100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

September 15, 1979 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1979-09-15

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page 4--Saturday, September 15, 1979-The Michigan Daily
1+y Ya rEFQ
Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom

Interview with Editor Knoll

Vol. LXXXX, No. 9
Edited a

News Phone: 764-0552

nd managed by students at the University of Michigan

Passing uj must end

F OR YEARS now the practice of
passing women up through the
stands at football games has been the
most unfortunate tradition at Michigan
Stadium.-Despite annual protests from
women, \campus groups, and Univer-
sity officials, there are still too many
people who believe that it is socially
acceptable to molest unwilling women
in this manner.
In the drunken, boisterous at-
mosphere of the football game, some
people may think it is less serious to
violate the rights of others, but the fact
remains that such an act is clearly one
of violence against women.
. Not only can being passed up be a
degrading experience, it also can be
physically dangerous. In past years,
one woman had a blouse torn com-
pletely off, another broke her leg after
being dropped on the steps, and, most
recently at last Saturday's game, one
woman's arm was severely injured,
possibly permanently, all in the name
of "good fun."
And aside from the physical dgnger
- as many women endure the agony
physically uninjured - the "passing"
exerts an eve i more serious mental
and emotional toll. The woman is
reduced to nothing more than an ob-
ject, literally, to be tossed around like
the football qn the field. The anxiety

women suffer at not being able to sit
through a football game, or to walk up
the aisles, without the fear of being
grabbed and subjected to the clawing,
groping hands and the potential danger
of being dropped is unreasonable.
Those who pay lip service to
women't rights and human dignity
must not let themselves be lulled into
believing that this unpleasant and
sexually degrading act is permissible
as long as it's in the stadium.
To the woman being passed up, the
experience is no more excusable than
if she were grabbed in the middle of
her history of art lecture and passed up
over the projector.
Clearly, not every man who par-
ticipates in this practice is a demented
psychopath. Although some men un-
doubtedly find a cheap sexual thrill in
asserting their dominance over women
by grabbing a kicking and screaming
victim and subjecting her to the
trauma of being clawed and pinched by
strangers, the majority simply do not
understand the severity of their offen-
ce.
It is time for enlightened students to
assist in putting a stop to this un-
pleasant and dangerous practice.
Everyone must respect the rights and
dignities of women both in the stadium
and out, and do his or her best to assure
that other spectators do the same.

q>
*.
A.

Daily Photo by LISA UDELSON Daily Photb by LISA UDELSON
Progressive editor Knoll (left) and the 1979 issue of the magazine explaining the story behind the bomb article.

-a __ _ .. __,. .,, ,.. ... ., .. __ - ...

South Africa's new nation'

AT MIDNIGHT Thursday, to thee
booming of a 21-gun salute, a new
nation was proclaimed. Venda, an area
of'320,000 inhabitants and half the size
of Connecticut, became the third
region of black South Africa to be gran-
ted independence.
Independence for Venda is part of
the racist South African regime's
master plan to permanently reduce the
black presence in South Africa to a
scant 13 per cent of the land area of
that country, reserving the remaining
87 per cent of the land for the whites to
practice their particularly oppressive
brand of systematic racism. That plan
calls for the creation of 10 such black
states, which will be independent in
name only while remaining
economically dependent on the
economic dictates of Johannesburg.
Thus, there is little cause .for
rejoicing in the creation of this new
black African "nation." The South
African plan is a farce designed to fur-
ther the goal of white supremacy, and
the country which they allege is
separate is nothing more nor less than

an extension of a polic'y of repression.
South Africa's blacks make up over
three-quarters of the popu htion, and to
give up one-thirteenth of the land area
is no concession for a reactionary'
minority that has inhumanely subjec-
ted the dominant majority there to
a form of de facto slavery. And blacks
must demonstrate that they will not be
satisfied with the bone being thrown
them by their white oppressors.
So far, neither the United States nor
any other government has recognized
South Africa's newest little "indepen-
dent" puppet. The administration's
State Department spokesman rightly
suggested that the creation of Venda
'does not constitute a viable solution"
to the racial problems of South Africa.
Venda must never be recognized, for
to do so would be to give tacit approval
to South Africa's policy of separate,
racial development. The only racial
development in South Africa that can
be recognized by moral, legitimate
governments is racial development
that puts the black majority in charge
of . its own destiny.

