Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Oct. 4, 1985, 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
WW 6 The Daily Tar Heel Friday, October 4, 1985 READER FORUM Looks are the only thing different about 'punkers' CBt? flatly ar ilm 93rd year of editorial freedom Arm-: lli ki rt ani David St hmiivt STl'ART TONKINSON Bl.N Perkowski Dick Anderson Janet Olson J ami White Andy Trincia Uitor Managing Editor Associate V Jit or Associate liditor University liditor Neu s Editor State and National Editor Mil..' Loretta Grantham Mark Powell Lee Roberts Elizabeth Ellen Sharon Sheridan Larry Childress City Editor Business Editor Sports Editor Arts Editor Features Editor Photo Editor A money-back CGC Each summer, about $15,000 in funds that student organizations never used are returned to the Student Government till. Till this year, that is, when twice the normal amount went unspent. Though the treasury is $30,000 richer than planned, the Campus Governing Coun cil's reputation is poorer for it. Its fruitless to expect change as long as stubborn political motivations dom inate the CGC. Student Body Treasurer Ryke Long est blamed liberal representatives led by Doug Berger for overfunding liberal groups in the spring of 1984. Though it's hard to imagine Berger attracting more support than the antag onism he aggravated, Longest probably is right about the left. Maybe they "blindly accepted funding levels," as he said. But conservative CGC members can be just as guilty, laying the groundwork for another large summer return by padding the budget of any organization that came up for funding before the Carolina Gay and Lesbian Association's turn this past spring. They hoped to sap the available money before the CGLA could request its share, thereby blindly supplementing funding levels. It's an ongoing game, in which each side tries to outguess the other, antic ipating and counteracting its moves. It's the game Congress plays in the real world. But this campus doesn't have to be "the real world," where ideology overwhelms the ideals of the consti tuency. Polarization into factions misre presents the diversity that an institution of higher education should cultivate. For the CGC, it means considering each group according to how it can enhance the University experience for students, not whether its cause is liberal or conservative. . Representatives also should remember that such things as subsequent appropriations exist, that organizations don't need to get their funding all at once. Some programs should be justified before the council when concrete plans are made and not funded as faraway proposals. Finally, the representatives must learn that the CGC is a full-time commitment like other student offices. They need to do their jobs as if a failure to scrutinize budgets and legislation throughout the year has the same effect as a day without WXYC programming, the mishandling of an Honor Court hearing or no ticket distribution for State match ups. The only way the campus will take the CGC seriously is if more of its members stop playing games and take it seriously. Cabinet heckling is disconcerting The Great Communicator has spoken, again. President Reagan has swept another potentially nasty problem under a rug tf-'Wilked'awdy'The removal' of Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler and her subsequent shipping to serve as ambassador to Ireland made as many headlines for the behind-the-scenes politics as it did for the ouster itself. But did Reagan walk away unscathed? This is unlikely. Heckler has been the target of a personal vendetta on the part of Chief of Staff Donald Regan, who has had no qualms admitting his disdain for Heckler since he entered his post early this year. A 16-year Congresswoman from Massachusetts before her appoint ment, Heckler has drawn criticism for poor management skills and lacking strong conservative convictions. Heckler's IVi-ytax stint as secretary shows no evident signs of inability. Perhaps her most notable achievement was early recognition of the urgency of dealing with AIDS and procuring governmental resources for work toward stopping the disease. However, when one considers the turnover rate of this position no head of this department has lasted a presidential term since the Eisenhower administration it's no surprise she is packing her bags. But the execution of her departure is disconcerting. The continued insistence that this is a promotion is a very shoddy attempt by the White House to cover up a dismissal. Heckler expressed as recently as last week that she had no interest in moving to the land of whiskey, leprechauns and civil unrest. Even more troubling is Regan's relentless effort to remove Heckler. Now that Regan is entrenched as chief of staff, how many more Cabinet members does he plan to give the boot because of personality conflicts? Reagan gave Heckler undaunting support and a pat on the back when announcing her transfer. Why was Heckler on the verge of tears during Tuesday's press conference? You'd be upset, too, if you were reluctantly going to another country, taking a $16,000 cut in pay and feeling the heat of the national press. The answer is clear: Regan wins the power struggle, Heckler is the political casualty, Reagan washes his hands and moves on. There have been other Cabinet purges