i
8The Daily Tar HeelFriday, February 9, 1990
atly ar Mm
97th year of editorial freedom
Sharon Kebschull, Editor
JUSTIN McGuiRE, University Editor
KAREN DUNN, State and National Editor
TOM PARKS, Business Editor
Jamie Rosenberg, Sfwrts Editor
MELAN1E BLACK, Design Editor
Julia Coon, News Editor
EVAN ElLE, Photography Editor
AMY WaJDA, University Editor
James Burroughs, Editorial rage Editor
Si IEILA LONG, City Editor
CARA BONNETT, Arts and Features Editor
LISA ReiCHLE, Omnibus Editor
Steve Wilson, News Editor
Pete Corson, Qirtoon Editor
lW Jit,! f
Commercial questions
Residents should monitor deck plans
board
opinion
Downtown"
Chapel Hill has long
experienced prob
lems involving traf- -
fic and parking, almost to the point where
these two issues would appear on every
residents' list of major nuisances in this
town. A seemingly endless trail of Univer
sity students and employees and town
employees pour into the downtown area
every work day, and while an efficient
mass transit system does a great deal to
help the situation, the amount of traffic
pushes the limit of downtown streets and
parking lots. The impending construction
of the Rosemary Street parking facility
could help end the long anticipation of
adequate commuter parking downtown,
and the location would not spoil the ap
pearance of the area. But recent discussion
of adding commercial space to the facility
is a topic which should receive heavy input
from both town residents and downtown
merchants.
The parking facility to be placed on
the present parking lot at the comer of
Rosemary and Henderson streets as soon
as December 1991 will provide about
350 parking spaces for commuters. The
deck would relieve the demand placed on
the several lots located on Rosemary Street,
but provisions will have to be made for the
large amount of traffic flowing into the
small Henderson and Rosemary Street
intersection.
Adding commercial space to the area
would only worsen that traffic further and
add more competition to struggling down
town businesses who must fight high rent.
The plan for the facility includes a plazdf
area on top with some room for commer
cial development and maybe a small park
to beautify the facility and the surrounding
area. But the question to ask is whether
such development is worth the time and
money if it could potentially go unused.
While the parking facility could help in
crease customer business downtown, it
certainly will not attract customers away
from Franklin Street with a few shops and
a hot-dog stand. Therefore, it seems as if
one of the main purposes of the facility
should be to bring people back to down
town Chapel Hill for shopping, eating and
enjoyment while enhancing the now stag
nant business activity there.
Of course, none of the discussed devel
opment should commence at the expense
of needed parking spaces, but a landscaped
park area would be a great addition to the
area. A small park, one that could be geared
more to the community than is the
University's McCorkle Place across the
street, it would accent well the surround
ing residential areas and provide an attrac
tion for families visiting downtown.
This discussion of development, com
mercial or otherwise, brings serious ques
tions of money into the issue. While the
parking facility itself will be funded through
revenue bonds, a money source for the
accompanying plaza is still undecided.
Town council members have not ruled out
a tax increase, saying only that they want to
make the area more pleasant for towns
people who might use it. This is where
Chapel Hill residents must enter the pic
ture. They must make their opinions known,
as this will have a huge impact on the area,
both in the way it looks and its costs. If
done well, the parking facility could add a
needed dimension to the community.
Fading fast
Reverse federal rules to save wetlands
This week the Bush administration forfeited
an excellent opportunity to demonstrate its
dedication to the protection and preservation of
the American environment. The landscape of
this country was filled once with beautiful
wetlands and their accompanying wildlife, but
these marshes are disappearing at the rate of
500,000 acres a year underneath an unending
wave of industry and urban development. Less
than 100 million acres of such land now re
mains, a relatively low amount considering the
broad expanse that once existed. A federal
agreement was created in November for the
protection of the wetlands, but the White House
altered that policy on mmmhh
Wednesday, placing
loopholes in the so
called protection and
leaving environmen
talists justifiably angry.
Wetlands, includ
ing swamps and
marshes, provide an
important breeding
ground and vital habi-
tat for various kinds of wildlife. These areas
also filter pollution from surface water sources
and replenish underground water supplies.
Many of the large swamps, such as the Florida
Everglades and the Georgia Okefenokee, con
tain dense vegetation important to the atmos
phere. While these two particular wetlands
have federal protection, many smaller, scat
tered marshes, including those in North Caro
lina coastal areas, do not.
