10The Daily Tar HeelTuesday, April 18, 1989
Sty? Sailg afar MM
97th year of editorial freedom
Sharon Kebschull, Editor
WILLIAM TAGGART, Managing Editor
LOUIS BlSSEITE, 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, City Editor
ERIK DALE FlIPPO, Business Editor DAVE GLENN, Sports Editor
CAR A BONNETT, Arts and Features Editor JAMES BENTON, Omnibus Editor
JULIA COON, News Editor DAVlDSimomZCKI, Photography Editor
Kelly Thompson, Design Editor
Crusade threatens freedoms
Thanks to Rep. Stephen Arnold, R
Guilford, the N.C. House of Repre
sentatives Education Committee is
considering a backward-looking pro
posal that would limit the rights of
homosexual students at universities
within the UNC system. Such a bill
is hardly unprecedented the past
two years have witnessed similar bills
but such proposals from elected
officials represent our society's
extreme narrow-mindedness.
Arnold is concerned that student
funded gay and lesbian associations on
state university campuses force all
students, as well as state taxpayers, to
pay for the promotion of "immoral,
illegal or criminal behavior." Thus, he
wants to make it illegal for such groups
to receive state or student funds or to
be allowed use of campus buildings
and facilities.
This proposal's most glaring fault,
however, is not its unnecessary attempt
to dictate morality. Policies for the
UNC-system are set by the Board of
Governors, whose members are
chosen by the General Assembly.
Given this system, legislative action to
set or change university policies is
completely without grounds.
Kenan law Professor Daniel Pollitt
said that while the legislature has the
power to change the system, "it should
honor the existing system until it does
so."
But honoring the system is not the
only reason state legislators should
avoid usurping the Board of Gover
nors' authority. As Pollitt also pointed
out, university accreditation the
symbol of a quality institution is
based in part on that institution's
ability to remain free from outside
interests such as politics. Although
Arnold called the possible loss of
accreditation "ridiculous," Pollitt said
the General Assembly's passage of a
law prohibiting communists from
speaking on state campuses called
UNC's accreditation into question in
1963.
Loss of accreditation would be a
painful blow to all schools in the UNC
system. The value of a UNC degree
would drop, and students would
probably have a difficult time being
accepted into graduate programs
elsewhere. The sacrifice is one the
University cannot afford, even for a
less trivial cause, and the bill's sup
porters should take a closer look at
such possible repercussions.
The proposal also questions a
fundamental right of those who pay
student fees the right to control the
allocation of that money. Through the
budget process, student-elected repre
sentatives determine which groups to
fund and for how much. Arnold's
proposal implies that students aren't
capable of making those decisions by
seeking to unduly limit that right. As
many UNC-educated legislators can
attest, the University has a valuable,
time-honored tradition of self
governance, and this bill oversteps the
legislature's traditional bounds.
Even those who agree with Arnold's
statement that "any such homosexual
behavior is certainly immoral" should
not support this bill, because such
legislation would only undermine both
student rights and the quality of the
entire UNC- system. Perhaps Arnold
should do some additional research
before beginning his next moral
crusade. Mary Jo Dunnington
A real woman's guide to male bonding
Victims should not fear press
After a student was sexually
assaulted last week, she called Student
Health Service to ask where she could
get medical treatment, saying she
didn't want to come to SHS because
she was afraid her story would end
up in The Daily Tar Heel. While
assault victims may understandably be
afraid of the press, women in this town
must know that newspapers will do
their best not to add to their problems.
Neither the DTH, The Chapel Hill
Newspaper, The Durham Morning
Herald nor The News and Observer
will print the names or precise
addresses of assault victims. Because
of the sensitive nature of the crime,
that information is nobody's business,
and newspapers will not feel they are
neglecting the news by not printing the
details. At the most, a paper may print
the general area of the attack if it
happened at a large apartment com
plex, for example, or if it happens
repeatedly on the same street but
only if editors think the area is large
enough to keep people from figuring
out who the victim is.
