1 on"he Daily Tar HeelFnila,-. C '
Jim Hummu. Mm
Susan Mauney. aum Mm
Jonathan Rich. a,uu- iJim
John Drlsc.her. asmuu- Mm
OP1
Democrats9 tactics shrewd
By JONATHAN RICH
(life
Edwina Ralston, j 'miwfy liAw
John Royster. ovy i-Jihv
Charles Herndon. xui,w Mm, jftwr
Beth Burrell. n Mim
Clifton Barnes, spm Mm
Tom Moore. Am Mm
Keith King. Ftumm mm
SCOTT SHARPE. Photography Miior
Ann Peters. .vWji .
Chuck James. OmWw.
3 '
Ola
1
yftjr o" editorial freedom
Alcohol alternative
Considering the recent controversy that has surrounded the.Chapel Hill
Police Department's strict enforcement of the public consumption law, it
is encouraging to finally see the University and town working together to
solve the problem.
Over the past month a large number of students, without any warning,
were issued citations for public consumption violations, facing a $31 fine
in addition to acquiring a criminal record.
But earlier this week, Student Body President Scott Norberg and Chapel
Hill Mayor Joe Nassif announced a plan that allowed arrested students to
enroll in an alcohol abuse program, rather than receive a fine and convic
tion. The option is open to all students arrested before Oct. 6.
The proposal is a welcome move on the part of Nassif, who has been
criticized for taking a hard line on the enforcement of the ordinance. By
taking a step back and offering the involved students an option, the mayor
demonstrated that he was willing to work out some type of agreement.
In addition, Nassif said this week that policemen would be issuing warn
ings first, instead of immediately issuing citations. This should give stu
dents that are unaware of the town's policies a fair chance to familiarize
themselves with the law, avoiding a fine and criminal record.
The town has every right to work toward correcting what it sees as a
real problem namely teenage drinking and public consumption. And
students should not neglect their own responsibilities. The main concern,
however, has been the methods that Nassif and the Chapel Hill Police
Department used to fight the problem.
Norberg should be praised for coming up with this innovative plan.
Nassif s willingness to compromise, or at least accept this alternate plan is
commendable and should help to improve town-university relations in
the months ahead.
Even in the shifting world of politics, the Democratic
Party has undergone a remarkable transformation. After
months of defeat and depression, the party is feeling psy
chologically, if not politically, invigorated. Equally im
portant, it has altered its traditional approach to political "
involvement.
Disorganized and disheartened by the presidential
election results, the Democrats were unable to oppose or
significantly alter any of Reagan's budget or tax legisla
tion. The Conservative Digest ran a two-page spread of
cartoons ridiculing U.S. House Speaker Thomas P.
O'Neill and his futile attempts to block the Reagan ad
ministration's proposals, and to some, "Tip," began to
appear as an anachronistic symbol from a bygone era.
Meanwhile, Republicans confidently pronounced that
their golden age had finally arrived.
O'Neill and other Democratic leaders are now almost
gloating over the increasing criticism of Reagan's econo-,
mic and foreign policies. As the administration strives to.
cope with high interest rates, a credibility gap with Wall
Street and the seemingly impossible task of balancing the
budget, the Democratic Party has consciously decided to
accept a secondary role. For a party with a long history
of active political involvement and legislation, it's a radi
cal departure from tradition.
Much of the new passivism can be attributed to the
painful defeats suffered in the early days of the Reagan
Administration. Torn by strife between the party's con
servative, moderate and liberal elements, the Democrats
failed to draft an attractive alternative to Reagan's eco
. nomic package. They could only propose a plan that
would have given Reagan 75 percent of his desired tax
cuts, and a tax cut that was virtually indistinguishable
from the president's.
at large
What's in a name?
A recent decision made by a district court judge has changed the status
of man's only permanent ppssession his name. By removing an out
dated law regarding parents' rights over a child's surname, the court com
mendably defended the right of self-expression.
Handed down last week by Judge Robert R. Merhige Jr., the decision
will allow parents to assign their children any last name they choose, be it
the mother's surname, a combination of the parents' surnames or even
that of a fictional cartoon character.
The previous law required that a child born to a married couple be
given the father's last name. But such rigid absolutism, Merhige said,
violated the couple's right to privacy and to freedom of expression J .
The ruling is long overdue. In the realm of so private and personal an
event as the birth of a child, it is important that couple be allowed to
name their child without unnecessary interference from the state.
