10The Daily Tar HeelMonday, November 25, 1985
93rd year of editorial freedom
Arne Rickert and David Schmidt
Editor Editor
Catherine Qwan Astociate Editor
ANJETTA McQUEEN Production Editor
Janet Olson University Editor
JAMI WHITE Newt Editor
ANDY TRINCIA State and National Editor
Loretta Grantham City Editor
Lorry Williams
Lee Roberts
Elizabeth Ellen
Sharon Sheridan
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
, Larry Childress Photography Editor
Leading the way
board
Franklin
Delano Roosevelt
once said. "The
truth is found opinion
when men 'are free 1
to pursue it."
The leaders of several campus organ
izations, frustrated by a bureaucracy
ostensibly at their disposal, looked to
other avenues of communication last
Friday morning. In an unprecedented
action, they took their concerns to the
University's Board of Trustees, the
highest administrative authority on this
campus.
In an opening statement, Student
Body President Patricia Wallace said
that untrustworthiness on the part of the
administration had created a growing
rift between students and administrators
that undermines the effectiveness of
student action. The lack of real student
input into decisions concerning student
life has crippled the confidence students
once had in the administration.
Student relations with the administra
tion are in a desperate state indeed when
students are forced to subvert the regular
channels of communication to relieve the
pent-up pressures of being contemptu
ously ignored and abused. Yet, it is not
the students' fault that they became an
unscheduled item on the Trustees'
agenda: the administration of this
campus ought to be ashamed that
students now have so little confidence
in them as to resort to such appeals.
4 As Wallace pointed out, the funda
mental purpose of this University is the
education and enlightenment of students
through the exchange of ideas.
"Exchange", a two-way transaction, has
lately become a mockery as students fmd
themselves pleading for explanations to
r To the dth ti eg ree
To judge or . .
administrative actions with great bearing
on life in Chapel Hill.
Apathy, a serious problem of our
times, stems from a feeling of impotence.
The administration breeds this sense of
powerlessness When it refuses to talk
honestly with students. If students are
to continue a long tradition of invol
vement and concern on campus for
others, they must have confidence in
their rightful autonomy.
The issue is communication, if the
recent edicts mutely handed down can
be termed so. Residents of Steele and
South buildings must realize that their
decisions, with the weight they carry,
demand explanations. The avoidance of
dialogue about these decisions alienates
all students, but most importantly, it
disillusions the people it can least afford
to, the people who contribute time and
effort to the University to promote its
stated goals.
Thus, the ten or so leaders gathered
Friday to head off this destructive
disillusionment and bitterness. In hon
estly discussing their hopes and com
plaints, they acted with greater respon
sibility than their administrative
counterparts have so far done. We hope
that the encouraging reception the Board
of Trustees extended is the beginning of
a more fruitful search for honesty and
cooperation with the students on the part
of all administrators.
The search begun Friday must yield
material results. The first of these must
be the clearing of blocked pathways of
communication. Administrators must
recognize the importance of the student
in student affairs. A student body with
an administration which discourages
student involvement is one which needs
no administration whatsoever.
Last Monday, we ran a sports feature
picture on the front page something
which we often do. No big news. It may
not have struck you as unusual. But
unusual it was.
The picture showed a group of UNC's
women's field hockey players standing
together after their season-ending loss to
Old Dominion. In the foreground, another
UNC player wearing goalie shin pads
lay on the field, holding her hands to
her face. The short headline read, "Agony
of Defeat." Then, beneath the headline, the
cut-line read, UUNC goalkeeper Jan Miles
grieving after the Tar Heels' season ended
with a 3-2 loss to Old Dominion Sunday
afternoon at the Astroturf Field. Miles
watched the game-winning goal pass by
her untouched apparently thinking it was
headed over the end line . .
Well, as it turns out, the goalkeeper on
the turf was not Jan Miles it was her
teammate, Kathy Mulvey. And she has
since written us that she was not merely
grieving that she was actually laughing,
ironically, that one of her pads had come
apart in her hands. While we stand by our
photographer's own impressions of the
incident (as seconded by other photojour
nalists who were present), we do need to
address the other issues brought up by the
photo.
For the error in identification, we ran
a "For the Record" the following day. But
an MFTR" could not address the second
problem of the cut-line the fact that
we had tried to describe that which really
required no description. That is a problem
that should never have presented itself.
In theory, a photo cut-line should never
try to explain the emotions or thoughts
of the person shown in the photo. As
journalists, we hope that the photos we
publish will be able to speak for themselves.
Certainly, our photographers expect no
less; they are as upset as anyone when an
error of this sort occurs. Believe me.