Newspapers have become more
sensitive in recent years to the concerns
of rape victims. Papers that at one time
did print identifying factors about the
victim no longer do so and are firmly
opposed to printing information that
would harm the victim while adding
little to the stories. The first priority
for editors is always to report the news
as fully as possible. Editors will be
concerned with how much informa
tion should be withheld from readers,
but they can keep details such as the
name and address of the woman
assaulted out of the article. Keeping
back those details does not hurt a
newspaper, and it certainly helps the
victim.
Of course, women may decide for
plenty of other reasons not to report
the assault to the police or to seek
medical treatment, such as if the
attacker was an acquaintance or if
alcohol was involved. In a college
town, it may be easier for people to
figure out who the victim is even
without minor details. But if women
give police as much information as
possible about their attacker, news
papers are more likely to fill the story
with those details than with any
information about the victim. A fear
of the press should never keep women
from reporting an assault newspap
ers will only release enough informa
tion to alert readers that they too may
be at risk from an attacker. Sharon
Kebschull
As I stare into the screen of this
computer terminal in the DTH
office, I wince at the thought of
lifting my sore arms to type. On Sunday,
I was initiated into the inner sanctum of
manhood. I got to "male bond." Yes, for
one afternoon, I was given an inside
glimpse of social interaction among the
male persuasion. I went skeet shooting.
I couldn't pass up such a golden
opportunity to observe males in their
natural habitat, surrounded by the very
stuff of manhood. We left Chapel Hill
Sunday afternoon and drove to Durham,
where the Great Skeet Hunt would take
place. As we approached the club, I saw
a yellow sign by the road warning: "Male
Bonding Sanctuary One Mile." I hoped to
emerge with all major appendages still
intact.
I was kind of nervous about the whole
thing because I had never held a gun before.
Also, people took great glee in informing
me that the kick of the gun would knock
me over, so I'd probably be peeling myself
off the ground the first couple of times
I tried to shoot. Determined that I could
bond as well as any man, I had foolishly
shrugged off the warnings and forged
ahead.
As the time for me to shoot my round
drew near, an incessant barrage of instruc
tions aggravated my nervous condition.
There are many rules to which one must
adhere when handling a firearm. "Hold the
gun facing down always!!" "Never load the
gun unless you're standing on the cement
square!!" And on and on all delivered
with a note of panic in the voice. I guess
it would be kind of scary to stand beside
someone who is holding a loaded gun and
has no idea what to do with it. Like me.
Laura Pearlman
Casting Pearls
I was an accident waiting to happen.
After a battery of tests, my fellow skeet
shooters decided that I was right-eye
dominant, which meant I should shoot
right-handed. Since I am left-handed, this
was supposed to be a disadvantage.
Holding the gun was awkward to begin
with, and I kept trying to switch to my
left hand, creating quite the image of grace
and coordination. But the left-handed
excuse made me think I wasnt a total
incompetent in the world of men.
Finally it was my turn to try to kill a
skeet. My first few efforts at annihilating
a poor, defenseless skeet had fallen quite
flat. Then Ralph entered my life. Ralph
risks his life every Wednesday and Sunday
to teach new shooters enough to prevent
them from taking out innocent spectators.
Ralph zeroed in on my problem imme
diately. "Well," he chuckled, "no wonder
you can't hit these skeet, little lady
they're right-handed skeet. Heh Heh. I'm
just teasing you." No kidding, Ralph.
Then Ralph corrected my stance and
posture, a process which involved several
swats to my rear end, accompanied by the
instruction to "keep your butt tucked in."
Ralph told me he had been slapped several
times for offering that particular piece of
advice and that it wouldn't upset him if
I did the same. I told him I wouldn't slap
him, but I was surprised no one had shot
him for it. He just chuckled again. Clearly,
Ralph is a man who loves his work.
