r,ii n i w -i in i
8The Daily Tar HeelTuesday, October 31, 1989
(line-
I GUESS THIS MEANS
97th year of editorial freedom
v y v ;
Sharon Kebschull, Editor
WILLIAM TagGART, Managing Editor
MARY Jo DUNNINGTON, Editorial Page Editor
JUSTIN McGuiRE, University Editor
KAREN DUNN, State and National Editor
TOM PARKS, Business Editor
Dave Glenn, Sports Editor
MELANIE BLACK, Design Editor
TAMMY BLACKARD, Editorial Page Editor
JENNY CLONINGER, University Editor
Jessica Lanning, City Editor
CARA BONNETT, Arts and Features Editor
Kelly Thompson, Omnibus Editor
DAVID SurOWIECKI, Photography Editor
Julia Coon, News Editor
WW
IIIUV VA
'"V r- i '
Not quite No.
UNC can't rest on
On the surface, it's -been
a good year for
UNC. Earlier this
month, the Univer
board
opinion
sity was named the fourth-besi public
university in the nation by a U.S. News and
World Report survey. Since then, the book
"The Insider's Guide to the Top 25 Col
leges" named UNC the top public college
in the country. While these accolades are
appreciated, it's hard to believe that with
all the problems UNC faces, it could pos
sibly be the cream of the crop.
Of course, UNC retains many qualities
that make it one of the best colleges in the
nation. An excellent faculty (the ones who
have stayed, anyway), many opportunities
for a decent social life and outstanding
extracurricular activities make UNC a
pleasant place to be. But as we bask in the
glow of these ratings, we must be realistic.
Thinking about life at UNC shouldn't be
all gloom and doom, but many facets of the
University demand attention, fast.
To begin with, the lack of leadership for
the UNC system has become increasingly
alarming in past months, so that the system
has been led by a wayward Board of Gov
ernors member and, in part, by Chancellor
Paul Hardin, rather than by the system's
president. That has put Hardin out of touch
with students in Chapel Hill as he spends
his time raising money and starting discus
sion as a president should on increased fi
nancial autonomy for universities.
In addition, students' educations are
hampered by a lack of funds for the librar
ies and a lack of adequate funding to pay
Another credit card?
Meal card use off campus unrealistic
Wouldn't it be great to have mom and dad to
pay for that pitcher of beer at the Rat? How
about a few burritos across the street at Taco
Bell? Sounds great, doesn't it? In fact, it sounds
a little too convenient to be realistic. While the
idea of possessing a mini-Mastercard dis
guised as a meal card paid for by parents
probably appeals to most students, using cards
outside of the University would only promote
student financial irresponsibility and would
also put Marriott in deeper financial problems.
Using meal cards off-campus is a plan be
gun by Student Congress meal card subcom
mittee chairmen Mark ihmbmmbhoh
Ltum te k The plan would destroy
tee has researched the . 1 1 1
ideaandtaikedwiththe financial independence
owners of several area
restaurants. However, for College StlldentS.
amid all these plans, the mhhhhwhhhhb
Marriott Corporation was not even approached
about the idea for several weeks and after
discussing it with committee members, the
manager doesn't seem interested.
Bibbs and Shelburn compare the idea of
using meal cards outside the University to
Duke University's system, where students have
two options. One plan obliges students to put a
certain amount of money on the card that can be
used at any food service on campus. The second
plan, the one that the chairmen are referring to,
allows students to purchase anything on their
meal cards, including books, T-shirts, haircuts
and movie tickets. However, the catch is that all
of these services are located on Duke's campus
and are campus-operated. So the committee's
plan really does not parallel the system at Duke.
The Daily
Editorial Writers: James Burroughs and Jennifer Wing.
