Skip to Content
North Carolina Newspapers

The daily Tar Heel. (Chapel Hill, N.C.) 1946-current, October 29, 1986, Page 8, Image 8

Below is the OCR text representation of this newspaper page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

8 The Daily Tar Heel Wednesday, October 29, 1986 latiu 94i rear o editorial freedom Jim Zook, &fcor Randy Farmer, Managing Editor ED BRACKETT, Associate Editor DEWEY MESSER, Associate Editor Tracy Hill, News Editor Grant Parsons, university Editor LlNDA,MONTANARI, City Editor JILL GERBER, State and National Editor Scott Fowler, sports Editor KATHY PETERS, Features Editor ROBERT KEEFE, Business Editor Elizabeth Ellen, Am Editor DAN CHARLSON, Photography Editor Staff strain in Senate race Issues in the U.S. Senate race between Jim Broyhill and Terry Sanford are in danger of being clouded by campaign staffs. In the home stretch, campaign workers are growing tired and testy, causing exhaustion to sometimes overpower judgment. Take Monday, when Lisa Brewer, an aide to Broyhill, tried to attend a Sanford press conference. A Demo cratic Party worker, Ronnie Moore, refused to let her enter. Moore jokingly identified himself as Claude Allen (a former aide to Jesse Helms) and told Brewer to "stay out." When Sanford arrived, he told workers (and attentive reporters) to let Brewer in. He said her presence emphasized BroyhhTs refusal to dis cuss issues, that Broyhill was "sending a young woman to speak for him." Sanford's unmannerly comments aside, Moore's actions were petty and unreasonable. Brewer was a press aide at a press conference. And whether or not the confrontation and Sanford's arrival were timed, they appeared more than coincidence. The incident did little for the Sanford image. But Sanford's point, however made, was valid. A Broyhill press conference Monday was long overdue. His sche dule has been loaded with fund-raising and club appearances, with no legit imate media sessions. Between three minute interviews to and from dinners and sharp words with audacious reporters, Broyhill has not been making media friends. Broyhill seems to forget that the press is the source of information for most voters. The Broyhill campaign schedule has suffered mix-ups as well. On at least one occasion, Broyhill was slated to appear in two places at once. Having to cancel an appearance only hours in advance doesn't do much for the candidate's image, either. With such incidents, Broyhill and Sanford can be tainted through the work of their campaign staffs rather than judged on merit. If their workers don't try for better press relations and quality appearances (one at a time) a lot of voters could be swayed for the wrong reasons. Fundamental faith, freedom In recent years, as fundamentalist Christians have extended their influ ence beyond the religious sphere, the term "secular humanism" has become their catchword for modern evils. For the fundamentalist, secular humanism is a philosophy which places man above God and removes God from his rightful spot as the foundation of society's values and goals. The conflict between these two visions of life came into sharp focus over the weekend. Federal District Judge Thomas Hull ruled that students should be allowed to skip a class rather than be forcibly exposed to material which their parents feel contradicts their religious beliefs. As long as students met the school's reading standards, Hull ruled, and there were sincere religious objections to the books, attendance was not required. The suit was brought by seven Christian families in Hawkins County, Tenn. They argued that First Amend ment rights to the free exercise of religion were violated by books used in their children's reading classes. The plaintiffs charged that the books dealt with ungodly issues, such as supernat uralism and male-female role reversal. Vicki Frost, a mother and star witness for the parents, captured the plaintiffs' view of education when she said, "Our children's imaginations have to be bounded." Frost was referring to a reading exercise asking seventh graders to imagine themselves as part of nature. Judge Hull was careful to limit his decision, saying only the plaintiffs could be excused from class and skip only the disputed class. His decision must not be seen as advocating a fundamentalist vision of education or religion, as he wrote some might consider such beliefs "incomprehens ible and illogical." The decision can be seen as finding a sanctuary in the no man's land between the enemy camps. After all, if students learn to read at home, they suffer no harm. Also, the free exercise clause precludes the state forcing a religious view on the individual. But the decision has serious flaws. Pragmatically, it holds the