6The Daily Tar Heel Tuesday, September 23, 1986
latlg
Star Mnl
94th year of editorial freedom
JIM ZOOK, Editor
RANDY FARMER, Managing Editor
ED BRACKETT, Associate Editor
DEWEY MESSER, Associate Editor
Tracy Hill, News Editor
GRANT PARSONS, University Editor
Linda Montanari, cuy Editor
JILL GERBER, State and National Editor
Scott Fowler, sports Editor
KATHY PETERS, Features Editor
ROBERT KEEFE, Business Editor
Elizabeth Ellen, Arts Editor
DAN CHARLSON, Photography Editor
Setting the wrong standard
When speaking before a formal
gathering, UNC Chancellor Chris
topher Fordham often likes to describe
N.C. public higher education as a
system that has attained excellence
with modest resources.
Based on SAT scores of UNC
students, Fordham has plenty of
statistical muscle to back up his
statement. However, when studying
the same data for N.C. secondary
education, the same claim could not
be asserted.
College admissions reference books
such as The Public Ivys have generated
publicity that has bolstered UNCs
national reputation. The good PR has
contributed to an increase in the
caliber of UNC students as gauged by
SAT scores that continue to rise.
UNCs current freshman class boasts
an average SAT score of 1,085, the
highest of any in the University's
history.
However, the situation in N.C.
secondary education is far less prom
ising. SAT results from the 1985-86
school year show only South Carolina
students ranking lower than North
Carolina's. Students from the Tar Heel
State averaged a paltry 835 composite
score (out of a possible 1,600). South
Dakota ranked first with a composite
average of 1,098.
Of course, the SAT is not the end
all register of college preparatory
skills; charges of racial and socio
economic bias have been leveled
against the exam. However, the SAT
(and the ACT, preferred mainly by
schools in the Midwest and West)
serves as the best available comparison
of college-bound students from differ
ent regions of the nation. North
Carolina has been measured against
the other 49 states, and the state's
record is abysmal.
In this era of nationwide educational
reform, North Carolinians deserve
better. Strong direction and increased
financial backing on both the state and
local levels to better prepare students
not only for the test, but for college
level work is required.
Ill timing befuddles affairs
A facet of the Daniloff-Zakharov
drama that has not received as much
attention of late is President Reagan's
war on the Soviet mission here in the
United States. In calling for 25 Soviet
diplomats to leave the country, the
president might only be adding to the
problems that have recently plagued
U.S.-Soviet relations.
.
When the FBI arrested Soviet
United Nations employee Gennadi
Zakharov, the plan seemed simple
enough: arrest a spy, announce it to
the world, slap the Soviets on the wrist.
But the Soviets, of course, did not take
such abuse lying down, and retaliated
by arresting Nicholas Daniloff, an
American correspondent, on spy
charges. Now the two countries are in
a fuddled state of foreign affairs, still
trying to arrange a summit.
In March, long before the arrest of
Zakharov, Reagan ordered the Soviet
Union to cut personnel at its mission
from 243 to 218 by Oct. 1, leaving 25
would-be spies out in the cold. The
Soviet Union also has U.N. missions
for its Ukrainian and Byelorussian
republics, raising the overall Soviet
contingent to 270, compared to the
United States' 130 members. Reagan's
order would, over the next two years,
reduce the Soviet mission staff by 100
to 170, a figure that might induce the
Soviets to curtail their use of the U.N.
as an avenue for espionage.
There is little doubt that the Soviet
Union uses its U.N. mission to spy on
the United States. Because of its size,
it is relatively simple to give a spy some
obscure post within the Soviet mission.
But other countries spy on the United
States as well some of them friends,
some not. Being spied on as the host
country of the U.N. comes with the
territory.
That is not to say that the United
States should allow the Soviets to get
away with using the auspices of the
U.N. for espionage. Reagan's intent
was to protect U.S. interests. Arresting
Zakharov and expelling 25 other
suspected Soviet U.N. spies are thus
efforts to safeguard national security.
But kicking diplomatic spies out of the
country does not solve a security
problem, it only creates another one.
In their haste to clean out a "nest of
spies" at the U.N., Reagan and the CIA
misjudged the political timeliness of
the move.
Just when the United States and its
leaders need to secure a summit with
the Soviet Union, the usual bantering
about who spies the most returns. The
U.N. and Daniloff affairs must be
resolved via meetings of the two
nations, not via satellite. Otherwise,
hopes for a summit dwindle markedly.
Quiz yourself on the Box's new shows
It has come to our attention lately that
some of you may read this column as a
diversion, an escape from your scholarly
duties.
This must cease. College is for learning;
with every passing nanosecond, you should
be expanding your mind, broadening your
horizons, exploring your universe, expand
ing your mind, broadening your ... oh, we
mentioned those already.
So, to facilitate your horizon-broadening,
take note of the following quiz about new
programming on The Miracle Box. (That's
"television" to those who take mankind's
greatest invention lightly.) Some of the
shows youll see described will indeed debut
on the big three networks this fall; others
are ones we've made up. When you spot
a bogus show, just take your favorite
appliance, throw it out your residence hall
or apartment window, and shout, "I'm mad
as hell, and I'm not going to take it
anymore!"
Anyone arrested by Chapel Hill or
University police for disturbing the peace
will be declared "winner."
"ALF" A comical, puppet-like extra
terrestrial an alien life form, or "ALF"
crashes through the roof of a suburban
home and develops an appetite for the family
cat after his home planet, Melmac, explodes.
Mondays, NBC.
"Starman" Another extraterrestrial,
this one resembling a human, beams down
to earth to help rear his and his earth
dwelling mate's half-alien son. Robert Hays
stars. Fridays, ABC.
The Bottom Line
"Rip-off City" Sylvester Stallone dons
his Rambo garb once again only this time
to fight ruthless television producers who
steal ideas from recent movies such as
"Howard the Duck" and "Starman."
Executives from throughout the TV industry
also star, with Aaron Spelling insulted in
effigy every other episode. Days and
network to be announced.
"Downtown" A street-wise cop deals
with murderers, drug-dealers, pimps, pros
titutes and hotheads on a daily basis.
Michael Nouri stars. Saturdays, CBS.
"Barney Millertown" A reject from the
police academy constantly complains to his
superiors at a Fuquay-Varina precinct,
telling them he's sick and tired of widows
asking him to get their cats out of trees.
Rodney Dangerfield stars. Days and net
work to be announced.
"Sidekicks" Gil Gerard stars as a
middle-aged policeman who nabs criminals
with the aid of a 10-year-old karate whiz.
Fridays, ABC.
"Swiftkicks" Chuck Norris plays an
irate Nielsen viewer who journeys to
Hollywood to teach certain scriptwriters the
meaning of "reality." His methods of
instruction include a devastating uppercut
and strategic kicks to certain parts of the
anatomy. (Viewer discretion is advised.)
Days and network to be announced.
1ms 1H0 1Psmia7D-
Sports ttaroiuigfa the eyes off a 'traitor '
A week ago, I picked Kansas to beat
UNC. I also picked Florida State to
win last Saturday. To those of you
who faithfully read the DTH last year, my
choice probably came as no surprise. In fact,
somebody told me right after the Kansas
selection that I was the first person in the
short history of the DTH's college picks to
take UNC's opponent.
Actually, it's not true. But that doesnt
really matter. What does matter is the
thought behind the statement. The person
who told me that hadn't checked to find
out whether he was right or not. He just
knew he was right. After all, I'm James "Mr.
Big East" Surowiecki. So of course I was
the first to pick against our beloved Tar
Heels.
The mindset which prompted that
encounter is a mindset which attacks what
sportswriting should be all about. More, it's
a state of mind which attacks the entire
process of formulating opinions, of learning.
It's a mindset that condemns any attack on
this school's sports program as treason, as
something inherently without value. It's a
state of mind disturbingly similar to the
"Love It or Leave It" doctrine pushed on
critics of America. And it's a state of mind
that pervades not only this beautiful campus
but also all of American sport.
I originally wanted to talk here about my
stand on the Big East in 1984-1985, my
freshman year. But that's done. If you read
me, you know what I said. If you didn't,
you don't, and that's probably good. Let
it die.
More relevant to what I'm literarily
meandering about is what happened at
midseason last year. What happened was,
I wrote a notes column. The column was
written when UNC was 21-0 and on top
of the world.
In any case, I wrote in that column, among
other things, that Kenny Smith was having
a disappointing season. Not a bad season,
but a disappointing season. My argument
was based on the fact that he had declined
in every offensive category and yet he was
Jim Surcvicctt
Staff Writer
up in turnovers. Unfortunately, I self
indulgently threw in an invidious compar
ison to Pearl Washington that did nothing
but obscure my point. People were - not
pleased.
Dean Smith said I didn't know anything
about basketball. Letters, angry letters, were
written, some suggesting I'd be better off
at another school. Through it all, though,
no one was looking at what Kenny Smith
was doing for the team. The argument went,
"Kenny has been great the last two years.
He is therefore great now. Besides, he's the
starting point guard on the No. 1 team in
the nation, a team that's 21-0. He must be
having a great season."
But there was very little said about how
Kenny was actually playing, about the
tangible contributions he was making
compared to those he had made in the past.
Instead there were a lot of platitudes about
what an exciting player Kenny Smith was,
and how inspirational he was to the team.
They were the same words people use to
justify Steve Garvey, the same words used
to defend Pearl Washington's performance
two years ago.
To be blunt, don't give me that. Those
platitudes were bulls then and they're
bulls now. Bill James, the greatest baseball
analyst who ever lived, expressed the
difference between knowledge and bulls
rather succintly when he wrote, "Knowledge
is something that can be objectively dem
onstrated. Bulls is something you just
know.'" I can demonstrate that in 1985-1986,
by all standards available to us, Kenny
Smith had a worse year than he did in 1984
1985. But the people who didn't believe that
just knew that he was having a better year.
People were not looking at the evidence
and then reaching a conclusion. They were
starting with a conclusion and then trying
to find the evidence to back that conclusion
up. Now everyone does this. But it's wrong.
We shouldn't begin with an answer. We
should begin with a question and from the
extant evidence derive a conclusion. We
have to put aside our assumptions and
prejudices to look at the facts.
Thus, When I was formulating that
column I didn't begin with the assumption
that Kenny Smith was having a disappoint
ing year. I began with the question, "What
kind of year is Kenny Smith having?" I
looked at the stats, compared them to
previous years, saw they were worse, looked
at his overall play, and reached a conclusion.
Then I ran that conclusion in print.
The details of the controversy are inter
esting, but they're also meaningless now.
This is another year for Smith. He had a
magnificent summer overseas. In many
respects, he is the key to the Tar Heels in
the season ahead. He is the premier point
guard in America. I expect him to have a
campaign worthy of that title. And I'd like
him to have such a season. But if he doesn't,
then he doesn't, and no amount of wishing
will make it so.
I'd like to add a final note. There is a
strong attitude on this campus that we in
the sports staff should somehow be like
Carolina Blue, that our coverage should be
consistently positive.
I don't buy that in the least. Don't tell
me I should love UNC sports and. that
loyalty to school is all that matters. Hey,
the . heat comes with the turf. If someone
plays well, we should say he's playing well.
If he's not, then we should say that too.
And the standards shouldn't be personality
or classiness. The standards should be what
the man does on the court. Because what
a player does and what a player shows us,
on the court, or on the football field, or
on the baseball diamond, is ultimately what
sports is all about.
Jim Surowiecki is a junior history major
from Cheshire, Conn.
Illogical column
772 following is an open
letter to Marguerite Arnold
("Homophobia threatens us
all," Sept. 8).
To the editor:
Marguerite, there are so
many inaccuracies and distor
tions in your column that I
hardly know where to begin to
make any sense of them.
First of all, I feel the need
to correct the comments you
leveled against my good friend
of 10 years, Jim Wooten. To
say that Jim is trying to mea
sure up to a certain way of
thinking is to totally ignore the
facts. He and other College
Republicans, as well as Stu
dents for America members,
sometimes have to take stands
on issues that they know will
be harshly criticized by many
of the liberals on this campus.
Here, it is much easier for one
to conform to the prevalent
liberal view than to take a well-thought-out
stance on an issue.
As for calling College
Republicans and Students for
America members fascists,
racists and homophobes, I
believe that this is an indication
that your arguments against
their beliefs are so weak that
you must resort to mere name
calling. As for your next ill-founded
statement, it is incorrect when
you say that Jim and others are
trying to deny the CGLA's right
to exist because they are work
ing to end student subsidization
of the CGLA. The conserva
tives realize that a vast majority
of the students at Carolina have
moral and religious qualms
against funding for the CGLA
and that it would be preferable
that the group exist on volun
tary contributions. Many
groups on this campus function
quite well without student fees
being used in their operation.
Furthermore, I seriously
doubt whether Jim or anyone
is against fathers changing their
babies' diapers, no matter how
badly you misinterpret a law.
As for the remainder of your
column, it is so illogical that
it is impossible to respond to
it.
RODNEY BAUCOM
Senior
Biology
Tyrannical rule
To the editor:
In the Sept. 10 story about
Students for America's call for
a referendum on funding for
the Carolina Gay and Lesbian
Association, Student Body
President Bryan Hassel
reminded us that "one function
of a democracy is to represent
the majority, but another func
tion is to represent the
minority."