Assistant Editors: Diana Florence and Jessica Yates, arts and features; Kim Avetta, Karen Dennis and Wendy Johnson,
design; Charles Brittain, editorial page; Staci Cox, managing; B Buckberry and Steve Wilson, news; Lisa Reichle and
Richard Smith, Omnibus; Evan Eile, photography; Andrew Podolsky, Jay Reed and Jamie Rosenberg, sports; Kari Barlow,
state and national; Will Spears and Amy Wajda, university;
Writers: Steve Adams, Craig Allen, Cathy Apgar, Marcie Bailey, Debbie Baker, Tim Bennett, Crystal Bernstein, Jennifer
Blackwell, Lynctte Blair, Wendy Bounds, Robert Brown, Stephen Bryan, Sarah Cagle, Julie Campbell, Heather Clapp, Jennifer
Dickens, Wagner Dotto, Mark Folk, Julie Gammill, Kevin Greene, Chris Helms, Jeff Hill, Joey Hill, Katherine Houston, Stephanie
Johnston, Gabriele Jones, Stacey Kaplan, Jason Kelly, Lloyd Lagos, Tracy Lawson, David Lloyd, Rheta Logan, Sheila Long,
Dionne Loy, Alan Martin, Kimberly Maxwell, Kenny Monteith, Jeff Moyer, Helle Nielsen, Glenn O'Neal, Simone Pam, Jennifer
Pillo, Jannette Pippin, Myron Pitts, Becky Riddick, Vanessa Shelton, Katherine Snow, Kyle York Spencer, Mike Sutton, Bill
Taggart, Cameron Tew, Christine Thomas, Tim Truzy, Bryan Tyson, Emilie Van Poucke, Sandy Wall, Chuck Williams, Nancy
Wykle. Monica Paris, newsclerk.
Sports: Neil Amato, Mark Anderson, Jason Bates, John Bland, Laurie Dhue, Christina Frohock, Scott Gold, Warren Hynes,
Doug Hoogervorst, David Kupstas, Bethany Litton, Bobby McCroskey, Brock Page, Natalie Sekicky, Eric Wagnon and Steve
Walston.
Arts and Features: Cheryl Allen, Lisa Antonucct, Noah Bartolucci, Clark Benbow, Shields Brewer, Gretchen Davis, Diana
Florence, Cricket French, Wendy Grady, Vicki Hyman, Mara Lee, Tim Little, Matthew McCafferty, Carrie McLaren, Elizabeth
Murray, D'Ann Pletcher, Leigh Pressley, Eric Rosen, Hasie Sirisena, Heather Smith, Brian Springer, Bevin Weeks and Laura
Williams.
Photography: Jodi Anderson, Schuyler Brown, Gina Cox, Steven Exum, Sheila Johnston, Tracey Langhome, Kathy Michel
and Catherine Pinckert. E. Joseph Muhl Jr., photographic technician.
Copy Editors: James Benton, Susan Comfort, Rebecca Duckett, Joy Golden, Stephanie Harper, Angela Hill, Susan
Holdsclaw, Anne Isenhower, Debrah Norman, George Quintero, JoAnn Rodak, Kristin Scheve, Joe Seagle, Kelley Shaw, Clare
Weickert, Steffanie Woodfin and Cameron Young.
Cartoonists: George Brooks, Adam Cohen, Pete Corson, Alex De Grand, David Estoye, Greg Humphreys and Mike Sutton.
Business and Advertising: Kevin Schwartz, director; Bob Bates, advertising director; Leslie Humphrey', classified ad
mana ger; Kirsten Burkart, assistant classified ad manager; Janet Gordon, Angela Spivey, classified assistants; Amanda Til ley,
advertising manager; Sabrina Goodson; business manager; Allison Ashworth, assistant business manager; Lora Gay, Kristi
Greeson, Beth Harding, Lavonne Leinster, Tracy Proctor, Kevin Reperowitz, Alicia Satterwhite, Pam Thompson and Jill Whitley,
display advertising representatives; Kim Blass, creative director; Pam Strickland, marketin g director; Dana Cooper and Kimberly
Moretz, receptionists; Sherrie Davis, Carole Hedgepeth, Ingrid Jones and Tracy King, sales assistants; Laura Richards, typist.
Subscriptions: Ken Murphy, manager.
Distribution: RDS Carriers.
Production: Bill Leslie and Stacy Wynn, managers; Anita Bentky, assistant manager; Brian Campbell, Stephanie Locklear,
John Nipp and Greg Miller, assistants.
Printing: The Village Companies.
