8The Daily Tar HeelMonday, March 18, 1991
) PRETTY SOON
p
98th year of editorial freedom
Jennifer
Stephanie Johnston, University Editor
CULLEN D. FERGUSON, Editorial Page Editor
Mark Anderson, Sports Editor
Christina NlFONG, Features Editor
NATALIE SekiCKY, News Editor
GRANT HalversON, Photography Editor
Jeff Workman, Layout Editor
Alex De Grand, Cartoon Editor
WlNG, Editor
MATTHEW ElSLEY, University Editor
Peter F. Wallsten, City Editor
WENDY BOUNDS, State and National Editor
Devon Hyde, Omnibus Editor
JoANN RODAK, News Editor
KATHY MlCHEL, Photography Editor
CHRISTY CONROY, Layout Editor
Johanna Henderson, Managing Editor
President's crime bill misses targe
President Bush is attempting to cash in
on his soaring popularity by forcing Con
gress to approve an already twice-rejected
crime bill or risk appearing unpatriotic.
"We stood by our troops, and now today
it's time to stand up for America's prosecu
tors and police," Bush told Congress last
Monday before introducing the bill.
Bush's attempt to manipulate public
opinion to advance his own political agenda
is disgraceful. Among the bill's provisions
are calls for the revival of a federal death
penalty, strict limits on the number of ap
peals prisoners on death row are allowed to
file, and most threatening, a provision to
allow illegally obtained evidence to be
used in court in certain circumstances.
These certainly are not ideas a legislator
must support to be a patriot, especially not
the final provision, which is an infringe
ment upon Bill of Rights protections. For
President Bush to state that legislators un
willing to vote for this bill are unpatriotic is
a base appeal to a mob mentality that makes
it impossible for Congress to make deci
sions based on what they believe is correct.
What is worse, this bill most likely would
have passed on its first two tries if Bush had
agreed to Democratic amendments on fur
ther control of automatic assault weapons
and increased federal funding of state and
local law enforcement agencies. Bush op
posed these additions to his crime bills in
both 1989 and 1990.
Bush's claim that executing more crimi
nals would increase the safety of returning
soldiers and their families, but spending
more on state and local law enforcement
would not suggests he hasn't thought about
how to reduce U.S. crime. He is trying to
force Congress to increase the severity of a
criminal's punishment, but he isn't willing
to put the same effort into crime preven
tion. Crime must be stopped before it
happens, not after the damage is done.
Bush's unwillingness to consider the
amendments also suggests he has misread
the lessons of his victory in Iraq. The U.S.
led forces were victorious in spite of, not
because of, Bush's unwillingness to com
promise. This may work against a patheti
cally outgunned third-world nation, but it
is no way to advance a domestic program.
Diplomacy is what happens after the
guns are put down, and B ush should realize
that after two assaults on the Democratic
controlled Congress, it is time to compro
mise. Instead, he is appealing to a knee
jerk patriotism that sees no difference be
tween opposing the present administration's
plans and opposing "America." Sadly
enough, with the next round of national
elections only a year and a half away, this
plan may work if Bush can turn enough
people against legislators they have been
tricked into considering "unpatriotic."
There is nothing more American than
dissent, and it is a national embarrassment
to think our President would do something
as unpatriotic as attempt to suffocate it.
Cracker Barrel deserves boycott
Not too long ago, it was legal for busi
nesses to hire and fire along racial lines.
Stereotypes of African Americans were so
pervasive that whites went out of their way
to avoid a business if a person of color was
employed there. The fight to end racism
continues, and in North Carolina and na
tionwide the fight to end sexual orientation
discrimination is just beginning.
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
is one of countless companies that exclude
homosexuals from the payrolls. First Tues
day Association for Gay & Lesbian Equal
ity, a Charlotte-based group, is calling for
a boycott of Cracker Barrel after an em
ployee was fired from the Charlotte store
because he violated the company's policy
on homosexuals. Jeffrey Sherill was fired
after admitting to his supervisor that he
was homosexual. Sherill is one of at least
10 Cracker Barrel employees throughout
the Southeast fired for being gay.
In a policy statement printed in The
Charlotte Observer March 16, Cracker
Barrel said the company is "founded upon
a concept of traditional American values"
and that is inconsistent with the concept "to
continue to employ individuals in our op
erating units whose sexual preferences fail
to demonstrate normal heterosexual values
which have been the foundation of families
in our society..."