I would add that Hassel and
all other elected officials have
an added responsibility. As
direct policymakers, they must
also actively work to ensure
that all minorities, even unpop-
JLA I Js:
wmwah....
f Ji "
ular ones, are not repressed by
the "tyranny of the majority."
SFA members seem to
believe that the majority of
students are opposed to student
funding of CGLA. Even if that
is true, does that mean it is right
to deny the group funding? And
if an election is held, and indeed
the majority expresses an opin
ion concurrent with SFA's,
does that mean Student Con
gress members should be
bound by such a mandate? I
hope not.
As recently as 20 years ago,
blacks were still considered
second-class citizens in the
South because the majority, in
effect, said it was OK. Fortu
nately, federal and state legis
lators realized, with much
reminding from the civil rights
movement, that this situation
was blatantly unconstitutional
and a basic infringement upon
human dignity.
Elected officials acted .
against the will of the majority
because they realized that the
people, at least on this issue,
were wrong. If the rights of
minorities had been put to a
public vote, it is entirely pos
sible that there would be no
black, Hispanic or Asian stu
dents at UNC in 1986. They
could be found at "separate but
equal" institutions elsewhere.
Unfortunately, homosexuals
are frequently subjected to
discrimination in our country
today. Why? Because they love
differently. As long as the fear,
hatred and prejudice that allow
these abuses to exist continue,
educational and informational
. organizations such as CGLA
are imperative.
SFA members are constantly
decrying their comparison to
fascists. But whether they
realize it or not, the tactics they
are currently attempting to
employ are frighteningly sim
ilar to those practiced , by past
fascist organizations. -
The Nazis, too, tried to use
the most valuable tool of a
democracy the free election
to advance their hatred.
Unfortunately, they succeeded,
and ten million people were
slaughtered. I hardly mean to
suggest that if SFA is successful
in February that gas chambers
and crematoria will be estab
lished in May, but one must
realize that this local drama is
.but a small part of an ultra
conservative push all over this
country to deny certain citizens
their civil rights. If SFA is
successful today against homo
sexuals, toward whom will they
direct their hatred next?
We Americans are some
times oblivious to how fragile
are the freedoms we take for
granted. For that reason, we
must act as guard over our
brothers' and sisters' civil lib
erties. We must remain ever
vigilant against those who
would attempt io deny any
American his or her unaliena
ble right: the right to exist. I
urge all students who are truly
for America to contact their
elected student representative
and express their concern over
this latest manifestation of hate
on our campus.
CHRIS ANDERSON
Graduate
City and Regional Planning
Firm opinion
To the editor:
It occurs to- me that law
generally "seeks to legislate
morality" as Marguerite
Arnold said of General Statute
14 in her Sept. 8 column
specifically to prohibit acts that
a consensus judges immoral
and thus dangerous to society.
For example, most of us
agree that theft, murder, rape,
child abuse, trespassing arid
even indecent exposure not
only violate accepted standards
of morality (though-each of us
sets his or her own standards),
but also victimize innocent
people. On what basis, then, do
we decide whether to legislate
sexual behavior? After all, we
must have a value system by
which to judge what is moral,
dangerous, innocent and just.
I was surprised when Arnold
identified herself as one of those
"who ultimately believes that
God shows the way." Without
introducing God and ultimate
accountability to His standards
into the argument, it would be
hard for me to find a basis for
objecting to or endorsing any
particular system of morality.
Because I believe that God has
provided a standard, I expect
to clash with people who do not
recognize that standard. It is
rather confusing, however, to
find myself branded "homo
phobic" and my ideology
labeled idiotic and detestable
by someone who claims the
same authority. Is Arnold
talking about the God of the
Bible, who gave us the phrase
"against nature" to describe
"vile passions" and condemned
"men with men working
unseemliness" (Romans 1:26
27). Certainly Arnold must set
standards for herself, but she
should check her sources. She
seems to have been more accu
rate in identifying her ultimate
authority when she said,
"Neither do I like to be told
what I may or may not do in
an act of love with whomever
I choose."
I am trying neither to argue
the value of G.S. 14 nor win
converts to Christianity. I do
consider homosexuality a
threat, as the word "homo
phobic" seems intended to
convey, to the morality of
society. But that opinion, dis
tasteful as it may be to Arnold,
is a rational and consistent
application of a system of
values which, I believe, stands
on unshakeable foundations.
MARK BINGHAM
Graduate
English