After several more missed attempts and
another battery of tests, it was decided that
I am in fact left-eye dominant, and I was
permitted to switch to my left hand. Once
this was accomplished, I managed to hit
two. I considered this a major triumph. ' -I
have since been told that with the kind
of gun and ammunition I was using, I was
essentially trying to hit an elephant with
a cannon. Ralph approved, however, and
he started calling me Annie Oakley. At this
point, my arms felt like rubber bands, and
I sat out the rest of the afternoon nursing
my bruised collar bones and watching the
males bond among themselves. Ralph was
given to evaluating the missed attempts of
my companions and commenting that "If
that'd been a pheasant or quail, you'd a
had it!" Apparently, it enhances the sport
to imagine one is not aiming for a ceramic
plate, but rather at a small woodland
creature.
Back in Chapel Hill, the smell of
gunpowder fresh in my nose, I expected
we would sit around a fire swilling bourbon
and branch water and smoking pungent
cigars. Instead, I sat there watching the
big, strong men clean their guns. It was
then that I offered my analysis that guns
are actually just phallic symbols and
holding a gun beats a shot of testosterone
any day of the week. My analysis was a
failure with my shooting buddies who said
that girls don't know anything anyhow.
Then they told me to go get them some
lemonade. I decided then that male
bonding isn't all it's cracked up to be
all it takes is a little upper-body strength.
Laura Pearlman is a junior English
major from Asheville.
'Readers9 Foram
Officer's style
commended
To the editor:
I read with considerable
chagrin the letter from Ms.
Abecassis and Ms. Ward
("Officer's point unclear," April
11) regarding their interpreta
tion of the statement attributed
to Sgt. Ned Comar, a statement
which I took to be an effort
to define the police investiga
tive perspective of the alleged
rape that took place at Burn
out. I believe this letter is an
unwarranted attempt to pub
licly brand as an insensitive
sexist, a man whose record as
an advocate of student safety
and security on this campus is
extensive and exemplary.
Here is my interpretation of
Sgt. Comar's statement Rape
as a prosecutable . crime
involves sexual intercourse
with another person without
that person's consent. Maybe
this is what actually happened.
But being knocked down and
kissed without consent, which
is the way this incident was first
reported in the papers, is at
least an offense against human
dignity and personal rights, is
probably assault, and maybe
sexual assault . . . but it is not
rape and should not be inves
tigated as such, with all of the
potentially invasive evidence
gathering processes justified by
that charge.
I would further add that the
prerogative and responsibility
of printing clarification of Sgt.
Comar's statement may lie with
the DTH, if his single statement
was taken out of the context
of a larger interview that could
provide such clarification. Ms.
Abecassis and Ms. Ward seem
to think that we all have
immediate access to the front
page to clarify whatever iso
lated remarks we may make
that are deemed fit for
publication.
It is Sgt. Comar's business
to be familiar with the legal
definitions of crimes against
person and property. It is his
inclination to pass on his
knowledge of these definitions
in language which is clear and
unconfusing, however graphic
it may be. I, for one, have
Four Things Morons Do to Have Fun
ll.Plzyin? leap-frcg with the U-Buses 2. Sending suirres through the rrM
A.A tWItU tA.,, LJrJi All
3. Arguing with mines
Nfftkv jrJi'".' rsj
H. Trying to defund ihe C6LA
always found this to be a
refreshing tendency in a com
munity too often characterized
by obfuscated official state
ments. Perhaps we should
admonish Sgt. Comar to care
fully craft, in writing, his public
responses to journalists' ques
tions or to respond the next
time with a simple "No com
ment." I must say that I am also
thankful that the legal defini
tions of prosecutable crimes in
this country are not determined
by individual citizens, nor by
individual police persons, nor
by individual government offi
cials at their whim, but by the
laws that are created by our
society, usually through a
process that ensures objective
detachment. If this were not the
case, most of us would be doing
time right now for something
or other.
In my capacity as an instruc
tional designer here for 16
years, I have observed Sgt.
Comar spending considerable
amounts of his own time and
money on, and lending his
unique colloquial style to,
numerous educational efforts
to improve student safety and
welfare on this campus. I would
like to thank him for those
efforts now, and urge those
who would flippantly toss the
label "sexist" in his direction,
with little or no thought or
evidence, to check the record,
and better yet, go and talk to
him a while.