The ruling resulted from a 1979 lawsuit filed by the N.C. Civil Liberties
Union on behalf of three couples. One, a Chapel Hill couple, wanted to
give their son, Adrian, a hyphenated combination of their last names
Moore-Pleasant. According to state law, the hospital had to drop the
hyphen, making Moore the child's middle name instead.
The ruling is an appropriate move by the state to allow parents to make
their claim to individual freedom and self-expression. It will also eliminate
the discriminatory innuendoes of the old law, which implied that a mother's
name is automatically secondary to that of the father's. It is encouraging
that the state, upon re-examination, has recognized the importance of
supporting personal freedom and has acted to remove those laws which
threatened it.
The Democratic Party was also damaged by the defec
tion of the "boll-weevils," a group of conservative South
ern Democrats who were successfully wooed by Reagan
to support his now bipartisan legislation. Shaken ide
ologically as well as politically, the party was forced to
re-evaluate its traditional emphasis on government spend
ing and involvement, and confront the harsh reality of
an electorate grown weary of excessive inflation, taxa
tion and regulation.
The Democrats have since discovered the adyantages
of inaction over action. As Wall Street and the business
community remain skeptical over Reagan's ability to
lower interest rates and balance the budget, there has
been increasing dissention within the ranks of Republi
cans and the administration itself. Republicans, as well
Letters to the editor
as Democrats, have opposed further cuts in social spend
ing, while the division between the supply-siders and
monetarists in Reagan's camp has become more marked.
As O'Neill summed it up: "Republicans are fighting
with Wall Strt;et, Republicans are fighting with them-
selves I thitik I'll sit on the sidelines for a while."
Thus, w'len the White House announced it was press
ing for a new round of social cuts, both House and Sen
ate Democrats agreed not to draft an alternate proposal.
The Democrats' new attitude was also reflected in their
decision not to propose reforms for the Social Security
system, even though this has traditionally been their area
of expertise. Democratic leaders have been so enthused
over the prospect of Reagan's controversial cuts becom
ing a serious burden during the 1982 elections that they
reportedly discouraged House social-security subcom
mittee chairman J.J. Pickle to suggest his own reforms.
The Democrats are pursuing a shrewd policy of non
involvement. It is in many ways similar to that of the tra-.
ditional opposition party in European parliamentary
politics, which by its. complete disassociation from the
government's policies hopes 'to benefit upon their
failure.
Democrats can now claim they are not responsible for
high interest rates, social security cuts or other unplea
sant conditions a position that would be challenged if
they succeeded in implementing their own bills. Hoping
to capitalize on popular opposition to the administra
tion's budget cuts, Democratic officials also have been
instructed to tour the country, holding hearings to assess
the results of cutbacks in various social programs.
Although the Democrats' concern over the 1982 con-
gressional elections is understandable, their new policy
can only be detrimental to those people they claim to
represent. With 36 million oeople presently dependent
on Social Security, the fate of this multi-billion-dollar
system will have great impact on this andNfuture genera
tions. Unless reforms are enacted, the system's basic re
tirement fund could temporarily run out around election
day next year, and the problems will multiply when the
baby-boom generation retires early in the next century.
Such a politically hazardous problem cannot be ade
quately addressed by one party. The Democrats must
join with the Republicans in a bipartisan solution that
will benefit the entire nation.
The Democrats' inaction on the question of budget
cuts is equally irresponsible. Both parties recognize the
- importance of balancing the budget and reducing infla
tion. Rather than wait for Reagan's attempt to squeeze
more cuts out of social services to backfire, the Demo
crats might point out that the administration's inflated
military budget, if anything, deserves trimming. It is the
Democratic Party's responsibility to propose a workable
alternative to cuts in social spending.
The primary object of any politician is winning in
our political system there is no place for coming in se
cond. But if winning involves abrogating responsibility
to those who elected you, the whole purpose of represen
tative government has been undermined. If the Demo
crats do not recognize this fact their constituents soon
will. "
Jonathan Rich, a junior history and political science ma
jor from Quogue, N.Y:, is associate editor for The Daily
Tar Heel.
Whrren comments on CGC election loss
To the editor:
Losing is something every person who
seeks political office must learn to accept.
I accept my loss in the Graduate District 1
Campus Governing Council race. I do
not, however, accept the notion that the
negative, dirty, and unethical tactics used
against me should go unanswered. Such
tactics should not become the norm on
our campus.
By their own statements, the write-in
candidate and Doug Berger, his campaign
organizer, admitted that they launched a
purely negative attack in reaction to my
candidacy. The object was not to win so
much as to keep a non-liberal person
from winning.
Although my candidacy was announc
ed in the DTH at least five days before
the election, nobody from the Coalition
for a Better Student Government attemp
ted to raise any issues or engage in any
debate over any issue. Rather, they
waited until election day to flood the law
school with flyers denouncing me and an
nouncing their write-in effort. The flyers
had created many incorrect inferences
and distorted my views, but of course
there was no time to answer them.
. I do not understand why nobody else in
the law school took time to seek the va
cant CGC seat before the filing deadline
passed. I fail to understand why the my
sterious new coalition Mr. Berger (who is
not even a constituent of my district)
formed never attempted to ask my posi
tion on any issue or allow me to reply to
their charges. I am at a loss to explain
why the organization Women in Law
chose to endorse my opponent on the
basis of hearsay without ever asking me
to express my own views.
I do understand, however, that Doug
Berger, who so often entertains us with
self-righteous homilies on the morality of
campaign tactics, has once again resorted
to the art of personal attacks and last
minute distortions. For all the hype about
openmindedness, UNC remains one of the
last pockets of bigoted, narrow minded,
and self-righteous liberalism. And the lit
tle leftist ayatollahs in the Law School care
more about stopping those who fail their
litmus test of righteousness than about
taking positive steps to offer their services
to the students.
For the record, I do read National
Review and admire William F. Buckley. I
am a member of an organization sup
ported by the president and 103 members
of Congress called Young Americans for
Freedom. I do not, however, consider
myself a radical or an "ultra" anything.
On occasion, I even anger my conserva
tive friends with such views as support for
the Voting Rights Act or opposition to
draft registration. That I could strike fear
into the heart of anyone is somewhat
puzzling to me.
Andy Harkov has now won election on
the sole basis of his "get that radical Ray
Warren" campaign. He now owes the
students of his district (the majority of
whom did not vote at all) some assurances
of more positive action. Will he defend
the right of students to address the CGC
(a right denied last spring to several per
sons)? Will he seek to protect graduate
scholarship and aid money from transfer
to undergraduate use? Will he communi
cate with his coastituents about CGC ac
tivities? As for Andy's assertion that CGC
funded groups can act as political action
committees, I ask him whatever happen
ed to his much ballyhooed belief in
freedom of choice? It bothers me that,
despite the fact that my grandparents and
parents labored all their lives in textile
mills (and other hard labor) to pay the
taxes which support this university, some
think I have no right to attend it unless I
also pay "tribute money" to their pet
political causes.
Yes, I think students have a right to
make up their own minds about which
political movements they choose to sup
port. But apparently we only have the
right to agree with the leftist agenda;
compulsory liberalism is still the true
Carolina creed.
Ray Warren
School of Law
Co b b deatK sfliodke d caMujp ms 20 jera e
go
By JOHN DRESCHER
It was Friday, Oct. 6, 1961. It was a day that
started off like any other day for Cobb Resi
dence Hall janitor Bobby Holt. Performing his
usual chores of emptying trash cans and clean
ing rooms in the then male dormitory, Holt en
tered one second floor room about 10 a.m. and
thought it strange to find both students still in
bed. He knew the students and knew they didn't
sleep late, but gave it little thought and left the
room.
An hour later, Holt received a request from
the manager of the Lenoir Hall cafeteria. The
manager, curious as to why two of his student
workers had not reported to work, asked the
janitor to check , on the students, who were
roommates. The janitor again opened the door
he had entered an hour before, but this time he
noticed something that was to make this day
different from any other day in his life.
The two students, William Henry Harrison
Johnson Jr., of Statesville, and James Michael
Barham of Burlington, were dead. Holt called
the cafeteria manager, who summoned a cam
pus policeman and drove the two to Cobb. Holt
then notified the University and police officials.
Clad in pajamas, both students lay on their
backs in bed. A pillow completely covered the .
face of one student and a blanket nearly covered
the face of another. Holt said he saw traces of
foam on the faces of both.
Soon a barrage of police and University of
ficials were on the scene. Detectives and a cor
oner also arrived. The bodies were removed
amid a pack of bystanders and photographers.