This statement should raise red flags
with Americans who value their freedom
and privacy. Cracker Barrel has decided to
define traditional American values, but it
fails to define who a traditional American
is. A little more than 30 years ago, a tra
ditional American would certainly not have
been a person of color. African Americans
and many other minorities just didn't fit
into the white mainstream's definition of
traditional America. Some companies did
not hire people of color because their cul
tural and physical differences made white
people uncomfortable. Now Cracker Bar
rel believes the same holds true for homo
sexuals; their differences cannot be toler
ated. It is amazing that the more things
change the more things stay the same.
Cracker Barrel also believes they can
decide what values are normal, and hire and
fire on the basis of this judgment. By trying
to define American values, the company
classifies homosexuals as abnormal. But
the American psychiatric community has
long since removed homosexuality from
its list of mental illnesses, and about 10
percent of people worldwide are homo
sexual. Certainly Cracker Barrel doesn't
wish to alienate 10 percent of its clientele
by deeming them to be social misfits.
Discrimination for any reason is wrong.
Though Cracker Barrel has retracted its
statement, it has yet to rehire any of the
employees. A boycott of Cracker Barrel is
a good idea. Americans who believe in
protecting their freedom and privacy should
treat companies like Cracker Barrel with
the same disdain as the whites-only busi
nesses of America's past. The discrimina
tion taking place is just the same monster
with a different face. And unlike African
Americans who are protected against dis
crimination by federal and state laws, ho
mosexuals enjoy no such consideration.
It's up to the American people to see that
blatant discrimination, such as that prac
ticed by Cracker Barrel, does not go unpunished.
Business and advertising: Kevin Schwartz, directon&Qb Bates, advertising director, Leslie Humphrey, classified ad manager.
Business staff : Allison Ashworth, manager, Kimberly Moretz, assistant manager.GmaBemdmo, office asssfanf; Michelle Gray, Annice
Hood and Becky Marquette, receptionists; Ken Murphy, subscriptions; Chrissy Davis, promotions manager.
Classified advertising: Angela Spivey, assistant manager; Laura Richards and Thi Vu, assistants; Brandon Poe, production.
Display advertising: Lavonne Leinster, advertising manager Heather Bannister, Chris Berry, Kelly Bohart, Chad Boswell, Carrie Grady,
Ashleigh Heath, Carole Hedgepeth, vlcki Isley, Trish Parrottand Dawn Rogers, account representatives;Km Blass, creative director.WWon
Artis, Laurie Davis, Maribeth Layton, Brooks Spradling and Stacy Turkel, sales assistants; Deborah Bumgarner, proofreader.
Advertising production: Bill Leslie, manager; MM Bentley, Chad Campbell. Greg Miller and Lorrie Pate, production assistants.
Assistant editors: Mondy Lamb, arts coordinator; Jennifer Dickens, city; Kenny Monteith, graphics; Amy Seeley and Emilie Van Poucke,
newsLayton Croft, Mondy Lamb, Omnibus; Jim Holm and Sarah King, photo;Nei Amato.StewartChisam and Warren Hynes, sports.Dacia
Toll, state and national; Jennifer Dunlap and Steve Politi, university.
Newsclerks: Kevin Brennan and Amy Dew
Editorial writers: Staci Cox, Andre Hauser. Jen Pilla and Nancy Wykle.
, University: Elizabeth Byrd and Laura Williams, senior writers; Marcie Bailey, Birch DeVault, April Draughn, Soyia Ellison, Ashley Fogle,
Adam Ford, Brian Golson, Burke Koonce, Matthew Mielke, Gillian Murphy, Jennifer Mueller. Cathy Oberle, Shannon O'Grady, Heather
Phibbs, Bonnie Rochman. JoAnn Rodak. Karen Schwartz. Billy Stockard. Sarah Suiter. Carrie Wells and Natarsha Witherspoon.
City: Jennifer Brett. Kris Donahue, Laura-Leigh Gardner. Chris Goodson, Cheryl A. Herndon, Nancy Johnson, Julie Malveaux, Amber
Nimocks, Nicole Peradotto, Nicole Perez and Dawn Spiggle.
State and National: Jennifer Davis, Karen Dietrich, Steve Doyle, David Etchison, Doug Hatch. West Lockhart, Eric Lusk, Pete Simpkinson,
Kyle York Spencer and Dacia Toll.
Arts: Isabel Barbuk, Kitt Bockley, Tere Clippard, Grant Halverson, Anne Michaud, Kirk Medlin, Greg Miller and Jeff Trussell.
