Ken Parsigian Anti-divestiture arguments misguided br 3 ibigttn uiI For the past two years, a growing group of concerned students has endeavored to convince the Regents to withdraw all University holdings in South Africa-the Regents have refused. In support of their recalcitrance, the Regents cite several arguments: We can do more good for the blacks by staying in South Africa and working from within; what about other countries where human rights are violated; the University should not make moral judgments. Recently, the anti-divestiture faction has added a new justification to its arsenal-a pullout of U.S. corporations from South Africa would not have any significant effect on that country's economy. As do all other anti-divestiture arguments, this one simply misses the point. The primary goal of divestiture is an educational one. We need to make the American public aware of the systematic racism South Africa enforce, and divestiture is one means of reaching the public. The reason for educating the public is complex, but important. First, we must acknowledge that revolution is inevitable in South Africa. The oppression has gone on longer than the people will withstand. Whether or not the U.S. and other countries can effect change from within is problematical, but that has no bearing on the inevitability of armed conflict. Such internal change could only occur over a great number of years, and the revolution simply can't wait that long. So now, we must encourage our efforts on making such a battle a short, vicotrious one for the black majority, and more specifically, on preventing U.S. intervention. Once the struggle begins, U.S. corporations will demand that the U.S. government protect American interests in South Africa. In similar cases in Santa Domingo, Chile, and Angola, the U.S. government has complied, usually through the misguided jingoist efforts of the CIA. Although the American public has, to a large extent, Later condemned these imperialist acts, it was unable to prevent them. The reason is simple: we had no idea what was going on. The truth was revealed years later, when the only action we could take was to pound our collective chest in righteous indignation. This is what we must prevent in South Africa, and the only way to do so is to make the public aware of such a possibility now. By advocating divestiture, we are protesting the presence of U.S. corporations not only for the economic viability they lend to the South African government, but also their potential for blocking a popular liberation movement. In addition to seeking federal intervention, U.S. corporations will not refrain from protecting their own interests by supporting the white minority. General Motors, for example, already has a contingency plan in case of revolution.It plans to train white personnel to act as a private militia to protect GM's plant and operations. This might not be so bad, were it not for the fact that South africa has a law permitting the government to convert any privately owned factory to weapons production in cases of national emergency. There is no reason to believe, however, that should the government force GM into such a position that the corporation would have any less interest in protecting its factories. This means that GM's security force will probably be protecting a weapons plant when war begins. And GM is not the only corporation likely to find itself in this position. When the revolution comes, the white government will certainly use the law to convert all factories to military production, and the American corporations that own these factories will undoubedly seek to protect them, thus producing a direct confrontation between the U.S. and the black rebels. While it would be ideal for U.S. corporation to withdraw now, to prevent such a possibility of direct U.S. military support for white regime, it is unlikely. We can, however, hope to educate the public about such a possibility now. This may produce such a public outcry that the U.S. government will be afraid to intervene, and that the corporations will refuse to aid the racist government by protecting a weapons plant. Divestiture by the University would lend clout to such a position, and would also establish this institution as a firm supporter of human rights, and a foe of U.S. imperialism, and foreign intervention. Ken Parsigian is a Daily Managing Editor. American Maoist and 'Gang of Four The House has denied women a basic right THE STATE HOUSE of Represent- atives voted Tuesday to approve the new $520 million Medicaid budget. But a restriction in the bill denies women a fundamental right - the right to every woman to decide whether to have a child. The restrictionon abortions, in the Medicaid appropriations bill, discriminates against women on welfare and women who receive Social Security Supplemental Income. In a nation where abortions are legal it seems neither fair nor logical not to make funds available for women who otherwise could not afford to pay for an abortion. The sanje legislation including anti- abortion restrictions was passed by the House and Senate earlier this year. Governor Milliken wisely and courageously vetoed the bill. We hope that although the veto of this legislation will occur close to the November election