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.

November 04, 1979 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1979-11-04

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

Page 4-Sunday, November 4, 1979-The Michigan Daily

Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom
Vol. LXXXX, No. 52 News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Army denies gay rights

A KONG-STANDING policy of the
U.S. Army holds that service in
the military is incompatible with
homosexual orientation. Aside from
being out-dated and based on archaic
values, that policy needlessly
discriminates against the segment of
society still blatantly subject to
discrimination - the homosexual
community.
As a result, Private First Class
Roger Cutsinger, an Army clerk-typist
for two years, was suddenly deemed
unfit for military service. Nothing in
his record in that two year time led to
the decision to discharge Cutsinger a
year ahead of time. No one questioned
Cutsinger's qualifications, dedication,
or ability. He was kicked out of the
Army for the sole reason that he was a
homosexual, and he chose to admit it.
That Cutsinger was discharged only
after admitting he was gay in itself un-
derscores the irony of his case. Cut-
singer admitted his own
homosexuality after two years in the
service only in an attempt to help a
homosexual friend enlist. All Cutsinger
was trying to do in his admission was
to make himself the case-study, to tell
the Army, in essence, "Hey, I'm gay
and I've turned out all right."
The Army could have looked at Cut-
singer as an example of a good soldier
who had proven himself in his record,
and who also happened to be a
homosexual. That view might have led
to a re-evaluation of the current
discriminatory policy. That view

might have led the Army brass to con-
clude that homosexuality does not af-
fect a soldier's performance, with Cut-
singer as the case-in-point. That's what
Cutsinger was hoping for.
But instead, the Army chose to seize
on Cutsinger's admission of
homosexuality and use it to throw
him out of the military. Cutsinger's
admission, a true act of bravado to aid
a homosexual friend and all
homosexuals in the military, was sud-
denly turned against him, and he was
confronted with the sad realization
that even in this supposedly intellec-
tual and modern society, old taboos
and. senseless discriminatory values
still outweigh reasonableness and
rationality.
Despite all the talk of a greater toler-
ance in this decade, homophobia - the
senseless fear of gay persons - is still
as prevalent as ever. The Army's ex-
plicit policy of banning gays from the
military is a throwback to-these old
ungrounded fears, as such
discrimination comes from the same
mentality that brought us the Salem
witch hunts and the 1950s Red Scare.
The only difference with fear and
discrimination against homosexuals is
that it is not a passing trend of any
given decade, and, with attitudes like
those influencing the policy of the U.S.
Army - the institution that broke the
color barrier in the 1950s by in-
\ tegrating soldiers - prospects for
homosexuals unfortunately still look
bleak.

AP Photo
in Washington. Can they gain another chance to fulfill the campaign
promises of 1976?

President Carter and Vice-Presidend Mondale stand together during a
fund-raiser dinner held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel Wednesday night

Honest Jimmy Carter- has

. ', K

broken campaign,

promises

s .%.q-q .-
t~v5 4O) UCLYw4a~bflN ~U)ENVo.Y
TIE BAJ~0%Ot.~~Pe,4*4G

Whatever his critics say about
his lack of leadership or mishan-
dling of the federal bureaucracy,
there is little dispute that Jimmy
Carter is an honest man. He may
not be able to get along with
Congress, but he tells the
American people the truth.
Nobody can criticize him about
that the pundits say.
Wrong. A simple analysis of the
Carter administration's record
reveals that the former peanut
farmer has violated the trust and
confidence of the nation by
breaking numerous campaign
promises. In both domestic and
foreign policy affairs, the chief
executive has retreated from the
shaky ground he campaigned on
in his political coup of 1976.
RISING FROM nowhere,
"Jimmy Who?" captivated the
hearts of many Americans on
both sides of the ideological spec-
trum by promising almost
everything. It was old-fashioned
evangelism. Criss-crossing the
nation in remarkable speed, the
born-again Baptist resembled a
new hope for Americans, a chan-
ce to escape from the inflation ills
and develop a new and better
society. Along the way, he told us
a few things he would do as our
leader. One by one, though, he's
forgotten those promises, or
decided they weren't important-
anymore.
It can be safely said that every
president - even the most
popular ones - breaks campaign
promises. It's almost'impossible
to avoid it. The country changes
and the president has the respon-
sibility to adapt to the changing
times.
But what is unique about this
president's broken promises is
that much of his campaign
rhetoric was centered around his
pledge to restore trust in the
federal government. Jimmy Car-
ter said he was an outsider
determined to revive confidence
in the American people toward its