in the Reagan administration Haig, Donovan and Watt, to name three. But each had been the center of bona fide controversy. The success and method of this dismissal, though, is Very disquiet ing. Any such future "reassignments" should be substantiated. The Daily Tar Heel Editorial Writers: Keith Bradsher and Jim Zook Assistant Managing Editors: Anjetta McQueen and Cathy Cowan News: Crystal Baity, Lisa Brantley, Loch Carnes, Kerstin Coyle, Randy Farmer, Charles Fernandez, Katy Fridl, Jill Gerber, Todd Gossett, Mike Gunzenhauser, Kenneth Harris, Sharon Hodges, Denise Johnson, Robert Keefe, Scott Larsen, Donna Leinwand, Lana Lewin, Mitra Lotfi, Dora McAlpin, Anjetta McQueen, Yvette Denise Moultrie, Linda Montanari, Kathy Nanney, Beth Ownley, Rachel Orr, Grant Parsons, Gordon Rankin, Rachel Stiffler, Rachel Stroud, Joy Thompson, Jennifer Trotter, Elisa Turner, Laura Van Sant, Devi Sen, Rhesa Versola, Kim Weaver; Lorry Williams, Laurie Willis, Katherine Wood and Karen Youngblood. Guy Lucas, assistant University editor. Sports: Scott Fowler and Tim Crothers, assistant sports editors. Rick Beasley, Mike Berardino, Phyllis Fair, Paris Goodnight, James Suroweicki, Buffie Velliquette and Bob Young. Features: Marymelda Hall, assistant features editor. Mike Altieri, Nancy Atkinson, Louis Corrigan, Kara V. Donaldson, Heather Frey, Matthew Fury, Keith Griffler, Wayne Grimsley, Jane Mintz, Mary Mulvihill, Peggie Porter, Tara Reinhart, Laurie Rodgers, Liz Saylor, Denise Smitherman and Martha Wallace. Arts: Mark Davis, Jim Giles, Aniket Majumdar, Alexandra Mann, Alan Mason, Sally Pont, Deanna Ruddock, Garret Weyr and Ian Williams. Photography: Charlotte Cannon, Dan Charlson, Janet Jarman and Charles Ledford. Copy Editors: Kim Craig, Lisa Fratturo, Brian Gates, Roy Greene, Tracey Hill, Gina Little, Cindy Parker, Kelli Slaughter and Vince Vargas. Artists: Adam Cohen, Bill Cokas and David Sumner. Business uid Advertising: Anne Fulcher, general manager; Paula Brewer, advertising director; Angela Booze, student business manager; Angela Ostwalt, accounts receivable clerk; Doug Robinson, student advertising manager; Alicia Brady, Keith Childers, Alicia Susan D'Anna, Staci Ferguson, Kellie McElhaney, Melanie Parlier, Stacey Ramirez and Scott Whitaker, advertising representatives; Staci Ferguson and Kelly Johnson, classified assistants; Johnnie Parker, advertising coordinator, and Cathy Davis, secretary. Distributioncirculation: William Austin, manager; Tucker Stevens, circulation assistant. Production: Brenda Moore and Stacy Wynn. Rita Galloway and Rose Lee, production assistants. Printing? Hinton Press Inc. of Mcbane To the editors: In response to your article about "punkers" ("Punkers seeking fringes of society," Sept. 27), I am a teacher in this school system, where I worked at Culbreth and presently teach at Chapel Hill High School. I find it very unfortunate that your newspaper indulges in the practice of judging people by their appear ance and categorizing CHHS stu dents into groups. One of the values that I and many of my colleagues try to instill in students is an acceptance of people and a respect for the fact that we are all different. Interviewing a few "punkers" and implying that that was how all punkers felt is as ludicrous as you interviewing me and saying 1 speak for all black teachers in America. As soon as the media stop sending out messages that we should all be a certain way to be accepted, then perhaps our students will not quickly question so many of our values and consider them hypocrisy. As far as "punkers" not liking school, there are many students that AM-mrk FLEEING HURRICANE DEFICIT don't like certain aspects of schools. And having taught "punkers," I find the only thing different about these students is their appearance. What has happened to those of us from the '60s and the 70s? Have we forgotten so soon? Alycia Allen CHHS teacher Review paints strange portrait To the editors: Writing a review on the local rock bands was a wonderful idea. I just regret that I did not recognize Dexter Romweber in the heavy, negative and scary portrait of him by Sally Pont ("Dexter Romweber tempts fate while he courts fame," Oct. 2). I have known Dexter for four years. I have seen him go through the many stages his sensi tivity, creativity and "adolescence" have taken him. Dexter is smarter and has more human qualities and more sense than most adults in this world. He can relate to anybody and anybody, even in a three-piece suit, can relate to him. He is not a punk. He is a good kid, a great entertainer and a talented musician. I wish that side of him could have been por trayed in the article. Helene Ramos Carrboro Taylor displays limited view of open-mindedness To the editors: I would like to respond to Lori Taylor's letter ("What's so wrong with SFA upholding morality?" Oct. 2). Before I begin I would merely like to state that I am neither angry nor afraid. I completely agree with her when she states that if we say that we are for freedom of speech then we must let everyone speak their mind, not just those with whom we happen to agree. Lori is quick to point out that "no group should have special rights over another, regardless of color, sex or religion." I think all of us would have to commend Lori on her open mind and her belief in freedom of opinion. But frankly, when I see some of the conclusions that she reaches, I have to wonder how committed she is to her ideals. She gives herself away when, at the conclusion of her condemnation of being gay, she states, "It contradicts God's laws." Being liberal-minded we might ask ourselves to which God is she referring. But she's already told us it's the Christian God the one who espouses the "value system that is proven to work." Is this open minded of her? Granted, she has the right to state her own beliefs, but does that mean that in so doing she should neglect the feelings of those whose opinion differs from hers? What about Jews who have funda mentally the same moral code as the Christians? Does that mean that the Jews,, who were the originators of the Judeo-Christian moral code to which Lori appeals, want to make the world a worse place? (After all, they do not believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, which "will make this world a better place," according to Lori.) Of course not. And furthermore, Lori's appeals as to the goodness and value of this particular moral code is that it is "a value system which is proven to work." I wholeheartedly agree that it is basically a very good system (although many people sure can abuse the system, don't you agree, Lori?). But does that make it the only good system? Lori, do you really believe that God scorns upon other moral codes that have also been proven to work, such as those of the Hindus or the Buddhists? And these particular systems have been functioning (and quite well, I might add) even longer than the Judeo Christian model. , Lori's lack of tolerance toward other viewpoints shows itself in her definitive statements about the nature of things. For one who believes in everyone's right to voice his or her opinion, Lori shows an amazing lack of circumspection, tolerance and just plain decency in her considerations . of those with opinions differing from her own whatever their faiths, beliefs or practices. Perhaps Rick Robinson was giving the SFA too much credit when he called them angry and afraid ("Anger and fear this is the New Right?" Sept. 26). Perhaps a more accurate description is simply that they are petty. Wes Boyd Chapel Hill SFA untrue to its principles Orie (simple) word ruins any chances for Kennedy To the editors: In response to Keith W. Cooper's column supporting Edward Kennedy for president in 1988 ("Looking ahead to President Ted in 8," Oct. 1), one word pretty much obliterates any qualities of experience or leadership (Stalin had both) Kennedy might have in national affairs. That word is "Chappaquiddick." Chappaquiddick. Synonymous with out-and-out falsehoods follow ing out-and-out mysterious deaths. Chappaquiddick deserves a place beside "Watergate" in terms of notoriety and humiliation, but it is rarely mentioned by the media. Maybe the press find it too hard a word to spell, and maybe we can tell where the sympathies of the media lie (no pun intended). I would go further, but Chappaquiddick speaks for itself: "I'm a black blotch on an otherwise dark career." But all this is neither here nor there, because Ted Kennedy won't run for office. Cooper insults his intelligence by "looking ahead to President Ted." The writing is on the wall, and Kennedy is no illiterate. . " Ray Little Craige To the editors: In reference to Professor Arnold H. Loewy's statement, "In this case, the group's rights outweigh the individual's" ("University reaffirms SFA's recognition," Oct. 1), I have always thought that America was founded on a constitution based on an individual's rights. Communist countries defend the community, socialist countries defend the com munity, but the United Staj.es is based on democratic principles that have always defended the rights of the individual, whether it be to practice one's own religion, to assemble as one chooses, or to speak freely about what one chooses. Students For America has blatantly punished Brad Torgan for exercis ing his right of free speech! When the will of the group overwhelms the rights of the individual, is SFA being true to the principles it claims to protect? While the University may not be able to deny SFA's charter, it is my hope that those students who believe and strive for the democratic principles that our great country was founded on will refuse to join, support or recognize SFA. I'm sure that SFA, while it will remain on campus, has closed from its poten tial membership several minority groups and limited its membership to the extremely right-wing Chris tians on campus. By greatly limiting its potential membership, maybe SFA has done what the University could not do tighten the noose around its own neck so that all life will drain from the organization and once again UNC students can strive for the advancement of equality for all people. In a recent letter, someone quoted from Martin Luther King Jr.'s immortal "I Have a Dream" speech. In that speech King said something that will not happen while such prejudiced groups as SFA remain active: "This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to trans form the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day." There is one statement in this which SFA seemingly would ignore: "... to stand up for freedom together." I'm sure King meant everyone, regard less of the color of their