Page 4-Tuesday, February 7, 1978-The Michigan Daily
~bc3irimjn 1Bai
Eighty-Eight Years of Editorial Freedom
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Vol. LXXXV11I, No. 106
News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
AXing RAs for doper
" ARIJUANA USE ought not be a highly of Arnson's performance as an
matter of police concern. It RA:
should be a matter of personal choice, One RA summed the case up well:
not of public policy. "It just wasn't a fair way to deal with it
Ann Arbor voters endorsed this view at all."
of marijuana use when they voted in the But Eric Arnson's firing is more
$5 fine ordinance in April, 1974. than an individual tragedy. It is also
Rules or statutes making pot use il- one piece in the picture of a dorm direc-
legal do much harm and no good. The tor trying to crack down on the personal
recent firing of Eric Arnson from his ' behavior of dorm residents and silence
job as resident advisor in Bursley Hall the student voice in staff selection
illustrates this well. decisions.
Building Director Tod Hanson axed According to numerous resident staff
Arnson after receiving reports the RA members and applicants for future RA
arranged for a minor drug transaction positions in Bursley, director Hanson
between two dorm residents. The tab has cut back on the student voice in RA
came to $4, on which Arnson made no selection and has taken over much of
profit at all. the process himself.
We fail tosee how the charges made In addition, Hanson seems to be
against Arnson merit the drastic action carrying out a crack-down on. staff
which the dorm director took. Arnson's marijuana use. This will have the effect
conduct had no real bearing on his per- of either isolating RAs from other
formance as a resident staff member. students or forcing them into secrecy
In fact, Arnson's job record seems to and deceit.
be quite good. Arnson was a vocal opponent of
He really brought the floor these policies. Now, based on a.flimsy
together," one student said of him. pretext, that dissenting voice has been
Other residents on Arnson's floor and silenced. The losers are the residents of
other Bursley staff members also spoke Bursley.
Seafarer haunts the U.P.

The other bigots on campus

As well-rounded and worldly
university students, we like to
think of ourselves as somehow
more enlightened, less narrow-
minded than the average clod-in-
the-street. Not a day goes by
around here that somebody
doesn't thankhis lucky stars he's
in liberal Ann Arbor, far from
those dumb rednecks, back in
Escanaba or Alpena.
That's hardly fair, however.
And hardly true. Nobody - and
no place - has a monopoly on
bigotry. The University com-
munity has its own strictly ob-
served set of "right" and
"wrong" opinions, and those who
disagree with the accepted view
of things do so at their peril.
WE'VE ALL witnessed instan-
ces where some poor devil has
had the bad judgment to suggest
in a classroom discussion that
abortion might be immoral, or
that capital punishment should
be reestablished. At best, such
remarks are likely to be greeted
with patronizing smiles or frozen
silence - at worst, they can bring
ridicule and social ostracism..
Last Tuesday, during a Univer-
sity-sponsored "Forum on Cor-
porate Investments in South
Africa," a representative of the
white minority South Africa gov-
ernment was heckled and abused
by University students,attimes
to the point where he was unable
to make himself heard.
A group calling itself the "Ad
Hoc Committee Against Debate
with Apartheid Murderers" took
credit for having planned and ex-
ecuted the disturbance. With the
smug satisfaction of people who
know with absolute certainty that
they - and only they - are in the
right, the members of this group
took it upon themselves to deter-
mine what the students of the
University of Michigan were
going to listen to.
IT IS BAD ENOUGH that such
an act 'of wanton imbecility
should be committed anywhere
at all. But that it should take
place on the campus of a great
university, where tolerance and
free discussion are still supposed
to be held in some esteem, is both
tragic and frightening.
To be sure, intolerance has
raised its scaly head on college
campuses before; dozens of sim-
ilar incidents from the antiwar
years, for instance, come readily
to mind. But there are certain,