danger of creating a "cafeteria" vision of public education, selecting or rejecting classes based on conformity to one's beliefs. More importantly, the decision, and the plaintiffs' arguments, contradict what public education is all about. Education, particularly at the gram mar school level, must not consist of reinforcing one's own beliefs by excluding consideration of others. It must foster respect for all opinions and not deny the validity of others. When dogmatic religion enters the realm of secular education, an inev itable conflict ensues. And in a non theocratic society the first responsibil ity is to education. If Frost wishes to limit her children's minds, she can send her children to private school, as she is doing now. Such limits have no place in our public schools. The Daily Tar Heel Editorial Writer: Kathy Nanney Omnibus Editor: Sallie Krawcheck Assistant Managing Editors: Jennifer Cox, Amy Hamilton and Regan Murray. News: Jeanna Baxter, Stephanie Burrow, Charlotte Cannon, Chris Chapman, Paul Cory, Sabrina Darley, Kimberly Edens, Michelle Efird, Jennifer Essen, Jeannie Faris, Scott Greig, Maria Haren, Nancy Harrington, Timothy Harrison, Suzanne Jeffries, Susan Jensen, Sharon Kebschull, Michael Kolb, Teresa Kriegsman, Laura Lance, Alicia Lassiter, Mitra Lotfi, Brian Long, Justin McGuire, Karen McManis, Laurie Martin, Tracey Maxwell, Toby Moore, Dan Morrison, Felisa Neuringer, Rachel Orr, Fred Patterson, Liz Saylor, Sheila Simmons, Rachel Stiffler, Elisa Turner, Nicki Weisensee, Beth Williams, Robert Wilderman and Bruce Wood. Jo Fleischer and Jean Lutes, assistant university editors. Donna Leinwand, assistant state and national editor. Cindy Clark, Ruth Davis and Michael Jordan, wire editors. Sports: Mike Berardino, James Surowiecki and Bob Young, assistant sports editors. Bonnie Bishop, Greg Cook, Phyllis Fair, Laura Grimmer, Clay Hodges, Greg Humphreys, Lorna Khalil, Eddy Landreth, Mike Mackay, Jill Shaw and Wendy Stringfellow. Features: Jessica Brooks, Julie Braswell, Eleni Chamis, Robbie Dellinger, Carole Ferguson, Jennifer Frost, Jennifer Harley, Laura Lance, Corin Ortlam, Lynn Phillips, Katie White and Mollie Womble. Arts: James Burrus, David Hester, Alexandra Mann, Rene Meyer, Beth Rhea, Kelly Rhodes and Rob Sherman. Photography: Charlotte Cannon, Larry Childress, Jamie Cobb, Tony Deifell, Janet Jarman and Julie Stovall. ' Copy Editors: Karen Anderson, assistant news editor. Dorothy Batts, Beverly Imes, Lisa Lorentz, Sherri Murray, Sally Pearsall, Marielle Stachura and Joy Thompson. Editorial Cartoonists: Adam Cohen, Bill Cokas and Trip Park. Campus Calendar: Mindelle Rosenberg and David Starnes. Business and Advertising: Anne Fulcher, general manager; Patricia Benson, advertising director; Mary Pearse, advertising coordinator. Angela Ostwalt, business manager; Cammie Henry, accounts receivable clerk; Eve Davis, advertising manager. Ruth Anderson, Michael Benfield, Jennifer Garden, Kelli McElhaney, Chrissy Mennitt, Beth Merrill, Anne Raymer, Julie Settle, Peggy Smith, Kent Sutton, Ashley Waters, and Layne Poole advertising representatives; Tammy Norris, Angie Peele, Stephanie Chesson, classified advertising representatives; Tammy Sheldon, editorial assistants; and Mary Brown, secretary. Distributioncirculation: William Austin, manager. Production: Elizabeth Rich and Stacy Wynn. Rita Galloway, production assistant. Guiarding XJNC's academic integrity The author is chairman of the Undergrad uate Honor Court. The Honor Code: It shall be the respon sibility of every student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to obey and to support the enforcement of the Honor Code, which prohibits lying, cheating or stealing when these actions involve academic processes or University, student or academic personnel acting in an official capacity. The Campus Code: It shall be the further responsibility of every student to abide by the Campus Code: namely, to conduct oneself so as not to impair significantly the welfare or the educational opportunities of others in the University community. 't is my responsibility, along with four other members of the court,' to preside Lover cases involving students charged with alleged violations of the Code of Student Conduct. For three years, 1 have been active with the Honor Court and have had the opportunity to evaluate the pre mises, as well as the effectiveness, of our Honor System. 