8The Daily Tar Heel Wednesday, October 28, 1987
ular lAnl
95th year of editorial freedom
Jill Gerber, Editor
DE1RDRE FALLON, Managing Editor
SALLY PEARSALL, News Editor
JEAN LUTES, University Editor
DONNA LEINWAND, State and National Editor
JEANN1E FARIS, City Editor
JAMES SUROWIECKI, Sports Editor
FEL1SA NEURINGER. Business Editor
JULIE BRASWELL, Features Editor
Elizabeth Ellen, Arts Editor
Charlotte Cannon, Photography Editor
ATHY McHUGH, Omnibus Editor
CGLA gets what it deserves
Signatures are -j-
piling up on a peti- DOcUTl
tion that could nnwnn
result in a campus- uH,ii,u"
wide vote on fund
ing the Carolina Gay and Lesbian
Association. The petition calls for
placing a referendum on the ballot in
February that would ask students
whether they support allocation of
their student fees to the CGLA.
The referendum would be legiti
mate. As congress speaker Rob Fried
man said, "If people want to vote on
it, they should have the right to." For
too long this issue has served as fuel
to the fire that Student Congress
members have not been representing
their constituents.
Gays and lesbians do not deserve
student funding simply because they
are a minority group. Minority rights
are not a prescribed factor in deter
mining which campus groups get
money. If this were so, almost any
group could demand funding. Carol
ina Straights Who Wait, the organ
ization whose two members argued
last year that they deserved money
because they were virgins in an
oversexed world, are harbingers of
what could happen.
Yet the CGLA is not a money
hungry minority group. It is an
organization that provides needed
services to the University, such as
outreach programs in health education
and an information network on AIDS.
It has proven to be so valuable to many
students that the congress has deemed
it worthy of funding for the past few
years, despite extensive pressure from
conservative student groups. And
funding is one area that the congress
has handled meticulously.
The congress has been right in its
support. Its members have treated the
issue fairly, and should continue to do
so. Yet they must also heed the wishes
of their constituents. This dual repon
sibility could present a dilemma if the
referendum is put on the ballot and
a majority of the student body
expresses a desire to defund the
CGLA.
This does not have to happen.
Students can either choose not to sign
the petition, or they can vote against
defunding the organization in Febru
ary. Either way, it is an excellent
example of how a democracy, and the
congress, works.
The petition is not wrong in itself,
because some student congress
members are only following through
on their campaign platforms. More
importantly, defunding the CGLA
would not be oppressing homosexuals.
Rather, it would be a case of people
wanting to control their own money.
Nevertheless, it is up to the rest of the
students to show their support for the
CGLA, should the referendum
become a reality.
Here's smoke in your eye
On a recent flight to Cleveland, a
college student settled into his seat in
Row 17, the back of the Non-smoking
section. A few minutes into the flight,
the passenger directly behind him, in
the Smoking section, lit up a cigarette
and puffed contentedly away.
The smoke hovered around the
student's head. Eyes watering, nose
burning, he turned around to negotiate
with the smoker. "Excuse me, but I
am very sensitive to smoke, and I
wonder if you would mind not smok
ing during the flight."
"Well, I'm very sensitive to not
breathing smoke." Chuckle.
"Maybe you could smoke in the very
back."
"Maybe you could open a window."
Chuckle chuckle.
The student briefly considered using
the smoker's forehead to do so, but
then resigned himself to inhaling ash
for the next few hours.
Senators from tobacco states are
planning to filibuster a Senate bill that
would ban smoking on all domestic
flights under two hours. If they are
successful, the bill will go back to the
appropriations committee, where the
chairman, Sen. John Stennis, D-Miss.,
will make the decision. He opposed
the non-smoking proposal in commit
tee, and will probably reject it again.
Perhaps the reason smoking has not
already been prohibited is because it
makes too much sense to do so. An
objective look at the situation is
needed:
A large metal box, 50 feet long and
12 feet wide, is filled with people and
suspended thousands of feet above the
earth. The health and safety of the
people depends on several factors,
including the circulation of breathable
air, the alertness of the box attendants
and the absence of fires within the box.
However, one-third of the people
are allowed to ignite smoldering weeds
in their seats and fill the box with
clouds of fine ash. It sounds like one
of those Sesame Street games: What's
wrong with this picture, boys and girls?
First, breathable air in close quar
ters is polluted. The Smoking Non
smoking sections are a farce. In reality,
there are three sections Stale Air,
Passive Smoking and Active Smoking.
Second, many flight attendants suffer
headaches and watery eyes from
smoke, and their ability to act in a
crisis is impaired. Third, it is ridiculous
to allow matches, lighters and burning
objects in an environment where even
a small fire could prove disastrous.
The House of Representatives has
already approved a bill banning
smoking- on all flights. The Senate
should follow its lead and eliminate
what is clearly an inexcusable health
and safety hazard. Brian McCuskey
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Writers: Jim Greenhill, Mike Mackay, Brian McCuskey and Jon Rust.
Editorial Assistants: Julia Coon and Sharon Kebschull.
Assistant Managing Editors: Cara Bonnett, Melissa Daniels, Peter Lineberry, Joe McCall and Mandy Spence.
News: Kari Barlow, Jeanna Baxter, Lydian Bernhardt, Matt Bivens, B rend a Campbell, Staci Cox, Meg Craddock,
Sandy Dimsdale, Carrie Dove, Laurie Duncan, Mark Folk, Gerda Gallop, Alissa Grice, Lindsay Hayes, Kyle Hudson,
Michael Jackson, Kelly Johnson, Michael Jordan, Helen Jones, Susan Kauffman, Sharon Kebschull, Hunter Lambeth,
Will Lingo, Barbara Linn, Brian Long, Mitra Lotfi, Lynne McClintock, Brian McCollum, Leigh Ann McDonald,
Justin McGuire, Stephanie Marshall, Laurie Martin, Myrna Miller, Smithson Mills, Lee Ann Necessary, Rebecca
Nesbit, Susan Odenkirchen, Cheryl Pond, Amy Powell, Charla Price, Andrea Shaw, Sheila Simmons, Mandy Spence,
William Taggart, Clay Thorp, Nicki Weisensee and Amy Winslow. Brian Long, assistant business editor. Kimberly
Edens and Kristen Gardner, assistant university editors.
Sports: Mike Berardino, Patton McDowell and Chris Spencer, assistant sports editors. Robert D'Arruda, Steve Giles,
Dave Glenn, Dave Hall, Clay Hodges, Brendan Mathews, Jim Muse, Andy Podolsky, and Langston Wertz.
Features: Hannah Drum, Carole Ferguson, Laura Jenkins, Corin Ortlam, Lynn Phillips, Leigh Pressley, Karen Stegman,
Kathy Wilson and Julie Woods.
Arts: James Burrus, Scott Cowen, Stephanie Dean, Kim Donehower, David Hester, Julie Olson, Beth Rhea, Kelly
Rhodes, Alston Russell and Richard Smith.
Photography: Tony Deifell, David Minton, Matthew Plyler and Julie Stovall.
Copy Editors: Karen Bell, Cara Bonnett, Carrie Burgin, Julia Coon, Whitney Cork, Laurie Duncan, Bert Hackney,
Lisa Lorentz, Toby Moore, Rachel Stiffler and Kaarin Tisue, assistant news editor.
Cartoonists: Jeff Christian, Bill Cokas and Greg Humphreys.
Campus Calendar: Minddle Rosenberg.
Business and Advertising: Anne Fulcher, general manager; Patricia Glance, advertising director; Joan Worth, advertising
coordinator; Peggy Smith, advertising manager; Sheila Baker, business manager; Michael Benfield, Lisa Chorebanian,
Ashley Hinton, Kellie McEIhaney, Chrissy Mennitt, Stacey Morittord, Lesley Renwrick, Julie Settle, Dave Slovensky,
Dean Thompson, Amanda Tilley and Wendy Wegner, advertising representatives; Stephanie Chesson, classified
advertising representative; and Kris Carlson, secretary.
Distribution Tucker Stevens, manager; '
Delivery Leon Morton, manager; Billy Owens, assistant.
Production: Bill Leslie and Stacy Wynn. Rita Galloway, Leslie Humphrey, Stephanie Locklear and Tammy Sheldon
production assistants.
Printing: The Chapel Hill Newspaper
deader' Foramm
cholar-admiiiisibrator needled at top
Editor's note: This is the second in a
series of weekly interviews with campus
figures on the next chancellor. Elmer
Oettinger, a professor emeritus of public
law and government, is acting president
of the UNC Retired Faculty Association.
Daily Tar Heel: Who is the UNC Retired
Faculty Association?
Elmer Oettinger: We are a group of
roughly 90 retired faculty members of this
university. Together, we have been priv
ileged to serve in teaching, research and
administrative capacities for some 3,000
total years. And we have firm convictions
regarding those qualities which are desir
able in a chancellor.
DTH: What are these convictions?
