Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Sept. 29, 1992, edition 1 / Page 8
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
8The Daily Tar HeelTuesday, September 29, 1992 0 Established in 1893 JOOth year of editorial freedom PETER Waixsten, Editor Office hows: Fridays 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Anna GRIFFIN, University Editor ASHLEY Fogle, Editorial Page Editor DANA POPE, City Editor REBECAH MOORE, State and National Editor Yl-HSIN CHANG, features Editor WARREN HYNES, Sports Editor ERIN Randall, Photography Editor David J. KuPSTAS, SportSaturday Editor Amy SEELEY, Copy Desk Editor David Counts, Layout Editor ALEX De Grand, Cartoon Editor VlCKI HYMAN, Omnibus Editor JOHN CASERTA, Graphics Editor A grievous mistake When it comes to a new employee grievance policy being proposed by Chancellor Paul Hardin, the message from the administration to University employees is don't worry, be happy. The policy, which already has been reviewed favorably by the Office of State Personnel, will be considered by the State Personnel Commission at its Oct. 6 meeting without the input of the employees who will be most affected by such a policy. Why the rush? By not giving employees ample time to evaluate the policy, the administration is trying single handedly to maintain the status quo, keeping em ployees out of the decision-making process. ; Even the Employee Forum, an organization Hardin created, hasn't been consulted by the chancellor to evaluate the effectiveness or feasibility of the changes. The group, composed of 45 employees from across the campus, will meet Oct. 7, the day after the SPC will review the policy. The forum is intended to serve as a vehicle of communication between employees and the admin istration, but members aren't being given the oppor tunity to fulfill their purpose. Both the forum and the State Employees Association of North Carolina should have the opportunity to question the effec tiveness of Hardin's revisions. Employees need to be aware that Hardin's revised policy still doesn't offer any feasible solutions to resolving workplace problems in the initial phases of the grievance procedure. And while the changes cut down the response time in the second step from 30 days to 15 days, there are no sanctions for those who delay. Also, under the new policy, attorneys cannot be brought into any of the first three steps. That means that an employee who might have been privately consulting with an attorney cannot bring representa tion to his or her hearing. While no rule requires Hardin to consult with employees before having the personnel commission consider grievance policy changes, there is such a concept as good management. If the chancellor took into consideration employ ees' comments and concerns while revising the policy, then common courtesy would have him give those individuals another opportunity to express opinions about the finished product. No sympathy for Pope No sympathy. Attention, women of UNC: If you "go home with a bunch of drunken boys at two or three o'clock in the morning and then yell rape at eight that morning," don't expect sympathy from the general public or from Board of Trustees member John Pope. This statement, made in the midst of a BOT discus sion about safety on the UNC campus Friday, is repugnant on so many levels that it's difficult to determine where the criticism should begin. On their surface, Pope's words make a mockery of the seriousness of the crime of rape, particularly date rape. Is Pope trying to affirm the age-old absurdity that a rape victim is to blame for the crime that has been committed against her.that she "asked for it?" Or is he perhaps implying that women who are foolhardy enough to trust "drunken men" trump up charges ("cry rape") after the fact, when they have had time to regret their decision? Maybe he is just trying to say society shouldn't feel sorry for women who are violated by silly college boys. After all, what was she thinking when she accepted that offer for a ride home? As if the words themselves weren't disgraceful enough, consider that they came out of the mouth of a representative of this. school's governing body, a man appointed by the governor to deal with problems on campus. Not that anyone who has followed Pope's illustrious career should be surprised by his latest feat of callousness the trustee is notorious for his sexist and racist comments. Students can only hope that the rest of the board doesn't share Pope's senti ments. Had enough? Well, no sympathy foryou there's more. The worst part of this whole fiasco is that the comments were part of a debate about how to im prove campus safety. At a time when two police forces are telling students not to walk alone on campus after dark. University housing is keeping residence halls locked like vaults and women are being assaulted in their own rooms or in broad daylight, Pope manages to reduce the crisis to its lowest common denominator. Should we get more lighting so that strangers and drunken boys can't lie in wait for unsuspecting women in shadowy corners of campus? Should we install more emergency call boxes so those unlucky women can "cry rape?" No, according to Pope, women ought just to look out for their own safety. Wake up, Mr. Pope. Rape is real, and right now, so is the threat of rape for every woman and man on this campus that you've been charged to oversee. And when angry students come knocking on your door demanding an apology no sympathy. iiR&ittn&ifiPismi Business and advertising: Kevin Schwartz, directorgeneral manager; Bob Bates, advertising director; Leslie Humphrey, classilied ad manager; Michelle Gray, business manager. Business xtatt: Gina Berardino, assistant manager. Classified advertising: Kristen Costello, Tina Habash, Leah Richards, Chrlsti Thomas and Steve Verier, representatives; Chad Campbell, production assistant. Display advertising: Ashleigh Heath, advertising managerMilton Artis, marketing director; Marcie Bailey, Laurie Baron, Michelle Buckner, Jennifer Danich, Will Davis, Shannon Edge, Pam Horkan, Jeff Kilman and Maria Miller, account executives; Sherri Cockrum, creative director. Advertising production: Bill Leslie, managersystem administrator; Stephanie Brodsky and Aimee Hobbs, assistants. Assistant editor: Jackie Hershkowrtz and Kelly Ryan, city; Samantha Falke, copy; Beth Tatum, features; Renee Gentry, layout; Jayson Singe, photo; John C. Manuel, Amy McCaffrey, Steve Politi and Bryan Strickland, spors; Jason Richardson, stare and national; Marty Minchin and Jennifer Talhelm, university. Newsclert: Kevin Brennan. Editorial writers' Jacqueline Charles, Karen Dietrich, Alan Martin, Mike Murray, Charles Overbeck, Lee Richardson and Dacia Toll. University: Daniel Peter-Daum Aldrich, Ivan Arlington, Alan Avers, Megan Brown. Thanassis Cambanis. Joyce Clark. Melissa Dewey. Casella Foster, Teesha Holladay, Kristen Huffman, Katheleen Keener, Gautam Khandelwal, James Lewis, Bill Lickert, Chris Lindsey, Steve Robblee, Gary Rosenzweig, Justin Scheef, Brad Short, Holly Stepp, Marcy Walsh and Mike Workman. City: Tiffany Ashhurst, John Ashley. Nathan Bishop, Andrea Bruce. Leah Campbell, Maile Carpenter, Dale Castle, Karen Clark, Richard Dalton, Andrew Greer, April Hagwood. Matthew Henry, William Huffman, Rama Kayyali. Chad Merrrtt, Shakti Routray, Robert Strader, Suzanne Wuelfing and Kathleen Wurth. State and National: Eric Lusk. senior writer; Anna Burdeshaw, Tim Burrows, Tara Duncan. Heather Fain, Stephanie Greer, Steven Harris, Scott Holt. Rahsaan Johnson, Andrea Jones. Alex Kirk, Leila Maybodi. Jerry McElreath. Beth McNichol. Kenneth Medlin. Adnenne Parker. Kurt Raatzs. Bruce Robinson. Alia Smith and Allison Taylor. Arts: Rahul Mehta. coordinator; Kathleen Flynn. Waynette Gladden, Mondy Lamb, Alex McMillan, Elizabeth Oliver, Jonathan Rich, Martin Scott, Jenni Spitz, Sally Stryker, Cara Thomisser, Mark Watson, Emma Williams and Duncan Young. Features: Stephanie Lyn Beck, Elena Bourgoin, Monica Brown, John Davies, Maria DiGiano, Erika Helm, Fred Henderson, Kristin Leight, Ted Lotchin, Deepa Permumallu, Aulica Lin Rutland, LeAnn Spradling, Howard Thompson, Scott Tillett, Lloyd Whittington, Christa Williams and Andrea Young. Sports: Eric David and David J. Kupstas. senior miters; Zachary Albert, Adam Davis, Jennifer Duniap, Marc Franklin, Brian Gould, Dave Heiser, Stephen Higdon, Diana Koval, Mary Lafferty, Alison Lawrence, Jacson Lowe, Brian McJunkin, Jeff McKinley, David Monroe, Pete Simpkinson, Carter Toole, Philip Weickert, James Whitfield, Michael Workman and Pete Zitchak. Photography: Missy Belto. Dale Castle, Jim Fugia, Jill Kaufman. Chris Kirkman, Ellen Ozier, Evie Sandlin, Jennie Shipen and Debbie Stengel. Copy Editors: Anqelique Bartlett, Stephanie Beck, Robin Cagle, Eliot Cannon, Caroline Chambre. Laura Chappell. Monica Cleary Kim Costello. Jay Davis, Debbie Eidson, Jennifer Heinzen, Kelly Johnston, Amy Kincaid, David Lindsay, Phuong Ly, Cassaundra Sledge, Melanie Slepp, Jeniler-Stinehelter, Leslie Ann Teseniar, Jackie Torok and Kenyatta Upchurch. Graphics: Jay Roseborough and Justin Scheef. Cartoonists: Mandy Brame, Mary Brutzman. Lem Butler. Carolyn Flanders and Jeff Maxim. Editorial Production: Stacy Wynn, manager Lisa Reichle, assistant. Distribution and Printing: Village Printing Company The Dairy 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 962-1 163 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. Campes mall address: CM 5210 hoi 49, Carolina Union Office: Suite 104 Carolina Union U.S. Mall address: P.O. Boi 3257, Chapel Hill, NC 27515-3257 Editorial writer doesn't understand rally issues To the editor: This letter is in response to the edito rial entitled "Nothing to cheer about" in the Sept. 2 1 issue of the DTH. We have three points of contention with that item, and each will be dealt with in turn. First among these are statements made re garding Minister Mohammed Khalid X and his presence at the rally. There are two issues for us in the editorial treatment of the minister. The first of these is the attempt by the writer to question the legitimacy of his very presence. As was stated in the editorial, Friday's rally was a public event open to everyone. A suggestion that the min ister should be barred is in itself contra dictory to both the content of the edito rial and the spirit of the rally. The second point concerns the fact that the rally was organized by the coa lition, particularly the BSM and the BAC. Their decision to invite a repre sentative of the Nation of Islam is cer tainly within their rights. This is espe cially the case since the Nation has been active in the pursuit of black liberation for several decades. No matter the de gree of agreement or disagreement with the minister and the Nation of Islam, it is certainly within the rights of the rally organizers to allow the minister to speak. The attempt to question that right by the writer is symptomatic of a tactic com mon to the oppression faced by blacks in the past. This tactic is an attempt by some whites to define the dynamics of black leadership from without. Often, black leaders who have not been given legitimacy by those persons have been denounced in just such a manner. The assertion of the writer that the minister had no place there was likely not reflec tive of hisher disagreement with the content of the minister's speech, as that content that was often referred to as offensive is not unfamiliar to conserva- tives such as Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and native Carolinian Jesse Helms. I doubt that the writer would question their appearance at campus events in such a manner. In a related matter, the writer's com ments regarding the Fruit of Islam showed a true ignorance of the purpose of that organization. The FOI was present at Friday s rally to provide se curity, not to serve as any intimidating or hateful presence. Minister Khalid Mohammed X is one of the national ministers of the Nation of Islam, and as such, is one of the most visible repre sentatives of a controversial religious group. It is no more outrageous for him to travel with security than for George Bush or even Pope John Paul II to do so. Indeed, the fact that the FOI are forbid den to carry weapons should lead to a more positive perception of the FOI than other security groups. Furthermore, the need for blacks to provide security for black leaders is made apparent by the tragic examples of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, among many. Also critical is the writer's reference to the FOI as infamous. This suggests that the FOI are some villainous group of outlaws focused upon destruction and crime. This could not be further from the truth, for the FOI have been instrumental in helping blacks in America in our own "war on drugs." The FOI has aided in the elimination of drugs and crime from inner city neigh borhoods and housing projects that were all but abandoned by the police. Can such an organization be infamous? Finally, we take issue with the writer s comments regarding Michelle Thomas' statements. There were two particularly noisome points with which we were concerned. The first of these was the judgment that Michelle's impassioned words were any less inspiring due to her manner of dealing with Chuck Stone. The writer obviously did not listen very carefully to what Michelle had to say. Otherwise, heshe would have been immensely moved, no matter what his her opinion of the small part of her speech concerned with Chuck Stone. The greater point of concern deals with the position of the writer with regards to the wisdom of Michelle's comments about Stone. First and fore most, it should be emphasized that what Michelle and others have said about Stone in no way indicates any disre spect of his efforts in the struggle for black liberation and civil rights. Those accomplishments are in no way dimin ished in any of our eyes. It is, however, a mistake to confuse gratitude and re spect for past efforts with the assess ment of instrumentality (or lack thereof) of any individual for current concerns. The latter point is one with which Michelle has grappled and is also the one upon which we focus. The writer's assessment of the wis dom of Michelle's statement seems to come from a particularly odious van tage point. Such a point of view was discussed in an earlier portion of this letter, dealing with attempts of those outside the movement to determine the legitimacy of its leaders and their deci sions and actions. It is not for the writer to decide what is or is not appropriate for the movement until heshe decides to become an active element within it. Michelle's decision could not have come without considerable soul-searching, nor without reasonable cause for such an action. Furthermore, the deci sion to name him was the result of urging by the audience. Regardless of this, the true assessment of the situation must rest in the degree to which Michelle's decision does not bode well for the future of the movement for a free-standing BCC. What Michelle has done is to reduce the agency of Stone for those who stand in the way of the coalition, since a pit that is uncovered is much less dangerous than one that is hidden. In summary, justification for Michelle's decision may be found among the statements of Malcolm X (of whom the writer seems to be fond): "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem." ELLINGTON GRAVES Graduate Sociology MICHAEL JENNINGS Graduate Political science BCC won't solve black America's problems To the editor: As a black N.C. resident and as a graduate of two N.C. schools, I must address the recent discussion about the free-standing black cultural center. I first must wonder out loud at the educa tion of our students who attend an insti tution such as UNC. I wonder if our students are learning anything but to be narrow in their scope and reactionary in their application. I wonder if the black students who attend UNC and the mi norities who have attended this institu tion have put all their marbles in the bag of a cultural center that will determine who you are and make you proud of your culture. I wonder if you are as narrow as you accuse the administra tors of being. I wonder if you black ball (pardon the pun) all the black students who don't agree with your position. I wonder if you think that all black stu dents must take your position and those who don't are not black. If these condi tions exist, then this protest and dissent is an exercise in name-calling and de mands. I do not share your position. Why? All of the problems facing black America and the upper-crust blacks who attend a mostly white UNC in Chapel Hill have lost the vision. For the record: When these graduates of UNC who happen to be black leave UNC, do they return to the communi ties and help their people who are be hind in education, behind in economics, behind in a standard of living? Do they return to help their black brothers who are dropping out of school at an alarm ing rate? Do they return home to feed the homeless shelters where the statis tics show that black people outnumber anyone else as the clients? What about crack cocaine. It's taking over. Black on black crime over turf and drugs; third-generation AFDC recipients all over the place. Try to run from it if you will. Cover it up by saying that this free standing BCC will make me proud of who I am. I say to you today, my friends, that I don't think you know who you are. You are chasing the wrong issue. Your narrowmindedness really covers up your insecurities. If you care about being black, then help those who are in the trenches save ourpeople. I don't see how a free-standing BCC is going to save anything but people's faces at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. REV. RONALD WTLKINS High Point Coalition leaders chose questionable speakers To the editor: Like many faculty, I have hesitated to get involved in the BCC issue. On the one hand, the positive effects of a free standing BCC seem to me uncertain. On the other hand, I am quite aware of the long institutional neglect of the needs of the black community, including the treatment of campus workers as well as recruitment of students and faculty. If from their own experiences on an all-too-divided campus, black students crave their own space (and especially if they largely have the money to pay for it), then that, in itself, is a telling argu ment. Yet, especially now that the momen tum seems irresistible toward the prac tical formulation of a new structure, I want to share a serious concern sparked by the nature of the BCC campaign itself. After all, it is not the building itself but what ultimately will go into it that really is the issue for the University community. To the extent that the BCC is defined by its chief advocates, that definition must be examined in the light of the University's larger aims, includ ing the values of tolerance and national inquiry. Most alarming to me about the BCC campaign was the selection of the two outside speakers who appeared along side Spike Lee on September 18. First, Louis Farrakhan's lieutenant, Khalid Mohammed X, breathed a message of subjection and contempt for women and gays. He also recently was identi fied by the distinguished black literary critic Henry Louis Gates Jr. as one of several new anti-Semitic "apostles of hate," preaching an insidious brand of "ethnic isolationism." Even more ominous, however, was the appearance of the Re v. James Bevel, currently running for vice president with Lyndon LaRouche. While LaRouche sits in federal prison (serving out a 15 year loan fraud conviction), Bevel is, in effect, the front man for LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees, a cult-like political empire with a vola tile mixture of friends and enemies. Having once flirted with the Ku Klux Klan, attacked writer Amiri Baraka as a CIA agent and collaborated with the South African security apparatus, the NCLC has, more recently, concentrated on world-Jewish-conspiracy theories, where it finds temporary company with the Nation of Islam. LaRouche's long cultivated ties to the Liberty Lobby and other hate groups make his organiza tion, according to the Anti-Defamation League, "the closest thing to an Ameri can fascist party that we've got." Surely, to confuse the legacy of so cial struggles symbolized by Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Sonja Stone with the vicious agendas of the two rally speakers is to perpetrate the crudest of hoaxes upon the theme of black culture. While I respect what I assume are the general motivations among protesting students, I think the coalition needs seriously to address a few questions before things move for ward: Who invited Khalid X and Bevel to represent the BCC campaign? Is this an aberration or a portent of things to come? Are the masses of well-intentioned supporters being manipulated by a few closet bigots? Say it ain't so, Margo. LEON FINK Department of History Letters policy The Daily Tar Heel welcomes reader comments and criticisms. We attempt to print as many letters to the editor as space permits. When writ ing letters, please follow these guide lines: a Letters should be limited to 400 words. Shorter letters have a better chance of running.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 29, 1992, edition 1
8
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75