12
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2005
NO BREATHING ROOM
A fee increase that would allow for more scholarships is intriguing,
but officials need more time to explore the possibility before deciding.
Both the Student Fee Audit Committee and
the Chancellor’s Committee on Student Fees
made the right choice in deciding not to sup
port a last-minute suggestion to raise the athletic fee
by $l5O.
The proposal comes too late —and it wouldn’t
make for an appropriate use of student fee money
if implemented.
Seventy-five percent of the University’s logo sales
currently go toward academic scholarships, while the
rest is allocated to athletics. Under the $l5O student
athletics fee increase proposal, drawn up by Judith
Wegner, chairwoman of the faculty, all logo sales
money would be redirected to scholarships.
The almost $900,000 shifted from athletics to
academics theoretically would yield 50 new merit
based scholarships for in-state students and 15 such
awards for nonresidents. The fee increase money
would fill the resulting gap in athletic funding.
But now isn’t the time to spring such a significant
price change on the Board of Trustees and, for that
matter, the entire student body. The BOT is meeting
this week, and to rush out a proposal without giving
involved parties enough time to examine the plan
closely and to explore possible alternatives would be
imprudent.
Regardless of the suggestion’s worth, it’s too bad
this proposal came so late in the game.
The UNC-system Board of Governors appears like
ly to shy away from campus-based tuition increases
in March. During a hike-free year, such a fee increase
promises to be less of a burden to students.
But there hasn’t been time for the proper amount
of consideration.
Wegner’s reasoning for the proposal evolved from
the results of last year’s tuition price elasticity study,
which demonstrated that merit-based scholarships
help to keep the best students interested.
There’s no question that more merit aid would
contribute to the health and welfare of UNC. Colleges
ONE PLACE FOR ALL
Students on this campus should belong to a single voting precinct
and that’s why legislators must work extra hard to make it a reality.
Every time a student who lives in Craige
Residence Hall visits a friend in Morrison, he
or she is moving from one voting precinct to
another. If students from those two residence halls
are thinking about getting in line to vote together in
Chapel Hill, they’d better change their plans.
UNC-Chapel Hill’s campus is divided into six dif
ferent voting precincts, only one of which has an on
campus polling site.
It’s an absurd setup that generates unnecessary
confusion for a large population of eligible voters.
Student government officials deserve plenty of
praise for their work as they lobby state legislators to
consolidate those precincts. It’s a necessary measure
to accommodate students.
District reform is a vital step toward improving
student participation, especially when it comes to
municipal elections. Although campus residents
generally are aware of state and national elections,
it’s difficult to attract students’ interest during years
when local government officials are the only ones
who have to run for office.
Students living on campus have an important
stake in that effort —but the nature of their resi
dence makes getting to the polls a difficult task for
them, as most of them don’t have cars. Some students
also have been discouraged from voting because they
thought they could vote at Morehead Planetarium
on Election Day: It’s possible to vote at the facility
during early voting, but not on the actual day.
Student leaders seem to have done their best to
improve voter participation in the six-precinct set
ting. Former Student Body President Matt Tepper’s
administration registered 2,300 voters before the
2003 municipal elections. But that effort failed to
get students out to the polls, as only 329 people aged
18 to 22 voted in that year’s municipal elections.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The above editorials are the opinions of solely The Daily Tar Heel Editorial Board, and were reached after open debate. The
board consists of six board members, the editorial page associate editor, the editorial page editor and the DTH editor. The 2004-05 DTH editor
decided not to vote on the board and not to write board, editorials.
A Libertarian government
isn't a proven improvement
TO THE EDITOR:
If Philip Hensley would like to
start a conversation about the “best”
form of government, more power
to him. But he’s going to have to do
better than “Government doesn’t
work.” Most mail is, in fact, deliv
ered on time and intact. Saying that
our schools are failing to educate our
children well is belied by the fact that
applications to Carolina increase
each year and that more students
than ever before meet entrance crite
ria. And both the N.C. and U.S. gov
ernments have kept their promise
to me of a stable retirement pension
and Social Security to the letter.
It’s true that our government is
often cumbersome, but this is a large,
complex country. If Libertarians
don’t think that government works
as it is now, it isn’t at all clear how
their form would work better.
Any social contract involving mil
lions of diverse people is bound to
infringe upon someone’s idea of per
sonal liberty. Libertarians’ notion of
personal liberty governed by person
al responsibility is quite attractive,
but it hinges on the rational behavior
of people. Mr. Hensley is a history
major, according to The Daily Tar
Heel. I wonder how many examples
of consistently rational behavior he
can cite in the history of nations.
Stupid policies on the part of
elected officials don’t in and of
themselves condemn government
but ought to remind us all that we
and universities across the nation offer these awards
to the best and brightest students in an effort to
reduce the amount of financial burden for promising
prospects and to make them feel especially wanted.
UNC obviously could use more merit aid money, as
tuition has risen and endowments such as the John
Motley Morehead Foundation have weakened.
But it wouldn’t be right to use a student fee increase
in this manner. Ideally, these fees are supposed to go
toward goals, areas and initiatives that benefit all stu
dents not just a small percentage of them.
Merit-based scholarships certainly help to improve
the academic quality of a college or university’s stu
dent body, but it’s elementary that scholarship money
only goes to some students.
Why should graduate students, then, have to pay
fee money that will go to incoming undergraduate
students?
Granted, one could argue that campus athletics also
would get a big boost, as extra money would go toward
scholarships, supplies, health, facility and operational
costs and Olympic sport coaches’ salaries.
But the average student wouldn’t be able to buy
into these changes. And the main purpose of this
$l5O fee increase would be to create a limited num
ber of academic scholarships. Simply put, money for
merit aid shouldn’t be coming out of student fees.
It’s an intriguing concept, and one that those in
charge of recommending and making fee changes
should take up for consideration next year.
Wegner made the right call in throwing the idea out
there for officials to explore, although one wishes that
she might have thought of it and suggested it sooner.
But the two committees made an even better call in
withholding any support for an athletic fee increase.
This fee needs to be used for things that every stu
dent who pays it can enjoy, gain from or appreciate
—and as much as more merit-based scholarships
would increase UNC’s draw as a college option, such
awards would be reserved for a lucky few.
Transportation problems and contusion stemming
from the division of precincts are at least partially
to blame for poor showing. Many students simply
didn’t know where to go, and they might have gotten
flawed answers from their friends.
The precinct divisions discourage students from
participating in local politics, and that’s a problem
worth fixing. The state legislature should look out for
students who have an interest in voting but wouldn’t
have the time between classes to drive or catch a bus
to the polls.
Individual students might not have a long-term
stake in local politics, but student interests will con
tinue to resonate. For example, students will always
be affected by a duplex apartment ban as much as
established residents even if the students living
in each unit change from year to year.
Furthermore, students who register to vote in
Chapel Hill meet all of the qualifications of other
voters in this district. They are U.S. citizens, and by
Election Day, they will have been living in their dis
tricts for at least 30 days.
Students shouldn’t face a barrier to exercising
their rights as voters.
In working to consolidate the campus’ voting
districts, student government officials should take
the opportunity to maintain a positive, cooperative
relationship with members of the UNC system’s
Association of Student Governments.
There’s a common goal to be achieved. Student
officials should put aside issues that have caused
friction between their organizations to do something
constructive.
Student Body President Matt Calabria has a lot
going for him, and consolidating the campus pre
cincts is one of his most important endeavors.
Let’s just hope he can put it all together.
ought to be more careful and con
scientious when we vote. There’s
no guarantee that Libertarians are
any more inclined to be so than
Republicans or Democrats.
We could all benefit from a con
tinuing conversation on the merits
of different forms of government,
but Libertarians have to do more
than just chant “government is
bad” as if it’s some sort of mantra.
Charles A. Murphy
Clinical professor
Department of Anesthesiology
Nonresidents need not bear
a disproportionate burden
TO THE EDITOR:
N.C. natives are about to receive
another free ride at the expense of
each and every out-of-state student
After reading in Monday’s paper that
the UNC-system Board of Governors
has great intentions of removing the
request to increase in-state tuition, I
am convinced that out-of-state stu
dents are taken for granted.
As an out-of-state student, I
would never be comfortable with
another student profiting from my
pocket alone. I became even more
outraged after learning of the true
need and beneficial spending plans
UNC-Chapel Hill has after the
expected tuition increase.
I realized the need for the tuition
increase after I attended the tuition
forum hosted by student govern
ment. The University will have
funds to accomplish a number of
Opinion
things. A few of the spending plans
are listed as follows: keep profes
sors at the school, hire more pro
fessors, increase teaching assistant
salaries and decrease the student
faculty ratio. These are all goals
that UNC-CH needs to maintain.
Needless to say, these are all
changes that the entire student
body will benefit from. If all of
the students benefit from such
changes, then why are the out-of
state students chosen to carry the
burden of supporting these chang
es financially? The idea that the
BOG might actually believe that
this move is the righteous answer
to the problems at this University is
simply absurd. This solution allows
N.C. natives another handout cour
tesy of out-of-state students.
It is quite obvious that the only
fair solution is that in-state students’
tuition should be modified in the
same manner as that for out-of-state
students. Yet no matter how obvious
the solution, a biased route will be
taken in favor of N.C. natives.
Juanita Tolliver
Sophomore
Journalism
Despite opposition, campus
should renew energy fee
TO THE EDITOR:
I commend the executive branch
of student government for its effort
in supporting the green energy ref
erendum on the Feb. 8 ballot.
I also want to pat the backs of my
ON THE DAY S NEWS
“Patience is not passive; on the contrary, it is active; it is
concentrated strength ”
EDWARD G. BULWER-LYTTON, English politician and poet
EDITORIAL CARTOON
Jr/ /V MmmjXs-jdMv...
COMMENTARY
The student body presiden
hopefuls must earn my vot(
If Seke Ballard, Leigha
Blackwell, Seth Dearmin and
Tom Jensen think that it will
be easy to secure my vote for stu
dent body president, they must
have bumped their heads. They
have a tremendous amount of
work to do if they want me to con
sider logging into Student Central
for them Feb. 8.
Don’t get me wrong I like the
candidates. I’ve worked with each
of them in student government and
campaigns, and I know that they’re
very nice. Plus, I empathize with
what they are going through. They
are sacrificing their academic and
personal lives to run for office, and
they are putting themselves on the
line for what they believe. They’re
great people, and I admire them
because I would rather have my
wisdom teeth pulled than run for
student office.
But I am a choosy voter, and I
expect nothing but the best from
my elected officials. My vote will
go to the person who proves him
self or herself best in furthering
the University’s proud tradition of
student self-governance. I want a
student body president with fresh
ideas and an extraordinary vision
for Carolina.
Now, I’m sure that many read
ers will think that I’m setting the
bar a little too high. After all, most
people do not expect young adults
to have the ingenuity or plan
ning skills to change a University.
Heck, most college administrators
don’t —but that means nothing
to me. My expectations are indeed
high, mostly because I know past
student body presidents who have
met and exceeded them.
Paul Dickson, student body
president in 1966 and one of my
personal heroes, was one such
leader. Dickson was at the helm
of student government during the
speaker ban controversy, in which
fellow members of Student Congress
led by Speaker Charlie Anderson,
former chairman of the Renewable
Energy Special Projects Committee
for their good sense in passing
the bill to put the referendum on
said ballot But it concerns me that
there are persistent rumors of an
organized campaign, well-financed
by outside interest groups, to derail
green energy initiatives on campus
by defeating the referendum.
Perhaps these groups and their
supporters on this campus like
wasting money and excessive dirty
energy. If they do, maybe they also
would conduct a campaign in favor
of tuition increases. Without proof
of these rumors, I can only pre
emptively condemn opposition to
the referendum, because it would
be an effort of deception and a
proposition of waste.
It might seem odd, but Student
Body Vice President Alexa
Kleysteuber is right that the long
run student and public costs of
campus operation will decrease by
renewing the $4-per-student fee
that is already part of students’ bills.
Just as the UNC Young Democrats
oppose unnecessary tuition
increases and favor environmental
improvement to boost both public
health and the economy, so do we
wholeheartedly support the renewal
of the green energy fee to improve
campus life and reduce costs.
Dustin Ingalls
Publicity director
UNC Young Democrats
DERWIN DUBOSE
FROM THE DIRT ROAD
the N.C. General Assembly banned
communists from speaking at the
state’s public universities.
Instead of accepting the bla
tant attack on academic freedom,
Dickson did what a true student
body president should he led.
He organized a 1,200-student
protest on McCorkle Place, and
he and other student leaders filed
suit against Chancellor J. Carlyle
Sitterson and the University.
Because of his efforts, a federal
court overturned the law in 1968.
Since then, students have been
free to invite whomever they
please to speak on campus.
The candidates can even look at
the University’s most recent his
tory to find an example of remark
able achievement for the student
body president. This summer, Matt
Calabria, our current chief execu
tive, actively fought to renovate the
historic Campus Y building.
Now, generations of Tar Heels
will enjoy having new student
centered offices, meeting rooms
and a snack bar on North Campus
—and a campus institution will
continue with renewed vigor.
Dickson and Calabria have my
respect and admiration, now and
forever. They used the office of stu
dent body president to leave indel
ible marks on the campus, and I
will not accept anything less from
the winner of this year’s election.
I want to vote for a candidate
who has the capability to do some
thing revolutionary and effective
for the student body, and I will not
CAA-related Code revision
hearing to be held today
TO THE EDITOR:
Student Congress will hold a
public hearing on revisions to Title
VII of the Student Code at 5 p.m.
today in 383 Phillips Hall. Title VII
deals with the Carolina Athletic
Association, and issues to be dis
cussed include men’s basketball
ticket distribution, Homecoming,
the future of Carolina Fever and
the general structure of CAA.
This hearing is open to the pub
lic and is a great opportunity for
students to voice their concerns
about issues that drew an enor
mous amount of attention last
semester.
Many big changes are on the
horizon don’t miss your chance
to weigh in.
Luke Farley
Member
Student Congress
TO SUBMIT A LETTER: The Daily
Tar Heel welcomes reader comments.
Letters to the editor should be no longer
than 300 words and must be typed,
double-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 vulgarity. Publication is
not guaranteed. Bring letters to the DTH
office at Suite 2409, Carolina Union, mail
them to P.O. Box 3257, Chapel Hill, NC
27515 or e-mail them to editdesk@unc.
edu.
®l|p Sattij ®ar Up
By Evann Strathern, evann@email.unc.
entertain mediocrity. The stakes
are too high for us to allow can
didates to push easy things such
as moving a bike pump as major
campus innovations.
To get my vote, one must sho\
me concrete, attainable plans to
provide exemplary representatic
as a member of UNC’s Board of
Trustees, to keep my tuition as 1(
as possible and to improve stu
dent life. But sadly, the candidat
Web sites have not shown this.
In my research, I found few
original ideas. One platform
merely supports things that hav
happened or are already in prog
ress on campus. Another seems
to be a poor attempt at pander
ing to certain organizations for
endorsements. One candidate
has promised bold programs in
town relations, but the platform
demonstrates a complete misun
derstanding of the student body
president’s role in local govern
ment. Then there’s a candidate
with few, if any, stances and sub
stantive reform efforts.
Leigha, Seke, Seth and Tom
have a lot to do in the next two
weeks. They better start workin
to convince the student body th
they offer more than broad, regt
gitated and impracticable plat
forms —and until they do, they
need not attempt to interrupt ir
life with campaign propaganda.
But I will be hard at work as
well. I’ll be following The Daily T
Heel’s coverage like a hawk, look
ing for what each of them would
offer as student body president,
and I pray that I won’t be the onl;
student who does. Hopefiilly, one
them will live up to my expectatic
for the leader of this student bodj
If not, I’ll just have to write Paul
Dickson on the ballot
Contact Derwin Dub
at derwin. dubose@gmail.co
Established 1893
111 years of editorialfreedon
Daily ®ar Hppl
www.tfthonliHe.com
MICHELLE JARBOE
EDITOR, 962-4086
OFFICE HOURS: 1 P.M. - 2 P.M. TUESDAY, THURSI
CHRIS COLETTA
MANAGING EDITOR, 962-0750
NIKKI WERKING
DEPUTY MANAGING EDITOR, 962-0750
ELLIOTT DUBE
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, 962-0750
EMILY STEEL
UNIVERSITY EDITOR, 962-0372
RYAN C. TUCK
CITY EDITOR, 962-4209
EMMA BURGIN
STATE & NATIONAL EDITOR, 962-4103
DANIEL MALLOY
SPORTS EDITOR, 962-4710
KELLY OCHS
FEATURES EDITOR, 962-4214
BECCA MOORE
ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT EDITOR, 962-4214
KATIE SCHWING
COPY EDITOR, 962-4103
LAURA MORTON
PHOTO EDITOR, 962-0750
RANDI DEMAGISTRIS
DESIGN EDITOR, 962-0750
NICOLE NEUMAN
DESIGN EDITOR, 962-0750
MARY JANE KATZ
GRAPHICS EDITOR, 962-0750
FEILDING CAGE
ONLINE EDITOR, 962-0750