RICK PALMER
Instructional designer
Center for Teaching
and Learning
Cut repeats
past mistakes
To the editor:
In 1920 the citizens of North
Carolina marched on Raleigh
to protest the choice of the state
legislature to cut the budget of
the oldest state university. It is
a tragedy for those who believe
that the . state has advanced
since 1920 to learn that such
action is still necessary. I have
seen the disastrous effects of
such ill-considered cuts in the
United Kingdom, where gener
ations are being denied an
alternative to unemployment
and the nation is divided. In
1830 it was suggested that the
legislature wished to keep its
citizens both poor and ignor
ant. I am shocked that nothing
seems to have changed, and I
appeal to all who feel loyalty
to what UNC stands for to
ensure that poverty and ignor
ance are not the only things this
legislature promotes.
DAVID GANZ
Assistant professor
Classics department
Letters policy
The Daily Tar Heel
welcomes reader comments
and criticisms. When writing
letters to the editor, please
follow these guidelines:
All letters must be signed
by the author(s), with a limit
of two signatures per letter.
B Students should include
name, year in school, major,
phone number and home
town. Other members of the
University community should
include similar information.
B Place letters in the box
marked "Letters to the Editor "
outside the DTH office in the
Student Union.
C7AR CMZCKO CUT fVlPL-B SITE FofZ
Women must fake initiative to get elected
To the editor:
In the April 12 editorial, "When a
majority is a minority," Kimberly Edens
makes several disturbing comments on the
subject of women in the political arena.
She presents a severely distorted view of
how women should get involved in politics
and government while also making several
offensive remarks that are totally
unjustified.
The remark made by former Gov. Jim
Hunt can only be referred to as inexcu
sable. The fact that Ms. Edens feels that
this is the attitude of most male politicians
is also inexcusable. It is absurd to suggest
that the remarks of one individual can
represent the mentality of a whole gender.
If this is so, then is Rosanne Barr's attitude
of men the consensus of the female gender?
Later in the editorial she states that
several female Democratic state legislators
"urged that the party's executive council
ensure that women are on statewide tickets
in 1990 and 1992." Women should not be
ensured to be on the election tickets at all.
If a woman, or any person, is on the
election ticket it should be because the
Democratic Party and the people feel that
she is the best person to run for the office.
Ms. Edens also states that North Carolina
"has never elected a woman to a statewide
executive office or to a full term in
Congress." She fails to mention that the
largest city in North Carolina Charlotte
has a woman as mayor. Elizabeth Dole,
from Salisbury, is now U.S. secretary of
labor and is a former secretary of trans
portation. Neither of these women were
ensured a candidacy but took the initiative
to take the risk because they thought they
were the best candidates.
Ms. Edens addresses the possibility "that
there are more than a few men and women
in this state that believe that women have
no place in politics only the kitchen."
She boldly states that "those people are
wrong. There can be no doubt about it."
Well, North Carolina is not an oversized
Mayberry where such prehistoric mentality
dominates. The few people who actually
believe that a woman's place is in the house,
even though I believe the contrary, are
entitled to believe whatever they like due
to a piece of paper called the Constitution.
Ms. Edens also makes several presump
tuous remarks. She states that North
Carolina is "sexist" because Jesse Helms
is a North Carolina senator. She also labels
our neighbor Virginia "the last bastion of
white supremacy." These unnecessary and
unsupported statements do little but offend
and insult the intelligence of the reader. ' ''
The fact that women should be in politics
cannot be disputed. The political world
should not be dominated by white men.
If a person runs for an office, it should
be because they are what the people want,
no matter what race or gender they are,
If women are to be ensured a candidacy,
then what keeps us from stopping there?
To be fair, we would have to ensure
candidacies for everyone who claims to be
politically excluded. The female majority
can and should be encouraged by women
who are in politics today, but the initiative
to get involved can only come from within
that majority. ,
DARREN SOLOMON
Freshman
Political science economics
'4