Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Nov. 15, 1985, edition 1 / Page 8
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
8The Daily Tar HeelFriday. November 15, 1S85 READ mm i (Jar UppI 93 rd year of editorial freedom ARNE RlCKERT AND DAVID SCHMIDT Mitor Editor A call to arms over Campus Y dispute To the editors: siirp that tK nrinnoi ua oil n..i,i . . . Cathi:rini: Cowan ANJ1TTA MtQUEEN Janet Olson Jami White Andy Trincia Associate Editor Product ion Editor University Editor News Editor State and National Editor Larry Childress Loretta Grantham Lorry Williams Lee Roberts Elizabeth Ellen Sharon Sheridan Photography Editor City Editor Business Editor Sports Editor Arts Editor Features Editor The price you pay board Lux et libertas. Light and liberty. As the mottn of the University of ODiniOn XT A. -l ! nunn Carolina, these two words commit this school to the pursuit of the highest ideals of life, enlightenment and freedom. : Yet, the Endowment Fund Committee of the Board of the Trustees yesterday showed utter contempt for these ideals by again rejecting students calls for the divest ment of funds from South Africa. In this action, the committee revealed a total arrogance in its disregard of moral auiy ana siuaent opinion. What the students demanded in 1983 in a campuswide referendum, the com mittee saw fit to ignore. What the whole country has come to see as one of the biggest disgraces of our time, apartheid, the committee has chosen to support. The committee felt that the removal of $5.9 million of University funds from companies that prop up the openly racist, brutal authoritarian government of South Africa would not prove beneficial to University interests. Sup port for the ideals of equality, justice and harmony did not seem to justify the loss of funds generated by these invest ments. Both these suppositions are grossly erroneous. The committee seems to think itself in a quandary. On the one hand, it recognizes a moral obligation to oppose the injustices of the South African government. On the other hand, it feels an obligation to its goal as stated in its charter, to "maximize ... investment returns for the charitable purposes of the University community" that is, to raise as much money as possible. The 4ecision ought to be crystal clear to trie committee. Negligence of the first goal is contrary to everything the University ought to stand for. The refusal to divest is little more than borrowed time for the Botha regime. The Reagan scheme of "constructive engage ment," echoed by the committee, has produced little to no improvement in the condition of life for blacks. Apartheid is a system of economic exploitation that no person with a sense of human dignity should tolerate. The refusal of the committee to recognize this moral obligation to the oppressed is sad enough, but when it stands opposed to the desires of this University's student body, it is intoler able. The committee showed complete disrespect for student opinions. When confronted with a thorough, eight-point plan for divestment by anti-apartheid representatives from Student Govern ment, they responded with a Xeroxed copy of a two-paragraph statement issued two years ago. One committee member went so far as to misrepresent student demands by stating that because a student body president candidate who favored divestment was defeated last spring, the campus no longer favored divestment. The decision also blithely forsakes the very goals of the University to which the committee is dedicated. The com mittee has a responsibility to "the charitable purposes of the University community." The University must live up to its reputation as a community of responsible, enlightened individuals attempting to build a better world. It is not served by an economic connection to a 20th-century form of slavery. The University must sever the bonds which hold so many oppressed in shanty towns, slave-like labor conditions and degraded existences. The committee tipped its hand when member Robert C. Eubanks said, "We need to do what's really going to be effective, and I'm not really sure ... (divestment) is worth the price we may have to pay." The committee ought to be ashamed of this dollars-and-cents valuation of the dignity of millions of black South Africans. The University has already stood up and voiced v its opinion about divestment; now it must rise and combat this callous, profit oriented degradation of human existence. Ultimately, the committee under mines its own efforts to raise money for the University. Eubanks explains, "If we begin to show that we can't get superior returns with money being given to us, the public is going to stop giving us money." He fails to see that the disregard of moral principles that was exhibited by the committee's decision will disen chant present and future contributors who see the University shirking its social responsibility. The loss of respect and revenue the University experiences because of its refusal to divest will be a bitter, long-term interest to its present South African investments. To the editors By now most students have heard of George Gamble's sudden and unfortunate dismissal from the Campus Y. And just as likely there are many students already tired of its publicity. But this is not an issue that is going to disappear with a few soothing words from the director of the Y or her supervisors in the Division of Student Affairs. At heart is a matter of principle, the dignity of all students as well as the dignity of a dear friend of the Campus Y. George's firing repres ents not only personal injustice but also the plight of all students in the face of a stubborn and unresponsive administration. Do you remember those carefree high school days when you were sure that the principal held all the trump cards? Do you remember a general feeling of political impo tence and less than benevolent dictation? Thanks