skin, the religion they choos.. or the beliefs they endear! ' Jimmy R. Hopkins former SFA chairman Censorship talk takes Orwellian tone By MARGUERITE ARNOLD Do you ever feel like you're in a timetrap? A bad case of deja vu perhaps? I'm convinced we're stuck right smack in the middle of last year 1984. What's the password to such a state? Can you say censorship boys and girls? It's really easy. Lots of people do. The heart of most of the literary quarrels in the Reader Forum this semester have dealt with censorship. It started with the Nietzsche controversy and whether people should be exposed to such a subversive quote. But eventually, after "Student Fascists of America" jumped into the fray, and the formation of GIANT, people took sides. The Student Union is displaying books sharing the dubious honor of censorship at one time or another. At first glance, it is humorous to see books that have been banned because they don't deal with a bright and sunny Horatio Algerian America. And then there's that dictionary that contains definitions of (gasp) filthy words. But the buck doesn't stop here. We are faced with censorship of music, not that this plea for legislated purity is new. We remember when Madonna took us down Nostalgia Avenue to when we were virgins. We all remember "Like a Virgin" 's little romp up and down the top 40. That's because people heard it. Why? It was a little controversial but it was sung by Madonna, a packaged teen-age idol who represents free , enterprise and aggressive advertising. The result: a lot of people made money in a good ole' American way, and a not-so-wholesome Amer ican message propagated the first golden rule of the American economy and psyche if you make money the ends justifies the means. ,At about the same "time, the Eurythmics released "Sexcrime," a song from the 1984 movie soundtrack. If you thought logically a major mistake when you deal with Moral Majority mentalities you would have assumed that "Sexcrime" would shoot up the charts. It dealt with sex, but "Like a Virgin" was heating up the charts, so why not a song about people who were forced by society to remain virgins until society was ready for them to spread? The result: the song was unofficially banned by station owners, and the listening public was left with "Like a Virgin" vapidity. "Sexcrime" was too controversial. Controlled sex well um, blush, stutter, stammer. The point of this bedtime story is that censorship is alive and well in the music charts as well as in the bookstore. We are being faced with a legislated morality. Society no longer finds it acceptable for individuals to choose morals, or have different tastes in art, literature or music. Another rather disturbing thing about censor ship is that it tends to go hand-in-hand with propaganda and racism. Where there is censor ship there is fear and ignorance of difference. The example of the Nazis is surely cliche, but it serves the point. While paying lip service to the horrors of the Third Reich, people still haven't learned the lesson. It is evident in many things going on today the rise of neo conservatism, the reiteration that America is playing Big Brother to the rest of the world in . defending democracy and freedom. That's why we have an abundance of quality films such as Rambo First Blood. Part Two and Red Dawn. An optimistic analysis could show that pure profit motive leads people to make these films. But then what possesses people to go out and see them? At best, these films represent an image of Joe American at odds with the rest of a world that's trying to invade our beautiful homeland unprovoked. At worst, they show Americans the way to superiority is to beat the shit out of everything un-American without providing information on the values of other cultures. Americans on the whole are sensitive about the image they cast. They have to be magna nimous, powerful, benevolent protectors of this earth. It naturallly follows then, according to this theory, that Americans are the superior breed of human being. To be superior, all Americans must be without flaw. To be flawless, we must all believe in the same thing. That leads to uniformity in all things politics, religion, thought, music, people right? Wrong. But this is what the immoral minority seeks to accomplish. This type of morality is as un-American, indeed inhuman, as you can get. America was founded on the principle of freedom. This Utopian ideal has been violated almost from the start, but no matter. One can't always shut the gate after the horse has split, but we can make damn sure the farm hand knows he'd better shut the gate next time. That is, of course, if you can afford another horse; we can in this instance. Take action. Take pride in reading the banned books. Think about religion, human rights, the humanities. What I'm proposing is exercise. Take the old corpus callosum out for a jog. Think about these things, do something about them. You don't have to reuse your old 1984 calendars. If you rush down to Student Stores, I'm sure Ziggy and Garfield abound, entwined around those magical numerals that foreshadow a brand new year. Marguerite Arnold is a freshman anthropol ogy major from Blowing Rock.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 4, 1985, edition 1
6
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75