Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Feb. 18, 2002, 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
8 Monday, February 18, 2002 Opinion Ufye oaili| ufor 31cri Established 1893 • 108 Kean of Editorial Freedom vww iMytadK’ri.iwn Katie Hunter Editor Office Hours Friday 2 p.m. -3 p.m. Kim Minugh MANAGING EDITOR Russ Lane SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR Kate Hartig EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR Lizzie Breyer UNIVERSITY EDITOR Kellie Dixon CITY EDITOR Alex Kaplun " STATE Is NATIONAL EDITOR ' ’ 1 •* < lan Gordon SKIRTS EDITOR Sarah Sanders FEATURES EDITOR Sarah Kucharski ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT EDITOR Terri Rupar COPY DESK EDITOR Kara Arndt PHOTOGRAPHY EDITOR Beth Buchholz DESIGN EDITOR Cobi Edelson GRAPHICS EDITOR Jonathan Miller ONLINE EDITOR Michael Flynn OMBUDSMAN Concerns or comments about our coverage? Contact the ombudsman at mlfivnrtPemaiLunc.edu or by phone at 843-5794 Readers' Forum Valentine’s Day Articles Interesting But Biased Toward Heterosexuals TO THE EDITOR: I want to sound out a LOUD agreement to Drew McLelland’s letter from Friday (“‘Hooking Up’ Stories Leave Out,Gays, Ignore Internet Dating”) regarding the omis sion of gays in the “Hooking Up” stories. While I found the articles interesting, I too found them biased toward heterosexu al interests. Maybe The Daily Tar Heel should consider running a series of articles regarding gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans gender “hookups,” etc. I’m sure that there are GLBT persons on campus (students, faculty, staff, etc.) who would be willing to converse on these issues. Darryl L. Waisner Employee Comprehensive Cancer Center DTH Misses Real Issue Behind Night Parking: Lawsuit Troubles TO THE EDITOR: I’m writing in response to Rob Heroy’s let- \m Judges mo sense \ op MTesniry? ) Board Editorials No (Night) Parking The University continues to move toward night parking fees in the face of all logic By approving the recommendation to impose fees for night parking on campus, the Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee disregarded student needs. The majority of UNC students live off campus and must drive to campus if they wish to participate in evening activities, study in the libraries or exercise at the Student Recreation Center. Charging for night parking and requiring expensive permits will surely deter many students from venturing onto campus in the evening hours, which will put a significant damper on campus involvement and UNC’s sense of community. Scores of student organizations and extracurricular activities meet on campus in the evening, but if students have no safe, economical way of getting to campus, attendance will suffer. There are a number of other solutions to UNC’s parking problems and the financial struggles facing the Department of Public Safety. Unintelligent Design Educational knuckle-draggers are trying to find God in the schoolhouse Ohio is trying to decide if creationism should be let back into its schools. Excuse me, but I thought creation was supposed to leave the schoolhouse when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1987. In light of that departure of religion from public schools, creationists devised a plan to put God back in the classroom. It’s called “intelligent design,” a crafty con cept that couples Darwinism with the idea of a grand design from a higher power. Intelligent designers point out that they don’t know who drew up the blueprint for life. For all they allege to know, it could have been God, Allah or Salvador Dali. But life could not have developed solely through Darwinian constructs, they say. Evolution based curriculum - Darwinism undiluted - is “purely naturalistic and leave no room for the possibility that part of nature can be designed,” or so said Robert Lattimer, an intelligent design champion, to the Columbus ter from Thursday’s edition of The Daily Tar Heel (“Student Wonders How DPS Could Possibly Need More Money”). Since the real issue behind night parking has completely escaped the attention of the DTH (with Valentine’s Day, stories about hooking up and all those other things that are obviously so much more important taking the spotlight), I hope to provide some insight into the issue. The reason that the Department of Public Safety needs more money is that they recently lost the rights to all money collected from parking fines. I don’t know the specifics, but there is a law on North Carolina’s books that states that all moneys collected from parking tickets and fines go to the town or county. The law was rarely enforced, and our University and many others in the state had been keeping these funds to foot the bill for their police forces, transit systems, etc. Recently, a lawsuit was filed against the state. Because of this, DPS has to give the million or so dollars they collect annually to either Chapel Hill or Orange County instead of keeping it to pay for things. The unexpected loss of this revenue has put a pretty big hole in DPS’s pockets. Do we really think they want to be both ered with night parking permits either? It makes them have to go write tickets instead of going to Krispy Kreme or playing tid- For example, raising the price of each day permit by sl2 would make up the $2 million deficit in the Department of Public Safety’s 2002-03 budget. Hence, it might not even be necessary to charge for night parking. In addition to increasing the financial burden to students by imposing night parking fees, eliminating free night park ing will seriously jeopardize women’s safe ty This threat alone is grounds for seeking out other solutions to UNC’s parking woes. Many female students study and com mute to campus activities alone. It is not only dangerous but irresponsible to make them choose between risking their safety and forgoing activities that should be available to all students. In fact, imposing fees for night parking permits will limit all students’ access to activities and resources that are integral parts of the University experience. Dispatch last week. So to eradicate that mar ginalized point of view -1 mean, who could accept Darwinism when there are so many eloquent Pat Robertson minions - intelligent designers have created a farce that sort of acts like a theory. If Ohio educators act logi cally - which, of course, we can’t count on - they won’t Cate Doty Editorial Notebook approve intelligent design for the curriculum. First, any mention of a higher power violates the church-state separation and should be prevented by the Supreme Court, if it even gets that far. This goes for those who deny the existence of a higher power as well as Bible thumpers and snake handlers. Secondly, intelligent design is a blueprint with shaky lines and comers that don’t match up. Intelligent designers have relied on criticism of Darwinism to cobble together an alterna tive curriculum, but they only succeeded in some scientific mudslinging. Without a des ignated god, it loses its real argument. God dlywinks or whatever it is they do around here at night. Still, when you lose a cool million that you fully expected to have, you have to fill in the gaps from something. If you ask me, if our student government really wanted to affect the threat of night parking, they’d probably have better luck by lobbying our legislature to repeal the offending law (which sounds like it doesn’t have a leg to stand on, since the beneficia ries provide neither funding, permits, space nor manpower for the enforcement of park ing regulations) instead of sticking a guy in the Pit with a megaphone and doing every thing short of begging from a system that has few other places to turn. Ari Sanders Senior Advertising TPAC’s Decision on Night Parking Will Make Students Pay Twice TO THE EDITOR: This letter is in response to the cam puswide email sent by the chancellor deal ing with Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee and night parking. With the parking fiasco that is sure to blow It would be different if Chapel Hill could provide 24-hour fare-free busing with enough routes to transport all students to and from campus safely, but it cannot. In light of the changes TPAC has rec ommended, Chapel Hill and Carrboro’s pledges to preserve fare-free busing, despite both towns’ financial woes, are especially commendable. But it is impossible to expand the pro gram now, especially since both towns are facing the worst budget crunches they’ve experienced in years. It would also be different if UNC could offer enough on-campus housing to keep all students from having to live beyond walk ing distance from the University, but it can not. With the student body president runoff election Tuesday, it is important that voting students consider the candidates’ visions for campus parking and choose a leader that will work to protect students’ safety and financial concerns. - the Christian Holy Father, not Allah or Buddha - is the crux of creationism, and intelligent designers haven’t even put Him in the details. John Scopes went on trial because of a concrete belief in God, not a vague idea that someone else is out there. I don’t remember any imams or rabbis testifying at his trial. Supporting intelligent design are cell biologists and members of the “liberal” aca demic elite. It’s the conservatives that have the biggest problem with the theory, and I use that term loosely. They’re mad because intelligent design relies on a vague agnosti cism to put forth the idea of a higher power. The religious right wants its Holy Father back in the picture; liberals who oppose intelligent design want to make sure no higher power - neither the Holy Father nor his competitors - floats into the classroom. I don’t think God, Allah or Buddha would appreciate a brainless theory as their ticket into the schoolhouse. Jesus asked that the children come to him, right? up soon, I would just like to make sure that the TPAC takes into consideration that charging fees for night parking or permit only (so therefore charging fees again) is not fair to off-campus students. There are certain services that students pay for in their student fees that allows for yearly use. These fees go toward use of the Student Union and the Student Recreation Center (open until 12 a.m.), Davis Library (24 hours certain nights), Fetzer Gym (open until 10 p.m.), Cobb Tennis Courts and Basketball Courts (open whenever), Paul Green Theatre and many other campus events (Campus Crusade, Campus Y, spe cial group meetings) that go on after acad emic hours end. Having a paid permit or hourly fees for parking on campus to use these services in turn makes the off-campus students pay twice for the same product that students liv ing on campus only pay for once. One of the arguments coming from TPAC is that there is a bus service that runs in close proximity to most, but not all, of the apart ment complexes. The problem with the bus service is that it ends at 9 p.m., and many, if not all, of the services talked about above do not end at 9 p.m. With paid parking at night and bus services stopping at 9 p.m., much of student life is lost due to lack of ability to partake in an event. You have UNC's Magical "60-40 Ratio': It's All Crap I’ve concluded that this University’s famous “60-40 ratio” is crap. Don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate the high percentage of women the admissions office wel comes. But it’s more or less just some statistic we can throw around to other schools who claim they’re better than us. “Well, we have more women than you" is usually our response. The 60 percent of females here are just some sort of eye candy for guys to obsess over. However, my real beef with the ratio is that women at UNC seem to exaggerate it even more than us males. To them, the ratio is more like 80 percent to 20 percent, apparendy. Of course, guys at Carolina are either gay or taken, right? When I offered last week for peo ple to respond with their Instant Messenger screen names, did I get a response from any of these women who have found it so challenging to find a good guy here? HELL NO. I guess people didn’t respond because they didn’t have the technology to do so. (For those of you who don’t catch my sarcasm, in other words, I believe that’s a bunch of 8.5.) Perhaps those females don’t know a good guy when they see one. Can they really justify complaining when they all seem to go after the same Abercrombie-wearing, SRC-obsessed economics majors from Charlotte? I know I’m generalizing, and I believe most of my close girl friends do look beyond that (note: I had to cover my butt so I wouldn’t get chewed out by them later or not invited to any more of their AWESOME parties). I’m really speaking to those two-faced females out there who have to audacity to complain about the ratio here, even though several of my friends couldn’t find a date for Valentine’s Day last week. How can there be so many girls to choose from, but many of us guys get nothing? Of course, too much may be better than what little guys ask for when they are happy just ordering out for two breasts and two thighs, so to speak (again, note the fact that I’m covering myself from verbal abuse later). I suppose what I’m trying to suggest is that there has to be a happy medium. There should be some compromise between superficial guys and shallow women. I was hanging out in a friend’s room last semester. She had one of her girl friends over who apparently wanted to use the room as her own personal forum to berate guys for their total insensitivity and complete incompatibility with her. For future reference ladies, guys don’t respond well to over generalized criticism of their manhood. If some guy treated you poorly, don’t take it out on me. Believe me, I couldn’t be him, because you have not given me a chance to be him. Of course, that doesn’t matter because some of us, males and females, seem to hold a personal vendetta against the very people who support us. (This means you, Johanna Costa. I mean, gosh, 100 of my closest friends and I dress up in blue and go out of our way to watch you sit on the bench at several women’s soc cer games over the year and I get no love. What’s up with that? I guess that’s just it, some people just don’t appreciate applause.) I think it comes down to the fact that a lot of you females out there who complain about the ratio are victims of your own insecurity and unwillingness to realize when you’re being lauded for what you do. My final appeal is to say that there are those of us guys out there who seek stability, and there are girls out there who do look beyond who spends the most hours at the SRC. My intention is to raise awareness of those women and men who only look at material things and get them to real ize that if they want the ratio to work better for them, it can. Can you really expect males to see past the breasts and thighs if you females aren’t looking past the vests and polo shirts? I think not. Erica, Liz, Sarah and Emma, et al., you know those parties are truly great, by the way. Don’t worry, though. I tend not to generalize - unlike certain female ath letes out there. . Ken is still accepting Instant Messenger screen names from all those women who aren’t angry at him after reading this column. Reach him at kchandle@email.unc.edu already stuck an extra S4OO tuition increase for the next academic year and many stu dents are not able to shell out an extra $350 for parking per semester at night. I assume that TPAC believes students can walk from their respective places to use the above mentioned services. The safety of walking alone at night is a major concern of stu dents on campus. Last year BOLO was ter rorizing students on campus, who knows what will happen next year. The safety of students is being compromised because some students will not be able to afford the night parking fees, therefore having to walk each time at night to use the library or group meeting. TPAC, please listen to the concerns of the students and take into con sideration the safety of students and that off-campus students should not be paying twice for services at UNC. The University is trying to pick us of every penny that we are worth, please do not do the same. We are a well run dry - no money left. foey Hoying Junior Sociology Editor’s Note Endorsement letters for Tuesday runoff elections can be found online at www.daily tarheel.com. Click on the “Elections" link. (Ihp omly ular MM KENNETH CHANDLER KENINEM: GUILTY CONSCIENCE the Daily Tar Heel wel comes reader comments and criticism. Letters the editor should be no longer than 300 words and must be typed, dou ble-spaced, dated and signed by no more than two people. Students should include their year, major and phone num ber. Faculty and staff should include their title, department and phone number. The DTH reserves the right to edit letters for space, clarity and vul garity. Publication is not guaranteed. Bring letters to the DTH office at Suite 104, Carolina Union, mail them to P.O. Box 3257, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 or e-mail forum to: editdesk@unc.edu.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 18, 2002, edition 1
8
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75