MofIh Piatt
The Daily Tar Heel
82nd Year of Editorial Freedom
All unsigned editorials are the opinion of the editors. Letters gad cclusss represent the cpisicss cf
individuals. .
Discrimination
iWiWiOfOA
Founded February 23, 1893
Tuesday, November 5, 1974
TtvTl.TlT! rFI tfXl fh foPTl tiY YYi TO fh
fie epcorammg Tetoeimdiuip
In our editorial of last Monday, we raised some
serious questions in opposition to the North Carolina
Public Interest Research Group (N.C. P1RG), as well
as pointing out some of the benefits.
In large part, the various challenges we made have
been responded to by PIRG. Some explanation is in
order, as well as a continued dose of skepticism,
towards this issue to be decided by student referendum
on Wednesday. ,
M oney has never really been the issue here. $ 1 .50 per
semester for PIRG isn't all that much. $1.50 barely
covers the cost of a cheap meal these days. However,
depending on one's value judgment of ' PIRG, any
amount may be too much.
- The big question that must be answered is PIRG
on this campus really worth it? really cannot be
answered until we see how PIRG works on this
campus. PIRG may say it will work fine, and
opponents may say it will work poorly, but neither will
know for sure except in the case that PIRG is approved
and has been operating for a while.
Other questions that PIRG must answer concern
principle. PIRG may claim to be an on-campus group.
By a certain way of reasoning, it is. Essentially, though,
PIRG is starting on this campus as a result of an
outside group coming in, encouraging the university to
form its own local chapter to be affiliated closely with
the outside group.
Thus, we must eventually know the answers to these
questions: ( I) why allow PIRG to come as opposed to
other groups? and (2) if we fund PIRG, why not any
and all other groups coming in to establish local
chapters?
; If an exception is made in the case of PIRG, it damn
well better be a worthwhile organization, especially if it
is going to mean raising student fees by 17 per cent.
And in that case, the funding of PIRG should be a
conscious, voluntary action; i.e., the student checks a
box on his registration form saying: "Yes, I want my
extra $1.50 in fees to go to PIRG." The funding system
should not rely on PIRG crossing its fingers and
hoping that not too many people will think of checking
off a box to keep their $1.50 from going to it.
! Currently, the funding system on other North
Carolina campuses which have PIRG calls for students
to check a box if they don't want to give to it. Each
campus has the right to decide how PIRG will be
funded. Campus canvassing coordinator Kay House
has gone on record as saying she will favor a two-way
checkoff system, whereby a student would have to
make a positive, conscious action before his money
went to PIRG.
Although this will ultimately be decided by PIRG
representatives to be elected in next spring's campus
elections, House is currently in one of the most
influential PIRG positions on this campus. It is to be
expected that she will use this influence to get the
desired checkoff system.
Another basic objection to PIRG has been the
problem of what to do with the Student Consumer
Action Union (SCAU) if PIRG comes on campus.
However, current SCAU head Janie Clark has
indicated that although PIRG would eventually
absorb SCAU, the present valuable programs
conducted by SCAU would not stop. In fact, Clark
says, research for pamphlets would be greatly
improved.
What about the rest of the $60,000? The money
supposedly will give clout to students and consumers
on the local and state levels, aiding them in such issues
as consumer credit, fraud, product quality and safety,
utilities and prices. Success can be pointed to on other
campuses. The $60,000 is potentially a good
investment.
Great caution and vigilance must be exercised if
$60,000 worth of students' money per year will be going
in large part off-campus even though the potential
benefits on campus are great.
After seeing how wise the state board is in deciding
projects, and how wasteful or not the board is in
spending money, students here will have to decide
whether it is worth it to continue as part of the state
wide group, or to hold another referendum to
withdraw from PIRG.
PJRQ should not be welcomed with open arms on
this campus, but it should be given a chance to prove
itself in what could be a valuable investment.
Hopefully the effort will be successful.
But PIRG must be watched; if it doesn't turn out like
it has been cracked up to be, then there will be no use in
keeping it. The best must be hoped for, and expected,
of PIRG if passed.
Lessons in 20th century sophistry are
not hard to come by as witnessed by a
recent column condoning HEW's
Affirmative Action Plan. The author, it
seems, desired further criticism of the .
government's reverse discrimination
policies to be laid to rest. It is not
surprising to find such incoherent,
misleading and false reasoning
stemming from the Student
Government.
Discrimination is not a "funny word"
to those who suffer from its effects.
Thurgood Marshall did not think it
"funny" that blacks and whites were
forced to attend segregated schools in
1954. I do not think it "funny" today
that students and faculty are admitted to
universities with deficient qualifications
because there is a quota which requires
their "presence.
The Black Student Movement does
not "allegedly practice discrimination
against whites. It consciously
discriminates against whites by the very
nature and purpose of its character. The
BSM is designed for black students, not
white students.
Plumbers who clear clogged drains
. provide absolutely no analogy,. -to
discrimination in hiring' people
according to race. Certainly civilization
discriminates in numerous ways in order
to survive. But to utilize the services of a
professional or specialist to perform a i
specific function is hardly similar to a
governmental agency coercing an
institution to hire unqualified people to
serve its goals. Sure, most people go to a
physician to seek medical help, but
reason tells me if I were the president of
a college I would certainly not hire a
professor or admit a student who did
not meet stated academic requirements.
To do so in order to meet a "quota" of
minority students is even more
imbecilic.
The federal government has chosen to "
color its "Affirmative Action Plans" as
"good" discrimination in the fullest
relativist fashion, thus denying that
discrimination, in all situations, is bad
(good-bye Fourteenth Amendment). It
is obviously not so easy for HEW to see
that by forcing a university to admit
unqualified students (in order to fill a
race or sex quota) damage is done to the
standard of excellence which great
academic institutions hope to achieve or
preserve.
' To say that the government or
university has "known" what is "good"
and "bad" discrimination distorts the
very definition of the word
"discrimination." I can see how a college
"selects students with superior academic
prowess; I cannot see how a board of
Kevin Roddy
Asleep at the back of the bus
It is nearly impossible to exist in a
situation or derive any sort of benefit
from it when one is unable to determine
the meaning that the existence exerts
upon one's life. I wish to ask: what is the
purpose of education as embodied at
this University, what is its meaning, and
what positive influences does it have
upon my life?
1 once asked a friend these same
questions. He paused sagely, as seems
appropriate whenever one deals with
these traumas of life, and then he
replied, "To me, school is a busload of
weird, varied people on the road to find
out. I hope the brakes work." Beautiful.
That says it all, yet, at the same time, it
says nothing. But if one is going to
inquire into this state of life that we so
loftily term "education," that's what you
have to prepare yourself for. The people
that know nothing claim to be wise,
while the ones that know the answers, if
they exist, just aren't saying.
But let me be more direct. As it stands
how, education is a farce, school is a
joke, and we are all fools for putting up
with it for -so long. And think, dear
reader, of just how long you have been
in school. For it is my contention that
the irrelevancies that school embodies
have truly plagued our . intellectual
. growth and processes of awareness since
the days of milk and graham crackers
and nap time back in kindergarten.
You see it reflected in the faces
around you. For many people at
Carolina, this four (six? eight?) years of
college is a continual hassle: Which
courses are the slides? Should I skip
Psych? Do you think he'll give us a quiz?
Are we here to learn or to merely get by?
When you sit down and finally read that
book, are you reading it to learn, or
because the man or woman that stands
at the front of the class in a suit told you
to read it?
Now, you'll say, sometimes it is
necessary to sacrifice our personal
desires to learn what we want and
succumb to the syllabus. Wrong! The
purpose of education is to allow us the
opportunity to learn what we need to
live. Life is not a, b, c, d: none of the
The
Daily
Tar Heel
Jim Cooper, Greg Turosak
Editors . a
Kevin McCarthy, Managing Editor
Barbara Holtzman, Associate Editor
Gary Fulton, Associate Editor
Joel Drinkley, News Editor
Harriet Sugar, Features Editor
Elliott Warnock, Sports Editor
Martha Stevens, Head Photogrepher
Jim Grimsley, Night Editor
above, or e: all of the above.
And the teachers, those older,
supposedly better-educated fools persist
in this continuing myth of "education."
They should know better, shouldn't
they? Haven't they seen the foibles of
this system from both sides? Or are they,
so programmed by the system that they
can't care, or worse, don't care?
Recently, a friend of mine was
assigned in an English class to write a
biography of an author. He chose Ken
Kesey. My friend wrote a neat, ten-page,
double-spaced paper. I know I typed
it. Thus, in a way, I feel like an accessory
to a crime. He agonized for 10 minutes
over where he should put his name on
the paper. Upper right hand corner?
Should he fold it in half (lengthwise or
widthwise?) and then put his name on
the back?
If my friend had agonized for half the
time over the ludicrous nature of the
assignment as he did over the placement
of his name on the paper, he would have
perceived the sad state of education
today, and its stifling effect upon his
creative nature.
But the key here is that my friend
realized that the assignment was a crueV
joke. What good is a 10-page biography
of Ken Kesey, detailing his college
wrestling career? Shall we send it to
Kesey's wife for posterity? My friend
now thinks that it would have been a
more valuable thinking and writing
experience not to notarize Kesey's life,
but rather to comment on the influence
that that life had upon the author's
writing, for example. But what can he
do? If he confronted the teacher with his
thoughts on the subject, the instructor,
who is such a nice guy in the halls or
outside, would suddenly become the
system's lackey automaton that he truly
is. Have you ever noticed how they hide
behind those huge desks, and ruffle
papers like a shield. One can almost hear
the abrupt clearing of the throat, the
crisp "That's the assignment" line. End.
of discussion. But why? It's because,
when you attempt to assert your rights
as an individual who wants to learn
something your own way, you are a
"threat" to the very educational system
that mass produces these automatons.
Granted, there are good teachers that
are willing to help students to learn.
There should be more of them, but,
more importantly, we, as students must
re-examine our motives in being here.
Are we here to learn, or to merely sleep
in the back of the bus (class) with no
brakes? Education is not something that
this place does to you, it is a goal that
you earn for yourself, learning what you
want, in the way you want to learn it.
Kevin Roddy is a sophomore from
Troy, Michigan.
admissions can welcome a student with'
mediocre credentials because he is a
member of a "minority" while denying a
"non-minority" person with a better
academic background admission
because he does not fill a race or sex
quota. 3;
Faculty hiring requires close scrutiny
of a prospective professor's academic .
background and skills, not a
sociological perspective of the effect of a
balanced "racial and sexual
composition" in the faculty. To accept
this racist and sexist approach is to deny ,
civilization's historically and morally
correct tendency (this tendency has been
violated, on many occasions, as can be
expected) to reward excellent
achievement regardless of its substance.
An electorate which uses sex or race
as criteria for selecting its leaders will
receive bad government. A university
which appoints a faculty whose
numbers correspond (percentage-wise)
to the racial or sexual composition of its
students will lower the quality of its
education.
To hire a professor because her sex
happens to be female nullifies the whole
concept of equal justice and equal
opportunity. Race and sex quotas are
not only immoral, but alien to the
American tradition of equal justice for
all- .
How can -equal opportunity" be
achieved when one sectarian sexual or
racial group receives preferential
treatment? To justify the opinion that
because a group was denied equal
opportunity at a previous time, it is
therefore "legal" or "moral" to
discriminate on behalf of that group, at
the expense of others, during the present
is extraordinarily irrational reasoning.
-Equal opportunity" and "special
attention" are as diverse as the colors
black and white.
When one ignores the real meanings
of words and concepts such as
"discrimination" and replaces accepted
definitions with one's own meanings,
violence becomes the product of man's
vocabulary. It is a sad day indeed when
society heeds the values and sophistry of
the relativist's "morality." The ends did
not justify the means during the Age of
Reason and they certainly do not now.
Only a decadent society would accept
the notion that the concepts of "good"
and "evil" are relative to different
people, different situations and different
times. Maybe we are closer to this
nightmare than we want to believe.
Rorin Piatt is a political science major
from Greensboro.
m
Barbara Holtzman
Blasting
away,
e Top 40 way
As an ex-RTVMP major, I am probably most unqualified to write about the
operations of a radio station. But as a qualified listener and part owner of the
airwaves, I don't think there are enough of us involved in this highly influential
medium. There's money in this business, a lot of room for change and a demand for
good ideas. But with inflation hitting us right in the cochlea, we want success, right?
If you want to start a radio station, aim for the top. Top 40, that is. Here is a basic
success formula derived from the operating standards of almost any station
beginning with "W"; ; .
1 . H ire disc jockeys whose decible range is similar to that of the 747 in your back
yard. Make sure he knows how to read, because his voice is important when
shouting out the commercials. Make sure, also, that your Dj can prattle for hours
about absolutely nothing. (You may want to provide him with a copy of Jokes for
the John if he's not very experienced.) Teach your DJ to begin talking at least 3
minutes before a song is over, especially if it's a good song. In this way, anyone
taping the song will be sure to get the sparkling personality of the DJ and at the same
time remember what time he was taping, what the temperature was, etc.
2. Aim your musical selections to four-year-old groupies in halter tops. A hint of
the provocative is always good (naughty but nice), such as Sundown where you do
in a room what you don't confess, or Behind Closed Doors. Ray Stevens is an extra
added attraction. And don't forget to play goldies. But be sure not to play musical
selections too much. One every 15 minutes ought to do it. After all, you're after an
audience. Fill in musical gaps with DJ's (see point 1) or commercials (see point 3).
3. Try for boutiques, head shops and colas as your advertisers. This way, you can
play some funky music in the background and tell it like it is. Try to sponsor
everything from frog-jumping contests to outdoor rock jamborees and enable your
commercials to include your call letters. Let your listeners know that by sponsoring
what they want, you're tuning in on them when they tune in on you.
4- Keep in mind that your listeners want fun, but let them know that you want
them to be informed. This doesn't mean that you have to inform, just include a short
news program five minutes is probably maximum. Remember, that includes one
minute for sports, 30 seconds for weather and two minutes for commercials.
Optional is a 30 second lead-in, complete with official teletype in the background,
telling how your station is first and foremost with the news.
5. This one is the clincher. This can make you or break you. I'm speaking about
the all-important contest. Offer your listener a real diploma that will guarantee any
job if he can tell you the exact dimensions of the universe. Promise your listener
ownership of GM if he can find Patty Hearst and guess the exact number of people
claiming to have seen her. Entice your listener by offering two free tickets to
Woodstock to anyone who comes up with the most original solution of what to do
with Israel, Cyprus and Carrboro. Give helpful clues daily just to drag it out and
make it more fun.
Certainly these are not the only ingredients in a success formula, but they seem to
have worked for a number oi familiar stations. You might want to include clever DJ
names ("The Hyena," with its own canned hyena-laugh, is a good example), toe
tapping jingles, bumper stickers or free handouts of porcelain from Olivia Newton's
john. Whatever ideas you use, use them a lot. Establish your identity and have a
slammed-out, banged-up chime-time with your own station.
I if .
if rv
f
III)'