Features: Eric Bolash, Tiffany Cook, Karen Crutchfield, M.C. Dagenhart, Pia Doersam, Matthew Hoyt, Mara Lee, Scott Maxwell, Ginger
Meek, Mary Moore Parham, Ari Rapport, Colleen Rodite, Kay Stallworth, Beth Tatum and Dawn Wilson.
Sports: Kenny Abner, Jason Bates, A.J. Brown, Robert Brown, Eric David, Jay Exum, Doug Hoogervorst. Matt Johnson, David Kupstas,
John Manuel, Amy McCaffrey, Bobby McCroskey, Doug McCurry, David Monroe and Bryan Strickland.
Photography: David Minton, editor emeritus; tvan Eile and Joe Muhl, senior photographers; Kevin Burgess, Kevin Chignell, Jonathan
Grubbs, Brian Jones, Cheryl Kane, Keith Nelson, Linus Parker, Debbie Stengel and Susan Tebbens.
Layout Melanie Black, Shawn Fuller, Christy Hall and Robin Lentz.
Copy Editors: Lisa Lindsay and Steve Wilson, senior copy editors; Mitch Bixby, Stephanie Brodsky, Laura Clark, Hardy Floyd, Lorrin
Freeman, Angela Hill, Aimee Hobbs, Sarah Kirkman, Mitch Kokai, Jennifer Kurfees, Amy McCarter, Susan Pearsall, Natalie Pool, Terri Potter,
Chris Shuping, Angela Spivey, Kenyatta Upchurch, Clare Weickert and Mike Workman.
Cartoonists: Deena Deese, Chris DePree, David Estoye, Chris Kelly, Jeff Maxim, Jake McNally and Mike Sutton.
. Editorial Production: Stacy Wynn, manager; Kristen Jones and Greg Thacker, assistants.
Distribution: RDS Carriers.
'Printing: Village Printing.
The Daily Tar Heel is published by the DTH Publishing Corp., a non-profit North Carolina corporation, Monday-Friday, according to the
University calendar.
Callers with questions about billing or display advertising should dial 962-1 1 63 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Classified ads can be reached
at 962-0252. Editorial questions should be directed to 962-02450246.
Office: Suite 104 Carolina Union
Campus mail address: CBI 5210 box 49, Carolina Union U.S. Mail address: P.O. Box 3257, Chapel Hill, NC 27515-3257
Letter lacks recognition
of risks faced by women
To the editor:
In his letter to the editor ("Letter
shows ignorance of anti-male
sexism," March 7), Andrew B.
Davidson chose a very poor illus
tration to support his allegation.
He spoke of how "disturbing it is to
have women regularly avoid you
as you walk down the street at
night because of the criminal ac
tivities of a handful of sick indi
viduals," and characterized this as
"guilty-before-proven-otherwise
discrimination."
Is Mr. Davidson trying to suggest
that a woman's choice of associa
tion or no-association with
him is discrimination? That she is
obliged to interact with him, or any
other male stranger, on the street at
night? Does he place his discom
fort at being the object of woman's
necessary caution in a potentially
dangerous situation on the same
level as the possibility she faces of
being a victim of assault? And if a
woman set aside this caution and
was subsequently the victim of an
assault on the street at night, would
he be among the many who would
say, "Well, why wasn't she more
careful? It's her own fault."
Mr. Davidson may be, as he
says, "tolerant enough" to ac
knowledge that sexism exists, al
though it is not readily apparent
from his letter. He clearly does not
have a clue to the reality that women
are at risk in this society and that
we cannot always know in advance
where that risk is coming from. We
are blamed if we do not modify our
behavior to reduce the risk to our
selves, and if we do modify our
behavior, people like Mr. Davidson
get their feelings hurt. Forgive me
if I'm not particularly sympathetic
to your angst, Mr. Davidson, but I
see the issue from a slightly more
serious perspective.
The juxtaposition of Mr.
Davidson's letter and Mary Jo
Dunnington's well-written and
thoughtful column on ignorance
and bliss was serendipity. Mr.
Davidson would do well to read
Dunnington's column and ponder
the real issues of sexism.
MARCIA J. DECKER
UNC staff
Passfail option gives
needed choice for UNC
To the editor:
I felt a need to respond to reports
that the passfail option may be
dropped. I am a bit unqualified to
respond to this particular problem
because I have not as yet taken a
passfail class; however, there is a
need on campus to keep this option
available to the students. The rea
sons are: high interest in a class but
great fear in not being able to keep
your grades up, and helping stu
dents maintain a normal psycho
logical balance in their lives. Both
of these aspects are very important.