The following is taken from
a Daily interview yesterday
with Erwin Knoll, editor of
Progressive magazine. The
magazine has been prohibited
by a U. S. district court from
publishing an article about
how to construct a hydrogen
bomb.
Q. Why does the government
persist in making this'a case
here? Why don't they want this
article to be published?
A. Let me first stress that I'm
only speculating. I don't really
know why the government is
doing this. I know there has
always been some feelings
among members of the executive
branch that they would like to
have an official secrets act to
allow them to exercise prior
restraint. The Congress of the
United States has never been
willing to grant that power to the
government, and it is not willing
to dQ thatnow. The other way to
do that, is. to ;get legislation-
through the courts.
When the government moved
against the New York Times and
the Washington Post in the Pen-
tagon Papers case in 1971, that
was what they were trying to do.
They were trying to get the courts
to certify that the government
had that power of prior restraint,
and of course the. government
lost. Maybe they felt that they
could in this case because it is an
emotionally charged issue of
nuclear secrets, that they could
win against a small onscure
magazine in the midwest what
they couldn't win against two of
America's great newspapers. If
that is the motive, we are very
determined to prove them wrong.
The second reason is that the
government is interested in
preserving its mystique of
secrecy. That is what Howard
Morland's article is all about. It
exposes as a hoax the secrecy the
government has been invoking
for a third of a century with
respect to the whole nuclear
program. It says there is no basis
for secrecy, because the so-called
secrets are known to thousands of
people. The government is

determined to protect its
monopoly of information so that
it can exclude the public from
debate and decision-making.
Q. If the government is so in-
tent on keeping this monopoly,
why are so many of these
documents obtained by your
reporter not kept classified?
A. They do try to keep them
classified but they're wholely
inept. Somebody said when
everything is secret, nothing is
secret and that is really the way
it works. The government is so
obsessed with secrecy. It
classifies everything, so much
that it really doesn't know what
it's doing. The Department if
Energy admits to classifying
some 20,000 publications a year.
When something is stamped
secret, nobody knows what is
secret and what isn't. You can
have two different officers sitting
in the same room. One can stamp
something secret and the other
can stamp the same thing
declassified. The standards are
so arbitrary that they are con-
_ stantly making mistakes, and we
are provipg in this case how
many mistakes they have made
and how many things they
thought were secret that they
themselves had actually
declassified some years ago.
Q. What would happen if this
so-called hoax of secrecy about
the nuclear weapons industry
was exposed to the American
public?
A. I think the nuclear arms
race is a catastrophic enterprise
that endangers the survival of
every human being. I hope that if
people knew all the facts about it;
they would actively be trying to
stop it. I could be mistaken about
that but I'm villing to take my
chance with the democratic
process. I say let people under-
stand the facts, and if they arrive
at different conclusions from
mine, I can live with that. But I
want them to have those facts,
not to be kept in the dark and told
by the government that you can't
know what we - know and
therefore must trust us.
Q. Do you think the whole
question of prior restraint has
become more important than the
specifics of the case?

A. I think the implications of
the case reach the rights, the
freedom and maybe the survival
of every American. -
Q.Do you think the government
really believes that the
publishing of this article would
endanger national security?
A. They can't possibly believe
that because their own scientists
know that its a lie. There are
nuclear scientists who work for
the government who have given
us affidavits supporting
publishing this article.
Q. Do you believe that prior
restraint could be invoked at any
time by the government? .
A. I think prior restraint is a
most dangerous notion. Its a
great threat to democracy
because in prior restraint, people
are automatically deprived of the
right to judge the government's
action for themselves. I can tell
you why the article should be
published and the government
should tell you why=it shouldn't be
published. But the point is you
shouldn't have to believe me or"
the government. You should bet
,able to Judge it for yourself.
I would never entrust the state
to decide what the people can or
can not do.
Q. I know you are in the middle of
an extensive tour around the
nation to bring your case to the
people. How have they reacted?
A. I have found a great deal of
sympathy and strong support but
there is one element of the reac-
tion that really disturbs me. I
have had the experience time and
time again where people have
come up to me and agreed with us
but said that there is nothing they
can do. Now I find that response
to be immensely depressing, that
sense of helplessness that people
have. We're supposed to .have
control over our own lives and
destinies. That sense of
hopelessness is the one aspect of
this case that worries me the
most, because we live in terribly
dangerous times where decisions
are made every day that can
determine whether we live or die.
We have to get people to once
again take charge of their lives.
Q. Some have speculated that
the magazine did this inten-
tionally to acquire additional