Obviously, some cases draw more
attention than others. The case of last
Monday's field hockey cut-line was a gross
error in part the responsibility of both
the reporter and the photographer who
attended the event (for incorrectly iden
tifying the UNC player lying on the
ground); in part the responsibility of the
person who wrote the cut-line (for having
improperly though certainly not mali
ciously interpreted the player's emo
tions); and ultimately, the responsibility of
Dave and myself, for having failed to catch
the copyediting error when it was pasted
up on the page.
not to judge
We apologize to both Kathy Mulvey and
Jan Miles and to our readers as well.
The "interpretive" error guessing at the
player's emotions should never have
occurred. At most, a cut-line ought to state
the circumstances during which a photo
was taken the emotions, implicit in the
photo itself, ought to be left open to the
reader's eye. For instance, we all recall the
photo of the girl from Kent State; the body
at her feet; the posture of her body ...
a posture of grief, you say ... or was it?
Actually, the girl was a 16-year-old
runaway who didn'teven know the person
who lay at her feet.
Still, our guidelines sometimes become
blurry to the person who is writing or
even reading cut-lines. The effort to be
creative in writing cut-lines makes us
especially vulnerable to subjective "grey
zoning." For instance, on Tuesday, the day after
we ran the aforementioned field hockey
photo, we ran a photo that showed two
kids reclining in a pile of leaves at a soccer
game. The cut-line stated that the two kids
were "enjoying a leaf bath." Well, unless
the kids told our photographer that they
were "enjoying" such a thing, we really had
no business in supposing that they were.
For all we know, they could have been
chatting about the summit in Geneva,
contemplating the impending Holocaust
and just having a rotten time.
But no one wrote in to say, "Hey, I think
you were really off-base in supposing that
those kids were enjoying a leaf bath." I
doubt anyone even stopped to think about
the judgement that had been made by the
author of the cut-line. For the reader, as
for the writer, the grey-zone definitely
exists. We are all subject to errors in
judgement.
Perhaps this allows you to understand
how such errors come about. The field
' hockey cut-line was no more written out
of malice than was the cut-line for the kids
in the leaves. Yet the former is obviously
a worse mistake than the latter.
Why obvious? Because we do apply
subjective values to various manifestations
of the same human tendency. Because we
do apply more critical discretion to man
in his state of grief than we do to man
in his state of exultation. That is our nature.
And just as we are prone to making
subjective evaluations, so too are we prone
to writing creative yet nevertheless
subjective cut-lines. I apologize for these
errors in judgement.
ARNE RICKERT
READER FORUM
SBP Wallace's statement to the BOT
To the university community:
The following statement was
delivered by Patricia Wallace,
student body president, to the
Board of Trustees on Nov. 22.
A fundamental purpose of the
University is to promote learning
through the exchange of ideas. Our
Student Code, which supposedly
sets forth the premises of the
Universiy, confirms the obvious:
"intellectual honesty is integral" to
the enterprise of discovery and
dissemination of knowledge. This
atmosphere of honesty and trust
must extend beyond the classroom.
The Code states: "Members of the
University community should be
accorded the greatest possible
degree of self-determination correl
ative with the acceptance of the full
responsibility for their conduct and
the consequences of their actions."
Unfortuantely, we student leaders
have discovered that this trust has
been violated. The larger issues and
the subsequent reactions on the part
of students reflect the day-to-day
state of affairs and level of morale.
The level of trust is so low that these
conflicts are erupting more and
more frequently, and growing. We
agree that healthy conflict is good
and can produce positive results,
but we often find ourselves unable
to communicate openly about our
disagreements. We are discouraged
by the lack of jeal student input in
making decisions that have impact
on student life. We are discouraged
that we are often not truly listened
to. Students are considered to be
transient. Certainly there is turnover
every year, but the student body is
always here; educating and devel
oping those students is, after all, one
of the main reasons this university
was founded. The University is
obligated to inculcate a trust among
all members of this community. We
students work to make a name for
the University and create a positive
mood on campus through program
ming and service. It is to this
institution's discredit that many of
our predecessors have left bitter
because of the lack of responsive
ness to students needs, ideas, and
inquiry.
We come before the Trustees to
inform you of an attitude prevalent
jSTEN.PAL.tol)
(V GMT 3b9T Vm
X ANi PIPE" VcoVUc.
mm m m
7T7V WE m mms
i a rr r s
iii t
7 T-ff 1 Ik
I
ilA
Real problem is Student Affairs
To the editors:
The Campus Y's efforts lately to
have Assistant Director George
Gamble re-instated are very com
mendable, but I am afraid that they
are only identifying, rather than
focusing on, a pernicious evil facing
this campus. This evil possesses the
ironic title of "Student Affairs."
Student Affairs must ask themselves
the most fundamental of questions:
"Why are we here?" The answer is
between facilitator or dictator.
