Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Nov. 16, 1977, 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 The Daily Tar Heel Wednesday, November 16. 1977 Greg PoitrER Editor 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 women. 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 Thomas. Business: Claire Bagley, business manager. Michele Mitchell, assistant business manager. Li Ffuskey, Mike Neville, Kim Painter, David Squites and Howard I roxler. Cuculation manager: Bill Bagley. 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 Carolina Union. 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 referendum today. 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 members. 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 interests? 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. to DOC1 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 part of. 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, vote no. Rick Kania 425 Avery 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 increased. 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. Tom Preston 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 unnecessary spending. 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 m 2$ 9 ")lV -V, SA Sen. Jesse Helms
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 16, 1977, edition 1
8
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75