1-
subscriptions. Has the magazine-
been able to increase readership
and get more money?
A. The magazine has taken ar
incredible beating as a result of"%
this case. There is no way that e
magazine like ours can make
money from an exercise like this.
If the Progressive were a
magazine available at newsstand
ds everywhere and at gas'
stations, bus stations, then
preseumably people would read
it out of curiosity. But our"
magazine is not on the newsstan*
ds. We get most.of our readers
through subscriptions. We have
spent over $150,000 on this case.
We have got money through
donations but we are losing a lot.
Q. Do you think the magazine's'
traditional liberal policies- will
have any effect on the court'st
decision?
A. I hope it will have no effect.
But whether it will or won't have'
some impact is up to the courts.
Q. There is a recent pile of anti
press decisions handed down by
the Supreme Court. There is the'
Stanford Daily decisioi, the
Myron Farber case and others:
Have these cases- already had
some kind of effect on how the
media functions?
A. I think you'll be surprised b-
the ansewr, because a lot of those
I don't regard as anti-press
decisions. They are more serious'
than that. The Stanford Daily
case is an excellent example. It isi
an infringement on the rights of
every American, because it in-
volves search warrant against'
people who are not accused oi
suspected of any crime. The
press should be protesting that.'
not as an outrage against the'
press, but as an outrage against
everyone. I don't think the
problem is that the courts are
whittling away at the rights of the'
press. The problem is that the
courts are whittling away at they
rights of all of us, as individual
citizens. That is the real danger.-
Q. And finally, how do you plaWi
to operate the case in the cour:
troom?
A. So far, we haven't called any:
witnesses. But we won't hesitate;
to call Vance, Harold Brown and:
others who have signed affidavits
to explain their case.

I=A kE OF~7

I"

REBATE4'L
CARNIVAL

--.*-

"- ;{
i
!'
'
:'
,
:
?:

!ll

3 s
NOTRE pAME
TUFT 6NIFtEp INTO
Tff6IR ZONE
T?6FS .
t t THE.
NE8ACAI - Ler s
ts
'DRaPiltNF, SA0<.
n

'Tt)Uc $r-o4 E ou ' "
-(f6 ifD lU '
o&~1TAT~oD

Weasel

By Robert Lence

J. r.

Lopp O~F Ina ntone Y M E

(T I;PvRTS IK
you Wk~o RUIN
TAE GAME

. _ _

i e Mictigan at-itt

Letters:

EDITORIAL STAFF
Sue Warner ............................ EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Richard Berke. Julie Rovner...........MANAGING EDITORS
Michael Arkush, Keith Richburg ..... EDITORIAL DIRECTORS
Brian Blanchard .................UNIVRSITY EDITOR

SPORTS STAFF
GEOFF LARCOM ...................... ....... Sports Editor
BILLY SAHN ....... ............. Executive Sports Editor
BILLY NEFF ......................... Managing sports Editor
DAN PERRIN......................... Managing Sports Editor
PUnHnC.R APHV QTAFF I

To the Daily:
On March 16, 1978, the Univer-
sity Board of Regents was con-
fronted by 18 speakers and 500
members of the University com-
,.t? rinu il and1 m -

legal rights. In the remaining 13
per cent, blacks do have neither
human rights nor jobs.
To offset criticism, the Regents
included such statements as:
"The Regnts helieve that the

Regents to promote progressive
social change through companies
in which it is a stockholder. Un-
fortunately, such has not been the
case.
In July of this year, the General

corporations can provide a lever
for positive 'social change in
South Africa. The history of apar-
theid however, has produced t a
serious contradiction: for U.S.
enmnanies onerating in South

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan