6The Daily Tar Heel Wednesday. April 10. 1985
93 rd year of editorial f reedom
Arm Ri ki rt and David Schmidt
I'.Jitnr I'Jihir
SIT ART Tonkinson
Bi n Pirkovcski
Dick Animrson
Janit Olson
Sti:vi: Fi:rc;uson
VaNCH TRI:I;1:THI:.N
Managing liJitor
V.Jttur
Associate liJitor
I hiitersity liJitor
News V.Jitor
State and National liJitor
Li:k;h Williams
Mark Powhi.i.
Lui- Robi.rts
Frank Bruni
Sharon Sheridan
Larry Childrhss
(.'it liJitor
limitless liJitor
Sports liJitor
Arts V. Jit or
Features liJitor
Photo liJitor
A compromise of starts
To compromise or not to compromise
is rarely the question in American
politics. There's usually no choice
either give in somewhere or forget it.
And President Reagan proved last week
he didn't want to forget it, as he
compromised with the Senate Repub
lican leadership on some key points to
get an agreeable budget proposal.
Who else will agree to it is another
matter and one that will be debated
much more thoroughly in the coming
weeks of Congress's battle with the
deficit. Nevertheless, Reagan and his
Republican senators have made a good
start toward finding a budget that might
make it all the way through the House.
Most notably, the president backed
down from previously firm stands on
defense spending and Social Security
benefits. He's agreed to cut his planned
defense increases in half and delete his
campaign pledge "never" to cut Social
Security benefits. Consequently, the
Republicans have gone along with cuts
and terminations in domestic programs.
Of course, all this will now come under
the scrutiny of the rest of the Senate
and then the Democratic-controlled
House, so this can at best be considered
a start. But it's certainly a much more
promising situation than when Reagan
was acting like any compromise on his
defense proposals was inconceivable and
tantamount to treason.
The plan aims at reducing the fiscal
1986 defict by $52 billion and reducing
deficit spending by more than $300
billion over the next three years. Judging
by some of the reaction to the plan,
however, the final budget proposal
might be a different story.
One of the major debating points
almost certainly will be the Social
Security question. The compromise calls
for a 2 percent reduction in benefits for
each of the next three years seemingly
breaking one of Reagan's promises
during the campaign not to touch Social
Security benefits. In a portentous
remark, House Speaker Tip O'Neill
promised that "Democrats will keep him
honest."
And with all this chopping of domestic
programs, more than a few congressmen
will question the fairness of raising
defense spending 3 percent. Reagan
should not rule out a freeze in all defense
spending if he expects to get such
domestic cutbacks as the elimination of
Job Corps past the Democrats.
The biggest debate will probably come
when all the compromises are made and
people start claiming it's not a good
enough dent in the deficit. Then comes
the issue of taxes. Reagan will undoubt
edly put up a bitter fight to stop any
tax increase, but the success of his fight
must not come at the expense of a weak
deficit reduction plan.
Considering the nature of comprom
ise and the complexity and importance
of the budget problem, Reagan and the
Senate leaders should be commended for
making some hard choices and, at least,
getting the ball rolling on a plan that
won't alienate the entire country, as one
Senator put it, or back down entirely
from the kind of sacrifices needed to
reduce the deficit significantly.
Remember me to the BOT
Patricia Wallace's official reaction to
a recent Student Government report on
the mandatory meal plan has been mild
if not negligible. The Mills-Banks-Terrell
Report cited evidence that administra
tors have misled UNC students over the
need for a mandatory meal plan. Her
reaction? To study the issue further and
consult with the very same administa
tors. We believe this is entirely
inadequate.
Well-researched study can be valuable
to student representatives. The SG
report is a 32-page analysis, with
supporting documents provided in full.
Only through such in-depth and com
petent research will UNC students be
able to uphold their interests adequately
in the future. But the will to use the
results of such work is also necessary,
and we cannot recognize it behind
Wallace's strategy of cooperation and
quiet persuasion.
Wallace's only reaction to the report's
strong conclusions and even stronger
recommendations has been to avoid
endorsing its findings and to prepare a
"more in-depth analysis." She refused
the authors' request to send the report
to the University Trustees in advance of
their Apr. 26 meeting. She opposed a
referendum to give voice to student
opinion because it would be "deceiving"
to imply that the vote would have any
impact on the Trustees. "It's saying to
students that their vote counts for
something," she told the CGC. "It
doesn't."
Clearly, Wallace's stance is based on
disturbing rationales: the students are
not aware enough to speak in a knowl
edgeable way; the Trustees do not care
about the students' feelings. But for
whom is this meal service being
renovated?
