t
8The Daily Tar Heel Tuesday, April 22, 1986
latin
Star mnl
94th year of editorial freedom
JIM ZOOK, Editor .
Randy Farmer. Managing Editor
STUART TONKINSON, Associate Editor
Grant Parsons, university Editor
Bryan Gates. News Editor
KERSTIN COYLE, City Editor
JILL GERBER, State and National Editor
Scott Fowler, sports Editor
DENISE SMITHERMAN, features Editor
ROBERT KEEFE, Business Editor
Elizabeth Ellen, Arts Editor
DAN CHARLSON, Photography Editor
"imir.li n inni ni-iiii ii-i muni u mr ii i i ' f HrTiTmTuTrTtSI55S5SS5S
Libel case liable to be beneficial
For participatory democracy to be
effective, the citizens of a country must
have means of being informed and of
debating pertinent issues in a public
forum. The American media offers the
best way to present facts and opinions
that a society needs to make the right
decisions. This need is why freedom of
the press is entrenched in the U.S.
Constitution. What distinguishes the
press in the United States from the rest
of the world is the ability to circulate
information without fear of reprisals
from the government or private citizens.
The Supreme Court decided Monday
in a 5-4 vote to make these obvious
statements the law of the land. The
Court announced that anyone who sues
for libel must prove that the statements
he is attacking are false and defamatory.
This conclusion resolves a tangle of
conflicting state laws that left publishers
and station owners unsure of who had
the burden of proof in libel cases.
Previously, some states required
defendants in libel cases to prove that
their statements about private citizens
were true, except in the case of public
officials (such as government officials)
who had to prove the statements false
and the result of negligence. For
example, if a private citizen believed that
a newspaper negligently made false and
defamatory statements, it might be left
to the newspaper to prove that what it
printed was true. Sometimes, the only
way to prove the truth of printed
statements is by revealing sources and
information the newspaper promised
not to disclose. By placing the burden
of proof on the plaintiff, it is now up
to those who seek damages to prove they
were injured by demonstrably false
statements.
Some ambiguity lingers after the
decision, however. According to the
majority opinion, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that the statements are false
"at least where a newspaper publishes
speech of public concern. " No longer is
the Court making a legal distinction
between public and private figures
regarding burden-of-proof, . but the
decision leaves room for a distinction
between "speech of public concern" and
other types of speech. Of course, when
does a newspaper ever really publish
anything not of public concern? The very
publication of an item in a mass
circulated newspaper seems to place that
item in the public domain.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice John
Paul Stevens said that the only publish
ers "who will benefit from today's
decision are those who act negligently
or maliciously. " The truth is, anyone
involved in disseminating information is
helped by knowing he is presumed
innocent before found guilty. True, it
may inconvenience those people who
feel they have been slandered by a
scandal-sheet to prove that statements
made about them are false. But it is, a
far greater inconvenience to society to
lose its ability to make well-informed
judgments without all the facts.
Get the Wright stuff
There's something rotten in Connec
ticut, and most Tar Heels won't find it
too aromatic.
The latest ruckus between the North
and South is over who manned the first
airplane flight the Wright Brothers
or the infamous Gustave Whitehead.
Even though this "pilot" sounds like a
pimple, a Connecticut historian is trying
to grant him the honor of the initial first
flight.
William J. O'Dwyer says he has proof
that Whitehead soared bird-like craft
two years before Orville and Wilbur
Wright's famed skim across the sands
of Kitty Hawk. O'Dwyer rests his
argument on an account in the Bridge
port (Conn.) Herald, which claims to
quote two observers of this preposterous
event.
The Smithsonian says this is all so
much propellor wash because the
witnesses mentioned in the article don't
pan out. One witness tracked down 50
years ago swore he didn't see Whitehead
take off; the other was never found. The
Wright flight had verifiable witnesses
so there.
