Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / March 22, 1983, 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
6H"he Daily Tar HeelTuesday, March 22, 1 983 Bef eat the increase 91st year of editorial freedom KERRY DeROCHI, Editor ' ALISON DWIS. Managing Editor JEFF HlDAY, Associgte Editor . LlSAPULLEH, University Editor JOHN CONWAY, City Editor CHRISTINE MANUEL, State and National Editor KAREN FISHER, Features Editor MIKE DESlSTI, Sports Editor J EFF pROVE, Arts Editor BILL RlEDY, News Editor CHARLES W. LEDFORD, 'Photography Editor By BRENT CLARK Vote for increase, again On Wednesday, students will decide what they want from their campus organizations by voting on the proposed Student Activities Fee increase. By voting yes they vote for a continued quality in programs provided by campus groups; by voting no, they allow for a reduction in services. Students now pay $15.25 a semester in fees allocated by the Campus Governing Council to student organizations. The money funds services ranging from the Campus Y Big Buddy program to the legal aid provided by the Student Legal Services. The central argument for a fee increase is that it has not been raised in six years. In that same amount of time, the cost of goods has increased by nearly 30 percent. So, while the fee has stayed the same, student organizations have been forced to reduce services. The benefits from the fee increase, then, are opvious. More money will help defray the groups' costs and prevent cuts in future programs. Organizations will not have to struggle to meet costs and may be able to improve their services. . The surplus Critics of the fee increase have cited a general surplus nearing $200,000 as a reason for defeating a fee increase. As Student Body Treasurer Brent Clark says in a column on today's editorial page, a fee increase will only increase that surplus. Clark's arguments are short-sighted, however, and provide no solution to the budget problems facing campus organizations. For the past three years, a fee increase has been discussed and invariably voted down under the pretense that the next CGC will spend the surplus1. For three years that hasn't happened, although last year's council did take $20,000 from the reserve to allocate to the organizations. .-. i As CGC speaker James Exum has said, the turning point has been the vote on a spring concert. In the beginning of a CGC term, cutting into the reserve is a popular idea. However, once representatives realize that cut ting into this reserve may mean no concert, they quickly change their minds. So, as Exum says, the general reserve, instead; of being used Jto help the campus organizations, actually increases in size. A lack of funds not only will hurt the student organizations but will also jeopardize a spring concert. In addition, the services provided by constitutionally-funded organizations will also be 'threatened. The Carolina Union, receiving 33 percent of student fees, has already begun charging for movies and in the future may be limited in attracting quality speakers to campus. The Daily Tar Heel In the oast few weeks, much has been said about The Daily Tar Heel arid four-page papers. The DTH receives 16 percent of the student fees, about $75 ,000 which makes up onefifth of the $41 1 ,000 budget. Student advertising representatives generate the other $300,000. The size of each day's DTH is determined by the amount of advertising revenue. Today's paper, by the amount of ads, should have been a four page paper. However, because of ah insert advertisement, the staff was able to produce a six-page DTH. Without this insert,; six pages would have lost the DTH about $700 in revenue; four pages would have lost $400. The DTH was lucky today. But the bottom line is the paper needs more money. In the past six years, the printing and composition costs of the paper have increased by 50 percent. So large papers filled with local, sports and state news have turned into four-page papers' filled with nothing but ads. A fee increase would bring $8,000 in additional revenue to the paper. This would eliminate four-page papers. Clark in his column did mention the possibility of the DTH going to the CGC for additional money. But it's important to note that when the DTH was first voted but of student government, it was to help make the paper remain autonomous from CGC. To go back to the CGC for addi tional funds, while a possibility, would violate that principle. At this point, the DTH is using the fee increase to petition all students for addi tional money for an extra.18 cents a semester. A student fee should