10The Daily Tar HeelTuesday, September 5, 1989
97th year of editorial freedom
Sharon Kebschull, Editor
WILLIAM TagCART, Managing Editor
MARY JO DuNNINGTON, Editorial Page Editor
JUSTIN McGuiRE, University Editor
TAMMY BLACKARD, State and National Editor
ERIK DALE FLIPPO, Business Editor
DAVE GLENN, Sports Editor
MELANIE BLACK, Design Editor
Julia Coon, News Editor
JENNY CLONINGER, University Editor
CHARLES BRITTIAN, City Editor
CARA BONNETT, Am and Features Editor
Kelly Thompson, Omnibus Editor
KlM AVETTA, Design Editor
DAVID SUROWIECKI, Photography Editor
Hall's hopes too high
But suit highlights debate on athletics
board
opinion
Athletics at a big- -name
university such
as UNC produce
many benefits
large amounts of revenue for the school,
prestige if certain teams do well and a
sense of school pride among students. A
lawsuit filed against the University this
summer, however, highlights the dark side
of those benefits, presenting legitimate
concerns about lowered admissions stan
dards for athletes.
Don Hall, a salesman in Winston-Salem,
filed a lawsuit against UNC that claims
his daughter deserved to be admitted to
UNC with a 2.8 grade point average and a
score of "around 900" on the Scholastic
Aptitude test. With that record, Hall said,
she should be allowed in since certain
"male, black athletes" are admitted with
similar scores. According to admissions
policy, an applicant is considered based on
these scores, the difficulty of classes taken
in high school, recommendations, extra
curricular activities and what the student
can contribute to the University. While
Hall did not elaborate on these other fac
tors, the admissions office did make its
decision based on his daughter's record, as
it did every other applicant, and denied her
admission a decision that must be ac
cepted. Hall's comment that only "male, black
athletes" are accepted by these "lower"
standards is too blatantly racist and sexist
to be ignored. Even if the admissions of
fice does bend its standards for certain
athletes, there is no evidence to indicate
the giving of special favors to certain races
or to males. And while athletes may be the
most visible group of students who are
admitted under admissions exceptions, the
majority of the University's exceptions are
granted to non-athletes. According to
Richard Baddour, associate athletic direc
tor, the University granted 120 exceptions
to the admissions standards last year, but
only 16 of those went to athletes.
Despite the fallacies in Hall's complaint,
however, the issue is an important one,
especially in light of N.C. State's recent
athletic scandal. When academics took a
back seat to athletics in State's chancellor's
office, it was invariably the school's aca
demic reputation that suffered the most.
Chapel Hill does not appear to be suffer
ing from poor scores from athletes, but the
potential for abuse of the system remains,
and the UNC system cannot afford to let its
standards drop in the name of athletics.
This university deserves to be proud of its
75 percent graduation rate and to boast of
having more than 169 athletes with at least
a grade point average of 3.0. But, of course,
there is no reason to believe that Chapel
Hill will always be immune to the pressure
to admit students who are not up to snuff in
the name of a few more wins. No school in
the system can allow certain athletes to use
the program as a simple stepping-stone to
higher athletics academics must take
priority.
The Hall lawsuit highlights an impor
tant question that universities across the
nation seem unable to resolve. The case is
too weak to force the University to per
form any investigations of itself, but it
should add emphasis to the call for a strin
gent system-wide policy more than was
suggested by system President CD. Span
gler recently to prevent Chapel Hill and
the system's 15 other schools from run
ning into scandals of their own.
Drawing the line
Sex story forces voters to think twice
Two weeks ago, one of the U.S. Congress'
rising stars took a sharp fall. Rep. Barney
Frank, a five-term Democrat from Massachu
setts, saw his sex life from 1985-87 chronicled
in a Washington newspaper, and the details
were not pleasant. Frank quickly held a press
conference and, in excruciating detail, explained
his side of the story, but his honesty may have
come too late to save his career.
