10The Daily Tar HeelThursday, June 14, 1990
98th year of editorial freedom
Kelly Thompson, Editor
Thomas healy and Cameron Tew Assistant Editor
Brandon Poe, Copy Editor
GRANT HALVERSON, Photography Editor
Staff Writers: Randy Basinger, Paul Boyd, Gigi Branch, Laura Brown, Heidi Fisher,
Lora Gay, Jim Greenhill, Grant Halverson, Andre Hauser, Devon Hyde, Wendy
Joyce; Marissa Mills, Katherine Perry, Brian Springer, John Von Cannon, Eric
Wagnon, Beverley White and Nancy Wykle
Photographer: DAWN DELVECCHIO
Cartoonists: ALEX DeGrAND AND DAVID ESTOYE
Important decisions
School needs to take care of business
With a $5 million donation on the line,
it is difficult to tell if the administration is
more concerned about getting the new
School of Business built as quickly as
possible or about resolving scheduling and
transportation issues first. If the buildings
and grounds committee decision last week
is any indication, construction is the top
priority at this University.
The committee, which is comprised of
faculty and students, has been considering
the Kenan site since April but had not voted
on it because scheduling issues had not
been resolved. At last week's meeting,
committee members were told by Provost
Dennis O'Connor and their own chairman
that Chancellor Paul Hardin had already
decided to take the Kenan site before the
Board of Trustees, and they were asked to
add their support. Two members voted for
Kenan Heights, none voted against and
five abstained.
The fact that the Kenan site would have
been approved eventually is something that
few people would dispute; the point is that
most of the committee members felt un
comfortable approving the site without
addressing its disadvantages first. The most
disturbing part of this incident is that
members of the administration revealed a
communication gap which made it easier
for faculty and student concerns to take a
backseat to construction deadlines.
This lack of communication was simply
incredible. To start with, Hardin denies
that he had decided to take the Kenan site
to the BOT, and says he was waiting for the
committee's decision. One week after the
Sticks and stones
Amid problems Bush goes after flag burning
She's a grand old flag, but how far will
the U.S. government go to ensure people
do not burn the flag or show what some
leaders feel is disrespect for "Old Glory?"
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Monday
that the Federal Flag Protection Act of
1989 violates the free speech guarantee of
the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment
may make some leaders turn their backs on
democracy and freedom for the sake of a
symbol and supposed political beliefs.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were
conceptualized by American leaders like
James Madison, George Washington and
Thomas Jefferson to give the American
people freedom they did not have under the
sovereign rule of Great Britain. These men
designed a document that would provide
Americans with freedom to assemble,
freedom of the press, and the most sacred
of all freedoms; freedom of speech. And
now 200 years after the ratification of the
Constitution to protect these freedoms,
some government leaders have decided to
take it upon themselves to reduce the
freedoms of the people they serve. When
so many countries around the world are
reforming their political beliefs and granting
more freedom to their citizens, it is amaz
ing that the country which has fought the
most to grant its citizens freedoms may
decide to cut the vein of freedom that flows
from every Americans heart.
President George Bush, along with
several members of the Republican party,
has said he will fight for a constitutional -amendment
even more fiercely since the
Supreme Court has struck down the federal
law and will even make a political issue out
of it during the upcoming elections if
necessary. Come on George, most of the
court was appointed by you and former
President Ronald Reagan. There must be
something wrong if your own self-appointed
judges find flaws in a law passed to
curb freedom and democracy. You cannot
rid yourself of a problem you find morally
reprehensible by striking down the docu
ment that grants that freedom itself. It is
hypocrisy.
The United States is in the midst of
perilous economic and social problems that
Editorial Policy
The Daily Tar Heel's board opinion editorials are voted on by the board, which
is composed of the co-editors, opinion editor, forum editor and three editorial
writers. The opinions reflect the board's majority opinion. Signed editorials do not
necessarily reflect the entire board's opinion.
