Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Oct. 15, 1986, 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 Heel Wednesday, October 15, 1986 9A .year of editorial freedom JIM ZOOK, Editor Randy Farmer, Managing Editor ED BRACKETT, Associate Editor DEWEY MESSER, Associate Editor Tracy Hill, nws Editor Grant Parsons, university Editor LINDA MONTANARI, City Editor JILL GERBER, State and National Editor Scott Fowler, sports Editor KATHY PETERS, Features Editor ROBERT KEEFE, Business Editor Elizabeth Ellen, Arts Editor DAN CHARLSON, Photography Editor UNC no place for art? Except among students and the University's Art Department, Profes sor Marvin Saltzman has said he will no longer be an art activist" on this campus. After this weekend, who can blame him? Saltzman arranged to have sculptor James H. Miller's work brought to UNC. The three-piece sculpture, located between Howell Hall and the Alumni Building, was to be displayed in celebration of University system President CD. Spangler's inaugura tion. The work offered special rele vance in that it was created by a recent UNC graduate. The art will not be seen during the celebrations. Miller has removed his sculpture after it was damaged by vandals at least twice during the past week. One piece was torn from the ground and rolled across the lawn Friday night, so that the joints were weakened and the paint surface was cracked. Moisture seeped through the cracks, threatening rust damage. Miller can not just repaint; he has to torch off the old paint and sand the joints first. The sculpture was to be displayed later this month at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art in Winston-Salem. And Miller thinks he may be able to make repairs in time. It would be easy and comfortable to think the damage was done by immature, off-campus hoodlums. But Miller witnessed one individual trying to destroy the work and heard him say, "Let's tear it down." That person was a UNC student. This is not the first time outdoor displays have been damaged here. Another work, located at the same site, was slightly damaged just over a year ago. To its credit, the University admin istration has contacted Miller and expressed an interest in helping compensate for the time he must spend in repairing his sculpture. But a professor who has devoted 16 years to bringing art and culture to campus has called the effort quits. Five months of work was destroyed within hours. It will take the University a long time to counteract a strong signal being sent to artists across the state: UNC is apparently not a place to display one's works of art. Sanford waffles during debate The importance of Sunday's debate between U.S. Senate candidates Jim Broyhill and Terry Sanford lies not in the issues raised but in the way the candidates responded to those issues. For if the debate did anything, it reinforced the fact that in North Carolina to be identified as a liberal is equivalent to being kissed by the political Grim Reaper. Terry Sanford is a consummate politician. He is also reputed to be an "old school" Democrat. But an observer would be hard-pressed to discover that from the debate. Sanford traveled the broad thoroughfare of moderation with ease, evading Broy hill's every attempt to pin him with the liberal label. It was the perfor mance of a man well aware of what he must do to become a senator. Yet in his adroit playing of the political game, Sanford lost something of himself. He seemed anxious to disguise his role as a Democratic Party representative. The politician domi nated the statesman in Sanford. Sanford nimbly skirted the edge of the question of a school prayer amendment by elaborating on the virtue of prayer. He also dodged a question on the death penalty for drug related deaths by firing a tangential blast at Broyhill for failing to balance the budget. Returning to capital punishment, he said, "I would have gone along with the crowd and voted for the drug bill. There wouldn't be any other way to explain the vote." Sanford ambiguously stated his goals when he spoke of the importance of a strong national defense ("second to none"), of doing those things which would give America a sounder eco nomic base, of having the courage to balance the budget and of ensuring that small business had a future. He also said he wanted to maintain the wholesomeness of the community. The vagueness of these goals aside, viewers might have been excused for wond ering whether Broyhill was the only Republican on the podium. To be sure, Sanford touched briefly on traditional Democratic issues, such as arms control and the need to help the poor. And the concern is not that Sanford did not conform to traditional Democratic positions. The concern is that he appears to hold many of those positions and yet was hesitant to say so to a statewide audience. The fault may not be his. It, may