Newspaper Page Text
■ QUOTABLE
4 » Tha Red end Black « Mondey, April 20, 1992
OPINIONS
"There Is s deflnete problem with underage drinking.
Uncontrolled consumption leads to uncontrolled behavior."
- Patrick Wall. St. Mery’s
High School senior.
The Red & Black
Established in 1893 - Incorporated 1980
An ukiependent Undent newspaper not affiliated with the University of Georgia
Lance Helms/Editor in Chief
Angela Hornsby/Managing Editor
Constantin K. Curran/Opinions Editor
EDITORIALS
Fair play
Gov. Zell Miller’s veto of a no pass/no play bill
Saturday is a significant step toward giving the state’s
public school students an equal opportunity to partici
pate in non-competitive extra-curricular activities.
And it strikes a fair-minded balance between the
need to regulate highly visible competitive activities
and a misguided zeal to deny all but the academically
best and brightest access to extra-curricular activities.
The veto will wisely allow academic underachiev
ers who otherwise might be tempted to drop out of
school to find other outlets for their youthful energy.
At the same time, it will keep them in school - where
they’re most likely to receive the kind of guidance and
counseling that would increase their classroom, and
perhaps lifetime, productivity.
As any joiner knows, many of us get the lion’s
share of our self-esteem from the peer interaction, tal
ent development and teamwork we gain from extra
curricular activities. And that kind of personal growth
only enhances a formal education.
But the tough realism behind no pass/no play rules
for competitive activities is that talented students are
often exploited, rather than developed, in a school set
ting and can graduate without a proper education. The
example most familiar to us is that of underprivileged
athletes.
Barring the underprivileged - who often aren’t en
couraged to achieve at home - from non-competitive
activities that would keep them in school would have
been a big mistake. They are the ones who most bene
fit from public education, which in our society is the
last great equalizer between socio-economic classes.
The real vigilance
Tensions run high as both sides of the abortion de
bate gear up for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear oral
arguments Wednesday in a Pennsylvania case that
could overturn Roe v. Wade - so high, in fact, that
abortion rights activists in Buffalo recklessly crossed
the line that separates a civilized debate from a war
on civil liberties.
Activists in Buffalo, N.Y., flirted with barbarity
Saturday when they punched and shoved a minister,
dumped cigarette ashes on his head, shouted obsceni
ties through a bullhorn held in his face, knocked a
Bible from his hands and spat on it as he knelt to
pray. The Rev. Paul Schenck reportedly didn’t fight
back, though he temporarily lost his glasses.
It sounds more like a scene from “The Exorcist"
than an exercise of this nation’s unique constitutional
right of assembly and free expression. It also threat
ens to undermine the very principled message that
abortion rights activists are trying to get across in the
courtroom and on the streets - a message well-demon
strated in the April 5 march on Washington, D.C.
As a nation that was revolutionized by the non-vio
lent teachings and practices of another Reverend,
Martin Luther King Jr., we can take special pride in
our ability to peaceably bring about social change. We
ought to vigilantly guard our non-violent traditions
and reject all behavior that threatens to deprive other
citizens of their liberty.
Schenck, who said he wouldn’t press charges, ap
parently understands this. On the other hand, his
compatriots, in laying children down in front of traffic
in Wichita last summer, risked letting their behavior
(jeopardizing children’s lives) overshadow their mes
sage (all human lives are sacred).
We have the power to block, as well as to guard,
the exercise of individual liberty; violence has no place
in that equation. We should always choose the latter.
Support Student Government: Vote on the 28th
Complaints, complaints! How many times
have we heard the grips of our fellow students in
any given day, week, or month? Many of these
concerns ARE legitimate - they are NOT simply
petty, drivel from a bunch of whiny co-eds. Here
are just a few of the major grips that I hear al
most every day:
• PARKING - There’s just not enough of it,
and the idea that the housing department know
ingly issues more parking permits than their are
spaces is disgusting.
• DROP/ADD - It’s a hideous given ritual for
some, but WHY must we run around this cam
pus to TRY to get classes ... the LONG lines ...
the LONG waits ... there has got to be a better
way.
• FINANCIAL AID -1 have heard horror sto
ries. From applications that supposedly get “lost
in the shuffle,’ to unknowing students getting
dropped from the program with NO notice or
warning. (It always fun to find out on registra
tion day!)
• TUITION HIKES - It’s official, we will be
paying four percent more to attend school here,
starting this summer... hmmm, what if you don’t
have that extra money? Toooo bad, I guess.
