Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Oct. 25, 1990, edition 1 / Page 8
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
8The Daily Tar HeelThursday, October 25, 1990 Baily ufar 3ltol 98th year of editorial freedom Jessica Lanning and Kelly Thompson, Editors HARVEY JENNIFER WlNG, University Editor Lynette Blair, Forum Editor Peter F. Wallsten, City Editor VlCKI HYMAN, Features Editor Jamie Rosenberg, Sports Editor JOE MUHL, Photography Editor Lisa Lindsay, News Editor MELANIE BLACK, Layout Editor NANCY WykLE, University Editor Crystal Bernstein, Opinion Editor STACI Cox, State and National Editor CHERYL ALLEN, Features Editor ALISA DeMaO, Omnibus Editor JoANN RODAK, News Editor Alex De Grand, Cartoon Editor James Claude Benton, Ombudsman mm m m & m IS1 u u mm m m mm Vital statistics University crime must be publicized In the next three or four weeks, a bill requiring universities to compile and release annual crime statistics (as well as gradua tion rates for athletes and other students) is expected to be approved by Congress and sent on to the White House. Although UNC officials seem to view it as just another layer of red tape, the law is an important step in American students' struggle to identify and fight crime on their campuses. At UNC, crime is a fairly well-publicized issue. Although University police only started allowing the public access to their actual incident reports in July, they had issued summary reports for several years. In addition, the Division of Student Affairs has worked hard to promote crime aware ness and prevention. While some applicants may still mistake the Southern part of heaven for a peaceful village, University officials are willing to acknowledge that crimes occur. But on some campuses, this is not the case. In 1 988, a Lehigh University freshman was raped, beaten and murdered in her dorm room. Her parents later discovered that university administrators knew about the lack of campus security for years, but failed to correct it. They sued for negligence, and received $2 million in an out-of-court settlement, with which they began to lobby for crime disclosure laws. In the past two years, at least nine states have passed laws requiring colleges and universities to dis tribute information about security policies and crime rates to students, applicants and employees. While the number of states with crime disclosure laws is expected to increase to about 15 by the end of 1991, there are still many states that do not require colleges to provide such information including North Carolina. Passing a national law on the subject will force them to do so, and will make state-by-state statistics more consistent. For the universities already disclosing crime statistics, the federal government's threat to revoke student aid for disregard ing paperwork requirements may well be obnoxious. As Donald Boulton, UNC vice chancellor of Student Affairs, put it, "It's just more forms for us to process. The institutions can handle that (reporting). I don't think Congress had to get involved with it." But for the rest of the nation, it is absolutely necessary. Annual statistics are not enough - they don't reveal where a crime took place, what the assailant looked like and other pertinent details in a timely fashion. Yet they are a step in the right direction, and a warning to colleges that they can no longer suppress information about crime to protect peaceful images. In Chapel Hill, the battle over disclosure was a quick and relatively painless one. But on Capitol Hill and throughout the nation as a whole, it is still being fought. Kelly Thompson Unnecessary criticism Negative campaigning is counterproductive North Carolinians appear to be fairly tolerant of candidates with school yard mentalities of "gotcha last, gotcha last", but then again, they don't have much of a choice. Sure, voters can change the chan nel or pull the plug, but they'll still have to choose from these stooges on Nov. 6. Most voters have a good idea whether they will support Sen. Jesse Helms or his challenger Harvey Gantt and Rep. David Price or his challenger John Carrington. But just because a voter stands on one side of the line doesn't mean he or she really likes the candidate on that side. Many times the voter acts on what is least undesirable. Hence, candidates figure negative cam paigning only stands to gain undecided voters and won't scare off supporters as long as their opponents do the same. Everybody knows some candidates are more guilty than others of throwing around irrelevant criticisms, and that candidates feel they must defend themselves from public attacks to get elected (or re-elected). Once one candidate starts the negative campaigning, the other must follow in de fense or so the justification goes. But after N.C. voters have been bom barded with this for weeks, a candidate who refused to adopt these senseless negative strategies might just be considered a breath of something other than hot air, a hero or maybe even a martyr. Voters would recognize in this hypothetical candidate a desire to rise above all the stupid stuff and get down to business. The average voter would easily be able to identify the candi date because his name, instead of his challenger's, would be mentioned on his own commercials! Criticizing individual candidates for senseless sieges against opponents is easy to do, but that's counterproductive. All four of North Carolina's congressional candidates have demonstrated a willingness to condone negative campaigning to some degree with their questionable strategies. Perhaps the candidate who starts it is more to blame than the one who fights back, but after a while it's pretty easy to forget who started what. And voters shouldn't have to keep up with that kind of tallying. Voters would appreciate an honest candidate who relies on his own actions rather than an opponent's "mistakes" to get him elected. It would be nice if voters could afford to boycott elections whose players refuse to play fair to show they're not affectionate toward negative strategies. It's too late for one of the candidates to come riding up on a white horse with a sunset in the back ground spouting off new ideas for old problems. So voters must play theirrole the best they can. It's just too bad they have to do it in the midst of all the crossfire. Elizabeth Murray m? tfoflb to mar Business and advertising: Kevin Schwartz, director; Bob Bates, advertising director Leslie Humphrey, classified ad manager. Business staff: Allison Ashworth, manager; Kimberty Moretz, assistant manager; Gina Berardino, office assistant; Michelle Gray, Annice Hood and Becky Marquette, receptionists; Ken Murphy, subscriptions; Chrissy Davis, promotions manager. Classified advertising: Kirsten Burkart, assistant manager; Laura Richards and Angela Spivey, assistants; Brandon Poe, production. Display advertising: Lavonne Leinster, advertising manager; Chris Berry, Chad Boswell, Lora Gay, Ginger Wagoner, Carole Hedgepeth, Carrie Grady, Tracy King, Sherrie Davis. Brooks Spradling and Kim Solomon, account representatives; Kim Blass. creative director; Heather Bannister. Kelly Bohart, Chris Berry, Maribeth Layton and Stacy Turkel, sales assistants; Deborah Bumgarner, proofreader. Advertising production: Bill Leslie, manager; Anita Bentley, Chad Campbell, Greg Miller and Lome Pate, prooduction assistants. Assistant editors: Randy Basinger, arts coordinator; Doug Zemel, layout; Amy McCarter, Natalie Pool and Kristin Scheve, news; Johanna Henderson and Jenny Cloninger, ombudsman; Charles Marshall and Billy Stockard, Omnibus; Kathy Michel, photo; Mark Anderson and Scott Gold, sports; Glenn O'Neal, state and national; Stephanie Johnson and Jennifer Pilla, university. Newsclerks: Kevin Brennan and Amy Dew Editorial writers: Crystal Bernstein, Lynette Blair, Elizabeth Murray and Brock Page. University: Marcie Bailey, Jenny Burris, Elizabeth Byrd, Matt Campbell. April Draughn, Jennifer Dunlap, Matthew Eisley, Soyia Ellison, Ashley Fogle, Natalie Godwin, Brian Golson, Thomas Heaiy, Stacey Kaplan, Susie Katz, Burke Koonce, Dionne Loy, Beth Major, Matthew Mieike, Cathy Oberle. Shannon O'Grady, Steve Politi, Michelle Smith, Susan Ward, Aimee Watson. Lee Weeks, Carrie Wells, Laura Williams, and Yu-Yee Wu. City: Jenny Bray. Tim Burrows. Janice Daughtry, Jennifer Dickens. Kris Donahue, Nancy Johnson, Tim Little, Julie Malveaux, Nicole Peradotto, Nicole Perez, Erik Rogers. Christine Thomas. Sharon Till. Mariel Wilson, Alan Woodlief and Laura Young. State and National: Wendy Bounds, David Etchison, Kevin Greene, Mark Griffin, Andre Hauser, Eric Lusk. Kyle York Spencer and Grant Thompson. Arts: Isabel Barbuk, Kitt Bockley, Andrea Hall, Mondy Lamb, Kirk Medlin, Greg Miller, Jonathan Poole and Jeff Trussed. Features: Eric Bolash. Christy Conroy. M.C. Dagenhart, Elizabeth Hartel, Mara Lee, Kristin Leight, Scott Maxwell, Ginger Meek, Mary Moore Parham, Christina Nifong, Stephanie Spiegal and Beth Tatum. Sports: Kenny Abner, Neil Amato, Jason Bates, John Bland, A.J. Brown, Robert Brown. Stewart Chisam, Laurie Dhue, Jay Exum, Brandon Hunter, Warren Hynes. Doug Hoogervorst, Daivd Kupstas, Bobby McCroskey. Doug McCurry. Brock Page and Bryan Strickland. Photography: Milton Artis, Kevin Burgess, Deena Deese, Evan Eile, Steven Exum, Jonathan Grubbs. Grant Halverson, Stephanie Harper, Jim Holm, Brian Jones. Cheryl Kane, Caroline Kincaid, Sarah King, Edward Moorhouse, Keith Nelson, Sam Rollins, Stefanie Shepard, Debbie Stengel and Greg Thacker. Layout: Christy Conroy, Christy Hall, Emily Nicholl, Lara Spence and Jeff Workman. Copy Editors: Maureen Ahmad, B Buckberry, Hardy Floyd. Lorrin Freeman. Melissa Grant Stephanie Harper, Angela Hill, Sarah Kirkman, Jennifer Kurfees. Wendy Lee. Gillie Murphy. Emily Nicholl. Heather Patterson. Susan Pearsall. Amy Seetey, Natalie Sekicky, Angela Spivey, Clare Weickert and Steve Wilson. Cartoonists: Alex De Grand. Chris DePree. David Estoye and Mike Sutton. Editorial Production: Stacy Wynn, manager; Kristen Jones and Greg Thacker, assistants. Distribution: RDS Carriers. , Printing: Village Printing. Ombudsman: James Benton. Phone: 962-0245; Office hours: Mon.: 1-5 p.m.. Tue. and Thur.: 11 a.m.-4 p.m., Wed.: 3:30-5 p.m., Fri.: 1-3 p.m. 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. Classified ads can be reached at 962-0252. Editorial questions should be directed to 962-02450246. Office: Suita 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 AlL o o o f is Hou; can Norh Carol i elect- c man iro The. J.b. Senae uUhc, uSCS fuJO 'a hi's as name, uhen one '""T1 vuould clearly be enough? Tha-f's ioo Liberal. 5 FMDM Editors' note Due to the large response about the statues infront of Davis library, we have too many letters to fit in this space. The following are in dicative of the major issues ad dressed in the letters. We will run others as space permits. Kimberley Maxwell's column will return next week. Art is not as offensive as those opposed to it Editors' note: Grant Vinik is student body vice president. I would like to register my ex treme disgust at the way the peti tion drive to remove the statues from the front of Davis Library was handled. I walked into the crowd around the statues about 1 p.m. and spoke with a number of students to try and gauge the range of student opinion. For right or for wrong, I was not offended by the statues because I didn't perceive any single statue as indicative of any broader social group; that opinion, however, is unimportant and not germane to the point of this text. The point is that one of the petition organizers, Dana Lumsden, cornered me and, to be honest, tried to blackmail me into signing the petition. Is black mail too strong a word? I don't think so. Dana threatened that if I didn't sign the petition as student body vice president, he would write to the local papers to let the cam pus know that I didn't support civil rights and that the reason I wasn't offended was because there wasn't a statue that portrayed, in Dana's terms, "a money-grubbing Jew." I am Jewish, and grossly offended. The bullying got to the point where Dana chased me down into the main quad as I walked to my 2:00 class, carrying the petition with him and away from lots of people who were ready and willing to sign the petition back at the library. The irony of the whole affair is that I supported the petition when the language was added that said the statues should be removed if found to be offensive to signifi cant numbers of other people. At that point I signed the petition in spite of the offensive tactics that infuriated me. Racial harmony is an admirable goal one that will never be achieved by antagonizing and blackmailing its very proponents. GRANT R. VINIK Senior Political Science Figures must be seen with an open mind To the editors: Ah ... the paradoxes of "editorial freedom." Dear reader, if you will look in the upper left hand corner of this page and notice that the line immediately following "98th year of editorial freedom" is the edito rial staff. It does not then seem odd that the editorials of Oct. 24 both ad dressed artistic freedom. However, these editorials treated freedom in contradictory manners. Jessica Lanning 's "Sexist and racist im ages" advocated the removal of the new statues in front of Davis li brary, while Lynette Blair's "Rap pers were right" supported the rap group 2 Live Crew's constitutional right to freedom of expression. While Lanning's article prop erly denounced racist and sexist stereotypes, its message was un fortunately even more narrow minded than the racist and sexist views we all should oppose. One need not venture far to hear argu ments similar to Lanning's banning offensive art. They can be heard in the rhetoric of Jesse Helms daily. However, art should not be re moved because it offends editors and senators turned art critics. Art is open to many interpreta tions. No one view is the definitive work on art and certainly Lanning's is not. Should the statues be re moved? Of course not. Julia Balk, the sculptor, said she depicted Michael Jordan as the basketball player. Jordan, UNC's most fa mous (by the media's standards) living alumnus, is unfortunately seen all too often as only a basket ball player. Therefore it is crucial that Balk put a book in his hand to show the side of the successful black male athlete that all too often goes unnoticed. Furthermore, the statue of the black woman with a book balanced on her head can quite easily (with an open mind) be interpreted as a tremendous compliment to the black woman who has evolved from balancing a basket on her head to balancing a book on her head. It shows how far she has come while still maintain ing important ties to her culture. Also, can the book not be repre sentative of a graduation cap? Beauty is in the eye of the be holder. Should the Bell Tower be torn down because, since it is in the middle of campus and "towers" over the campus, it could be in terpreted as a phallic symbol which could further be interpreted as male domination as the center of cam pus and dominating over campus? Should the Dean E. Smith Center, another work of art, be torn down because it is named after a white man who has exploited numerous black males to gain fame? Of course not, and as ludicrous as these examples seem they are only equally as preposterous as the recommendations of Lanning and others to remove the statues. Instead of walking on egg shells as Lanning recommends, it might be more beneficial to let those eggs hatch and, when they do, perhaps there will be a new life hatched that will include racial and sexual equality as well as artistic freedom. It is possible, but only with an open mind. GEORGE W. AYCOCK Senior English Silent Sam does have negative implications To the editors: While sitting at breakfast in Lenoir Wednesday morning, I gained an insight into the forces behind the recent rash of bigoted incidents that have occurred here in the Southern Part of Heaven recently. A group of four men and one woman were sitting at the table behind me indulging in a self satisfied conversation about Jessica Lanning's editorial on Oct. 24. It seemed that as far as these indi viduals were concerned, our be loved Silent Sam could not possi bly offerany sexist or racist affront, and they couldn't believe that a "main editor" would write such a stupid article. The first argument they put forth was that Silent Sam makes no statements about politics. He just honors good men that were brave enough to die for their cause. While this may be true, to deny the racist overtones of honoring men , who died defending, among other important ideas, slavery, shows an insensitivity that is almost beyond belief. Certainly one can maintain the first argument, but the kind of mindset that would allow one to ignore the second is the same mindset that creates an atmosphere of tolerance for racism. The second point in the con versation was that Silent Sam couldn't possibly be sexist because he never identifies any virgins, male or female. This is true, but unfortunately reality within our culture puts the stigma on men for being virgins and women for not maintaining their purity. Certainly we enlightened students of a liberal institution can decide to accept the story of Silent Sam as the joke it is certainly meant to be, but what we should realize as we do so is what the punch line is actually saying. We are laughing at an idea that on our campus morals are loose and sex is easy. Just remember that it is the women who will be considered sluts in the end and the men who will be considered sexually normal. This is certainly sexist baggage handed to us by our society, but the too-often-told joke about Silent Sam's gun is not a useful way to counter sexism. It just numbs us to the real meanings of the words we so easily laugh at. Silent Sam was not the reason that Jessica Lanning wrote her editorial, but I think the attitudes so clearly enunciated by those five people over breakfast can explain a lot about the recent racist incidents on campus. People don't see the importance of the things they are saying, even when they are saying these things about themselves, as evidenced by the woman who didn't understand how Silent Sam could be sexist. When I mentioned to these people that they might be overlooking something, they told me they didn't care about my opinion the opinion of one of the parties being slighted in this issue. Combined with social numbness, not caring is a terrible source of bigotry. CATHY BUCKLE Sophomore International Studies and Russian and Slavic Linguistics Call to remove statues same as censorship To the editors: Since arriving on this campus, we have been repeatedly reminded of our First Amendment rights through various restatements of issues in the DTH. One of the most prominent editorials on free speech was written by Jessica Lanning on Oct. 1 8. In this piece, Lanning states that the "suppression of someone else's right to free speech is irre sponsible and unethical." Lanning condemns DTH staff members, since they "prevented others from communicating their views, which is a right guaranteed to everyone by the First Amendment." She states that the First Amendment collaborates various ideas, and that "No one should prevent another person from enjoying that right." After such a speech one would tend to believe that Lanning is an avid supporter of free expression. This, however, is false. Lanning, who is sodedicated to the principles behind the First Amendment, calls upon the student body and admin istration to have Julia Balk's stat ues outside of Davis Library "taken down today." Is this not a call for censorship of art? Maybe she also is one of those "quick to support the protection of the First Amendment until they see someone using the same right to express a view they don't agree with." Does this editorial not place Jessica Lanning in a category with such enemies of free choice and free expression as Jack Thompson, the beloved Jesse Helms and the Par ents Music Resources Center or ganizations nationwide? Jessica Lanning then attacks Silent Sam. Silent Sam is not a racist display of Confederacy, nor an advocation of slavery. The statue was erected by the N.C. Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy as a memorial to the UNC students who entered the Confederate service during the Civil War, which included as much as 40 percent of the student body. As for the sexist implications of Silent Sam, the local legend is nothing but a conversational piece. Jessica Lanning should give us a clearer picture of her free speech beliefs and quit walking the fence between the First Amendment and censorship. KEITH G. BAKER Freshman Pharmacy FRANK SILBER Freshman Computer Science Student-athlete quote was not endorsement To the editors: I have no intentions of being the next black Mr. UNC, nor do I want to be remembered on campus as some statue-loving brother. This is concerning my com ments on the controversial statues that appeared on the front page of Wednesday's DTH (Oct. 24). Natalie Godwin quoted me as saying, ". I don't see a negative image because he has a book as well as a basketball ... the black student athlete can have it all." Well, maybe it's just me, but I do believe that black student athletes can have academics as well as athletics. However, to put my comment in perspective, I was not questioned to whether or not I felt it was appropriate to have such a statue in front of the library or if I would get tired of seeing a black man holding a basketball every time I go to the library. Basically, I thought I was being asked to bring out some positive things about the statue and I gave it from the perspective of a student athlete trying to balance both worlds. The article noted I was a biology major but made no men tion of the fact that I'm on the JV basketball team currently trying to balance classwork with "courtwork." I just wanted Natalie to have an article and I'm not in love with the statue, so please turn off your Uncle Tom alarms. BRYAN ELLERSON Junior Biology White men are target of statues' undertones To the editors: We are sick and tired of all the racism and sexism on our campus. The new statues in front of Davis Library only serve to exclude white men from the rest of the commu nity. First, "The Student Body" in cludes an African-American man twirling a basketball and a white man holding only books. This supports the stereotype that white people can't play basketball very well. What about Larry Bird, Jerry West or Kurt Rambis? The statues are also sexist. How come a woman, instead of a man, holds an apple? For years, college aged men have been portrayed as having poor eating habits. Give me a break those days are in the past. We eat more than just soup and pizzas! Today's man under stands the importance of a well balanced diet. The statues must be taken down at once before everything the white man has struggled and fought for is torn down. GENE GLANKLER Senior Journalism TONY BARROS Sophomore English
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 25, 1990, edition 1
8
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75