By Mike Norton

for a Militant Graduate Em-
ployees Organization. and the
Washtenaw County Coalition
Against Apartheid) are the vic-
tims of their own simplistic ideol-
ogies, in which everyone is either
a Good Guy or a Bad Guy- and
only Good Guys have the right to
express their opinions. (They're
not alone, either; it is an attitude
ruefully common these days.)
But when the world is divided
between Us and Them, when
some people are given the right to
speak while others are denied
that right, democracy is reduced
to a pious and meaningless catch-
word. The mentality demonstra-
ted by the Ad Hoc Committee is
that shown by the Nixon White
House when it lashed out blindly
at theslightest hint of
disagreement; moreover, it is the
mentality of the present govern-
ment of South Africa.
What, after all, did the Ad Hoc
Committee have to fear from
Deon Erasmus? Were they afraid
he would somehow mesmerize
the students of this university in-
to supporting his heartless re-
gime? That is hardly likely. As
John Milton observed some 300
years ago, the truth is a tough old
girl; she's never been beat yet in
a fair fight. And silencing free
discussion of the situation in
South Africa would in no conceiv-
able way serve the interests of
that country's oppress~d black
majority.
PEOPLE SILENCE other
peoplefor only one reason -
because they find disagreement
of any kind unbearable. Such
people cannot stand to think that
others have not Seen The Light as
they have; in every voice of dis-
sent they hear a challenge to the
validity of their own beliefs that
drives them wild with rage.
Quite simply, that is just not a
reasonable and sane way of
coping with reality.
We're probably all intolerant to
one degree or another, of course.
But we must take great pains to
recognize bigotry for what it is:
the defense of feeble and fos-
silized minds. Moreover, we must
recognize the members of the Ad
Hoc Committee - andd althose
who would stifle free debate -
for what they are.

features about the South African
situation that illustrate the
- stupidity of last week's fiasco
particularly well.
The most outrageous act of the
South African government, after
all, has been its ruthless sup-
pression of political dissent.
Those who have dared to
challenge the policies of the white
regime have been hounded,
jailed, tortured, even killed -
and it is this naked, brutal use of
power to silence opposition that
has horrified the civilized world
and made South Africa an outlaw
among nations.
BUT LET US BE as honest as
we can, if only for a moment.
What is the difference between
the South African government's
efforts to destroy free speech in
Soweto or Johannesburg and the
attempts of a gang of hoodlums to
suppress open debate in Ann Ar-
bor? Surely it is a mere differ-
ence of degree - for the same ut-
terly contemptible principle is

involved in both cases.
To be sure, the disruption of
last week's discussion is not quite
the same thing as the cold-blood-
ed murder of a black leader like
Steve Biko. Yet it clearly springs
from the same twisted motives
and, left unchecked, can lead
only to the same terrible end.
The young crusaders who
booed and chanted when South
African representative Deon
Erasmus stood up to speak have
short memories. They forget, for
instance, that during the Forties,
Fifties and early Sixties it was
leftists and civil rights agitators
who were jeered from the podi-
ums of many American universi-
ties. They forget that free speech
is a right guaranteed, to everyone
- even those with unpopular
views.
IN A WAY, the Ad Hoc Com-
mittee and its member organiza-
tions (the Spartacus Youth
League, Clericals for a
Democratic Union, Committee

THE CITIZENS of Michigan's Up-
per Peninsula have a lot to
worry about. The Navy's infamous
Project Seafarer has made its way into
news again, this time because of yet
another reversal on White House
policy by President Carter.
During his campaign for President,
Jimmy Carter gave his word that a
multi-million dollar communications
system would not be constructed in the
U.P. if the residents up there didn't
want it. But last week, ,viewing the
Project under new light in his role as
President, Jimmy Carter "qualified"
his pledge, saying that while he is
"very committed to be sure -that
nothing is done to disturb the quality of
life of the people there," the huge
communications system would, in fact,
be a pet project of his administration.
The obvious point here is that Carter
has once again compromised on a vital
promise. This has come to be expected
of the man in recent months, unfor-
tunately, and it has become passe to
get upset about Jimmy's broken cam-
paign pledges.
Another point which is quickly
falling from popular espousal is that
projects like Seafarer bloat an already
overbloated defense budget. It is tiring
People to charge Carter with reversing
1's pledge to cut defense spen-
ding-and apparently it is useless to
nake this charge, as well. The Carter
hdministration has announced that the
J.S. needs more defense now, not less.
The question too, of whether or not
Seafarer is really needed seems to be
forever sitting in the laps of military
knen. They are lobbying successfully in
Washington to keep the project alive.
And the debate continues over
Whether or not extra-low frequency