be the responsibility of the N.C. democratic process. But the fact remains that a forum which began by trying to answer questions finished only by raising more. GOP motives fraudulent Dead people can't vote, or at least they shouldn't. But the national GOP believes they are. The latest Republican ploy to get votes is called a "ballot integrity" program, designed to eliminate fraud ulent voting by dead or nonexisting people. It seems like a good idea, until examined more closely. William Greener, political director of the Republican National Commit tee, said state and national GOP organizations mailed letters to regis tered voters in districts that voted for Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale 4-1 over President Reagan in 1984. If the letter cannot be delivered, it is returned to the GOP, which could lead to proceedings against the voter for address fraud. But what happens to those who don't receive the letters because their address is outdated or incorrect? The action itself would not be questionable if the letters were sent to all registered voters, not just those who voted for the Democratic candidate in the 1984 presidential election. Those who didnt receive their letters may find their voter eligibility challenged at an inopportune time. It's a unique but not very honorable method of eliminating the competition. "The targeting was not based on gender or race or age; it was based on the vote performance," Greener told The Washington Post. But a 1984 ABC News poll found that among different race, age and religious groups, only blacks cast votes in support of Mondale by proportions exceeding 80 percent. It's doubtful that the GOP was unaware of the poll when they began mailing letters. : Two states realized the outrageous ness of the GOP's actions and retal iated. A federal judge in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction against the Republicans for their efforts to force voter registrars to check 30,000 names in precincts that cast at least 80 percent of its votes" against Reagan. Iowa has refused to allow the mailings. The GOP claims "vote fraud is colorblind." But its efforts to combat voter fraud are politically biased. Scaring up the dead should be left to ghostbusters T and those with more honorable motives than eliminating opposition votes. ; Drag testing MirfaMy accuses atMetes Several months ago before Ronald Reagan declared a "national crusade" against drugs and before the cry to end drug use in this country reached fever pitch, U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz was asked at a press conference about the president's plan to require all federal employees to submit to drug tests. Shultz replied that if Ronnie wanted him to tee-tee in a bottle, then the president can go find himself another secretary of state. He then stormed off. His indignation was not surprising. Schultz was livid at the prospect of having to justify his behavior, to somehow have to prove himself to the president and the country. We are now faced with a similar situation on this campus. Athletes are to be forced to prove themselves, not on the athletic field but in the laboratory. Their urine will be analyzed in a series of random drug tests to assure that they are not "guilty." It will be reassuring to know that the athletes who suit up for UNC will be "clean." It will be a comfort for all of us to know that they aren't doing anything illegal. It will be a comfort and a relief but it will be wrong. One of the most obvious problems with drug testing is that the tests themselves are not wholly accurate. According to U.S. News & World Report, "the most common test, has a l-in-20 rate of false positives." In other words, for every 20 "clean" people tested, one will register as having taken John Gibbs Guest Writer drugs. At UNC, that would mean that about five football players, two lacrosse players and one basketball player per test would show up as "positive," even if they don't use drugs. Granted, repeat tests can be performed, but it is unfair to subject these athletes to a flawed system. It's unfair to force an athlete who doesn't take drugs to stand before his coaches and teammates as an accused drug user. As long as the possibility for such a scenario exists, these tests should not be implemented. Aside from the fact that urine testing is often flawed, there's a more fundamental problem with mandatory drug testing. The term "student-athlete" implies that anyone . who participates in college sports is a student first and an athlete second. One doesn't have to look too far to see that this often is not the case. Nonetheless, we should still strive to ensure that the University does indeed have student-athletes: They should be afforded no more perks and privileges than the rest of us, yet they should not have to endure greater restrictions, either. Mandatory