8 The Daily Tar Heel Wednesday, November 16. 1977
Ben Cornelius, Managing Editor
Ed Rankin, Associate Editor
Lou Biuonis, Associate Editor
Laura Scism, University Editor
Elliott Potter, City Editor
Chuck Alston, State and National Editor
Sara Bullard, Features Editor
Cn EtfssttN, Arts Editor
Gene UpchuRch, Sports Editor
Alien Jernigan, Photography Editor
85fft year of editorial freedom
Vote yes; don't cut back
Today, voters will have the uncommon opportunity to make an
investment that can bring excellent returns. The modest $2.50 fee hike listed
on the ballot is a small amount to pay to ensure proper services for all
students. For the price of one movie a semester, you can protect endangered
staples of campus life such as free flicks, concerts, speakers, your radio
station, your newspaper, your annual, the student union, social
organizations, course reviews, legal services, magazines, plays, musicals,
ballets and dozens of other opportunities taken for granted on this campus.
Student fees have not increased since Dwight David Eisenhower was a
first-term president of the United States. Since then, inflation has run
rampant, leaving the shriveled dollar of today worth half as much as it was
in the early 50s.
Well over 30 organizations that serve students are waiting fearfully for the
results of the referendum. They are waiting to see whether they will flourish
in the next years or continue to struggle. They are waiting to see whether
shrinking student monies will make next spring's budget hearings hotter and
more explosive than before.
The budget of most student organizations are tightening so much that a
vote against the fee hike is a vote to cut services. The Daily Tar Heel is a case
in point. The newspaper would gain $16,000 if the increase passed, but the
paper faces annual increases of $10,000 or more for at least the next three
years in printing costs alone. It looks as if the Daily Tar Heel, like the dollar,
will be shrinking. Our case is extreme, but the economy will not be much
kinder to the rest of the student organizations.
The only argument made against the fee increase is that the current
funding is not handled properly, and there is little doubt that in some cases it
is not. But the way to attack that problem is to reform the budgetary
process, a move that is already well underway. To vote against the increase
because the budgetary process needs reform is to penalize many
organizations who use their money wisely because of the mistakes of a few.
But, most of all, it is to visit the sins of these few on the student body by
denying a minimum level of service for all.
Vote for the fee hike today $2.50 a semester is a bargain to protect the
many student services we have on campus.
Title IX ignored
Women denied space
It's two years since UNC received instructions from the federal
government to conduct a self-evaluation study of sex discrimination at the
University. Last summer UNC officials said they had completed their study
and would comply with Title IX regulations prohibiting discrimination on
the basis of sex.
But the University's separate-but-equal philosophy is in serious jeopardy.
Complaints filed M onday with the U NC grievance committee charging that
the physical education department unequally distributes locker facilities in
Woollen Gymnasium are a sad reminder that the University is dragging its
feet with efforts to treat both sexes equally.
Though women make up 49 percent of the student body, men receive
access to 85 percent of the lockers. This glaring inequity could be reduced
somewhat by converting the male faculty locker room into a locker room for
women by this January, the grievances state.
But this is not the first time this proposal has been made. The Student
Grievance Committee recommended the exact change, which would cost
approximately $800, in 1976. Though Title IX requires the University to
make facilities comparable for men and women as 'expeditiously as
possible,' this proposal went unheeded. Thus women faculty, students, team
members and staff continue to have access to only 1 ,463 lockers and baskets
while the men have use of 8,200 lockers and baskets.
Because of the University's tardiness in equally distributing locker
facilities, privileges men take for granted are denied to women. Any male
can get a locker or basket when he wants one; women cannot. Men's visiting
teams have approximately 184 lockers; there are no women's visiting team
lockers. Though male faculty and staff have use of locker facilities during
vacation periods, the grievances state that the locker room is closed to
These discrepancies in access to and number of locker facilities are
inexcusable. Though the new women's gym to be completed in 1980 may
solve these space problems, there must be a temporary solution for those
women students who need locker space now.
The University cannot continue to circumvent the obligations placed
. upon it by Title IX. Converting the male faculty locker room to locker space
for women would be a valuable sign that the University still intends to honor
its commitment to equal treatment of both sexes.
The Daily Tar Heel
News: Tony Gunn, assistant editor; Mark Andrews, Mike Coyne, Meredith Crews, Shelley
Droescher, Bruce Ellis, Betsy Flagler, Grant Hamill, l.ou Harncd. Stephen Harris, Kathy Hart,
Nancy Hartis, Chip Highsmith, Keith Hollar, Steve Htiettel, Jaci Hughes, Jay Jennings. George
Jeter, Ramona Jones, Will Jones, Julie Knight, Eddie Marks. Amy McRary, Elizabeth Messick,
Beverly Mills, Beth Parsons, Chip Pearsall, Bernie Ransbottom, Evelyn Sahr, George Shadroui,
Vanessa Siddle, Barry Smith, David Stacks, Melinda Stovall, Robert Thomason, Howard
Troxler, Mike Wade, Martha Waggoner, David Walters and Ed Williams.
Newi Desk: Reid Tuvim, assistant managing editor. Copy chief: Keith Hollar. Copy editors:
Richard Barron, Amy Colgan, Kathy Curry, Dinita James, Carol l.ec, Micheic Mecke. L isa
Nieman, Dan Nbles, Melanie Sill, Melinda Stovall, Mclanie Topp and Larry Tuplcr. Editorial
assistant: Vikki Broughton.
Sports: Lee Pace, assistant editor; Evan Appel, Dede Biles, Bill Fields. Skip Foreman. Tod
Hughes, Dinita James, Dave McNeill, Pete Mitchell, David Poole, Ken Roberts, Rick Scoppe,
Frank Snyder, Will Wilson and Isabel Worthy.
Features: PamBelding, Jeff Brady.Zap Brueckner, Amy Colgan, David Craft, Peter Hapke. Etta
Lee, Nell Lee, Kimberly McGuire, Debbie Moose, Dan Nobles, Stuart Phillips. Ken Roberts.
Tim Smith and Lynn Williford.
. Arts ind Enteruinment: Melanie Modhn, assistant editor; Hank Baker, Becky Burcham, Pat
Green, Marianne Hansen, Libby Lewis, Ann Smallwood and Valerie Van Arsdale.
Graphic Arts: Artists: Dan Brady, Allen Edwards, Cliff Marley, Jocelyn Pettibone, Lee Poole
and John Tomlinson. Photographers: Fred Barbour, Sam Fuiwood, Michael Sneed and Joseph
Business: Claire Bagley, business manager. Michele Mitchell, assistant business manager. Li
Ffuskey, Mike Neville, Kim Painter, David Squites and Howard I roxler. Cuculation manager:
Advertising: Dan Collins, manager, Carol Bedsole. assistant sales manager; Steve Crow ell.
classifieds manager; Julie Coston, Neal Kimball, Cvnthia I esley, Anne Shernl and Melanie
Stokes. Ad layout: Evelyn Sahr.
Composition Editors: Frank Moore and Nancy Oliver.
Composition and Makeup: UNC Printing Dept. Knhcil .lannkicwic. supervisoi; Robert
Streeter, Geanie McMillan, Judy Dunn, Carolyn Kuhn, David Paiker, Joni Pctcis, Steve
Quakenbush and Duke Sullivan.
Services endangered by inflation
Vote yes' for better Carolina Union activities
By ERIC LOCHER
For the past few weeks we have read editorials and
articles in the 'DTH concerning the fee increase.
Opponents feel that fees are high enough and should
not be raised. They feel that many student
organizations should be cut severely in their budgets or
totally eliminated from funding, thus solving the
problem of limited funds for all.
Proponents argue that one of the advantages in
coming to UNC is the wide range of interests
represented by these organizations. If we did not have a
pooling of interests into a student activities fund, most
of the groups would not exist and we could not take
advantage of the benefits they offer. 1 personally do not
feel that some of these groups should be funded. 1 do,
however, see that most of them represent a sufficiently
large group on campus to warrant their'existence; there
would be a void created if they were eliminated.
The Carolina Union stands to gain monetarily from
the proposed increase. With the money the Union
receives, productions such as Cabaret. The Good
Doctor, Bubbling Brown Sugar, Kathryn Posin, North
Carolina Symphony and Same Time Next Year are
possible. Speakers such as Jonathan Kozol, Nikki
Giovanni, Ron Nessen and the upcoming talk by Jean
Michel Cousteau can be heard for free. The Gallery
Committee and its art displays along with daily
showings of videotapes in the Carolina Union and in
residence halls are available for all students.
The Social Committee provides free entertainment
in Deep Jonah and the Recreation Committee presents
talent such as Paul Gerni and cosponsors the DU Beat
State Extravaganza. Free or small-fee special-interest
classes are offered through the Special Projects
Committee, and the range of tastes catered to by the
Free Flicks always has been wide. J ust the publicity of
all the events sponsored by the Carolina Union runs
into thousands of dollars.
I imagine some of you may be thinking, "If they can
do all that with the money they get now, why do they
want more?" The arguments of inflation over the last
20 years have been raised. We all know how prices for
everything are rising. Concert costs are up 25 percent
to 75 percent over the past five years. In order to
program effectively for the campus as a whole over the
coming year, the Carolina Union will need more
money. It's a plain economic decision which students
will have to make. Do you want to pay an additional
$2.50 per semester for better student activities, or settle
for inadequate services in the future?
Those of us who are graduating this year will never
receive the benefits of this increase. After working
under the present budgetary constraints, however, we
recognize the necessity of an increase. The proposal of
$2.50 is quite modest when considering the advantages
which almost all students will receive. From the
Graduate and Professional Student Federation
through the Carolina Course Review, larger
allocations will mean greater benefits to the
organizations' memberships and to the University
community as a whole. For this reason, we at the
Carolina Union support the increase in student fees.
Eric Locher, a senior Business Administration
major from Charlotte, N.C., is president of the
Wake up and smell the coffee
Solve CGC budget before increasing fees
By NANCY HARTIS
UNC students are being asked to vote
today in favor of a referendum that
hikes student lees $2.50 per student
starting spring semester. Student
Government, notably Student Body
President Bill M oss, is urging passage of
the hike on the argument that inflation
and enrollment increases necessitate
extra funds if campus organizations are
to continue their present level of service.
There are a lot of people on this
campus who support the lee increase
and many of them are members of
organizations who will profit from the
additional revenue it will bring,
including the DTH.
Those students, however, w ho are not
active members in any one of these
organizations and who have never seen
how student lees are appropriated, who
appropriates them, and to what purpose
student money is spent; 1 invite to
witness a Campus Governing Council
budget session before you, pass the
The CGC is the organization
responsible lor dividing approximately
$16.1.000 in student fees annually.
To be sure, the CGC is composed of
many fine students but, as a group, these
people have dire efficiency problems
and often clouded priorities especially
when it's budget time. Part of the
problem lies in the budgetary process
itself, which places too heavy a burden
on the five-member CGC Finance
Committee and tends to reduce the
amount of input from non-finance
The priority problem, however, is not
structural. Last year, for example, the
Graduate and Professional Student
Federation, a sort of student
government for grad students,
requested an outlandish $31,000. It
letters to the editor
received $19,000. to which GPSF
chairperson David Hackleman sniffed,
"It really isn't enough."
In contrast, the Yackety Yack, rather
than pad its budget request to play it
sale, cut, in good faith, $2,000 off the
budget last year. In answer to this
honest attempt to cut I rills, the finance
committee cut $3,600 more, reducing
the Yack '.v budget to less than 50 percent
of what it was at the time.
Given a choice, how many students
would place priorities this way?
Under circumstances such as these,
how can the students be guaranteed that
the additional revenue from a fee
increase will be distributed in their best
The CGC reportedly is re-examining
its budget process, but until the results
of that examination are made public
and we are convinced that the budget
process this year will in fact be
improved, how can we be expected to
believe a fee increase will answer the
wants of our organizations?
It may be timely to note also that very
few student organizations do any fund
raising on their own but instead live a
somewhat parasitic existence,
depending on student fees to pay for
every rubber band and paper clip. But
then old-fashioned fund raising isn't as
much fun or nearly as important
looking as sitting behind a big desk in a
carpeted office at the Union.
And everyone seems to have
forgotten that during the elections last
year candidate Bill Moss said he was
going to look for money "from outside
sources" to aid student organizations,
presumably so student fees wouldn't
have to be increased. Oh well, guess it
sounded good at the time. . . .
It's time for the students to wake up
and smell the coffee. Anyone who
questions the way fees are spent now
should question how an additional
$50,000 is going to be spent by voting
against the referendum today. Unless
the students xpress their views, this
referendum will pass as every student
organization from the UNC Jugglers to
the Carolina Gay Association sends its
members out to vote "yes" for more
money to play with.
Nancy Hartis, a senior journalism
major from Kinston, N.C., is a staff
writer for the Daily Tar Heel.
Readers speak out on fee referendum today
To the editor:
Student Government is a farce. Its
advocates believe that its existence is
justified either because it is the "collective
voice of the students," "aids in the provision
of student services," or because "every
university has a student government." At
this point, I would dismiss SG as a joke, not
worthy of further attention, if not for one
fact; If one wishes to attend Carolina, one is
forced to "contribute" to the student
activities fund controlled by SG. This may
do w onders for the power of SG, but it does
less for many of the students: Somebody is
spending their money for them, thus forcing
them to support groups they may want no
Obviously, the fair thing to do w ould be to
have SG stop funding the interest groups,
maintain funding only of the Union and
DTH, since they are the only organizations
which benefit all students, and return the
remaining money back to the students. That
way, nobody would be forced to support
anything which they want no part of. Is SG
interested in doing what is fair and
guarantees more freedom? Probably not.
t here is a lot of power and prestige in
handling a budget of $330,000, and power
and prestige are not readily yielded. Thus, we
have SG advocating even higher mandatory
activity fees, ostensibly to enable them to do
more good things for us.
Some member of the CGC said that in
order for the referendum to be meaningful,
there would have to be a voter turnout of at
least 15 percent, which means that 1.600
students would be able to tell the other
18.4(H) that more money will be taken from
them. The special interests (those who
receive money from SG) will be out in force
this Wednesday, so if you believe that: I ) SG
is a larce; 2) sou have the maturity to spend
your own money; and 3) stealing is wrong,
Diversity an asset
To the editor:
Students opposed to the fee increase have
expressed fear that the CGC would "waste"
the extra funds on the "same old big
organizations" in which they feel they have
little chance of participating. However, the
facts show that the smaller organizations
and the diversity they offer have been hit
hardest by the lack of CGC funds.
The Individual Events Team is an example
of where the axe is falling. Last year, CGC
was able to appropriate the team only $ 1 ,500
out of a $5,700 budget request. In the past,
the team has received over $3,000. But
despite the growth and success of this
organization, CGC may have to cut it out of
the budget altogether if the fees aren't
Read the green pamphlet on student
organizations. Talk to the treasurer of your
favorite one, and you may find his or her
group even less fortunate than the Individual
Events Team. Diversity is one of a
university's greatest assets. If you would like
UNC to keep its diversity, please vote on
the fee increase referendum.
8 Old East
Treasurer, Individual Events Team
A call for party unity is all well and good, but...
To the editor:
With respect to Mr. Bruce Tindall's
letter ("Senate debate," Nov. 14) your
rhetoric is not in keeping with your
position as secretai;y of the Orange
County Democratic Party. You would
have done better to have closed with
"All are invited to come and lend
support to the local Democratic Party,
w hose sole aim it is to drive this nation
into bankruptcy by unseating those few
representatives having wisdom to see
where the United States is headed."
Democrats are notorious for
Maybe Jesse Helms is an
embarrassment to a number ot North
Carolinians. And maybe you and they
are easily embarrassed by the truth and
those w ho w ould stand up for it, as they
are given to see it.
Let it be know n that 1 am a registered
Democrat, and that J have not yet
decided for whom to vote next year.
However, 1 am disillusioned by many of
the actions of our Democratic leaders
recently and currently in office. 1 may
not agree with Sen. Helms on all
matters, but at least 1 know where he
stands on them. This certainly is more
than I can say for Sen. Robert Morgan,
for instance, who after professing to
favor B-I bomber production, voted
against funding for the project because
Sen. John C. Stennis so advised him.
Perhaps, Mr. Tindall, you know
things about Sen. Helms which 1 do not;
1 may only hope this is the basis of your
denunciation of him. But 1 propose that
there are those who have neither
reviewed any first-hand information
about Sen. Helms, nor seen first-hand
reports of his stances on issues and his
subsequent actions. Herein lies my
point: Words are powerful, and with the
proper manipulation, they may acquire
the properties of blind propaganda. A
call for party unity is all well and good,
but let us bear in mind those nations
w here party unity has become strongest!
Linwood G. Walton Jr.
31 1 Winston
9 ")lV -V, SA
Sen. Jesse Helms