1
r
'k.'V;
4The Daily Tar HeelTuesday, March 15, 1983
till v'fflar .lim-
91st year of editorial freedom
Kerry DeRochi, Bfiwr ,
Leila Dunbar, Associate Editor Alison Davis, Managing Editor
LlSA?UllEN, University Editor
Christine Manuel, state and National Editor
MIKE DeSISTI. Sports Editor
BILL RIEDY, News Editor
John Conway, cay Editor
KAREN FISHER, Features Editor
Jeff Grove, Am Editor
CHARLES W. LEDFORD, Photography Editor
acks must take initiative
By LARRY ELLIS
FBI on the loose
When Attorney General William French Smith issued revised
guidelines for the Federal Bureau of Investigation last week, he loosened
restrictions that had been placed on the bureau's power since 1976. His
new rules, to take effect Monday, allow federal agents to investigate any
group that openly calls for criminal activity or even indicates it may want
to engage in crimes in the future.
Smith's revisions raise questions over the nature of the FBI's power to
investigate, questions which had first led to the 1976 leashing. Many of
his new rules are vague, with a high potential for abuse.
Old problems '
The rules adopted in 1976 were in response to reports of an
unscrupulous FBI that, under the late J. Edgar Hoover's direction, con
ducted break-ins, blackmail and wiretapping. Then-Attorney General
Edgar Levi issued guidelines designed to clean house at the bureau and
polish the agency's tarnished image. Because of the new restrictions, the
FBI was forced to close 10 security investigations that were based on
nothing more than groups' calling for violence. To Levi, mere advocacy
of criminal acts did not warrant FBI full investigations.
Smith's revisions, however, would alter the direction of the FBI. As
California Rep. Don Edwards said, "The guidelines permit the launching
of a full investigation based on advocacy alone." Furthermore, because
of unclear guidelines, a group calling for nonviolent illegal acts, may now
be investigated. This could mean, for example, that protestors at the
University calling for the resistance to draft registration would become
the subjects of a new FBI file.
Perhaps more importantly, the guidelines will allow for FBI infiltration
at the early stage of an inquiry, before "probable cause" is established.
Nowhere do these guidelines specify what circumstances justify using in
formers and infiltrators in an investigation. The new rules add that
"highly intrusive" techniques may be used in preliminary inquiries where
there are "compelling circumstances." The rules, however, fail to specify
what "intrusive techniques" or define the "compelling circumstances."
New fears
Smith and FBI Director William Webster have offered assurances that
the changes are aimed at only the violent acts. And as proponents have
argued, an FBI empowered to investigate groups early on may be able to
stop the violent act before it occurs. "Isn't it better to know that a bomb
is being built than waiting and learning of the bomb's existence after the
explosion occurs?" they have asked.
Certainly, what the proponents say is true. An FBI able to prevent
violent acts by political groups is in the best interest of society. But put
ting this and Smith's assurances aside, there still exists the fundamental
danger of 'unleashing a-bureau which historically has abused its power.
Smith's vague guidelines as they now stand could do just that. Congress,
overseeing the operations of the FBI, now should study closely the
changes and work to ensure that no abuse of power results.
Despite Steve Powell's protests that the "race problem"
has received too much coverage ("Who is . . .?," DTHt
March 2), Laurence Thomas's controversial "black hud
dle" article ("Separate but equal?," DTH, Feb. 22) raises
a number of issues that must be clarified. In particular, we
have got to see that blacks must seize the initiative against
racism, and must seize it now. :
Thomas's principal shortcoming is that he fails to make
a clear distinction between congregating by blacks, for
whatever reasons, and huddling by blacks, for protection
against racism. Responses to his article make it clear that
when blacks oh campus get together, racism need not be
the central issue. In fact, it need not be an issue at all. This
shortcoming aside, the rest of the article exposes with
surgeon-like precision a malignant nerve of campus life,
the black huddle.
The black huddle does indeed exist. It may not be co
extensive with black congregating, but the huddle ac
counts for a considerable portion. The essential question
is, why the huddle? Is it really security against racism? Is it
absolutely necessary for black survival?
