Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / April 18, 1985, edition 1 / Page 10
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
10The Daily Tar Heel Thursday. April 18. 1985 93rd year of editorial freedom Arne Rickert and Editor Managing Editor Associate Editor Associate Editor University Editor Hews Editor State and National Editor Stuart Tonkinson Ben Perkowski Dick Anderson Janet Olson Steve Ferguson Vance Trefethen Meal plan referendum: Those of you who have followed our coverage of recent developments con cerning the implementation of the mandatory meal plan are surely aware that today is the day to get out and vote. The results of today's student referen dum will present the first and only accurate view as to the extent of student opposition to the mandatory meal plan. Students, if you do nothing else today, at least vote to preserve your freedom of choice. But first of all, for those of you who are considering not voting at all, or for those of you who consider that your vote will be meaningless, consider these facts: 1) The student body, as a whole, has never before been consulted on this issue. A lack of student organization over recent years made more severe due to the laboring inefficacy of Student Government has played right into the hands of those who are seeking to impose the mandatory meal plan upon students. 2) Administrators have more than once referred to their explanations for having the mandatory meal plan as an 'educational process,' geared toward promoting student acceptance of or apathy toward the mandatory meal plan. Yet the term, 'educational process,' implies that students must be taught what is good for them. The plain fact is this the administrators know that students don't want a mandatory meal plan; so instead of meeting student opposition head-on, they have chosen No time like the Psychologists will confirm a pheno menon that has been apparent in , our Campus Governing Council for quite a while personal beliefs inevitably affect one's perspective. This effect has rarely, however, been as apparent as in recent funding votes taken during this year's budget process. The removal of summer funding for the Campus Y is the most disturbing example, in its imposition of conservative censorship of groups' free speech. After failing to defund this established service organization entirely, conserva tive ringleaders Bill Peaslee and Dave Fazio managed to cut the important summer administrative funding. Their rationale for this cut was that some of the financially independent committees of the Y have committed the cardinal sin of advocating wait for it their political beliefs. However, it appears that the reason for their attention is that these beliefs contradict their own conservative beliefs. Will other groups that advocate political positions, such as the Black Student Movement and our own exec utive branch, have their administrative funds eliminated? This broad, selective application of the constitutional prohibition on funding political programs may itself violate a higher Constitution that of the United One for the tripper Sometimes even the worst laid plans go astray thank goodness. Before Tuesday, the Reagan admin istration had considered canceling a praiseworthy visit next month to a cemetery of German soldiers killed in World War II and had refused an equally honorable visit to the Dachau concen tration camp site. The visit's purpose was "reconciliation," advisors said. Now Reagan says hell plan a trip to Dachau, and he reaffirmed his scheduled visit to the German military cemetery. U.S. officials originally had thought that Americans were buried with the Germans. None are, and the adminis tration expressed embarrassment. We wonder why they ever worried. What better way to reconcile bitter memories of war among enemies than for us to honor their dead? The common German soldier died fighting for his country, as honorably as any American. Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels' propoganda blitz obscured the horrors of Nazi doctrine, selling it irresistably to the German people. To deny the soldiers honor is to deny the need for our own Vietnam War memunai. Soldiers in both cases David SoJmidt Editor Leigh Williams Mark Powell Lee Roberts Frank Brum Sharon Sheridan Larry Childress City Editor Business Editor Sports Editor Arts Editor Features Editor Photo Editor a 'soft-sell' approach. Don't be misled, students. 3) Additionally, certain University Trustees have said that they will not pay heed to student views on the issue of a mandatory meal plan. And even Patricia Wallace, our student body president, has made that statement. But that fact, in and of itself, should be more than reason enough to vote. Students, put your institution to the test.' We challenge you, the University Trustees in whom we place our trust, to hear our views when you have said that you will not. We call your bluff, if it is a bluff. Or if it is truth, then we come to defend ourselves against out rageous imposition. - We challenge you, the administrators involved in plugging this mandatory meal plan so fervently, to face a new breed of student. Now face those students who are not willing to 'be educated,' but who seek to educate themselves. Now face the animal brought to life by subtle patronizing attitudes. Now face the creature that will not be 'sold.' Students, do you really need to be given reasons to vote? No, you