The Student Newspaper of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Volume XVI, Number 23
Positions
Sparks Hot
Discussion
By Chip Wilson
Carolina Journal Staff Writer
The appointment of a new
representative, usually a routine mat
ter for the Student Legislature,
sparked heated discussion when Ed
Hausle’s name was submitted.
Hausle, who currently holds a posi
tion in the Student Legal Defense
Counsel’s office, asked to be appoint
ed after he lost in the recent election.
Some legilsators questioned whe
ther he is allowed to hold two posi
tions within student government ac
cording to the student government
bylaws.
Student Body President Ron Olsen
said the rules would probably allow
Hausel to serve as a legislator and
associate defense counsel, since the
latter is an appointed position.
(The bylaws state that a person is
only allowed to hold one elected posi
tion, such as legislator. Appointed
positions were not specifically exemp
ted.)
Some legislators wanted a more dir
ect interpretation and moved that
Hausle’s appointment be tabled until
the rules were clarified, with 9 voting
for, 22 against and two abstaining.
Despite the lack of support for the
move to delay consideration of Hau
sle, there was some negative debate
concerning time committments he
might have between his legislative
and student court duties.
Hausle responded to these queries
saying he would know of his duties
well enough in advance to schedule
them accordingly.
The appointment of Hausle was ap
proved with 18 favoring, 12 against
and two abstentions.
Legislators were also interested in
questions surrounding the secondary
charter of the Panhellenic Council, an
organization of several sororities on
campus.
One question concerned the exclu
sion of black women’s sororities from
the Council. To that, representitives
of the group responded that national
Panhellenic rules determined that the
“walking in a line” required of pled
ges to black sororities was a form of
hazing, a practice making any group
ineligible for affiliation.
The lack of support for the Phi Omi-
cron sorority was also questioned by
Phase II/III Representative Jan
Hobbs.
The Panhellenic members respond
ed: “We are not totally against Phi
Omicron. The problem was that the
(continued on page 2)
Charlotte, North Carolina
Thursday, October 23, 1980
Another Chemical Spill?
Yes and No. The chemical is common soap and the barricade is part of
a circulation experiment by 2nd year Architecture majors Tom
Larkin and Mike Walker. Larkin and Walker attempted to alter the
route students normally took to class by barricading the walk way in
front of Atkins building. The chemical spill idea was inspired by last
week’s formaldyhyde accident. Whether their reactions were trig
gered by fear of the strange foamy chemical, or just by the barricade
itself, most students used the alternative route.
Forum Debates Campaign Issues
By Ray Gronberg
Carolina Journal Staff Writer
A political forum featuring
spokesmen for the three major presi
dential candidates was held last Tues
day afternoon in McKnight audi
torium.
The discussion reflected the acri
mony with which this years campaign
has been conducted, with much of the
debate consisting of accusations and
name-calling.
The three candidates were repre
sented by: George Battle, co-chair
man of Jimmy Carter’s Mecklenburg
county campaign and a member of
the local school board; Jesse Riley,
supporting John Anderson, environ
mentalist and anti-nuclear power ac
tivist; and Joe Beard, representing
Ronald Reagan, a candidate for the
United States House of Representa
tives, and a Reagan delagate at both
the 1976 and 1980 Republican con
ventions.
The forum opened with short
speeches from each of the three men,
concerning their candidate’s position
and attributes. Battle opened the dis
cussion by saying, “This is a cam
paign which offers the clearest choice
to the American public since 1964
(the Goldwater-Johnson race).”
He went on to say, “The choice is
between a President who faces pro
blems, and a candidate who composes
solutions on 3x5 cards, and even then
muffs his lines.” Battle proceeded to
detail the accomplishments of Carter,
stating that Carter “had imposed dis
cipline on economic life” by controll
ing the budget and the expansion of
credit.
He concluded by quoting Reagan’s
running mate, George Bush, to the ef
fect that the centerpeice of the Rea
gan economic program, the Kemp-
Roth tax cut bill, was “voodoo eco
nomics.” He also defended the Carter
defense record, explaining the Presi
dent had reversed a decline in defense
spending started by Republicans Nix
on and Ford.
The audience, numbering about
twenty, next heard from Riley, who
began by saying “Many people feel
this is not a contest between giants.”
He criticized the President for not liv
ing up to all his 1976 campaign pro
mises, especially in the nuclear area.
He explained this by saying, “Carter
had an incredible lust to be elected to
a second term.”
Reagan, he said, was a man whose
“bark is worse than his bite.” explain
ing that Reagan, too, wants to be elec
ted and would therefore compromise
his beliefs in order to appeal to more
people.
He went on to criticize Reagan’s
energy policy, saying the idea of “un
leashing” the oil companies is ridicu
lous because there is little more oil to
be found.
Beard began by attacking Carter’s
inconsistancy, saying that Carter had
had nine economic policies during the
course of his administration. He also
said, “We have an energy policy
which basically ignores the possibili
ty of producing energy.” He criticized
Carter’s foreign policy, especially at
tacking the “abandonment” of the
Shah of Iran and Somoza of Nicara
gua.
At the conclusion of the prepared
statements, the panel took questions
from the audience. The first questions
concerned the future of student loans
(the BEOG) under a Reagan adminis
tration. Saying, “Education should be
handled on a local level,” Beard ex
plained that Reagan would turn the
responsibility for conducting the stu
dent loan programs over to the states,
where, according to Beard, less
money would be spent on bureaucrats
and more on the program itself.
“State government can do anything
cheaper than the federal government
can,” he said, although he allowed
that his may not be the case in North
Carolina, due, he said, to the in-
competance of the Hunt administra
tion.
Beard also defended the Kemp-
Roth proposal by explaining the
workings of the Laffer curve, which is
supposed to demonstrate that lower
taxes would result in more invest
ment and increased revenues for the
government.