The only investigative information released for
the day was released at 3 p.m. from the coroner,
who said only that the students had been dead
for several hours. Shortly after 3 p.m., a new
lock was installed on the students' room and
campus policemen were ordered to guard the
door to the room.
Twenty years later, Holt, who still works for
the University, says he remembers the day well.
"It's been a long time,' but I still think about it
every now and then."
Holt remembers the students as being fairly
typical, although he did say both were involved
in various activities and kept busy. The mood
around campus after the deaths, however, was
anything but typical, Holt said.
"It was real spooky like for about three or
four days," he recalled. Although new students
eventually moved into the room, they did so
with some hesitation. "People kind of shied
away from it for a while " he said. "Yeah, I still
think about it every now and then."
Immediately, investigators attempted to un
ravel the case. Barham, 21, a junior and the
dormitory floor manager, was described by
friends as outgoing and friendly. Johnson, 24, a
graduate student in Industrial Relations, was
said to be "very quiet." The two were rooming
together for the first time that semester.
While an autopsy revealed .that the two stu
dents had died of cyanide poisoning, after three
days of investigation, the amount,. the form and
the means of administering were not known. No
cyanide was found in the room and pathologists
said they could find no trace of it in the two
milkshake cups found in the room.
Investigators questioned 30 to 40 students,
trying to piece together the events that led to the
students deaths. Barham's whereabouts for
most of Thursday were known, but Johnson's
activities from about 9:30 to 1 1 p.m. Thursday
were unknown. The two did not eat supper to
gether. Barham was seem playing pool down
town about 9:30 p.m. and then back in his
dorm room shortly after that. About 1 1 p.m.,
Barham was found in the bathroom violently ill.
He collapsed and had to be carried to his room.
A student said Johnson did not seem to be con
cerned and hardly helped Barham back to their
room.
After placing Barham on a bed, the student
said he asked to call a doctor, but Johnson
replied that he did not think it was necessary.
Johnson told the student that he would call a
doctor if Barham did not improve and the stu
dent then left the roefm. Neither Barham nor
Johnson was seen alive again.
At least seven policemen continued to work
on the case. On Tuesday, police received the
first clue in solving the case: The day before the
students' deaths, Johnson had made inquiries
about a "fast-acting poison." Several students
reported hearing Johnson making inquiries
about attaining poison. -
. Police Chief W.D. Blake said accidental poi
soning had been ruled out by the police, saying
it was either murder-suicide, double murder or a
suicide pact. Because of interviews with friends
of Barham, police were doubtful that Barham
had taken part in a planned suicide.
"It's almost impossible to arrive at any defi
nite conclusions," Blake told DTH reporters.
"I'm just hoping we'll be able to have enough
evidence to prove when and what happened."
On Saturday, Oct. 14, the State Bureau of In
vestigation chemist began an analysis of vomit
found on the beds and floor of the dormitory
room to determine the amount of cyanide used.
Because cyanide was easily available in campus
laboratories. Chief Blake said he thought the
chance of finding the source of the poison was
very small. As the investigation continued, the.
DTH reported that "many doubt that anything
but theories will turn up."
As the investigation continued into its fourth
week, police became frustrated. The SBI pains
takingly continued its laboratory tests. The con
tents of the boys' stomachs, bed clothes, cloth
ing and regurgitated food particles were all stud-
f v f ( tO , I
. ied.
In January, the SBI finally released a state
ment that said the students "died as a result of
the act of one of them or both of them." Super
ior Court Solicitor Ike Andrews said there was
no evidence that any third party was involved.
"1 don't believe it will serve any purpose to
elaborate further," Andrews said.
Local police had theorized in late October
that the deaths resulted from powdered cyanide
sprinkled on peanut butter crackers the two may
have eaten while playing a game of rook on the
final night.
Around campus there were rumors that John
son was upset at Barham's indifference to him,
but the SBI never went farther than saying no
third party was involved.
Ironically, as if to forget the dorm's past and
give it a new beginning, University officials swit
ched Cobb to a women's dormitory in the fol
lowing fall. The memory of Mike Barham and
Bill Johnson slowly faded, until today, 20 years
to the week after their deaths, their bizarre
deaths have all but been forgotten.
John Drescher, a senior journalism and history
major from Raleigh, is associate editor of The
Daily Tar Heel.