8The Daily Tar HeelTuesday, November 14, 1989
IjeSatlyUfetrUM
N0To GREW AMERICAN SNK)KH)UT - MOV. 16
Cigarettes . . . Baotfy nature .
97th year of editorial freedom
Sharon Kebschull, Editor
vmmmm
MARY Jo DUNNINGTON, Editorial Page Editor
JUSTIN McGuiRE, University Editor
KAREN DUNN, Slate and National Editor
TOM PARKS, Business Editor
Dave Glenn, Swts Editor
MELANIE BLACK, Design Editor
TAMMY BLACKARD, Editorial Page Editor
WILLIAM TAGGART, University Editor
Jessica Lanning, City Editor
CARA BONNETT, Arts and Features Editor
Kelly Thompson, Omnibus Editor
DAVID SurOVVIECKI, Photography Editor
JULIA COON, News Editor
liaa3 h TTMZlttTN
Curriculum changes
Report suggests positive steps for UNC
board
opinion
Two weeks ago,
the General Educa
tion Curriculum
Evaluation Commit- -
tee released a preliminary report that cri
tiqued the structure and quality of UNC's
general education curriculum. While the
committee concluded that general educa
tion at UNC is sound, it also pointed out
curriculum problems affecting both fac
ulty and students. In response to these
concerns, the committee recommended
some changes including concrete re
forms that, if implemented, will consti
tute a positive first step toward improving
education at UNC.
. Some of the recommendations merely
pointed up deficiencies that the University
must continue to address. For example, the
call for the administration's continued
efforts to secure funding for development
of the curriculum and the suggestion that
each department discuss the aims of gen
eral education are necessary and some
what timeless focal points for adminis
trators and faculty that do not require spe
cific immediate reform.
. The committee also suggested specific
changes that would allow students more
flexibility in meeting the upper-level per
spective requirements flexibility that
would undoubtedly benefit students, par
ticularly those seeking double majors. The
committee recommended that courses in a
student's major be allowed to fulfill per
spective requirements and that B.A. stu
dents be allowed to choose to omit one of
the five perspectives.
While the University has a strong re
sponsibility to see that students receive a
well-rounded education, the committee
found that UNC's General College and
upper-level perspective requirements are
in many cases stricter than those of other
schools. A report by the National Endow-
What's in a name?
AIDS testing needs to be anonymous
ment for the Humanities found that of the
nation's institutions for higher learning,
37 percent allow a student to earn a degree
without taking any history, and 77 percent
will grant a degree to a student who has not
studied a foreign language statistics that
reflect very poorly on American colleges
and universities. But given the General
College perspectives requirements at UNC,
education would not suffer if more upper
level flexibility were permitted.
Another particularly commendable
point of the committee's report is the sug
gestion that departments consider requir
ing students to take a capstone course in
their major. One shortcoming with Ameri
can education in general is the narrow
focus within disciplines; courses, such as
capstones, that try to help students under
stand how various disciplines are interre
lated could only improve the quality of
education.
Overall, the changes suggested by the
committee are a good balance between
calls for tangible change and recognition
of more long-range problems that need
attention now. None of the suggestions
would mean overly radical change. In fact,
future re-evaluation of the curriculum may
reveal that further reform is needed to
ensure that students are getting the best
possible education. But as a first step, the
points made by the committee are valuable
and should be addressed.
The committee wants reactions from
the University community on its report.
Because the recommendations outlined in
the report, if adopted, will affect all admin
istrators, faculty and students alike, this
input is extremely important. Students in
particular should make an effort to let the
committee know their feelings on the rec
ommended changes after all, the point
of improving the curriculum is to benefit
students.
It is a battle between confidentiality and
public fear. Anonymous testing for the HIV
virus, which can result in AIDS, has become a
heated debate in today's society. Despite the
N.C. General Assembly's recommendation to
begin using confidential testing, which would
require patients to give a name and address, the
Commission for Health Services decided last
week to continue anonymous AIDS testing in
North Carolina, assuring patients complete
anonymity and protection from possible social
and employer discrimination.
Most patients who mhhhmhmhmhmi
take the AIDS identifi
cation test choose to
remain anonymous. If . . . . n .
the conditions for (USCF lllimatlOn II it IS
AIDS testing changed,
fewer people would cione confidentially, not
take the test un- p
doubtedly hindering nnrm vrnnil;l v
research and statistical J muuaij.
projects. Under the
Testing could lead to
anonymous testing procedures, important gen
eral information can still be gathered without
increasing the patient's fear of exposure. Forc
ing the patient to reveal his name, address and
other easily identifiable information would only
frighten possible patients from taking the test
making the statistics and research erroneous
and the search for a cure more difficult to attain.
. According to state guidelines, agencies that
test for the AIDS virus cannot force any per
sonal information from the patient, but infor
mation about race, sex and age can be requested
and given to the state health department. State
and national statistics can then be compiled
without jeopardizing the patient's confidenti
ality. , ; Opponents of anonymous testing argue that
certain people like doctors, sexual partners and
employers of HIV-infected persons have a right
to. this medical information. Doctors who
demand this information claim they have a
v right to protect themselves, but a doctor should
"'always assume a patient is not healthy and
should be wary. If a doctor can demand to know
if a patient is infected with the HIV virus, it
gives the doctor a reason to deny the patient
assistance and pass the patient on to a doctor
who will care for him.
Partners of HIV-infected persons do have
the right to know if their partner is infected with
the disease, but the promise of confidentiality
instead of complete anonymity would not
completely protect partners. If a person fears
infection, but also fears identification when
tested, the person may more likely choose not
to be tested leaving both the possible victim
mmmmmwmm and the partner in the
dark. Health agencies
now offer counseling
for HIV-positive pa
tients and services that
help contact the part
ners about the disease.
While there are cases
when the infected pa
tient does not inform
the partner, there is
nothing to suggest that the partner would be
more protected if the victim's name is released.
But the most severe consequence of reveal
ing personal information would be the danger
of discrimination by employers and society.
Employers have access to the results recorded
in an employee's medical records, and since
there is no law against homosexual discrimina
tion, the HIV-positive person would not be
protected. Even if such legislation existed, how
well would it work or be enforced? Further
more, because of society's insecurities about
the disease, social tensions would worsen and
cause the infected person to be labeled an
outcast.
Anonymous testing for the AIDS virus is
the most protective and fair for all involved.
Few valid arguments can support confidential
testing as opposed to anonymous testing.
Confidential testing could place a person's
private medical records on a pedestal for every
body to scrutinize. Let's allow those afflicted
with the disease a quiet life instead of exacer
bating their worries with personal prejudice
and fear. Jennifer Wing
The Daily Tar Heel
Business and advertising: Kevin Schwartz, director; Bob Bates, advertising director; Leslie Humphrey, classified ad
manager.
Business staff:Sabrina Goodson, manager; Allison Ashworth, assistant manager; Dana Cooper and Kimberly Moretz,
receptionists; Monica Paris, news clerk; Laura Richards, typist.
Classified advertising: Kirsien Burkart, assistant manager; Janet Goidon and Angela Spivey, assistants.
Display advertising: Amanda Tilley, advertising manager; Lo.ra Gay, Kristi Greeson, Beth Harding, Lavonne Leinster,
Tracy Proctor, Kevin Reperowitz, Alicia Satterwhite, Pam Thompson and Jill Whitley, account representatives; Kim Blass,
creative director; Pam Strickland, marketing director; Sherrie Davis, Carole Hedgepeth, Ingrid Jones and Tracy King, sales
assistants.
Production: Bill Leslie, manager; Anita Bentley, assistant manager; Chad Campbell, Stephanie Locklear, John Nipp,
assistant.
Phone: Display advertising: 962-1163; Classified advertising: 962-0252
Distribution: RDS Carriers.
Printing: The Village Companies.
for. p02.FUNve - - .
It il
: - .tcGe the. o4ANiceb -tvwt
OU vMLA uv eMOuGH
To upee, through
39-9,
ta cp
4
7
Doing the freedom boogie in Berlin
In late May and early June, radical change
seemed imminent and inevitable in China.
What began as isolated student protest in
Beijing mushroomed into mass demonstra
tions involving not only students, but also
workers and even some military officers. The
peaceful protesters stood up to tanks and won
or so it appeared. The world watched in
excitement, expecting to see democratic re
form, but just when it looked like the hardlin
ers were ready to concede to the demands for
political, economic and social reform, they
began a brutal crackdown, killing many civil
ians. Pictures of unarmed demonstrators being
mowed down by tanks are still vivid in many
minds.
In Eastern Europe, the groundswell for
reform has been far more successful. As the
size of protests and demonstrations grew a few
weeks ago, no one knew what to expect. Erich
Honecker, then the East German leader, said
his countrymen would be wise to remember
the repression of Tiananmen Square. Despite
his ominous warning, East Germans fled by
the thousands to the West through Hungary.
