6The Daily Tar HeelThursday, September 5, 1935
2a
4
mm
latiglar
93 r J year of editorial freedom
ARNli RlCKERT AND DAVID SCHMIDT
Editor Editor
STUART T0NK1NS0N Managing Editor
BENPeRKOwSKI Associate Editor
Dick Anderson Associate Editor
JANET OLSON University Editor
AMY STYERS Newt Editor
ANDY TRINaA Sute snd Nation! Editor
Leigh Williams
Mark Powell
Lee Roberts
Frank Bruni
Sharon Sheridan
City Editor
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
Larry Childress Photo Editor
A Koppel of big mistakes
Perhaps some of you stayed up to
watch the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the
Rev. Jerry Falwell face off late last night
on the ABC News Nightline program,
hosted by Ted Koppel. Certainly some
of you must have. But if you value your
time and have little patience for the
orchestrated spinning of glossy wheels,
we hope you made the proper decision
and went to bed early.
The Revs. Jackson and Falwell have
been exchanging well-mannered insults
for nearly two weeks now, ever since
the day that Falwell returned from his
much-overpublicized trip to South
Africa. If you will recall, upon his return
from South Africa, Falwell referred to
the black leader Bishop Desmond Tutu
as a "phony," and presumed to suggest
that he himself more appropriately
spoke for South Africa's black
population.
A more ludicrous statement may
never have been spoken in the English
language, of course. Yet that single
ludicrous statement has been treated to
more media attention than the most
recent veritable violence and economic
turmoil in South Africa (which is a
telling indictment of our nation's degree
of concern for the well-being of both
black and white South Africans).
Furthermore, Falwell's ludicrous
statement has been met with far more
ludicrous responses here in the United
States. Early last week, for instance,
President Reagan actually went to the
trouble to apologize for Falwell's
statement. Said Reagan, the Rev.
Falwell "certainly had never meant in
any way to describe the character or the
beliefs or philosophy of Bishop Tutu."
But since when does the president of
the United States apologize for the
statements of a private citizen?
In no uncertain terms, the disturbing
process that we have been witnessing
over the past two weeks is one of
legitimization. It seems that the more
ludicrous Falwell's statements become,
the more newsworthy he becomes. And,
consequently, the more newsworthy he
becomes, the more legitimate it becomes
to hear his views upon the subject of
South Africa and apartheid.
What is far more disturbing1 is that
the Rev. Jackson, by agreeing to appear
with Falwell on a show such as Nigh
tline, is aiding in the process of legitim
ization. Undoubtedly, last night Jackson
intended to present his own views as
being strikingly legitimate in comparison
to those of Falwell. Indeed they are.
Nevertheless, one must question the
good intentions of a man who is willing,
indirectly, to aid in giving Rev. Falwell's
views a further hearing.
Make up your mind, Uncle Sam
What do you do when you make a
promise that you decide later you don't
want to keep? You squirm. And that's
exactly what the U.S. government is
doing right now in Birmingham, Ala
bama, to the wonderment and protest
of city officials.
The Department of Justice approved
a consent decree four years ago that
allows Birmingham officials to increase
minority representation in city jobs by
hiring or promoting blacks and women
over more-qualified white candidates.
But now the department says, in direct
contradiction to the decree, that the city
is violating the. decree by discriminating
against whites.
. How's that saying go? . s. . "Be careful
of what you want, for you will surely
get it"? Well, apparently the government
doesnt want what it got or didn't know
what it wanted in the first place, but
it sure got what it asked for.
Despite the government's weak claim
that it doesnt see any contradictions in
the case, there are contradictions.
Period. Permitting the hiring and
promoting of blacks over more-qualified
white candidates will lead to discrimi
nation, and according to the Justice
Department attorney who negotiated
the 1981 decree, the government knew
it then.
The attorney in question, Richard J.
Ritter, said in a recent deposition,
released over the government's objec
tions, that he expected when the decree
was signed "that there would be occa
sions when the city would resort to
selecting qualified blacks" even if "it
believed there was a demonstrably better
qualified white applicant available."
v He added that the decree provided
Birmingham with a valid defense for
favoring minorities and fighting Assist
ant Attorney General William Bradford
Reynolds' claim that the city illegally
favors blacks over "demonstrably better
qualified" whites."