be thought of as an investment; students will get from their organizations what they put in. A $1 .25 increase is not a lot of money. But in this case, it's a little that would go a long way. On Wednesday students at UNC will be asked to vote on an increase in the Student Activities Fee. Many justifications have been suggested for this increase, but I am confident that if students clearly examine the facts, they will be convinced they should defeat the increase. The reason is that students have another source of funds avail able to the campus organizations. On May 16, 1982, the beginning of the Student Govern ment fiscal year, Student Government had $187,000 in its reserve. The reserve is the accumulation of unspent and unallocated funds from previous years. In other words, since the beginning of the allocation system, Student Government has taken in $187,000 more than it has been able to give away to campus organizations. This figure is the amount of surplus funds; it reflects Student Govern ment's financial position after deducting $245,000 the Campus Governing Council gave to groups in the 1982 .budget process and the $71,000 The Daily Tar Heel re ceived. It is extra money. Student organizations are at the mercy of the CGC to receive funds from year to year. Last year, as groups presented requests for funding, many programs were cut. The CGC said it did not have enough money. Thus, a fee increase will not help these groups; it will only increase the amount of money the CGC can allocate. But if the CGC does not allocate all the funds, which it is not required to do, the funds will go into the Student Government reserve.' Student groups need more funds from CGC, but a fee increase is not the answer. After all, when programming is cut with $187,000 in the reserve, how can students rationalize giving the CGC more money? I feel that the solution to the groups' problem of too lit tle funds is for students to pressure the CGC to begin decreasing the reserve, instead of increasing fees. This solution would result in the funding level that groups desire, and deserve, for their programs and prevent stu dents from paying more out of their pockets each year. Get the $187,000 out of the system before adding more money to it. The other main thrust behind the fee increase is The Daily Tar Heel. This is very curious, however, considering the effect of the fee increase for the DTH. They would receive $8,000 more per year only a 2 percent increase in their budget. This is such a small amount, especially in light of the fact that the DTH could request as much as $50,000 per year in: additional funds from Student Government. The constitutional amendment that guaran tees the DTH 16 percent of student fees also allows them to request up to one-third of their budget from Student ' Government. If the DTH only needs $8,000 (or any amount up to $50,000) why haven't they asked Student Government for it? It appears to me that Student Govern ment can afford it much better than the student body. After all, Student Government will probably have more than $150,000 in its reserve on May 16, 1983, while students will be faced with an 18 percent hike in dorm rent and possibly larger jumps in tuition. It does not take a financial genius to determine who can bear, the cost with more ease. , As student body treasurer, I have worked with Student Government's finances and reserve. I know that Student Government can afford to increase programming next year without a fee increase. I know that The Daily Tar Heel can get the additional funds it needs without a fee in crease. Just because the DTH has the power of the pen, don't let them fool you with idle threats of wiping out the crossword or Campus Calendar. Just because the Activity Fee has not increased since 1977 does not mean we need more money. Even with inflation, the CGC has main tained a large reserve. Let's use that to offset inflation, not more fees; Realize that Student Government can meet groups' needs by using this reserve of funds; don't let them use you instead. Brent Clark, a junior accounting major from Greens boro, is student body treasurer. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Students urged to participate in election To the editor: We of the 65th Campus Governing Council are now enlisting the support of the student body to assist us by determin ing the fate of the student fee increase. In other words, we are asking you to offer your opinion on this issue by casting your vote. It is realized that this referendum has been tried once this year, but because of certain technicalities which defeated the legality of the process, the Student Supreme Court ordered that the ballots remain uncounted. The council has observed the correct procedure for the referendum to be deemed legal; however, if 20 percent of the student body does not vote, the fee increase cannot be enacted. Because of the recurrent increase in the costs of living over the past decade, numerous corporations, institutions and especially organizations are beginning to suffer financially. As a result, particularly on the UNC campus, the student body shall suffer the loss of services rendered them by such organizations as the Carolina Union, Campus Y and the BSM unless there is an increase in the student fee revenue. As members of the 1983-84 CGC, we are soliciting your support for a $1.25 student fee increase which you will have the opportunity to voice your op inion on this Wednesday. There has not been an increase in student fees since 1977. As many of you that are involved in "budget-suffering" organizations have seen, the 1977 increase is no longer suffi cient. So, please exercise your right to make a difference at UNC participate in the election and voice your opinion on the student fee increase. Randall Parker Sherri Watson CGC, district 14 Increase unjustified I U- . .ffs. - " "J To the editor: My response to'tfhe justification for a $1.25 fee increase, is stercum' tauri (bullshit)! Just because there has not been a fee increase for si years in no way. justifies one. With an expected reserve of $170,000, I find the proposal ludicrous, To the editor: '..,' Our society needs to become more aware of white collar crime and its terri ble impact on the economy and the justice system. Every year our economy loses forty billion dollars as a result of these highly technological and hidden crimes- The cost to our economy . is greater than all the street crimes combin ed. An absolutely absurd fact is that because white collar criminals usually are from middle and upper classes, they are given more lenient sentences than the average street crime offender. Where is the justice? A major characteristic of white collar crime is the absence of violence. Because of the absence of physical attack and unfounded and unwarranted. The heart of the issue seems to be a better allocation of existing funds to certain organizations such as the DTH and the Carolina Union, not a fee increase. My conscience, frankly, will not allow me to bear the thought of students being deprived of an education Collarless crime confrontation, people do not perceive themselves as being victimized directly. Therefore, popular opinion tends to be that street crimes are much more harmful and dangerous to individuals than white collar crimes. If only people could realize that day by day, in extremely complex ways, their communities and businesses are being drained of millions of dollars and put into the pockets of the supposed ly decent, law abiding citizens. Access is the key. White collar criminals usually have access to technological methods and machines, which, at the push of a button, can misrepresent financial statements, manipulate accounts and hide incomes. Most of these acts are hidden because due to a lack of financial resources while we plug them for additional funds. I urge each of you to vote "NO" on Wednesday and let Student Government know how you stand. . . .. Stephen Harris CGC, District 19 they usually occurs in offices, factories, private homes and boardrooms thus giv ing the criminals an undeserved low visibility. Crimes are crimes no matter who com mits them. Societal status should not play a part when the time arises for a jury to declare someone innocent or guilty. Itjs time for society to become aware of white collar occupations and the ways in which these crimes drain our economy. It is also time for true justice to be done in the country not only to lower-class criminals, but to the upper-class criminals as well. MollieOrr Granville Photo contest To the editor: - On April 10, the sisters of Alpha Chi Omega Sorority will sponsor a Photography Contest and Open House to benefit Easter Seals. En tries can be either black and white or color and must be 11 by 14 mounted. Entries are due by 5 p.m. April 8 at 215 E. Rosemary St. Ten prize winners will be selected. A $2.00 entry fee will be charged for submitting up to three works and all proceeds go to the Easter Seal Society. All entries will be displayed at an Open House on Sunday, April 10, from 2-5 p.m. at the sorority house. Easter Seals serves persons dis abled by virtually any disease or condition. The society operates equipment