O'The Daily Tar HeH Tuesday, November
OK
4 i
w' w '
f N Vv- iu
1
DiNU a Jamks, Managing Editor
Bhad Kutrow, Associate Editor
Pam Kelley, Associate Editor
Kari.n Rowley. News Editor
Linda Brown, University Editor
Martha Waggoner, City Editor
Mark Murrell, State and National Editor
till FiELDS, Sports Editor
James Alexander, Features Editor
Tom Moore, Arts Editor
Scott Sharfe, Photography Editor
Ann Peters a Veekender Editor
By RAY WARREN
i Mis
year of editorial freedom
Busin
"1 "S
ciiXCl i33JlcljtlC
Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.
persuaded the Senate last week to
reject a policy it has long
endorsed the busing of school
children to achieve integration.
Helms sponsored an amendment
to a $9.6 million appropriations
bill that would deny the
Department of Justice funds to
advocate busing. The
department could not take part
in desegregation .suits that would
require the busing of students to
any school but the one nearest
their homes.
The House has passed a
similar measure, and it is likely
that a conference committee will
draw up a bill acceptable to both
houses. Sen. Strom Thurmond,
It is both unfortunate and disturbing that UNC
Student Government, the Black Student Movement
and The Daily Tar Heel joined forces to sponsor the
misnamed "Rally for Justice" Thursday. That some
law students also joined in this effort is sadder still. The
object of the "Rally for Justice" was certainly not
"justice." Indeed, the implication of the rally was that
a great number of UNC students have little or no
regard for the concept of justice as it is generally
understood in free societies.
, Neither the Ku Klux Klan nor the Nazi party was on
trial in Greensboro. Six individuals who happened to
be members of one or the other group were on trial.
There have been darker days in our history when mere
membership in a despised group was enough to convict
one of any crime. The judicial ideal, however, is that all
persons (no matter how hated or discredited their
affiliations) have the right to trial on the basis of facts.
The jury verdict in Greensboro was no more an
endorsement of' Nazism than the opposite decision
would have been an endorsement of Communism.
Neither philosophy was on trial. The verdict merely
stated the jury's view that six individuals were not
letters to the editor
Sen. Jesse Helms
R-S.C, a one-time opponent of integration and a supporter of the
anti-busing amendment, proclaimed that "the House and Senate have
now spoken loudly and unequivocally against the busing of
schoolchildren."
Helms, in ringing rhethoric, argued that "the vast majority of
Americans, both black and white, are fed up to here with seeing their
children hauled past neighborhood schools, sometimes as far away as
15 miles."
"How long," Helms asked, "are we. going to allow federal
bureaucrats to torment" the little children of America?"
Despite Helms' remarks and the Senate vote that followed, the'
nation's school buses will not grind slowly to alialt if the bill passes.
His description of the "torment" that busing forces on helpless
children does not hold up, for instance, in Charlotte, which was a test
case for busing a decade ago. .School officials there point to
improvement in achievement and competency test scores and a
narrowing of the gap between white and black students' scores in the
years since the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools were desegregated. In
recent years racial fighting has declined markedly, and the percentage
of white students attending private schools, which rose during the first
years of integration, has leveled off.
..Further, it is unlikely that the Helms amendment will effect the
desegregation of most school systems. Many already employ busing to
achieve racial balance, and the bill will not affect them. In other cases,
federal courts may still order busing when necessary to integrate
schools.
Perhaps the most promising aspect of busing has been documented
by a Catholic University study also released last week. Researchers
found that in 14 cities with broad school desegregation programs,
including Charlotte, neighborhood integration had increased as a
result of school integration. Parents found they could no longer flee
to the suburbs to escape integrated schools, and busing provided an
incentive to live in integrated neighborhoods with nearby schools. In
Charlotte, neighborhoods are substantially more integrated than they
were in 1970, when busing to achieve racial balance began. Once
neighborhoods integrate, busing can be reduced, and residential areas
may derive the same social benefits from integration that schools have.
Busing has never been proposed as an end in itself; rather, it is a tool
to build better schools and a better society. Helms would take that tool
away from the Justice Department while claiming to protect "little
children" from "federal bureaucrats." Given time, busing may
achieve its objectives, and, having served its purpose, become less
essential to.integrated schools. That outcome should be satisfactory to
students, parents and educators and, perhaps, even to Jesse Helms.
guilty of the crimes charged according to the law. In
reaching such a decision the jury decided that the
confusing and conflicting testimony did not prove guilt
beyond "the shadow of a doubt."
Nobody can say with certainty whether the jury was ,
"right" or "wrong." Few of us have heard more of the
evidence than brief news reports, and none of us took
part in the jurors' deliberations. What the "Rally for
Justice" organizers were implying is that they could,
nonetheless, second-guess the jury. Indeed, one
wonders why they even acknowledge the need for a
jury at all. The whole point of their protest was that
there was only one "correct" verdict. In reality, they
are advocationg trial by popular prejudice, not trial by
jury.
Response
Unlike the Wilmington 10 and Charlotte 3 cases, the
issues raised by critics of the Greensboro trial are not
related to the admissibility of evidence. The
prosecution, by all accounts, presented all the evidence
possible in light of the Communist Workers Party's
absolute refusal to cooperate.
In condemning the verdict, critics of the trial are in
reality condemning the jury without even a hint' of
fairness or due process. To say that all 12 acted in bad
faith merely on the basis of the circumstantial evidence
about their race and educational background is to
engage in the vilest form of prejudice and character
assassination. There is simply net a shred of objective
evidence that any of them engaged in a malicious or
intentional attack on justice.
It is indeed distressing that Nazi leader Harold
Covington can take advantage of the jury's verdict to
promote his sad, sick views. But those concerned about
the signals the verdict may send to extremists should
also consider the signal their own actions may send the
world. Many now imply that our jury system is
irrelevant. Their rhetoric hark ens back to the days of
witch trials, lynchings and mob rule. They would have
trials take place in the media rather than the
courtroom. Due process as we know it would have no
place in the world they advocate.
The system has worked and the jury has spoken.
Whatever our feelings about the Klan, the Nazis or the
CVVP we should accept the verdict barring any real
evidence of procedural error or juror collusion. To do
otherwise, as The Daily Tar Heel and Student
Government advocate, is to weaken the constitutional
protections on which all of us rely.
Ray Warren is a first-year law student from Ccrrboro.
B
77.
ebmte observer fiimls
6jp
I u
TlHI9 coimmendoible
To the' editor:
I would like to thank the joint Senate
of the Dialectic and Philanthropic
societies and the staff of The Daily Tar
Heel for a genuinely entertaining and
informative debate last Tuesday
evening. The discussion was lively and
good-natured, with comments taken in a
truly positive spirit.
The DTH is indeed an exemplary
publication. Its long list of awards and
commendations highlights the
consistently high quality of its staff.
Dedicated writers put in more hours per
week than I probably put into academics
and extra-curriculars combined.
Most of the arguments put forth
against The Daily Tar Heel last week
related either directly or indirectly to
space restrictions. Group A didn't get
any coverage; Feature B was irrelevant;
Editorial C doesn't affect students at all.
The DTH, however, as its spokesman
rightly pointed out, has the
responsibility of providing students with
balanced and stimulating reading within
the evils. of financial constraints. It is a
responsibility seriously taken and, I
believe, well-met. The results are
something in which the entire campus
should take pride. :
Danny McKeithen
321 W. Cameron Ave.
Selective enforcement
To the editor:
I could not disagree more with
Melanie Sill's article on the Campus
Smoke-In, "Strategy: University 1,
Yippies 0," (DTH. Nov. 21). The
University did not "emerge as victor"
even on a purely strategic basis. We were
all losers.
If a law is just, it should be enforced.
If a law is unjust, it should be changed.
The capriciousness of "strategic" law,
enforcement-makes a mockery of the
very concept of justice.
If the legitimacy of the law against
smoking marijuana is considered
debatable, then let us debate it and
decide one way or the other. One must
respect those who attended the Smoke
In for eloquently stating their opinion by
their action. One must admire the
courage with which they hold their
convictions, for they were willing to risk
fete m
' f MAO'5-Wipcfc)
"T
r
arrest to stand by their belief.
On the other hand, one must deplore
the unwillingness of the authorities to
answer them. One must assume that
their laws are based not upon their
perception of truth but their recognition
of their ability to tyrannize the isolated
individual.
' If the authorities did not want to
create martyrs, perhaps we should
interpret this as a realization that their
laws are spurious, for a martyr is one
who "undergoes suffering for any great
cause."
Should anyone wish to debate this
assumption, as I certainly should, then
let us go ahead and debate it, rather than
hide away behind "strategy." In the
words of Kingman Brewster, the only
answer to bad ideas is better ideas, and
surely a university is where rationality,
not tyranny, should decide the law.
Meanwhile, if 200 people advertising
an intent to break the Honor Code, and
then breaking it, constitutes a "small"
71
thing, then one person breaking it
covertly is surely worth no mention at
all. With final exams ahead of us, it is a
shame to see cheating thus condoned,
but it seems the authorities do not care
anymore.
