Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Nov. 5, 1990, edition 1 / Page 13
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
The Daily Tar HeelMonday, November 5, 199013 OPDHflBDEa Monumental election lets voters show their priorities Harvey Gantt's platform centers on education, environmental concerns n Nov. 6, we as students have the a chance to contribute to a histori- cal event. We can elect Harvey Gantt as North Carolina's first black U.S. senator. Although Gantt would be the first black senator from North Caro lina, he is not focusing his campaign on race, but on priorities such as education, freedom of choice and cleaning the environment. ; Priorities. That is what we have to think about. What are our priorities? those of us that are "twenty-something" m'ust realize that the debts amassed to day will fall on our shoulders in the future. This debt is not just financial, but it is also an environmental debt vvhich cannot be easily repaid. The re sult of this environmental debt is un fean water, air pollution and the con firming depletion of the ozone layer. Another part of the debt involves edu cation and the declining stature of the tf.S. educational policies. These policies &ave allowed our students to fall behind the students in other highly industrial ized nations. The debt continues to grow w"hen the government is allowed to re strict our First Amendment rights. Gantt does not believe the government has the right to become the "moral arbiters of the nation." We as students at the Uni versity of North Carolina have to choose the candidate that has priorities in mind. Not only is the University slipping, but the state is also falling behind. We are ranked near the bottom with low SAT scores, high infant mortality rates, high dropout rates and a growing inn StroudEllington - t' 5 v - -fx eracy rate. We cannot afford to fall any more; it is time for a change! Gantt realizes that we need a change. "It's time we spent less money on B-52 bombers and more on the students." We. as students, are the future of the state and of this country; we need to start exercising our political power. On Nov. 6. we must go out and vote. If you can not make it home, please reauest an absentee ballot from your county's board of elections. Time is runnine out: the 3,500-plus Harvey Gantt supporters in the Pit on Oct. 15 proved that we can make a aiiierence. Gantt does have a chance, but he cannot win if we do not go out and vote. We all know that the 1990 Senate race will be close and if you are too busy to vote or if you assume that Gantt doesn't have a chance, then the race is over. Everv vote counts; we can not afford to have another six years of an administra- . - - tion that is afraid to be open-minaea. On Nov. 6. we can prove to the world that Harvey Gantt is a winner and that we are ready to take control of the political reins that run this country. Kara Stroud and Kimberly Ellington are lumor vohtical science majors mi noting in Afro-American studies and are from Charlotte yO(J NHI ZTESS&t mm . - 0 JL0r rrsc 0 c) Hquopho&zc. ) STJ.LU HWlXNg- CoMBS. IF A BELT EVE XN TH ZtrALXWBl Jesse Helms offers real solutions to : problems of security and education ; T 1 .1 . . nf XTfvrK On luesuay, inc vuiu ji nuim Carolina are charged with a monumental responsibility: whether to elect Jesse Helms or Harvey Gantt to the U.S. Senate. When one considers the records and values of the two candidates, the choice is clear: we need Jesse Helms. Helms has been the victim of some of the most vicious, unfounded attacks in American political history. Why? The extreme political left is threatened by politicians of conviction and courage and will do anything to defeat Helms. They spread unsubstantiated distortions of the senator's record. They believe this will convince voters that the sena tor is "out of touch." They are wrong and will be resoundingly repudiated by the voters of North Carolina on Election Day. Helms will prevail because he offers real solutions to today's prob lems and does not promise to cover them up with more federal money. Gantt, however, has admitted he has "no idea" how much all his spending programs will cost the taxpayers. The ultimate example of liberal policies run amok is in the field of education. Gantt would have us believe that the solution to the educational cri sis is more federal spending and control. Anyone naive enough to believe that should be put in stocks in the Pit and pelted with dead cats. Federal inter vention in education never has and never will work. The federal government re turns less than fifty cents on the dollar for education spending due to the Charlton Allen wasteful governmental bureaucracy. Helms realizes that the solution to the educational dilemma is to improve standards and raise educational quality. We must return control of our schools to the states and local communities who are better able to meet the needs of students and their parents. We need a senator who will place fiscal accountability over the concerns of special interest groups. We need a senator who was first to call for sanctions against China after students were mas sacred in Beijing. We need a senator with enough for eign relations experience to realize the precarious position of Mikhail Gorbachev and who will not let America's guard down until we are sure that there will not be a military coup. We need a senator who was the first to call attention to the threat of Saddam Hussein and would never attempt to cut from our national defense with our soldiers in the Middle East. We need a senator who co-sponsored legislation to give tax credits for parents with children in day care. We need Sen. Jesse Helms. Charlton Allen is a sophomore his tory and political science major from Wilmington. He is president of UNC College Republicans. Art censorship issue should play major role in voters' choice With the senatorial elections quickly approaching, voters need to focus on the issues at hand. One important issue that voters must not overlook is the funding of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Recently, Congress voted to cut $45,000 from the NEA's budget in re sponse to widespread disapproval of displays by artists Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe. A group of con gressmen thought that the works were obscene and decided the artists did not deserve federal funds to promote their efforts. I urge readers