The Daily Tar HeelMonday, November 14, 198813
pinion
Wheo the foirym
Magazine supports self-reliance, not racism
As publisher of The Carolina
Critic, I welcome Mark Leep
er's criticism of our magazine
which appeared in the Nov. 9 DTH
("Conservatism an easy ride for well
borns"). Unfortunately, Mr. Leeper
chose to rest his argument more on
charges of racism rather than upon
a more rational discussion of the
issues raised in our November
edition.
, Before I answer each of his charges,
let me first outline the vision under
which most of the Critic staff oper
ates. We see the value of individual
liberty to be the primary prerequisite
ta a just and happy society. We also
note that historically the power of the
state is the most prevalent enemy of
liberty in most of its forms. Coercion
hy the state is rarely the most effective
way to cure social ills; instead we posit
the notion that, given more freedom
ta run their own lives, people tend
to solve their own problems more
effectively than government interven
tion does.
.-Mr. Leeper argues that our call for
the defunding of the Black Student
Movement (BSM) is a racially
motivated slap in the face to black
students at UNC. Clearly, this is far
from the truth. Given our disrespect
for any actions which inherently
abridge freedom of choice, the Critic
has consistently argued for the
"defunding" of all student groups, not
just the BSM. By forcing students to
fund projects or groups with which
they do not agree, the current system
violates the principle of liberty on a
daily basis. One may legitimately
disagree with our pro-liberty position,
but it is hardly a racist doctrine.
. Another accusation made by Mr.
Leeper is that our criticism of a
proposed minority scholarship for
UNC students is further evidence of
our racism. It was certainly antici
pated that our opposition to special
-H V I 4. t
leave the
I i ike all South famniK rpi.
1 1 dents, I am privileged enough
11 J to see more of the campus than
those who live "up North."
Some complain about the treks
they must make daily, but I've
actually grown to enjoy walking
along the many footpaths that criss
cross the University. These walks
have given me a chance to enjoy the
beauty of the campus as I walk to
and from my dorm.
Although each path is unique, IVe
begun to notice one common denom
inator along every one: trash. Uni
versity students have made their
presence known by throwing litter all
mm
Life do a one-dimensional world
WIS
;'s over now. All the
have been hooped and
airwaves are back to
their rightful owners. All that is left
are the sott, sucking sounds of the
Democrats licking their cantaloupe
sized wounds.
Ill say right off that I am a non
partisan observer and speak merely
as someone who regularly shuts off
a football game when it is 73-10, no
matter whom I am rooting for. The
situation I witnessed the other night
was similar to watching the United
States decl"- war on the Swiss
Society of O .A ologists.
So why the .jpsidedness, especially
in what was almost universally
David Hood
Guest Writer
treatment for blacks could be seen
as racism by the careless observer.
However, I am disappointed that
such an obviously thoughtful individ
ual as Leeper could come to that
conclusion. Our point was that
discrimination on the basis of race
is wrong regardless of whether it is
against whites or blacks, and would
also violate stated University policy
which bans such special treatment
with public money. If the scholarship
were to be funded with private
money, then we withdraw our oppo
sition to the proposal. Our objection
was to the use of tax dollars in a
racially-biased scholarship program.
To his credit, Mr. Leeper does
soberly and rationally present the
case for government-sponsored dis
crimination in favor of blacks.
Unfortunately, it is absolutely wrong.
He argues for special consideration
for blacks to make up for past
governmental discrimination against
them. This ignores the fact that such
past discrimination was wrong prim
arily because it violated the individual
freedom of blacks, and others who
didn't wish to fund racist policies. An
affirmative action program does
exactly the same thing, except that
non-blacks are the target. Our point
is that the end does not justify the
means; that having a just, fair process
is more important than trying to use
an unjust, unfair process to achieve
certain otherwise desirable goals.
In terms of affirmative action at
UNC, it is our position that this policy
only makes a bad situation worse. By
lowering the admission standard, or
specially funding the education of
black students, there is the unfair and
campus as
David Ball
Guest Writer
over the place. Coke cans, plastic
bags, even copies of this newspaper
are strewn by the sides of every path.
Once it's there, it wont go away
until someone else picks it up. If no
one bothers to clean up, the trash will
remain until long after we graduate.
Is this the kind of legacy we want
to leave Chapel Hill?
The only thing that stands between
the present situation and a cleaner
Randy Bullock
Guest Writer
considered to be a "lesser of two evils"
election? I figured it must be some
thing subtle, something apparently
innocent, an intrinsic flaw that, like
a purloined letter, has gone unde
tected maybe something as fun
damental as the very terminology
used in differentiating between the
two groups running.
I don't mean the party names
either. "Republican'' and "Democrat"
ceased having any meaning before
becomes the debate: the
essentially racist implication that
blacks cannot stand on their own two
feet. If blacks are subject to poor
primary secondary education, mak
ing them in need of special consid
eration, then the place to fix that
inequity is not in college, but during
lower education. Otherwise you raise
the erroneous speculation that blacks
at UNC are only here "on quota,"
which is unfair and demeaning to
those who would have qualified in
a racially-unbiased system.
Next Leeper takes exception to our
pointing out that whites currently
make up the minority in California
public schools. Our purpose in
bringing the matter up is to refute
the notion that SAT and CAT tests
are racially biased because whites
make up a majority of students. It
is not the test that is the problem here,
it is our educational system. In their
efforts to blame the messenger (the
test) rather than the message (edu
cational inequity), supporters of
affirmative action for blacks are
ignoring the real issue.
His other points (about CIA
protesters, etc.) are best left to other
articles, perhaps in the pages of the
next Critic. My purpose here is simply
to rebut the notion that we are racists
or compassionless "conservatives."
What our magazine is interested in
is a thorough and complete discussion
of governmental policies and their
alternatives. Indeed I hope Mr.
Leeper will himself contribute to the
debate taking place on the pages of
our journal. However, I also hope
that further rash accusations of
racism or any other "ism" can be
resisted by those who wish to differ
from the position presented by our
editors and writers.
David Hood is a first-year law
student from Carrboro.
you found
campus is laziness. People should be
responsible for their own litter. This
isn't "a problem that affects other
people: it harms the place where we
live and go to school. There are
maintenance workers hired to clean
up the campus, but they shouldn't be
necessary.
The next time you finish a drink
or a newspaper or whatever, wait
until you see a trash can before
throwing it away. Better yet, throw
your cans into one of the recycling
bins sponsored by the Student Envir
onmental Action Coalition (SEAC).
If your friends litter, pick up after
them and remind them that their
they even showed up in the diction
ary. Those terms are as meaningless
as bumper stickers. I am concerned
instead with the terms "right" and
"left."
Think about them, not what they
mean, but what they imply. First, you
have "right," used in such phrases as
"right on," "right as rain" and perhaps
the most appropriate, "right in your
face." Then, there is "left," used in
such favorites as "left behind," "left
out in the rain" and my favorite, "left
to rot." Am I making myself clear?
The problem is not just that we
are adopting the remnants of an
archaic British parliamentary system,
but that we are unnecessarily exploit
MIYl -
Choose Ferris
Although this letter was in part
provoked by Mark Leeper's
review of the latest issue of
The Carolina Critic ("Conservatism
an easy ride for well-boms," Nov. 9),
let me say that , I am not writing to
defend the Critic or even conservat
ivism per se.
As Leeper says, some of the
statements in the most recent Critic
are somewhat offensive. When I first
saw the statement calling for defund
ing of the Black Student Movement,
I indicated my distress to my editor.
The views expressed in "The Critical
Eye" are largely views of the editorial
staff. Not everyone on the staff
ascribes to the particular sentiment
behind each statement. I personally
despise racial discrimination and do
not condone the printing of that
statement.
I am partially to blame for the
overzealous use of the word "tren
dinista." Since writing my article
concerning CIA protests I have
gotten to know some of the protesters
personally, and I have read some of
their sources. Many of them are
committed as a result of personal
experiences in hotbeds of political
turmoil such as South Africa. There
fore, it is unfair to say they are just
following a trend. While maintaining
disapproval of the tactics employed
in last year's protest, I commend the
protesters for their recent educational
protest of the CIA; no one's rights
were infringed upon, and some people
might have actually learned some
thing, as I did.