The government had to take action it was
obvious that the protests were spiraling into a
mass movement and, as a UNC history profes
. sor said, East Germany would fall like a ripe
plum if reforms did not begin immediately.
The East Germans got the travel visas they
demanded, and now they're demanding free
dom. This weekend millions walked through
the crumbling Berlin Wall to have a taste of the
"free West." As some Germans danced and
took pieces of the ultimate symbol of the Cold
War, others turned the streets of Berlin (by
tomorrow, East and West Berlin could be
Chris
Ammmmm.m m m m
- Vtr O
m v; iter
vi aKl Staff Columnist
anachronisms) into block parties. People rushed
to stores to buy coffee, chocolate, electronics
and toys. Th? pictures show people heady with
excitement over their newly granted freedom.
But what does all this mean? The most
accurate description is chaos. It's clear Soviet
leader Mikhail Gorbachev supports the recent
reforms. His refusal to send the Red Army into
East Germany at the request of Honecker, and
his endorsement of the destruction of the Ber
lin Wall should convince skeptics of his inten
tions, but it's impossible to know how much
change will continue or how much change
Soviet hardliners will tolerate. This makes the
decision-making process in Washington a
nightmare. White House officials complain
that any time they think a situation begs action,
the scenario changes. Every preconception
about the political structure of Eastern Europe
changes daily, leading some State Department
officials to express a longing for the simpler,
more stable "Cold War days."
Fortunately, those days seem to be fading,
and the events of the last few days combined
with reform in Poland, Bulgaria, and the Soviet
Union are altering the political map of Europe
faster than anyone predicted.
George Bush and the State Department must
not let this opportunity to aid in the democra
tization of Eastern Europe and the possible
reunification of Germany (whether de facto or
official). The situation in Eastern Europe
(possibly another soon-to-be anachronism)
begs creative solutions, and the Bush admini
stration could display needed leadership in this
area, or it could take a more passive role. Will
we trade more technology to Warsaw Pact
countries? What impact will all the upheaval
have on troops in Europe? Will the dominoes
continue to fall in Eastern Europe? These
questions must be answered in the upcoming
summits between German leaders and between
Bush and Gorbachev. Bush's caution (read
inaction) in previous incidents has earned him
the highest approval ratings in recent history,
so a leadership plan is by no means impending.
The European Economic Community could
also play a key role in easing the chaos in
Europe. Gorbachev is betting that by encour
aging trade between East and West, less em
phasis will be placed on military spending,
allowing him to revive Russia's ailing econ
omy. Nothing is unbelievable anymore. No text
books on Eastern Europe can explain what has
or what will happen. The best thing the interna
tional community can do is help the East Ger
mans maintain order while encouraging pro
ductive change. Creativity balanced by ration
ality on the part of all actors could unify Europe
to an extent no one would have imagined two
weeks ago. It looks like Potsdamer Place is no
Tiananmen Square.
Chris Landgraffis a junior political science
major from Atlanta, Ga.
Readers' Forum
UNC makes turning
a profit top priority
To the editor:
This is concerning James Bur
roughs' editorial ("Breeding bore
dom: Students ignore education's
purpose") which appeared Nov.
10. While it may very well be true
that many college freshmen are
ill-prepared and may have "inflex
ible ideas about career plans," these
students, to a large extent, are
products of our system. Certainly
not all students can graduate from
private high schools, which is
about the only way they can be
"better prepared" for college. I
could argue about what it would
take to raise the standards of our
public schools all day long, but
this is not really the point I want to
make here.
Upon examination, any intelli
gent person will realize that this
University is a firm, which does
not charitably provide an educa
tion to each individual, but is in
business in order to maximize its
profits like any other firm. For
example, why must out-of-state
students pay astronomical rates for
tuition? Does it really cost UNC
mere to educate these students?
I'm sure there is some ambiguous
rule which attempts to justify these
rates, but in economic terms the
school is maximizing their profits
by charging out-of-state students
higher rates. So what's the signifi
cance? The students at UNC (and ev
ery other university) might be
thought of as victims of legal ex
tortion. We pay tremendous
amounts of money and give ex
traordinary effort and time in hopes
that someday we can realize some
profits of our own. Many of us
don't even realize what our total
costs are for attending UNC, but
be assured the costs are high. The
more classes that we are required
to take, the longer we must pay the
University. After all, it is that
omniscient entity at UNC that
decides which and how many
classes we must pass in order to
make us "more intelligent."
Those of us who have grown
tired of playing this game feel as
though all of our opportunity costs
spent to attend UNC would be
wasted now if we didn't graduate.
So, attending UNC becomes a kind
of addiction that only graduation
can cure. Students are constantly
seeking "to broaden their own
intellect," but many become frus
trated when forced to do so only
under the University's terms.
It is painfully apparent that UNC
is much more concerned about
pleasing its alumni than helping
its students or bettering its faculty.
UNC should be spending more on
lowering the student-to-teacher
ratio (by hiring more faculty)
which will provide a better educa
tion for the students and ease the
tension in the faculty, and it should
be spending less on its relentless
effort to chop down the B ig Woods
for the new Alumni Center. The
University should be for the stu
dents, not the alumni.
For many of us, our reward after
four or more years of college is
nothing more than a piece of pa
per, which by itself can promise us
nothing but 10 years of loan pay
ments. I therefore urge Mr. Bur
roughs to consider other factors
which may cause the effects he is
concerned with and perhaps re
evaluate his opinion. Now, if you
will excuse me, I'm going to the
library to study for an exam.
DANIEL B. RUNDQUIST
Junior
Industrial relations
Letters policy
The Daily Tar Heel welcomes
reader comments and criticisms.
When writing letters to the editor,
please follow these guidelines:
All letters must he dated and
signed by the author(s), with a
limit of two signatures per letter.
UAH letters must be typed and
double-spaced, for ease of editing.
SD
A bad idea that's gotten worse
The Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI,
has long been the center of controversy, both in
Congress and in the homes of pol itically-aware
citizens. However, what SDI was originally,
and what it has become now are two very
different things, and many American people
are not aware of the change.
In March 1983, President Reagan first pro
posed SDI, calling for $26 billion to be spent
on it in research alone. It must be understood
that its mere proposal was a bad idea. It was not
the first anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system to
be put on the national agenda; in the late 1 950s,
the Nike-Zeus system was used by the United
States, and later dropped in 1962 due to its
ineffectiveness. In 1967, Sentinel came into
existence, but proved inadequate against the
huge number of ICBMs that the Soviet Union
would launch in the event of a nuclear ex
change. Then, in 1972, under President Nixon,
came the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, or
SALT. One of the agreements under SALT
was the ABM Treaty, which allowed only two
ABM systems in a nation. This was later
reduced to only one, which could only be used
to protect the capital. Although Washington
has no ABM system at this time, SDI would be
a blatant violation of this treaty, which has
been in existence now for 17 years. Because of
the fluctuations in U.S.-Soviet relations, vio
lating such a long-standing treaty would be
very risky at best.
Nathan Ballingrud
Guest Writer
When it was first conceived, SDI was meant
to form an umbrella over the United States,
protecting the population from Soviet ICBMs.
However, a "leakage" problem was soon dis
covered. When an ICBM is launched, it passes
through four stages. The first, the boost stage,
lasts for five minutes at the most. Here space
based satellites could strike the missiles with
particle beams, which would deactivate the
missile and the eight to 12 warheads it carries.
The next is the post-boost phase, which can
last up to 10 minutes. Here the warheads sepa
rate from the launcher, and an equal number of
decoys are released as well. A satellite could
still stop them, but it would be much more
difficult because of the sudden increase in
targets. The third stage is the midcourse phase,
which lasts approximately a half an hour. At
this point, it is virtually too late. Here is where
the leakage made itself known; the goal was to
have the umbrella reach 95 percent effective
ness, but even then there would be up to 125
million deaths in the United States.
There would also be nuclear winter, which
can be ensured by 100 nuclear explosions
(compare that number with the number of
warheads the Soviet Union would be lobbing
over here, which, including ICBMs, SLBMs
and strategic bombers, would be roughly
10,300). Incidentally, scientists have discov
ered that a nuclear winter could trigger the next
Ice Age, which is due to occur at any time now.
It was at this point that SDI changed. No
longer is it meant to shield the American citi
zens from nuclear warheads. Rather, it has
become a. point-defense system. That is, its
main objective is now to protect our own arse
nal of nuclear weapons. This is, of course, to
ensure the completely rational policy of mu
tual assured destruction, which would pretty
much demolish civilization on at least two
continents, probably three.
Obviously, SDI is riddled with problems. Its
cost would exceed $ 1 trillion; it would defy the
ABM Treaty; and the satellites would be ex
tremely vulnerable to attack. But even advo
cates of the initiative must find objection with
its "evolution" to a point-defense system, on
moral grounds if nothing else. The message is
interesting, to say the least: let's spend mind
numbing amounts of money to save our bombs.
... after all, we can always make more people.
Nathan Ballingrud is a freshman Russian
and East European area studies major from
Asheville.