But O'Dwyer argues that the Smith
sonian is purposefully overlooking
pertinent historical data in order to keep
the Wrights' plane. Wilbur Wright's will
bequeathes the plane to the Smithsonian
until another is proven to have been the
first to fly. What O'Dwyer means is that
the Smithsonian, one of the nation's
most revered institutions, is lying. By
accusing the Smithsonian of such shady
doings, O'Dwyer is overlooking himself.
Because Whitehead was from his state,
O'Dwyer's real concern may not be
history, but embellishing Connecticut's
glory. But wait, there's less.
After his "flight," Whitehead left the
airplane business and went back to
building hang gliders. Now, why would
someone who had just successfully tested
the world's first airplane suddenly quit
the business? That would be like finding
a cure for cancer, only to go into vacuum
cleaner sales. Could it be that White
head's design didn't work?
O'Dwyer's claims wouldn't seem so
absurd to those with the (W)right
historical perspective if it weren't for his
gall. He even has the nerve to suggest
that North Carolinians send their "First
in Flight" license plates to Connecticut.
"I'm sure we could make some 'Second
in Flight' plates to send back to you,"
he said.
That kind of smart-aleck attitude
from a damn Yankee isn't appreciated
here in the South, especially when it
comes to claiming the bragging rights
to who flew first. As any good. Sou
therner knows, O'Dwyer and his claims
are for the birds.
Heavy metal United to partying
WARNING: THIS BOTTOM LINE CON
TAINS MATERIAL THAT SOME MAY
CONSIDER OFFENSIVE!
Life was going fine for me I had great
friends, good grades, neighbors liked me and
I was the star of the junior league soccer team.
Yeah, life was fine. Then I turned 15. And
something horrible happened to me, some
thing that could happen to you or your
children, too, if you don't watch out.
Something that threatens the moral fiber of
our youth, just as it threatened to destroy
me. .
When 1 was 15, I discovered heavy metal
music. I didn't know then how bad it was
for me. I didn't have the benefit of somebody
like University of Tennessee psychiatry
professor Paul King, quoted in Monday's
Charlotte Observer. Dr. King's been on the
lookout for heavy metal all his life. He's an
authority. According to Dr. King, listening
to Black Sabbath for a couple hours can turn
you from Wally Cleaver to Charlie Manson.
He says, you spin some tunes by Dokken,
next thing you know you're beating up old
ladies, self-indulging with skin mags and . . .
smoking pot. As Dr. King says, listening to
Dio can lead to "feelings of resentment and
(shudder) the urge to 'party. "
And I can tell you here, he's right. After
I played "Back in Black," I did most of the
drugs on the street everything from weed
to smack to poppers. No big deal, all my
Tho Cc:;orn Uno
heavy-metal friends were doing them. And,
yeah, after hearing "Out of the Cellar," me
and Mary Sue lost the big V when my parents
were at the Jaycees party. Then, when I heard
The Scorpions' live record, I lost all self
respect and stuffed a couple of cats into the
exhaust pipe in Mr. Fenster's convertible
man, 1 loved it when he went tearing down
the street.
And it got worse stuff I'm not even
allowed to print. Luckily, Dr. King saved me
in time before 1 became another unecessary
statistic. He took me off the drugs gradually,
but he forced me to withdraw from heavy
metal immediately. It was hard at first; there
were times I didn't think I'd make it. Dr. King
placed me on a cold turkey diet of Wham!,
Neil Diamond and the long-play mellow
version of "Muskrat Love."
I'm a better person now. I mix up some
herbal tea, flip on the TV to "Love Boat"
and try to withdraw to my inner core of
serenity. Heavy-metal music is a monkey on
your back that's worse than drugs, sex or
wanton acts of petty destruction. Ill never
be rid of this curse completely, but I'd like
to save you from ruining your lives.
And that's the bottom line. .
S.T.
jni&Ui Mil
Imcciurades9 mar Lillie issmie
To the editor:
;We are writing to correct what
we see as several glaring inaccur
acies in the DTH article, "Lillie
could serve next year," and the
DTH editorial, "Lillie and stu
dents deserve better," both of
which appeared April 18. We will
concentrate on errors in fact and
not on the DTH's editorial
opinion.
The editorial states that the
Student Congress "in voting
against Lillie . . . violated general
election laws and the Student
Constitution." This is not so. By
citing specific references in the
Student Code, we will show that
the Student Congress did act
properly.
Title VI (Election Law), Article
II, Section 3. A of the Student
Government Code states that the
Elections Board chairman shall
serve "for one year or until his
successor is appointed and con
firmed, or until (1) he resigns, (2)
he becomes ineligible to serve on
the Elections Board, or (3) he is
removed by the Student Congress
in accordance with Article I,
section 4. D of the Constitution."
Section 4.D of the Constitution
gives the Student Congress the
power to "impeach and bring to
trial by majority vote, and remove
from office by two-thirds vote any
official except the editor of The
Daily Tar Heel."
The editorial says that an
"impeachment process was in
effect carried out in the Wednes
day morning meeting." Anyone
familiar with the impeachment
process (outlined in the Student
Congress bylaws) can see that
nothing remotely resembling an
impeachment process was at our
April 16 meeting.
Our decision did not remove
Lillie from office, as the above
citations clearly demonstrate. Our
only action was to deny him
another term of office, an action
clearly within our Student Govern
ment Code, VI.II.2.A: "An Elec
tions Board chairman shall be
appointed by the newly-elected
Student Body President and con
firmed by the Student Congress
prior to the end of the spring
semester."
The editorial pointed out that
much of the debate concerned the
Brady case. While some of the
questions asked concerned the
case, most of the debate, in fact,
concerned Elections Board
Popular histrionics
To the editor:
The recent discussion concern
ing the "histrionics" of the students
attempting to divest UNC's South .
African holdings overlooks an
important point. First of all, it's
important to remember that this
issue has remained in a state of
static moderation for some years,
as many have apparently wished.
Perhaps the demonstrators have
realized the pointlessness of appeal
ing to students, much less appeal
ing to students logically. The
demonstrators' recent tactics are,
in essence, the same as those of
Coca-Cola, Col. Khadafy, Clint
Eastwood or Caspar Weinberger.
Effective use of the airwaves is
the primary concern of those with
political or economic intentions.
The demonstrators have gone over
the heads of the students to the
community, by exploiting the
media.
That political debate is con
ducted at present in the realm of
images, not ideas, is unfortunate,
but inescapable. That the most
recent development in the arms
race finds expression in terms of
cinematic fantasy is not only an
illustration of, but a metaphor for,
the manner in which the ideals and
icons of Hollywood have sub
verted political thought. All pol
itical debate at present amounts
to a type of "Star Wars." However,
that those concerned with political
issues seem forced to operate
within the structure of the star
system does not wholly absolve
them, although it constitutes a
definite indictment of the system.
After all has been said, "The
fault, dear Brutus, is not in our
stars, but in ourselves, that we are
underlings." More pertinently, in
ourselves, that they are underlings.
STEPHEN CIESIELSKI
Graduate
Parasitology
Casting stones
To the editor:
I agree that the most recent
campus elections hardly lived up
to the dream. But the Student
Congress representatives' criticism
and rejection of Bruce Lillie as
Elections Board chairman would
be a lot easier to accept if they
themselves were perfect or even
close.
Running a flawless elections
process is a rare and admirable
achievement. Had all of the can
didates accepted the challenge as
sincerely and dedicatedly as Bruce,
it's likely that he would have been
more successful. Instead, several
unusually tough issues arose,
which Bruce handled with caution,
concern and fairness. Blaming
Bruce for a T-shirt controversy
that, as Dave Edquist (Dist. 1)
said, "dragged the whole elections
process in the mud," ("Lillie
refused Board reappointment,"
April 17) is like blaming former
CGC Speaker Wyatt Closs for Bill
Peaslee.