So far, Wallace has failed to represent
our interests forcefully. If she continues
without overt direction, our president
will have failed to represent us and will
have been "co-opted" by the University
establishment.
The time has come to act. The students
must vote April 18. And Patricia
Wallace must actively uphold the
student position.
The Daily Tar Heel
Assistant News Editors: Cindy Parker and Amy Styers
Editorial Writers: Marshall Mills and Cathy Hughes
Assistant Managing Editor: Jim Greenhill and Kathy Hopper
News: Crystal Baity, Lisa Brantley, Dawn Brazell, Tim Brown, Darlene Campbell, Matt
Campbell, Joan Clifford, Tom Conlon, Randy Farmer Kay Flanagan, Loretta Grantham, Wayne
Grimsley, Mike Gunzenhauser, Heather Hay, Beth Houk, Robert Keefe, Scott Larsen, Genie
Lindberg, Guy Lucas, Jeanie Mamo, Georgia Ann Martin, Dora McAlpin, Yvette Denise Moltrie,
Linda Montanari, Marjorie Morris, Kathy Nanney, Beth Ownley, Grant Parsons, Ruthie Pipkin,
John Shields, Rachel Stiffler, Rachel Stroud, Kevin Sullivan, Joy Thompson, Jennifer Trotter,
Laura Van Sant, Kevin Washington, Kim Weaver, Scott Wharton, Lorry Williams, Laurie
Willis, Katherine Wood and Karen Youngblood. Andy Trincia, assistant state and national
editor.
Sports: Scott Fowler and Scott Canterberry, assistant sports editors. Tim Brown, Tim Crothers,
Mark Davis, Paris Goodnight, Frank Kennedy, Keith Lyall, David McCullough, Tom Morris,
Mike Persinger, Kurt Rosenberg, Mike Scoor, Mike Schoor, Jim Suroweicki, Beth Velliquette,
Mike Waters and Bob Young.
Features: Marymelda Hall, assistant features editor. Mike Altieri, Nancy Atkinson, Vicki
Daughtry, Elizabeth Huth, Jane Mintz, Mary Mulvihill, Tom Rose, Liz Saylor, Sonya Terrell
and Lori Thomas.
Arts: Elizabeth Ellen, assistant arts editor. Martha Bourne, Steve Carr, Mark Davis, Ivy Hilliard,
Alexandra Mann, Alan Mason, Sally Pont, Deanna Ruddock and Virginia Smith.
Photography: Elizabeth Lamm, Charles Ledford, Jamie Moncrief, Jeff Neuville, Jonathan
Serenius and Robin Wilson.
Copy Editors: Roy Greene and Anjetta McQueen.
Interior Decorator: Lynn Davis.
Artists: Bill Cokas, Deborah Kelly, Kelly Mclntyre and David Sumner.
Business and Advertising: Anne Fulcher, general manager; Paula Brewer, advertising director;
Tammy Martin, student business manager; Angela Booze, accounts receivable clerk; Terry Lee,
student advertising manager; Alicia Susan D'Anna, Greg Goosmann, Patricia Gorry, Kellie
McElhaney, Melanie Parlier, Stacey Ramirez, Doug Robinson, Rose Shacklett and Scott
Whitaker, ad representatives; Patti Pittman, classified advertising manager, Laura Bowen,
assistant; Jim Greenhill, office manager; and Cathy Davis, secretary.
Distributioncirculation: William Austin, manager.
Production: Brenda Moore and Stacy Wynn. Rita Galloway, assistant.
Printing: Hinton Press Inc. of Mebane
Forcing all to write right a UNC slight
By KA REN PECK
When I entered UNC last fall.
I felt sure things would be differ
ent. I was optimistic as I envisi
oned the torture I had faced over
the past 12 years finally ending.
After all, why shouldn't things be
perfect in the Southern Part of
Heaven? I was about to embark
on an educational journey in a sea
of renowned professors, dedicated
students and awesome basketball
players. A university of the caliber
of UNC, I thought, most certainly
would be above the level of the
public school system 1 had left
behind.
But I was wrong. My torture
continues at UNC because I am
still discriminated against. 1 am
among the ranks of the few, the
proud, the lefties who are forced
to sit in right-handed desks.
The student handbook states,
"It is the policy of this University
not to discriminate on the basis
of race, sex, color, national origin,
or handicap . . ." Even though the
buildings and classrooms on cam
pus are designed to uphold this
policy, they are not equipped to
accommodate those Tar Heels
who are southpaws. The left
handed students are forced to
attend lectures in classrooms that
do not have left-handed desks. In
the small percentage of classrooms
that do have them, the desks are
always few in number and located
in the extreme front of the room.