leadership. After Vietnam and
Watergate, the country needed
someone it could trust in the
White House. He said he was that
man.
THIS PIOUS A)ND self-
righteous philosophy became the
dominant theme of his incredible
run for the presidency. climaxed
in his famous pledge "to never
tell a lie."
But unlike George Washington,
Jimmy Carter told us a lot of lies.
First, he told us that any of his
cabinet officers who either inten-
tionally misled the populace, or
violate normal ethical standards
in their posts, would be forced to
resign. No more John Mitchells,
Earl Butzes, or Spiro Agnews.
This was to be a new and respon-
sible administration that
wouldn't tolerate mischievous
conduct.
YET, WHEN IT came to a
decision to kick out his old friend,
Bert Lance, or keep his campaign
promise, Jimmy Carter opted for
the former. Lance, the director of
the budget office, had been ac-
cused of violating countless
banking procedures while chief
executive officer of the National
Bank of Georgia. Furthermore,
there was evidence showing the
Georgia banker 'had acted im-
properly to assist friends in his
new powerful position.
For weeks, the president
refused to budge. He expressed
his deep confidence in Lance's
innocence, and resisted staff
pressures to fire him. In the end,
however, Lance took the only
available option, and left the
government.
Another one of Carter's key
campaign slogans revolved
around the need to trim the fat
federal bureaucracy. lie

promised to cut the amount of
federal agencies from 1,900 to
200, similar to the cutbacks he
made as governor of Georgia. As
Carter learned the intricacies of
his new job, he found out that cut-
ting the bureaucracy would be
almost impossible. He has suc-
ceeded in small areas here and
there, but generally, Carter has
failed to rid the nation of the ex-
cess agencies grabbing the tax-
payers' money.
NO DOUBT HIS second most
ambitious - an unrealistic -
proposal was to cut five to seven
billion dollars from the defense
budget. In a September speech on
the campaign trail in Springfield,
III., the candidate said he was.
tired of excessive defense spen-
ding.
"There is so much waste and
mis-management in the Defense
Department that must be
removed. I will do that," he told
the crowd.
It's funny that once-he became
president, Carter completely
reversed himself. Suddenly, he
began calling for substantial in-
creases in defense spending
amounting to about an annual
three per cent rise. Noting his
past promises, Carter said the
U.S. is still the number one power
in the world, but that the Soviets
were gaining rapidly. A defense
increase, he insisted, was
necessary to maintain the balan-
ce of power.
IN ADDITION, Carter pledged
that if elected, he would with-
draw all American combat troops
from Korea. South Korea, he
said, had built up its armed for-
ces well enough so that an
American presence there was no
longer essential.
In this case, he reiterated his
position several times soon after

By Michael Arkush.

assuming office. But again he
changed his mnd, arguing that.
removal of American forces may'>
provoke the North Koreans to,.
launch an invasion on South.
Korea.
Finally, Carter the candidate
represented a new hope for.
women, blacks and minorities.
He promised to include many of
them in his new administration to
insure that their rights are
safeguarded. By picking Juanita
Kreps and Andrew Young, the
president sought to satisfy his
black and women constituents. A
careful look at his record will
show that he installed more
representatives of minorities in
his administration than most past
presidents, but many less than he
seemed to promise.
ALSO, BY increasing the
defense budget at the expense of
social service programs, the
president alienated many black.
and minority voters. They were
infuriated because they suffer the
most when special welfare and
social service programs are
eliminated.
As a result, many influential
black leaders have recently .
shown their preference for Sen.
Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), in
the upcoming battle for the
Democratic nomination for the
presidency.
These broken promises come to
mind now because the Carter
game plan is clearly to run on the ',
president's record. His staff f
believes the chief executive has
done the best job possible, and
has basically kept to his pledges
of 1976.
While attacking the president's
lack of leadership and firm direc-
tion, his critics have failed to
point out his sharp turnabouts in '
both domestic and foreign policy.
The president has lied to us,
and weshouldn'tforget it.
Michael Arkush is Co-
Director of the Daily's
Editorial Page.
ecy
44
'4"'
k,
raeli Prime Minister Menachem
ds 14 months ago.

Camp David Accords still clouded in

secri

What are the Camp David Accords?
We know they took place at Camp
David, which is a retreat for U.S.
presidents. We know that President
Sadat was there and we know that
President Carter was there, and Prime
Minister Begin. We even saw it on T.V.
But what is in the Camp David Accor-
ds?
Nobody knows. Ask your senator to
send you a copy of the Camp David Ac-
cords, and see if you get one. You won't.
Because this so-called peace treaty is
TOP SECRET. Ae are not supposed to
know about it, just as the people living
in Israel are not supposed to know
about it. In Israel, people are not even
supposed to read the full, incensored
memoirs of their own ex-Prime
Minister, Yitzhak Rabin;
"We walked outside, Ben Gurion
accompanying us. (Yigal) Allon
repeated his question: 'What is to be
'.4 'a, , ,,,,,,,u,,,;n, ' /Rn,

This section of the censored memoirs
was buried in the Oct. issue of the New
York Times. You see, in Israel, Rabin,
Ben Gurion and Allon are the
"moderates." They are the men of
peace. Their other side is: TOP
SECRET.
Just like the Camp David Accords are
top secret. Despite all the hue and cry
about Palestinians being conspirators,
etc., etc., it is to them that we must turn -
if' we want to find out what the Camp
David Accords are. For the hundreds of
thousands of Arabs evacuated from
Southern Lebanon because of the
Israeli bombing raids going on there,
the Camp David Accords are not top
secret. They are living reality.
SO WHAT ARE the Camp David Ac-
cords? Are they the weekly curfews
placed on Arab villages in the West
Bank, and the "accidental" killings of
Arab children by the Israeli occupation
forces during the curfew? These are not

By Denis Hoppe

the occasional suspected high school
student-these are duly recorded in the
press, the uncensored Arabic langiage
press on the West Bank is thus a daily
list of the names, date of arrest and
discharge, of hundreds of West Bank
Arabs, mostly school children, far-
mers, parttime workers. The one or two
who manage to get word out to France,
or the U.S., may take the pages of Am-
nesty International's Urgent Action let-
ters or the campaigns of the Palestine
Human Rights Committee. But these
are not the Camp David Accords, I
don't think. These are people.
So what are the Camp David Accor-
ds? I won't give them away to you. Ob-
viously President Carter wants to keep
them as a surprise. We wouldn't want to

Accords. Is the Dimona Reactor in the
Camp David Accords? Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were top secrets, too. What
Accords were they in? Is the recent
South African nuclear "event," as it is
delicately called, in the Camp David
Accords?
Shouldn't we find out what is in the
Camp David Accords? Or shall we sit
and wait. . . until, I would say, next
June? We have some idea of the rate of
U.S.-made weapons being dropped on
Lebanon, from the recent visits to that
area by Jesse Jackson, Rep. Paul Fin-
dley, Rev. Joseph Lowery, Walter E.
Fauntroy, and others. At this rate of'
bombing, and by comparison with other
TOP SECRET accords that led to wars
in the Middle East (1948, 1956, 1967,

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Ist
Begin hug after signing Camp David Accor

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan