & OH &s U To the editor: The Student Affairs Committee of the Campus Governing Council appreciates the article, "CGC forms ad - hoc committee," DTH, Sept. 22). We hope all interested individuals will apply to serve on our ad hoc staff, as well as ad hoc committees dealing with the proposed student athletic center, the bus situation in Carrboro and the recently proposed Southern Bell rate increase. Because the story may have left some misunderstandings, let me clarify a few items. The Student Affairs Committee is one of three standing committees of the CGC; each representative belongs to one of these committees. Our duties include speaking out cn behalf jf the student body on b:ues that concern them, communicating CGC activities to the students, reviewing student conizations that receive student fees and kecpir g the student cods up to date. The Student Affairs Committee b jcttirg up an ad hoc staff to h:!p it deal with the amount cf business it is taking cn this se:;;oa. This staff will work cr rai::rg awareness cf issues involving the tud;nts cf UNC cr the University system as a whole. The staff rrimbers v.lll psrtid-ite In investi-atlr.g thrse committee that Studmt Affairs Zi ict tp to report cn three itsues. And they v,M :sist ts in msllr a rr..-r: effective rrvlr.v cf stui:r.tfur.d:d crj:.r.b;:icni. r.r." !:s I i.?z questiened before the lui;:t 1 rrri-;s in th ? AffJn he res 13 have c' at kzzl cr.e .;t;u:y cr rr. ci c:cn Llyaniier-c.'ttatkto f A I ... i j!',T ICZ'.iU? Tl.'2 (Birr VW to 'H a I rvrr$ r::n 1 :::z:::Ti m: for possible action to be taken by the CGC. The newsletter, uhieh we hop i'J h:'p re7:e:rnt-:ives in thrlr effort! to keep in contest with their censtituency, I e p-t c-t mer.th!y tr.i die'.rihutri ty t.' : rc; re.er.r:'..cj n th. sir cwn di.triot:. I r.'v.'ts are t.'.r r :. .!? 13 tz e the s t: : c cn f.'e i.i th? Ur.ivtriiry ccr ; -':t ly I;..: .' .r izzln s.r "CGC and M: three ninutei every tliztr.zi'.zz :U the Ca; rfp ti. r i i . Cr. ray f !y lo the c ! :-. r. hf.'.!h rt- clarify i X. 'V J. - J: hif.: th:i fa!S fa Vhi!e I z e'rctsJ to reprr :rt CCC ether we::k. District V) L t itu:, I t z- xv'.li h ch'r.i t,:.h-;r.,i DisttLt 17. i z three i; a v.::' ry ( ,i . the cours:.! (-.;? to the re:.:;-.s:I?.i cf i t V. .. i. -t. Ccr.trsry to the i - r r iz f'.::i ty V.fTr H.r!, I h:e i;i the f i . : 1. . : i f . r a fJS )csf i;i D--Ml:t 17. It ti rst trve V x! I "1 r r -'j r-i Ll'r.?: h:rh:h tracf ! :. !;r:t .::0--:-..::ee A - , . I .... , , ... , .ci 3 1. i V; a J r e J. .J- . :; l A" - - . f ! - s r - - h h:';3 us t;r- ti ? S i . :",-r. C i ! c I. r. i three : ! h-ec v-i.'l i:iz:,:: : li::k tJ the Ch r . - t- f . ' " - H cr : V.'e v . t .U i r v.: d r.et Ar.z-M ! t- i . a t . '.r I ...n-Jl-.t. -if- .. i v. ..4 il ! f ? ' ' upon a : :.! r:,r:.::. c r. :
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 24, 1980, edition 1
6
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75