1 have also been able to review my role both as an administrator of the Honor System and as a student governed by its principles. Often 1 am questioned by friends and others about my real enthusiasm in prom oting the Honor System. About six months ago, after chairing a case late into the evening, 1 was approached by a student who had served as a character witness during the hearing. Obviously stricken by the magni tude of the court's decision, the student inquired how 1 could ever enjoy putting myself and someone else through the trauma of a case. After pausing, I replied that our system was the best means of guaranteeing Tory Johnston Guest Writer academic integrity and that 1 enjoyed playing a part in its functioning. What is so great about the Honor System? Certainly there is much at UNC to make us hold our heads high. This list is not limited merely to academic and athletic excellence, but should also include our student-run Honor System, which has been a traditional part of the academic functioning of this university for over a century. We should be proud of the immense academic and personal freedom bestowed upon us by this system. As students, we are given the latitude to govern our lives and to pursue our education without extensive monitoring or interference from UNC faculty and staff. Why? Because the basic premise of our Honor System is that we, as students, are honest and trustworthy an that we will act accordingly in upholding the principles of academic integrity. When 1 take a test here at UNC, I like the fact that no one is standing over my shoulder and spying to see if 1 would dare cheat. Unlike some other universities without a parallel Honor System, UNC professors don't have to pace the aisles during tests. If college is synonymous with freedom and availability of choices, then a system based on heavy exam proctoring conveys inherent doubt in a student's capacity to make ethical decisions. We should be proud that UNC has entrusted us as students with the recognition of our maturity to conduct ourselves in an honorable fashion. This faith in individual students to exercise their freedom responsibly is the most fundamen tal component and the most appealing aspect of our Honor System. By dele gating to students the responsibility of self regulation, the University offers us tangible evidence of its trust in us. We should also be appreciative that our Honor System encourages us to do our personal best and to accept the responsibility for our own coursework, whether it be graded an A or an F. The Honor System embodies the notion of personal integrity in that a grade must reflect an individual's efforts to comprehend and to express an idea or a fact. In essence, the beauty of academic freedom is marred whenever a student denies himself the challenges of critical thinking and- learning by resorting to academic dishonesty. A grade earned through cheating or plagiarism thwarts the goal of student self-development engendered in the Honor System's encouragement of students to participate in academics with self-reliance. Yes, I enjoy the position I hold in the Student Judicial Honor System. It is not an easy task. Judging the conduct of peers requires emotional strength, impartiality and much sensitivity to the concerns and fears of the accused student. And yet, I can say I enjoy my work because I support and share the pride in a system which promotes self-regulation, individual responsibility and trust within an academic setting. I hope you share my respect and will reaffirm your commitment to the long tradition of academic integrity here at UNC. Tory Johnston is a senior psychology major from Chattanooga. Tenn. 'Review9 out To the editor: The Carolina Course Review is now available on campus for students to utilize in making their course selections during preregistration for spring 1987. 1 urge students to avail them selves of the Review's informa tion, and I hope that it will be of service. I also wish to call attention to the fact that the period of coverage of the teaching eva luations is misstated on page 2 of the Review. The courses were surveyed at the end of the spring semester 1986, not spring 1985 and fall 1984 as indicated in the Review, and thus, the data are as current as possible. DENNIS APPLEYARD Faculty Adviser Carolina Course Review Fed up To the editor: I'm sick and tired of hearing of this Anti-Apartheid Support Group. Are they concerned with the campus or their own reputation? Last year was bad enough, as they degraded the most beautiful area on campus, the quad, with those accursed shanties (or "shoddies," as I call them). Then, on a day during which a rare, ceremonial event occurs (President Spangler's inauguration), they interrupt activity to protest. Ceremonial events are supposed to be honored, and somewhat even a break from daily, hectic routine. To the Anti-Apartheid Sup- Throwing stones To the editor: John Hood, in his Oct. 20 column ("For Soviet coopera tion, stand firm"), says that Americans who oppose Star Wars Strategic Defense Initia tive argue "with emotion rather than logic." It's ridiculous for anyone who refers to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" to accuse the other side of emo- tionalism. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. FRANK NEWTON Library Assistant Protest justified To the editor: In response to your Oct. 20 editorial, "Protest lacks tact," 1 can only observe that the protesters had as much right to that hallowed ground as the new president himself. The microcosm that is the Univer sity of North Carolina, and all of its components, allows for dissent. It is frequent that the voice of dissent leads us down the right path. The protestors at Friday's ceremony were in their rightful place in the academic procession. LEEHANSLEY Durham BEAGLE, OUADDAVA TVUNK ? F. HALLOWEEN, I'fA GortrtA GO UP ON FfcAMKJJN STREET AS A CAfAPUS POLICEMAN C? I) NO Gco5 , MAM . A T 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: O All letters columns must be signed by the author(s). Limit of two signatures per letter or column. a 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. a All letters! 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. port Group, I say that your cause is just, but your methods are the reason you turn many people away from your mes sage. By showing a clear dis regard for the ceremony, you openly expose the fact that your morals need work. Of course you have the right to freedom of expression; that is why we have an area known as the Pit. Remember, your rights end where other people's rights begin. For example, I have the right to swing my fists, but my freedom to do it ends where another's right to well being begins. Similarly, your right to build shoddies and interrupt ceremonies ends where our right to appreciate scenery and assemblies begins. Think about it. TIM FRY Sophomore Business Administration With divestment issue, accept no excuses To the editor: Once again the UNC Board of Trustees has decided to defer the issue of divestment from South Africa. Until a few months ago, the trustees hypo critically argued that invest ment into the apartheid regime was indeed beneficial to the black majority of that country (though even the conservative U.S. Senate had approved limited sanctions against the P.W. Botha regime). Now new excuses are found. Suddenly, some of the BOT members became forgetful and now require new information before they can make a decision on divestment. One wonders how, without such information, they have been investing in South Africa all these years, or could this be an admission of ignor ance on the part of the BOT? Many other excuses are made. One particularly grabbed my attention because of its boldness: "My duty was and is to manage the invest ments to maximize the Endow ment Fund," said BOT member W. Travis Porter at the organ ization's Oct. 16 meeting. Furthermore, as an indication of the extent of the rip-off of the South African people, he alleges that the University will lose $1 million in investment revenue per year if it divested. Ethical egoism could not be expressed more clearly. In task (his so-called duty) to the consideration of economic gain. Porter destroys the very sense behind morality. Moral ity, it would seem, functions to restrict the pursuit of self interest. If enlightened self interest is the principle of all morality, it is necessary for the private interest and scholarships for UNC students. We, as students, have not been misled by this bribe. In fact, UNC students have voted for total and immediate divestment in campus referen dums. Just last week the Trus tees were handed a Student Congress resolution supporting of each person or institution to coincide with the general inter est of humanity. Every class has its own standards of morality, and capitalist con siderations ultimately can not go much beyond the ethical egoism that Porter represents. "My duty was and is . . . to maximize the Endow ment Fund" how about your duty to your fellow human bei ngs that are denied every basic human right under apar theid? If you cannot lend a , hand to overthrow the criminal regime of apartheid, how about your duty to hot invest in it? Unfortunately, some BOT members are also strongly paternalistic, claiming that the purpose of the University's reducing the morality of his investment is to secure grants the full divestment of UNC funds from South Africa. The majority of UNC stu dents and faculty do not look at the world through the green spectacles of some BOT members. Their morality asks for the right of self determina tion for the people of South Africa and for an end to invest ment in apartheid. AHMAD GOLCH IN Senior Pharmacy A ttUfnm

North Carolina Newspapers is powered by Chronam.

Digital North Carolina