In creating a Division of Student
Affairs, the University would log
ically want one which promoted
students' independence, self
sufficiency, and their ability to make
decisions for themselves, so that
they could survive in the "real
world." In other words, Student
Affairs would facilitate our growing
into responsible, informed and
caring adults. This would be an
honorable model.
Unfortunately, Student Affairs
has chosen, deliberately or not, to
be a dictator, telling the students
"how it is going to be" with the
students' organizations. They have
abdicated their responsibility to the
students with rather obtuse policies,
which do not begin or end with
George Gamble. As silly as it sounds
they have forgotten that the Uni
versity would not be here without
us, the students. .
We did not choose to come to
this University so that Student
Affairs could operate "in loco
parentis". Answers, such as "we
know better than you," to earnest
questions from concerned, mature
student leaders were only acceptable
when we were children. We are no
longer so. Those answers are
unacceptable.
We are growing up and have an
inalienable right to have our voices
heard and our opinions matter
especially when they concern our
organizations not Student
Affairs'. No more sneaky summer
time selections, contrary to all
student and advisory input. No
more mistreatment of the Band and
its leader, an issue which has
seemingly escaped coverage. No
more self-serving autocratic leader
ship by the people who claim to be
our friends. .
Students, we must ask ourselves
"Why are we here?" If we can answer
that we are here to learn how to
make decisions and handle respon
sibility, we must take notice of this
very bad precedent. If you do not
stand behind the members of the
Y, do not complain when Student
Affairs choses, your organization
next because they "know better than
you."
This University is a pretty good
one, in spite of its Student Affairs.
Let's hope a little chastising of its
errant organization will set it on the
right course and then Student
Affairs can join in our movement
towards the status of great Univer
sity, rather than working against it.
Our demands are not great, just
reasonable.
Todd Hart
321 W. Cameron Ave.
among student leaders. We have not
exhausted all of our other sources
of recourse; in fact, several key
administrators are working with
students to set up dialogues in which
we can talk about our common
concerns and problems we have
with each other. We ask the Trustees
to support the Chancellor, the Vice
Chancellors, and the entire Univer
sity community in their efforts to
dispel this growing distrustful
atmosphere that destroys the basic
premises of our University. We need
support, encouragement, and trust
from the Trustee level on down so
that we may engage in open discus
sions without the fear of being cut
off at the pass.
Patricia Wallace
student body president
Pit rally
today
noon
To the editors:
Today Students for a Student
Voice is holding a rally at noon in
the Pit to protest the Office of
Student Affairs' disregard for stu
dent input and to increase student
awareness and support. Student
Affairs' past history of dealings
involving student-oriented issues
shows a flagrant lack of concern and
interest in the rights, opinions, and
wishes of the student body. These
issues span such topics as the meal
plan, the Upendo Lounge, Sorority
Women Against Discrimination,
and the recent dismissal of Campus
Y Associate Director George Gam
ble. In each of these incidents,
Student Affairs acted without
thought or consideration of the best
interests of students, and their
decisions were reached either with
out any consultation with students
or with a token request for input
that, with the course of time, proved
to be meaningless and insincere.
Students have tolerated such
treatment in the past, but now it
is time to take a more active and
visible stand on issues concerning
student rights. This is a cause that
reaches far past the concerns and
interests of individual organizations
and into the heart of student life
itself. We, the students, have a right
to participate in integral decisions
concerning the direction and vitality
of this university because it is we,
the present and future students of
this university, who must ultimately
abide by and live with these deci
sions. Please join us, Students for
a Student Voice, in voicing our
concern and taking a stand for our
rights by participating in the rally
today.
Rachel Winters
Joel Katzenstein
Students for a Student Voice
Voice your opposition to administrative control
To the editors:
A recent trend of domination by
the administrators has arisen on our
campus toward student issues.
Donald Boulton, Vice-Chancellor
of Student Affairs and his division
of the administration are disregard
ing student input again as they now
seek to take over student organi
zations such as the Campus Y.
For those of you who are in the
dark about the Campus Y, here is
the situation. The Office of Student
Affairs hired Zenobia Hatcher
Wilson to serve as the director of
Campus Y. Since that decision,
Hatcher-Wilson and George Gam
ble, the associate director of the Y,
have differed in the approach which
they take toward student ideas at
the Y. Hatcher-Wilson supports
allowing the administration and the
director of the Y to make and
control all functional decisions and
to only allow students to have input
when that input is advantageous to
their goals. Gamble on the other
hand has striven through his three
years of service with the Y to give
students the challenge and respon
sibility to make and carry out all
adrninistrative decisions of the Y.
Over the past four months Zenobia
and George have debated the role
in which students will be allowed
to play in decision-making and
implementation of the Y's activities
and the final decision by Donald
Boulton is and stands as of Wed
nesday to fire Gamble and move in
the direction of administrative
control of the Y.