The Justice Department, which tried
to block Ritter's deposition on grounds
that it involved internal discussions, says
his testimony is "incompatible with the
arguments weVe been making" and that
the "decree does not allow the current
practices of the city." Kinda fishy that
Uncle Sam was so testy about Ritter's
statement, huh?
Apparently the U.S. District Court
Judge who unsealed Ritter's deposition
thought so, given her criticism of the
department's "contrary" arguments in
the case.
Well leave the debate over hiring
quotas for another editorial, but as far
as we're concerned there's no debate over
the government's inexcusable contradic
tions in Birmingham. The Justice
Department ought to admit its mistake
and accept the embarrassment, rather
than hide behind shallow accusations.
Style over substance
Let's face it, folks: Labor Day's over.
You've caught your last rays; you're
adjusting to your classes; you're just
trying to settle into the ol' college groove.
Still, one nagging question's been
picking at your brain:
What's in fashion this fall?
Look no further, oh fortunate one.
As always (ahem), weVe got The Scoop
for you. Our reference? None other than
that longstanding icon of popular
culture, Playboy magazine. Without
further ado, then, here are the In's and
Out's of the coming season:
Paisley is In which just goes to
prove that things do run in cycles. Some
of the artsier professors never put them
away, but the rest of you better head
for the attic. And while youYe up there,
you can put away your Hawaiian shirts,
which are Out. We can only sigh aloha
mixers will never be the same.
o Now that UNC's Michael Jordan
has dribbled his way to professional
fame and fortune, everything he
endorses turns to gold. Hence, Air
Jordans are In. While you could never
wear these overpriced red-and-black
wonders to a formal, we hear they're
really comfortable. J But when you're
buying your pair, maybe you can get
a good trade-in on your running shoes
Playboy says they're Out.
o Thanks no doubt to the popularity
of Swatches, those three-to-an-arm
timekeepers, watches are suddenly In
again especially on Tuesdays and
Thursdays, during those (yawn) 75
minute lectures.
Nobody got our consent, but
wedding rings are In beware of those
seeking an Mrs. Degree. Another kind
of ring, however, won't live happily ever
after. Faster than you can say Wham!,
earrings (in either ear) are Out.
Others worthy of note:
0 Don Johnson. Miami Vice. In. Dig
it.
David Lee Roth. Puh-leeze! Very
definitely Out.
Beer. Hey, this is Chapel Hill; has
it ever, been anything but In?
Trivia. Who hasn't played Trivial
Pursuit at least once too often? Mer
cifully Out.
Other Ins include using a fork in a
Chinese restaurant, blue margaritas,
slow dancing and cash (no argument
here). Outs, on the other hand, include
yuppies, New Wave, hair mousse and
the USFL but was it ever in?
But before you go changing your
lifestyle you know, throwing out
everything you own to buy a Princelike
wardrobe or a new pair of sneaks, heed
Playboy's advice and don't take this all
too seriously. After all, today's fashion
is tomorrow's dinosaur, and vice versa.
By GUY LUCAS
Almost everyone seems to have
an opinion about cats. This is no
accident cats want it that way.
Nothing a cat does is neutral. It
won't stand at a distance from you
and wag its tail when you call; it
either comes to you or runs as if
you were tainted somehow. If it
comes to you, it won't hang
around any longer than is neces
sary for you to bore it.
The very things a cat does make
some people hate them, while the
same things make other people
love them. But believe it or not,
there are those people who have
no opinion. Some of these people
just don't know the pros and cons
of cats, or maybe they have been
living in a communist country
(where cats act differently to avoid
getting arrested).
For these people, I have asked
around and compiled a list of cats
pros and cons.
PROS
1) Cats are very independent.
2) Cats are softer than dogs.
3) Cats are lightweight and thus
easier to fling.
4) Cats dont often maul small
children and old people. :
5) Cats make less noise than dogs.
6) When cats make a no-no on
the carpet, it's easier to clean than
a dog's no-no.
7) Cats dont stick their heads out
the car window and slobber all
over the door.
CONS
1) Cats are very independent.
2) Cats dont like to wrestle.
3) Cats don't play fetch. They play
"You threw it away, so now it's
mine."
4) A man with a knife cannot by
intimidated by a large tabby.
5) Cats like to sit on your face
while you're sleeping.
6) Cats shred furniture.