1
its ranking laurels
teaching assistants and other faculty
members. Research grants earned by fac
ulty endeavors at UNC are cut substan
tially, with a percentage given to the state,
which hinders the University's ability to
keep up with other institutions. And though
this community seems well-off, the Uni
versity continues to pay housekeepers
barely enough to live on. At the same time,
the General Assembly this year gave match
ing funds for a new business school build
ing, a project that wasn't even on the Board
of Governors' priority list for funding.
And UNC still suffers from social ills
that should no longer be prevalent. The
most obvious of these is the sense that
relations between the races have taken a
step backward. It's hard to say that UNC
has high quality of life when the campus
remains segregated and overwhelmingly
white, not to mention never-ending barri
ers to the construction of a Black Cultural
Center. And a high rate of sexual assaults
in the last few years hardly makes this a
comfortable place for women to walk alone.
UNC continues to offer one of the best
education bargains in the country. But it's
too easy to sit back and refuse to face the
problems that compound daily, or too easy
to focus on one problem at the expense of
others. While University committees de
bate racism, the segregation and aliena
tion continues. While outside donors
contribute to the University's 1993 bicen
tennial fund-raisers, graduate students need
more money now. It would be nice to
celebrate these questionable rankings, but
there's too much work to do.
Even if a system did exist at UNC permitting
students to use meal cards on Franklin Street, it
would destroy the independence that college
students are supposed to be developing. How
can students expect to leam to budget money
when Franklin Street bills are simply charged
to an account often paid for by their parents?
Most parents are more likely to add money to a
food account than to the student's bank account
where the money could be used for anything
no parents want their children to starve.
In addition, Marriott continues to have fi
nancial problems, and this added competition
1 would only put Marri-
ott in worse economic
trouble. Marriott would
then have to increase
the prices, inevitably
hurting students. Mar
riott is a national cor
poration and cannot
compete with local independent businesses.
A possible compromise would be consoli
dation of all the food services on campus and
possibly the University bookstore. Students
could then use their meal cards in more places
without destroying Marriott in the process
However, a problem arises because the profits
of these independent services are used for dif
ferent things. Some of the bookstore's profits
go to scholarship funds, whereas Marriott's
profits are solely Marriott's.
Despite the downfalls of this idea, it can be
developed into something successful for stu
dents if changes are made to protect both stu
dents and Marriott. Until then, students will
have to either handle using real credit cards or
eating cafeteria food. Jennifer Wing
Tar Heel
BCC deserves top prior
Editor's note: The author is the Black Cul
tural Center project leader in the Department
of Minority and Women's Affairs.
In recent months the student body has been
inundated with both the positive and negative
rhetoric surrounding the building of the Alumni
Center and the Student Recreation Center.
Lost in this crossfire is the continuing effort to
build a Black Cultural Center. While I come to
you not to deny the benefits of either the
Alumni Center or the SRC to the University
community, I do question the commitment and
priorities of the University in the effort to build
a Black Cultural Center.
After an extremely long and bitter struggle,
the BCC was established on July 1, 1988, as a
new department within the Division of Student
Affairs with the approval of the University
administration. The "temporary" BCC site was
established in a small area of the Student
Union which formerly housed several snack
vending machines. While this gesture may
have been seen as the end-all token of appease
ment to many people, even as the BCC was
establishing itself, the BCC Planning Commit
tee began meeting to discuss plans for the
"real" BCC. In September, the committee
completed a feasibility study for the construc
tion of a BCC which calls for a 23,000 square
foot building (Howell Hall is 25,000 square
feet) at a cost of approximately $2.92 million.
The proposed building includes a library, a
reception gallery, a media room a multi-purpose
room, a musicdance studio, a kitchen,
office space and yes, even restrooms!
In the year that has passed since the estab
lishment of the BCC, several disturbing events
have taken place which bring into question the
University's commitment concerning the
construction of a BCC. An Alumni Center was
proposed. A site was chosen. Construction
promptly began this summer. Why was this
degree of urgency not shown concerning the
Crum's performance
did merit criticism
To the editor:
On behalf of Dave Glenn, I
would like to address the letter by
Chris Harff ("Stop blaming Crum
for football failures," Oct. 20) in
which he criticizes Glenn's ideas
on Dick Crum, former head foot
ball coach.
Mr. Harff, obviously you have
little knowledge about the UNC
football program. Allow me to
explain the ideology players use
in determining where they want to
play in college. High school foot
ball players want to go to a school
which they like, which is a defi
nite power in the ACC and which
will give them an incentive (a
scholarship, for instance) to play
at that school. In the 1970s and
early 1980s, the two teams in the
ACC were North Carolina and
Clemson. Consequently, a major
ity of high school players wanted
Public should have say
It was a clash of the Titans the sanctity of
the artist to "paint what he sees" came face to
face with the unpredictable demands of gov
ernment funding. Our own Sen. Helms, in
leading the efforts to reduce National Endow
ment for the Arts (NEA) funding in the amount
used to sponsor two sexually explicit and relig
iously offensive exhibits, stands convicted of
violating the ages-old prerogative of the artist.
Because I am going to find for the defendant
in this case, let me explain that I am myself an
aspiring artist, a writer. I have three unpub
lished books and numerous essays at home, if
anyone is interested. Furthermore, two years
ago I quit my job to write and to study writing.
Obviously, I support the prerogative of the
artist.
However, as someone who has worked full
time for years and who continues to work to
support himself, I also support the rights of the
taxpayer. And the most obvious argument for
the NEA funding cut is that, while the artist can
create whatever he or she chooses, the tax
payer should not be forced to pay for it. While
this raises the undesirable specter of our sena
tors deciding which art is "worthy" of our
James Sweet
Guest Writer
BCC construction? Perhaps even more graphic
and definitely more pertinent is the case of the
SRC. Former CAA President Carol Geer's
poorly-conceived proposal steamrolled
through Student Congress and passed easily
in the February referendum vote. At $13 per
person, little did the students know that they
were getting a building which has no proposed
restrooms, is in reality nothing more than a
student funded annex to Fetzer Gym and may
never truly be student-run after all. I am sure
that these minor errors will be corrected be
fore actual construction begins on the SRC;
however, this does not excuse the system's
willingness to accept such a shoddy proposal
bestowed upon it as one student's personal
legacy. Perhaps the students should have
questioned the viability of the SRC before
they so hastily agreed to fund it.
Finally, I would like to make a few com
ments on the apparent priorities of the Univer
sity community. As the BCC Planning Com
mittee organized and took proper steps toward
reaching its ultimate goal, the University com
munity embraced and hastily proceeded with
plans to build two new facilities centrally fo
cused on athletics. In an age when the Univer
sity wants to maintain its reputation as one of
the top academic institutions in this country,
how is it that these two facilities were so
quickly approved while the BCC was put on
the back burner? The academic integrity of the
University depends upon additions like the
BCC which promote intellectual, cultural and
social diversity. Athletic concerns such as the
Alumni Center and the SRC should be consid
erably lower priorities.
Readers9 For em
to go to these two schools.
Enter Dick Crum. When Dick
Crum became head coach in 1 978,
he had the cream of the crop play
ers to work with. And for five or
six years after he became head
coach, he still was recruiting good
players not because of him, but
because UNC was winning its ball
games. Therefore, it comes as no
surprise that Carolina should have
gone to six bowl games. Eventu
ally, however, word started to
spread about Crum as a coach. He
ran the same plays over and over,
yet they were successful because
he had players who could make
them work. But his attitude and
monotony, as well as inconsis
tency, preceded him. Fewer play
ers wanted to play for him. They
wanted to play for Carolina, true,
but with a more innovative, origi
nal, well-organized staff and an
exciting team, none of which Dick
Crum could offer. Four of the
worst recruiting years on record
resulted. Then we got to see if
Dick Crum really could make
things work, and as it turned out,
he couldn't. It was the same old
ball game. Run, run, run, punt.
Dick Crum was paid to leave. He
received over $900,000 to leave
before his contract was up. I be
lieve if I were paid that much
money, I would have left UNC
quietly as well.
Enter Mack Brown. A man with
a plan. He looked at what he had
and accepted that little good could
come from it. Mr. Harff, you have
stated that "proven coaches do not
make excuses." Mack Brown has
a definite excuse for his record
here. Its name: Dick Crum and his
recruiting maladies.