Oettinger: The University has estab
lished a tradition of scholar
administrators, and our organization
would like to see that continued. We hope
that the search committee will give primary
consideration to the academic back
grounds, attitudes and scholarly achieve
ments of each individual it considers.
DTH: Why is being a scholar
administrator so important to the role of
chancellor?
Oettinger: The problems that a univer
sity has are those peculiarly related to
education . . . and the standpoint of this
institution, which is one of pre-eminence
in not only the UNC system, but the nation,
goes back in part to the sort of leadership
that this school has had. (Let me) go back
to when I was a freshman here in 1930.
That was the first year that Frank Graham
was president, but that was before there
was a university system, so that he had
some of the responsibilities of the present
chancellor. Frank Graham epitomizes to
me the sort of qualities that are important
in a chancellor ... In September of my
Who's Next?
The Chancellor Interviews
freshman year, four of us tossing a baseball
on the dirt paths beside Old East were
joined by a little short man in shirtsleeves
who bounced out of South Building, called
us by first name, and asked if he could
throw with us. It was the new president
of the University.
DTH: Is something like that still possible
today?
Oettinger: It might not be. This is a
different institution. This is a different
time. But there is a warmth, a human
quality, that even if it can't be exercised
like Dr. Graham did, is still important. A
chancellor has to operate with his fellow
administrators, educational and otherwise.
He has to operate with the legislature,
alumni and the trustees. He has to operate
with faculty. And with students.
DTH: What do you mean by operate?
Oettinger: I mean that he has to interact
with, he has to get along with, he has to
be respected and appreciated, admired and
hopefully loved by (students and faculty).
A chancellor is a symbol. And the
University will reflect in large measure his
character, his ideas, his leadership and his
personality. And that's why it's important
that he has the knowledge of and attitudes
of a scholar.
DTH: Do you think that this scholar
administrator should come out of the UNC
system?
Oettinger: My opinion is that would be
too limiting. The committee should look
overall for the best person for the job. Our
association's suggestion is simply that we
consider it to be a primary criteria that
the next chancellor comes from a back
ground of being a scholar-educator.
DTH: You spoke about the chancellor
being a symbol of the University. Which
way, not only in academics, should the next
chancellor direct this university?
Oettinger: A chancellor has to be not
only a person of vigor, and not only of
presence, but of prescience. He has to have
vision . . . and courage. Ill go back to
Frank Graham again. Here's a man
running the University who was way ahead
of the times in civil rights. He fought for
minorities. He went to Washington as co
author of the social security act. He served
on the War Legal Board during World War
II. And we can follow through the
chancellors after Dr. Graham . . . these
were not simply administrators. A chan
cellor, at all times, has the need to assess
where this university is, where the people
of this state particularly are . . . and where
we're going in the nation and the world.
He has to apply that to the immediate
problems of the University.
DTH: This is a lot of directions. Is there
anything that should be first, in your view,
on the agenda of the next chancellor?
. Oettinger: I think that the thing that is
always first on the agenda is the combi
nation of integrity and a quest for
excellence. A university looks for truth. It
tries to teach objectively. Not in a vacuum,
there's nothing wrong with takng stands
but it has to try to reach as broadly as
it can ... A chancellor has to have the
sort of rapport with educators, that he,
in a sense, is a funnel. He draws in all
of the information . . . and then translates
it into a base for present and future.
Elmer Oettinger was interviewed by
editorial writer Jon Rust.
Proud to be
a Democrat
Editor's note: The author is
vice president of UNC Young
Democrats.
To the editor:
This weekend, six members
of UNC Young Democrats
ventured to Research Triangle
Park, where they, met with
other college and post-college
Young Democrats from North
Carolina for the annual plat
form convention. I commend
the DTH for sending a reporter
to cover this event, which
involved hours of tedious
debate and parliamentary
procedure.
Obviously, there are space
constraints in any newspaper.
So, I would like to add more
detail to Monday's article,
"UNC Young Democrats dis
appointed with platform,"
while adding a correction!
Certain sections of the plat
form's language were not spe
cific enough to prevent diverse
interpretations. Some members
of my delegation, as well as
others, echoed this sentiment.
In addition, so much time was
spent debating the platform
that not enough time remained
for debating the resolutions.
Unlike the platform, which is
a statement of general goals
and values commonly held by
a number of Young Demo
crats, the resolutions prescribe
specific actions, such as repeal
ing a law or passing a bill.
Because a significant number of
the resolutions were not passed
or even debated, the platform,
by itself, was too general as a
call for action to promote
constructive change. Comple
mented by all of the resolu
tions, it could have better
achieved this.