The black huddle has been cited as a support
mechanism ("Huddle preserves heritage," DTH, March
1). Support mechanisms serve two major purposes: They
provide an arena for sharing experiences, and they help to
develop strategies for resolving problems. Now it is true
that conversation with someone who has shared one's
problems can be wonderful therapy. But such sharing can
not account for all of the huddling on campus. Spending
that much time just sharing would be self-indulgent. And
what about developing strategies for resolving problems?
The point to remember is that strategies developed in the
huddle eventually have to be used on the playing field.
One cannot simply keep on huddling.
Seizing the initiative, as Thomas calls it, is another
weapon for fighting racism a more effective weapon
than the black huddle. Each black student who joins a
predominantly white campus organization, each black
student who strikes up a conversation with a white passer
by, each black student who goes out to meet white hall
mates is seizing the initiative. To be sure, the mere mixing
of bodies does not ensure an automatic change of racist
attitudes, but it is a hell of a lot better starting point than
the separation of bodies.
Respect is the main advantage that, seizing the initiative
provides. Respect is not something you are offered, it is
something you command. Seizing the initiative and seizing
it right necessarily commands respect. Others may not like
you. They may in fact come to fear you. But they are
forced to acknowledge you as an equal, which to me
sounds like the defeat of racism. The black huddle simply
cannot give that kind of power.
The other advantage of seizing the initiative is that it
can be effective against racism by itself. The black huddle,
however, cannot be effective by itself. In order for racism
to end, whites must come to view blacks as equals. Such a
change can only happen when blacks confront whites on
common ground. The black huddle can cause confusion,
tear or any number of emotions in whites, but it maintains
blacks and whites on separate grounds. Unless it is fol
lowed by seizing the initiative, by meeting on common
ground, the black huddle is useless against racism. Seizing
the initiative, on the other hand, can be a solo move.
True, an occasional huddle might provide strategies for
seizing the initiative. But seizing the initiative affords the.
freedom and the flexibility for one to act before the hud
dle, after the huddle or without the huddle. Blacks do not
need to huddle. It is within each black's power to act on
his or her own.
Now an all-too-convenient move to make is to say that
seizing the initiative advocates ending all black con
gregating. I make no such claim. There are many excellent
reasons to congregate; however, merely huddling to sur
vive racism is not one of them.
Finally, the question always arises, why must blacks
seize the initiative? Why shouldn't whites make the first
move? The answer is quite simply that blacks must seize
the initiative because we have much more at stake. There
are many things that whites ought to do to combat racism.
But we cannot sit huddling waiting for things to happen.
If a black student is upset with racism on this campus, she
or he must seize the initiative. We catch the brunt of
racism. In seizing the initiative we gain considerable con
trol over our environment. We have a weapon for ridding
this campus of racism, a weapon that the black huddle by
itself simply cannot match. '':.
Larry Ellis, a 1983 Rhodes Scholar, is a senior
philosophy major from Skillman, N.J.
LETTERS T
O THE EDITOR
Kremer letter ignores facts
To the editor:
' This is a response to Chris Kroner's let
ter ("Contraception coverage biased,"
DTH, Feb. 25) in opposition to the
"squealer law." Come on, Chris, you
can't really believe that the employees of
the Orange County Health Department
and Planned Parenthood advocate birth
control because their salaries depend on it.
Believe it or not, organizations such as this
don't exist solely to promote, as you put it,
"young people's promiscuity." They pro
vide innumerable other services, such as
blood pressure and dental clinics, general
clinics offering immunization shots,
multiphasic clinics primarily for the elderly
and counseling services. So I guess that
destroys that line of reasoning.
If we understand the rest of the letter
correctly, it seems you are saying that it is
safer for teen-agers to give birth than to
use "unnatural contraceptives." Although
you produce statistics on the safety of
teen-age pregnancy, you fail to show us
how many teen-agers have actually died
from these unnatural contraceptives. Oh,
and "death sometimes associated
with ... " does not count as a statistic.
