8TTie Daily Tar Heel Monday, April 4, 1988
Uiljp fiatlg afar Hn
Readers' Forum
96 th year of editorial freedom
Jean Lutes, Editor
KATHY PETERS, Managing Editor
Karen Bell. Neus Editor
Matt Bivens, Associate Editor
KlMBERLY EDENS, University Editor
SHARON KEBSCHULL, State and National Editor
MIKE BERARDINO, Sports Editor
Kelly Rhodes, Am Editor
MANDY SPENCE, Design Editor
JON RUST, Managing Editor
KAARIN TlSUE, Neus Editor
AMY HAMILTON, Associate Editor
KRISTEN GARDNER, University Editor
Will Lingo, aty Editor
LEIGH ANN McDONALD, Features Editor
CATHY McHUGH, Omnibus Editor
DAVID MINTON, Photography Editor
Prepare way for new chancellor
The success of an organization often
depends on a smooth transition
between its leaders. This is especially
true for student groups because of the
transient nature of their memberships.
Most UNC student leaders for the
coming year have completed that
transition process. They have assumed
their organizational responsibilities,
and they are addressing issues and
concerns identified during campaigns
and elections.
Now, those leaders must prepare for
a transition of equal importance that
will soon take place a transition
within the UNC administration. Stu
dent leaders must make a concerted
and organized effort to ensure that
student needs are not forgotten in that
transition.
The search for Chancellor Chris
topher Fordham's successor has been
narrowed to two finalists. Neither has
spent a day as a UNC student. Neither
has spent a day working with UNC
student government.
The new chancellor will not be
familiar with the tradition of strong
student government at UNC. He will
not know what to expect. The burden
rests on student government to make
sure he becomes quickly familiar and
comfortable with the level of involve
ment that student leaders desire.
Student Body President Kevin
Martin has proposed the formation of
a student advisory group to identify
the issues and concerns of the student
body. This group would include the
presidents of the Graduate and Pro
fessional Student Federation, Black
Student Movement and the Residence
Hall Association, and the Student
Congress speaker, among others. The
formation of this group is necessary
and timely, since cooperative efforts
between student groups is a must in
the coming year.
This group should be responsible for
immediately establishing a strong
working relationship with the new
chancellor and other incoming admin
istrators, including a new vice chan
cellor for business and finance and
possibly a new provost.
An atmosphere must be fostered
where administrators are kept
informed of student concerns, and
students are involved in decision
making from the beginning.
This is the perfect time to open the
lines of communication, so that a new
administration knows exactly what
student government is and what it is
seeking to accomplish.
Initiating this process can only
impress new administrators. A student
government leadership that is thought
ful, sincere and dedicated in its efforts
will be viewed favorably. It will also
be taken seriously. Kelly Clark
Don't ignore advising advice
It's that time of year again
preregistration. And victims of UNC's
poor academic advising system
abound.
There's the senior who learns in mid
semester that he can't graduate on time
because he took a Western historical
perspective instead of a non-Western;
the junior double major who registers
for the wrong courses because she
doesn't have an adviser in her second
major; and, of course, the senior who
finds out too late that he shouldn't
have declared that last perspective
pass fail.
College students are adults, and they
should make their own decisions
that is, their own informed decisions.
Most students don't want their
advisers to hold their hands they
just want someone to answer basic
questions, warn them about fulfilling
requirements and possibly offer gui
dance every once in a while. Too many
students, from freshmen to seniors,
make the wrong decisions because they
are ignorant of requirements or
unaware of new policies. For some,
taking an extra course the following
semester is enough; for others, post
poning graduation or spending
hundreds or thousands of dollars in
summer school is the only answer.
Advisers, who have their own
classes to teach and papers to grade,
can't be expected to understand every
detail of every major's requirements.
However, students shouldn't have to
resign themselves to do-it-yourself, hit-or-miss
course scheduling. The com
puterized preregistration system,
expected to be installed by fall 1990,
will improve matters. But machines
alone can't solve the problem. People
must make an effort as well.
Student government's Academic
Advising Committee has presented
Gillian Cell, dean of the College of
Arts and Sciences, with a "peer
advising" proposal. The proposal asks
that each faculty adviser be paired with
a student, or peer adviser. The peer
advisers would do some of the dirty
work of advising filling out work
sheets and other paperwork as well
as offering advice on classes and
professors. The chairman of the
advising committee, senior Mark
Gunter, said he gave Cell the proposal
in December. He is still waiting to hear
from her.
Even if officials don't agree with the
proposal, they should be willing to
discuss it with students. The concerns
of the Academic Advising Committee
should not be ignored.
Until students, advisers and admin
istrators take responsibility for
improving the advising system, the
quality of education at UNC will
suffer. Making a variety of academic
programs available is useless if stu
dents don't know how to take advan
tage of them. Jean Lutes
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Writers: Kelly Clark, Stuart Hathaway and Bill Yelverton.
Editorial Assistants: Laura Pearlman and Becky Riddick.
Assistant Managing Editors: Hannah Drum, Barbara Linn, Felisa Neuringer, Laura Pearlman and Clay Thorp.
Assistant Design Editors: Cara Bonnett and Teresa Kriegsman.
Design Assistants: Ashley Campbell, Katherine Hortenstine and Laura Ross.
News: Kari Barlow, Jeanna Baxter, Crystal Bell, Laura Bennett, James Benton, Tammy Blackard, Patricia Brown,
Brenda Campbell, Lacy Churchill, Jenny Cloninger, Staci Cox, Robin Curtis, Jackie Douglas, Carrie Dove, Laura
Francis, Eric Gribbin, Amy Grubbs, William Hildebolt, Kyle Hudson, Sonya Jackson, Helen Jones, Patrice Jones,
Chris Landgraff, Barbara Linn, Laura Mayfield, Brian McCollum, Rebecca Nesbit, Helle Nielsen, Susan Odenkirchen,
Laura Peay, Cheryl Pond, Beth Rhea, Mark Shaver, Christopher Sontchi, William Taggart, Clay Thorp and Amy
Weisner. Laura DiGiano, assistant city editor. Amy Winslow, assistant state and national editor. Mark Folk and
Justin McGuire, senior writers. Peter Lineberry, Lisa Poole and Juliellen Sarver, wire editors.
Sports: Patton McDowell, Jim Muse and Chris Spencer, assistant sports editors. James Surowiecki, senior writer.
Robert D'Arruda, Chris Chapman, Steve Giles, Dave Glenn, Dave Hall, Clay Hodges, Ginger Jonas, Brendan Mathews,
Keith Parsons, Andy Podolsky and Langston Wertz.
Features: Jo Lee Credle, Myrna Miller, Jim Mock, Corin Ortlam, Leigh Pressley, Carole Southern, Ellen Thornton,
Linda van den Berg, Julie Woods and Holly Young.
Arts: James Burrus, senior writer. Scott Cowen, Stephanie Dean, Kim Donehower, Elizabeth Ellen, David Hester,
Julie Olson, Alston Russell and Michael Spinas.
Photography: Christie Blom, Amy Hamilton, Janet Jarman, Elizabeth Morrah, Jeff Shuler and Julie Stovall.
Copy Editors: Frank Bragg, Cara Bonnett, Carrie Burgin, Toni Creech, Yvette Cook, Julia Coon, Whitney Cork,
Bert Hackney, Beth Harding, Danny Hornfeck, Anne Isenhower, Sherry Miller and Nick Montgomery.
Cartoonists: Bill Cokas, Jeff Christian and Greg Humphreys.
Campus Calendar? Mindelle Rosenberg and David Starnes.
Business and Advertising: Anne Fulcher, director; Patricia Glance, advertising director; Joan Worth, advertising
coordinator; Peggy Smith, advertising manager; Sheila Baker, business manager; Rita Galloway, accounts receivable
clerk; Michael Benfield, Ashley Hinton, Kellie McElhaney, Amy McGuirt, Chrissy Mennitt, Stacey Montford, Lesley
Renwrick, Julie Settle, Dave Slovensky, Dean Thompson, Amanda Tilley and Wendy Wegner, display advertising
representatives; Diane Cheek, Stephanie Chesson, Tina Perry and Lisa Poole, classified advertising representatives;
and Jeff Carlson and Kris Carlson, secretaries.
Subscriptions: Tucker Stevens, manager; Cody McKinney, assistant.
Distribution: David Econopouly, manager; Cindy Cowan and Billy Owens, assistants.
Production: Bill Leslie and Stacy Wynn. Genevieve Halkett, Leslie Humphrey, Stephanie Locklear and Tammy Sheldon,
production assistants.
Printing: The Chapel Hill Newspaper.
Don't send troops without thinking
TTani writing this in response to some
1 1 of the very naive comments of James
JXLofltn ("U.S. right to help Honduras,"
March 30).
In his letter, Loflin asserted that the
United States had every right to send
troops to Honduras to "prevent the
economic and military growth of commu
nism." Aside from the face that Loflin
asserts that Honduras "asked the U.S. to
send troops" (of which there are some
conflicting reports), Loflin cited his
memory of our own revolution, from his
high school history class, where the French
aided in the fight as justification for
intervention.
I am glad that he remembers some
history. Those who forget history tend to
repeat it. Unforunately, he missed two big
points, and we are tending to repeat them.
The first point was that the French were
competing for the "new world" with the
British and did not aid the revolution out
of the kindness of their hearts; there were
some very important economic reasons for
their aid.
The second point is that the U.S.
Revolution was fought to free itself from
the tyranny of a larger power, so that it
could make its own decisions without the
influence of other nations. Self-rule
democracy was its goal.
If the United States and its citizens still
believe in those democratic ideals, then
they must allow other countries to have
the same rights. They must allow those
countries to choose their own ideas. If, by
popular election, a country decides to be
"communist" (although I am no longer
really sure what that means; the Reagan
definition is not the Karl Marx definition),
then the United States must stand beside
the country in that decision. The United
States should celebrate that democracy
works, not send the CIA in to overthrow
Wallace Harrington
Guest Writer
the government, or exercise strong eco
nomic sanctions to undermine that
government.
You must remember, democracy is a
very oppressive form of government. The
minority has to succumb to the whims of
the majority. We cannot condemn a
country for making its own choice.
Otherwise, as Loflin asked, where would
we be now?
Seeing that Loflin is a freshman, I
assume that he has no memories of
Vietnam. Contrary to his patriotic banter,
we are not fighting to preserve Honduras,
since the Sandinistas, as well as the contras,
have crossed that border every day for
years. The United States is there to preserve
its own self-interests.
Wars are not pretty; they are not all
heroic battles where good triumphs over
evil. War causes death of innocent people,
destruction of private property and
economic harship. Only people that have
not been in war are stupid enough to think
about starting one. And the only war
Reagan was ever in was on the back lot
of a movie studio, where bullets didn't
really kill.
Beyond all of this, what bothers me most
about American involvement in Central
America is the cost. The United States has
ignored its homeless and poor, saying that
it is up to private institutions to take care
of "that segment of the population," while
it spends millions of dollars to go through
a "training maneuver" in Honduras. It is
pathetic to think what that money could
have done for American citizens if it had
been directed to our own people, rather
than for guns and tanks. But no one makes
a profit giving food to the hungry; certainly
not like selling arms to the Defense
Department.
Remember history. Our Constitution
provides for "the common good" as well
as a common defense. Accent defense, not
offense.
Futhermore, it is one thing for the
United States to send troops into a foreign
country, producing the loss of lives and
property that they did in Vietnam and
Grenada, among others, but what would
happen if a war were fought here, in the
United States, in North Carolina? How
would Loflin feel if he watched his mother
be gunned down by a soldier in the
backyard of his own home? Would he not
feel defiled? Just as the Palsetinians, the
South Africans and the Nicaraguans feel
defiled.
The United States has never had a world
war fought on its own soil. In the 1900s,
we have not had to deal with homeless
refugees of a bombed city, let alone rebuild
from that destruction. These are the things
the United States must consider before
sending troops out, anywhere. I don't want
my son to ever fight in a war.
In the 1950s, the people of the United
States were called the "Ugly Americans."
We were a people that felt we could go
anywhere in the world, get whatever we
wanted and do whatever we wanted,
because we were Americans. The lesson
learned then was that was not true.
We cannot let history repeat itself. What
we are is part of the world. A world which
must learn to live together, not one where
we think we get our own way by throwing
our weight around.
Wallace Harrington is a research tech
nician in the Department of Medicine from
Newark, Del.
Pornography
not the problem
To the editor:
Women of UNC, beware!
Female students, professors,
and staff here are viewed as
subhuman sex slaves, con
stantly in peril of discrimina
tion and sexual abuse. Why?
Simply because the UNC Stu
dent Stores sells Playboy. At
least, that's what Thomas Jack
son would have us believe. His
letter ("Pornography enslaves
women," March 29) deserves
an emphatic refutation.
The myth that male sexual
desire somehow relates to sex
ism or female subjugation is
silly, yet it is one of the most
prevalent myths in our sexo
phobic society. I am a healthy,
heterosexual young man. Being
such, I naturally enjoy looking
at attractive females. I some
times look at Playboy or other
"pornographic" magazines for
that reason. This does not make
me a sexist. In fact, I have been
a strong advocate of women's
rights all my life. It means only
that I have a libido which is
perfectly normal for men my
age. Period. The implication
that only eunuchs or homosex
uals among males can be fem
inists is not only ludicrous, but
offensive.
The argument that display
ing feminine beauty reduces
women to "objects of sexual
pleasure" is equally preposter
ous. This makes about as much
sense as accusing the DTH of
reducing its female reporters to
journalistic objects by "exploit-
ON ONE'S 21st BIRTHDAY
f J1 JJWIW
"Jeff" character?
I i i u,
V I I i-l
ing" them for their prose. I fully
appreciate the immense contri
butions that women make in
our country and this University
mentally, creatively, and artis
tically, but that does not pre
clude me from appreciating the
appearance of a beautiful
woman, or vice versa. Why
should it?
I think it's fair to say that
the popularity of Rob Lowe
and Tom Cruise is due in part
to factors other than their
acting talents. Does that mean
that movies featuring these
actors are guilty of discrimina
tion against men? Do such
movies exploit men, or reduce
them to sex objects? Should we
prevent the Student Union
from showing such films? Of
course not. The simple fact is
that all people enjoy looking at
attractive members of the
opposite sex. That's normal
and healthy. Anybody who
truly cares about women's
rights is not going to lose sleep
over some provocative photo
graphs. Women are still being
paid less and promoted less in
the workplace, and that's real
discrimination. Women still
surrender many basic legal
rights when they enter into
marriage in many states, and
that's real discrimination. Por
nography is not discrimination,
and those who believe it is are
missing the point.
You can't change human
sexuality, and there's no point
in trying. You might be able
to yank Playboy off the shelves
of one store, but youH never
stop men from wanting to look
at the female body. The energy
that some are expending in a
pointless attempt to fight
Mother Nature could be util
ized in a legitimate effort to
solve the real problems facing
women in the '80s. Those
problems will never be solved
as long as misguided reformers
insist on trying to stop us men
from doing what we're genet
ically programmed to do.
BAILEY IRWIN
Freshman
Public Policy
Both sexes hurt by double standard
arvard law professor Susan
Estrich, in her book "Real Rape,"
JJL JJLgives the following as the tradi
tional definition of rape: "A man commits
rape when he engages in intercourse with
a woman not his wife; by force or threat
of force; against her will and without her
consent." Changes in this definition have
come about slowly, so as to include marital
rape and acquaintance rape, as well as to
allow for the existence of male victims and
female rapists.
But the old definition still seems to have
the most influence, a fact due to the unique
nature of the crime of rape. Estrich
enumerates the characteristics which make
rape different and which have rendered it
such a difficult crime to prosecute.
Corroboration, for example, is a crucial
factor in establishing the guilt of the
defendant in crimes such as assault,
robbery, drug dealing and embezzlement,
but in the instance of rape, corroboration
is elusive; in thefts there are stolen goods;
in drug deals money is exchanged for
drugs; but in rapes, what could constitute
corroborating evidence? As for require
ments associated with other crimes and
often critical to rape cases, Estrich writes:
"Because of the sex and socializations of
the (rape) victim, it may require less force
and generate less resistance. To take into
account prior relationship in rape in the
same ways as in other crimes commun
icates the message that women victims,
particularly of (acquaintance) rapes, are to
blame for their victimization." The unfor
tunate truth is that many women are not
strong enough to fight off an attacker, nor
are they socialized to aggressively defend
themselves. In fact, some books instruct
Mary Gallucci
Rape Awareness
a potential victim to not fight off an
assailant, because it may put the victim
in a more dangerous predicament. It is not
fair that a victim should be blamed because
she has not tried to scratch out the eyes
of her attacker or to have otherwise harmed
him. Some pacifistic persons would be
unable to knife someone else in a given
situation. The issue here is not really how
a victim ought to behave; the tragic and
misunderstood circumstances of rape make
this point irrelevant. It is possible for
people to survive grave injuries to their
bodies and to their minds, but this is
virtually impossible when their injuries go
unacknowledged, as is typically the case
in rape.
Another aspect of the traditional defi
nition of rape which is unsatisfactory and
unjust to the victim is that of nonconsent.
The common definition of this term, as
explained by Estrich, "has required victims
of rape, unlike victims of any other crime,
to demonstrate their 'wishes' through
physical resistance." For centuries, consent
under duress (which could include threats
with guns and other lethal weapons) was
accepted by judges and juries as consent
nonetheless and therefore they deemed
that a rape had not been committed.
Nonconsent becomes even more critical in
acquaintance and date rapes, and the
psychological trauma of a victim forced
to have sex with someone she or he knows
is frequently disregarded.
To better understand and to prevent all
rapes, it is first necessary to realize that
all rapes are damaging and dehumanizing
to the victim. In other words, just because
a victim has not sustained severe bodily
injuries does not make the rape less of a
crime. Once this is acknowledged, people
can analyze more objectively the social
constraints that constitute the context of
their daily relationships.
The structure of a society like our own,
which requires women to take more (if not
all) of the responsibility for birth control
and to set the limits on conduct during
a date, obscure the crucial implications of
male-female relations. Men are just as
unfairly subject to detrimental societal
expectations as are women: sex is com
monly viewed as a goal to be attained, a
proof of manhood that takes place in a
coy game in which the male is the aggressor
who must persuade the passive female. This
type of attitude (which manifests itself in
varying degrees) conceals the fact that sex
is not a sport or pastime, but a genuine
expression of affection between individu
als. Those who view it differently as
a rite of passage, as the culmination of
a wild weekend are doomed to become
sexual exploiters or the exploited; or
differently put, rapists and the raped. True
respect for the integrity of other people's
bodies can never be achieved if we maintain
differing standards of judgment for the
people with whom we interact or even
for ourselves.
Mary Gallucci is a graduate student in
the curriculum of comparative literature
from Naugatuck, Conn.