10 The Dally Tar Heel Wednesday, December 2, 1987
latlg
95? vir o editorial freedom
JlLLGERBER, Editor
DE1RDRE FALLON, Managing Editor
Sally Pearsall, nm Eor
JEAN LUTES, University Editor
DONNA LEINWAND, State and National Editot
JEANNIE FARIS, City Editor
James Surowiecki, sports Editor
FEUSA NEUR1NGER, Business Editor
JULIE BRASWELL, features Editor
Elizabeth Ellen, Arts Editor
Charlotte Cannon, Photography Editor
CATHY McHUGH, Omnibus Editor
Put money where it's needed
board
opinion
It finally hap- -pened.
After two weeks
of controversy,
UNC head foot-
ball coach Dick Crum has resigned.
The question of his future at UNC has
been resolved. The controversy, how
ever, has not.
Crum will be paid $400,000 initially
and $100,000 per year for the next four
years. A press statement released
Monday night by Crum, Chancellor
Christopher Fordham and Athletic
Director John Swofford says that this
money does not involve state funds.
It also says that while this decision was
reached "with the cooperation of the
Educational Foundation (Rams
Club)," the Rams Club did not
participate in the actual negotiations.
The implication is that the Rams
Club put up the settlement money,
although the statement takes great
pains not to say this explicitly. On
Tuesday, Ralph Strayhorn, first vice
president of the organization, con
firmed that it was providing the funds.
The Rams Club has the right to offer
this money, acting upon the concern
that a losing football team hurts fund
raising efforts and diminishes revenue
brought to the University by the
football program. A winning team's
ticket sales and increased national
television coverage could easily replace
the $800,000 now lost.
There are still problems to be
addressed. First, Crum should never
have been given a ten-year contract
if the University places so much
importance on a winning record. A
contract of that length gives the coach
the message that they trust him to run
a clean program, not field a champion
ship team every year. The University
made a commitment to Crum, and
should have shielded him from the
pressure that forced him to resign.
More importantly, the buyout raises
questions about the priorities of
alumni donators. The Rams Club is
very generous in funding athletic
scholarships and facilities. However,
it has spent $800,000 on a contract
termination while the book-buying
budget of the University's libraries has
been cut by 17 percent.
Just one-third of what the Rams
Club has raised for Crum would have
covered this year's inflation in period
ical subscription rates. Instead, the
serials department has been forced to
cut back the number of subscriptions
available. This is just one example of
where more money is needed to
maintain the quality of academics at
UNC.
Admittedly, the Rams Club is not
responsible for funding any part of the
University apart from the athletic
program. However, the alumni who
have money to give should rethink
their priorities. They should decide
which is a better use of nearly a million
dollars funding UNC's educational
facilities or exerting pressure on
University personnel.
What big iron teeth he has
As NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw
was leaving New York for his much
anticipated interview with Mikhail
Gorbachev, a friend warned him,
"Watch for the nice smile with iron
teeth."
On Monday night the American
public was given the opportunity to
judge Gorbachev for itself. He revealed
both the smile and the iron teeth.
The Soviet leader did not say
anything new in his first especially-for-America
appearance, a prelude to his
arrival next week for the summit. He
stressed the same themes that he has
focused on since he gained power. On
the surface he came across as a
confident, dynamic, visionary leader,
speaking about a world in which the
United States and the Soviet Union
can join hands as allies.
Yet when answering tough ques
tions about restructuring Soviet
society and applying his much
heralded new openness to specific
cases, he sounded like the rigid
conservative leaders who preceded
him.
When asked how he could persuade
the world to believe in the new Soviet
sensitivity while preventing people
from coming and going freely, Gor
bachev blamed the problem on a
United States that is organizing a brain
drain.
On the question of emigration of
Jews, he said, his iron teeth clicking:
"I think that right now we have among
those who have not received permis
sion only those who cannot leave
because of state security reasons.
There are no other reasons, and we
will continue to act in that way."
About the Berlin Wall, he said East
Germany has the sovereign right to
have it, and the Soviet Union will not
interfere. His answers only raised more
questions. How real is glasnost? How
far does he mean to take it?
Gorbachev's evasiveness was disap
pointing. The ideas he has expressed
eloquently in abstract terms before a
Soviet podium did not come through
in the interview. Much of his failure
was destined. He is not a closet
capitalist nor a secret admirer of
Western democracy.
The fact that Gorbachev's conser
vatism came out in his interview
should temper the rosy picture that
Americans have of glasnost. Ameri
cans who realize the limits of Soviet
reform while admitting their country's
shortcomings could lead to a better
relationship between the two nations.
Jon Rust
IReadeirs' Forum
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Writers: Eric Fullagar, Sharon Kebschull, Brian McCuskey and Jon Rust.
Editorial Assistant: Julia Coon.
Assistant Managing Editors: Cara Bonnett, Melissa Daniels, Peter Lineberry, Joe McCall and Mandy Spence.
News: Kari Barlow, Jeanna Baxter, Laura Bennett, Lydian Bernhardt, Matt Bivens, Brenda Campbell, Jenny Cloninger,
Staci Cox, Laura DiGiano, Sandy Dimsdale, Carrie Dove, Mark Folk, Alissa Grice, Lindsay Hayes, Kyle Hudson,
Michael Jackson, Helen Jones, Susan Kauffman, Hunter Lambeth, Will Lingo, Barbara Linn, Mitra Lotfi, Lynne
McClintock, Brian McCollum, Justin McGuire, Stephanie Marshall, Laurie Martin. Myrna Miller, Smithson Mills,
Lee Ann Necessary, Rebecca Nesbit, Susan Odenkirchen, Cheryl Pond, Amy Powell, Charla Price, Becky Riddick,
Guinevere Ross, Andrea Shaw, Sheila Simmons, Mandy Spence, William Taggart, Clay Thorp, Nicki Weisensee,
Jackie Williams, Amy Winslow and Lisa Wynne. Angela Joines and Helle Nielsen, wire editors. Laurie Duncan,
assistant state and national editor. Brian Long, assistant business editor. Leigh Ann McDonald, assistant city 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, Keith Parsons, 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, Gretchen Hock, Janet Jarman, David Minton, Julie Stovall and Brian Whittier.
Copy Editors: Karen Bell, Cara Bonnett, Carrie Burgin, Julia Coon, Whitney Cork, Laurie Duncan, Bert Hackney,
Lisa Lorent7, Sherry Miller, Rachel Stilller and Kaarin Tisue, assistant news editor.
Cartoonists: Jeff Christian, Bill Cokas and Greg Humphreys.
Campus Calendar: Mindelle Rosenberg.
Business and Advertising: Anne Fiilchf'-, general manager; Pa! Icis Glance, adi tsing director; Joan Worth, advertising
coordinator; Peggy Smith, advertising manager; Sheila Bake: , business iw'-rr; Michael Benfield, Lisa Chorebanian,
Ashley Hinton, Kellie McElhaney, Chrissy Me;mitt, Stacey Montford, Lesley Renwnck, 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.
In search of the 'average' student
I he task seemed easy enough. For the
last part of the series "Who's Next
The Chancellor Interviews," I
was to find a random student in the Pit
and ask him a few questions about their
views on the next UNC chancellor. We
had interviewed administrators, faculty
members and the student body president,
and now wanted the opinion of an
arbitrary, "average" student. I was not
supposed to know the student personally,
just to pick a likely face from the crowd.
The questions were very general what
qualities the chancellor should have, the
nature of his relationship with the students,
what issues he should address upon taking
command, etc.
The cold weather had thinned out the
late-morning Pit crowd, and I began my
search on the steps of Lenoir. Continued
my search on the outskirts of the Pit. Gave
up my search outside the Student Union.
Half an hour and 20 students later, I still
had not found anyone willing to be
interviewed. The rejections ranged from "I
don't have time to be interviewed" to "I
don't know enough about the chancellor
to answer any questions."
I explained that I only wanted some
general thoughts on the subject. I offered
to give the potential interviewee a list of
the questions to think about for 24 hours,
and interview him the next day. I pleaded
that I was not out to make him look
ignorant on the back page of the paper;
Brian McCuskey
Editorial Writer
I just wanted his candid opinion. In all
cases the final answer was "I just don't
know enough about it. Thanks anyway."
Perhaps, I thought, people won't talk
to me because they don't know me, and
are afraid I will misrepresent them in print.
Breaking the rule of anonymity, I asked
a few friends if they'd consent to be
interviewed, but the response was the same
nobody felt they knew enough to answer
even the most general questions.
By this time I wondered if there was
such a thing as an "average" student willing
to express "average" views. I gave up on
the interview, deciding instead to conduct
an informal poll of 100 students to get an
idea of how concerned and informed
students are about the chancellor search.
Only 100 students does not give a com
pletely accurate cross section of the
campus, but it should give some indication
of student thought. The results:
B 73 percent of the students polled knew
the chancellor is Christopher Fordham.
40 percent would recognize him in
person, and 39 percent knew his office is
in South Building.
80 percent said that they did not feel
informed about the chancellor search. Only
59 students were interested in the search
at all, and of these only 10 felt that enough
information about the search process had
been made available.
88 percent did not know that only one
student, Student Body President Brian
Bailey, is on the search committee. When
asked if student input will have any effect
on the choosing of the next chancellor, 41
percent said "yes," 56 percent said "no"
and 3 percent said "maybe."
Again, this poll was informal and should
not be taken as the definite measure of
student opinion. However, the numbers
speak for themselves.
At this point, many readers are probably
groaning, "this moralizing pseudo
journalist is rubbing student apathy in our
faces again." Unfortunately, that's right.
Simply put, the choice of Fordham's
successor is one of the most important
issues of this school year. The decision will
directly affect the quality of education and
of life at UNC for the coming years. We'd
all like a chancellor who would take the
student body's voice seriously, but first
there must be such a voice. At present,
too many students just don't care.
There should have been an interview in
this space, not a lecture. But this is how
the chancellor is chosen, not with a bang
but a whimper.
Brian McCuskey is a junior English
major from Los Angeles.
Lost in the
translation
Editor's note: This letter was
signed by the eight graduate
students in the Slavic languages
department.
To the editor:
We feel it necessary to point
out a little problem with your
article of Nov. 30 entitled,
"Billy Joel's latest: live from
behind the Iron Curtain."
Well ignore the misstate
ment concerning the arrival of
rock V roll in the Soviet
Union; it has been around
longer than glasnost. But we do
think it important to point out
that the Russian word for
concert is not "kohliept" as
reported in the article. We
suspect that the difficulty lies
in the fact that Russian uses a
different alphabet than English.
While the letters, to the English
reader's eye, may seem to spell
something like "kohliept" or
even "kohuept," when w e trans
literate the Russian into some
thing that an English reader can
read, we get "kontsert," a word
which sounds very similar to
our English "concert."
We are all, of course, pleased
as punch that Billy Joel was
able to perform in the Soviet
Union, and are suitably tickled
that this concert is available for
all to enjoy. We would simply
hate to see anyone in Moscow
asking for tickets to a "koh
liept," or even worse, anyone
boasting in cocktail party con
versation that they know Rus
sian words: "kohliept," for
example.
We hope that we have been
of use to The Daily Tar Heel.
If ever we can help out again,
please don't hesitate to ask.
MARCIA GREEN
Graduate
Slavic Languages
LAURA JOHNSTON
Graduate
Slavic Languages
Let tabloids
do assuming
To the editor:
Many are the occasions
when I sit down over coffee in
the Pit and read the editorials
in the DTH; almost as often,
I find my eyeballs leaving their
sockets as I see yet another
gross oversimplification or
blatant factual error. But
today, things went too far and
jJ V VIE NEVER 5HDUIP HAVE
- - zZa03 1 1 Tomw THE PLACE .. .
'
1 m
CO W &
" vl if t i"
1 fc
BETTER GEX HELMS
ON THE SCRAMBLER..
WE GOT ING0MIN6TREATIE5
au 0YE& DE Screen.'
s
Bftw r I
i i
i it i i
1 1 i
ii ii
my poor eyeballs not only left
their sockets, but twisted,
turned, went red, expanded,
then blew up, ruining my coffee
and copy of the DTH. Jill
Gerber, what are you thinking
about? Your editorial
"Younger men no longer
taboo" takes the prize as easily
the worst this semester.
For a start, I find it journal
istically dubious that you have
to use a "supermarket tabloid"
as a source of inspiration.
Those journals are better left
on the shelves to provide
amusement for irritated
shoppers waiting in the express
lane when the person in front
has too many items.
However, what really ruined
my coffee was that you took
it upon yourself to assume that
"youth equals beauty" to men
in general for long as there has
been the institution of mar
riage. Are all marriages based
purely on appearance? I hope
not. Then, you go on to assume
that men have traditionally
used their wives as assets to
their careers, or nurses to look
after them in old age. Never in
any editorial anywhere have I
seen such a blatant misrepre
sentation and oversimplifica
tion of men, women and their
marriages. People get married
for more reasons than there are
words in The New York Times
on Sunday.
The whole tone of the edi
torial pursued the idea that
women are now leaving the
shackles of the immature atti
tudes of society, a society where
men have created the stereo
types and conventions that
now, finally, in 1987, "some
men have decided that maturity
in a woman is more appealing
that youth." It sounds as if, in
your opinion, men are starting
to mature from those nasty
boys we all know them to be.
Janet Jackson would be proud.
SCOTT MARTIN
Senior
Comparative Literature
Coach-athlete relationship deserves respect
i o the editor:
I consider myself an unobtrusive person.
I do not feel like I am easily angered. But
something I read Nov. 22 jarred me out
of my typical mid-morning lull before
biochemistry. It was a letter to the editor
by a certain Lanis Wilson entitled "Con
duct spoils victory."
First, I feel that the incident of Steve
Dragisics' drunk driving arrest has been
blown completely out of proportion. The
only reason it has been given so much
attention is the recent success of our men's
soccer team. If the team had finished a
disappointing season, I am sure the arrest
would have gone unnoticed.
Second, for Wilson to question coach
Anson Dorrance's "moral concern for his
players" simply because Dorrance did not
respond to the situation is outrageous.
Disciplinary problems within an athletic
team should be dealt with on an individual
basis between the athletes involved and
their coaches.
It seems that coaching is one of the few
vocations in this world where, in your
supposed area of expertise, everyone else
thinks he knows more than you. Instead
of looking at such unfortunate incidents
as a reflection of Dorrance's "moral
concern," I look at more reliable indica
tions. I would rather look at the teams
he has coached as a whole, and all of the
athletes belonging to his teams.
To assume that Dorrance has "failed in
his most important duty as a coach:
teaching his players that they represent
their university, and as such should behave
well both on and off the field" merely
because of one mistake made by one player
is ludicrous. I prefer to look upon all the
athletes he has influenced as a whole.
Dorrance's successes speak for themselves,
on and off the field.
The athletes at this school represent
UNC and its students pretty darn well. I
have attended many athletic contests
during my four years at Carolina. I can
safely say that every athletic team at the
University whether basketball, football,
women's soccer, field hockey and even
swimming, golf and tennis represents
this school with class, dignity and sports
manship. Being part of UNC's swim team
for the past three years, 1 know that such
values are stressed by each and every
individual within the athletic department,
from our coach up to John Swofford. I
do not believe that a coach who does not
impart such values on to his athletes would
last very long at this university.
SCOTT HUGG1NS
Senior
Biology
1