know the reasons already. The reasons have always existed, and they will continue to exist for every non-vote among you. Realize now, students, that you alone are responsible for defending your interests. Do it, and you shall have feet to stand upon. Do it not, and you shall remain maimed. present States. In rulings on Internal Revenue Service guidelines for charity status, the Supreme Court decided such applica tions had a "chilling effect" on the freedom of speech and therefore violated a group's constitutional rights. This ruling pertains to the CGC because the Campus Y performs many other service oriented functions and only uses admi nistrative funds incidentally for political purposes. One can easily imagine this chilling effect restricting free speech on campus. Already the Black Ink has come under fire from these same conservatives, although ostensibly for other reasons. Their selective application of this "political nature" only to groups that significantly differ from their views means that a conservative censorship is descending on this supposed citadel of free thought and expression. Develop ments in the next few days should determine whether conservative preju dice chills our campus. Our representatives basing their decisions on personal beliefs is not necessarily wrong. But it should not fail to be tempered by a concern for all constituents and must certainly not violate any rights. The conservatives censorship and prejudice threaten to do both. fought for corrupted causes of which they had no way of knowing. A trip by Reagan to Dachau carries even greater significance. It might not reconcile in the form of pacifying, but it could help reconcile West Germany's responsibility to its past. Reagan emphas ized the need to look ahead to make sure a genocide that kills 6 million innocent people doesn't occur again. But it's more likely that it shall if we try to ignore its ever happening. Imagine West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl visiting Memphis, Tenn. where Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968 to re-emphasize America's long history of racial preju dice and injustice. His attempt to heighten awareness of this sad mark on our heritage and the need for continued change would be respected and appre ciated. Yet Reagan feared drawing attention to Wdst Germany's black mark in history, which it sorely needs to acknowledge and handle. It can only help. Without constructive confrontation as a solid base, all that reconciliation means is empty words, weak smiles and limp handshakes. That's politics. IS '""wy y . . Socking, er, shocking forces afoot To the editors: Living on my own, as I have for about a year now, I have become quite accustomed to doing my own laundry. One thing I have noticed about doing laundry is that I always start off with more socks than I end up with. 1 have gone through a dozen pairs of socks this year; I buy them only to see them disappear. To try and figure out what was making my socks disappear, I started studying the problem more closely. When I go to the laundromat I do not usually leave my clothes alone. I put them in the washer, read some comics, then put them in the dryer and read some more comics. Since I am present the entire time I would see if someone were stealing my socks. I am also careful to check the washer and dryer after I have Critz criticism To the editors: After reading in the DTH that the Campus Governing Council is attempting to invalidate Anne Critz's ratings of the Carolina Gay and Lesbian Association ("Critz CGLA rankings under fire," April 16), I was appalled. Simply because Critz does not find sexual preference to be a relevant cause for funding, that does not make her prejudiced against gays. The CGC doesn't fund religious organizations on campus such as the Inter-Varsity Christian Higher drinking age pulls on To the editors: I speak specifically to the students and faculty of UNC on a vital issue the drinking age hassle now before the General Assembly. I do this in memory of James Coburn Shell, known to everyone as Jim mie, a 1937 UNC graduate who, during the depression, went to UNC on a small scholarship, washed dishes for his board and created a sandwich route among the frater nities that allowed him to send his mother $1,000 to open a small business in our home town of Roanoke Rapids. This was done legally and with no connection to anything unlawful. He later became the most prominent man in the Gubernatorial veto: A long By DAN TILLMAN In a typical show of disregard for the constitutional system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, the General Assembly recently reared its stubborn head. When a bill was introduced to the state Senate calling for a public referendum to decide the issue of granting veto power to the state's governor, it was summarily dismissed. The House Constitutional Amendment Sub committee is now considering a similar referen dum bill. Only strong public support for the bill is likely to push it out of committee and into the House for a vote. The legislation under consideration calls for a public referendum on the Nov. 1986 ballot to let the people of North Carolina decide if they want their governor to possess the veto privilege. A study has identified North Carolina's legislature as one of the most powerful in the country in relation to the executive branch. Legislators must not be allowed to continue to hoard