6 The Daily Tar Heel Thursday. December 1. 1977
letters to the editor'
Athletic department against freedom of competition?
Gkm, Fori m Mr
"r (uir
Bkn Cornki li s, Managing Editor
F-l) RNKIN. Associate Editor t
Loi Bu ioms. Awihintv Editor pTtTl IT
Lm'Ka Scism, University Editor
Ei i ioi i Poi ii k. Ov Editor
Cm ( K Ai sios, iVire f;n National Editor J "1
Sara Bl i I mid, Features Editor
Chip I-.nsm n. im ,,,., of editoria, freedom
Gene Uk hircm, .fywm Editor '
Ailin Iiknk.as Photography Editor
A toothless
If the Educational Policy Committee has its way, this University will have
a new honor code even more meaningless than the sham it now has. The
EPC, which recently rejected a Committee on Student Conduct proposal
for faculty proctoring, has moved to make sure the new code has no teeth at
all.
Asked to clarify its recommendations to the faculty Council, EPC
rejected guidelines that spell out the role of the faculty in regard to the honor
system. The proposed guidelines would require faculty members to do the
following:
Inform students at the beginning of each course and before all graded
work that the Honor Code is in effect. "Where appropriate, a clear
definition of plagiarism should be presented," the proposal states.
To identify notes, materials or aids which may be used in advance of
any examination or graded work, and to require unauthorized materials or
aids to be removed from the room or otherwise made inaccessible.
To require students to sign a pledge that they have neither given nor
received unauthorized aid on all written work.
To reduce the possibility of cheating on graded work by taking "all
reasonable steps consistent with existing physical class room conditions"
(such as alternate seating).
"To exercise caution in the preparation, duplication and security of
examinations to ensure that students cannot gain improper knowledge of
their contents."
To avoid re-use of exams.
To supervise the class during exams to discourage cheating and to
detect any violations which occur.
To report violations to the office of the student attorney general and to
cooperate with that office in the investigation and trial of any incident of
alleged violation.
The refusal of the committee to enact these minimal safeguards is
incredible, especially after it has rejected faculty proctoring and urged the
elimination of the "rat clause" the requirement that students turn other
students in for cheating. If all possible requirements to report cheating are
eliminated, then how can the problem of cheating be solved?
Apparently the committee does not understand its role. By putting
responsibilities for enforcement on no one, the committee is suggesting to
the Council a system that cannot work. It is sending on a proposal that the
Council cannot possibly enact.
Committees are supposed to face the issues and pass on to the general
body a proposal that is ready for enactment or rejection, not an unworkable
compromise. We will be neither surprised nor displeased if the Faculty
Council sends the proposal back to the committee for more "clarification."
Gains of civil rights movement face
By MORTON I. T EI CHER
Editor's Note: This is the second of two
columns addressing the Bakke case. Today,
Dean Morton I. Teicher of the School of
Social Work argues in support of Bakke's
stand. Charles E. Dave, associate professor
of law, argued against Bakke in the Daily
Tar Heel on Wednesday.
The Bakke case is a tough one it brings
out a great deal of feeling and emotion.
If the Supreme Court declares that Bakke
is wrong, then it enshrines preference for
particular races in a way that will transform
our perception of what American society is
all about. It will intensify demands by all
kinds of groups for special and preferential
treatment. If the Court finds that Bakke is
right, then it will probably eliminate
affirmative-action programs, and it may cut
into minority attendance.
More than two decades ago, 1 was
appointed the first dean of a new graduate
school in another university. One of my early
tasks was to develop a policy on admissions.
1 wrote the following statement which 1
was proud of then and which 1 am proud
of now.
"This School docs not discriminate in
selecting candidates for admission on the
basis of race, sex, age, religion, creed, color,
national origin, place of residence or similar
extraneous factors."
The principle which lay behind that
statement 21 years ago a principle which
still remains fundamental is that every
human being simply by virtue of being
human is entitled to equal treatment.