to recognize that refusing an artist a grant on the basis of his choice of subject matter is detri mental to American society for the following reasons. Congressional as sumption of the right to dictate to artists what they may or may not depict in their work bears major implications on American people; it both threatens the future of art in America, an important aspect of our society, and it blatantly denies artists and viewers alike their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution. First of all, the NEA is an organiza tion which promotes the advancement of art by offering grants to various art ists. In order to offer these grants, the NEA receives funds from the federal government. Recently N.C. Sen. Jesse Helms proposed a change to the Interior Department appropriation which would prevent the use of NEA grants to pro mote what he calls obscene materials. Helms feels that Congress should de- M. Jonathan Clary tilt i velop a definition of obscene and im pose it on artists and viewers of America. Some conservatives even suggested that it would be best to abolish the NEA altogether. The question lies in the im plications of such a decision; any action of this type would have negative effects on American education. Throughout my elementary and sec ondary education, teachers used artists works to relate feelings and moods which narratives in a textbook could not convey. Art gives students a basic un derstanding of major themes within an era. Today's art, even if controversial, will act as tomorrow's aid to teaching. Historians of the future will rely upon our art to acquire useful knowledge about our generation. If we restrict artists by banning certain subject matter, then historians will gain an unrealistic per ception of our time period. Anthony Lewis, columnist for The News and Observer, points out that many people don't realize that much of the music, art and plays published over the last 25 years reflects the work of NEA grants. Only 20 works of over 85,000 funded by the NEA have been consid ered controversial. Art is an "important measure of a society's quality" which, as Lewis points out, receives minimal funding as compared to other countries like Germany, France, Italy and Britain. If Congress takes any action, it needs to think about offering more support to the endowment. As America struggles to remain competitive in today's changing world, we cannot afford to deal such a . devastating blow to the endowment because it suggests that we place no concern in the quality and richness of our society. Even if art were not characteristic of a superior society, any action against various artists as a result of subject matter is a direct violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees indi viduals the freedom of expression. A group of officials in high positions should not possess the power to tell artists what they may portray in their works. Some may claim that Congress wants to stop funding obscene art, not ban it. I suggest that refusing to fund and cen soring are one and the same. As Robert Brustein maintains, the distinction be tween the two "derives from the perni cious American tradition of letting the marketplace . . function as the censor of the arts." If artists had to seek funding from private companies rather than from the government, their art would be censored even further to reflect the companies' views, which may not nec essarily coincide with those of the art ist. Furthermore, Brustein exhibits that the Endowment's charter committed the government "to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry, but also the material conditions facili- 1 tating the release of this creative tal ent." Brustein explains that this allows for freedom of "artistic expression" under the First Amendment. Others argue that Congress consists of officials elected by the people and so they necessarily represent the views of the people. We should never become so naive as to believe every campaign promise any politician makes. Once a politician gains an office, he should still feel an obligation to accurately repre sent what the people support. Our sys 4emof government would fill with corruption if officials made decisions based solely on what best suits their own desires. We as voting citizens in today's America need to understand the im portance of the issues at hand and make an effort to choose carefully whom we put in the government. And as students we need to find candidates who support art and the role it plays in education. Art needs support in society and currently the NEA provides it. We can make a difference in the futures of both art and the NEA by making conscientious de cisions in choosing which candidates we put in office. Before voting for a candidate find out where he stands on the issues which face us today. The future well-being of American society may depend on it. M. Jonathan Clary is a freshman math major from Phoenix, Md. fXlBx THE NBfi, Jl To tOU LSI ' A JL voesNT UAVE Any I Library bond money would be well spent : ;nr in c-tinrrrt rf thf 1i Hi 51 TV Willing in duppvii v wv j bond referendum, I want to address some of the economic questions being raised by those who oppose the bond issue. Undoubtedly, the current budget cutting that the University has had to endure is in the back of our minds when we think of current economic conditions. However, I should like to Doint out that during the budget revi- j sion, no permanent employee has been laid ott and no permanent uit em ployee has had to take a salary reduc tion. As a matter of fact, permanent state employees were given, on the average, a 6 percent pay raise by the last legislature, and all retired persons covered by the state retirement system were given a 6.7 percent increase in compensation. Let us all remember that the uni versity does not pay real estate taxes; we the employees and former em ployees do pay taxes, and we cannot say that UNC s budget cuts are com ing out of our remuneration. It has been argued by some that the added bond money is to be used to uDsrade the new library to aTaj Mahal. The library, staff has already proven that they know how to get the most out of what they have to work with. Let me Earl N. Mitchell cite but two statistics. One way to get at efficiency is to determine how many books each member of the staff on the average circulates. This figure is 23,446 for our library against an average of 13,801 for all the public libraries in the state. Finally, based on the overall cost of running the library, it costs $1.58 to circulate each book in our library compared with a state average of $2.28. This does not sound like the efforts of a group out to build a Taj Mahal. - Building and operating the larger facility will increase the taxes on a property with a $100,000 valuation by $34 per year. This past year we paid $21 on the same property to provide ambulance service by the rescue squad. Though I don't begrudge the taxes spent on ambulance service, I think building and operating the larger library is a steal by comparison. Earl N. Mitchell is a professor of physics. Oninion Dane DOlicv w . - .... rr .... : The Daily Tar Heel prints a second editorial page every Monaay in an ejjoi i lottor nnrl mlumnx. When several letters on a single issue are ILI II l HUt IIIVJI --' . ...... ... submitted to the DTH, we will occasionally pacKage mem wgeinei un im tju to present many sides of the debate at once. We also solicit opinions from sources directly involved in tne issues to aaa ajresn, aumui uuu c . Helms' This is a first-hand account of a N.C. Sen. Jesse Helms supporter living in Chapel Hill. There is no doubt that Harvey Gantt is a formidable opponent. Win or lose, he should be commended for running a crafty campaign. Although I disagree with virtually everything he stands for, I respect the fact that his supporters are exercising their right to support the candidate of their choice. The problem arises, however, with the masses of people who don't seem to care about Harvey Gantt, but who are so eaten up with hate that they will do anything to "get Jesse." This is a massive, hypocritical group, and evidence of its existence abounds. A walk through any Chapel Hill park- John D. Ward ing lot reveals bumper stickers ranging from the mildest "Defeat Helms" to the most hypocritical of all, "Vote Against Hate, Vote Against Helms." Who is the real hater? Surely there are those who disagree with Helms, but have they actually made themselves believe that this nationally respected statesman is some hateful ogre who sits around each night planning horrible things to do the next day? If he is so bad, wouldn't his senate colleagues stand up with Gantt in opposition to him? They are, after all, the people who know him. I personally have tasted this hatred toward Helms supporters. My Helms bumper sticker has been ripped off my car twice, and I have been screamed at while driving down Franklin St. I have even been denied service at a local gas station because I have a Helms sticker. I was forced to buy a textbook that was only available at a store that supports Gantt. Of course, these incidents are noth ing more than inconveniences. How ever, what if the tables were turned, and Gantt stickers had been stolen, or a professor had ordered a book only at a store that supports Helms? Would these not be considered acts of hate? This University community prides itself on its reputation for free thinking and expression. But, in the case of this election, it should be ashamed. The only voice heard is that of Gantt, and anyone pro-Helms is deemed closed minded. Yet I can't keep a sticker on my car, pro-Helms signs have been erased and the news coverage has been, at best, slanted. No matter what your political posi tion, live up to the tradition which has existed on this campus for 200 years! Discuss and respect all opinions, no matter how they differ from your own. If you don't, how can you claim to be any better than that which you stand against? John D. Ward is a junior interdisci plinary studies major from Wilmington. acknowledges his duty to environme One of the most crucial issues of the 1990 election campaign for the U.S. Senate revolves around the immediate threat to our environ ment. Harvey Gantt realizes this danger and strongly believes that it is the re sponsibility of our citizens and our gov ernment to ensure a clean, environ mentally safe world for our children and our children's children. Harvey Gantt will make sure that those who defile the environment pay the cost of cleaning it up, instead of dumping it on the taxpayers. Experience shows that Gantt will vigorously defend the environment. Gantt, who holds a master's degree in city planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has successfully combined the need for environmental David Tucker protection with the constructive growth of our nation's urban centers. As mayor of Charlotte, Gantt supported the city's efforts at energy conservation, recycling and resource recovery. During Gantt's tenure, Charlotte won national recog nition for its creative use of open spaces as urban parks and green ways. Due to his support and leadership, many people across the nation regard Charlotte Mecklenburg as a state and national leader in recycling, resource recovery and overall prosperity. As a U.S. senator, Harvey Gantt will ardently continue his lifelong profes sional, political and personal goals of creating cleaner and greener living and working environments. He will work for cleaner air, drinkable water, safer cities, protection of our forests and wilderness areas and preservation of N.C. coast lands and wetlands from abusive and dangerous drill ing. As Gantt says, "We've got to work together to clean up the environment, protect it from further damage and, most impor tantly, preserve it for our descendants. A clean environment benefits every one." Gantt's opponent has, regrettably, demonstrated his contempt for the en vironment on numerous occasions. Helms voted against the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Superfund for the cleaning up of hazardous and toxic wastes. These proposals were' supported by many Democrats and Re publicans alike, yet Helms paid no heed to America's most pressing problem. . Gantt, on the other hand, cares deepl y about the needs of the citizens of North ' American values have earned him the : support of the Sierra Club, among other groups. Our children must not grow up in a world choked by poison. Help Gantt help North Carolina in its hour of need. OnNov.6, 1990,vote"YES"forHarvey Gantt for the U.S. Senate. David Tucker is a senior Russian and East European studies major from Rocky Mount. He is a member of Students for Gantt.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 5, 1990, edition 1
13
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75