10The Daily Tar HeelWednesday, October 5, 1988
uTlj? lailg Olar Wnl
96th year of editorial freedom
Jean Lutes, Editor
Karen Bell, News Editor
MATT BlVENS, Associate Editor
KlMBERLY EDENS, University Editor
JON K. RUST, Managing Editor
Will Lingo, aty Editor
Kelly Rhodes, Arts Editor
CATHY McHUGH, Omnibus Editor
KAARIN TlSUE, News Editor
LAURA PEARLMAN, Associate Editor
KRISTEN GARDNER, University Editor
SHARON KEBSCHULL, State and National Editor
MIKE BERARDINO, Sports Editor
LEIGH ANN McDONALD, Features Editor
KlM DONEHOWER, Design Editor
DAVID MINTON, Photography Editor
Watch for outside interference
Rarely has a group managed to
make so many mistakes in so little
time.
Campus Watch, a citizens group
established in August to oppose
"campus radicalism," has called for
legislative action to force the Univer
sity to defund the Carolina Gay and
Lesbain Association. Led by Durham
resident Edward Cottingham, the
group has disregarded the University's
long-standing tradition of student self
governance, published misleading
literature and threatened UNC's
legally protected autonomy.
Allocating student activities fees is
Student Congress's most important
task. In trying to take that responsi
bility away, Campus Watch has
conveniently ignored the legacy of
UNC's strong tradition of student
government.
The group has also misrepresented
the CGLA and the actions of UNC's
student government. Its printed
account of the CGLA funding con
troversy describes the CGLA as a
"militantly aggressive political lobby"
that "is able to dominate campus
politics because it constantly lobbies
and campaigns while most students are
busy studying." To insinuate that
CGLA members run around scream
ing while heterosexual students are
home studying is absurd.
In addition, Campus Watch states
that Student Congress-members
bowed to "intense pressure from
politically aggressive homosexual
activists" when they allocated money
to the CGLA last semester. Almost
every Student Congress member
would agree that this assertion is
misleading and unfounded.
To aid its misguided cause, Campus
Watch has reprinted an article from
this newspaper using the logo of The
Daily Tar Heel, without bothering to
ask for permission. It's disturbing that
a reader could be led to believe that
the DTH supports the stands of
Campus Watch.
Even worse, the group is advocating
outside control of University affairs.
State legislators are not elected to
run the Chapel Hill campus, and
although they control the funds
allocated to the University, they
cannot meddle in internal University
affairs.
In 1963, legislators were reminded
of that fact when they passed a law
requiring legislative approval of all
speakers invited to speak on campus.
The law was declared unconstitu
tional, but not until the University
nearly lost its accreditation.
Cottingham, who founded Campus
Watch, is a graduate of this University.
It's unfortunate that during his time
as a UNC student he did not learn ,
to appreciate the importance of open
debate and the danger of closed minds.
Jean Lutes
Next president inherits black hole debt
New hope for the Motherland
"We are going slowly, we are losing
time, and this means we are losing the
game." Mikhail Gorbachev, Sept.
26,1988.
This prophetic quote, delivered less
than a week before an extraordinary
session of the Central Committee, the
Communist Party's governing appara
tus, also was a telling statement about
the condition of affairs in the Soviet
Union. The surprise meeting
announced last week was an effort to
remove the major obstacles to change.
The essential structure of the Rus
sian political system has changed little
since the days of Lenin. The bureau
cracy now is an inefficient monster,
rife with corruption and ineptitude.
This past week, Gorbachev
announced his plan for restructuring
the Soviet system. It includes a major
shift in policy-making authority from
the ruling party to the government.
The Central Commitee, the party's
ruling body, will be reduced by half
and formed into six advisory commis
sions. The management of the state
will be left mainly to the newly
" strengthened government.
However, Gorbachev's most impor
tant move was his sly demotion of
Yegor .Ligachev, his reactionary
second-in-command, to the unenvia
ble position of head of agriculture.
This clever move was accompanied by
the removal of four other conservative
Politburo members.
Ligachev's humbling was not
entirely unexpected.; he was openly
critical of Gorbachev's progressive
plans. Ligachev was replaced with
Anatoly Luykyov, who is young and
progressive.
Though some Sovietologists feel
that Ligachev will attempt to hamper
the much-needed agricultural reforms,
it is more likely that Gorbachev is
. setting him up for eventual dismissal.
The Soviet harvests are notoriously
poor, and if there is any sign of a bad
harvest, Gorbachev will likely use that
opportunity to oust Ligachev.
Gorbachev has proved himself a
wily politician. While Ligachev was on ,
vacation, Gorbachev was able to both
consolidate his power and to quicken
the pace of reform.
If ever there were an optimal time
for a purge, it had come. By acting
quickly and discreetly, Gorbachev put
perestroika on the right path. Dave
Hall ,
Students not safely covered
The good folks who stock the
shelves of the Country Stores on South
Campus and the Circus Room on
North Campus are a prudent bunch.
We're college students here, and sex
is not exactly unheard of. If we're
going to do it, we may as well do it
as safely and responsibly as possible,
which today means using a condom.
So all the fortunate souls who find
themselves in the vicinity of the Circus
Room or a South Campus snack shop
are protected from pregnancy and
plague.
But what about students who are
too embarrassed to add a package of
condoms to their purchase of Pop
Tarts and Mountain Dew? If condom
machines were installed in the resi
dence halls, the University would be
doing its part to help students engage
in responsible interaction.
Ironically, having a condom
machine on a hall could actually
prevent some sexual encounters. If a
student finds herself in a roommateless
room one night with the man of her
dreams and things are getting heated,
she will know that the condom
machine is but a few short steps away.
All she would need to do is dash down
the hall, laundry quarters in pocket,
and seek the services of the conve
niently located machine. But, what if
halfway down the hall the girl gets
second thoughts about what's about
to happen? It occurs to her that the
guy is a creep for sending her out for
the items and expecting her to use her
laundry quarters. She returns to the
den of iniquity and ends the flesh-fest
before it begins.
And if a couple has a chance to back
off a bit before things get too involved,
rational thought could take over and
each person could consider if what is
about to happen should happen.
In its first meeting of the year, North
Carolina Student Legislature debated
the topic of installation of condom
machines in residence halls, and the
resolution was approved by a majority
vote. Although this resolution is only,
symbolic, UNC's student government
should take note. The Residence Hall
Association and Student Congress
should follow the lead of the NCSL
and contemplate condoms. Besides,
they make great party favors. Laura
Pearlman
'm going to vote for Mike Dukakis this
November, but I'm not entirely sure
11 1 want him to win. Mike has the
makings of an adequate leader, and there
is no doubt in my mind that he would
do a good job as president; the question
is, does anyone stand a chance of succeed
ing in cleaning up the mess that Reagan
has left behind? My suspicion is that fixing
the broken stuff in America is going to
be one hell of a task.
.Please don't take this the wrong way.
I am not advocating that Democrats enter
into some conspiracy to elect George Bush.
Niether am I encouraging people to vote
anything other than their conscience.
What I am saying is that a George Bush
presidency might just serve the cause of
justice by making the Republicans take the
blame for their own mistakes. That hasn't
happened since Watergate.
Reagan did some good things during his ;
term of office, and, if the event was good
and he didnt do it, he took credit for it.
Whoever wins this election will be com
pared to the myth of Reagan by a nation
grown accustomed to his telegenic
prescence. This is riot something that either
Bush or Dukakis look forward to, but it
is a problem which could be particularly
dangerous for the Democratic Party
The Democrats looked very near death
just- four years ago when the Reagan
landslide tore the party to shreds. Their
comeback in 1986 was remarkable, and
their confidence in Atlanta was a welcome
change. But rhetoric aside, the Democratic
party is not yet healed. Consider them the
walking wounded. They can move, and
they're on the road to recovery, but they
are nowhere near 100 percent.
If the Democrats return to the White
House in January, they, and Dukakis, face
one of the worst prospects in the history
of American politics. Here comes the
Duke, a competent, thorough, honest,
boring man, fresh from his crisp inaugural
walk down Pennsylvannia Avenue. He
Daniel Conover
Staff Writer
doffs his coat, kisses Kitty, opens the door
to the Oval Office and drops straight into
the fiscal equivalent of the Black Hole of
Calcutta.
When Reagan ran for office in 1980, the
federal deficit was something like - an
eyesore in the neighborhood. He promised
he could clean it up without it costing
anything, and he got elected. In 1988, that
neighborhood eyesore is now a slum. A
deficit ghetto. Reagan learned early on in
his first term that the project was more
than he could handle, and he spent the
rest of his presidency avoiding it. He was
smart to avoid the deficit ghetto. Anyone
who walks in there is going to get mugged.
Dukakis, if he's sane, dreams secret
dreams of finding a few trillion dollars of
buried treasure, thereby allowing he and
his party to solve the problem without
having to raise taxes. That possibility aside,
raising taxes looks to be one of the only
responsible ways to deal with the deficit.
And if Dukakis raises taxes, the Demo
cratic Party is in big trouble.
Bush is going to raise taxes if he gets
elected, too, because he just doesn't have
much of an alternative. The next president
is not going to have the luxury of ignoring
the problem and replacing leadership with
photo opportunities. The deficit is an
interest rate time bomb; what makes it so
particularly tricky is that the unprece
dented amounts make predictions difficult.
No one has ever owed this much money
before. It could blow up tomorrow, it could
blow up in 25 years. Economists just dont
know.
The option for the next president is a
binary choice. He will either raise taxes,
thereby pissing off the entire country, or
he will pull a Nero and fiddle around with
the American flag while pur ecpnomy
burns to the ground.
Isnt it strange that people volunteer to
be put in that position?
I don't expect the next four years to be
particularly pleasant ones, but I don't
blame the future president. I blame the
current one.
Unfortunately, the teflon coating still
encases Reagan and probably will until his
death. If the economy dips, it will be Bush
or Dukakis who take the heat. Since I find
this likely, and since the American voter
has been particularly vindictive of late, It
is also likely that the person we elect in
November 1988 will not be re-elected in
1992. V
If that person is Bush, the people might
just wake up and ask the Republican party
exactly what the hell it has been doing since
1980. It won't be an entirely fair question
(Democrats controlled the Congress
during most of those years), but it is one
we should ask. Bush may not survive the
criticism, but the Republicans will.
But if Dukakis takes the blame, the party
takes it too. If the Democrats have another
unsuccessful one-term presidency, the
damage , may completely reshape the
American political landscape. Call "rt
unfair, call it being at the wrong place at
the wrong time, call it whatever you like,
but in the age of immediate gratification,
piranha media and complete lack of long-term-memory
beyond the last sound-bite,
that's reality.
Let's just hope I'm being paranoid. I'd
hate to think my vote for Dukakis was
only throwing him a little closer to the
lions.
Daniel Conover is a junior journalism
major from Carrboro.
Editor's note: Ian William's column,
"Wednesday's Child," will reappear next
Wednesday in its regular space. Check
local listings for times.
Readers9 For em
Accept the
consequences
To the editor:
My response to Matt Bivens'
question ("Setting a bad prece
dent for student activism1) as
to whether or not I believe the
five protesters willfully
obstructed university activities
is yes. I attended the trial
hoping to find out what the
protesters had to say about it,
and this convinced me that they
knew there was the possibility
of the protest being disruptive
and continued with their pro
test despite this fact, taking the
responsibility for it upon their
shoulders. Now is the time for
them to accept the
consequences.
In the protesters' own words,
the demonstration was planned
around noon so the it would
be the least disruptive possible,
and inconvenience the least
number of people. The key
word in this is "least." Notice
that it is not synonymous with
the word "none." During the
trial, one of the protesters,
Steve Sullivan, testified that he
understood that protesting in
that office "is not something
that happens everyday" and it
could be intimidating to the
, people who work there or use
the office's resources. These
statements by the protesters
made it clear to me that they
were aware of the possibility of
disruption of the workings of
the office. Bivens is right when
he says that "peaceful protest
does not imply compliance or
obedience." As he states, this
is the nature of civil disobe
dience. That is fine. But when
one engages in civil disobe
dience, one accepts the respon
sibility of disobeying the law
with all of its consequences. In
this case, a censure on the
protesters records.
And yes, the CIAAC's dem
onstration was peaceful if you
are saying that they didn't
physically abuse anyone. But if
you mean they did not break
any rules, then you are wrong.
In response to those cries of
foul play by people who say this
is an attempt to crush student
protest and activism, I would
PcFSLICA
Noecouto tier sir
txtoHe6 THAT
M) -rue ck
60 VN6
n4Teewte
out of torn-
So we euur
ftecep -rue
EOT -to
-men -rue a
to eecuTVK m
ULIKG5
w. i w l vim
. spcemcep in 6mtuwci the
PtxxOHtxt.i Mtirupes otf
1Ul$ CHAPUS (jU fcMU IN THIS
-60-3 COUNTRY,
11
1?
f
NAD
ooe&ewBf, to
HU. ...
sec tve mou
ON TS CWd
Pefus&p to .
see cue. point.
01. Nlwiwi
ii l n
jg HONOR. I
reply that they are false. Protest:
and student activism are not
dead or quashed. The Univer
sity has a tradition of being an
open forum for the exchange
of ideas. It remains that way.
This honor court decision
clarifies just what constitutes an
"educational and symbolic
protest" and where the line is
between protest and a breach
of the -Student Code of
Conduct.
RICHARD PASCHALL
Sophomore
International Studies
Your right
to vote
To the editor
Fellow students, this is it. If
you have not registered to vote
by the time you leave for Fall
Break, you will not cast a ballot
on Nov. 8. All indicators pre
dict that this presidential elec
tion will be the most hotly
contested race in decades. The
Fourth District Congressional
race, pitting incumbent Demo
crat David Price against Jesse
Helms ally Tom Fetzer, has'
also been pinpointed as a
critical contest. Candidates for
state offices are running neck-and-neck
in the polls. Every
vote will count.
I have no sympathy for
people who denigrate politi
cians, find fault with everything
from foreign policy to a drink
ing age of 21, and then cannot
find 15 minutes in the day to
select the very people who are
making these decisions. I com
plain about a lot of men and
women in the government, but
I can honestly (and emphati
cally) say that these people are
there through no fault of mine.
Registering to vote is, a
painless and simple process.
You only need' to present a
picture I.D. and something
bearing your Orange County
address (i.e., a check or a
stamped piece of mail). Regis
trars will be in the Pit from 10
3, and you can also register to
vote at the public library on
Franklin Street. Dont waste an
opportunity others are dying to
have.
SANDY RIERSON
Senior
Political Science
Vote 'yes'
to stability
To the editor:
On Wednesday, Oct. 5, the
Chileans will once again go to
the polls. They must decide if
they want Pinochet for eight
more years or free elections
next year. A majority in the yes
or no votes will determine if the
present ruler continues.
A dictatorship is not the best
form of government. However,
there are differences among
dictators. Rulers like Somoza
or Marcos use their country
only for personal benefit. While
their people live in poverty,
they enjoy a billionaire's
fortune.
In Pinochet's case, we have
a country that has the highest
GNP growth in Latin America.
Its national industry is stronger
than ever. Its foreign debt has
been considerably reduced. Its
people enjoy one of the highest
standards of living in South
America. Consequently, Chile
is the economic envy of its
neighbors. i ;
Democracy is probably
closer to an ideal government,
but in the present situation, the
opposition does not clearly
show a strong leader. In the
past they have shown that even
though all the opposition unite
against a common cause, they
are a heterogenenous coalition.
Once in government this will
only lead to anarchy. Pinochet
is not a saint, but if for the sake,
of government, stability and a
strong ecomomy, some social
freedom must be sacrificed, T
believe it is worth it.
Let us give a "yes" to
Pinochet.
BRUCE JIMINEZ
Graduate
Math
Protesters exercised right to free speech
Editor's Note: The author is a CIA Action
Committee member who testified in the
Honor Court trial.
To the editor:
Speaking as someone who was present
at both the 'April 15 CIA Action Com
mittee demonstration and the demonstra
tors Honor Court hearing, I am compelled
to take issue with Laura Pearlman's
somewhat unenlightened editorial.
Ms. Pearlman suggests that the protes
ters failed to consider their actions at the
University Career Planning and Placement
Service office on April 15 and will consider,
future actions far more carefully following ,
"official" censure from the University. I
find this assumption both presumptuous
and patronizing. The CIAAC are well
informed, autonomous adults who realize
far better than Ms. Pearlman the results
of their protests on this campus. What's
more, they understand the more serious
implications of not protesting.
The severity of the punishment is not
in question. These five students did, after
all, endure arrest and civil court for their
actions. Ms. Pearlman states that "Stu
dents cheat or lie everyday and end up
in the honor court " These students
did not cheat; they did not lie. These
students are guilty of a far greater offense.
They stated the truth with clarity and
without compromise. The CIA lies and
cheats. They murder civilians, assassinate
heads of state, traffic narcotics and support
bloody wars in countless Third World
nations. Aside from seeking to employ
stellar Carolina graduates, the CIA has
employed the likes of Klaus Barbee, the
Nazi "Butcher of Lyon."
We are aware that the Pit is the "proper
forum" for student protest. But do you
really think that the originators of our First
Amendment right to freedom of speech
meant for us to designate free speech areas?
The CIAAC did not randomly target
UCPPS. This office deals directly with the
CIA by inviting them to return to recruit
at this university. Recruiting at UNC is
not a right, it is a priviledge. The CIAAC
directed their protest at those who most
directly control the University's relation
ship with the CIA. The University reserves
the right to ban any organization from
recruiting through its UCPPS office. In
my opinion, allowing the CIA to recruit
at our school is an insult to both our
intelligence and our integrity. :
Perhaps Ms. Pearlman could take a few
hours to glance at the information avail
able on the illegal actions of the CIA. Then
maybe she will "think twice" before
condemning those who exercise their right -to
know and make known.
LAURA FISHER;
1 Senior-English;