Policies of numerical representation in
employment, education and housing,
however, are based on the insistence that it is
possible to ignore the individual and to
divide America into precise racial and ethnic
groups. People are assigned on the basis of
past discrimination and present
circumstance to a class for which a strict
statistical parity must be required. This is in
opposition to the American consensus which
holds that the group characteristics of an
individual are of no concern to government
that government must take no account of
race, creed, color or national origin. To
concentrate on the rights of racial and ethnic
groups is to subvert the emphasis on
individual rights. To concentrate on the
rights of racial and ethnic groups is to
abandon the first principle of a liberal
society that the individual and the
individual's interests and goods and welfare
are the test of a good society. To concentrate
on the rights of racial and ethnic groups
means that we mistakenly attach benefits
and penalties to individual human beings on
the basis of their race, color, creed or
national origin.
It is my view that rights attach to the
individual, not to the group and that
public policy must be exercised without
distinction of race, color, creed or national
origin. It is my view that we should not
abandon the values of personal
responsibility and individual freedom. It is
my view that we should avoid a nation of
honor code
conflicting racial and ethnic groups seeking
to expand their rights at the expense of each
other. Bitter struggles for bigger pieces of the
pie will carry us further and further away
from the civil rights movement and from its
many victories.
An early victory for the civil rights
movement took place as far back as 1938
when Chief Justice Hughes handed down a
decision for the Supreme Court which ruled
that a black man, Lloyd Gaines, was entitled
to admission to the University of Missouri
Law School. The essence of the
constitutional right, said Hughes, is that it is
a personal one. It is the individual who is
entitled to equal protection of the law.
The Court condemned a racist admissions
practice which discriminated against Mr.
Gaines because he was black. It should now
condemn the racist admissions practice of
the University of California at Davis which
discriminated against Mr. Bakke because he
is white.
The Court said that the University of
Missouri could not treat Mr. Gaines worse
than others because of his race. Mr. Bakke
should not be treated worse than others
because of his race. The argument that
discrimination against Bakke is benign
while that against Gaines was evil just
doesn't hold water. Discrimination based on
race is always pernicious. It submerges the
individual into a racial aggregation and
ignores his individual humanity. So-called
"benign discrimination" fosters a new kind
of dependency for minorities it hands out
rewards in patronizing fashion here
take 16 out of 100 places stay stigmatized
stay dependent on bureaucrats rely on
our favor acknowledge that you are
disadvantaged seek preference because
you belong to a particular group. I think this
is anti-black it is racist it is patronizing.
In the 1952 presidential campaign, much
resentment was expressed about
Eisenhower's statement that a certain
amount of segregation is necessary in the
armed forces, because, he said, under
integration, the competition is too tough for
blacks. If that bigoted point of view was
resented then, shouldn't we resent now the
notion that preferential consideration is
needed because without it the competition is
too tough?
The federal government should not
arrogate to itself the power to determine w ho
shall and who shall not enjoy equality of
opportunity in our country. The
constitutional rights of all citizens represent
a birthright for all Americans; they are not to
be bestowed at the caprice of government. If
government is allowed to demand
discrimination against whites and males
today, then it can be allowed to discriminate
against anyone else tomorrow.
I o bestow a benefit on the basis of race is
as wrong as it is to bestow a burden.
Allocation of burdens and benefits by
government or by universities or by
employers should have nothing to do with
race.
In the case of De f unis, which the
Supreme Court did not decide. Justice
Douglas said of De Funis. "Whatever his
i ace, he had a constitutional ncht to lme his
To the editor:
I was under the impression that our
scholastic institutions were the mainstay of
what America stands for: freedom of choice,
pursuit of happiness and democracy. The
advisers we visit twice each year tell us about
how important our total education is to
develop us into well-rounded citizens, able to
function in and preserve the society created
by our forefathers. They inform us that our
i life out of the classroom is almost as
important as our academic callings. I am a
firm believer that this is true, but I'm sorry I
can't say the same for our athletic
department.
What I experienced over the last few days
(Nov. 16-18) made my blood boil. It all
started about a week or two before when our
varsity soccer team, of which I am a member,
and our varsity women's field hockey team
arranged to play a friendly post-season field
hockey match. The two teams have sort of
"hit-it -off1 this fall and have been known to
party together quite frequently.
. Word about our plans got around and
everyone seemed to think it would be a fun
and an interesting part of our stay here at
Carolina (part of our well-rounded
education). It was decided that the two teams
would play field hockey because: I)
Although it is a contact sport, the emphasis
of the rules is upon non-contact; 2) Even
though some of our soccer players may be
bigger or stronger than the women, the only
advantage we could possibly have is speed.
The advantages were all on the women's side:
knowledge of the game and rules, practice
and ability. We were all excited and ready to
play knowing the game owuld be
competitive as well as fun and safe. After all,
nobody wanted to get hurt, especially after
our seasons were over, and what's a game
between friends anyway.
As the plans spread about campus they
came to the attention of two members of the
hierarchy of the athletic department. These
two people seemed to think that they had
control over the athlete's social life as well as
their athletic life. Immediately they
attempted to stop the playing of the game.
Our coaches were put under the pressure
right away, even though they had not part in
the organization of the game. The contest
was staged between players of our respective
teams as students, people and friends, not as
competitors on an organized level and the
coaches were asked by the players if they
wanted to partake in the activities. But the
athletic department saw something wrong in
it that we didn't see and began thinking up
reasons why we shouldn't play. Reasons
such as: we couldn't use University-owned
equipment, or they wouldn't let us use it (Is
this the democracy 1 spoke of.'), and
application considered on his individual
merits in a racially neutral manner."
There is no dispute about the objective of
increasing educational opportunities for all
Americans. The dispute is on the means to
achieve this end. As the University of
California at Davis, the means used is an
arbitrary setting aside of a quota of 1 6 places
reserved for minority applicants. Of the 100
places, 16 were open all to minority
candidates even if their test scores were
lower than those of non-minority
candidates.
Is this the only way to achieve the goal of
equal opportunity? I think not. I think that a
good case could be made for random
selection by lottery. After all, the truth of the
matter is that our selection procedures
requiring as they do, a prediction about the
course of human behavior are very frail
and faulty. I recently saw a convincing
argument for the selection of deans on the
basis of random selection. Some deans turn
out good some do not. The pool of
potential candidates also contains some
good and somenot as good. Both those
already on the job and those aspiring to it
probably fall in the normal bell-shaped
distribution curves so why not pick at
random?
In selecting for admission to higher
education, one could argue that the pool of
candidates is similarly distributed along a
bell-shaped curve. Some are good - and
some are not so why not pick at random?
This would guarantee the elimination of any
extraneous, irrelevant considerations it
would finesse the arguments about
predictive capacity of various tests and
would follow a great American tradition. We
once used a lottery to determine w ho would
be drafted into the armed forces, where the
stakes were much higher since those selected
by lottery might eventually wind up dead.
Clearly, one could make out a good case for
random selection.
If this is considered loo extremist an
approach to the goal of equal opportunity
and it we are confined to more traditional
approaches, then let's consider these
possibilities.
IT
3m rftKDW Ml AWWNCE
i AL 71
X A X 1
..CRlffi IHDUlfflir VfW WW IK TOH iM QUSEN, ' W WSiflNlTE WINDOW SHAT
arguments over liability in case of injury (I
would think it would be the same as any
other student or group of students having a
"pick-up" game of raquetball, basketball or
football).
Determined to play, our teams ignored the
threats of cancellation and prepared for the
game. Our soccer team even had a practice
the day before so we could learn the rules and
get used to the idea of using a stick instead of
our feet, also to be aware of the dangers of
the game. We learned on the day of the game
that our coaches would not even be allowed
to be present at the game, let alone
participate. The people most responsible for
our mental and physical performance during
the season were not being allowed to enjoy a
little off-season fun or to expand their coach
athlete relationship. To me, this seems unfair
and an effort should be made by the athletic
department to justify thier interjection.
By the way, there were no injuries, no ill
feelings (except toward those responsible for
not letting our coaches take part), and even
though the two female volunteer referees
were one-sided on almost all of their calls,
the game was close, the girls winning by a
score of 3-2.
Glenn Harris
UNC Soccer Team,
UNC Field Hockey Team
Connie Buell (volunteer referee)
destruction
Applicants could be judged on a
combination of factors: test scores, grade
point average, motivation, leadership
ability, job experience and success in
grappling with handicaps such as poverty or
illness.
Secondary schools could do more to spot
promising students and could guide them
toward professional careers.
Compensatory and remedial programs
could be expanded to help educationally
deprived applicants measure up to those
with better schooling.
Applicants could be classified on the basis
of whether or not they committed themselves
to serve in communities that do not have
professionals.
None of these methods is fool-proof.
Maybe, we need them all but any or all of
them are far more preferable to a procedure
which sets some Americans against others on
the basis of race, color, creed or national
origin.
The civil rights movement was concerned
with social justice with ending
discrimination and segregation. Its goals
were equality before the law and equality of
individual opportunity. Its basis was
morality and equity. The civil rights
movement fought against racism all
racism and the fight today should
continue to be against racism either black
or white. Human suffering is intolerable
whether the sufferer is black or white.
Discrimination is intolerable whether the
subject is black or white.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to
grant and protect individual rights not
group rights. Indeed, Section 703(j) of Title
VII explicitly states: "Nothing contained in
this title shall. . .require any employer to
grant preferential treatment to any
individual or to any group on account of an
imbalance which may exist with respect to
the total number or percentage of persons of
any race, color, religion, sex or national
origin employed by any employer "
the debate which preceded the passage of
the law made congressional intent clear.
Senator Clark stated flatly, "Quotas are
themselves discriminatory." Senator
A.
...ute m
AT ML-.
:'mm
Festival fine
To the editor:
We appreciate the publicity concerning
the Women's Festival coming in January.
However, the article Tuesday could have
been misunderstood by readers to have
indicated that Festival plans are somewhat
curtailed by insufficient funds. Although
more money wouldn't hurt, plans for the
Women's Festival are going extremely well
and we anticipate an exciting week of varied
programs and festivities.
Many campus and community members
will participate in the festival due to their
abundant energies and offerings (not due to
our budget limitations). Some speakers and
performers will come from long distances
and our budget will help make these
appearances possible. We are grateful to the
Campus Governing Council, other
organizations and many individuals for their
strong financial and personal support of the
festival.
Betty Ausherman
AWS chairperson
J. Sharpe
Women's Festival chairperson
ii TPini ii 1 i, 1
if Allah Bakke loses case
Humphrey asserted, "Title VII does not
require an employer to achieve any sort of
racial balance in his work force by giving
preferential treatment to any individual or
group." Senator Williams explained 703(j)
Title VII to mean that government could not
require "employment to be on the basis of
racial or religious quotas."'
I n the years that followed, regulations and
guidelines were issued which steadily eroded
the law and the victory of civil rights
advocates. The specific ban against using
statistics of imbalance to require preferential
treatment has now yielded to regulations
which require counting by color to secure
evidence of discrimination. So the provision
of the law which says that you cannot use
"imbalance" to do anything, now becomes
discrimination under which you can do
everything. The anti-preferential provisions
of Title VII have been contorted so as to
become meaningless. The worst depths were
reached in 1972 when the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, in
its seventh annual report, stated that an
employer could not consider an applicant's
criminal record in reviewing employment
qualifications on the grounds that this
constituted discrimination. Its reasoning
was that a "substantially disproportionate
percentage of persons convicted of serious
crimes are minority group persons."
Therefore, to consider a person's criminal
record meant discriminating against blacks!
Give the EEOC credit. It did say that
conviction for embezzlement "may
disqualify an applicant for a position of trust
requiring the handling of money or
accounts." Note the "may"!
The extremes to which universities may be
driven by preferential admission programs
are illustrated by the case of M r. DeLeo who
applied for admission to the University of
Colorado Law School. His application was
placed into the Spanish-surname pool When
it was discovered that he was actually of
Italian origin, he was removed from the
special pool of candidates and placed into
the general one.
Quite properly, M r. DeLeo is suing on the
grounds of racial discrimination.
These examples demonstrate a
perpetuation of discrimination, not its
elimination. 1 believe that special pools of
candidates for employment or admissions
which are constituted on the basis of racial or
ethnic groupings should be condemned.
They violate the law against
discrimination; they do not uphold the law.
The law is clearly designed to prevent
discrimination that was the goal of the
civil rights movement. Now, the law has been
subverted. Individuals are no longer to be
treated as individuals. They are group
members, and this membership becomes a
primary determinant of personal destiny.
My position is simply stated.
Discrimination of any kind affirmative
discrimination, benign discrimination,
preferential discrimination, reverse
discrimination whatever you call it, is
w rong. It has never worked and it never will.
Discrimination has destroyed justice and
fairness and it has created cynicism, conflict
and more discrimination.
J&KSJ
law win m OfiSHsrawe
rgg
n? TUP PA-mO? wrUJ TWP T1MY ftUDDUC
'Yackety Yack'
To the editor:
The 1977 Yackety Yack, which has been
delayed so long, will come out in January,
1978. The editor and staff are very sorry for
the delay, but it's hoped that the quality will
make up for this inconvenience. Seniors
graduating in December who wish their
Yack to be sent to them can have this done by
signing the list at the secretary's desk in Suite
C of the Carolina Union. This will be done
free of charge for those seniors and is meant
only for those seniors. Again we regret the
delay.
George Basco
1977 Yackety Yack Editor
Todd S. Albert
Acting Business Manager
The Daily Tar Heel welcomes
letters to the editor. Letters must be
typed, double spaced, on a 60-space
line and are subject to condensation or
editing for libelous content or bad
taste.
Non-discrimination means that every
human being should hav equal opportunity
to obtain the benefits of higher education.
Non-discrimination means that the
government may not arbitrarily dictate who
shall be favored on the basis of race or sex or
any other irrelevant standard. No candidate
should be neglected no candidate should
be discouraged from applying.
Discrimination of any kind should be
condemned.
The fundamental issue in the Bakke case is
this: Can race be used as a criterion for
admissions? Equal opportunity and equal
protection means that institutions must be
color blind. But it is argued that race may be
considered if the intent is to redress the
effects of past discrimination. The evidence
for past discrimination is the failure of merit
systems to operate successfully in the past.
Therefore, it is argued, race may justifiably
be used. This is the specious argument that
two wrongs make a right. 1 believe that you
cannot redress a wrong by another wjong.
Our past failures to give each candidate
equal opportunity provide no excuse for
perpetuating these failures. Considerations
other than those of individual qualifications
should not be used to determine who is
admitted and who is not admitted. The fact
that they have been used does not justify the
perpetuation of this immoral, illegal and
incorrect system.
From fighting for equality and fighting
against discrimination, we now find
ourselves justifying quotas, supporting
statistical requirements and rationalizing
racial school assignments. We are taking a
course of action forbidden by law,
abandoning concern for the individual and
we are substituting a preoccupation with
racial and ethnic groups. The historic
disgrace of official and open discrimination
in the past has been replaced by open and
official discrimination in the present. For
our emphasis on the individual we have now
substituted an emphasis on the group. Thus,
all blacks are in one group, regardless of
whether or not they, as individuals, deserve
redress on the basis of past discrimination
and all whites are in one group, regardless of
their individual religious or ethnic
affiliation. The lumping of whites together in
this way poses some peculiar problems.
Should the descendants of post-1880
immigrants from Europe be held
accountable for enslaving the blacks and for
the Jim Crow patterns? Why should they
have to make atonement for a past in which
they had no part? Should they now be
penalized in order to achieve compensatory
treatment for blacks? How can we determine
what is proper compensation?
It seems to me that the governing principle
is still that which animated the civil rights
movement full equality for every
individual regardless of race, color, creed or
national origin.
This is what justice and equity demands.
This was the goal of the civil rights
movement it was a goal that was good
enough for Martin Luther King it is good
enough for me.
Morton 1 Teicher is dean of the School of
Social Work.