4 OPINION Page 4 Wednesday, March 30, 1983 The Michigan Daily Reagan misguided on missile defense By Jeffrey Colman "Dangerous" is a mild term to describe President Reagan's proposal the other night to develop a defense system against Soviet missiles and to redefine American nuclear strategy. Unfortunately, this proposal is con- sistent with past statements and policies of the administration which emphasize the possibility of and preparation for a limited nuclear war. The notion of defending against nuclear attack was rejected years ago because it was considered too costly and unfeasible. A strategy relying on defense and not deterrence in the era of ballistic missiles would be destabilizing making nuclear war more, not less, likely. Until now, nuclear war has been prevented because both sides knew that if they attacked first their adversary would have a sufficient retaliatory strike to devastate the aggressor. ANTI-BALLISTIC missile (ABM). defense systems are still considered ineffective and can always be over- come by technological developments of the adversary. Such 'an ABM system puts a country under a false illusion of security and may induce it to launch a nuclear attack prematurely because it has (mistakenly) lost the fear of being destroyed by a retaliatory second strike. The idea of massive retaliation is not a pleasant one, as the president pointed out in his speech. But it is the strongest and most sensible deterrent posture within our capabilities. What makes Reagan think the Soviets won't follow our lead and develop their own ABM system or use decoy missiles to deceive our defenses? What would stop the Soviets from building more offensive missiles with more warheads to saturate our defense system (assuming our ABM system would be effective in the first place)? Even if we disable 90-95 percent of Soviet warheads before they reach target, what about the 10 or 50 or 100 warheads that get through? Is that an acceptable, safe scenario? If the Soviets believed that their weapons would be rendered useless and they would become vulnerable, what would discourage them from launching a desperate attack before our defense system was installed? HOW MUCH longer does the president expect the American people to believe doublespeak-that the only way to control arms is to build more? Why should the Soviets negotiate with us when we introduce new destabilizing technologies that make them feel more vulnerable and appear to violate our treaty commitments?. Negotiating from a position of strength is a good idea. But in the age of multiple-independently targeted reen- try vehicles (MIRV's), nuclear overkill and second strike capabilities, Reagan's notion of superiority is irrelevant and dubious. We should have learned from our experience with MIRV's that unilateral development of new, destabilizing weapons leads not to arms control but to an arms race that in the end makes us more vulnerable than before development. I resent being labelled as misled or a dupe of the Communists for favoring arms control measures such as the nuclear freeze or smaller increases in our defense budget. Some of us believe as strongly as the president in the security of our country but merely have a different point of view as to the best way to guarantee it. We believe that pursuing serious arms control negotiations to prevent nuclear war makes our country safer than preparing actual nuclear war fighting. capabilities. " I believe that we should spend whatever is necessary for the security of our country. But we should not be spending one dollar more given the social and economic demands of our country today upon which our security also depends. We must have a strong national defense; we should enhance our commitments to our allies; we should present ourselves as a viable political alternative to Soviet totalitarianism. But: * We should not blindly lead the world to Armageddon through militaristic and moralistic crusades. * We should not develop first strike weapons such as the MX which in a crisis will induce both sides to launch attacks first. * We should not be thinking about how to fight a protracted nuclear war or in terms of "acceptable" losses from such a conflict. " We should not be developing defense systems that put us under an illusion of security and distance us (falsely) from thinking about the catastrophe of nuclear war. Colman is a graduate student in the Institute of Public Policy Studies. 4 AP Photo Reagan's nuclear arms policy: Rising to new lows. LETTERS TO THE DAILY: Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan MSA funds to Reader's theatre proper 4 Vol. XCIII, No. 141 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 k Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Acid rain and propaganda ABELLING ANYTHING as prop- aganda attaches a stigma to that piece of information which is difficult to shake. When the government at- taches that stigma to information, it becomes' a decidedly' anti-U.S. and inherently dangerous to the political system. It might be understandable if the federal government might attach such a label to an official Soviet political pamphlet, but not to documentary films produced by a close ally such as Canada. That's the case, though, with two films produced under the auspices of an agency of the Canadian gover- nment, "Acid Rain: Requiem and Recovery" and "If You Love This Planet." The two films were classified "politial propaganda" by the Justice Department last month. Under an old, little-known regulation, a disclaimer must appear with the films announcing the government's disapproval. The regulation also requires that those showing the "propaganda" must keep track of everyone viewing the films. Two University professors - Com- munication Prof. John Stevens and Oceanic Science Prof. Perry Samson - challenged the law by showing the two films Monday night without adding the disclaimer and without keeping track of who saw the movies. Oddly, it seems the professors will not get into trouble for their "illegal" political ac- tivity because there is no apparent penalty for violating the rule. The law appears to be silly, but there is a danger with its application here. The acid rain film documented the ef- fects of acid rain on Canada while it placed the blame for the problem on pollution from the United States. And the other film documented the effects of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do these films contain subversive propaganda dangerous to the gover- nment? Doubtful. Do these films put the Reagan administration in a bad light considering Reagan's stands on the environment and nuclear arms? Ah, there's the rub. The Justice Department has turned the purposes of the regulation around to make it apply not -just to anti-U.S. views, but anti-administration views. It's an interesting way to keep track of ybur political opponents. It also sets an ominous precedent. To the Daily: We are concerned with several assertions and implications made by Ellen Lindquist in her review of our production of As I Lay Dying (Daily, March 20). The Reader's Theatre Guild (RTG) is a student organization in all respects. Most of its mem- bers are students, and all per- formances are produced, direc- ted, edited, cast, and performed by students, without the assistan- ce of professors, other faculty, or professionals. While RTG is recognized by the Michigan Student Assembly, as are all legitimate student organizations, it does not generally receive MSA funding. We did receive a $50 allocation to assist with advertising of As I Lay Dying, which was granted in light of performance costs, however, this was a special request and made no different from other student organizations who can also make such requests. The RTG also received funding from the LSA-Student Gover- nment. There is no political con- nection, however, as the review implies; the RTG is not politically motivated, and it is hard to imagine how any produc- tion of As I Lay Dying could be so construed. According to the review, the RTG "paid copywright fees to Random House [sic]." This is directly contrary to the situation. Random House, Inc., gave pus permission to use the novel at no royalty cost contingent upon our strict adherence to the text. While we charged a nominal ad- mission fee to cover performance costs, the RTG is a non-profit organization, and Random House has treated us as such. The review leaves the reader with the impression that the intention behind the performance was to make profit, which it was not. The sole purpose of the RTG is to perform and promote reader's theatre, and other forms of oral interpretation. Lindquist was perfectly correct in stating "this is not theatre." The thrust of her review, however, was not an evaluation of our performance as readers' theatre, but was a rejec- tion of the performance as con- ventional theatre. There are many differences between theatre and reader's theatre, some of which Lindquist did point out in her article. Reader's theatre does not make use of props, sets, and limits the costume. We are allowed, ac- cording to all sources, to use our scripts and we do attempt to Law Review lowers its standards . 0 0 To the Daily: Somehow, I never thought that the notion of academic achievement would be given negative connotations by any organ of our media. But when I read "Taking affirmative ac- tion" (Daily, March 24) I beheld the new term "meritocracy" - a word used to describe an old Michigan Law Review system, which based entry into the Review's ranks on the outmoded ideal of "scholarship." It seems that such an ideal had to give way to the more modern philosophy of "affirmative action." The Daily believes that, in the interest of advancing minorities, departments of the University should compensate for lack of ability by awarding academic distinctions based on race or ethnic background. The Michigan Law Review does its part, it seems, by making sure that there are at least two minority mem- bers in its ranks from the top half of all Review applicants. Though the minority members may not meet the more rigid academic standards required of the other students, the Daily feels that the Review is playing its noble role in correcting racial injustices committed over the 350 years of American history. I will applaud anybody who finds the way to do justice to a race or any historically op- pressed group. Alas, I believe that it is only possible to do justice to individuals, and in- dividuals have to be judged on their merits, not on the irrelevant factors of race and ethnicity. "Affirmative action," as exer- cised by the Review and other academic bodies, puts a price on race. It also forces the present generation of white students to shoulder the blame for past in- justices. Pardon some of us, please, if we don't take too readily to the burden, while we claw and scratch for a shred of academic distinction. I realize only two minority members would be subject to the special affirmative action stan- dards of the Review. Nonetheless, I still stand four- square against affirmative action as practiced by the Review, because the program does not tackle the fundamental education barriers faced by minorities, but only lowers the standards of higher learning. 4 present works of literature in a method they may not have been presented in before. Reader's theatre is a form of drama that has been in practice since the time of ancient Greece, and can be an invitation to the audience to open up their minds and enjoy a full theatrical experience. -Philip A. Wahr, President Paul S. McCarthy, Treasurer Reader's Theatre Guild March 23 ...Plan doesn't go far -Bruce Poindextejr March 26 enough To the Daily: I am writing in response to a recent article, "Law Review initiates own plan," (Daily, Mar- ch 18) by Bill Hanson. I was disheartened, to say the least, af- ter reading this eye-opening ar- ticle; it is always very disturbing to see that there are still many who can not visualize a legitimate link between minorities and the privileges of the influential. I could, halfheartedly, under- stand the fact that The Michigan Law Review is an organization of distinctive candor, and even that there are students who are not qualified to become members; but I do not understand why only two minority students will be of- ferred membership according to a newly-proposed program. I feel that this aspect of the proposal is, in itself, totally degrading and says a great deal about the biased opinions held by many editors concerning the adeptness of minority students. Though it was recommended to the 1983-84 editorial board that the affirmative action plan be adopted in their selection criteria, there were still those who felt that by adopting this plan the quality of the Review would be affected. And I do believe that it is safe to assume that the dissenters are not con- cerned about the possibility of minorities having a positive ef- fect on the quality of the Review. I was also unhappy to see that Broderick Johnson was actually encouraged by the Review's proposal. The editorial board is merely taking action in order to pacify the cries of those concer- ned with discrimination in this, organization; their remedy seems to be to allow a dispropor- tionally small number of minorities into the organization, but then appear to be in- discriminate because of the fact that minorities are on staff. By taking this action the Review can keep their officials satisfied anda supposedly keep minorities con- tent. I have been warned of the racism that exists on this cam- pus, but I must say that this is one of my few encounters with such blatant discrimination at the University. Even though I do not have, at present, a solution for such injustices, I feel that it is important for minorities to never allow themselves to be coaxed in- to complacency while injustices still exist. We, as minorities, must always remember that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. -Yolanda M. Lyles March 19 Correction A sentence from Mr. Bill Kohler's letter ("Controversy on a whim," Daily, March 29) should have read, "That is, the Daily sees fraternities and not law students as racist." 0 I a I Wasserman WEU ME To F'tG T THEM' tN EL PAO 52MERS ~ 4ITERS, UR. AMERCAN WAYOF LME t T M S £ to, B.FCPF- WE COULD BE PLYI1NG Its 'WeWORLD _iWIES OF WER CIVLlZklloN - t-T'& RIN\T- TRE ~NEW YORK YPNKEE. VERSUS TVE OUSTON z ~ : N 3rL ." J