power for themselves and ignore the right of the voters to decide this issue. In a blatant move to snatch back power from the governor, the General Assembly recently passed a bill to put the issue of gubernatorial succession before the people only eight years after they overwhelmingly voted for it. In 1977 voters chose to allow governors to serve two consecutive two-year terms; now the legislature hopes to coerce the public into changing its mind. However, there's no reason to believe that will happen, which makes risking allowing voters to decide the veto issue all the more frightening for lawmakers. North Carolinians must let the General Assembly know we want to decide the question of executive veto for ourselves. And when we get that opportunity we must send Raleigh a resounding vote for the governor's veto power. North Carolina is the only state in the nation that denies its governor the power to veto bills passed by the state legislature. The rest of the United States saw the necessity of executive veto as envisioned by the U.S. Constitution long ago with the last state enacting that legislation removed a load to make sure that no stray socks are clinging to the inside. What, then, is happening to my socks? The only thing I can come up with is what I call the sock dust theory. Socks are made of an unstable material that can disinte grate without warning. Just as radioactive matter decays into a stable substance, socks disintegrate into sock dust, an invisible, intang ible substance that collects in the upper atmosphere. The major dif ference between sock dust and radiation is that radioactive matter decays at a constant rate and socks usually transform spontaneously (a) in the vicinity of a laundromat and (b) when nobody is looking at them. Although the transformation is usually spontaneous and complete, sometimes only a part of the sock will disintegrate. This, of course, is what is called a hole. Everyone has at least a few holes in their socks; just where does the material in the sock go? It changes into sock dust. I do not know how to stop sock dust formation; I only know that I do not wish to keep buying socks at the rate I now am. Sock-dust formation needs to be studied more closely. A more stable material needs to be found from which to manufacture socks. Scientists need to find out exactly what effects sock dust is having on the upper atmos phere. Is it destroying the ozone layer? Is it better than ozone at screening ultraviolet rays? The problem is here and needs to be solved. I only want to keep my socks. Thomas W. O'Brien Morrison by CGC hypo critical Fellowship and Hillel. Does that mean that all CGC members are atheists? I therefore don't under stand why Critz is being accused of discrimination. If she is being accused on the basis of her quote in the DTH, "I don't think an individual's sexual behavior should be a basis for funding," then the CGC is in error because this quote only proves my point. According to this quote, Critz wouldn't favor funding an organ ization based on heterosexuality either. Where is the discrimination against gays? Usage of this quote is thus invalid unless the CGC is attempting to prove that Critz is prejudiced against both homosex uals and heterosexuals, and I don't believe that is the case. If Critz is found guilty, I must therefore submit that the CGC is showing a bias toward the CGLA and Critz's accusers would be guilty of that which they are accusing Critz. Neil Kodsi Connor ladies dress business in North Carolina and passed away suddenly Dec. 8, 1984. To reincarnate a portion of the prohibition issue that would raise the drinking age of wine and beer from 19 to 21 years of age is pulling on a constitutional amendment that was withdrawn because of the stupidity of its inception by Pres ident Franklin D. Roosevelt in the early '30s under Democratic rule. Nineteen-year-olds can vote, marry, be subject to the draft and pay taxes and you can be sure they can just as easily handle a can or bottle of beer. This law would stigmatize this age group the same as hotel and restaurant accommo dations once inhibited blacks from the normal treatment of every other color and race on earth. The Democrats lost the last governorship because of the disun ity of party members who lost the enthusiasm to combine their efforts after personal inability to control enough votes. They gave the Repub licans, for the second time in 20th century history, this vital seat on a and columns and any as long as they are other miscellaneous typed. Deadline is comments are welcome 1 p.m. daily. in 1920. (Hawaii and Alaska granted veto power to their governors when they were granted statehood.) The executive veto is an issue that transcends party lines as few issues in North Carolina politics do. The General Assembly has squabbled with both Democratic and Republican governors over the issue. The underlying principle that executive veto represents is that of the fair and equitable balance of power between lawmakers and the governor. Gubernatorial veto power is necessary to make state government more responsible to the needs of the people for numerous reasons. Most importantly, the power to veto legislation would make both the General Assembly and the governor more accountable to the people of North Carolina. Presently, an important check on the power of the legislature is absent in Raleigh. Legislation that makes it through the halls of