As for your assertion that parents have a
"right" to know about their "loved
one's" sexual activities, this is at most a
dubious right dependent on their future
support and toleration of their teen-ager's
activities. In many instances, this man
datory knowledge might invite abuse of
the teen-ager, or his or her alienation from
the family. We suppose it is better to strain
the family bond than to foster confiden
tially "superficial rapport" with compe
tent health professionals.
Seeing as we are all living in the real
world, it naturally must be better to avoid
contraceptives altogether and consequent
ly bring all teen-age sexuality to a halt. If
some indiscretion should occur and result
in pregnancy, naturally these "loved ones"
would delight in knowing that their teen
age, daughter avoided "potentially
dangerous contraceptives." Of course,
abortion will cease to exist in this jolly
ideal world, due directly, we're sure, to the
dampening of promiscuity caused by
abstention from contraceptives. With the
squealer law, all "promiscuity" will fizzle,
and everything will be hunky dory. What
splendid reasoning, Kremer!
However, your main point is well taken.
You are absolutely right; teen-agers' would
benefit from postponing sexual activity
until they are emotionally ready, but
unless you are also advocating chastity
belts, we doubt the law alone will have any
effect on a teen-ager's actions.
Miles Midgette
Chapel Hill
Julia Pearlman
Winston
Physical education should be optional
To the editor:
The recent death of a North Carolina
State student in a required physical
education course has forced a re
examination of the requirement for
physical education for college gradua
tion. Physical education for students
should be optional not mandatory.
Physical health is vital for the individual,
but it is also the responsibility of the in
dividual. The University should provide
opportunities for students to enhance
their physical health, but using these op
portunities should be the decision of the
individual.
UNC should follow the lead of N.C.
State in making physical education an
elective instead of a requirement for
graduation. If physical education were
optional, students in the courses would
have a better attitude since they would be
taking it by choice. Duke University has
optional physical jgducation courses
which students may take as credit toward
graduation. Participation in the courses is
high since many students wish to develop
their physical capabilities or learn such
skills as tennis or racquetball. At the same
time, students who take very difficult
schedules or who simply do not wish to
take physical education are not required
to.
UNC should make physical education
entirely optional and eliminate the re
quirement of either passing a swim test or
taking a swimming course during the four
years of college. A student at UNC
should be able to take a maximum of two
, semesters of physical education for
credit, with each course counting two
semester hours toward graduation. If
physical education were optional,
students would be free to take the courses
for their personal enjoyment and benefit.
However, students physically unable to
take physical education or students who
do not have the time for the courses in
their schedules could take other courses
that would count toward their majors.
Making physical education optional
would give students much more flexibility
and freedom in planning their schedules.
. ' Sandra Kaye Hedgepeth
Granville
: V
11
4 '
.
I -
aftyVaartfc-- - inmrM rri rifti-vf rfT-'ft- -vA '1
1 '
Would you like to live in an
air-conditioned, spacious room and
have the use of a pool without a long
bus ride to campus this summer? Granville Towers
is your answer to fun-filled summer sessions
we have all lands of social programs planned while
offering cool comfort in which to study. All utilities
are paid and we have cable TV in all lounges. We
even have a 15-meal plan of Sunday dinner through
Friday lunch so that you will not miss meals on out-of-town
weekends. Everyone will be housed in Gran
ville East this summer. There is no increase in rates
from last summer! ,
Come in or call for applications. Granville Towers, University Square 929-7143.
J UlJIJCilJl
UULJD
I .""ii r i J 1
JJUJ jJjUU iA!Lfci.
PLAYBOY photographer David Chan and his
assistant Sherral Snow are now interviewing
coeds for PLAYBOY'S Girls of the Atlantic
Coast Conference pictorial. To qualify, you
must he a female student registered full- or
part-time at an Adantic Coast Conference
college. Call now for more information and
to schedule an interview.
Call David Chan at the
Holiday Inn at Eastgate (Chapel Hill)
(919)929-2171 March 14 & 15
Raleigh Hilton Inn (Raleigh)
(919) 828-0811 March 15, 16 & 17
Sheraton University Center (Durham)
(919) 383-8575 March 17, 18 & 19
1983. Playboy.
TU 1 ; J. J I t
V