and loan purchase pro grams as well as speech therapy and hearing screening programs. The society helps sponsor residential camps for the handicapped as well as independent living for disabled college students. For further information, please call the Alpha Chi Omega Sorority at 968-0057. Ann Clifford Alpha Chi Omega Sorority The Daily Tar Heel ; Editorial Desk: Frank Bruni Charles Ellmaker and Kelly Simmons, writers; Jonathan Talcott, staff columnist j Assistant Managing Editors: Lisbeth Levine, Melissa Moore and Eddie Wooten Assistant News Editor: Stuart Tonkinson ' Special Projects: Mark Ancona and Keith Bradsher News: Tracy Adams, Cheryl Anderson, Pete Austin, Joseph -Uerryhill, Ashley Blackwelder, J. Bonasia, Joel Broadway, Hope Buffington, Paul Cocke, Tom Conlon, Kate Cooper,' Lisa Davis, Ashley Dimmette, Linda Evans, Katherine Farley, Pete Felkner, Bonnie Foust, Sherri Goodson, Julie Haack, John Hackney, Ivy Hillard, Kevin Johnston, Bob Kimpleton, Kim Klcman, Rita Kostecke, Susan Kuhn, Stuart Long, Eugene Marx, Gary Meek, Karen Moore, Kim Morrison, Ellen Orahood, Rosemary Osborn, Heidi Owen, David Poole, Sarah Raper, Sharon Rawlins, Mike O'Reilly, Mont Rogers, Lynsley Rollins, Cindi Ross, Mike Sharsky, Lori Schantz, Sharon Sheridan, Jodi Smith, Don Solomon, James Stephens, Mark Stinneford, Susan Sullivan, Carrie Szymeczek, Amy Tanner, Keith Taylor, Lynda Thompson, Stuart Tonkinson, Michael Toole, Evan Trulove, Perry Twisdale, Beth Walters, Lea Watson, Mickey Weaver, Scott Wharton, Lynda Wolf and Jim Yardley. Liz Lucas, assistant University editor, Hope Buffington, assistant state and national editor. Sports: Frank Kennedy and Kurt Rosenberg, assistant sports editors. Paul Gardner, Drag gan Mihailovich, Kathy Norcross," Robyn Norwood, Michael Persinger, John Pietri, Lew Price, S.L. Price, AI Steele and Tracy Young. Features: Debbie August, Dan Bishop, Dawn Brazell, Toni Carter, Michelle Christenbury, Tom Camacho, Tom Grey, Cindy Haga, Kathy-Hopper, Dana Jackson, Warren Miller, Mitzi Morris, Jane Osment, Stevie Roe, Debbi Sykes, Randy Walker, Clinton Weaver and Edith Wooten, Mike Truell, assistant features editor, Arts: David Schmidt, assistant arts editor; John Altschuler, Steve Carr, Jim Clardy, Todd Davis, David McHugh, Jo Ellen Meekins, Mont Rogers, Karen Rosen, Gigi Sonner and D.F. Wilson. Graphic Arts: Jamie Francis, Jeff Neuville, Zane Saunders, Scott Sharpe, Al Steele and Lori Thomas photographers. Dick Anderson, Greg Calaby, Cabell Finch, Doug Hilburn, An thony Moses and Janice Murphy, artists. 'j Business: Rejeanne'V. Caron, business manager; Anne Sink, assistant business manager, Linda A. Cooper, secretaryreceptionist; Dawn Welch, circulationdistribution manager; Patti Pittman and Angie Wolfe, classifieds. i - Advertising: Paula Brewer, advertising manager; Mike Tabor, advertising coordinator; Sharon Duckworth, Keith Lee, Terry Lee, Jeff McElhaney, Doug Robinson, Deana Setter and Maria Zablocki ad representatives. . i Composition: UNC-CH Printing Department j Printing: Hinton Press, Inc. of Mebane. Candidates face apathy By KEN MINGIS November 6, 1984, election day, is more than 18 months away, but that hasn't stopped a slew of Democratic presidential hopefuls from announcing their candidacies, like the last several presidential elections, the problem with the '84 race won't be a shortage of people lusting after the White House, but instead, finding some , way of rousing Americans from the apathetic slumber that has settled on the nation and getting them out to vote. . Judging from those who have already announced their presidential ambitions, it won't be an easy task. So far this year, Democratic Sens. Alan Cranston, John Glenn and Gary Hart have been joined by former Vice President Walter Mondale and former Florida Gov. Reubin Askew in the quest for their party's nomination. Several others, including South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings and Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers will soon enter the political fray. Unfortunately, they all have one thing in common they are about as inspiring as a bad cold. America is in a slump right now, not only economically, but politically as well. It's a leadership depression, and no one seems to be able to end it. Look at the major candi dates that have haunted past elections, and you'll see why: Richard Nixon and George McGovern in 1972, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1976, and Ronald Reagan and Carter in 1980. With candidates like those, why worry about the Russians? And still the pollsters wondered why voter turnout slipped from 64 to 51 percent in 20 years. More and more, 1984 looks like a slow-motion replay, with different names and faces, of the same candidates, making the same promises, and drawing the same (or less) voter turnout. Passionless politics is beginning to look like a terminal disease. Part of the problem has been the candidates that have somehow made it to center stage of American politics. But part of today's apathy has its roots in the late '60s and ear ly '70s, when it became increasingly fashionable not to vote. If the candidate who was popular early inthe year dropped out by election time, a lot of supporters simply opted not to vote at all. Boycotting elections out of frustration replaced protesting and demonstrating that marked the turbulent '60s. Thus began what amounted to a national vacation from politics and political respon sibility for what was happening in the country. By the time 1980 rolled around, Ronald Reagan, who claimed he had won a powerful conservative mandate, had actually been elected by barely a quarter of the nation's eligible voters. Nowhere was the surrender to apathy more apparent than on college campuses. Once the center for dissent and protest, the college campus of the 1970s became simply another hurdle for most students to clear in the race for a good job. Students who would have been screaming about LBJ or Vietnam 10 years before gave up trying to have any influence in Washington. They stopped voting then, and they aren't voting now. last 10 years has been able to grab hold of the heart, soul and mind of the nation. Ford certainly didn't. Carter could only inspire pity. And while you may dislike what Ronald Reagan stands for, it's hard to dislike the man. It's difficult, too, not to like the completely simplistic view Ronnie has of America and the world, even if that world ceased to exist in 1953. The'stakes are high, and each election that passes with falling voter turnout and growing apathy only ups the ante in a world where the United States can blow the earth all to hell with its nuclear weaponry. To their credit, some people are concerned and upset about Reagan's plans for more bombs and another Vietnam in Central America. 1984 looks like a slow-motion replay, with different names and faces, of the same candidates, making the same promises, and drawing the same voter turnout. That lack of passion on campus is symbolic of the na- tion's attitude. People simply don't give a damn anymore, and it's going to take something, or someone, special to change that feeling. The question isn't whether that change will occur, but when. It had better come soon, because ional disinterest in politics is a dangerous thing. It means that most Americans don't care who their leaders are and what they're doing. In the past, there has usually been someone in politics who has made people mad enough, or excited enough, to vote. Richard Nixon was the last person who could inspire the lovehate emotions that got voters to the polls. The reality of Dick Nixon was that you either loved him or hated him; there was no middle ground. Nixon was once described as a "little, cheap, demented, fascist punk" by writer Hunter Thompson. Now that's emotion. If you liked Nixon, you wanted him in the White House and you voted. If you hated Nixon, you wanted old Tricky Dick out of Washington and, like Thompson, you voted. That's no longer the case. With the possible exception of Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, nobody in the But more people would rather worry about their weight or how much money they're making than about the possibili ty of nuclear war. It's easier to worry about a small paycheck than a large nuclear payload. SoTif the economy recovers, and the United States avoids a war, Reagan, the most militaristic president in decades, will be cheerfully re- elected with hardly a yawn. If that happens, and if Reagan stumbles into war, the United States will only be getting what it deserves. J . i." That doesn't have to happen. Passionless politics is by no means a certainty. But if no one emerges that can draw some response from voters, or if events don't push some one to the front the politics of apathy will sink into the na tional consciousness ever deeper. Think about that when the '84 election heats up and you choose to sit it out on the sidelines and the country goes to hell in a handbasket. Ken Mingis is a senior journalism and political science major from Raleigh.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 22, 1983, edition 1
6
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75