Clive A.
Stafford Smith
203 Carr St.
Still smoking
To the editor:
You are not serving the interests of the
UNC student body when you pretend to
be as naive as the standard press. The
last marijuana cigarette was not finished
five days ago as you said in "Strategy:
University 1, Yippies, 0." DTH, Nov.
21). They are still being burned (thank
God) and those who smoke them are still
criminals. You also reported that John
Ganga and Ruth Green were "outside
agitators" of the Smoke-In. That was
what we wanted, for then. The Smoke-
In was instigated and, for the most part,
carried out by North Carolinians.
We North Carolinians, who like to
keep. a, low. profile, don't like being
called criminals because we smoke pot.
Had the Unviersity sponsored the event,
perhaps a dorm would have provided
beer (illegal, isn't it!) and instead of
throwing frisbecs, someone would have
thrown a punch. Alcohol is like that.
If the governor received several calls,
the University's funding is threatened,
and the State Bureau of Investigation is
turning purple, then we were certainly
successful. As long as we are harassed
and captured and held hostage by the
state for marijuana, the problem exists
and cannot be forgotten. And joints will
burn in protest until pot is free or the
state goes up in smoke.
Chris Kueny
137A Johnson St.
Outmoded tradition
UNC senior Richard Klimkiewicz was one of the 10 candidates for
homecoming queen this fall. He was the only man of the 10, and he
didn't even come close to winning. But winning the queen title wasn't
Klimkiewicz's purpose in entering the contest. "I wanted to get people
to think about it more," he said. "It keeps sexism going. Even if
people don't think about it that way, subconsciously they're carrying
out the same old practices. I don't think we should have (a
homecoming queen contest) at all."
The Carolina Athletic Association sponsors the homecoming queen
contest every year, and its president, Charlie Brown, emphasizes that
though it may look like one, it is not a beauty pageant. "Organizations
use it as a way of honoring the girls in their groups who have done a lot
for them. It shows the organization (entering a contestant) cares about
the girl, and it's a way to get up spirit for the homecoming game," he
said. But he also admitted that many times organizations do pick
"nice-looking girls" to represent them. "It is sexist," he said.
What's surprising about the homecoming contest is that its rules
mention nothing about its including only females. A homecoming
candidate must' be a registered UNC student and must not be on
probation for any student honor code violation. That's all.
Males traditionally have not participated in the contest because it
was a beauty parent more than anything else when it first began. But
if it's true that most people ilc the purposes of the homecoming queen
election as promoting school spirit and honoring those who have
served well the organizations to which they belong, then men certainly
ought to be included, too.
For instance, orf?.ni?ations could eliminate much of the
superficiality of voting for a "pretty face" by publicizing their
candidates backgrounds and accomplishments, not- just their
photographs. And the flowers now given to a queen could easily be
replaced by a trophy any queen or king would be proud to own.
Some of you may be cringing at these suggestions, saying they wcuU
ruin the tradition of homecoming queen and arguing that no self
respecting man would vent the title anyway. If you are, then you're
seeing from a different perspective what some students like
Klimkiewicz, h:;e been arguing all along, that the content in more
v.ays th::n mil h ridieu!-:s. And v.e sertotnly wonder if its worth
hrviag at all.
Governments still use torture despite U.S. efforts
By JON A THAN RICH
On the night of March 29, 1976, the court documents
charge, Paraguayan police officials awakened Doily
Filartiga, daughter of a political opponent of the
military government of Paraguay, and took her to the
home of Americo Pena-Irala, the inspector general of
police. There she was shown the mutilated corpse of
her 17-year-old brother, Joelito. lie had been whipped,
slashed and tortured with electrical devices. Fslartiga
fled from the house, and Pcna-Irala followed her,
allegedly shouting, "Here you have what you have
been looking for for stf long and what you deserve.
Now shut up." The message, she felt, was clearly
directed not at her but at her dissident father.
On the morning of June 30, 1980, a United States
court of appeals announced its decision in a case
brought by the Filartiga family against Pena-lra!a a
decision that breaks new ground in the body of law
governing torture. The court's opinion held that the
Filartigas may bring civil suit in the United States
against Pena-Irala who entered this country in 1978 on
a visitor's visa. In effect, the court held that
torture whenever iris practiced- is a violation of the
law of nations and can be redressed in American
courts.