The Daily Tar Heel has three regular staff columnists who write once a week. Their
opinions also do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the board.
committee meeting, even he did not know
the 2-0-5 count. Hardin also said the
committee "typically report(s) to the
BOT...(the BOT) would have trouble with
my recommendation if the committee op
posed it." This is quite a different story
from committee Chairman John Sanders,
who said in an interview with The Daily
Tar Heel "Our responsibility is to try to
represent the faculty interest in advising
the Chancellor.. .Whether we advise him
one way or another is of no interest to the
Board of Trustees."
We may never know the politics of the
committee decision and who knew what,
when, but one thing is clear. Of course the
University should move quickly to use the
donation to its advantage, but doing so at
the expense of faculty and student con
cerns about transportation, scheduling and
even the fate of the undergraduate business
major is simply not acceptable.
The buildings and grounds committee
has made its decision. That cannot, and
should not, be changed. But the adminis
tration must renew its commitment to in
cluding student and faculty input and to
addressing their needs. This incident could
be interpreted as a complete lack of respect
for chancellor's committees, the role they
are supposed to play (as liaisons, not rub
ber stamps) and the people they represent.
Faculty and students can only hope this
regrettable communication gap will be
corrected and that the administration will
work hard to regain our trust. Kelly
Thompson
have rarely been seen in the world. The
country stands in front of the rest of the
world trying to solve these problems and
others like eliminating nuclear arms and
ridding the world of diseases like AIDS.
But all George and the boys can focus on is
flag burning. There is something wrong
when a flag is more important than a child
dying of hunger or a family freezing because
they may not have enough fuel to heat their
home.
Bush says the amendment "is in the best
interest of this country" and Senate Minor
ity Leader Robert Dole, R-Kan., plans to
request a vote on the issue June 14...Flag
Day. Dole's symbolic gesture does a lot to
show the country how minor the issue
really is. The flag is a symbol of our nation,
a great symbol. But that is all the flag is.
Those who decide to desecrate, burn and
deface the flag are despicable, but it is a
right they enjoy under our Constitution.
Moreover, these people's actions do no
harm to the country for whom the flag
waves. Many children have said 'sticks
and stones may break my bones, but names
will never hurt me.' This is one of those
namecalling times every child has had to
face. As Americans we should tolerate the
disgusting action of destroying the flag and
maybe even show contempt and scorn for
those who perform the dastardly deed. But
there is absolutely no way these people
deserve the privilege of seeing a constitu
tional amendment banning flag burning
adorning such a great document.
It is highly unlikely that Bush or the
leaders at Capitol Hill see the burning of
the flag as a serious threat to national
security. If they feel that burning a flag is
such a serious matter let police arrest the
culprits for what they are truly doing, lit
tering. It is time our nations leaders drop
such trivial matters and get on with the true
business at hand. A balanced budget, a
better education for children and better
medical care for the poor would be a more
welcome addition to the second half of
1990 than an amendment banning the
burning of a piece of cloth. Cameron
Tew
JJ To WHAT 3LMS Ar&t I, -r CT f? 3?
UNC-CH must keep great quality
The state is faced with a financial short
fall again this year. And because North
Carolina is bound by its constitution to
maintain a balanced budget, the politicians in
Raleigh are scrambling to find as many band
aids as possible to put over their budget wounds.
One of those proposed band-aids is a one-time
tuition hike following on the heels of permanent
15 percent out-of-state and 20 percent in-state
raises from last year.
But the University is already engulfed in a
budget crisis, and has been for some time. The
faculty and staff have had to find creative, but
often insufficient, ways of running what Time
magazine called in 1966, "The South's best
university." Once the gem of North Carolina
higher education and one of the pre-eminent
universities in the nation, UNC now faces
faltering ratings and prospective mediocrity.
The high quality of faculty and the University's
commitment to education and service will al
ways keep UNC strong, but most indicators
point to a decline from its top-ten rankings in
the past.
While the faculty and staff are facing budget
woes, rising costs and increasingly non-competitive
salaries, students are having to pay
more tuition without receiving an improvement
in services. That's quite a change from 1982,
when The Washington Post wrote about UNC
CH: "Public education is a creed and a passion
in North Carolina. The people of the state make
it a point of pride not only to run a university
that is manifestly one of the finest in the country,
but to keep its doors open to students who
haven't much money."
The constitution of North Carolina calls for
an education that is as "free and practicable" as
possible. The foresight of its framers is being
perverted by the actions of a government which
is using the tuition process to raise state rev
enues, therefore making students into cash
cows. Many legislators claim that a tuition hike
Education Foundation
a positive force at UNC
Editor's note: This letter was
sent to David McCollum in re
sponse to the letter he sent to M oyer
Smith and Neal Harrell of the
Educational Foundation.
Dear sir:
We recently received your let
ter of May 15, 1990, in response to
our correspondence inquiring of
your interest in joining the Edu
cational Foundation. We would
like to take this opportunity to
correct your misinformed under
standing of the purpose of the
Educational Foundation and what
it is and has been responsible for
on the campus of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
First of all, as stated in our
membership brochure which you
obviously have not received, the
Educational Foundation, Inc., was
chartered Dec. 7, 1 938, to provide
assistance to the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill for
the following: to offer financial
aid to worthy young men and
women seeking an EDUCATION
at the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill. That is why it was
appropriately named, The Edu
cational Foundation.
The Foundation is just that. It is
not a booster club and does not
operate under the same policies as
other athletic support groups with
which you may be familiar. The
Foundation has not and never will
"buy out contracts of coaches."
The contract which you referred to
in your letter was terminated by
the chancellor's office and the
athletic department. They then
requested that the Foundation fund
the settlement because, as a state
university, UNC could not do so.
Second, the Foundation is not
the responsible for the "trees that
were torn down on campus" for
the Alumni Center. That is a
project of the General Alumni
Joe Andranaco
is not going to deter students from attending the
University, but the Office of Scholarships and
Student Aid has turned down thousands of
students for aid that is simply not available.
While North Carolina is comm itted to publ ic
education, a tuition hike would only accentuate
the problem of rising costs in higher education.
In 1984, the Insider's Guide to the Colleges
noted that "UNC is no longer only for the rich
and Southern. It offers one of the finest and
most enjoyable state educations available."
Perhaps they spoke to soon.
Within the last decade, the median income of
the parents of UNC students has increased
dramatically. UNC has become a school where
those who can afford the education enjoy the
benefits of the Southern Part of Heaven and
those who cannot afford it struggle to make
ends meet and often cannot. Ironically, at the
same time legislators are calling for tuition
hikes, state government is increasing the size of
grants given to residents attending private
colleges and universities in North Carolina.
Some of these grants are not need-based, but
rather across-the-board funds.
One of the more objectionable aspect of the
tuition hike is that it is being used as a tax. Extra
tuition revenues are being used to fund existing
state services instead of improving University
life. Why does tuition not directly go to UNC
and why can it not keep money saved during the
year (which currently reverts to the state's
General Fund)? The University is willing to
make some sacrifices; the General Assembly
should maximize those efforts by giving UNC
as much room to maneuver as possible.
Perhaps one of the greatest sources of inflex-
RUM
Association, which is not the same
organization as the Education
Foundation.
Third, the Foundation has, and
will continue to support the Uni
versity in non-athletic matters
whenever the need arises, and it
has the means to do so. You men
tioned that the libraries on campus
have been hit hard by the budget
crunch and were wondering "just
how much of the money was con
tributed by the Foundation to the
resolution of this problem." Please
find enclosed, a number of articles,
which you must have failed to read
as you browsed through your DTH,
which will answer that question.
The amount that was contributed
was determined based on need, not
just an arbitrary figure arrived at
by the Foundation's Executive
Committee.
As is mentioned in the attached
articles, the Foundation has in fact
contributed to the University on
numerous occasions beyond what
was mentioned on the previous
page, including:
a $ 1 00,000 contribution toward
the construction of the Craige
Parking Deck now being built on
South Campus (and an additional
commitment of $1.9 million)
a $50,000 contribution to
Wilson Library which was used to
purchase a rare book collection
a $50,000 contribution towards
the 1 989 Senior Class gift provided
the momentum for a $500,000
professorship
a contribution of approxi
mately $5,000 each year to the
Senior Class and the Carolina
Athletic Association in support of
their respective operational needs
(and to think you may have ben
efited from those funds.).
a $50,000 contribution to the
University's Parking Fund for the
1989-90 fiscal year.
funds necessary to send the
debate team to California for a
national tournament (which, inci
dentally, they won).