7) Cats meet their girlfriends, or
boyfriends, under your bedroom
window.
8) Cats come home drunk at 3 a.m.
9) Cats dont like dogs.
10) Lassie wasnt a cat.
11) Rin Tin Tin wasnt a cat.
12) I'm allergic to cats.
Please keep in mind I have been
entirely objective about this whole
thing.
I have left the final word on cats
to William Faulkner, in this
passage from "The Reivers":
"The cat . . . neither toils nor
spins, he is a parasite on you but
he does not love you; he would
die, cease to exist, vanish from the
earth (I mean in his so-called
domestic form) but so far he has
not had to. (There is a fable,
Chinese I think, literary I am sure:
of a period on earth when the
dominant creatures were cats: who
after ages of trying to cope with
the anguishes of mortality
famine, plague, war, injustice,
folly, greed in a word, civilized
government convened a con
gress of the wisest cat philosophers
to see if anything could be done:
who after long deliberation agreed
that the dilemma, the problems
themselves were insoluble and the
only practical solution was to give
it up, relinquish, abdicate, by
selecting from among the lesser
creatures a species, race optimistic
enough to believe that the mortal
predicament could be solved and
ignorant enough never to learn
better. Which is why the cat lives
with you, is completely dependent
on you for food and shelter but
lifts no paw for you and loves you
not; in a word, why your cat looks
at you the way it does.)"
Guy Lucas, a junior journalism
major from Greensboro, is a staff
writer for The Daily Tar HeeL
WtU MAkr-r THAT t
YoUR.CATTMT3USr A
MQOfT Iri THE" Y"
...
OW THE VLOOU.- HO
V ikA ?
MM) S----
lH uiii iimui r 1 i i
-ANl WUdTE
"THE-HELL
JJifH MV
MASTER.
OK) THE
WITH A
READER FORUM
'DTH' scrapes the bottom of the quote barrel
To the editors:
. Since you began publication this
year the daily quote at the bottom
of the front page has come from
such notables as Sigmund Freud,
Sir Herbert Beerbohn Tree, Honore
de Balzac, Robert Shnayerson and
Oscar Wilde, each had something
witty or pithy to say about himself
and or the society in which he lived,
and it seemed clear that the primary
purpose of these little gems was to
provide the reader with an amusing
thought from one of the notable
thinkers of Western civilization. On
the whole, this is a noble intent
since it relieves the reader from the
otherwise mundane writing to be
found in the DTH. :: .
But the quotation from Nietzsche
at the bottom of Wednesday's issue
surprised me. Nietzsche was one of
Adolf Hitler's favorite philosophers
and few of his maxims are either
amusing or pithy. I would imagine
that most of your Christian readers,
to say nothing of the blacks and
Jews, found little to laugh about in
their D TH Wednesday.
In the very same issue you claim
that "Cartoons and other artwork
appearing on the editorial page ...
reflect the opinion of the artist, not
necessarily the opinions of the DTH
editorial staff." I hope the same
holds true of your daily quote, but
the principle involved is a bit more
subtle. Since, the daily quote is
emblazoned across the bottom of
the front page in large print, it
doesnt really matter whether it
reflects your editorial stand on a
particular issue; it simply makes a
statement. In light of this, I wonder
why you dont give thinkers who
disagree with Nietzsche equal time?
Why not quote St. Augustine or St.
Paul in one of your issues? Each
of these writers is capable of making
amusing or pithy statements with
out offending anyone. Better yet,
why not quote that famous writer
or restroom wall fame, Mr. Ano
nymous: "God is dead Nietzsche;
Nietzsche is dead God."
Scott Carlson
Dept. of Classics
IF B LAND.
v
Actuslly.-ycu ccvld claim i
TfnUS n.4.H .uii.ii . ,:.m.,S 3
than, link 31... J - N
or if Piling Schedule!,
in.vihidicasetit i& ccnsifetW
. Ctt puns... but only on. a
joint return. ..r tSe lesser ot
Overlooking something?
To the editors:
This letter concerns the many
editorials and letters in the DTH
concerning the political situation in
South Africa. Let me qualify any
statements to follow by saying that
the policy of apartheid is as morally
repugnant to me as it is to any other
American (with the possible excep
tion of the Rev. Falwell). It seems
that in expressing their outrage,
certain writers have overlooked a
few important questions:
Isnt South Africa the largest
producer of gold, uranium and
other vital minerals and metals?