It is true that lefties are of superior
intellect, but this does not mem
that we all desire to sit in the front
of the class.
Forcing left-handed students to
sit in right-handed desks is not
only discrimination, it is also
torture. In order to use the desks,
lefties have to turn sideways in
their chairs and slant their note
books almost 90 degrees. Sitting
in such an uncomfortable position
causes cricks in the neck and more
cramps in the hand than one
usually gets from taking notes for
an hour.
Not only does sitting in the
wrong-handed desk harm the
physical well-being of lefties, but
it also hinders their note-taking.
The awkward position of a lefty's
notebook causes the quality of
penmanship to decline drastically.
Many southpaws resort to holding
their notebooks in their laps to be
more comfortable, a practice that
further reduces the legibility of
their notes.
The lack of left-handed desks
causes problems for the right
handed students as well. First, the
right-hander's view of the profes
sor, or any other being he or she
may be scouting, is often
obstructed by the lefty who is
sitting sideways in his right
handed desk trying to take notes.
Second, many righties are even
more likely to cheat on an exam
when they are sitting next to a
southpaw. Since they know lefties
are a superbly intelligent breed, the
right-handed students are faced
with a temptation that is often
hard to resist because of the close
proximity of the lefties' answers
due to the slanted test paper.
Finally, the right-handed students
in those classes that do have a few
left-handed desks are deprived of
the pleasure of being among the
lefties who are forced to sit in the
front of the room in the proper
desks.
In order to maintain its non
discriminatory and national cham
pionship status, UNC needs to
make some changes in its class
room decor. Left-handed desks
should be installed in all class
rooms and placed among the other
desks, not just in front. Such
measures are the least the Univer
sity can do to accommodate its
elite group of left-handed students.
After all, we lefties are the only
people in our right minds!
Karen Peck is a freshman from
Lumberton.
READER FORUM
Editorial's conclusions ignorant, outlandish
To the editors:
It has always been the duty of
journalists, as reporters of events,
to publish the truth. Too often,
though, in writing editorials, jour
nalists resort to half-truths, misin
formation or, in the case of the D TH
editorial, "The slumping shoulders"
(April 5), ignorance and ill
informed conclusions. I was out
raged that such a poorly researched
editorial could make the pages of
major university newspaper.
Obviously the writer of this piece
has not learned that a writer should
never submit an editorial unless he
has done the proper research.
The accident at the Union Car
bide facility in Bhopal, India was
a catastrophe of major proportions.
Yet the author of "The slumping
shoulders" attempts to establish
fault without any knowledge of
either the involvement of Union
Carbide in the plant's construction
and maintenance, or the laws
regarding liability and negligence.
First, I should note some rather
important facts that the author was
either ignorant of, or chose not to
mention:
1) The Union Carbide chemical
plant in Bhopal was built according
to American safety standards. Not
only are these standards more strict
than those in India, but Union
Carbide has built an identical plant
in Virginia that has had an impec
cable safety record.
2) Union Carbide is generally
regarded as the leader in safety in
this type of chemical production by
other chemical manufacturers.
3) Union Carbide, India is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Union
Carbide. Union Carbide maintains
no actual control over its subsi
diary's operation of the plants in
India.
With some factual information
finally established, 1 should like to
start with the author's ridiculous
and baseless claim that Union
Carbide "neglected to tell its Indian
subsidiary how to run the plant."
This is typical of the way irrespon
sible journalists use a casual writing
style to convey the idea that one
party didn't care about the conse
quences of its actions. The fact is
that not only did Union Carbide sell
its Indian subsidiary the plant, but
they instructed the Indian
employees in the proper use and
maintainence of the equipment. The
author of the editorial obviously
made the statement out of ignorance
or as an outright misrepresentation
of the facts.
Union Carbide has not suggested
that its Indian subsidiary deliber
ately caused the accident as the
author indicates. Although the act
of pouring the water into a tank of
methyl isocyanate may have been
deliberate, the intent of causing a
major catastrophe was not there, as
the author states Union Carbide has
claimed. Additionally, how does the
author know that no one poured
water into a tank that it was not
supposed to go into? Maybe the
author was at the scene, or is
privileged to some inside informa
tion that no one else has? This is
what I mean by misrepresentation
combined with baseless conclusions.