• THE GILBERT HEALTH CENTER - The
complaint heard most often about Gilbert is the
wait. You are supposed to call and make an ap
pointment, right? Ha! Just try it... Instead, you
must let them “work you in." Well, take a com
fortable seat, and bring lots of reading material!
• BUDGET CUTS - No more schedule com
pletion, fewer classes available, less service,
more waits ... when will it end?
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Richard J.
Martin
The important thing to notice in these concerns,
is that none of them are unreasonable, or un
founded. Each problem could be addressed if the
administration choee to do so. But, why should
they?
Let’s be honest - as studenta we tend to be
just a bit apathetic, now don’t we? If it is not us
who get the 50 parking tickets, or us who had to
wait in line in 90 degree weather to get a class,
then it is no “big deal" right? Actually, we do
have an official VOICE on campus that we use
too infrequently - the Student Government
Association. No, they are not defunct, and yes
they can be effective.
Why are they labeled ineffective? Well, the
lack of control of their budget is one thing. How
can this government implement it’s resolutions
if it has little or no control over where its fund
ing goes. Recently, a SGA senate bill was pro
posed that would change this and grant SGA
more financial authority.
Editorials like Todd Fantz’s (The Red and
Black, April 6), demonstrate a rather narrow
minded mentality. He states, “Putting money
and power behind people who have nothing bet
ter to do at college besides play politics is insane.”
He then suggests that SGA be abolished. Who
would then look out for student interests?
Parking services? We NEED an active student
voice looking out for OUR interests. Student
Government is NOT a waste of time, as people
like Fantz would have us believe.
The criticism, though, needs to be fairly dis
tributed. In the 1991 SGA elections, only 1,885
eligible student voters out of a possible 24,948
voted. Tfiat is barely eight percent! How many of
you know just one student senators name? My
guess would be only eight percent at the most.
That’s not good, and it is our fault.
It is us, the students who have the real
strength on campus ... not just the alumni, not
just the administration, and not just the athletic
department. WE pay tuition; WE buy books; WE
pay fees; WE live in campus housing; WE eat at
the dining halls; WE pay parking fees. Shouldn’t
WE be concerned about where the money goes?
Shouldn’t it take more than a damn tree in
President Knapp’s yard to peak our interest? As
an official body, elected by us, they need the au
thority to be effective. As intelligent college stu
dents, we need to take an interest in the SGA.
Start now - get to know the candidates, learn
the issues, show the administration that we care
about our livelihood on campus. REMEMBER
THIS DATE: APRIL 28, 1992. VOTE, please!
Our administration has no reason to take our
government seriously if no one votes. Take an in
terest and use your privilege.
Richard J. Martin is a junior in history.
Foundations of our society shouldn’t be forgotten
In one of my law school classes while dis
cussing a case, a student expreseed an opinion
that it was “ridiculous* for a court to base its de
cision on “morality.* In the case, the court inter
preted a statute presumably expressing the elec
torates' belief that the behavior of the losing par
ty was immoral if not criminal. Furthermore,
since the case concerned children, the person
who had violated the community’s sense of
morality lost. The student snapped out the word
“ridiculous* with that caustic arrogance used by
those of liberal tendencies when confronted by
something that they really do not understand,
but which strikes them as conservative, tradi
tional, principled, or virtuous.
The professor responded, “Okay, but why?*
Such a response is wholly inadequate - but that
is how law operates today. You need only articu
late a reason, and not necessarily a valid reason.
Merely a string of words which sounds like a le
gal principle. The student responded that they
didn't want judges making decisions based on
their own personal morality. What that student
actually thought “ridiculous* was that personal
decisions might actually have consequences; that
people may not be able to do anything they de
sire without unpleasant consequences.
The student also thought it “ridiculous* that
there might be a law higher than the
Constitution, the United States Code, or the
Georgia statutes to which people are responsible.
Many similar-minded people, including lawyers
and governing officials, think the idea of a high
er, relevant law, beyond the Constitution (or its
tortured remnants) as ridiculous. Both ideas are
Thomas
Mitchell
awfully wrong and have led to much suffering
and much nonsense. And it will probably only get
worse. TVs rest of this column, however, deals
with the Idea of no consequences.