Steven Gobie, a male prostitute and pimp,
gave the Washington Times the story of his
relationship with Frank, who went public with
his homosexuality a few years ago. In his press
conference, Frank explained how he had paid
Gobie once for sex and HHHHHHHHHMMiaailaiiaHIHHa
then let him use his
Washington apart- To condemn Frank, a
ment, in hopes of .
straightening out smart, caring politi-
Gobie's life, until he u i. x i
ciun, wuuiu nun vun-
gress more than it can
help.
discovered that the
prostitute was running
a prostitution service
from the apartment.
Frank, who had been
paying Gobie $20,000
a year from personal
funds to do odd jobs for him, finally fired him
and ended their relationship.
The story was disturbing when it came out,
and it is one that is likely to continue to disturb
voters in future elections. Except for the fact
that he broke the law in paying Gobie for sex,
Frank appears to be guilty only of bad judg
ment. Unlike other sex scandals involving
Washington figures, Frank did not cheat on a
spouse, have sex with a minor or harm anyone
other than himself. Under those circumstances,
it's difficult to decide how much we can expect
from elected officials.
Certainly, we can expect that they show
generally good judgment and that they not
break the law. But to condemn Frank, a smart,
committed, caring politician, seems unfair and
likely only to hurt Congress, which needs more
men like him.
The issue is much more complex, of course
whether the media should have printed the
story, whether we should leave Frank in office
when we have denied other public officials
their place Gary Hart, for example, or marijuana-smoking
Supreme Court nominees.
b In this case, the
media probably should
have printed the story
to withhold a story
about a Congressman
who broke the law
would be unethical.
But to draw a compari
son with Gary Hart
probably won't work;
on a very simplistic
hbhb level, Hart's bad judg
ment hurt someone
else, whereas Frank only hurt himself. And, to
his credit, Frank has been completely up-front
about the entire story, showing that he retains
some good judgment.
Unfortunately, as much as voters may want
an infallable litmus test that they can use on all
candidates, every situation must be considered
individually. Frank's crime should be pun
ished, but it should not loom so large in voters'
minds that they remove him from office.
Sharon Kebschull
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Writers: James Burroughs, Kimberly Edens and Jennifer Wing.
Assistant Editors: Jessica Yates, arts; Jessica Lanning, city; Myma features; Staci Cox, managing; Anne
Isenhower and Steve Wilson, news; Lisa Reichle and Richard Smith, Omnibus; Andrew Podolsky, Jay Reed and Jamie
Rosenberg, sports; Karen Dunn, state and national; Will Spears and Amy Wajda, university;
Writers: Craig Allen. Kari Barlow, Crystal Bernstein, Sarah Cagle, Brenda Campbell, Terri Canaday, James Coblin, Blake
Dickinson, Mark Folk, Julie Gammill, Jada Harris, Joey Hill, Susan Holdsclaw, Jason Kelly, Lloyd Lagos, Tracy Lawson, Rheta
Logan, Jeff Lutrell, Alan Martin, Kimberly Maxwell, Helle Nielsen, Glenn O'Neal, Simone Pam, Gus Papas.Tom Parks, Jannette
Pippin, Karl Pfister, Mike Sutton, Laura Taylor, Emilie Van Poucke, Stephanie von Isenburg, Sandy Wall, Sherry Waters, Chuck
Williams, Nancy Wykle and Faith Wynn.
Sports: Neil Amato, Mark Anderson, Jason Bates, John Bland, Christina Frohock, Scott Gold, Doug Hoogervorst, David
Kupstas, Bethany Litton, Bobby McCroskey, Natalie Sekicky and Eric Wagnon.
Arts and Features: Cheryl Allen, Lisa Antonucci, Randy Basinger, Clark Benbow, Ashley Campbell, Diana Florence, Carrie
McLaren, Elizabeth Murray, Leigh Pressley, Hasanthika Sirisena and Kim Stallings.
Photography: Evan Eile, Steven Exum, Regina Holder, Tracey Langhome and Kathy Michel.
Copy Editors: B Buckberry. Joy Golden, Angela Hill, Susan Holdsclaw and Clare Weickert.
Editorial Assistant: Mark Chilton.
Design Assistants: Kim Avetta and Melanie Black.
Cartoonists: Jeff Christian, Pete Corson, David Estoye and Mike Sutton.
Business and Advertising: Kevin Schwartz, director; Patricia Glance, advertising director; Leslie Humphrey, classified ad
manager; Kirsten Burkart, assistant classified ad manager; Amanda Tilley, advertising manager; Sabrina Goodson, business
manager; Allison Ashworth, assistant business manager; Lora Gay, Kristi Greeson, Beth Harding, Lavonne Leinster, Tracy
Proctor, Kevin Reperowitz, Alicia Satterwhite, Pam Thompson and Jill Whitley, display advertising representatives; Kim Blass,
creative director; Pam Strickland, marketing director; Sherrie Davis, Ingrid Jones, Shannon Kelly and Tammy Newton, sales
assistants; Jeff Carlson, office manager.
Subscriptions: Ken Murphy, manager.
Distribution: RDS Carriers.
Production: Bill Leslie and Stacy Wynn, managers; Anita Bentley, assistant manager; Stephanie Locklear, assistant.
Printing: The Village Companies.
Drugs: What Bush should do but won't
We've been hearing about it for over a year
now. We heard the issue kicked around during
the presidential election and we've heard
George Bush and White House Director of
National Drug Control Policy William Ben
nett (I don't like his nickname "drug czar"
he's not that powerful yet) discuss their plans
for eradicating the problem. For the first time
in almost 20 years, Gallup Polls reported that
a social issue is the nation's number one
worry. Americans are more concerned about
drugs and the drug problem than war and
economics, and for good reason. Not a day has
gone by in the last two weeks without reports
of another drug-related bombing in Medellin,
Colombia. If drastic action is not taken or a
drastic improvement in the situation does not
occur, Colombia faces the serious threat of
becoming a narcocracy.
The situation in the United States is simi
larly horrifying. Anecdotes about the gang
wars are quickly becoming cliches. A person
in East St. Louis is 20 times more likely to be
killed there than she or he would be in North
ern Ireland. This is just one example of a
situation that is becoming frighteningly com
mon throughout urban America and this bru
tality is moving to more rural areas. There is
no doubt that action must be taken to control
the crisis.
Tonight, Bush will deliver his much-awaited
plan of action, and many will be watching to
see what he says (if only because he will
interrupt all network television shows).
Though Bush will surely outline some new
strategies and we hope some effective
ones, there are many things Bush and Bennett
should do if the program is to be a success. To
go out on a limb, the following are things they
probably won't do, despite their necessity:
Raise taxes. The fiscal plans for the drug
program seem to be nonexistent. Republican
leaders claim the money is there, but no one
will say from where it is going to come.
Chris Landgraf
Staff Columnist
Cutting social programs would be counter
productive because many angles must be at
tacked for drug use to decline (generally speak
ing, they will be targeting sales and cocaine,
crack and heroin use). Cutting funds from
education, housing or Medicaid would indi
rectly negate any gains made by rechanneling
the money to the drug program. Defense
Secretary Cheney doesn't seem too happy
about cutting defense spending, though B2
spending could be a likely target. Thebottom
line is that the program will be necessarily
expensive. More police officers, weapons,
intelligence operations, foreign aid, prison
construction, treatment centers and education
are not free, and all are necessary for an
integrated plan.
Devote more resources to reducing demand.
Bush and Bennett reportedly want to devote
70 percent of the drug war budget to reducing
supply. This is not the path to take. As long as
there are people who want to do cocaine and
crack, there will be a supply. Surely we must
work to keep the supply limited, but we should
go about this by helping Latin American
countries destroy cocaine factories and arrest
ing drug producers (which is already starting
to happen, as combat helicopters, transport
planes, reconnaissance jets and grenade
launchers arrive in Colombia). Admittedly,
lowering the demand for drugs in the United
States will never be simple, but the statistics
painfully show that interdiction does not work.
The most optimistic reports say 1 percent of
all imported drugs is confiscated, making it
silly to rely on improving interdiction. It
doesn't take a math major to see what would
happen to supply even if interdiction im
proved twenty fold. We should devote some
resources to curbing supply by working with the
drug producing countries, but improved demand
strategies will be more effective.
Consolidate jurisdiction. Despite the creation
of Bennett's position, scores of congressional
committees must be briefed on various areas of
drug control policy. The establishment of a
congressional committee with bipartisan leader
ship would eliminate some bureaucratic night
mares. Bush has already taken some new, if not
effective, positions on the drug crisis. His back
ing of Bennett will add tremendous credibility to
the "czar's" plans. Since Bennett is not a true;
cabinet member, he could conceivably come up
short without Bush's vocal support.
The recent public relations campaign against.
Panamanian leader Gen. Manuel Noriega (mainly,
the release of hard evidence of his ties to drug
trafficking) will bring more international pres
sure on the dictator and if worse comes to worse,
the campaign will make an American kidnap
ping mission more palatable to the world com
munity. Finally, as the policy and its effects surface,
be weary of the statistics which Bennett will use
to measure success. Many of the nine statistics
which will measure the pulse of drug use are
already moving in Bennett's favor. For example,
he wants the number of admitted illicit drug
users to decrease ten percent by 1991, but the
reports which Bennett will use say illicit drug
use has dropped 40 percent in the last three
years.
The efforts of the Bush Administration are
certainly noble, but unless more money is allo
cated and new avenues are approached, the
rhetoric of the war on drugs will be nothing more
than talk.
Chris Landgrqffis a junior political science
history major from Alanta, Ga.
Readers9 For em
Save sorority space
for important issues
To the editor:
Who cares? This is the ques
tion I have asked myself repeat
edly since reading Jannette
Pippin's Aug. 31 column, "Small
sorority deserves another chance."
It was apparently intended to tug
at the heartstrings of its readers
and evoke sympathy for her cause,
but it failed miserably in its at
tempt. Ms. Pippin seems to be mourn
ing the death of a small sorority
and expressing her anger at both
the Panhellenic Council of UNC
and Sigma Sigma Sigma's na
tional organization. Perhaps be
cause I have chosen not to be in a
sorority, I cannot relate to how
tragic this situation is, but it is
even further trivialized by the
genuine tragedies expressed in the
neighboring columns on the page.
One of these is an editorial about
the murder of Yusef Hawkins and
the other is a letter in reference to
the Chinese students killed re
cently in Tiananmen Square.
Those are true losses to be
mourned and real reasons for
anger, whereas the pulling of a
social sorority's charter is rather
insignificant. The space that was
used for this column surely could
have been used for a more perti
nent topic.
MICHELLE E. SMITH
Sophomore
Undecided
Get facts straight
on blacks in war
To the editor:
In the review of the film,
"Casualties of War," the comment
was made that "... most of the
soldiers sent to Vietnam were
black." This "fact" is commonly
quoted, but is incorrect.
According to official statistics,
approximately 24 percent of the
soldiers sent to Vietnam were
black. While this might seem high
in light of the percentage of black
persons overall in the U.S. popu
lation, during the war (and even
afterwards, after the draft ended)
the percentage of black soldiers in
the Army hovered around 20 per
cent. Therefore, the "risk" for
black soldiers to go to Vietnam
was about the same as for white
soldiers.
Another factor: blacks made
up then (and make up now) higher
percentages of combat units than
those of combat support or com
bat service support. There are
many reasons for this often
prejudice is one. However, this is
not the matter here, nor is the
matter of whether some unit
commanders sent black soldiers
on more dangerous missions, as
has been claimed. The percentage
of black soldiers (many of whom
distinguished themselves in valor
and bravery) was never "most of
the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, ei
ther in direct combat roles or in
support functions.
R. EVERETT LANGFORD
Graduate
Public Health
We goofed
Due to an editing error, the
author of the letter "Helms
Amendment protects taxpayers,"
Sept. 1, was misidentified. Sharon
Sentelle is the chairwoman of the
UNC College Republicans.
Letters policy
The Daily Tar Heel welcomes
reader comments and criticisms.
When writing letters to the editor,
please follow these guidelines:
All letters must be dated and
signed by the author(s), with a limit
of two signatures per letter.
All letters must be typed and
double-spaced, for ease of editing.
Letters should include the
author's year, major, phone num
ber and hometown. Please include
both a daytime and eveniong phone
number.
Americans must face African atrocities
Much is happening in Southern Africa right
now, and unfortunately most of it is destruc
tive. The patron that oversees this destruction
and loss of human life is apartheid-ruled white
South Africa, and all too often the great bas
tion of "democracy," a.k.a. America, acqui
esces or actively supports this racist destruc
tion. It is high time that the citizens of the
United States realize that their government
has supported and continues to support an
apartheid system and its surrogate forces that
have wreaked economic ruin, untold suffering
and death on people who are only seeking
rightful control over their own land and lives.
I write this brief article in the hope that both
UNC students and the Chapel Hill community
will realize that apartheid in South Africa and
its tragic results for the rest of Southern Africa
continue their assault on peace and justice,
abetted by the policies of the U.S. govern
ment. Having just returned from an eight month
stay in Southern Africa, I have been a witness
to apartheid's vigor and the tragic conse
quences for those who attempt to oppose and
challenge it. Americans need to know the
specifics of these consequences, because
whether you like it or not, this country shares
part of the blame.
It is impossible to detail all of the atrocities
and destruction caused by apartheid South
Africa, but maybe a few examples will pro
vide the general picture. Since 1980, the
country of Zimbabwe has lost an estimated
$3.7 billion due to the destabilization efforts
of extended apartheid. Not only has this greatly
hindered Zimbabwe's potential for develop
ment, but it has also ensured that Zimbabwe
remains partially dependent on South Africa
for much-needed imports.
The destabilization of Zimbabwe is closely
linked with that of Mozambique, where South
African armed and trained Renamo bandits
Dale McKinley
Guest Writer
have caused untold destruction and death. In
a report prepared for the Ford Foundation,
researcher Bill Minter concluded that Re
namo has been responsible for over 100,000
deaths since the early 1980s, has continued to
be supplied and directed by the South African
military, and has enjoyed support from both
individual right-wingers in the United States
and certain sectors of the U.S. government. In
addition to this genocidal campaign, the con
flict has created an estimated one million
refugees who threaten to over-burden the
limited resources of the surrounding African
states.
South Africa' s extended war against neigh
boring states also extends to Namibia and
Angola. In Angola, after years of invasions
and support for the bandit UNITA movement,
South Africa has been forced to retreat by the
heroic actions of both the Angolan military
and their Cuban allies. Behind them, they
have left a trail of death and destruction where
an estimated 50,000 children have lost their
arms and legs to a campaign of indiscriminate
land-mining.
Throughout, the United States has actively
backed South Africa and its surrogate UNITA
and now looks set to become the major sup
plier of arms and material to UNITA through
the CIA base in southern Zaire. Let no one be
fooled that the United States and its policy of
constructive engagement had anything to do
with South Africa's withdrawal from Angola
and the subsequent Namibian settlement. It
has only been through the brave struggle of
both the Angolan and Namibian people that
peace and justice might finally be realized in
these troubled areas.
Despite the recent settlement on Namibia and
the scheduled United Nations supervised elec
tions later this month, South Africa has done all
in its power to wreck the chances of a strong and
united Namibia under the leadership of the sole
and legitimate representative of the Namibian
people, S.W.A.P.O. The massacre of over 300
S.W.A.P.O. combatants by the South African
military earlier this year was only the latest in a
violent campaign of terror and intimidation that
has continued for many decades. In spite of
eyewitness accounts that the murdered
S.W.A.P.O. combatants were merely attempt
ing to turn themselves over to United Nations
supervised demobilization camps, the United
States, along with South Africa, has ludicrously
attempted to fix the blame on S.W.A.P.O. for
launching an "invasion" of northern Namibia,
This is one of only many attempts to deny the
people of Southern Africa their rightful place of
control over their own destinies and to subvert
the inevitable victory of the liberation move
ments. It is all too easy for people here in the United
States, and particularly those in the academic
community, to rationalize away their silence and
inactivity even in the face of such overwhelming
injustice, brutality, and direct complicity of their
own government in the ongoing events in South
ern Africa. The geographical distance of the
region from the United States, and the lack of
any real news, has only contributed to an eerie
silence while apartheid kills, economies are
ruined and bright hopes are turned into night
mares. Don't be one of those people who "for
gets." The reality of Southern Africa is there for
all those who want to see it, and so is the reality
of our own government's policy.
Dale McKinley is a graduate student in politi
cal science from Zimbabwe.