As for the graduate voting, it
seems that the GPS F has had more
trouble getting its constituency to
the polls than the Elections Board
has had in keeping them open.
And finding graduate students
willing to help the board directly
by being a member of it can
be one of the chairman's chief
hassles.
Granted. Bruce and his board
. made some errors. He knows it,
and he won't make them twice. If
Bruce-comes before it again as a
nominee, 1 hope 1 can say the same
for this stone-casting Student
Congress.
DAVE SCHMIDT
Senior
Journalism English
behavior in graduate-district elec
tions. Indeed, these were the
principal objections of Edquist
and Torgan. While unwarranted
personal lattacks on Lillie are
uncalled for, unwarranted attacks
on the integrity and competence
of the Student Congress, com
pounded by inaccurate reporting,
are uncalled for as well.
While the DTH may disagree
with the decision of the Congress,
its assertion that certain members
of the Congress have no right to
question Lillie or vote against him
is absurd. It is clearly our right
and responsibility to question
presidential appointments and
serve in our Constitutionally
obligated capacity as a check on
the Executive Branch.
Any decision on whether Lillie
shall continue to hold office is in
the hands of Lillie, Student Attor
ney General Walker Poole, and
perhaps, the Student Supreme
Court. The Student Congress is
currently taking no action to
remove him from office.
Our only assertion is that Pres
ident Hassel has a Constitutional
obligation to make an appoint
ment acceptable to the Student
Congress, and failure to do so in
due time is a dereliction of his
duty.
As two members of the Con
gress who voted on opposite sides
of the issue, we hope you will
consider these as valid criticisms.
While we respect the right of the
DTH to express its editorial,
opinion, we feel that glaring errors
of fact should not be present in
articles or editorials. In the future,
we hope the DTH will conduct its
business in a more responsible
manner.
NEIL RIEMANN
Freshman
Mathematics
JODY BEASLEY
Freshman
Business Administration
Editor's note: The April 18
editorial titled "Lillie and students
deserve better" stated that the
Student Congress violated general
elections laws and the Student
Constitution. Tltat is not the case.
The Daily Tar Heel stands
behind the remainder of that
editorial.
J Mtttt"''. A
$, . u as, , ' T'A 17'"
'.. '- (.
A ShoH. History
13SJORCES
IN EUROPE.
Twite in the wjsr
against teriwisBi,
1986.
Fretth-approvei
lutein the war '
against Hitler,
WTT"
!
',4,"
Page gratifying
To the editor:
How gratifying it was to read
the back page of the April 1 1 Daily
Tar Heel! Eddie Swain's column
("Conservatives stifle liberal acti
vism") was right on target when
he noted that campus conserva
tives these past few weeks have not
been protesting honestly, but have
harbored much more cynical and
malevolent intents.
The conservatives "Berlin wall"
(as they themselves even admitted)
was little more than a juvenile
attempt to play tit for tat in the
hope that the stifling of the anti
apartheid protest would result.
They may have fooled the UNC
administration, but thankfully,
they didn't fool Swain, who has
done us all a service through his
column.
On that same DTH page, ref
erence was made to the partially
successful lobbying efforts of some
Zionists to prevent the airing of
an excellent PBS documentary on
Israel and the Palestinians ("Ter
rorists beware"). Apparently, the
documentary was too "balanced,"
something that Israel's increas
ingly extremist supporters in this
country won't tolerate. They
successfully pressured six TV
stations into refusing to air the
show. Like the Berlin wall protest,
the intent was not to offer an
opposing viewpoint, but to stifle
other views (even, as in the PBS
case, when the other view is
neutral!).
Regardless of how one feels
about the desirable resolution of
UNC's investments in South
Africa or the United States' invest
ments in the Middle East, it ought
to be readily apparent to everyone
that attempts to smother the airing
of these issues is a serious concern.