Having high interest in a class
such as physics, but also having
great fear of lowering your GPA or
totally flunking the class and hav
ing to take another class again to
replace it are definitely fears of
students. By dropping the passfail
option, a student who might expe
rience a physics class, enjoy it and
start the journey to a great career in
the sciences would be stopped
short. These students are highly
competitive and they realize that a
lower GPA might stop them from
getting an interview their senior
year. By dropping the passfail
option, you would close doors to
these students. Keep the doors
open. Learning is an experience.
By dropping the passfail option
you would be closing doors to a
student who might not realize his
or her capabilities or interests. You
might even be stopping new tech
nologies for the future. How many
of the professionals on this campus
figured out what they wanted to do
or become in their undergraduate
years?
The second reason stated is
helping students maintain a normal
psychological balance in their
lives. Being an older student, I see
many of these students really
stressed out. I have often said to
many of them, "This is just one
class, just one grade. You will look
back on this 10 or 20 years from
now and laugh at how upset you
were over this." But they aren't
laughing now. Maybe the classes
they miss in some of the passfail
classes keep them from dropping
out of school entirely. Maybe they
went running or exercised instead
to rid themselves of depression.
I again ask the administrators
on this campus, "Can't you re
member what it was like to be
young?" These kids are good.
These kids are smart. They need
all the help from you that they can
get. Don't close the doors. Keep
the passfail option.
CLAUDIA JONES
Junior
Industrial Relations
Committees, demands
already being met
The Committee for Middle East
Misinformation and the Student
Environmental Action Committee
(strange bedfellows until you re
alize that some members of both
have devious underlying political
motives) have issued "demands"
(to whom, it isn't clear). But, guess
what? Every one of these "de
mands" is in the works or has been
met!
"Demand one" for a compre
hensive Middle East peace con
ference has been called for by
President Bush and may even be
successful if the Arab nations now
really want a peaceful solution to
the Israeli-'Talestinian" problem,
which is of the Arab nations' own
creation since THEY refused the
United Nations call for two sepa
rate nations in 1 948 and have forced
the "Palestinians" into squalid
camps for over 40 years.
"Demand two" for a
nonaggressive U.S. foreign policy
has been the basis of U.S. foreign
relations for generations; this na
tion is the most generous to other
nations (even former enemies, once
the fighting THEY started has
ended) of all nations on earth. The
United States has to be pushed
harder than any other country be
fore resorting to fighting.
"Demand three" for establishing
an alternative energy policy has
been clearly, logically and com
prehensively thought out by scores
of experts and expressed in Presi
dent Bush's recently announced
energy policy. Like the state leg
islature of an unnamed state some
years ago that demanded "them
perfessers" made things too com
plicated by having pi being an ir
rational number so they passed a
law making pi equal to three in
their state, some of these young
fledgling "environmentalists" seek
to repeal the laws of thermody
namics that govern energy transfer
and efficiency as well as the law of
human nature that seeks a better
and more comfortable life. By the
way, there is a solution to saving
petroleum for its more valuable
chemical content than burning it
and to continuing a comfortable
life by building safe nuclear
power plants.
"Demand four" for guaranteed
rights for Arab Americans and
political dissenters has always been
U.S. policy. All U.S. citizens enjoy
such rights; you might note that
even when anti-war protesters were
demonstrating, no one stopped
them from showing just how un
informed and naive they really are,
and no persons of Arab descent
have been investigated by the FBI
or police unless they were members
of known violent groups. Plus, the
fighting in the Gulf was to protect
Arabs. I feel that some of the 433
signers of the recent "demands"
DTH advertisement don't know
that White House Chief of Staff
John Sununu is an Arab American.
The U.S. troops in the desert and
the jungles of Viet Nam were
fighting for the freedom that allows
people to dissent in this nation,
even when they are wrong.
"Demand five" that the United
States not have an economy
"dominated" by military impera
tive is reality and has been for
many, many years. The U.S. spends
less than 6 percent of its GNP on
defense. This is the TOTAL for the
defense establishment, including
salaries of military and civilian
personnel, funding for military
hospitals, funding for research to
cure diseases, costs of dredging
harbors, etc. Compared with North
Korea's 22 percent, Vietnam's 20
percent, Iraq's 20 percent and the
USSR's 15 percent of GNP, it is
clear to any intelligent person that
the U.S. economy is certainly not
"dominated" by the military. You
might compare the total cost of the
U.S. defense to the dollars spent by
addicts on illegal drugs in this na
tion both figures are similar in
magnitude. By the way, the U.S.
military is being reduced this year
by over 200,000 troops due to the
reduced threat globally because of
the utter failure of Marxism. Where
is the military imperative?