drug testing is an unfair burden to UNC's athletes, an action akin to making the rest of us submit to lie-detector tests after an exam. Ultimately, the courts will probably decide this issue. But it doesnt take a court of law to see that across-the-board drug testing for athletes, simply because they are athletes, is arbitrary and discriminatory. There's one final reason that mandatory drug testing of UNC athletes should not be implemented. To understand it, we must again look at Schultz's initial reaction to the idea of random drug tests. He reacted as he did because he felt his integrity was being questioned. Suddenly, the old saw about being "innocent till proven guilty" had been turned on its head. Now it read: "Prove to me you're innocent, so IH know you're not guilty." In a sense, UNC's athletes are assumed guilty until they can prove otherwise. Any athlete who refuses the ignominy of a drug test and drops off his team will have to live with the whispers of "He's a druggie," regardless of whether such sayings are true. In the end, we must look at this issue in a larger context it encompasses much more than just UNC or college athletics. We must remember that, ultimately, it is the citizens of a society who decide what sort of society to live in. We live in relative freedom, but freedom is not inviolable; it can be compromised because of suspicion and distrust. We shouldn't adopt a policy that only fosters suspicion and distrust. We have more than enough of that as it is now. John Gibbs is a senior history major from Lynchburg, Va. A worthy goal To the editor: As a concerned UNC stu dent, I would like to say that the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant is needed and that CP&L should be licensed to operate. Federal authorities have judged the plant's emergency plan to be sound. Furthermore, a May 198S exercise of the plan received the highest rating ever for its efficiency by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone is generous compared to zones in Great Britain (1.8 miles), Sweden (1.2 miles), France (3.2 miles) and Ger many (6.2 miles). The safety record of U.S. commercial power plants is excellent. No one has ever been seriously injured or killed by radiation leaking from a U.S. nuclear power plant. The Harris plant is needed to meet the growing electricity demands of CP&L customers. Some anti-nuclear acitivists have stated that the growth is not great enough to warrant the plant; however, the N.C. Util ities Commission predicts a 2.6 percent growth rate by the year 2000, exactly what CP&L expe rienced in 1985. Moreover, unless the plant begins operation in 1987, CP&L wiU faU below the 20 percent reserve margin required of electric utilities in North Carolina. Without the plant, the state may not have reliable electric service and economic growth may be slowed. Calls for conservation will not work if we want the number of good jobs to increase. After several years of hear ings in the licensing process, allegations of widespread drug use by workers, faulty con struction and falsified docu ments were found to be mer itless. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, after hearing sworn testimony from plant opponents, expert witnesses and CP&L personnel, ruled that the allegations had been resolved and a license to oper ate the plant should be granted. Because the generation of electricity by nuclear fission is extremely safe and because North Carolina needs the plant to meet growing power demands, Shearon Harris is a worthwhile endeavor by CP&L and should be allowed to begin operation. MAX THOMPSON Junior Chemistry ; Pizza payoff To the editor: Many students, myself included, were offered pizza at the Terry Sanford rally on Monday. Apparently, the pizza was intended to persuade stu dents to stay and support the rally; in my case, it had the opposite effect. Starving student that I am, ,1 generally have no objection to free food. But in this case, associated as it was with the rally,' the pizza was nothing more than a gaudy attention grabbing device for a political race. , Sound familiar? Both San ford and Broyhill promised the voters of North Carolina that cm G5i I NW&E TIKE ,&m... M FAWLITE BEATLES IS VE" COULD TfiLKIMG flfiMS... 1 I it Editorial cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Daily Tar Heel's editorial board. The cartoons express the opinion of the cartoonist. The Daily Tar Heel welcomes reader com ment. For style and clarity, we ask that you observe the following guidelines for letters to the editor and columns: B All letters columns must be signed by the author(s). Limit of two signatures per letter or column. " n Students who submit letters I columns should also include their name, year in school, major and phone number. Professors and other University employees should include their title and department. D All letters I columns must be typed. (For easier editing, we ask that they be double-spaced on a 60-space line.) B The Daily Tar Heel reserves the right to edit letters and columns for style, grammar and accuracy. they would run an issues oriented campaign rather than returning to the tactics that characterized the Hunt-Helms race of 1984. 1 think the student groups representing Sanford on Monday missed the boat on that promise, and that they would do well to re-examine their campaign tactics. I, for one, resent the impli cation that my vote can be bought with a slice of pizza; the students at UNC deserve better than that. STEVE COLE Sophomore English Don't miss out To the editor: Are you going to be home on Nov. 6 to vote? If you are like most UNC students, prob ably not. But this doesn't mean you must miss out on the 1986 elections. This year, some races are predicted to be close. For example, polls taken in Char lotte suggest that the District 9 Congressional race will be close. Democrat D.G. Martin is running against Republican incumbent Alex McMillan. So, write to your Board of Elections and request an absen tee ballot. R. ANNE MCINTOSH Junior Speech Communications Shocking scam To the editor: Last Tuesday I decided to make my semi-annual trek to the infamous Student Stores. Call it a burning desire to see new things, explore new ter rains. Once there, I had this all encompassing craving for Tootsie rolls. After paying, I nonchalantly walked over to the gum counter to talk to a friend. Then, all of a sudden, .it just hit me square in the face. Needless to say, I was shocked! No, perhaps morti fied is a better word. There it was in black and white Tampax Tampons, $5.41 for 40! My God! I could not believe the mark-up! I mean, talk about a money-making machine . . . Just imagine, 10,000 "regular" females times $541 ., . COWABUNGA! As I see it, the women of UNC have two plausible alternatives: a make an appointment for a hysterectomy or; B perhaps less drastic, direct thy feet towards Franklin Street and "sport a generic substitute." EMILY OGBURN Junior Public Relations Speech Missed point To the editor: Pierre Tristam has said that the Ten Commandments are now invalid, they are obsolete, they have never been of any use (The 10 Commandments revised," Oct. 7). Pierre, you have missed the point. Your strongest argument is the hypocrisy of religion. This is a very good observation. People have killed, cheated and stolen in the name of Jesus Christ. I agree, Pierre, that is blatantly hypocritical! How ever, the point is that this hypocrisy bothers you. If it bothers you, then you have a standard of morality. You have used the Ten Commandments to judge the value of the Ten Commandments! If not, where does your standard come from? You obviously deem it wrong to murder. Exodus 20: 13 says, "Thou shall not murder." Murder is, in Hebrew, ratsach. Often this is translated, "Thou shalt not kill." I am sure you agree that murder is wrong. You did not think up this standard on your own. Every culture in the world will tell you that murder is wrong. This is God's divine law. Without this standard, we would have an anything-goes society. Thank you for pointing out the fact that there is hypoc risy in the world. Therefore, there is divine law. This summer, I went to Amsterdam for Billy Graham's International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists. One day I saw two men praying together, holding hands and crying. One was black, the other white. Both were Chris tian South Africans. You speak of hypocrisy, of wars in the name of God. Jesus spoke of peace in the love of God. We have not met of God's standard. You also talked of mass preachers and their money. The first 15 years of Billy Graham's ministry was spent on street corners. He made very little money. He was persecuted and abused, but persevered out of love for God and people. Today, he has the same heart and is still modest. He drives a Volvo and has had a Delta 88 for as long as I can remember. He lives in a mod erate house in Montreat. There is nothing flashy about him. Pierre, be careful to justify your accusations. Graham is not perfect, but like millions of others around the world, he simply desires to serve the true and living God. Like I said earlier, however, the point is that no one has lived up to the divine standard. We cant meet God's stand ard because we are not good enough. That bothers me, and obviously, that bothers you. God sent Jesus to die for us so that we are forgiven for our failure. Out of love for Him, we need to accept this forgive ness and strive to please Him by following his command ments. It's not always easy, but I am forgiven; are you? KEVIN GRAHAM FORD Junior Speech Communication
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 15, 1986, edition 1
8
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75