the Legislative Building can not be stopped, examined and perhaps rejected except under the extreme cases when it is deemed unconstitutional by the state court system. However, the new accountability the executive veto would bring is not limited to the General Assembly. The governor would also have to answer to the people on issues he can now conveniently avoid. Every piece of legislation passed by the General Assembly would have to be signed by the governor or vetoed. Fence straddling a controversial issue would no longer be possible and a critical new element of accountability would be brought to bear on the governor. Second, an executive veto privilege would provide for a better balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of state government. General Assembly members are elected every two years to serve the interests of their districts first and foremost. Continued service for a legislator depends largely on how valuable that constitutency deems his or her service to the district. The governor is elected by all the people to serve the entire state cognizant of North Carolina's long term interests. His re election (if succession is not repealed) depends not upon one district's perception of his job performance but that of the entire voting populace. Thus, a governor without executive veto power is unable to block legislation that Let's cool the hot pot ban To the editors: Hot pot ban a possibility? Ah, how interesting. Yes, I can see negligence running rampant among us poor dormitory dwellers. Two incidents in two academic years? Tsk, tsk! I understand the need for safety, but why stop with hot pots? What about curling irons, lamps and irons? Certainly on-campus residents can't handle those responsibly. I believe it was also quite approp riate for this article ("Hot pot ban a possibility in dormitories," April 16) to appear on the same page as which our beloved meal plan was covered. Is it merely coincidental that many of the same administra tive supporters of the meal plan oppose the use of hot pots? It seems logical that taking away the stu dents' means of preparing their own meals would encourage use of AR A cafeterias. What next? Will our friends in the administration remove the dormitory stoves because they might be potentially harmful if abused? And what about micro waves? Dangerous things, those nuking machines. If ARA serves quality food, people will spend at least $100 per semester by their own choice. It seems unfair for us. to partake of ARA's inedible "delicacies" without some assurance of immediate improvement. University housing: Leave my hot pot be! I'd be terribly lost without my oodles of noodles or a hot chocolate fix. Cathy Rusin Ehringhaus Forget somebody? To the editors: In the April 15 DTH, the article "Group to protest Bush's UNC visit" states that "Students and faculty wishing to join the group's efforts will meet today (Monday) at 3 p.m. in the Campus Y Lounge." Why does this announcement leave out a large percentage of the University community by failing to include non-faculty workers? Did someone forget that students and faculty are not the only people on campus? Or did they presume that only students and faculty would be interested in such lofty matters as budget cuts and the threat of nuclear war? Callie Justice School of Social Work past mistakes platter. I say this age group should stick together and prevent this from happening. This bill is not the answer. The answer lies in a longer and more informative drivers exam ination to show prospective drivers the real blood and guts of the issue when respect to sobriety in driving is disregarded. Dr. Ralph Shell Kinston Letters overdue ide 'North Carolina is the only state in the nation that denies its governor the power to veto bills by the state legislature' he feels is not in the best interest of the entire state. Also, the power to veto legislation would give the governor leverage to push for progressive compromise within the General Assembly. The governor would not be able to simply kill a bill he was not in favor of because the legislature could override the veto with a three-fifths majority. But typically, such a majority would be achieved through better compromise among the legislators often resulting in better legislation. The mere threat of the veto is a powerful incentive to pass more thoughtful and fair legislation. Concerned students at UNC and around the state have examined the issue of executive veto and are working to make legislators know where we stand. I urge you to join Students for Progress in showing your support for a referendum to let the people of North Carolina decide this issue for themselves. If you have the opportunity to sign a petition that will be presented to the General Assembly, do so. If you can be present to show your support for the referendum at the subcommittee's public hearing today at 3 p.m., join us in the auditorium of the Legislative Building in Raleigh. The issue of executive veto power is too important to be decided by biased lawmakers who flinch at the thought of yielding any of their power. That's all the more reason we the people should be allowed to make the decision. Dan Tillman is a senior broadcast journalism major from Alexis and the UNC representative for Students for Progress.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 18, 1985, edition 1
10
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75