the Governor's courage and wisdom will not wane. It is often the families on welfare and other forms of financial relief who for whom the right to have an abortion is most crucial. Last year 12,000 women, most of whom could not have ;afforded an abortion, took advantage of state funding to have abortions performed. Unwanted children begin the battle of life with two strikes on them. When they are the children of poor families their plight is more pitiful. But if the Senate passes the house version of the Medicaid appropriation bill and the Governor does not veto it, poor unwanted children will be a direct result. This, coupled with the abridgement of the right of women to control their destiny makes us doubt the plausibility of the gubernatorial candidacy of William Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is adamantly opposed to state funding for abortions. It is difficult to believe that anyone who supports a woman's right to have an abortion could vote for the young Democrat, despite the fact his running mate Olivia Maynard is an ardent supporter of abortion rights. In fact, because of Fitzgerald's stand on this abortion issue his choice of running mates can be looked upon more as a political expedience than a, choice based upon a respect for Maynard's political viewpoint. By Thomas Brom "Revisionists are revisionists and must not be supported! Revolutionaries are revolutionaries and must be supported!" The broadcast songs of revolutionary China swept across the sunny plaza outside Berkeley's Community Theater, attracting the curious and the faithful to the West' Coast Mao Tse-tung Memorial. The Revolutionary Communist Party U.S.A. (RCP) was out in force recently to celebrate the second anniversary of Mao's death, and to denounce the current Chinese leadership as "revisionist and capitalist- roaders." China's rapid changes in domestic and foreign policies have left many former supporters in the United States gasping. The RCP, the Maoist organization in this country, waited two years before formally , breaking with the Chinese leadership this September. But a sense of incongruity pervaded the Mao Tse-tung Memorial from its elaborate start to finish. Maybe it was the wholesale adoption of Chinese- style rhetoric assumed by the predominantly white, middle- class organization. Maybe it was the studied. militance and posturing under the warm California sun or the ponderous solemnity of the occasion. Whatever the cause, Berkeley's Mao Tse-tung Memorial moved dangerously, close to the Twilight Zone. The steps to the Community Theater were cordoned off, like the waiting lines in a bank, into winding trails leading to the front doors. Black-bereted security guards, each wearing red T- shirts-with Mao's picture printed on the back, were everywhere. People filed through the narrow rope corridors in small groups, carefully separated by the security forces. "No more than four tickets will be sold together," a security guard announced. "You will be searched before entering the building. This will be for your own protection." Women in two separated ticket windows sold the carefully numbered and coded tickets, one window for the English-speaking people, the other with ticket information in Chinese, Persian and Spanish. At the front doors, more security guards patted down each person entering the hall. They looked in the cuffs of pants and under shirt collars as well as the usual places. Next, another set of guards scanned people head to toe with a metal detector, even checking the soles of shoes.M One young man had to check his small pocket knife with the security office. Before long the security window had a small pile of assorted pen knives and metal objects, as well as camera equipment forbidden in the hall. Ushers wearing yellow Mao Tse-tung T-shirts and red arm- .bands escorted people into the auditorium in groups of twos and threes. Ticket numbers and sales were staggered so that groups of people were scattered throughout the hall, preventing any possibility of caucusing or demonstrating against what was to follow. Each person received a - program and a sheaf of literature. Inside the folder was a notice that the program would last approximately 4 hours and that there would be no intermission or other interruptions. Any questions of the speakers had to be written on small white cards and passed to the ushers. The interior decorations were awesome. Red banners, each written with revolutionary slogans printed in English, Persian, Spanish and Chinese,, hung from the walls and balconies. "Hail the heroic efforts of the four who fought to uphold Mao's revolutionary lines and the proletarian rule in China." Simultaneous translation into Chinese, Persian and Spanish was offered in special sections of the auditorium. The stage was festooned with red bunting and flanked by rows of elaborate floral displays on each side. The curtains high above held huge pictures of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Smaller pictures of the "Gang of Four" were pinned to the curtains beside the stage. It looked like a church service, a memorial mass for a dead pope. The crowd of nearly 1,000 hushed as eight tiny spotlights pinpointed the faces of the heros tacked to the stage curtains. Something spectacular