Page 4-Friday, August 11, 1978-The Michigan Daily m.ilichigan imDAILY Eighty-eight Years of Editorial Freedom 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, Mi. 48109 Vol. LXXXV~I, No. 63-S News Phone: 764-0552 Friday, August 11, 1978 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Smith backtracks DY AGREEING to black majority rule begin- ning January 1, 1979, Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith has tried to convince the world that he has given up his racist ways. We aren't convinced that he has. Tuesday, the biracial interim government headed by Smith outlawed racial discrimination in public places, but excluded hospitals, state schools, and segregated urban housing from the ruling. In other words, they've limited the racism, but they haven't eliminated it. When Smith agreed to meet with black leaders to discuss the possibility of majority rule, some hailed it as a progressive step, which is exactly what Smith wanted. But what many failed to recognize was that Smith had no other choice. He had been forced to the wall by guerrillas in his own country, world opinion, and a loss of support from South African Prime Minister John Vorster. So he made no concession by agreeing to meet with blacks and form an interim government that would eventually give way to majority rule. If he hadn't done it willingly he would likely have faced a bloody revolution. But he showed his true feelings by the restric- tions he placed on black rule. Smith insisted that 20 seasts of Rhodesia's Parliament be reserved for whites, giving them absolute veto power. When radical blacks refused to accept these terms they were simply denied a place in the new government, and are currently hunted by Rhodesian troops. These radicals were under- standably suspicious of Smith and his proposals, and Tuesday's action justifies their lack of trust. SUMMER EDITORIAL STAFF BARBARA ZAHS Editor-in-Chef BRIAN BLANCHARD KEN PARSIGIAN Editorial Directors, KEN PARSIGIAN Magazine Editor OWENGLEIBERMAN Arts Editor STEVE SELBST Books Editor ANDY FREEBERG JOHN'KNOX Photographers Debate overproof: why deny us drink*? By Liz Slowik In July, 1971, the state legisla- ture granted adult rights-voting, drinking, adult status in courts among other priviieges-to citizens over 18. Now voters will decide whether or not to allow those young people to continue to drink alcoholic beverages. According to forces behind the effort to raise the drinking age, Michigan residents are more thanready to go along with their movement. Coalition for 21 and the Macomb County Parent- Teachers' Association (PTA) banded together a year ago to wage a campaign to put a proposal on the November ballot that, if approved, would raise the drinking age to 21. In all other respects, 18-to-20 year olds would retain adult rights and privileges. UNLIKE A BILL passed in Lansing last spring, the ballot proposal would take away the privilege of drinking from those who have been imbibing legally since age 18. The bill approved in the spring restricts those whose birthday is on and after Dec. 3, 1978 from drinking, effective on that date. Our government up to this point has not been designed to revoke previously accepted privileges. Even Prohibition was a failure. Any measure to raise the drinking age should not punish those who already have enjoyed the full status of the age of majority. Taking away a single privilege sets a precedent that could lead to revocation of other, more basic rights of young adults. If the ballot proposal passes in November,dorm parties will take a swing in a strange direc- tion. Will several hundred students in a dorm be satisfied to play canasta while sipping straight Coke on a Saturday_ night? I think not. Young adults are more sophisticated today than they were when drinking was forbidden and house mothers waited at doorsteps for curfew- breaking residents. I think most dorm residents would rather seek booze from older students than suffer through a dry house party. A FROSTY MUG of beer at Dooley's will be only a memory for those under 21. So will wineskins filled with vodka and cider at football games. But, for the 20-year-old's 21-year-old roommate, these pleasures will be legal. How many will take this seriously? I know I won't. Do backers of this proposal think I plan to obey an illogical law which says that after two and a half years of drinking I'll have to abstain for four measly months? Do they think I'll obey a law that, in effect, claims that although at 18 I could handle liquor, at 20 I cannot? I hope those people who expect passage of this proposal don't expect those of us who have enjoyed the right to drink to automatically give it up because we are suddenly "not old enough." Coaliton for 21 has two main arguments. First, the group claims that a hike in the drinking age will curtail car accidents among drunk young adults. But a study conducted by the Univer- sity's Highway Safety Research Institute indicates that even if the drinking age is raised, fatality statistics won't decrease because availability of alcohol to the general public has increased sin- ce1971. BILL FINLAN, co-director of Coaliton for 21, also claims that the "trickle-down effect" sets the practical drinking age in Michigan at 16. The ballot proposal would, says Finlan, keep alcohol out of Michigan's high schools. Proposal supporters have neglected to substantiate this argument. No one has produced proof that a higher legal drinking age will keep alcohol out of the schools. Even in raising the drinking age to 19, the legislature simply presumed that a 19-year- old no longer has connections with high school students. In any case, a person not old enough to purchase booze can usually finda willing surrogate buyer. But the people really affected by the proposal are already out of high school. Some are married and parents of children. Some have been in college for several years or have held steady jobs over that period. Most have been drinking, voting, signing contrac- ts and some have been sued and have sued others since they tur- ned 18. IN AN ANN ARBOR bar recen- tly, the lead singer of a band asked, "How many people under 21 are here?" Close to half of those present, beer or mixed drink in hand, cheered. "Well, there's a proposal on the November ballot that would raise the drinking age to 21. It's really important to get everyone registered and out to vote," the singer said. He's right. It is important to get everyone who is against raising the arbitrary drinking age to the polls. And it is especially impor- tant in a college town like Ann Arbor where so many students fall into the 18-20-year old age bracket. If the general voter turn out is small in November, but enough sympathizers cast their votes, there is a chance, however slim, that the ballot proposal can be defeated. Liz Slowik is a steady citizen who puts in sober time as a Daily Night Editor. LETTERS TO THE DAILY: Pursell backs ERA To The Daily: Your Letters to the Editor of Sharp read the papers before he writes to them. - ~ 91AP A05W Aug. 9 contained an indictment of Representative Carl Pursell's human rights record: specifically, Daniel Sharp wrote of "Pursell's opposition to a time extension of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) ... (a) clear indicator that he lacks consisten- cy and conviction in this area." Mr. Sharp is apparently unaware that Pursell, then a state senator, was instrumental in obtaining support for Michigan's ratification of the ERA. He did, in fact, vote for it. Finally, Mr. Sharp blithely passed over the fact that, on July 31, Congressman Pursell publicly -announced ,his en-orse ent of extension of the, ratificatio' deadline. I suggest that Mr.