Are there any other previously
white-dominated African states that
now exist in democratic bliss and
racial harmony? . . . Can you say
Rhodesia or Ethiopia?
Even in the good ol U.S.A. are
people of similar color a majority,
or are they split into tribal groups,
ideological factions and religious
persuasions?
It has been said that people in
glass houses shouldnt throw stones;
if this is true, I challenge anyone
to heave a rock across our fair
campus. Regarding this, some other
questions come to mind:
Does the University, or any of
its affiliated groups, have financial
holdings in South Africa?
When was the last time you saw
a Caucasian behind the counter at
any of the ARA eateries?
Is the percentage of blacks on
campus commensurate with the
state average?
Why do most blacks prefer to
stay in South Campus dormitories?
Jo Fleische
Chapel Hill
Unity a start toward a safer society
By KARL TAMELER
The UNC campus has been rocked by the
violence of the abduction and murder of Sharon
Stewart as the first weeks of classes got underway.
These same feelings of shock and horror bring
back memories of last spring when another
female student, Freshteh Gholko, was murdered
in her own apartment in a savage attack by
another area youth.
These two incidents both involved white
female students and black students from area
high schools. Both were tragic events that bring
out our shock at the brutality and anger that
humans are capable of displaying.
When such an incident happens many ques
tions are raised. We ask ourselves: Why? What
would motivate such an act? How do we prevent
such crimes? There is also talk about swift
retribution. Many people believe that capital
punishment serves justice. It seems, however, that
there are deeper questions to be asked and better
solutions to be found to heal an ailing society,
plagued with violent crime.
As it is now, we are encouraged by law
enforcement people and justice officials to be
more withdrawn and even unsociable in order
to prevent or avoid such violence. People begin
doing their activities with small groups of friends.
These clicks, however, become more and more
exclusive, so that entry by and interaction with
outsiders is strictly limited.
These security precautions, though possibly
effective in the short run, have the effect of
chopping up society into different entities that
do not interact freely. Since these entities are
often divided along racial and economic lines,
there are certain groups of people who develop
an artificial superiority based on their ability to
exclude, and a large mass of people who are
left out as a result.
These people who are "left out are often
disadvantaged blacks, who differ greatly in both
numbers and income when compared with the
white population of towns such as Chapel Hill.
Living in a town like this, many such people
are constantly subjected to rejection, loneliness
to betray their race, in order to be accepted by
mainstream white society.
I propose that, instead of compartmentalizing
our society so that the term society in our country
is defined by independent groups of people
bound by common interests and incomes
operating on an exclusive basis, we take measures
to break down barriers between people. We need
to open up society so that all people, regardless
of their interests, race or income, can participate
in all of society's activities together.
'As loneliness and resentment build up, hostility erupts.9
and exclusion from many activities. As loneliness
and resentment build up, hostility erupts
targeted directly at the very people who represent
their exclusion and rejection. Such an outlet of
frustration is the final link in a vicious circle
that sees a tightening, or sealing up, of these
groups, especially those at the upper-income
levels. More stumbling blocks are thus thrown
in the way of the excluded members of society,
leaving greater rejection and unfriendliness to be
offered to them.
This is a costly and ineffective way to protect
society from violent crime. Costly, because as
you exclude and cordon off one part of society
from another, one group is tagged as aggressive,
while the other is offered partiality and favored
as potential victims. Worse yet, as exclusion
mechanisms become formal and rigid, low
income groups especially blacks find they
are encouraged to compromise themselves, even
As members of the UNC student body, we
all have the opportunity to involve ourselves and
learn about people different than us. There are
community outreach programs through the
Campus Y, such as Big Buddies and prisoner
visitation. There is also a great need for student
participation in the Chapel Hill Homeless Shelter
and Soup Kitchen. Besides these, every day we
have the chance to say a kind word, or stop
and talk with somebody whom we may feel we
do not know or understand well.
We owe it to ourselves, as members of a larger
society, to build unity between the many sorts
of different and interesting people that we have
to live with. It is my belief that such a unity
and willingness to cooperate will solve many of
the problems that we face in our country today.
Not the least of these would be violent crime.
Karl Tameler is a senior political theory and
economics major from Pueblo, Co.