President Bush included the protection of
wetlands among the environmental issues pre
sented during his 1988 election campaign, but
Wednesday's announcement marked a depar
ture from his previous "no-net-loss" goal for
the wetlands. The November 1989 agreement
made provisions for the protection of wetland
areas from the threat of development, but the
The wetlands disappear
at the rate of 500,000
acres a year beneath a
wave of industry.
recent alteration allows exceptions to such
protection and does not even require the re
placement of lost land. As a result, the federal
government can grant permission for the de
struction of wetlands in cases it regards as
necessary usually the construction of high
ways and airports.
Most disturbing about this recent decision is
that it followed severe objections from William
Reilly, the administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and Bush's chief environ
mental official. The White House instead de
cided to follow Chief of Staff John Sununu's
advice for altering the agreement.
tmmmaiamam Sununu obviously
has played too large a
role in environmental
affairs this week alone.
The official's views
greatly affected the
president's Monday
announcement to seek
further study of global
warming instead of
MaaHHHHMaaM taking action. Such
hesitation worried not only environmentalists,
but also many world officials who are con
cerned about this serious global threat.
The nation's wetlands are a valuable and
exhaustible resource for this country. While the
new federal agreement will slow the disappear
ance of this land, the exceptions to the protec
tion provisions will slowly add up.
The Bush administration must realize the
severity of advisers' warnings and the impor
tance of this, and other, environmental issues
facing the nation. Business interests and urban
expansion are obviously of great importance to
the future of this country, but definitely not at
the expense of valuable land and wildlife. Now
that they've reversed the wetlands policy once,
let them do it again. James Burroughs
The Daily Tar Heel
The Daily Tar Heel is published by the DTH Publishing Corp., a non-profit North
Carolina corporation, Monday-Friday, according to the University calendar.
Callers with questions about billing or display advertising should dial 962-1 1 63
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Classifed ads can be reached at 962-0252. Editorial
questions should be directed to 962-02450246.
The Daily Tar Hoe! office... Suite 104 Carolina Union
Campus mail address ........... CB 5210 Box 49, Carolina Union
U.S. Mail address ... P.O. Box 3257, Chapel Hill, NC 27515-3257
Daily Tar Heel board opinion editorials are the majority view of the editorial board, which
consists of the editor, the editorial page editor and three editorial writers. Signed editorials
are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the entire board.
Cartoons and columns represent the author's view.
Readers' Forum
Leaders want student
input on parking deck
To the editor:
We would like to respond to
Monday's board opinion titled
"Advantage alumni: Students
should get share of parking." As
presidents of the Residence Hall
Association and the Carolina
Athletic Association we have been
involved with the Educational
Foundation (Ram's Club) in dis
cussing the idea of putting a park
ing deck on the existing Hinton
James tennis courts and replacing
the courts on the upper level of the
deck. At this point the parking
tennis facility is just an idea it
will remain just that until the fea
sibility of such a project is deter
mined, and more importantly until
student opinion is solicited.
At this point in the discussion
of the deck it is difficult to deter
mine student opinion accurately
because the feasibility of such a
plan is still undetermined. Once
the Facilities Planning Department
has given us a more specific feasi
bility study on the idea, we will
make that information available to
students and wait for your re
sponse. Our organizations only
interests are to fulfill the wants
and needs of the students this is
no exception. We are most defi
nitely aware of the history of the
Ram's Club's dealings with stu
dents and have been cautious since
the first mention of the deck. The
memory of the Alumni Center
planning that surprised and out
raged most students is still a fresh
reminder of how vigorously we
must protect student interests.
The fact that students have
expressed such an interest at this
early stage is a good sign and we
hope that students will continue to
express their candid opinions. Our
job is to put students ideas into
action. We will only support this
project if you do.
LIZ JACKSON
Junior
Physical Therapy
LISA FRYE
Junior
History
Martial arts clubs do
not need to compete
To the editor:
I write in response to the Feb. 2
article, "Schedule conflict spurs
club merge." The article contains
several instances of misinforma
tion and misquotation. I wish to
point these out and then explain
the position of one party involved.