The Foundation, as we men
tioned earlier, was established to
provide funds for worthy student
athletes seeking an education at
UNC. It is not the responsibility of
the Foundation to provide funds to
other parts of the University, but it
has chosen to do so in situations
when it has been able. In fact, 75
percent of the Foundation's top
donors contribute more to the
University's academic programs
than to the Foundation.
We must assume that you have
never attended, and never plan to
attend, an athletic event at Carolina
because if you were to do so, you
would see the Foundation's funds
at work. The next time you say
"Go, Heels" you will be showing
your support of Carolina Athletics
which is what the foundation is all
about. Without the support of the
Foundation's members, we think
it is safe to say that UNC's athletic
programs would not have enjoyed
as much of the success as they
have over the years.
Last, we have removed your
name from our membership
records at your request (it was put
on by request of a representative of
the Senior Class or C.A.A. who
apparently confirmed that you
would like to join) and will not
"waste your t ime with our 1 iterat ure
again."
MOYER SMITH
Executive Vice-President
NEAL HARRELL
Director of Membership Services
Tuition increase
disturbing to students
To the editor:
We as students have another
potential tuition increase with
which we must cope. This increase
may be realized in the form of a
one-time surcharge that is needed
to soften our state's current budget
at a great price
ibility is that the onus of attention has shifted
from the University of North Carolina to a
conglomerate of universities networked across
the state. Politicians no longer look to support
UNC-CH, but rather look to address the needs
of their constituent university campuses. By
neglecting this University, the state is forgetting
the tremendous service it has rendered to North
Carolina, and continues to do so strongly today.
While some of the other institutions in the
system offer quality educations, none have the
same type of unique programs that Chapel Hill
does. Consolidating and streamlining the campus
system would only ensure a higher quality of
education for all those involved.
With the University's bicentennial ap
proaching, the importance of its educational
mission and service to the community, state and
nation need to be reaffirmed and appreciated.
Passing the bill promoting budget flexibility
and making a commitment to UNC-CH as per
haps the single most important educational in
stitution in the state are two things the General
Assembly can do to strengthen the bond be
tween the University and state community. This
University has been at the vanguard of higher
education, particularly public education, for
nearly two centuries. An institution that has
known unparalleled stature in the South is hav
ing to settle for favorable comparisons to its
once distant contenders, such as Duke and U V A.
Thomas Wolfe wrote: 'They'll think again
of Chapel Hill and Thinking come back
home." At this critical juncture, there are many
who need to be thinking of Chapel Hill and the
service it has rendered; we desperately need
them to come back home.
The bleeding needs to be stopped not
bandaged.
Joe Andronaco is a J 990 graduate from
Ocala, Florida.
woes or as a permanent addition to
our tuition. I am not comfortable
with either increase and I am sure
others share my sentiments. Just
last year the legislators in Raleigh
raised our tuition and a second
increase in as many years will be
financially taxing for many stu
dents and their families.
It is important for us as students
to be aware of such increases and
the need for their implementation.
Tuesday night, June 1 9, Rep. J. W.
Crawford, D-District 22, will speak
at the Student Union about the
state's current financial status and
the resulting tuition increase. As
subchairman of the Subcommittee
on Education of the House Ap
propriations Committee, he offers
valuable insight into the tuition
increases and why they are needed.
A representative of the University
will also speak to present the
University's position on the po
tential tuition increases. As stu
dents, our presence at the forum
will demonstrate our concern with
the matter.
I hope to see many of my fellow
students at the Union Tuesday
night.
RON SWIFT
Graduate
Chemistry
Letter policy
The Daily Tar Heel welcomes
reader comments and criticisms.
We will attempt to print as many
letters to the editor as space permits.
When writing letters, please follow
these guidelines:
B All letters must be dated and
signed by the author(s), with a
limit of two signatures per letter.
B All letters must be typed and
double-spaced, for ease of editing.
fl Letters should include the
author's year, major, phone num
ber and hometown.
B If you have a title relevant to
the topic of the letter, let us know .
t