It is tempting to dismiss the
conservative and Zionist reaction
aries as immature and misguided,
but their success rate should give
us pause. Swain's fear of such
tactics may be legitimate and
. justified. ; 1 '
GARY HERION
Lecturer
Department of Religion
Perverse porn
To the editor:
Your review of 9Yz Weeks" had
such a nice headline (" '9 Vz Weeks'
a little perverse, but good lesson
about values," April 17) that I
actually read what Mark Mattox
describes as a film that has more
than good porn.
Tell me, please, Mark, what is
good porn?
Were I interested in finding out
those who could be perverse
enough to pay to see such a movie,
I would go stand outside the
theatre myself.
Everytime I think about going
to a late-night movie in Chapel
Hill, I remember the bitter circum
stances surrounding Sharon Ste
wart's death last August. I
remember that in spring of 1984
sexual assaults ran rampant in this
town.
I remember the horror stories
in the Aboretum about decades of
tragic violence against women. I
remember the story of the girl who
was picked up on Franklin Street
earlier this year during the noon
hour.
I suppose I should be grateful
to The Daily Tar Heel for pub
lishing such a film review. I would
have never known that here at
UNC watching deviant sexual
behavior can cost less than half
the price of a parking ticket.
SUSAN GADDY
Senior
Interdisciplinary Studies
Graffiti harmful
To the editor:
The anti-apartheid graffiti that
has been showing up on campus
buildings lately angers me. Not
only is the graffiti ugly, but it
makes me wonder whether the
students supporting divesture are
really serious about seeing their
requests granted.
On this campus, free speech is
encouraged. Daily, people with
"something to say" can be found
in the Pit or its vicinity, voicing
their concerns. It seems that
someone opposing apartheid (who
supports divesture), however, has
disregarded this open invitation in
lieu of causing damage to our
beautiful, historic campus build
ings. This is both uncalled for and
demeaning to the UNC Anti
Apartheid Support Group's con
tinued plea for divesture.
The group is fighting for the
removal of UNC investments from
companies that are doing business
in South Africa. These invest
ments provide thousands of dol
lars annually to the University that
are used for salaries, academic and
cultural programs, and obviously,
building maintenance. In their
protest, the group should be doing
' everything it can to encourage
University officials to remove
these investments. However, some
one on AASG's side has, in
principal, defeated their cause by
creating a demand for University
maintenance funds. Tuesday, it
took four workers with solvent
and rags several hours to remove
the childish graffiti from the north
side of the Student Union. Four
times, even at as little as minimum
wage, for a couple of hours adds
up to a considerable amount of
investment dividends.
This is just the practical aspect.
From a purely aesthetic stand
point, the graffiti cheapens the
look of campus buildings and
makes the affected areas look
trashy. I have a great appreciation
for the number of dollars and
hours spent to make and keep our
campus beautiful, and I would like
to see it stay that way. Every hour
that the maintenance personnel
has to spend scraping, sand blast
ing or scrubbing unnecessary
garbage from the walls of this
otherwise great-looking campus is
an hour which could have been
used performing the everyday
maintenance services that keeps
the grounds looking like a show
place. Their time should not be
wasted removing someone's imma
ture idea of free speech from a
wall.
If the Anti-Apartheid Support
Group really wants its request to
be considered seriously by the
mature, thinking adults of our
investment board, I suggest that
they limit their protest to mature,
reasonable methods, which may
mean stopping this vandal if he
doesn't belong to their group. If
he does, then maybe some of their
mature members should have a
talk with himher about growing
up. If they really think that
divesture is a reasonable solution
for apartheid, then they need to
make their point in reasonable
ways.
WILLIAM LOGAN JR.
Junior
Biology Pre-Med
Send 'em in
Notice: Because we have been
so underwhelmed by the number
of entries for the "What in the hell
is Patrick Duffy going to do on
Dallas?" contest, the deadline for
the contest has been extended to
noon today. So yank those letters
out of those typewriters and get
'em on in to the office so we can
pick one to publish Wednesday.