obviously was about to happen. The curtains opened slowly, then swapt back with deliberate ceremony. Huge versions of three slogans were spread across the red paper backdrop Immediately above the speaker's podium was a gigantic portrait of Mao - expressionless, patient and watchful. The crowd paused, then responded with prolonged, enthusiastic applause. Bill Klingel, a member of the RCP Central Committee, began the program with yet another recitation of slogans denouncing the current Chinese leadership and praising the life and work of Mao. Two members of a group called Prairie Fire sang of their trip to the People's Republic several years ago, comparing their impressions of Hong Kong with the achievements of China just across the border. A film, "The Greatest Revolutionary of Our Time," followed, and then a slide show, "Mao Tse-tung's Last Great Battle." Prairie Fire reappeared. Then it was time for the main event, an address by Robert Avakian, chairman of the Central Committee. He walked across the stage carrying a briefcase. Avakian, -'a small man whose head barely rose above the speaker's podium, cleared his throat and shouted in a giant voice, reiterating the slogans and Chinese-style imprecations previously hurled at China's leaders. He attacked Hua Kuo- fong, Chou En-lai, Lia Piao and Liu Shao-chi and described with special vehemence "the stink emanating from 'Teng Hsiao- ping." The chairman again recounted the sell-out of the Chinese people, going into every deeper detail, finding ever more deviations from the current communist line. He denounced "goulash communism" and advocated "meat-and-potatoes commun- ism." He spoke more than three hours, while many people shifted in their chairs and others filed out of the auditorium. In those three hours, Avakian scarcely mentioned American working people. He never mentioned the changing social and economic conditions of the United States. He never related China's current turmoil to the American reality just outside. He wanted justice for Albania. So it had come to this. Albania, supposedly carrying the unsullied veil of Marxism- Leninism like a sacred relic in a corrupt world. Albania and Mao Tse-tung. Thomas Brom is News Service editor. a Pacific I i I El Letters to "i The Daily To the Daily: As a somewhat more than passive observer of politics in the College of LSA; the September 12 Daily article, "LSA Faculty Off 5% Since 1973" deserves examination. At this month's meeting of the Governing Faculty, Dean Frye described faculty affirmative action policies with the terms: "totally inadequate," "inexcusable," and "I am very disappointed at this rate of change." While I am in total agreement with Dean Frye in regards to the results of faculty affirmative action within LSA, his identification of the problem has left several important points untouched. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Dean Frye's comments was the lack of a firm statement committing the minorities, an astounding 15 departments emply a grand total of zero. That this should be the case six years after the University filed an affirmative action report to the Federal Government is truely "inexcusable." Why should this be the case? Dean Frye attributes the failure of faculty affirmative action to declining state revenues and a lack of qualified applicants. 'In the Report however, the "historic tendency - to leave women and minorities off tenure track postions" is cited on page 82; hiring has a tendency to employ these groups into non-tenure positions or not at all. Looking back to the projected figures based upon the availability of these groups to be hired, the 1972 Report is indeed revealing. From nrnantrl i ioul,,,'na frnm' be used as an excuse for almost anything at the University, and faculty affirmative action is only one such example. And as long as the tenure decision-making process remains solely within the hands of LSA departments, I am afraid Dean Frye will be "disappointed" when the results of the next Report come out. I would contend that until the time that students are able to participate in the tenure process as voting members, the decisions will continue to exclude the promotion of women, minorities, and outspoken individuals, such as Joel Samoff. And why should students be excluded? Article XIII of the most recent Report (written by President Fleming himself) states: The University will continue to co- operate and to work with other tinvSarmmont nonripand rnmun i s group"-able to. vote in tenure decisons for the "mutual commitment" to affirmative action, for this is policy which has a great impact in the LSA classrooms. Without a firm commitment to faculty affirmative action; LSA students will receive an education which is less innovative, diverse and motivating; an education which will be limited in terms of experiences and approaches offered. For students with an interest in the education they should receive and take the time to visit Dean Frye's open office hours (Wednesdays, 1:30-3, 2522 LSA Bldg.) to discuss these and other policies. To get an idea of the political nature of the College, stop by a Governing Faculty meeting (the first Monday of each month, 4:10 p.m. in Angell Avie] Al r ,n4% by .. T QA r RAFSHOOM G D Una IMA$g CE , , -.Ofd i ; = !