Our grievance with Dean Boulton
and the Division of Student Affairs
is their constant disregard of student
input when making policy and
administrative . decisions that
directly affect the students on our
campus. Boulton and his staff
should realize the Division of
Student Affairs was created for the
improvement of college life at this
university and not the detriment of
it. Moreover, we hope that you the
students will see the need to become
involved in the protest against the
latest of unanswerable decisions
made by Boulton and those officials
in Student Affairs.
We ask the Division of Student
Affairs to realize that their staff
sometimes makes mistakes when
making policy decisions that they
hope serve the best interests of the
UNC student body; furthermore,
those decisions should be corrected,
not covered up in order to support
the decision of another in the
student affairs division. We ask that
students realize the necessity of
expressing opposition toward Boul
ton's decision now. We encourage
you to write letters expressing your
opinion to President Friday, Chan
cellor Fordham, and Vice-
Chancellor Boulton before it is too
late for George Gamble and your
Campus Y; after all, in three weeks
the semester will be over and
Boulton's decision will be final!
In conclusion, we want the Div
ision of Student Affairs to stop
stone-walling us for once. We are
tired of their unconditional public
support of each other's decisions in
the student affairs division. The
Campus Y is powered by student
volunteers. If these students are not
given a voice in how their labor is
managed, they will stop volunteer
ing, and the Y will cease function
ing. Then all of us will be forced
to send our little buddies over to
Steele Building for a lecture on
stubborness. Please become
involved.
David Brady,
CGC finance chair
Ryke Longest,
student body treasurer
The bottom line is a question of student power
To the editors: ,
In all the talk about the Campus
Y the hirings, the firings, the
discussions, the protests the
bottom line is a question of power.
Who makes the major decisions on
this campus, specifically those that
deal with student organizations?
Whose input is taken into account?
The circumstances surrounding
George Gamble's firing answer both
questions very clearly. The most
wide-ranging decisions, even about
student groups, are being made by
administrators, whether they reside
in Steele Building, or in the Campus
Y itself. And though it is hard to
say whose input is being considered,
it is clearly not that of the Y
Advisory Board or the students who
compose the Campus Y. Many
students, faculty, and members of
the community have expressed
amazement at the blatant disregard
for student opinion displayed in the
Gamble case. But should we really
be surprised? Take a look at the two
opposing forces.
In one corner, we have the
Division of Student Affairs. They
have employed a simple two-step
process. First, ignore students.
delaying or even derailing their
protest until the issue is no longer
hot in the public's mind. Given this
mind-set, can we expect honest
dialogue? Can we realistically say
we hoped for conciliation from an
organization that would ignore the
students it is supposed to serve and
then deliberately lead them astray
in order to quiet down their poten
tially embarrassing protest?
In the other corner, we have the
students. Traditionally apathetic,
students have occaisionally mobil
ized around certain issues close to
home (e.g. the meal plan). But when
faced with Steele Building's often
practiced stone-walling of student
requests, protestors have become
discouraged and let issues die.
Administrators have learned to
treat student agitators like
unwanted visitors just offer them
a cup of coffee and a few minutes
of pseudo-friendly small talk and
they will go away. Given this
history, can we expect serious
consideration of student view
points? Can we honestly hope to
influence an office that has every'
reason to believe it can ignore us
without losing face?
So if the bottom line is a question
of power of student power
the answer is simply that we have
none. Judging from the history of
both sides' actions, the blame for
this unjust state of affairs cannot
be placed solely on the shoulders
of either students or administrators.
It follows from this conclusion that
the solution to the problem, which
can be found only in student
empowerment, cannot come wholly
from one side or another.
For our part, students must
capitalize on the issue at hand to
show Steele Building and other
administrators that we will no
longer bend over after only an initial
bit of agitation. We must use the
small amount of leverage and the
few tactics we do have to make clear
our commitment to gain the power
we deserve and to use it responsibly.
On the other side, the Division must
live up to its name as the office
concerned with student affairs.
First, administrators must show a
little basic respect for students, by
which I mean among other things
simply not misleading us about
issues we find important. Second,
they must go a step beyond honesty
and treat us as equal, responsible
partners in the main decisions that
affect our organizations and our
lives.
Power-sharing is a two-way street
in which both sides are willing to
put in time to solve problems and
work towards common goals. This
concept of cooperation is what
Students Concerned for the Y have
been talking aobut all along: coop
eration between George and Zeno
bia, between students and Steele
Building, and between Student
Affairs and the Y. And true coop
eration can only occur between
entities that respect one another and
are willing to give and take sincerely..
It is this basic understanding that
is missing in the George Gamble
controversy, that has been missing
in past conflicts, and will continue
to be missing until students are
willing to stand up for their views
and administrators are able to
accept this activism as a valid
assertion of student opinion.
Bryan Hassel
321 W. Cameron