. radiation from the specially-powered
Seafarer cables (which would criss-
cross the U.P.) would be harmful to the
delicate environment there. Acco'rding
to U.S. Congressman Phillip Ruppe,
who represents people in the U.P., the
Navy has ignored much of the data
linking the Seafarer Project to ill
heath effects on animals and people.
So, truly, the people of the U.P. are
in trouble. The Navy has broken
promises, the federal government has
broken promises and even President-
Carter has broken promises on the
question of whether Seafarer should be
developed.
No statements have officially come
out yet which pinpoint Michigan's U.P.
as the ultimate location for
Seafarer-but Seafarer is now a very
viable project. Carter has allocated
$40.5 million in 1979 for its develop-
ment.
The fact that Seafarer was on its way
out before Carter became President
and now appears to be back on its way
in as a renewed initiative doesn't say
much for the President's pledge to
follow what the people of the U.P. say.

Mike Norton
managing editor

is a former
of the Daily.

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Sadat attempts to bully Israelis

zhe mt-rhigtttt atttlv

EDITORIAL STAFF
Editors-in-chief

GREGG KRUPA

DAVID GOODMAN

Managing Editors
EILEEN DALEY............. ............University
LANI JORDAN .................................... City
LINDA WILLCOX .......................... Features/Projects
BARBARA ZAHS................................. Personnel
KEN PARSIGIAN
Editorial Director
BOB ROSENBAUM
Sunday Magazine Editors
PATTY MONTEMURRI TOM O'CONNELL

To The Daily:
In response to your editorial of
January 20, I believe it is of the
utmost importance that the press
not be taken in by Egyptian
President Sadat's rhetoric about
alleged Israeli intransigence as
the Daily has been.
Mr. Sadat's raving about an
Israeli "obsession" with land is
just that: raving.
Contrary to what Mr. Sadat
may claim, and the press accept,
the Israelis have not displayed an
uncompromising position on the
return of land during the negotia-
tions between Egypt and Israel. ,
Israel has offered to return all
of theSinai andrthe West Bank
with very minor modifications.
All this despite the experience of
1956 when Israel returned to
Egypt the Sinai, from where ter-
rorists launched- attacks against
the civilian population of Israel,
for foreign guarantees of securi-
ty. When the time came for those
guarantees to be honored, they
were simply not lived up to and
Israel was forced to take action to
defend herself in June 1967.
Israel has gone out on a limb
and is dealing with Mr. Sadat in
good faith despite the fact that
certain other parties in the area,
such as the Palestine Liberation
Organization and Syria, not only
refuse to deal with Israel as Mr.
Sadat has, but also have con-
demned Mr. Sadat and his negoti-
ations with Israel as treasonous.
And in return what has Israel
been offered? Mr. Sadat has
"shook the world" by meeting
face-to-face with Israel, some-.
thing Israel has been asking for
for the last thirty years.
Mr. Sadat has declared that he
has given Israel "legitimacy and
security." First, lest Mr. Sadat
forget, Israel's legitimacy does
not depend on his acceptance of
the reality and right of the
existence of the State of Israel.
Israel's existence was legitimate
before Mr. Sadags recognition of

Egypt and Israel to simply fur-
ther their struggle against Israel.
For sure Mr. Sadat has made a
major step towards real peace in
the area. But his recent attempt
at bullying Israel into an agree-
ment is not the kind of diplomacy
needed to solve the Mideast con-
flict. His act of calling home his
delegation was not an act of bold-
ness; as the Daily portrayed it,
rather it was an act of impatience
- very foolish and dangerous im;
patience with a process of deli-
cate negotiations which must,
and will, take time.
- Victor Allan Kay
"
the Israeli role
To The Daily:
Storms and sickness have pre-
vented a prompt response to your
editorial of January 20th dealing
with the breakdown in the Middle
East peace talks. While being
responsive to current events, the
editorial neglects to mention
sompe very relevant concerns.
For thirty years all the political
leaders of Israel, including fac-
tions of the left and the right,,
desperately strove for peace with
their Arab neighbors. No one
credited Israel for her peace ef-
forts. The Arabs, on the other
hand, maintained their hard line,
and therefore President Sadat's
brave words were truly a
pleasant surprise. Yet his con-
ditions for a peace agreement did
not depart from the traditonal
Arab stance. He insisted on the
return of all the 'occupied' ter-
ritories, captured by Israel dur-
ing the 1967 War.
These territories are an issue
which was created by Arab
aggression, namely the Egyptian
blockade of Sharm el Sheik and
the Jordanian bombardment,, of
Jerusalem, events which led to
the 1967 War. Territory for the
Palestinians is an issue which
could have been resolved when
the occupied territories were un-
-- sA --, - - - I -.?n v

recently brave and progressive
approach but as a part of Israel's
continuing quest for peace.
There are differences among
Israelis regarding the con-
cessions that it should make in
order to achieve peace. In any
case, Prime Minister Begin's
proposals subsequent to Sadat's
initiative were more generous
than those of previous Israeli
governments. He suggested a
return under certain conditions of
the whole Sinai peninsula, the
only area directly concerning
both countries, and also
suggested granting self-rule for
the west bank as an interim five
year solution for the Palestinian
problem (which leaves to the
Palestinians the decision about
their own self-determination
problem). These suggestions
have been considered generous
by even some doves within Israel
and elsewhere; some experience
politicians claim that Begin ex-
pressed his willingness to give too
much too soon, leaving almost
nothing for further bargaining.
Though everybody in Israel is
glad about the Sadat initiative,
one must bear in mind that when
he first declared his wish towisit
Israel, he also stated that the only
differences between him and
Syria's Assad are tactical. We all
know what the PLO and Syria
want as a comprehensive set-
tlement: they demand Israel to
agree to its self-destruction as a
precondition for any
negotiations. Thus it is most
astonishing to read your com-
pliments of Sadat, and criticism of
Begin, when it was Sadat who
was slow to arrive at a
willingness to negotiate peace
and hasty to break off
negotiations.
While much is 'gained by
Sadat's dramatic action, perhaps
it is time for 'him to lay aside-
drama and allow time for a
natural healing process, enabling
both nations to develop a firm
traditinn of mutual trust which

Daily's newspaper carriers who
actually got the paper "on the
street." Furthermore, they had
to "labor frantically," not in a
well-heated building, but out in
the snow that confounded the Ann
Arbor News, the city plows, the
National Guard, and the Army.
My special thanks go to Bob
Abbott, who had to make the bulk
deliveries by car to the Post Of-
fice, merchants, University
buildings, and all the dorms; and
I would also like to thank every
frostbitten carrier who slogged it
through the snow on foot.
-- John R. Leonard
Daily Circulation.Director
AMArepr
To The Daily:-AMA report
I was horrified and shocked to
read in the Daily that the Ameri-
can Medical Association is
strongly opposing the report of
the Senate Committee on Nutri-
tion. The study, "Dietary Goals
for the United States," recom-
mends a decrease in consumption
of processed sugars, eggs, salt,
and animal fats, and an increase
in consumption of fruits, vegeta-
bles, and whole grain.
The AMA maintains that there
is no proof that diet is related to
disease! It seems to me to be the
height of medical and human ir-
responsibility to counsel people
not to improve their diet because
insufficient"proof" exists. We all
know instinctively that if we ate
better we would be healthier.
Does the AMA want a nation of
better fed, healthier people, or a
nation of people needing the help
of professionals to overcome dis-
eases like cancer, heart disease,
and hypertension?
The AMA said that changing
American eating habits might
lead to economic dislocation. So
might changing smoking and
drinking habits. So might chang-
ing energv consumntion habits.


r I4
h