But Mack waded through his
miserable first season and came
out on top. He is straight with the
college, he is optimistic, he has a
good attitude about football and
he isn't afraid to let the quarter
back pass the ball! (It may not
work every time, but practice
Dale Berry hill
Guest Writer
patronage, it is nevertheless a legitimate point.
Freedom of expression is merely one of the
rights inherent in a government in which the
people are the rulers. And if the people are the
rulers, they have the right to grant or withhold
funding as they please, even if they are doing
so because they are uneducated dullards who
cannot see the artistic value in a photograph of
a man dressed in full sado-masochistic leather
regalia.
I'll admit that I'm not particularly comfort
able with the idea of taxpayers exercising this
right in a specialized area such as art. But their
right to do so sprang from the same rationalist
philosophy as did freedom of expression
the philosophy that the individual is supreme.
Argue against one right and you undermine
the other.
With the two legitimate rights colliding
(and with the one holding the purse strings the
UNC
The new BCC is going to become a reality,
but there are two major questions that remain
unanswered. When will it be built and from
where will the money come? The first question
cannot be answered without first answering the
second question. Several proposals have been
offered by the BCC Planning Committee, in
cluding having a fund raising drive, obtaining
grants and raising student fees. The problem
with the first two is that they are long drawn out
processes with no guarantees. If we were to
wait on these, we may not see ground broken on
the BCC until 1992. On the other hand, an
approval of a February 1990 bond referendum
raising student fees could enable ground to be
broken as early as late 1990.
With the recent tuition increases and the
student fee increase due to the SRC, I realize
that I am asking a lot. The increase would be
quite small compared to the $13 per student
paid for the SRC (somewhere between $5 and
$7), and I feel that the benefits would be much
greater. While the priorities and commitments
of this campus would be questioned by this
referendum, so too would the state of race
relations.
It would be redundant for me to say that the
BCC is not only for black people on this cam
pus. This point has been argued numerous times
and can be proven by the overwhelming num
ber of whites who have shown up at race rela
tions workshops at the present BCC. The real
question here is whether whites are willing to
fund a facility whose main focus is the black
cultural and intellectual experience in America.
Ethnocentrism has no place on a campus as
diverse as this one, especially when the point in
question costs so very little. You just spent $ 13
for a gym addition. How about $6 for a Black
Cultural Center?
James H. Sweet is a senior political science
major from Charlotte.
makes perfect.)
Word spread again of big changes
at Carolina. Interest in the high
schools toward Carolina rose.
Consequently, the 1989 recruiting
year was the best one in six years.
Now, Mack Brown has a future
team, chosen by him and his staff,
which he feels will make the Caro
lina football team great once again.
Incidentally, Mr. Harff, Dick
Crum has a 0-7 record at Kent State,
with more experienced players. So
if you think he's "doing well," then
you need to think again. It's one
thing to argue a point logically, but
unless you have the information to
make a case against the sports edi
tor, whose job it is to know what's
what in sports, please do the people
who really know about Dick Crum's
athletic program and football in
general a favor and get your facts
straight before you speak up.
SHANE HASTY
Sophomore
Journalism
on art funds
probable winner), what can we say about the
unsettling prospect of the government control
ling art? Does the NEA funding cut mean, as a
museum asserted in a full-page ad, that we are
letting "politics kill Art?"
Of course . not. Art does not live or die by
government funding. It's ironic that the art
world is utilizing the same type of rhetoric for
which "moralists" such as Jesse Helms are so
often attacked. The art world should be careful:
the contention that the power to cut funding is
the power to destroy would not lead to more
funding, but to a separation of Art and State
allowing no funding at all.
Like it or not, we are stuck with a hybrid. We
will support art, and we will attach as few
strings as possible, but there are lines that
cannot be crossed without awakening even the
great silent majority. Those lines are pretty far
out on the horizon of good taste, and they are
clearly visible. In crossing them, the art world
has brought this situation, and the dangerous
precedents it sets, on itself.
Dale A. Berryhill is a graduate student in
English from Raleigh.
sty at