The DTH's conclusion that
the UNC delegation was disap
pointed with the platform is
questionable. It is important to
point out that the greatest
disappointment for our delega
tion was the lack of time for
debating the resolutions, to
which we devoted considerable
time in writing. However, a lot
of effort went into the forma
tion of the platform. Three
resolutions were passed. Con
sequently, I commend the hard
work of the Young Democrats.
For these reasons, I am proud
to be a Democrat!
PHILIP SHERIDAN
Junior
Political Science Economics
Letters policy
The Daily Tar Heel
welcomes reader comments,
ideas and criticisms.
When submitting letters
or columns, students should
include the following: name,
year in school, major, phone
number and the date
submitted.
All letters must be typed,
double-spaced on a 60-space
line, for ease of editing.
When "Uncle Wiggily isn't enough
I he classroom was brightly lit by the
Indian summer sun streaming
through the wide windows. Every
so often, a student hurried past, obviously
late for class. It was a brilliant fall day
in New England, and the young men and
women who sat around the triangular
white tables were stuck inside. But except
for the occasional longing glance out the
window, and despite the fact that it was
a Monday, the students seemed eager to
get down to business. They were discussing
one of J.D. Salinger's stories, the baffling
"Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut."
The discussion was free-flowing, and the
young teacher, just a couple of years out
of college, played her role nicely, guiding
the class without pushing it too hard
toward her point of view.- A pair of visitors
sat on opposite sides of the room. One
of them carried his own copy of "Nine
Stories" and took part too often in the
conversation.
To call it a conversation may sound
frivolous, but the word seems appropriate.
The best discussions are the freest, and
there was a real sense of freedom in the
classroom, of people throwing out their
opinions without hesitation. In the course
of 40 minutes, the text was broken down
in every way possible. The task of literary
criticism became a visible process, as the
students grappled with the meaning not
just of the story, but of individual words
and gestures.
The story, or rather the narrative, of
"Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut" doesn't
really matter. Suffice it to say that Salinger
deals with broken dreams and lost love.
From the room's comforting din, from the
James Surowiecki
Sports Editor
clashing voices, though, a variety of other
themes emerged. Meredith, a cute, dark
haired girl, who looked like she'd be an
English major someday, proposed a sexual
interpretation of the story's most difficult
passage, an interpretation that seemed at
first completely off the wall, but that made
more sense the more it was talked about.
Stacy, whose dark hair hung down over
a pretty face, offered the single best insight
of the class when she proposed a theory
about the paternity of Eloise's child. The
curious thing was that as the discussion
progressed, the truth of Stacy's inference
became more ambiguous. But its impor
tance was undiminished, for she had
established the context in which the class
functioned for the rest of the period.
There was even a sort of deconstruc
tionist within the group. Carter, a clear
eyed, talkative kid who had theories for
everything, was the perfect critic, almost
tangibly tearing aside the facade of the text
to get at that which lay underneath. He
bordered on the sacrilegious at times,
levying shocking innuendo at Seymour
Glass, but he was constantly earnest.
Carter's battle with Salinger, manifested
in his seeming refusal to believe there was
such a thing as literalness when it came
to fiction, fed off, and in turn provided
food for, the other students.
And through this analysis, a new text
emerged from that which was on the page.
The students revealed previously unseen
subtexts, and made previously confusing
events more comprehensible. And when
class was over, more than Salinger's story
had been explored. The very idea of what
literature is, of what criticism is, had been
investigated, even if only in an oblique way.
I had begun to question the function
of criticism in a society where those who
are truly literate are a small minority, and
where, therefore, the discussion of litera
ture tends to be replete with inside
references and with language that makes
sense only to those few who are inside the
inner circle. But Meredith and Carter and
the rest gave me new faith in the task of
literary analysis.
With their verve and panache, they
showed that even if there is no objective
truth to be discovered in a text, analyzing
a literary work has a value in and of itself.
Criticism makes more evident the lessons
of the stories we read, but more impor
tantly it improves the way we think,
improves the way we approach fiction and,
for that matter, life. With apologies to John
Barth, the key to the treasure is the
treasure.
That's not entirely true, for certainly
Salinger's work is valuable, regardless of
how we talk about it. But for those
students, it wasn't just "Uncle Wiggily in
Connecticut" that mattered. Thanks to
them, and thanks to the teacher's willing
ness to listen, that class mattered. And
when you're learning, you can't ask for
anything more than that.
James Surowiecki is a senior history
major from Cheshire, Conn.