AIDS is the most graphic illustration of hu
mans acting as if there were no consequences
to their actions. AIDS was initially spread
by promiscuous homosexuality. Thereafter, it
spread quickly through the intravenous drug-us
ing community. Today it continues to spread, the
majority of cases by homo- and bi-sexual promis
cuity, but with increasing frequency through het
erosexual promiscuity. And too often, infected
and usually unwed, mothers deliver AIDS-in-
fected children. Had there been a marriage, there
may have been a blood test to alert the woman
that she or the father was HIV positive.
The blame is placed on the government, of
course, for not creating a cure or a vaccine eo that
humans can avoid the coneequences of their ac
tions and continue to act immorally. Instead, the
blame should be placed on thoee individuals
whose immoral actions brought the consequences
upon them.
The response of some is: “What about the in
nocent children who contract AIDS?"
First, the statement presumes that people are
innocent from birth. Not true according to tradi
tional religious teachings. We are bom einftil
with all the effects thereof. Further, there are
always “innocent* victims of human folly. Also,
the statement is usually made with an arrogant
righteousness, as if the fact that so-called “inno
cents* sufTer then the actions of the guilty are
thereby somehow made less culpable. That is
nonsense. The guilty have caused those “inno
cents" to suffer, not the government.
Second, in a time past when being a parent
meant something other than being merely a
sperm donor or an incubator, the parents would
have suffered from the knowledge that they had
caused such a horrendous consequence to befall
their child. But people have forgotten or neglect
ed the moral foundations of Western society, and
the moral baggage of concepts such as mother,
leader, freedom, and responsibility, which moral
ity deems that there are consequences to actions.
Many have seemed to forget - or may never
have known or understood - that our laws do
have a moral basis. There is an idea implicit in
law, and explicit in moral thought that there are
consequences to actions: Good and bad conse
quences both to good and bad actions. Serious
consequences follow from breaking the law.
Horrible consequences follow from neglecting the
moral foundations of the law and society.
Thomas Mitchell is o second year law student.
Merit-based salary increases ‘unwise, immoral’
I would like to commend The Red
and Black for the points made in
the April 14 editor!a), “Playing with
fire," and to thank you for your con
tinuing support of University Staff
members. Your support, and the
support of student organizations, is
vital in the effort to compensate
classified staff appropriately.
For too long the Administration
has hidden behind the excuse of no
money for staff raises. Over the
years the base pay of University
employees has fallen well behind
that of other state employees due
to hastily conceived, poorly admin
istered, and blatantly discrimina-
tory and biased pay practices. The
Board of Regents’ latest decision in
the complex area of the University
of Georgia's pay policies will only
make an already bad situation
much worse.
The
turn the
Regents’ determination to
le 117 million salary in
crease pool into a slush ftind for so-
called merit-based increases is not
only unwise, but immoral. It offers
an unlimited opportunity for an ad
ministrator or department head to
structure employee, raiees not on
equity and fsiimess, but on whim
and prejudice.
As the University pay and clas
sification system now exists, there
is very little opportunity for an em
ployee to stay in a job, become bet
ter at it, and see that increased
competency reflected in his or her
paycheck - at least that is the ob
vious implication when S5 percent
of the staff is paid within 7.5 per
cent of the base salary range.
Currently, reclassification and
job transfer are about the only
means staff members have to se
cure decent salary increases.
Reclassification, the aim of which
is usually a salary increase, often
cannot help since it isn't justified
without subetantial changee in job
duties, despite improved skills or
productivity.
Job transfers mean high
turnover. Why does the University
want to encourage unnecessary
and unwarranted turnover, given
the additional coate that increased
recruitment and training add to an
already tight budget? The truth is,
most staff members like their jobs,
many like their working environ
ments, and some even like their su
pervisors; almost no one likes
His/her salary.
Before the University begins to
consider, let alone implement, a
pure merit system approach to
salary increases, it must bring ex
isting salaries to parity with tHoae
received by other state workers.
Additionally, the University needs
to provide s system of mandatory
across the bwd salary supple
ments and in-grade increases de-
FORUM
■ The Red end Sleek welcomes let
lets to the editor end prints them m
the Forum column at specs permits.
All letters are subject to editing for
length, style and libelous material.
Lenars should be typed and double-
spaced. end they must Include the
name, address end daytime tele
phone number of the writer. Please
also Include student classification,
major and other appropriate identifi
cation. Names may be omitted with a
valid reason upon request Send let
tors by U.S. mall or bring them In per
son to The Red and Black's offices at
123 North Jackson Street. Athens,
Georgia 30601.
signed to reward increased job
competency, without pitting one
department employee against an
other for a little bit more of a very
small merit increase pie.
Merle McGrath Ubbey
Staff member