The ; Daily TparHeei
82nd Year Of Editorial Freedom
AU unsigned editoriils tst tfc opinion of the editors. Letters csd cclzsss repressst &t cp!s2c:a cf
More-at
Ben Steelman
Founded February 23, H33
Monday, Jzzmrj 23, 1975
ac((Q)iMrolnIh-!ini(D)ttIliiDinis
il
Thursday, January 16, 1975, was a sad day in the
history of UNC. On that day a capacity crowd in
Memorial Hall and a Union-sponsored speaker were
deliberately and forcefully denied their constitutional
rights. For almost an hour there was utter chaos in the
main auditorium of a university whose motto is light and
liberty. And we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Our fellow students were responsible for stealing our
rights that evening. We were our own "worst enemies.
The . administration, the community and the state
watched as we failed to preserve our own civil liberties,
much less protect those of our fellow man.
It makes no difference that the speaker was a
(Clansman, or that the majority of the protestors were
black. Stokely Carmichael, Yassir Arafat, or the Devil
Incarnate could have been at the podium, and still our
actions were criminal. We share group responsibility for
the complete breakdown of order, restraint and
communication.
On the surface, the efforts to disrupt David Duke's
speech were successful since he could not be heard. But
our violence really accomplished nothing. The attempts
to shout down Mr. Duke only backfired because we
showed more racism, hatred and intolerance than the
Klan. Mr. Duke did not even have to speak to be
victorious.
And the saddest fact is that we should have know
better. Our lives have been crowded with past examples
of criminal close-mindedness. The speaker-ban crisis of
the 1960s, the civil rights marches in the South, and the
witch hunts of the McCarthy years seem to have taught
us little "LiberaP speech is not the only kind of free
speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
We learned to detest discrimination and intolerance,
but not reverse discrimination and intolerance. David
Duke has the same right to speak as Ralph Abernethy.
And red-neck legislators are not the only people who
would like to censor speakers and ideas on campus. Ai
we saw on Thursday night, all too many students would
like to do the same thing.
We must learn that all people have a right to express
their opinions openly and peacefully, however
disgusting, subversive, or absurd those attitudes may be.
Moreover, no group has the right to control the flow of
those opinions, to play God for their fellow man. This
degree of freedom is hard to maintain, but it is most
essential when it is most difficult.
Students can still protest within this framework and
have everyone's liberties preserved. We can strike,
picket, or boycott, but we cannot resort to force of
violence as we did on Thursday and even hope to
preserve our own freedom. We must be far more careful
with our methods of dissent.
As students, we are used to seeing ourselves as victims
instead of culprits. But we were all damnably guilty on
Thursday night. And our youth, our inexperience and
our sheltered existence are no excuse for our behavior.
We know better and therefore we should act better.
Soon we will all be in our parents positions and our
actions will have far greater consequences than they do
now. We must do better than the generations before us
and not repeat such tragedies as Thursday nigfit.
to the editors
When the oreient Student approved by referendum hsi xprisj. It
Government Constitution cosset up for incorporated several major changes in
v the old Honor Court system.
" For the first time, students were
admitted into the appeals process,
through the establishment of a joint
Student-Faculty Review Board.
Previously, only professors had
reviewed appealed cases.
Separate Undergraduate and
Residence Courts were set up. Thus, for
the first time, the system recognized a
difference, at least in jurisdiction,,
between cheating on an exam, and say,
throwing firecrackers out a window
during a panty raid.
The Instrument included a Code of
Student Conduct, which specified and
limited the types of offenses for which a
student could be tried, and the types of
punishment he or she could receive.
Has all of this made any difference in
how the Honor Court works? It's hard
to tell. The new system has operated less
than a year, and has not really proved
itself either way. At the same time,
though, a number of its provisions, on
paper at. least, provide for more student
participation and control, j
The RHA was established to replace
final ratification this Tussdsy. a lot of
things other than the Campus
Governing Council (CGC) will be
involved.
That is, if the Constitution goes if
CGC is abolished then the present
Honor Court system, the Residence
Housing Association (RHA), and even
the student FM radio station, now being '
planned, will go with it.
Article VIII, section 4 of the present'
Student Constitution provides' that "if,
by two-thirds vote of those voting, the
student body expresses its
dissatisfaction with the changes made in
the Constitutional referendum of
November 14, 1972," (i.e. the
Constitution in its present form) Mthen
all of the provisions of said referendum
and all referenda made between
November 14, 1972. and the date of the
referendum provided for in this section
(the ratification on January 21, 1975
italics mine) "shall cease to be effective
after March 1, 1975, and automatically
replaced with the immediately
preceding Constitutional provisions"
The present Honor Court system and
the RHA were both incorporated into
the Constitution by referenda after
November 14, 1972. Neither is provided
for in the old, pre-1972 Constitution.
Therefore, both would be abolished if
the referendum fails.
"The decision to apply for an FM
license for WCAR, the student radio
station, was ' also approved by a
referendum after November 14, 1972.
No specific provision to establish an FM
station was incorporated into the
Constitution at that time, but neither
was any radio station mentioned in the
old Constitution.
If ratification failed, a question
concerning WCAR-FMV
constitutionality would probably arise,
and its final completion (currently
scheduled for this fall) would be blocked
up for months or prevented entirely.
Why are these organizations
important?
The new student judicial system,
provided for in the "Instrument for
Student Judicial Governance, was
the c!d Residence College Federation.
By involving several of the independent
dormitories which belonged to no
residence college, it was supposed to
give dorm residents more bargaining
clout with the Administration in
housing matters.
By most indicators, RHA has been a
disappointment. Despite its opposition,
the Administration ordered a stop to
room-by-room coed living on second
floor Winston, and proceeded with the
controversial room-by-room search of
Mclver last summer.
At the same time, though, RHA has
undoubtedly encountered more
Administration hostility than any other
student organization.
Returning to RCF would only divide
dorm residents and weaken the students
voice in the housing system. One can
only wonder what the dorm situation
would be like today, if there had been no
RHA at all.
CGC probably needs to be reformed,
and students can achieve these reforms
themselves by amending the present
Constitution.
Ben Steelman is a member of CGC.
Mt
Dave Gephart
Mas eliimsy,
HeBresentative
Black d
emonstratioB was jus
tified
To the editors: , , ..,
. ThtyisorxIerssurrciundingl-avjdDiike!s
attempted speech Thursday night in
Memorial Hall raise several important
questions. I will not presume to judge the
propriety of the tactics employed by blacks
to silence this speaker. However, as a
member of the dominant Caucasian
majority, I would like to address the white
students, especially those voicing rage at an
abridgement of one man's freedom of,
speech. It seems to me that the freedom of
blacks has in the past, and continues to be
abridged to a far greater extent than any
miscarriage of justice Thursday. 1 feel it to be
everyone's responsibility to protect and
defend human rights. In this light I feel that '
the invitation should not have been
extended. I make this statement in the ,
context that David Duke was billed as a
K.K.K. speaker, an avowed position of the
KICK, being a violent vicious abridgement of
the freedom of numerous minorities. I do not
believe that the rewards of any mental
exercise in dealing with this man's prejudices
warrant the degradation which blacks must
feel in the face of public support, indeed
paying, for this man to speak. I request that
those chosen to represent me in future
decisions of this nature reflect, at least in
part, this position. Further, 1 would hope,
that a sense of perspective would grow up
concerning these issues and that the protest
of black students be viewed as a reflection of
their justified outrage at white insensitivity.
David Schwartz
Carrboro
Free speech-no
double standard
To the editors:
Racist attitudes such as those of
'Klansman David Duke must be deplored
and protested against. To be objected to
also, however, is the behavior of the students
Thursday night who refused to allow him to
speak. The Carolina-Forum says it attempts
to present a wide spectrum of viewpoints to
those of the student body who choose to.
listen by inviting a variety of speakers.
Whether it is doing its job adequately is
certainly debatable (one may legitimately;
question the expenditure of $800 of student
money on the likes of David Duke and what'
he represents), but this is not the major
question in this issue. The fact is that the man
was invited to speak and should have been'
allowed to do so, however objectionable his
ideas.
As one who was a student at UNC during
the period of the Speaker Ban Law in the'
1960s and supported the efforts by the
students of this institution to remove that
threat to freedom of speech, I find this,
attempt by my fellow students to silence!
ideas of which they do not approve
distressing. We cannot have a double
standard on the issue of free speech.
Episodes like" that of Thursday night will
only serve to play into the hands of those in
this state who would wish to curtail free and
uninhibited inquiry at this and other state
institutions.-" . - '
The removal of racism in our society
deserves our involvement" and efforts. It ist
depressing to observe, however, that one ef
Jbe. :fe3U.Aiisibl& aaanifestetions fttustest
activism on this campus this year on any
. issue deserving of our attention should have
taken place in the manner in which it did
Thursday night.
David C. Atwood
1 00-C Bernard St.
Protestors help
promote racism
The behavior exhibited by the protestors
of Ku Klux Klansman David Duke and his
. scheduled speech of Thursday night better,
served to promote racism than any racist,
appeal Duke could possibly have voiced. By
drowning Duke's attempts to be heard with
their howling, screaming, and absurd
chanting, the predominately black,
protestors proved themselves "worthy" of
many of the. Klan's claims claims of black
superiority in this case with respect to
moral consciousness. The disrupters total
disregard for a man's fundamental right to
free speech contradicted and negated their
own demands for, as they so cleverly put it
(with clenched fists), u Freedom! Freedom!
? -Vi i1Ay:i?AV.'Al:VAVAUAiV.AM.i ... ....... . . .-..-...'...-.-.. . . . . i I
The institution of the Campus Governing Council to replace the Student
Legislature, when students voted in 1972 to change the system, brought with it no
noticeable improvement in Student Government. As of recently, the CGC is still
being defended on the basis of its potential witness the column in the DTH last
Friday, by Johnny Kaleel.
The reason there was ho drastic improvement with CGC is that there was no
drastic increase in Student Government more interest by students is the only
thing likely to improve Student Government here. CGC does not have the potential
to do this no system that concentrates governmental action in a few hands will
arouse general interest. r
For proof of this, we have o nly to look at the low voter turnouts in recent national
elections. A government run. by a few powerful men will invariably end up
preoccupied by silliness, and eventually, dangerous loss of perspective, as in the
Nixon years. v
t SL was indeed clumsy. It was also representative. It provided a method for influx
of widely varied opinions to reach Student Government. Unlike CGC, the 55
member SL was able to retain its experienced members while constantly admitting
new ones. The people in SL who were really into the SL trip constantly had to justify
their motives and opinions to other members who. were new, and therefore, critical.
The new members, on the other hand, were able to receive the benefit of a lot of
practice at student government .by the expehehced members.
The CGC just isn't frig enough tc fprovtdeucWajdmM.
If only three or four votes will elect a representative to determine how one-third of
million dollars is to be spent, it is better to have a large number of representatives.
there is a large number of representatives, individual students are more likely to
know a representative. And people from a club or activity that needs help or money
support are more likely to find a member interested in their cause and more likely
to find other representatives ready to criticize the cause if it is wrong. It is simply
easier to know the representative if they represent 350 people instead of 1,000.
This Writer has been involved with both forms of Student Government, and has
seen how under CGC it is possible for Student Government to be run by a handful of
people or a single person (as the others are inexperienced). I urge the return of the
contentious, clumsy, Student Legislature which is also the large, representative,
wide-open, well-known SL. It will take two-thirds vote, so all votes are important.
Dave Gephart is a former student who served as Speaker Pro Tern ofSL. He
supported passage of the CGC in 1972.
David E. Duke
testers ignore
rfauman
rights
Editor's note: The following was written
Freedom!" Travesty of travesties. Unnatural- oy David E Duke after 'his appearance
JOK.C. . . t; ...
Those who entered Memorial Hall
Thursday night withpreconceived ill feelings
toward the outspoken racist Duke and the
organization he represents probably left the
building with a somewhat different attitude
that of sympathy for David Duke and a
mixture of disgust, embarrassment,, and
contempt for the small group of protestors
who denied the rest of the audience the
privilege of hearing this controversial
speaker. Perhaps some even found
themselves harboring racist .sentiments
which they had not held before. Later that
night, David Duke no doubt slept the sleep'
of a man well satisfied with himself.
Alex Standefer
206 Aycock
Education denied
Thursday night
To the editors: ' "
I came to the "Southern Part of Heaven" '
from Kansas City, Mo., expecting to have
the total resources of an institution of higher,
learning. Last semester 1 took advantage of.
the services and the opportunities open to,
me. However, on Thursday night a group of
students elected to set back my education,
and that of many others. Not only was the
education of the people at David Ernest
Duke's presentation set back, but freedom of
speech was denied to an American.
I hope Student Government and the
Carolina Forum will continue to enrich our;
education with various points of views and
not be discouraged by the disgusting display
Thursday night.
Brad Lamb,
835 James'
Editor's note: Because ofjhe heavy
volume of mail about David, Duke) some
letters may not be printed. However, we will,
continue to print letters throughout the
week.
here Thursday night.
It's been a long day and I am
exhausted. The always-inefficient
airlines have lost my suitcase, it's a
quarter to twelve and 1 can't even brush
my teeth. But I feel that 1 need to sit
down before and escape of sleep, an put
down my feelings toward a student
body, before which I was rudely not
permitted to speak. A small black and ;
Marxist group had taken it upon
themselves to be the "mother and
daddy" of 20,000 college students and
decide what they would and would not
see and hear. By any means necessary,
this self-appointed censorial body was
determined to permit "easily
corruptible" college "brats" to hear such
a "nasty speaker who might poison
their infantile minds. Everyone is
certainly aware that the college student .
is only intellectually mature enough to
handle "non-controversial" speakers
like Jane Fonda and Angela Davis
speakers who reflect the opinions and ,
admirations of the average student like ;
John Egan (of the Young Socialist
Alliance, a group which thousands of
UNC students are waiting in line to
join).
Certain Marxists and blacks used all
sorts of rhetoric to supposedly justify
their suppression , of civil liberty. ;
Suppression of civil liberty is precisely
what they accuse me of doing, yet I
know of not one case where 1 have
suppressed anyone's civil liberties, for
contrary to popular opinion, I've never
lynched a black, or gassed a Jew, or
advocated the same nor do I recall one
instance when 1 tried to stop
Communists (whom 1 detest) from ,
speaking. They suppress me and the
students rights to hear anything on the
supposed basis that I wish to suppress
others! Talk about the pot calling the
kettle black!
Another argument anti-Klanists have
used is MHe says nothing of value. It's
always unique to watch the Marxist
dialectic at work. It is ridiculous trying
to ask them how they know what I say is
of nothing of value (sic) if they don't
hear what I have to say. And, none of
these "equality-minded individuals
would ever conceive that perhaps all
people do not value the same things that
they do. They overlook basic human1
rights. Apparently over 2,000 people
thought they would find something of
value in my speeck, whether as a
reinforcement of their concepts, or an
open testing of them, or as an exercise in
what they consider to be entertainment
(I4 hold no illusions).
Finally, these scions of logic say that I
shouldn't speak because of all the people
that 1 and the Klan have killed. 1 could
say that I'm one up on the patron saint,
Angela, in that I have never even been .
indicted of the crime. And if they allege
that the Klan as an organization has
sponsored murder, 111 contest that and.
you know, if that is a reason for
preventing speakers from talking at
UNC, then Angela Davis and Jane
Fonda should have never (sic) been ;
allowed to speak for how many!.
millions were murdered by Marxists
and Marxist organizations? How many
died in Russia? In China? What? 1
don't hear any cries for banning Marxist
speakers from the lovers oi justice cm
equality end freedom!
So there they were, the masters of
freedom, armed sufficiently with their
proletarian battalions, and there, alone.
was a fellow from Louisiana: me. I
wonder how those (people) (sic) felt with,
their loud, mindless mouths, doing their
' part to end prejudice by pre-judging me
before hearing me out. Did they feel
smug in their efforts to end bigotry by
espousing itl Yes, probably. ;
i don't really reel sorry for them, but I
do feel for Chapel Hill students. When
you think about it, they didn't: stop my
right to speak as much as they stifled
your right to hear. j
As a prominent speaker on the college
tour I have traveled all over the United
States and Canada and spoken to many,
many major universities. This is the first
appearance where heckling has
prevented the audience from j hearing
me. I also know of no case in Chapel
Hill's entire history when a speaker on
the podium was prevented from
speaking by hecklers.
I want to assure you of two things.
First, I want you to know that I do not
blame the student body for the
treatment I received on stage by (sic) a
hate-filled, bigoted and prejudiced
minority. I blame only those who
participated. I want to say also that the
Carolina Union Program Committee
treated me respectfully and courteously
throughout the entire time I was in
Chapel Hill.
I tried very hard for 45 minutes to
enable you to judge for yourself the
ideas the Klan represents. Later, I talked
to a small, select group of mostly
liberals, who will probably soon be
picking apart my little talk to them and
telling you what they think I would have
said to you. Do you want to hear me for
yourself? How hard will you now try to
hear for yourself what I have to say?
I telephoned back to Baton Rouge as
soon as I walked in this motel room (at,
the University Motor Inn) and told my
wife how things went and told her that
if, over the next few days, any group at
UNC wants me back, she should
arrange my schedule accordingly, so
that I could come back. A few students
have offered some good ideas on how to
get the speech heard. Those who wish to
call may call (504)-293-4700, or write to
Box 1 234, Denham Springs, La., 70726.
If they can permanently prevent the
student body of UNC from hearing my
viewpoint, I wonder whose viewpoint
will be next to be censored. Perhaps it
will be yours?
Thanks for your thoughts, your
commitment to true academic freedom
and for reading this shoddy letter that is
being finished at 2: 15 a.m.
The
Daily
Tar Heel
Jim Ceopcr, Greg Turozzh
Editors
Dsrfd Ennb, Araocfclo Editor
Lu Ann Jones, Assoelsta Editor
Dovld Klln-sr, Uzvn Editor
Ksrrlst Cujor, Features Editor
Elliott Wcmock, Cporta Editor
Gsro Johnson, VIro Editor
L!3rtha CtSYcm, Hosd.Photosrcphsr
to Grlznilay, Uzh Editor