So, all they had to do was ask
and they have all they wanted.
R. EVERETT LANGFORD, Ph.D.
Graduate student
Environmental Sciences
New contraceptive
provides more freedom
To the editor:
It is unfortunate that just when
our contraceptive choices have
broadened after years with no new
contraceptives, that Norplant
comes under criticism so soon and
by a woman. Anne Holloway
("Norplant showered with false
praises," March 4) bases her criti
cism on the potential side effects
of Norplant without paying any
attention to its benefits. Further
more, she fails to realize that
women cannot use just any con
traceptive, and thus a wide choice
is extremely important. After Ms.
Holloway' s misleading letter, we
feel that it is important to provide
the community with accurate in
formation. For example, Norplant provides
long-term contraception to women
who are monogamous, who do not
want any more children and who
are adverse to sterilization. Fro
these women, barrier methods that
provide protection from STDs and
AIDS are not an issue. If women
choose to have more than one
partner, literature suggests that
protection from unwanted preg
nancies and STDs increases with
the use of two contraceptive
methods, for example the Pill and
a condom. Why doesn't Ms.
Holloway speak up against the Pill
then, as she does with Norplant,
since it also is not a barrier method?
If the pill can be used with
condoms, why can't Norplant?
Ms. Holloway also leaves the
reader with a misleading percep
tion of IUDs. She tries to discredit
Norplant by comparing it to IUDs
when IUDs in fact were wrongly
discredited due to bad publicity
and misinformed people. The IUD
is a good contraceptive, but it is
inappropriate for women who have
more than one sex partner because
of the increased risk of pelvic in
flammatory disease. This increased
risk is associated with the sexual
behavior of the woman and thus
her increased susceptibility to
contract STDs is not due to the
IUD itself. The IUD is a generic
term, and there has been only one
bad device, the Dalkon Shield. The
Dalkon Shield was withdrawn
from the market, as it should have
been, but unfortunately along with
other effective and safe IUD de
vices. As a result, women experi
enced limitations in their contra
ceptive choices.
Until the introduction of
Norplant, the only options for many
women uncomfortable using the
barrier methods were either the
Pill or sterilization. Why then
complain when efforts are being
made to develop new contracep
tives and one has finally hit the
market after 20 years of clinical
trials in accordance to FDA regu
lation? Also be mindful that this
country's FDA regulations are the
most conservative in the world;
Norplant has been used success
fully by women from many coun
tries for over two decades. In ad
dition, the "suing craze" in the
United States certainly has not
made contraceptive development
attractive to pharmaceutical com
panies. Therefore, any develop
ments in this are should be ap
plauded and not condemned.
Ms. Holloway is clearly wrong
in her attack of men as shunning
reproductive responsibility and
shoving it on women. Ms.
Holloway needs to get her facts
straight. We suggest MHCH 103
(fall semester only). Women have
a more complex reproductive
system than men, however the fact
remains that only one egg is re
leased per month and this can be
more easily manipulated than the
sperm production of men that is
continuous and not cyclical and
produces 400 million sperm every
three days. In addition, there is no
such thing as "we are having a
baby." Men do not get pregnant;
they also do not get labor pains,
swollen ankles or stretch marks
(we would like to include fat here,
but men also get fat, just not due to
pregnancy).
As long as women are the only
sex who gives birth, we would like
to see a wide range of contracep
tives available in order to empower
women and ensure their repro
ductive freedom. Besides, how
many women would bel ieve a man
who said, "Yes, honey, I remem
bered to take the Pill"?
DONNA MCCARRAGER
and NIKKI COTTEN
Graduate Students
Maternal and Child Health
Letters policy
When writing letters, please
follow these guidelines:
n If you want your letter pub
lished, please sign and date it. No
more than two signatures, please.
D All letters should be no longer
than 400 words. Remember,
brevity is the soul of wit.
D All letters must be typed.
Please include such vital sta
tistics as your year in school, ma
jor, phone number and hometown.
D If you have a title that is rel
evant to your letter's subject, please
include it.
O The DTH reserves the right to
edit letters for space, clarity and
vulgarity.