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.

October 16, 1980 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1980-10-16

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

0

OPINION

Page 4

Thursday, October 16, 1980

The Michigan Daily

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Swimming with Anderson
By Robert Drinan

Vol. XCI, No. 37

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of The Daily's Editorial Board

__.,.

The hazing incident

. Recipe for a little fun on the
Michigan hockey team: Take one
freshman team member; force him to
drink gin, vodka, and beer; strip him
naked; shave him completely from the
neck down; cover him with jelly;
dump him into the trunk of a car; and
leave him nearly unconscious outside
in the freezing weather.
For added mirth, subject several
other freshmen team members to all
or part of the same treatment.
On Sunday night, the recipe was
followed closely by at least fifteen
members of the 35-player hockey
team. To the cooks' surprise, however,
the final product exploded.
One victim of .the ritual hazing-per-
formed every year on new team mem-
bers-was left naked in freezing
weather for more than an hour, drop-
ped outside Markely Hall, and could
have died of hypothermia had he not
been discovered by friends and pulled
inside the dorm.
There are not words to fully express
the hideousness of this act. There are
not thoughts to begin to understand
how college students can so brutally
molest anyone in the name of fun.
There are few punishments that can
adequately fit the crime.
Perhaps the most incomprehensible
aspect of this hazing incident is why
the freshman has refused to press
carges against his assailants and
<desires to continue playing hockey at
Michigan. Some have suggested he
doesn't want to let years of practice be
spoiled by one terror-filled evening.
That suggestion, however, raises

significant questions about the
athletics mentality at this University.
Sheer logic and human empathy would
indicate that a person injured and
humiliated at the hands of his team-
mates should not want to run back to
those same teammates and embrace
them as if nothing had happened.
It does not appear that hazing is a
common practice among other men's
teams at the University. However, the
hockey team has been abusing its
freshman members for years, accor-
ding to current and former players.
If hockey coaches Wilf Martin and
John Giordano are anything like foot-
ball Coach Bo Schembechler-who ap-
parently knew enough about the out-
side activities of some of his team
members to suspend them last year for
alleged drug use-they should have
known about the hazing incidents long
ago. At the very least, they must have
noticed some of their freshman players
each year have had most of their body
hair shaven off.
Athletic Director Don Canham has
refused to release any information
about punishments levied against the
offending hockey players, although he
maintains disciplinary action has been
taken.
If Canham and the University were
truly concerned about the hazing in-
cident, they would suspend from the
hockey team-and perhaps from =the
University-those players who had a
hand in the assault.
But don't expect that. It would be
bad business to suspend half a hockey
team.

John Anderson and I come to
the House pool at about the same
time in the late afternoon. He
swims very well and converses
beautifully and intelligently. We
have become friends.
Last year, on the day that his
son graduated from Boston
College, John invited me to a
family luncheon. We have had
many discussions about the
radical right-wing minister who
ran against him in the
Republican primary in 1978. Over
the years John Anderson and I
have been voting partners on
public financing for campaigns
and on a few other issues about
which we both feel strongly. He
has also helped me in my role as
the chairman of the International
Committee for the Release of
Anatoly Shcharansky.
WHILE I consider John Ander-
son a friend, I find it impossible
to imagine how any liberal or
progressive could vote for him
for president of the United
States.
My earliest conversations with
John Anderson were about the
Vietnam War. I came to Congress
to terminate it, but, despite all
our entreaties, John Anderson
never gave us a vote to stop the
war. Indeed, in 1968, after a short
visit to Vietnam, he urged the
bombing of Haiphong Harbor and
stated, "I'm tired of reading on
the editorial pages of some of our
Eastern newspapers that this is a
war we cannot win. . ." In 1970,
Anderson justified the invasion of
Cambodia by President Nixon,
and on Nov. 30,.1971, he suggested
that Nixon should receive the
Nobel Peace Prize.
JOHN ANDERSON has been
one of the Pentagon's best friends
in Congress. Recently he has
favored both the B-1 bomber and
the neutron bomb. In his 20 years
in Congress, he voted only twice