Of all the outlandish statements
in the author's editorial, none shows
the writer's total ignorance of the
subject at hand more than the
statement, "Even if negligence was
involved, it was unintentional." The
author is here trying to clear the
Indian subsidiary of blame by
showing that there was not fault on
their part. Unfortunately, the
author once again has not done any
View down the gun. barrel.
research on what he writes. For if
he had, he would know that neg
ligence, by definition, means that
the party had no intent, but is still
held to be at fault. If a person creates
a dangerous situation without
realizing it, and that situation
injures someone, the person creating
the situation is still liable for
damages, even though that person
had no intent to injure anyone. I
suggest that the author learn his
legal terms before condemning
anyone in the future.
Finally, I will not debate the
writer's conclusion that Union
Carbide should pay "until it hurts,"
as it is based on ignorance and
misrepresentations. In addition, I
shall leave legal conclusions to the
federal court system where they
belong. Reactionary journalism has
no place in modern American
newspapers. I suggest that if the
author intends to pursue a career
in journalism, that he learn that
there is some legwork that must be
done before one submits an article
for print.
Alec Peters
Granville South
Number 8?
To the editors:
So Mike Morgan ("Seven theor
ies on Christ's resurrection," April
5) asserts that "one can only con
clude that the resurrection of Jesus
Christ did occur"? Well, his exhaus
tive list of seven theories to explain
the Biblical story has at least one
glaring omission.
Perhaps, if 1 may be so bold as
to suggest it, the entire report of
Jesus' burial and the accompanying
events is fiction. False. Untrue. At
best, good literature.
The Biblical version of the death
of Jesus is not corroborated by any
historical source. To use the New
Testament to "prove" that Jesus
rose from the dead involves the
worst sort of circular reasoning.
Most, if not all, Christians believe
in the resurrection of Jesus anyway.
Others of us are not likely to be
convinced by an argument based on
such an "authority."
Adam Falk
Carrboro
UNC, KKKnot as alien as you might think
To the editors:
When Ku Klux Klan leader
Glenn Miller proclaimed, "White
people are being dragged down to
the level of black people" at a recent
rally in Raleigh, he was claiming the
title of spokesman for the entire
"white race" ("Rally shows new, old
values on the line," April 3).
Moderate whites who try to ignore
the remark, or dismiss it as the
insignificant babbling of a fringe
element, are lacking in empathy for
the people it was aimed at. For these
people, it carries a very real threat
of violence. And when the majority
of white people remain silent, those
who most feel this hatred might
begin to wonder if this man really
is the majority spokesman. After all,
the rest of us haven been clamoring
to refute his remarks.
The most human response to
Miller's remarks is outrage, outrage
that in a country that is founded
on the precept that "all men are
created equal" a man who presumes
to be majority spokeman asserts
that some people are inherently
inferior. These claims cannot be
laughed away; racism is a serious
matter. If whites can't learn to
recognize it. Miller's vision may
indeed become reality.
Those who write the Klan off as
a harmless bunch of kooks should
take a closer look at our own
campus. The poison of racism
moves in subtle ways. In recent
weeks, the UNC administration has
expressed concern over the decline
in black enrollment. Yet 1 have
heard no creative suggestions as to
how to deal with this problem. The
general consensus on campus seems
to be that blacks prefer predomi
nantly black colleges, or just can't
make the grade here. I remember
these same two arguments from my
elementary school days when
schools were first being desegre
gated. "They're happier with their
own kind," or "They're just not
academically inclined, we were
told.
If UNC is serious about recruiting
black students, we must begin to
make a serious effort to meet their
educational needs. We should offer
a black studies curriculum that is
unrivaled by any other institution.
The tremendous contribution of
blacks to our culture must never be
forgotten. Besides recognizing that
a few black historical figures have
made good in the white man's
world, we must also recognize the
unique contributions of black cul
ture as a whole.
Constitutional funding for the
Black Student Movement is another
essential. Although the issue is dead
for this year, it will come up again,
and must be passed if this University
hopes to become fully integrated.
Recruiters must find it very difficult
to explain to a prospective black
freshman that the BSM has to go
before the student legislature each
year to ask for operating funds.
But the most flagrant example of
white supremist philosophy on
UNC's campus is Kappa Alpha's
annual Old South party. Flying
confederate flags and fondly remem
bering the days when we treated a
race of people like cattle is an
offense against God and humanity.
If Kappa Alpha wants their party
to be authentic, they should include
a few characters with white sheets
over their heads and burn a cross
or two.
Racism, flagrant or subtle,
creates victims, but it also creates
oppressors. While the victim is still
human, the oppressor is less than
human. We educated folk at UNC
might flatter ourselves that we hold
nothing in common with Klansmen.
I wonder. Perhaps our quiet accep
tance is more support than they had
ever hoped for.
George W. Loveland
Chapel Hill