8The Daily Tar HeelTuesday, September 20, 1983
t
0 latUf Sar MM
91st year of editorial freedom
K iRRY DEROCHI. Editor
ALISON DAVIS, M-iMging Editor JEFF HlDAY, Associate Editor
LISA PULLEN, University Editor
Christine Manuel, state and National Editor
MIKE DeSISTI, Sports Editor
Bill RlEDY, News Editor
John Conway, aty Editor
Karen Fisher, Features Editor
Jeff Grove, Arts Editor
CHARLES W. LEDFORD, Photography Editor
Bad report card
Educators nationwide have embraced a new hobby lately with the same
kind of enthusiasm their students may show a new arcade video game.
They've begun writing an assortment of reports on the condition of the
nation's public school system, analyses costing millions of dollars yet pro
ving ambiguous and limited in their generalities. Each report loftily out
lines reforms, but lacks the realistic means for their applications. As a
result, school officials learn of problems they already know exist and are
given little help in solving them.
The reports compiled by the National Commission on Excellence in
Education, the National Science Foundation and the Carnegie Founda
tion for the Advancement of Teaching, are designed to save the failing
public high schools, long the black sheep in this country's education
system. Studies show that an increased number of high school graduates
can't read or write a sentence. A recent study completed by the federal
Department of Education showed that less than 3 percent of high school
graduates received the recommended curriculum.
The plight of these students, as outlined in the statistics, should be
news to no one, yet educators are attacking the problem with the zeal of
scientists tracking a new disease and unfortunately with as much
naivete. They've blamed the demise on what's called the high flash of
high tech, or the appeal of new computer systems. Because computer
technology has been recognized as a needed resource in today's educa
tion, they've allocated an alarming amount of state and federal funds to
purchase a row of terminals and a processor. PTA meetings have become
arenas for principals who blush with pride as they stand next to their Ap
ple lis while talking to parents whose children still can't read the instruc
tion manual.
As an answer to the problem, the reports only offer half-hearted re
quests for reforms in curriculum and teacher training. They call for the
implementation of courses designed for pursuits of "higher thinking,"
outlining that teachers can be trained to lead these new pursuits once
they're forced to meet more stringent certification requirements, such as
yearly competency exams.
The reforms may sound as good on paper, but as usual when dealing
with education proposals, they've plenty of ideological bark, but not
much of budget bite. For example, the Carnegie Foundation report calls
for a 25 percent increase in teacher's pay as justification for the more str
ingent requirements. It's a proposal that can only be laughed at in states
where raises have been placed on legislative shelves. Million-dollar studies
on the problems plaguing public schools are not needed, that is, unless
they find million-dollar answers.
Dis-United Nations
When President Reagan first detailed the U.S. response to the Soviet
downing of a civilian jet, he seemed to treat the horrifying incident as a
mandate for greater U.S. efforts toward arms-control negotiations and
world peace. His exclusion of any U.S. retaliation, such as specific sanc
tions against the Soviet Union, assured many worried Americans and
won the United States considerable favor in the world community. Yet
the State Department's recent refusal to expedite the difficult arrival of
Andrei Gromyko to the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations
General Assembly casts doubts upon the sincerity of Reagan's desire for
improved relations with the Soviet Union in this volatile period of
U.S.-Soviet relations. .
Gromyko's Saturday announcement of his cancellation of plans to at
tend this week's General Assembly meetings followed what Moscow labels
the failure of the United States to both ensure Gromyko's safety and pro
vide suitable arrangements for his arrival. In this case, the Kremlin's
claims ring somewhat true. The State Department supported decisions by
the governors of both New York and New Jersey who, fearing uncontrol
lable public demonstrations, refused commercial airport landing permis
sion to Gromyko's special civilian jet. The alternative the State Depart
ment offered Gromyko was landing at a military airport about two hours
by car from Manhattan.
The State Department's decision to support the governors is surprising.
When the headquarters of the United Nations was moved to Manhattan
in 1947, the agreement was explicit in forbidding any impediments
whether federal, state or local to the travel of a member nation to a
U.N. meeting. Indeed, Gromyko's absence at the forthcoming meetings
would be outrageously conspicuous; it would mark the first time in more
than 20 years that a Soviet delegate was not present at the General
Assembly.
It is entirely understandable that U.S. diplomats are growing ever more
frustrated with the failure of the Soviet Union to assume responsibility
for the deaths of 269 innocent people. Soviet propaganda on the matter
has even dared to claim that Korean Air Lines flights have been employed
in U.S. espionage missions for the past 10 years. Yet American tolerance
of this defiant and appalling Soviet attitude is precisely what has won the
United States world respect in its handling of the airline catastrophe.
That is why it is so regrettable to see U.S. officials lose their patience
and begin to counter Soviet dogmatism with diplomatic flippancy. As the
State Department proclaims that Gromyko's impending absense at the
United Nations reflects Soviet fear of world criticism and the Kremlin de
nounces the United States for making Gromyko's New York arrival so
difficult, all that is certain is that neither superpower presently displays
the willingness to compromise, which is essential to any improvement in
U.S.-Soviet relations. It is true that the United States did not in any way
instigate the recent rift with the Soviet Union. But it is also true that if
U.S. diplomats do not continue special efforts toward negotiations, the
Soviet Union never will.
An honorable mention
JP )
By ANDREA STUMPF
Sarah McGuire's disagreement ("A
bad tradition," DTH, Sept. 15) with the
well-written description of the UNC
honor system ("Honor Court has long
standing tradition," DTH, Sept. 12) de
serves, and indeed necessitates, addi
tional words on the topic. We wish to
address McGuire's misconceptions and,
in doing so, substantiate some of the
points made initially by the DTH.
The first criticism made by McGuire
is that "the accused is virtually left on
his own to prepare a defense." There
are three points to be made in response
to this statement. First, every defendent
takes part in a preliminary conference.
This is the first step following notifica
tion of a formal charge, and it is at this
point that the charge, the character of
the evidence, the options for adjudica
tion, pleas, possible penalties and 13
specific rights are explained in detail.
There is ample time left for questions to
be asked or special requests to be made
by the accused.
A second point worth making con
cerns the large amount of time devoted
by the members of the attorney general's
staff to any particular case. The defense
counsel assigned to assist the defendant
meets with that defendant several times
prior to the actual hearing. In addition,
at least one meeting is held with each of
the material witnesses, not to mention
those who, although interviewed for in
formation, may not actually appear
before the court. Preparations for court
hearings are a long and thorough pro
cess. A third point must stress the role that
the defendant plays in preparing for his
or her own hearing. Every defendent is
informed that he or she is ultimately re
sponsible for the quality and quantity of
his or her own presentation, and that
the defense counsel is available to pro
vide assistance and a more thorough
knowledge of the process and its man
dated responsibilities. As a substantially
student-run system, the autonomy of
students is highly valued, and the attor
ney general's staff would not wish to
dictate what no one can know better
than the accused student. The court
hearing is straightforward. The court
collects facts which ensure a delibera
tion based upon as thorough and com
plete a picture of the situation as possi-
nesses that may appear.
A third criticism by McGuire con
cerns rights, which she considers lack
ing. As mentioned earlier, these rights
are explained at the preliminary con
ference. Accused students certify that
these rights have been explained to them
and they receive a copy of The Instru
ment of Student Judicial Governance,
the document that elaborates upon
these rights. Moreover, during the hear
ing itself, the defendant is asked
whether these rights have been violated
either before or during the proceedings.
ble.
The second criticism made by
McGuire concerns unusual mitigating
circumstances, which she claims "are
not fully taken into consideration or not
addressed at all," and character wit
nesses, who "are frequently overlook
ed." For clarification, the existence of
.unusual mitigating circumstances deter
mines whether suspension or probation
is an appropriate sanction for convic
tions of academic dishonesty. Character
witnesses can provide information for
determining the appropriate length of a
sanction and may provide insight as to
whether or not unusual mitigating cir
cumstances exist. Each defendant may
present believed unusual mitigating cir
cumstances before the court. There is
no limit to the number of character wit-
Finally, each defendant has the right to
appeal on the basis of these rights hav
ing been violated.
In regards to McGuire's claim that a
"student had more rights in first grade
than he does while attending the Uni
versity," we would like to point out that
attendance at a college or university can
not annul an individual's rights to free
doms of speech, assembly, expression
or procedural and substantive "due
process" as guaranteed by the Consti
tution of the United States.
We must agree with McGuire's state
ment that some cases do take months
before the process is fully completed.
This is, to som degree, a reflection of
the thoroughness with which cases are
handled and a side effect of a substan
tially student-run system. One alterna
tive would be to hire a full-time judicial
staff and thereby dispense with student
involvement altogether. The repercus
sions of such an action would be most
far-reaching.
McGuire also complains that "there
is no middle ground" between a guilty
plea and a not guilty plea. However, the
two choices reflect the nature of action
you either do or you don't. Of para
mount importance is the fact that each
defendant who pleads not guilty is inno
cent until it is proven to the court that
the student is guilty beyond a reason
able doubt. The seriousness of each stu
dent's pledge to abide by the Honor
System upon enter the University is
matched by the seriousness with which
each case is studied and deliberated.
The most important point to stress is
that the Honor System is designed to
benefit students, and the welfare of
students is always the first priority.
Lastly, we would like to point out
that the judicial system provides a
means through which to criticize and
improve itself on an ongoing basis via
the Committee on Student Conduct.
Each of us listed below is a member of
that committee. In addition, there are
other students who were appointed by
the student body president to serve on
that committee with faculty and staff.
The names of the student members can
be obtained through the Student
Government Office in Suite C of the
Carolina Union. We encourage students
in general and McGuire in particular to
discuss their concerns about the judicial
system with these student responsibilities
to allow their concerns to be addressed
in a productive manner.
Andrea Stumpf is Undergraduate
Court vice chairman. David Keesler,
Undergraduate Court chairman, and
Hunter Hoover, student attorney
general, contributed to this article.
What price justice?
By POLL Y PASSONNEA U
In response to second-year law student Matt Mag
gio's letter to the editor ("Only liberals support Legal
Services," DTH, Sept. 12), I would like to defend
Legal Services. I suppose I should first introduce my
self as a "fool" and "liberal demagogue."
Though Maggio makes many disparate points in his
letter, the crux of his discussion is clear. He feels the
poor in this country are treated too well. They do not
need any form of legal protection as icing on the cake
of their special treatment in our society. As I respond
to his various points, I hope I illuminate some on the
nature of Legal Services. I also have a question for
him. We, as students, may solicit free legal advice
from Student Legal Service. Does he dispute this
right? (I think we all know the answer to this )
The first point in Maggio's attack is against the no
tion that poor people might need representation in civil
matters. The distinction he makes between criminal
prosecution and civil disputes is a significant one, yet
he relies on this distinction to say the government has
no interest in civil suits between private individuals and
therefore should make no effort to help citizens in
volved in civil suits. I respond to this with another
question. Why do we have courts?
The court system was devised as a means to allow
individuals the opportunity to settle disputes with the
aid of an impartial tribunal. Are poor people less de
serving than rich people in that regard? When a poor
person has a question about a legal matter that could
possibly change his life, such as in matters of divorce,
employment disputes or landlord-tenant disagree
ments, is it unfair to allow a poor person to ask for
some assistance in understanding the legal aspects of
the problem? If I interpret Maggio correctly, he feels
anyone who cannot pay for the right to respond to
such matters should not be aided in any way by our
government. Let the rich people fight it out.
And Maggio takes issue with some of the people
that Legal Services has represented. If there is
government-supported legal service, should that ser
vice be allowed to deny the right to representation to
political organizations? Or should they be allowed to
deny representation to people based on sexual
preference? Or sex or race, for that matter? That
would certainly be untenable in our system as it stands,
if we are to follow the mandates of the Constitution.
Implied in another .of Maggio's attacks is that peo
ple receiving welfare should be taxed if they are to re
ceive any benefits from being members of our society.
Woe be it that welfare people are not taxed. The Lord
gjveth, but the Lord does not taketh away. Would it
make sense to give with one hand, and then reach
around with the other to take away? That doesn't
make any sense, not to mention the extra paper work
with which such procedures would burden the govern
ment. Ludicrous.
I cannot in this space properly discuss all the issues
Maggio raises, but I felt a need to respond in this
general fashion to his attitude, one which says money
buys justice and that money should buy justice. This is
not the way I interpret the purpose of the law, though
I recognize that in fact, excepting organizations like
Legal Services, it does operate that way. But I forget. I
am just a "fool" and a "liberal demagogue.',' I must
remember the lesson to be learned from carrying Mag
gio's logic to its conclusion: The poor deserve nothing
from our society; it is entirely their fault they are poor.
Polly Passonneau, a third-year law student from
Washington, is chairperson of the Equal Justice Foun
dation at UNC.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
In a polluted pool of blue print
To the editor:
On Sept. 9 1 lost my temper in a pool of
blue paint. The pool I refer to feeds a
stream in the wooded area behind
Ehringhaus Residence Hall. This steam
runs into Morgan Creek, which goes to
the New Hope Reservoir and eventually
into our future drinking-water supply.
I found the little stream filled entirely
with blue paint, chemicals and other nas
ty stuff draining down from Kenan Field
House. After initial disbelief, I felt anger
and then the urge for some "Nancy
Drew" detective work. I questioned
several maintenance men at the stadium,
arid they said that this blue goo was com
ing from field-painting, washing brushes
and drainage and flowing directly into
our stream.
Jane Sharpe, president of the Conser
vation Council, and I took pictures of the
mess for evidence, and Sharp has pre
sented these photos to the Environmental
Management Commission in Raleigh, the
agency that regulates such matters.
Meanwhile, another creek, now stag
nating near the Bell Tower, deserves at
tention. This stream receives large doses
of chemical wastes daily from sinks and
other sources in the chemistry buildings.
Yuck no wonder it smells so bad in
that area below. How, one may wonder,
does the University get away with
polluting so much water, especially dur
ing a critical shortage for Chapel Hill?
A sewage treatment plant downstream
gives UNC an excuse for the dumping.
Water containing a variety of toxic and
hazardous wastes is treated as regular
sewer runoff and then discharged again.
En route the streams pass over a lot of
land, near many houses and through the
Botanical Gardens, thus finding plenty of
opportunities to harm the environment
and present a health hazard. Both federal
and state laws prohibit regular sewage
treatment of many chemical wastes, re
quiring instead that they be stored,
recycled ' or otherwise disposed of.v By
allowing lax disposal practices, the Uni
versity is not only breaking the law but
also causing a messy blue death for
natural organisms.
I hope the EMC enforces necessary
standards and inspires some student
awareness. Meanwhile, here's a thought...
We can't ignore the crucial link
Between what we dump and what
we drink ,
From chemical lab to kitchen sink
A bit disgusting,
Don't you think?
Trace Wiren
Chapel Hill
A new low
To the editor:
The prominent placement of and
importance given to the DTH article
"Documents link UNC president
with FBI" (Sept. 16) was an irrespon
sible and inexcusable act of "jour
nalism." The blatant and unwarrant
ed sensationalism shows incredible in
sensitivity. The negative implications
of the article far surpass the supplied
evidence. The personal integrity and
moral fiber of an outstanding person
were tarnished by ambiguous and in
complete information. Journalistic
ethics have reached a new low. An
apology should be forthcoming.
Paul Parker
Chapel Hill
Come again;
Frail fiction
' WmWCti-TrW A SNffF AT THIS Otf STUFF AND mi MS WHAT IT II., Him RIGHT;"
To the editor:
Ryke Longest's column "From Inside
the Cockpit" (DTH, Sept. 13) provides an
interesting perspective of the Korean Air
Lines crisis. Yet the impersonation of the
Soviet pilot is as narrow as the Tass reports
aired to the Soviet people themselves.
Longest presents a stereotypical view of
Russian mentality: Conquer and kill all
Americans.
The Soviets are human beings with real
human emotions just like Americans, and
I doubt that they uiiJ ths thought of
destroying innocent lives any more than
we do. I am not, by any means, trying to
justify the actions of the Soviet govern
ment, but I do find this narrow-minded
presentation especially disturbing in a
country that professes the freedom and
justice of democracy. Such propaganda
belongs in the Soviet Union, not in the
United States.
Greta Nintzel
Partem
To the editor:
Uncle Sam wants to neutralize the 25
million of his children who have turned
pothead. But old Sam is being soft-hearted.
Let's get behind Uncle Sam and soak
every U.S. pot plant with paraquat. And'
then:
Beg the DEA, BATF, FBI and CIA to
bug the living quarters of "known mari
juana growers" and search these places
when no one is home. (Why stop here
when at the same time we can do it to the
prostitutes and computer criminals?)
Send out the secret cops with weapons
and wallets, both loaded with taxpayers'
money, so they can create a big market for
American dope through deceit and entrap
ment. (The "end" of American justice is
justification enough for the "means" thus
far described.)
Cut the tops from all marijuana
growers. After placing their heads on
stakes, we can display them in downtown
New York City to bolster public faith in
government. No one will worry about the
bombs if we can just get rid of the dreaded
reefer plant, which has been explicitly link
ed with crime, middle-age burnout and the
end of the world.
Finally, we can burn the bodies of con
victed farmers for fuel in the bottom of the
holy U.S. Pentagon. And with such a
good start at eliminating minorities, we
can easily butcher the blacks and the Jews
and especially people with only one ear.
Or would it be possible to prevent U.S.
soldiers from getting high in paraquat
'copters over American soil by sending
them to some Central American town to
kill our own species instead of beating up
on God's children the plants?
Perry Zimmerman
Carrboro
Letters?
. The Daily Tar Heel welcomes letters
to the editor and contributions of
columns for the editorial page.
Such contributions should be typed,
triple spaced, on a 60-space line, and are
subject to editing. Contributions mui
dc submitted by noon the day before
publication.
Column writers should include their
majors and hometown; each letter
should include the writer's name, ad
dress and telephone number.