First, the article explains that
Dr. Seong S. Choi (Ph.D in Phys
ics, UNC 1987) has threatened to
resign over a conflict between the
Carolina Martial Arts Club
(CMAC), of which he is head
instructor, and C.K. Kim's Alli
ance. Dr. Choi's consideration of
this action constitutes no threat to
anyone, only a potentially terrible
loss to the CMAC's members. A
more correct verb would have been
"considered," rather than "threat
ened." In the next sentence the article
reports that Dr. Choi "told" club
members to join C.K. Kim's Alli
ance. As a member of the CMAC,
let me assure everyone that there
was no order, but rather a sugges
tion. After exhausting all other
alternatives to regain the club's
time slot in the Fetzer Gym multi
purpose room. Dr. Choi saw the
merger as the next logical step,
following the old adage "if you
can't beat 'em, join em." How
ever, the entire CMAC made a
collective decision to join C.K.
Kim's club; Dr. Choi acted only as
an advisor.
Second, the article makes sev
eral misquotations of Nathan Ligo
(vice president and blackbelt
member of the CMAC). It attrib
utes Mr. Ligo with the statement
that C.K. Kim's Alliance is a non
profit business. Mr. Ligo in truth
said the opposite that C.K.
Kim's is a for-profit business in
his telephone interview with the
reporter.
The article also reads'"Because
Choi lives in Raleigh, the later
time became an inconvenience,'
said Nathan Ligo." Again Mr. Ligo
was misquoted. Dr. Choi does
research daily in the physics and
physical education departments of
UNC, so the fact that he resides in
Raleigh has no importance; he is
on campus anyway.
Dr. Choi's discouragement
stems from Rick Saterlee's (assis
tant intramural-recreational direc
tor) unethical decision, followed
by no correction on the part of Mr.
Saterlee or his superiors. The
decision forced a larger number of
students, led by a better-qualified
instructor (fifth-degree blackbelt
compared to first), with a nine
year tradition of educating UNC
students out of a work-out loca
tion it had held since Fetzer
Gymnasium's open ing. I also point
out that the CMAC is a self-governed
institution by the student,
of the students, for the students.
C.K. Kim's Alliance operates with
outside influence from a central
office in New York and a local one
in Greensboro.
Along with the unfairness of
the decision, it disturbs Dr. Choi
that two clubs practicing the same
martial art, Korean Tae Kwon Do,
now exist in conflict. The situ
ation does not comply with the
Martial Way Dr. Choi teaches his
students; this is why Dr. Choi
considers resignation and re-location.
The CMAC offered from the
beginning to share the room with
C.K. Kim's Alliance, but the new
club refused. Mr. Saterlee told Dr.
Choi on Jan. 30 that sharing the
room would not be possible be
cause of safety reasons (too
crowded). Mr. Saterlee had not
done his homework. Several years
ago, the CMAC shared this same
room with a club twice the size of
C.K. Kim's; not then, nor ever has
there been an accident.
In a Feb. 5 meeting, all mem
bers present of both clubs agreed
to share the room, the solution
offered by the CMAC in the first
place. This mix-up has been at
least momentarily resolved, and
only after the students' decision. I
am relieved that the assistant IM
REC director's poor decision has
not cost the CMAC members Dr.
Choi's immeasurable guidance.
EDDIE KIRBY
Sophomore
Economics
Pro-choice view mot
unlike
Nazis
To the editor:
Several years ago when the search
was on for Josef Mengele, the former
Nazi physician who not only killed people in
concentration camps but also performed
medical experiments on them, I was impressed
by the fact that according to those who knew
him after the war that at no time did he ever
believe that what he had done was wrong
only that others had made him stop doing it.
According to Mengele, the Jewish people were
fair game for subjection to torture or death
based on his belief that they were "worthless
lives." This mentality, the rationalization that
choosing to kill presumed inferior or sub
human beings of a particular type is justified
because they are considered unequal to hu
mans by the scientific and legal establishments
(and so possess insufficient worth as to pre
clude their extinction), deeply disturbs me
because today in 1990 it is an unavoidable
precept in the argument of the pro-choice
advocate.
I will agree with those who advocate the
unrestricted legal right to abortion that un
wanted pregnancy is a potentially traumatic
experience. Yes, there are health risks. Yes, an
unwanted child may be unloved or abused.
Yes, pregnancy may result in social or familial
ostracism, disrupted schooling or even pov
erty for the mother and child. But until we as a
society decide to stamp out child abuse, illiter
acy or poverty by killing en masse people
already living in these situations, then we
should likewise be compelled to seek alterna
tives to abortion in attempting to prevent these
prevalent human problems. If abortion is per
formed for the sake of reducing legitimate
maternal suffering, or if an aborted fetus is
better off not existing than to be subjected to
these conditions later as a child; then why do
we not presently kill children who are already
abused or living in poverty? Should not their
suffering also be reduced? Would not they also
be better off not existing? And would not we be
left with fewer social problems, lower rates of
poverty, less abuse and less suffering?