I also urge all students to condemn
publicly the death threats made on
two student activists. The right to live
free from intimidation is as important
as the right to dissent. I also apologize
for assuming that all CFD members
are activist rebels with the same
political ideology. Similarly, do not
assume that either the Critic or the
College Republicans necessarily
it: clean
laziness is spoiling the campus for
everyone else.
Chapel Hill is a beautiful univer
sity, and we have an obligation to
pass it on to future classes in the same
condition in which we found it. Surely
no one would want visitors to have
the impression that the University is
a dilapidated dump, populated by
apathetic students too immature to
have learned the pre-school lesson,
"Always pick up after yourself."
David Ball is a freshman political
science major from Atlanta.
just doesn't cut it politically
ing the traditional one-dimensional
outlook of the American people. The
universal visualization of this system
is what invariably amounts to a
number line, with the lefts on the.
negative side of zero, and the rights
on the positive side.
So what to do? I would say there
is only one fair way to handle it. Start
again. Get rid of the narrow-minded
one-dimensional means of descrip
tion, which inadequately reflects the
complexity of American politics, and
replace it with a system that is
abstract enough to represent the true
nature of politics. In other words,
everyone should be equally in the
dark.
Bueller Society over the Critic
Chris Osborn
Guest Writer
speak for every conservative or
Republican on campus.
Obviously, I am disgruntled with
conservativism, such as the assump
tion that all Americans are honest,
unprejudiced and intelligent enough
to make decisions without some
guiding form of government. How
ever, Leeper unfairly generalizes that
all conservatives are racist. Leeper
says that being a WASP is an
automatic t ticket to getting "pretty
much what we want" while being
born black is an automatic resign
ment to failure and distress unless
government intervention equals
things out. Such a false pronounce
ment is insulting to blacks.
Each side is guilty of hasty gener-;
alizations and self-interest. Promises
of welfare legislation are legalized
vote-buying while promises of corpo
rate tax breaks have an equally
distasteful financial motive. Most
politicians want primarily to be
elected, and in seeking election,
confine their policies to soundbites
and oversimplified economic theor
ies. On several key issues neither
conservatives nor liberals can claim
to be right; the answers lie in finding
a happy medium, bringing me to my
main point: "moderate" is not a dirty
word.
One should not make a personal
response to an issue based on what
beliefs his espoused doctrine says he
should think. Currently, I am tossed
about on a turbulent sea of political
chaos, armed with a fleet of questions
but no answers. I have decided to sit
on the proverbial fence in the field
of political thought in order to avoid
stepping in the bullstuff on either side.
Anti-abortion a selfish
ploy for votes, support
Peorge Bush is my new pres-
JJ more years of a Republican
administration could easily tilt the
presently fragile conservative liberal
balance of the Supreme Court when
Mr. Bush continues the Reagan
tradition of appointing conservative
judges. With a conservative majority,
the court's reversal of the Roe vs.
Wade decision to legalize abortion is
imminent; however, my concern
reaches beyond the impact of such
a decision on our society. I am equally
angered by the hypocrisy of "life
loving" George Bush and Dan
Quayle, who misrepresent their
opposition to abortion as morally and
religiously motivated.
For the Republican party, the
abortion issue is an effective market
ing tool. By promising to "rid"
American society of the problem of
abortion, they attract many reli
giously conservative voters to the
party, offering a so-called moral
solution. I believe the elite leaders of
the Republican party care very little
about the "rights of the unborn" that
right-to-lifers fight for; rather, they
can think only in the number of votes
that their party can gather on this
issue alone. Thus, many Republican
politicians are merely paying lip
service to these groups, gaining votes
through a situation that should have
never become a religous or political
issue to begin with.
The farce of the religious front to
the Republican's abortion stance
surfaces in the socio-economic reality
of the abortion issue; the rich will
always be able to receive safe abor
tions regardless of abortion's legality
in the United States. In the real world,
money can buy anything, including
reputation-saving abortions. George
Bush can claim, "I'm against abor
tion. I'm for adoption. I'm for life,"
until he is blue, but the fact remains
that women will continue to have
abortions no matter what the law
says, and only wealthy women will
be able to buy safe ones. Meanwhile,
those of the poor and middle classes
will resort to the horrendous back-
I am sure you anticipate what is
coming next. It is the only logical way
out. We will leave the number line
in grade school where it belongs and
replace a one-dimensional represen
tation with a multi-dimensional
Hilbert space (MDHS) representa
tion. That way, not only do "left" and
"right" cease to exist, but a candidate
can fully express his views without
the risk of the demeaning, limiting
and potentially crippling application
to the old one-dimensional line.
If we launch our thought processes
into MDHS, we not only make the
system more fair, we free it for more
enticing possibilities. Government
funding for organizations that dont
Critic
However, I would like some com
panionship, for certainly there are a
few other people who will admit they
don't have all the answers either. So
I am starting a new campus organ
ization, tentatively titled Ferris
Bueller (because he didn't believe in
"-isms" either), with a threefold
purpose: to provide a forum for
confused, nonpartisan thinkers to
sort out these problems, to provide
a support group for these people, and
to encourage an appreciation of the
mind's ability to make its own
decisions as an alternative to reflex
political responses.
Our "therapy sessions" will consist
of some killer activities, including
debates of troubling issues, nature
walks and discussions of the fine arts.
Other ideas include listening to
R.E.M., thrash dancing to release
tension and reading Bloom County.
If any of these ideas sound inter
esting, then The Ferris Bueller
Society is for you. If you want to
discuss why the world does not always
make sense, and you recognize that
workable solutions to complex prob
lems will not be as simple as the
"wimp and the shrimp" say, then you
need Ferris, and Ferris needs you. If
you had any trouble casting your vote
Nov. 8, please write me at 22 Old
West. From the chaos of our ques
tions order will arise. We may be
slower to make our commitments,
but we will be more serious and
dedicated when we do. Please, all
similarly tortured persons join me in
my quest for the happy medium, the
harmonious balance, or the Tao
which will bring us closer to true
understanding.
Now, if youH excuse me, I'm going
to take a massive "dandelion break."
Chris Osborn is a freshman English
and political science major from '
Albany, Ga.
Julie Gammill
Guest Writer
room abortions that America knew
before the Roe vs. Wade decision, and .
Humanitarian George will have a'
skyrocketing maternal death rate on
his dirty hands. - - 2
This conclusion leads me to believe T
that the Republicans' anti-abortion
kick is actually part of their master
plot to oppress the poor of America.
Their plan: Eliminate the abortion
option, continue to cut back birth:
control education and funding for the .
lower class, allow the poor to con-,
tinue to over-populate and restrict or ,
eradicate social programs that would
help people break the never-ending
chain of poverty. The result: A :
population explosion in poverty-
ridden areas and a rapidly growing,,
gap between the rich and the poor.
As a female, I am frightened by';
the prospect of having my rights to V
personal choice concerning my body ,
revoked; however, the scary side of j
the issue is that I am fighting a wolf;
in sheep's clothing. George Bush
pretends to oppose abortion for
moral and religious reasons, but I
truly believe that his abortion posi-
tion is merely a political move to ;
appease the conservative body of
voters, his financial supporters. Many
politicians will do anything to stay
in office, including restricting a '
freedom that they can still keep just ;
to get a few votes and a few dollars. ;
The central controversy has been ,
blurred, but a sickening truth
remains: the plight of American
women rests in the hands of a leader
whose head is in his wallet. We can
kiss Roe vs. Wade goodbye, because
our country will surely pay the social I
consequences of electing short- j
sighted, money-motivated George j
Bush and Co. to office.
Julie Gammill is a sophomore
journalism major from Gary.
exist on our time-space continuum,
intergalactic ad campaigns and,
better still, an opportunity to find out
where all those balloons go that get
set free at the primaries are a few
possibilities.
We all must seriously consider this.
We have been trapped in one dimen
sion long enough. Four years may
seem like a long time, but the wheels
of change must begin to turn now.
If we don't we will all be most
rightfully left behind. Thank you.
Randy Bullock is a senior English
and RTVMP major from Rockville,
Md.