to the administration here at Chapel Hill, you dont have to remember. All you need to do is open your eyes and see the firing of a popular Campus Y employee with no explanation given and absolutely no student consent and somehow grasp that this is not a surrealistic fantasy or a George Orwell novel. The obvious question is, "Do the administrators in Steele Building and for that matter the administra tors in general care about the students?" Does it matter at all what the students want or think? Of course we all want to answer, "Yes. But then again actions speak louder than words. The Campus Y demands proof of the importance of student opinion. We don't ask for the right to hire and fire University employees. We don't ask for veto power in all decisions affecting students. What we ask for, what we must demand, is respect. It is simply incomprehensible how in an organ ization such as the Y important administrative decisions bypass the students. Every week student volun teers spend hundreds of hours keeping the Y running smoothly, and yet the very decisions that will affect the future course of the Y the most are judged too important for student input to be considered. Yes, this is a call to arms. No one. neither the students nor the admin istrators, want to fight, but the oattie lines have been drawn and the negotiations have stalled. The Exectutive Committee of the Y has tried every diplomatic and civil approach to resolve the situation and has met with intransigence in all directions. We must face reality, our principles as well as our dignity is threatened and we have no recourse but to submit or to protest. This is a time for all students to ask important questions about their role in the University. The current dispute at the Campus Y is nothing but a symptom of a larger disease. This is a time for all students to speak out for themselves as well as the Campus Y. Marcus Trathen co-chair, Global Issues Committee w.,w, w. ..wnw u.v, siuutuu iwi me auimn- uiooai issues Commute C mon, freshmen, don't gamble on Y's future b the editors: To the editors What affects the Y affects all students. Thus, it is unfortunate that student turnout to the Campus Y vigils protesting the dismissal of George Gamble has been small. While it is overwhelmingly evident that the feelings of students on this campus are those of wanting to be involved in all dimensions of their student affairs, such a feeling has not yet materialized into a strong showing at these vigils. To demonstrate that we practice what we sincerely feel and believe, students must take upon themselves the small burden of participation. The size of these vigils, however, is not accurately representing the injustice we students feel over this important matter of the Student Affair's administration acting with out student involvement. .Especially lacking from these vigils is the involvement of our freshmen class. As freshmen, we may find "it difficult to appreciate our Campus Y since we have not become as involved as our upper class friends. We may also fail to recognize what the dismissal of George Gamble illustrates of our student Altairs readiness to work with concerned students. We, as freshmen, should see that the Campus Y is where we can effec tively organize our energies towards bettering our campus and our community. Further, we should recognize that George Gamble's dismissal parallels the many inde pendent actions and liberties our high-school principles and teachers took with our freedoms in high school. If we fail to aid in response to similiar injustices in college, we set an unfortunate precedent for Whatever happened to . Heard from Fidel Castro lately? Neither have we. But thinking about ol' Fidel got us reminiscing about the days gone by when all those political things were spelled out in black and white. So we're asking the question, "What ever happened to . . . ?" Frinstance, how bout Starsky and Hutch? Back in the mid-70s, when striped cars were cool, they toughed out the cold weather in fashionable polyester menswear. Remember how they'd always sit down to eat at the end of the show? Now we watch yuppie detectives strutting around to techno-pop.Yuch. Whatever happened to airborne pie tins posing as UFOs? Drugstore liter ature sales are down in the absence of Bermuda Triangle exposes and TV is desolate without Leonard Nimoy's "In Search of . . ." Furthermore, who's wearing Dr. Scholls footwear these days? Probably the same people who are still buying their kids Lite-Brite and Etch-a-Sketch. Talk about "in search of . . ." Old musical "grates" include Pilot ("Ho, Ho, Ho, it's magic . "'. : '."), Shaun Cassidy and the Hughes Corporation. And how bout Sweet and the Ozark Mountain Daredevils? In other areas there were Flipper; Larry Csonka; and Richie Cunningham's older brother, Chuck. But we cant buy into the superiority of our own times. We know that in 10 years, people will be asking "Whatever happened to . . . V Take compact discs, for example the UFOs of tomorrow. Does anyone really own a compact disc player, other than Don Johnson? Oh, did somebody say "Don Johnson?" Won't it be fun to have to explain to your kids exactly who he was? Gerry Ferraro and eyeshadow for men are already "out." Close behind should be New Coke, John Cougar Mellencamp and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Doug Berger and Spinal Tap will be gone, too but at least well miss them. And then there's always Madonna. But let's not end on a pessimistic note. After all, it's Friday, so let's try to brighten things up a bit. Many celebs are bound to pass from our minds reluctantly or not. But there are those who will age well. Meryl Streep comes to mind, as does Brother Theodore who, though not so pretty, is bound to appear more or less the same in 10 years' time. Woody Allen will still be around, but won't be any taller. In music, Bono Vox will be around for years to come and Lou Reed will live forever if not longer. Prince's pretty cool too, so well give him the nod so long as he gets off that eye shadow trip. And Tina Turner's got our eternal vote for best legs. True-blue Carolinians shouldn't fail to mention Dean Smith but since there's nothing funny about him, we won't even try. Charlie Gaddy and Woody Durham will also be around, saying the same things all over. If we get lucky, people will be saying, "Jesse who?" But don't count on it. At any rate, we wanted to leave you with an updated version of "who's gonna believe that in 10 years?" Have a good weekend. Don't lose any sleep over the impending demise of New Coke and Don Johnson. Just like American-built cars of the 70s, they were never built to last. So don't fret, Ma, it's life and life only. A. RlCKERT and S. PONT I ourselves as a class and signal student Altairs ot our intentions for action in the future. Concern over student input in student affairs cannot be limited to upperclassmen. All students must recognize and secure their rights by showing thier support and concern by participating in the Friday vigil (11 a m. at Steele Building) and in the Monday rally " in the Pit (12 p.m.). JohnGiragos Jr. Teague Meaning demeaned To the editors: Zionism is simply the belief that Jews have a right to a homeland, and that homeland is Israel. It has nothing to do with the current foreign policy of Israel nor does it imply that Jews and Arabs should not live together in peace. The purpose of the U.N. resolu tion equating Zionism with racism and its supporters like Sally Pont is simple: they would like to change the meaning of the word. By iden tifying Zionism exclusively with the most extreme elements in Israel and around the world, they seek to infuse the word with so much hatred and violence that peace-loving Zionists like mvself. who believe in compromise, cannot use it. In doing so, they take away our identity and isolate us. The final goal of those who equate Zionsim with racism is nothing less than the destruction of the state of Israel. They hope to achieve this goal by stigmatizing Zionists worldwide and depriving us of our support. Those who simply disagree with the current Israeli political situation should be more specific about what they dont like and refrain from name-calling. Jay Goldring Carrboro Editorial on Zionism deserving of infamy ! 1 ' .... To the editors: I am sorry that the DTH chose to give prominent space and a prominent headline to Sally Pont's viscious and ignorant attack on Zionism ("Zionism lives in infamy " Nov. 13). Scattered through Pont's editor ial are a few points that are reas onable (that the Jewish Defense League is an extreme and perhaps dangerous group), or at least argu able (that Israel's treatment of the Palesinian Arabs deserves criti cism). But, by and large, her portrait of Zionism is a hate-filled fantasy. It is so fantastic that it would be almost comical if its supposed ogre did not in fact represent the hopes and needs of millions of people, many ol whom have had no other hope. What is Zionism? It is a move ment that originated among Jews (and some non-Jews) in 19th cen tury Europe. Its claim was that the Jewish people can only be secure and develop their cultural potential on a land of their own. Most Zionists, though not all, believed that this land should be the ancient Jewish homeland of Palestine. During the early 20th century, many Jews tried to turn the Zionist dream into reality; and their effort took on special urgency after Hitler's holo caust verified Zionist beliefs about Jewish insecurity. The result was the birth of the state of Israel (1948). Zionism thus achieved its central aim. But there was a price. Many Palestinian Arabs suffered terribly; many Israeli Jews were not terribly comfortable with the democratic ideals of the Zionist movement. Zionists inside and outside Israel continue to wrestle with the prob lems of how to achieve justice for Jews without denying it to the Arabs; and how to have a Jewish state that is also an open and democratic state. The Israeli novelist and peace activist, Amos Oz, well describes the spiritual struggles of Zionism today in his fine book In the Land of Israel. Whether Pont could profit from reading this book, I cannot say. But the DTH editors who gave her their approval, and all DTH readers .who want to know what Zionism really is, should not pass it up. ' "Zionism lives in infamy," your headline claims. Perhaps it does as long as people like Pont are ready to write falsehoods about it, and newspapers like the DTH are ready to trumpet these falsehoods. Early Christianity also lived in infamy, as long as its persecutors could get an audience for their slanders. But the real infamy belongs to the defamcrs, not to the defamed. David J. Halperin Dept. of religious studies Attack on station: ho WUNCommonly illogical! To the editors If I didn't know anything about Bob Lyle and the seriousness of his i crusade against WUNC 91.5 FM, I'd have thought his letter ("Public radio not worth public support," Nov. 12) to be a joke. Unfortu nately, it was not meant to be one, and thus it warrants a response. It's too bad that Mr. Lyle had to employ chop-logic in order to attack everything about WUNC except that which has been his real gripe: some of the programmming is just too darn liberal for his tastes. Perhaps he was afraid to write that in a unversity newspaper lest stu dents should find it reason enough to listen. At any rate, Mr. Lyle drew some rather illogical conclusions about WUNC, and these need to be addressed. His main claim is that WUNC is Tnon-listener supported.'' I don't know about this. Last time T looked up "support" in the dictionary, the definition read, "1. To bear the weight. 2. To hold in a position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping." I put this together with the fact that over 90 percent of WUNC's operating budget comes from listeners and corporate sponsors; less than ten percent comes from "our hard earned tax dollars." It seems to me that the more than 90 percent bears the weight and holds in position a lot more that the less than ten percent does. And I should mention that the less than ten percent is ; getting lesser and lesser all the time. Despite this WUNC goes on, sup ported by those who care: listeners. Mr. Lyle also call the station "a frivolous thing" that takes away from scholarships and "poor and minority studetns (who must) eat ketchup as a vegetable in school lunch programs." 1 must laugh at the latter part of his statement, and add that WUNC is not taking away from education, but rather, provid ing, it. WUNC not only plays, but also gives background about clas sical, theatrical and jazz music. The station also offers quality humor, and in-depth local, state, and national news and public affairs programming. At UNC-CH, infor mation acqiured from listening to WUNC three hours every other day for four months could potentially fulfill two aesthetic and one social science perspectives. But WUNC is not limited to UNC studetns. It is transmitted to most of the state. Certainly it is worthy of an ever dwindling amount of government funds. As for the charge that UNC students "get little from the station," Mr. Lyle is again incorrect. The University commisioned WUNC to be a professional radio station pro bono publico for the public good. inoeea tne demand lor this profes sionalism prevents every student who wants to work from working at the station, but many students who apply for jobs and are prof icient at what they want to do, get jobs. WUNC neither favors nor discriminates against student appli cants, and the station does allow the best of these applicants to work in a professional environment. And, although 111 agree with Mr. Lyle that the majority of UNC students never listens to WUNC, I know of a significant minority that does. So, although I respect Mr. Lyle's right to disapprove of WUNC, I wish he'd logically supported his claims. Laura Morrison Chapel Hill Just following the Doctor's orders By KERSTIN COYLE Thank you, God. Before you spoke to Dr. Hubert Lindley requesting that he share his wealth of holy knowledge with UNC students, I had bought my one-way ticket to hell. The University of North Carolina, a breeding ground for heathens, has been blessed with the teachings of the divine doctor. I shudder to think that I once considered Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species to be a fascinating scientific argument on the theory of evolution. Chuckie Baby get outta town! Anyone who entertains this notion of man evolving from monkeys is denying his respon sibility to the human race. Thank you, Dr. Lindley, for negating these scientifically proven facts with your logical argument inspired by the Almighty himself. Old Chuckie probably hated all of mankind and wanted to completely deny his own participation in the human race. Before Dr. Lindley blinded me with the light, I thought Gandhi was among the greatest men ever to live. I thought he had successfully led the largest non-violent protest in history which ultimately overthrew English rule in India. Silly me! Dr. Lindley informed me that Gandhi, a socialist, was about the most selfish man he ever knew. He was a man filled with bitterness who united people with his universal quest to incite hatred. Gee whiz, and I thought he was about as sweet as old Grampa Walton. I stand corrected: My ignorance amazes even my simple little brain. I once thought that abortion was a traumatic alternative for women who did not wish to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. According to God, as Dr. Lindley informed me (they're real tight you know), an abortion is a deliberate murderous act by selfish women seeking cruelty in their lives. Thank you, Dr. Lindley, for enlightenment on this tragically large segment of the female population. Speaking of the female population, ditzy me thought that lesbians were happy with their chosen lifestyle. I was so gauche as to believe that the gay community was capable of finding happiness in their lives. They have their own bars, their own association (CGLA) and their own network of friends. I should have an "I" for ignorance branded on my face. Homosexuals are relatives of the beast himself. Any scripture will tell you that; or at least Dr. Lindley would. No woman can be really happy until she is subject to a "real man." Incidentally, the doctor has offered his divine manhood to any female who has strayed from the straight and narrow path of conventional morality. One night with this 71 -year-old "real man" will alter the course of your sexual preference eternally. Is there no end to your knowledge, Dr. Lindley? Before Wednesday, I used to enjoy sipping wine only on the most special occassions. After all, some people feel justified drinking this devil's juice in holy cathedrals. Heathens! Later that day, after my enlightenment, evil forces tempted me with that sinful beverage. But fear not. I could practically feel the fires of hell nipping at my behind and sent the bottle hurling across the room with a force which undoubtedly shook the Richter scale. How can I thank you, Dr. Lindley? Before you rescued me from drowning in my ignorance, I believed that people practiced Christianity to glorify their love for God. Now, I realize that God is to be feared and any deviation from the Ten Commandments will receive only the harshest of penalties from the Almighty. Praise God, I have seen the light! (Does anyone have a candle? It suddenly got dark in here.) Kerstin Coyle, a senior journalism major from Charlotte, is a staff writer for The Daily Tar Heel.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 15, 1985, edition 1
8
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75