Of course, this is exactly what Josef Mengele
was trying to achieve in his country. By seek
ing to rid his nation of a problem through
extinguishing "worthless lives," the welfare of
German society would in his estimation auto
matically rise and at an acceptable cost to
those who were forced to die for this politically
and socially acceptable solution. Today in
1 990 the same argument is made with regard to
Michael Evans
Guest Writer
resolving the issue of unwanted pregnancy
through abortion on demand; that is, a human
fetus is not considered to be of sufficient worth
to merit its legal protection, as the emotional or
economic needs of the mother (andor father)
outweigh the complete life value of the yet-to-be-born
fetus.
In order to justify this position, the pro
choice advocate must therefore conclusively
maintain beyond a shadow of a doubt that
abortion does not take human life per se, or else
he or she is forced to concede that a valuable
living creature may in fact be legally killed by
another who possesses the inalienable consti
tutional right to do so through the mere exer
cise of will, or "choice" if for no other reason.
And even the notorious Dr. Josef Mengele
would never have admitted to doing that, as it
was the taking of"worthless lives" which went
on in Germany (with, like abortion in the
United States today, the complicity of both the
legal and medical communities).
The biggest problem with the pro-choice
argument is that it requires someone to decide,
namely the state, that developing genetically
human entities are unequivocally non-human
in order to legalize their killing. Talk about
pushing your morals on someone! You may
consider an opposing "anti-choice" view as an
imposition of unreasonable morality on a preg
nant woman's right to choose, but there is not
greater imposition of a moral system or judg
ment on someone else as that of the advocacy
of subjecting them to death an action which
is both irreversible and final on the sole
basis of one's possessing the inherent right to
choose to kill them, as validated by their dehu
manized and therefore insufficient worth. The
only way therefore for the pro-choice advocate
to circumvent this heinous, ultra-right wing
bigotry is for her or him to move beyond acting
on the belief of when human life begins and
actually know when human life begins; yet, the
fact is that at the present time no scientific
criteria of this nature exists. But even without
this knowledge of nature, given the medical
fact that at only six weeks of gestation the
developing fetus possesses detectable EEG's
already, it is highly probable that conscious
ness exists for many who are already "termi
nated" on a daily basis.
The Nazis likewise possessed a "final solu
tion" to their particular social problems through
"termination" and a similarly absolutist moral
mechanism by which to justify it. Dr. Mengele
among other prominent and highly respected
German doctors, lawyers and statesmen rea
soned that since Jews were indeed "worthless
lives," they were therefore fair game for experi
mentation and death for the benefit of those
whose lives were intrinsically valuable. The
present day advocates of choice concomitantly
legitimize killing another dubious life form for
exactly the same reason: as long as no one else
sees it as human then it is okay to kill it. It is that
simple this is the law in 1990. As John
Bradshaw, noted lecturer, author and clinical
psychologist specializing in family systems
therapy pointed out recently on his PBS series,
"It is our task to recognize that the black mir
acle of Nazism was only the German version,
superbly planned and superbly bungled, of a
universal, contemporary potential."
Hopefully, someday in this country not only
will women achieve full equality with men
politically and economically, but also the day
will come when we stop making scapegoats
and carcasses of pre-born children for the er
rors and emotional inadequacies of both paren
tal sexes, neither of whom are responsible
enough to work to solve their own problems
resulting from their own decisions and volun
tary actions. This too the Nazis did; they chose
to make others suffer and die for their own sake
in the name of a necessary cause. Can we not
learn from this horrible history of humanity
only a generation ago, and instead of being
similarly narcissistic, judgmental and irrespon
sible for our actions, work together to find a
solution to what is our problem? and to
which, I might add, the human fetus is an
uninvited guest.
Fifty years ago, a torn nation rose up and
retaliated against external oppression follow
ing a devastating World War by making scape
goats of an innocent group of people. Must
today's women also rise up and retaliate from
years of exploitation in a male dominated cul
ture by making scapegoats of their own prog
eny? Surely there must be a better, humane
alternative to this dilemma than to destroy
"worthless lives" in the name of choice.
MICHAEL B. EVANS
Graduate
Education
t
t
i
V
I