to limit the level of defense spen-
ding.
During those same 20 years
John Anderson has consistently
voted against liberals on social
issues as well. The Americans for
Democratic Action (ADA) gives
him a career voting rating of 29
percent correct. The Consumer
Federation of America ranked
him 27 percent, and the AFL-CIO
28 percent. In the area of civil
rights, allegedly one of his strong
suits, John Anderson received an
uninspiring 42 percent rating in
1978 from the Leadership Con-
ference on Civil Rights: The
National Council on Senior
Citizens gives him 48 percent.
EVEN ON THE non-partisan
human rights issues, my swim-
ming partner has been a disap-
pointment. He twice voted
against cutting off $3.5 million to
aid to the Philippines. When we
voted to terminate assistance to
Argentina because of that
nation's brutal record on human
rights, John Anderson did not

give us his vote.
The leading environmental
group, the League of Conser-
vation Voters, has called Ander-
son ". . . one of the most effective
and articulate spokesmen for the
nuclear industry in the entire
House," and states that he has
never voted correctly on a single
nuclear issue. In the current
campaign, however, he has taken
the exact opposite position on
nuclear power. He has also taken
180 degree turns on the Kemp-
Roth tax cut, constitutional
amendments to make this a
"Christian nation," and gun con-
trol, among other issues.
JOHN ANDERSON seems to be
telling us lately that he has been
born again as a liberal. Can 20
years of hostility to new priorities
and liberal ideas be forgotten and
forgiven by a few months of cam-
paign trail rhetoric? Can the man
who supported President Nixon
nearly 90 percent of the time now
be entrusted to carry the banner
of liberalism? Can the man who

called J. Edgar Hoover "the
epitome of what everyone in
government service would like to
become," and who praised the
FBI director for "standing
squarely behind the idea that
only a Christian America can
continue to survive the storms
that are buffeting the world"
truly represent the best choice
for progressives in November?
John Anderson has a record,
and while he may wish to
repudiate it, it is our best gauge
of the kind of man he is, and the
kind of president he would
become. Based on John Ander-
son's record, I would much
rather have him as a swimming
partner than as president.
Robert Drinan is the out-
going Democratic representa-
tive from the 4th congressional 4
district outside Boston. This
article first appeared in The
Boston Globe.

Between the races: A parable

Prime time corruption

T HE NATION watched political
corruption in action Monday
night-not fictitious private-eye drama
but the real McCoy-and we are all the
benefactors. Hours earlier, the United
States Supreme Court wisely ruled that
the FBI's Abscam films could be
broadcast over the three commercial
networks.
In living black and white the nation
watched Rep. Michael Myers,
Democrat of Pennsylvania, meet with
FBI agents posing as Arab
businessmen on the make. With
cameras rolling, Myers accepted
$50,000 in return for his influence in the
House.
When the jury saw these films, even
the most skeptical members turned
against Myers. Clearly, what unfolded

on the screen left him virtually no
defense. He was convicted.
Myers and the other Abscam defen-
dants have continually claimed they
are victims of entrapment. Myers has
said he was purposefully led
astray-filled with liquor and exposed
to temptation that he might other-
wise have avoided. If that were
entirely true, Myers might have been
able to build a case for entrapment.
But Washington is not a pretty place;
bribes have long been a reality in the
halls of Congress, and legislators must
be prepared to spurn them or to suffer
the consequences.
Myers' embarrassment is the
nation's gain. Americans will be all the
warier of those who would successfully
wrangle for power only to abuse it.

Two runners are on the track preparing
for the first of two important races. One is
black; one is white. Both have trained many
years for these celebrated races. Both are
looking forward to the spirited competition
and to the handsome cash prize given to the
victor.
Before either runner can position himself in
his starting blocks, several conscientious of-
ficials run onto the field they chain the black
runner's legs together. The gun is fired
suddenly and the white runner bolts away.
The black runner languishes far behind. He
cannot stand; he can hardly crawl. His
muscled legs are cut and bloodied from the
constant chafing of the rusty irons.
THE WHITE RUNNER reaches the half-
way point around the track when a sym-
pathetic black spectator realizes the injustice
of the contest. He runs down to the track,
grabs a metal ball from the shot put area, and
gives it to the black man. The black runner
smashes his shackles. He stands and quickly
begins to narrow the distance between him-
self and his sole competitor.
As the white is turning the bend toward
home, the black runner is approaching the
halfway point. Closer and closer he comes to
the white runner. The finish tape is clearly in
sight. Finally, the white runner surges for-
ward, defeating the black runner by a few
steps.
The black runner argues vehemently that
the race was not at all fair or sportsmanlike.
The white runner disagrees: The rules of the
race, he says, call for one of the runners to
wear ankle irons throughout the contest. It
was an unfortunate accident of fate that the
black runner received the chains and that the
white runner had not. But certainly, the white
runner insists, rules are rules. The race was
designed by fair and impartial gentlemen.
The race was a national institution and public
celebration, designed for the amusement and
pleasure of the general public. "Surely you
are not questioning the traditions, the
customs, and the authority of the race?" the
white runner asks in amazement.
Exactly so, states the black runner. "The

By Manning Marable
rules of this game must be revised. What I
desire," he argues, "is equality between our
races."
"LONG BEFORE WE began training for
this race," the white runner counters, "you
knew that our respective positions were to be
separate but equal. Why, you know the old
saying: 'We can be separate as the fingers,
yet one in the hand in all matters of mutual
athletics."'
The officials of the games congregate,
disagreeing among themselves about what
course of action to follow. One junior official,
the sole black man, suggests cautiously that
the white runner be allowed to keep the large
cash purse for his victory, but that the race be
declared a draw.
The senior official disagrees intensely. The
black runner should receive nothing, and
should possibly be banned from further coma-
petition. "Indeed, he violated every code of
his race by deliberately breaking his chains!"
he says. The spectator who had run onto the
field of play illegally had already been
arrested and was in a local police station
awaiting criminal charges. The black runner
must be penalized in some way.
Still another official believed that the white
runner should donate some small portion of
his prize to the black man's children and that
the entire incident be erased from the official
proceedings.
FINALLY, THE PERFECT solution is
reached. Both runners are ordered to return
to the starting line for the second race. The
white runner is allowed to keep the first place
prize and is declared the winner of the first
race. The black runner will be neither
punished nor rewarded for his actions. Hen-
ceforth, no runner will be bound by chains.
All the participants, including most spec-
tators in the stands, agree that the decision is
both fair and just-except for the black run-
ner. "The white runner should be penalized
by wearing my chains, at least through a brief

portion of the second race," he insists. "Those
are the rules of the race. You said so yourself.
Look at *your own rulebooks, if you dare.
Either the white runner should wear these
chains in this race, or I should collect the
prize from the first race."
All of the officials, including the black one,
disagree. "That would not be exactly fair,
now would it?" they explain. "You wanted
equality. You even broke your chains for
equality. Now you've got it."
THE BLACK RUNNER continues, "But
those chains bit into my legs, cutting deep
wounds and leaving bruises. I may not be able
to run well this time. Certainly I should be
compensated in some significant way."
"There is nothing in our rulebooks about
compensation to injured players," a white of-
ficial interjects. "You run the race, you
assume the risks. We know the rulebook; we
wrote the rules for our race."
"I hate to be troublesome," the black run-
ner persists, limping slowly back toward the
starting point. "Butit seem's to me that the
white runner could be forced to start perhaps
five to ten yards behind me in the second
race. My legs are swollen and still bleeding. It
would only be fair."
"Of course it would be fair, my boy," a
white official smiles, placing his arm around
the black runner's shoulders. "But it wouldn't
be equal. That's what you've been asking for
all along, isn't it? All the runners will be con-
sidered equal in all future races, endowed
only with their physical abilities in their pur-
suit of life, liberty, and happiness. Besides,"
he adds, "there is no such thing as perfect-
equality between all races."
An impatient official looks at his watch. A
gun is raised and fired. The second race
begins.
Manning Marable teaches political
economy at the Africana Studies Center
of Cornell University and is a leader of
the National Black Political Assembly.

//
/
/
/
/
7
(
7

f.,,
ff//- c7r ;

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:

Carter blind to workers'

interests

To the Daily:
fl.._ae-I-A.- 414 -.-L-.- t

there are two nations throughout

from their real common in-

must build new administrative
organs which will harmoniously

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan