10The Daily Tar Heel Wednesday. April 17, 1985
Against the plan is against the offs
93 rd year of
ARNE RlCKERT
Editor
Stuart Tonkinson
Ben Perkowski
Dick Anderson
Janet Olson
Steve Ferguson
Vance Trefethen
Managing Editor
Associate Editor
Associate Editor
University Editor
News Editor
State and National Editor
Let's change our tune
The voice of the people is being heard
in Washington's state capital, and it's
singing "Louie, Louie." With wide
support from elected officials, residents
there want the official state song changed
from the 35-year-old "Washington, My
Home" to the increasingly popular '60s
rock classic.
It prompts a review of our own state
song, "The Old North State." You
remember, the one written in 1926 by
Mrs. E.E. Randolph that goes, "Carol
ina! Carolina! Heaven's blessings attend
her. While we live we will cherish, protect
and defend her . . . Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Old North State forever. Hurrah!
Hurrah! The good Old North State."
Not only do few people know its tune
or lyrics, but there's nothing Northern
about North Carolina that UNC and
Duke students dont bring down with
them.
"Carolina in My Mind" is the imme
diately apparent choice as the replace
ment. Written and sung by James
Taylor, a former Chapel Hillian, the
song is tuneful, sentimental and beau
tiful. But except for the chorus, it's also
unsingable, with lyrics as difficult to
learn as those rasped in "Louie, Louie."
Once learned, they don't make much
sense, either: "Karin, she's a silver sun.
You'd best walk her away and watch
For those tying
As we approach the end of another
academic year here at UNC, students'
thoughts, while they're not worrying
about doing a semester's worth of
reading in one week, are beginning to
turn to the future. For some, there is
just the immediate future to be con
cerned about summer jobs, beach
trips, summer school, etc. Yet for others,
seniors mostly, the future has become
The Future.
Jobs are no longer jobs for graduating
seniors, but 'careers.' Every conversation
seems to include the obligatory, "So
whatcha gonna do when you get out?"
And while "I don't know" always ranks
as one of the most popular or at least
most frequent responses, another
reply seems to get a lot of airtime this
time of year "Getting married."
With all the jokes about pre-medders
going around, the ones about pre
wedders are about as common each year
as graduation approaches (coupled with
feelings of insecurity about The Future)
and an inordinate number of seniors
become surprisingly serious about their
dating partners. We are not trying to
suggest anything here about the legiti
macy or quality of these relationships,
but just to point out a well-recognized
phenomenon and maybe give some
helpful hints, via some recent research
into happy marriages, about The Future
Governed or ruled?
Medical advances have given doctors
new opportunities to intervene on behalf
of unborn children. However, new
problems have also arisen, as courts and
legislative bodies grapple with the
question of whether a pregnant woman
can be forced to undergo treatment or
to change her habits for the sake of the
fetus within her.
Several courts have already ruled that
the government can force a woman to
give birth by Caesarean section or accept
blood transfusions to save the fetus.
Some industrial plants have barred
pregnant women from working on jobs
or in toxic environments considered
dangerous to their unborn children.
In New York City, a new ordinance
requires restaurants, bars and other
businesses serving liquor to display the
following sign: "Warning: Drinking
alcoholic beverages during pregnancy
can cause birth defects."
As the process of fetal development
becomes less mysterious, it is becoming
easier to define precisely what a pregnant
woman should do for the sake of her
child. While pregnant women have
known for years that they should pay
special attention to nutrition, it may
someday be possible to specify a par
ticular diet that provides optimal
nutrition for the developing child.
editorial freedom
AND DAVID Som1DT
Editor
Leigh Williams
Mark Powell
Lee Roberts
Frank Bruni
Sharon Sheridan
Larry Childress
City Editor
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
Photo Editor
her watch the morning come." It doesn't
even rhyme.
To do Washington one better, we need
a tune with catchy lyrics. Famous is
"Nothing be could finer than to be in
Caroliner in the morning." And nothing
could, unless you'd prefer not to wake
up in chilling dampness with a cough
or you find grits at breakfast repugnant.
Besides, the rhyme forces native singers
to pronounce their beloved state's name
like one of those Northern UNC or Duke
students.
Something topical might make the
state song more popular, perhaps one
dealing with North Carolina's tobacco
woes. If residents could tolerate the pun,
The Buckinghams' '60s hit "Kind of a
Drag" sounds like a winner. Or revise
the lyrics of Deep Purple's "Smoke on
the Water" to "Smoke's on the rocks,
and fire's in their eyes."
But after all, the state song is essen
tially a political anthem, performed most
often at official state functions. Politi
cians are the ones who change it, too,
and it couldn't hurt to make them a part
of the song. So let's end the debate by
choosing a song to honor the greatest
politician representing North Carolina
at our nation's capital the honorable
Sen. Jesse Helms. The Beatles sang it
in 1967. It's called "The Fool on the
Hill."
knots
after all, the DTH is supposed to be
"serving the students and the University
community ..." and we do try to hit
issues that affect students.
Anyway, after that long-winded
preamble, this new research shows that
two of the best indicators of the
happiness of a marriage are the couple's
ability to talk over problems effectively,
even more crucial than how much in love
they are, and how well the couple
communicated before they were mar
ried. The frequency of sexual intercourse
was found to have almost no bearing
on marital bliss.
Also, the notion of compatibility
being linked to certain personality traits
that fit together was found to have no
clear relationship to happiness in
marriage. As one of the researchers said,
"What counts in making a happy
marriage is not so much how compatible
you are, but how you deal with incom
patibility." Sounds like words to live by
to us.
Well, now that we've done our bit of
marriage counseling for the year, we'd
like to add our good wishes for a happy
Future to all those with and without
wedding plans. Of course, we could
always get on another high horse and
do some career counseling, but since
we're not, good luck there too.
Some say the government's interest in
protecting a child from maternal neglect
is just as strong before the child is born
as afterward. Others, including many
feminists, say a mentally-competent
woman should have the right to conduct
her pregnancy as she wishes.
Valid arguments exist on both sides.
Certainly, pregnant women have a
strong obligation to do what they can
for their unborn children. But the
question of what they should or should
not do is not an appropriate one for
governments to decide. It is difficult to
fairly measure how well a pregnant
woman is caring for her fetus, and a
rule requiring a high level of care would
be impossible to enforce. The govern
ment should not be in the business of
monitoring what pregnant women eat,
how much they drink, or how many
aspirin they swallow after a hard day
at the office.
A woman who chooses to commit
nine months of her life to a developing
child would logically want to do the best
she could for the child. The government's
role, on the other hand, should be that
of providing information and financial
support for the mother as she attempts
to do the best thing, rather than
punishing her if she falls short of the
rruuk.
By SCOTT CANTERBERR Y
Once upon a time, there was a dreadful meal
plan that the big, bad administrators tried to
force on poor, helpless on-campus students.
Right before the mean, old establishment got
their final wish (therefore filling their barren
treasuries), three heroes emerged from the Pit
with a flailing report, that sent the bad guys back
deep into their offices and momentarily saved
the helpless on-campus residents.
Familiar? Of course. That's been the general
haunting story that many of UNC's on-campus
students have been supposedly losing sleep over
the past few weeks.
But during the mounting controversy, no
mention has been made of the group that may
be most affected by the $100 mandatory meal
plan and that, surprisingly, is the off-campus
students. v.
Off-campus students, who help pay for
cafeteria renovations just like their on-campus
colleagues probably have been considered
apathetic towards this entire ordeal. But a
recently-completed report concluded that these
seemingly uncaring individuals also have a vested
interest in the passage of the meal plan, with
the result being the newly-formed vigilante
group, STAMP (Students Taking Action for the
Meal Plan).
No way, you say. Well, consider the latest
findings by the unofficial Zimmerman I Moloney I
Canterberry Report and you may not be so
convinced after all.
A mandatory meal plan would further clear
the streets of on-campus residents (subsequently
referred to as "ons") during meal time. While
"ons" are enjoying one of their full-course meals
with their $100 at one of the campus' cafeterias,
"offs" could rule Franklin Street eating estab
lishments with a vengeance. Consider the luxuries
of not having to wait for tables nor eating two
pounds of chips and guacamole dip while orders
are lost in a mass of shuffled tickets nor reverting
to some junior high school tricks with the low
wicked candle on the table.
Instead, these individuals can enjoy one of the
finest pleasures of living off campus without the
nuisance of dorm residents (who probably should
be eating on the campus anyway since their
parents did buy them a supplementary $200
cafeteria plan). Quite simply, "offs" want what
they deserve restaurant eating for the "offs"
and University eating for the "ons," with the
exception of late-night deliveries of course.
A vote against the mandatory meal plan is
a vote against off-campus living. Forget the
freedom to choose where you would like to eat;
rather consider the dire need of the emaciated
"off" to eat his first well-balanced meal in two
weeks at his favorite restaurant. Now the "on"
must ask himself, "Do I want to deny this poor
individual his deserved right to an uninhibited
READER FORUM
r
Dibbert misconstrues the UNC
To the editors:
Though it was difficult to grasp
the intention of Billy Dibbert's letter
("Is the Honor Code doing what we
want," April 15), it seems that he
is raising two issues regarding the
Code of Student Conduct: 1) the
code's effectiveness in controlling
cheating, and 2) the question of
whether students internalize the
code's ideals or just passively
comply with it.
In discussing the efficacy of the
code in deterring cheating, a few
things must be considered. A college
atmosphere is one in which many
great personal choices are made:
what classes to take, what major to
pursue, what extra-curriculars to
join, what career or graduate school
to vie for, etc. Likewise, the issue
of whether to cheat or to earn a
grade honestly is also a matter of
personal choice. The Instrument of
Student Judicial Governance, the
document that defines the Code of
Student Conduct, recognized this
matter: "the guiding principle of
University regulation of conduct
shall be that of the responsible
exercise of freedom." The key word
here is "responsible." It is a student's
responsibility to choose not to
cheat, but if cheating occurs, that
student is responsible for the con
sequences heshe faces.
Dibbert argues this last point
with, "It is discouraging that the
University attempts to dictate
morality, values, 'honor' . . . Has
anyone critically analyzed the
ethical issues involved in requiring
students to conform to a university
established code?" In regards to
academic matters, the Honor Code
states basically that it is wrong to
cheat once given the opportunity to
learn. We find it difficult to believe
that any member of the University
community questions this ideal.
Based on this ideal, the Honor
System does not exist to serve as
a policing agent of the University.
Instead, the system exists to deal
, Tolerance, not bigotry
To the editors:
I am writing to express my
concern about recent Campus Gov
erning Council decisions regarding
the Carolina Gay and Lesbian
Association.
Although r never felt that gays
should be subject to institutional
discrimination, I probably wouldn't
have noticed discrimination in its
worst manifestation. My personal
attitude toward gays was just as bad
and not unlike other college age
males. Our behavior was abusive
and humiliating to gays not to
mention how it reflected on our
selves. I wouldn't be surprised if
there were those among us who were
gay that engaged in our cruel games
to avoid detection and certain
ostracism. Where did we learn to
be so mean and intolerant? In view
of this daily reality isn't it obvious
that gays and lesbians need an
organization with which to identify
and to maintain a sense of dignity
and culture? It is in this sense that
the CGLA is similar to other
organizations for traditionally dis
criminated groups.
My attitudes toward gays
changed in Buffalo, N.Y., where I
shared a graduate student office
with two other students, one of
whom was gay. We all became good
friends and I learned how cruel our
society is to itself and to gays. My
friend was divorced but until he was
30 he couldn't admit to himself
something he knew all along, that
he was gay. Our society's brilliant
strategy is to force people to deny
their own feelings. The result can
be unhapppy marriages, divorce
and children torn from their
parents.
People who want to justify their
intolerance toward gays and lesbi
ans love to point to the N.C. Crimes
Against Nature statute that prohib
its oral and anal sex. Please note
that you don't have to be gay to
violate the law. Also, anal or oral
sex is not an absolute requirement
for a homosexual.
In reality the question about the
CGLA individual members' sexual
habits are a private matter and is
not really the issue. People don't
decide to be heterosexual or homo
sexual. This is so patently absurd.
What makes some girls love boys
and some girls love girls is not a
philosophical decision. It is not a
moral decision when a little boy
discovers he is only sexually aroused
by other males. That is biology.
How an individual decides to treat
others is where morality enters and
this is why the bigots haven't a leg
to stand on.
I hope the CGC gives the CGLA
a fair hearing. It would be a shame
to cut them especially since this year
they have grown and become of the
best-run student organizations. I
know this as a former member of
the CGC and as one who joined the
CGLA last semester to express my
solidarity for gay rights. If the CGC
was to not fund the CGLA it would
be a break with a tradition of
tolerance and a signal to other
groups that the CGC has no respect
for its own laws prohibiting discrim
ination. The CGC should continue
its funding (albeit modest) for an
effective organization that provides
the University with educational
programming and gives gays sup
port and an effective voice.
Allen Rosen
Chapel Hill
i .
L3 i
, i I
L
5TUPENTS
POM'T
KNOCK
T
r -
T
meal, just because I voted against the meal plan
and still mililtantly refuse to eat at the cafeteria?"
My guess says that the "on" would rather side
with the "off," especially since he more than likely
will become one someday. And for those of you
who still have some reservations (those at
restaurants), your student body president is an
"off."
The ZMC report also revealed that off
campus residents, particularly those who can't
cook, do feel slighted by their exclusion from
the meal plan. The most frequent response when
asked to comment on the meal plan among these
individuals was, "Why don't we get to be in on
this thing too?"
They reason that a vote for the meal plan could
lead to an extension of the service to those
needing it off-campus.
Graduate students went so far as to suggest
that the mandatory meal plan be extended to
all campus students, faculty, administrators,
workers, Pit Preachers (including Jed "Why
let our man starve himself?"), squirrels and the
families of all those mentioned above.
Considering that families that included four
children could bring in a hefty $600 for ARA
services, we're beginning to be talk big bucks.
"Of course, well have to make some kind of
special concessions for the squirrels," said one
graduate student who asked not to be identified.
The ZMC report also showed that
Granville Towers residents, who are classified as
with those students who allegedly
make the choice to cheat. If the
system of honor was done away with
at this school, any other alternative,
such as placing proctors in exam
rooms, would be demoralizing,
degrading and would take away
from one's individual freedom of
choice. We, the students, who have
had a large part in the development
of our present-day Honor System,
along with the faculty and admin
istration, feel that self-discipline
leads to self-development. In ans
wering Dibbert's question of
whether students internalize the
code's ideals or just passively
comply with it, we believe that
through the exercise of self
governance, students can best
develop a sense of what honor
means. Therefore, as it exists now,
the system of honor serves as an
extension of the educational process
itself.
Overall, Dibbert's letter is largely
composed of a string of ad hom
inems that misconstrue the motiva
tion behind and the operation of the
UNC Honor System. The pledge on
an exam is a written symbol of the
To the editors:
Regarding Byson Fleming and
Paul Laughman's letters purporting
to refute Adam Falk's letter
("Number 8?" April 10): C'mon,
folks, if you're going to counter a
person's argument, at least try to
get that argument straight. Falk did
not dispute the existence or the
crucifixion of Jesus Christ
(although he did say that the Biblical
version of the death was not verified
historically, this comment, viewed
in context, refers only to the account
' of the resurrection).
Yet both Fleming and Laughman
go to great lengths and some
arguments ad absurdum to
defend these two points, which were
never, in any rational reading of
Falk's letter, in dispute. Either both
missed the not overly subtle distinc
tions among existence, death and
resurrection as abstract concepts, or
they are setting up a straw man.
At least Laughman is intellectu
ally honest enough to note that the
Roman historian he cites "acknowl
edge ... at lest, the belief by the
Christians of his resurrection," and
that "at best, some of them scoff
at the event." Fleming, by contrast,
ignores the issue of outside corrob
oration entirely and relies solely on
"the records of the Christian
church." To "prove" that these
records are truthful and non
propagandist, he cites the Gospels'
depictions of the disciples in a "bad
light," and in so doing displays a
monumental misunderstanding of
one major purpose of the Gospels
the didactic funtion. Thus, these
"failings" of the disciples serve to
emphasize the necessity of faith (the
fear during the storm on the Sea
i:
r
i
... r
t
r
t
off-campus residents by housing authorities, also
favor the passage and extension of the mandatory
meal plan. Chimed one Tower resident, "My
daddy said if I stayed at Granville, I could have
anything I wanted and I want the mandatory
meal plan." So there, what she said.
The formation of the new off-campus
organization STAMP to take action immediately
to protect the rights of "offs."
"We're going to fight for passage of the meal
plan in order to clean up the streets . . . protect
the rights of 'off individuals to quality,
uninhibited restaurant service," said acting
president Woodrow Zimmerman.
"We're also going to fight for an extension
of the plan to those who so desire it," said
sergeant-of-waffles Christopher Maloney.
"We're going to stage a STAMP the CAMP
rally," Zimmerman continued. "We're trying to
get Mr. T and Hulk Hogan to come down here
to get our message across . . . and well, you sure
don't want to get them angry."
So students, both "ons" and "offs", vote April
18 in the mandatory meal plan referendum. It's
not a light and dark situation. Go ahead, feel
free and make the choice of a new generation.
Scott Canterberry, a junior chemistry
journalism major from Cary and assistant sports
editor for The Daily Tar Heel, frequents the B.K.
Lounge and other fine Franklin Street eating
establishments. Huh, so there. 1
Honor System
student's recognition of his respon
sibilities under the code. It is not
the be-all and end-all of the Honor
System. The system is effective to
the extent that it deters would-be
cheaters and adjudicates cases
involving students who are in fact
accused of cheating.
The fact that students spend
"megabucks" on their education is
beside the point because Dibbert
offers no alternative to replace the
Honor System. As such, Dibbert is
advocating throwing the baby out
with the bathwater. The alternatives
are to either "passively" accept (and
thus condone) cheating or to
"actively" monitor classroom
behavior.
Although Dibbert couches his
letter in terms of'truth, justice and
the American way, it is far from
clear whether the alternatives he
implies could in any way come
closer to his educational and demo
cratic ideals.
Ira Shapiro
Assistant Attorney General
Jeremy Ofseyer
Associate Attorney General
Let it be
of Galilee), to set Jesus apart from
mortals (Peter's failure to walk on
water), and to underline the essen
tial weakness of man and his
capacity for sin (even rock-steady
Peter denied Christ). These are
lessons the church wants to teach,
Fleming. They reflect well on Jesus
and badly on man what better
propaganda can you get!
As for the "quantity of manus
cripts and how close the copies are
to the time of the original" do
you mean, Fleming, that if one
person prints 10,000 copies of a lie
around the time it originates, and
another prints only 500 copies of
the truth some years after the time
in question, the mere quantity of
repetitions of the lie makes it true?
I am not arguing here that the
Gospels are a lie; I'm trying to show
you that your reasoning is faulty.
In the end, Falk's contention
remains unassailed: there is an
eighth alternative, beyond even the
seven theological ones set forth by
Mike Morgan, and it is given some
weight by the lack of external
corroboration (outside of Biblical
material) of the crucifixion. The fact
that this is a valid alternative does
not mean that the other seven are
automatically wrong: that is a point
that Falk understands and con
cedes, but both Fleming and Laugh
man miss completely. Falk's posi
tion is based on reason and
historical documentation, Fleming's
and Laughman's, ultimately, on
faith and scriptural authority. Both
are valid; neither can be proved. So
let it be.
Marcia Decker
Chapel Hill
P" JvJ VTr