The daily Tar Heel. (Chapel Hill, N.C.) 1946-current, April 03, 1989, Page 10, Image 10
10The Dally Tar HeelMonday, April 3, 1989 ullj? Iatlg afar jHl Meaders9 Foram A BOOT 97th year of editorial freedom ecu DON r Sharon Kebschull, Editor VILUMAT XGGKRT, ManagingEditor LOUIS BlSSETTE, Editorial Page Editor MARY Jo DUNNINGTON, Editorial Page Editor JUSTIN McGuiRE, University Editor JENNY CLONINGER, University Editor TAMMY BLACKARD, State and National Editor CHARLES BrITTAIN, Q'ty Editor Erik Dale Flippo, Business Editor Dave Glenn, Sports Editor CARA BONNETT, Arts and Features Editor JAMES BENTON, Omnibus Editor JvUaCoON, News Editor DAVID SUROWIECKI, Photography Editor Kelly Thompson, Design Editor Make Carolina Inn compete The recent financial difficulties of the Carolina Inn have left UNC administrators and Carolina Inn employees searching for a solution, unable to agree on the future of the inn. While the University may be unwilling to relinquish control of the inn, the best way to ensure it continues to function is to allow private mam nagement contractors to run the University-owned inn. The Carolina Inn, which made a profit of $500,000 as recently as 1983 84, is predicted to lose $110,000 this year. The problem stems from the relatively high wages the hotel pays its workers. Because the inn is subject to state salary and purchasing regulations, its wages are much higher than other hotels in the Chapel Hill area. In order to compete, the inn must be free of state salary regulations. The average wage at the Carolina Inn is almost $2 per hour higher than those of comparable hotels in the area. Sales have risen in the last few years and revenues are expected to reach an all time high of $4 million this year, but over 60 percent of this revenue will go towards paying wages. A privately managed Carolina Inn could be more competetive because it would be exempt from state salary standards. The University currently owns the Carolina Inn, so all its employees are state employees, even though the hotel is self-supporting. This is an unfair disadvantage to the inn, which is competing in an area in which hotel space has doubled in the last six years. SomS;7of the employees fear that private management would mean that the 98 full-time employees would lose their jobs, but this is preventable. They would undoubtedly be forced to take a pay cut, but it is unlikely that they would all lose their jobs. In addition, UNC officials have indicated the employees could be reassigned to other duties. The Carolina Inn employees are already among the lowest paid state employees, and they work very hard to keep the inn a pleasant place for visitors to stay. But their salaries must be compared to other hotel employees, not all state employees. If the Univer sity does not take action soon, the inn could go out of business, forcing its employees out of their jobs. The Carolina Inn faces other prob lems as well. Some of the rooms in the 65-year-old inn lack modern amenities, and other areas need renovating. If a private company does not take over, UNC would have to pay for the needed work, which amounts to $6.5 million. UNC officials have said they will raise $2 million through fundraisers. But the Univer sity would still be forced to pay $4.5 million for something that has nothing to do with academics. Opponents of a privately managed Carolina Inn fear it would take something away from the charm of the Chapel Hill landmark. But these concerns are premature. By keeping many of the same employees and providing the needed renovations, a privately owned inn could maintain the charm and improve the accomo dations of the inn. Chris Landgraff Plotting women in their place Women are an integral part of this University, comprising a large major ity of the student body. Women do not, however, fill an acceptable number of professorships or other faculty positions which promise advancement, a situation which the Faculty Council addressed at its meeting last Friday. A report presented to the council showed that women fill only a few of the high-level administrative and academic jobs, with little promise that the situation will be rectified soon. Of the University's 841 professorships, only 9 percent are female. Five of the University's 119 distinguished profes sorships are women. In 1978, 16.5 percent of the faculty was female; by last year that number had only grown to 19.8 percent. The most disturbing statistic, how ever, is that women hold a mere 14 percent of the positions which even tually lead to tenure or advancement. Most female faculty members serve in jobs which offer almost no career advancement: of the University's 301 non-tenure faculty positions, nearly half of which are filled by women. As long as UNC continues such hiring and job placement practices, men will continue to hold most of the profes sorships, and the male-female faculty Everyday at 3:30, the various editors of The Daily Tar Heel get together to decide what goes in the paper the next day. Because we are a student newspaper, most of our front page articles are University-related, and the University editors Jenny Cloningcr and myself help the editor decide which stories will be on the front and which will be inside. This is an important decision which we base on a number of criteria. So when readers write in to tell us a story shouldn't have been on the front page or call and demand that an event they are sponsoring should be a front page story, we get a little frustrated. To us, it's like they're trying to do our jobs for us. If we tried to tell these people how to run their groups or events, they probably wouldn't appreciate it. In the first place, when we talk to people on the phone we have no way of knowing what will go on the front page in three days. Those decisions are made only the day before. And more importantly, we feel we are qualified to judge what is important" enough for the front page on a given day, because we know the University pretty well. ratio will improve as little in the next decade as it has in the one past. The University could argue in its defense that one-third of all open faculty positions in the past four years were given to women. The University even ranked second among 19 . peer institutions in naming women to assistant professorships. A female candidate is being considered for dean of the law school, and, if selected, she would be the first in the school's history to serve in that capacity. UNC also could claim the difficulty of finding experienced female candi dates for its top-level jobs. However, with so few women being groomed for promotion internally, the University cannot say it is doing its part to resolve this problem. The law school, for example, is breaking tradition to search for a new dean, looking beyond its own faculty for candidates. The committee made several recom mendations which the University would be wise to follow. These include emphasizing the hiring of female minorities and ensuring that women serve on committees which consider hiring and promotions for faculty positions. More importantly, the University should be willing to put women on the fast track, so they can finally begin to earn the place they deserve. David Starnes the last word It's not that we don't want people to bring things to our attention we certainly do. Without people bringing news items to our attention, we'd be lost. But let me explain briefly how we decide what is a front page story. aNewsworthiness: We decide which stories are the most relevant and important to students and to the University commun ity in general. A story about a proposed fee increase or a student being brought up on charges of a Campus Code violation will almost definitely be on the front page a Timeliness: If it's a slow news day, something might make the front page even if if usually wouldn't. On the other hand, if there's a lot going on one day, something that is ordinarily a front page story, might make page four. And please don't try to convince us by telling us what kind of play another newspaper gave the story we are our own newspaper and have different prior ities. If you have a gripe about story placement, call the editor, because it's ultimately her decision, but realize that she gave us our jobs because she trusts our news . judgment. Justin McGuire o Circumstances critical in making decision To the editor: In the past few weeks, during the recent explosion of abortion debates on the UNC campus, IVe been reading the lettters to the editor and any other articles The Daily Tar Heel has published on the subject, and IVe been growing more and more dissat isfied.' I was unable to attend the Weddington-Schlafly debate last Thursday night, and while I wish I could have been there to hear what was said, I imagine that I probably would have sat there feeling helplessly frustrated at the important aspects that were being glossed over or ignored completely (as is the case in all. the other panels or debates IVe witnessed). There have been two distinct sides presented to us: one that says life begins at conception, and therefore we have no right to choose to end it, and one that says a woman should decide for herself whether to give birth, and should she decide not to, then the government should allow her that choice. Neither of these opinions say anything about the circum stances of the pregnancy in their argu ments, and to me, that seems a key issue. . issue. In Craig Tidwell's letter "Pick adoption, not abortion" (March 31), he writes "The pro-abortion movement is selfish! It says that since it is not convenient, not wanted, unplanned, kill it!" Craig, that's not all the movement supports. When a 14-year-old friend of mine was raped a few years ago by her father and became pregnant, she was lucky enough to be able to abort legally. You call it murder; I call it self defense. What about the case of a fetus being diagnosed as having Down's Syndrome? The most common result of that discovery is an abortion. We are saving the unborn child from a brief, miserable life. If pregnancy is the result of either a rape or an accident, and the circumstances sur rounding birth and infancy are obviously going to be detrimental to the child's health and well-being, then an abortion in this case is also saving the unborn child from a miserable life. I assure you that I don't support : abortion as a form of general birth control pregnancy control makes much more sense). There will always be women who abuse their right to choose abortion, and who carelessly become pregnant then decide they "don't want to mess with a child right now," and I see that as a stupid waste of human potential (especially when the same women routinely choose abortion over the much simpler and safer birth pregnancy control). My opinion used to be, "if you're responsible enough to have sex, then you're responsible enough to either prevent pregnancy or take care of any resulting child," but since the incident of the friend I mentioned earlier, IVe had to modify that opinion. It wasn't that she was responsible enough to have sex and get pregnant; her father was irresponsible enough to rape her. I refuse to support any group that would try to make it illegal for her to have an abortion safely. You can't convince me that her life (emotionally: as well as nhvsicallvl wouldn't be ruined by giving birth, or that any child resulting from such a union would have a worth while life. , In all rape cases I feel the same way. There is no way, however, of making a law that says, "abortions will be illegal , unless giving birth will endanger the. . mother's life, or if the pregnancy was caused by rape." For how is a rapist - uwiiiiu; n atio-ugw 111a.11 111 a kxcli ev o-iiwjr ; A boyfriend? A priest? A husband? A,v father? How can a woman prove she was , raped? And a mother's stability and health . , are very important who can know better than she can whether she's prepared (psychologically or physically) to be a , i o ti .-Li., i .1 momcrx now can 11 pussiuiy oc inc tuuii , decision for her to give birth or not? . , If the law ever declares abortion illegal, it seems likely that there will be fewer unborn children killed. It's also unavoid-i ; able that if this happens, there will be morev women killed, alone with their unborn. . 14tan inlAn tViAvr t t Vimrfl okrtrtmnc Vllliuiwu, wiivit inwjr .iy lj nave ouuiuuiw. . under illegal, unsanitary and unsafe.' conditions. Legalized abortion is the way , our society can protect a larger portion. v of the population, and though it will always. be seen by some as murder, I sincerely . . believe it is the lesser of two evils. GRETCHEN DAVIS Sonhomore'- r , Enehsh. Pro-choice, not pro-abortion To the editor: After reading Craig Tidwell's histrionic cry for "Adoption, not abortion" (March 3 1), I felt compelled to respond. Mr. Tidwell's hysterical, and com pletely erroneous, attack on the National Organization of Women shows a rather fright ening lack of reason on his part. The term "pro-choice" is not synonymous with the term "pro-abortion." In fact, I don't know of a single person who Ljaims to be pro-abortion. Rather than the pro-choicers "missing the whole point of the matter," I believe it is Mr. Tidwell who has missed the ' point. ; - I wholeheartedly agree that the attitude of using abortion as a solution for one's careless ness is wrong. However, no person has the right to tell another person that they must, by law, complete an undesired pregnancy. Mr. Tidwell speaks of the "abortion industry" that is "out to make money." He also suggest that the "brothers and sisters" of "pro-abortion" see movies like "Silent Scream" to graphically see what an abortion does to a fetus. Per haps Mr. Tidwell should see a movie or two about the horrors of coat-hanger abortions and what they can do to a women's body before he canonizes him self. The billion-dollar "abor tion industry" will not disap pear if abortions are made illegal. It will only go under- The. Pro dnoioe. Pro lift . ABORTiou CUjVIC I1! I'n 1 1 3 y If if Arti lift, or Afltt choice.? " It ground and become more dan gerous for the women who decide, or are forced, to get an abortion. DEANNA RAMEY Junior English Be informed about abortion To the editor: Abortion is a topic that is extremely controversial and highly disputed. Many people have widely varying opinions concerning the right to life for unborn babies, a woman's right to her own body and the actual justification for abortion on demand. However, contrary to popular belief, there are also many people who haven't yet decided what they believe about abortion. Here are some facts that may be relevant to this controversy. Did you know that 4,000 babies are aborted each day in the United States? Did you know that each year in North Carolina 35,000 babies are aborted? That is equal to the population of Chapel Hill. Did you know that Roe. vs. Wade allowed abortions through the ninth month of pregnancy? Did you know that by 14 weeks an unborn baby's heartbeat and brainwaves can be measuree and monitored, through EKGs and EEGs? Did you know that A1 XT.i! 1 - r - vnc rtauonai onierence ore - Abortion concluded (with one1" dissension) that life begins at- fertilization? Did you know: that there are alternatives to ' abortion and assistance for crisis pregnancies? ' If you were not aware of uivjv luvijj tuviv liiujr iv iiiuvii ' wkv-A irAii AflV lr,sif nkrtiit VAS- iiivsiv ;uu vivsu i ivuvw auuui nil . abortion issue. If you are interested in the pro-life move ment, then contact a local pro; life organization for ways you', can become involved in saving lives mothers' and babies'. CHARLES BALAN I ntorH iccinltnon; Vturltc Dictating morals removes rightful choice To the editor: I am writing this in response to the letter to the editor from Craig Tidwell ("Pick adoption, not abortion," March 31). In that letter he spoke out in favor of adoption over abortion. I realize that the abortion issue is a very emotional one. At first glance, his is a very reasonable thought. However, while "pro-life" advocates' claim is that there are two lives to be considered, and that is true, they always seem to ignore the mother. Let me offer several points. The first point has to be the question of choice. When Ronald Reagan initially ran for office, he claimed that he would "take government out of the back pocket of the American citizen." But, if anything, what he did during the eight years he was in office was impose his morals (or those of the religious right) on everyone. This nation was founded on the right of freedom of choice; humans seek options. Neither Mr. Reagan nor Mr. Bush has ever offered any choice on the question of abortion. If given the opportunity, they would dictate your morals for you on this case; they would protect us from ourselves. I person ally believe that American women are intelligent enough to make their own decision. Adoptions may be part of the answer, but certainly it is not the answer. There are approximately 1 million couples seeking to adopt a child. There are an estimated 1.6 million abortions a year. If there were suddenly no abortions, and every child were put up for adoption, there would still be 600,000 children left over. What happens to those children? Do you ask people to "take two they're small?" And the next year, after all of these couples have adopted their two children, there will be another 1.6 million children offered for adoption. Will there be another million couples ready to adopt them? It does not look that way. Statistics show that most couples seeking adoptions are requesting white males. That says several things. It says that most people seeking adoption are white, and the implication is that they are part of the middle class. But what happens to the child born with severe mental retardation or other birth defects? What happens to the black child that does not get adopted? Then, you are right back to the initial problem which is unwanted children. And there will be no one, and nothing, there to help these unwanted children. Making something illegal has never stopped a human being from wanting or getting that thing. Prohibition did not work. The war on drugs is not working. Making abortions illegal will not stop women from getting abortions. The only difference is that abortionists will be forced to the dirty "back room" abortion clinics with staff that may be less than competent, and conditions that are less than sanitary, which would place the woman at risk for infection, disease or worse. However, I am not saying that abortion should remain legal because women (and men) will seek abortions regardless. What I am suggesting is that lawmakers and the American people should consider the woman in this as well, since abortions are traumatic enough by themselves. Is it fair or just to force a woman to carry a child to term that she knows she cannot care for or support? Is it fair or just to force a family of four to deal with the financial and psychological pain when the mother is told that her child will be born deformed or retarded and will not live? That is the reality. The third point is one of an even greater reality: This country, this planet, will ultimately support only so many people. As farmland disappears with shopping centers and office buildings taking its place, the thought that technology can continue to produce an infinite amount of food A 1 Decomes a very naive one. ooiisning abortion may indeed secure the rights of unborn children, but it does not by any means ensure them, or those who cohab- . . .1 t . "xl I If. TL. naie on me pianei, wun a goou me. inc basic problem becomes who takes care ' of these children? The Reagan administration, and the Bush administration in its wake, time and time again, has cut all programs which were intended to provide this care, programs which operated on budgets less than the' cum ui uue D-i uuiiiuci. uii9 au limns na tion has reduced funding to Planned Parenthood clinics, has cut funding for contraception programs, has cut funding' for nutntion programs tor poor mothersr on1 trootc fnA ctomnc nrt iAlfai-A oc if ' U11U il VOIO JkUlll J? Ul 1U TV W UJ 11 every person on those rolls is stealing froriT the government. Further, Mr. Bush has placed those same restrictions as contin-' gencies for aid to foreign countries. It is easy to look down at this from an " ivory tower and pontificate on what is ' "right and moral, it is especially easy wnen UlUaC UUlllg lilt lVJUimcnii ai. iiiaika, who have never had to deal with the trauma ' of carrying a child. If you are an anti: abortionist, how would you react if you were put in another person's situation, like that of a single, pregnant woman with no job, no family and no support from the father? What if the pregnant woman were your sister? You might be glad that a choice exists. You might be glad that this decision was not dictated to you by someone sitting in Washington who does not even know you or understand why you would make the decision you did. Given all this, you might wonder what is truly right and fair. WALLACE HARRINGTON Research technician ' School of Medicine"