This account of the appe court d.vi.ion, gsven tn
a recent article in Tht New York Tnr.es Mjgazir.e,
marks the latent development in the recent growth cf
international concern over the incidence of torture and
other human rights violations. The OranLtasion of
African Unity, for cxamp!?, has decided to acz'.z a
Pan-African human rights una, a step that was
paralled by the eitaMi-.hmcf.t cf an ir.ter-Amcrican
court of human rirhts. Private Organizations such as
Amnesty Ir.tcrru'.ieir.al has?
to locus f-
their programs
linked tardea
potential fcc;;l.
i: .: :s cf :
pc
c.i ctfc:;.
:n f:
Cor.,
: f;
rni has
rordi cf
' . ..' I-"
the use of torture. Yet despite the increase of
'institutional activity and the establishment of greater
constitutional protection, the use of torture is still
shockingly prevalent. The Argentine government has
been accused of systematic torture of many citizens, the
Columbian military seems guilty of torturing political
prisoners, while the United States State Department
reports the use of "electrical devices" in Afghanistan.
The genocide practiced by Cambodia's Kymcr Rouge
represented a gross violation of human rights in the
most extreme form, and two years after the death of
Steve Biko, South' African blacks are still routinely
mistreated by that country's police and courts. And
even the long list of blatant violations gives no account
of the psychological and physical harassment employed
by many regimes against political opponents, labor
unions and other dissidents.
With its long tradition of democratic government
and constitutional rights, the United States naturally
has assumed a leading role in the international human
rights movement. Historically, we have emerged, at
least in an ideological sense, as a champion cf human
liberties at home and abroad.
Despite our historical and ideological commitment,
the nation often has chosen economic and strategic
objectives over human rights" considerations.
Unfortunately, the United States is now moving even
further away from taking any forceful stance on the
violation of human rich's.
:r.J
scIHih.
Increasingly, the - trend in both cp'nlcn
government poacy ras t-cen towarj a
shortsighted interpretation cf wcrld everts. The Carter
admir.a.tr at ion's Mideast p-aliey refect t a strategy that
places r.casy empha'ii en r..'!.ta;y cbjrethe ar.j till;
the. More recently, we have witnessed the election cf
pol.tleiar.s whi have carr.pa';n:J and won cn tu:h
cc'jfcJ i.-.;:r. "Panama Ca.-.al ieray." and
. . .
American aid to the
N.ja:a.;ua." I. P;r :
I.A prcmi .ed m a:d and p
f;l;r.dj, r.J n:...tt:r wh-j c-r wl.;
th-y rrht be.
There h t.o que.:', m th?.t the
r.-.u.t t.;!j.r.,-e our inren. : J
r:,.V: v, ,:h our cau: . I
i' A the two sre r-.: ;d.aM t.
t rr
v.-
t s:
- M
- -
V: 'I
cf At:::ri,a'i
A Itn-i C"t
r 5 13 I
.-1 i;
out, for example, that despite the much publicized
commitment to human rights by Congress and
President Jimmy Carter, the United States, still
maintains cordial relations with many totalitarian and
repressive regimes. We continue to grant military and
economic aid to South Korea and the P es, w hile
our strongest human rights appeals are directed to
those countries who are of no economic or strategic
importance Cambodia or Uganda, for example.
Other critics argue that by making human rights the
basis for U.S.-Soviet dilomacy, Carter contributed to
deteriorating relations while doing l.ttle for Soviet
dissidents.
Given the realities cf international polities,. it is
difficult to formulate a foreign policy that Is entirely
consistent or popular. There are times when political
considerations must take precedence. Cut any policy
that fails to account for human rights docs not violate
our ideological commitments. It, aho is patently
dangerous. For years, this country blindly fed capons
and support to the shah, confident that he would act as
a watchdog over our Midea.t interests. V3wemakc the
same mistake with Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? The way
to counter Soviet-Cuban influence in Africa and South
America is not to prep up "frimd'y" regimes, but to
support those who demonstrate a respect fi-r the
human rights of their pae-!r suh as the socialist
government in Nicaragua.
Despite the emergence cf an international censensus
condemn.;.' tcrture, its u-e and a hast cf ctl rr hi man
ri;-htt si;Lt;r.s persists. f.!.-ar.h.!e, we v.:h is
i cemmijted to this r
cur o
V. I
nil.
Li
V!
str-'c a c r ef":,;
V, r fr : J 1 aa
a t.':f..'i c
rntum cf the
. : d. A!:? -
If.
CC'Ur.t;
! of i.arrra; -!
,', to osct! : -k tne
1 , scfa,h.ei -t
-:d a fa tt
r
m
t:
p,:
1 r
a n cf t
. lot
;aa. ri a'
1 c
! -
tJ?
r . t t:
r ia r the
::
ir.f. ., u i;
ut fa fi-
( i. .i
r
I
. ev. i