4 OPINION Page 4 Thursday, November 1, 1984 The Michigan ©oilyl -- --- i I Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan - cfen towards disarmament 4 # , '. -. I AL A& kyl&mbfjr MW %Mir WW"L NUPWIPW Vol. XCV No. 49 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board 'Yes' on nuclear free A2 A nn Arbor voters have a chance to make this city a nuclear free zone and become the first city to do so in which weapons research is conduc- ted. Residents should not pass up this opportunity to voice their displeasure with Washington's vacilation on the question of limiting the 50,000 or so nuclear weapons this country has stockpiled. Supporters of Ann Arbor ::: City Proposal 1 are justified in their claim that peace must begin at home, if no where else. Vote "yes" on the Nuclear Free Zone Act. City voters have recognized in past years their personal responsibility in y " urging Washington to stop the arms race. In 1982, city voters backed a state-wide nuclear freeze referendum by more than a 3 to 1 margin. This sent a powerful message to the nation about this community's legitimate fear of nuclear war. A nuclear free zone proposal, however, would be an even. more powerful signal of this con- cern-for it is more than a symbol. It shows a community is making a real effort at defining ethical and legal guidelines to prevent further creation of weapons of which a major purpose is the destruction of human life. Opponents of the free zone are afraid that the proposal's wording is too vague and could stifle the intellectual inquiry so prized in this University community. Yet, the University has already shown its desire to put limitations on the nature of classified research done here. The Board of Regents approved guidelines to prohibit classified research "the clearly forseeable and probable result of which. . . or any specific purpose of which is to destroy human life." Proponents of the nuclear free zone rightly point out that the majority of weapons research is classified and argue that the city proposal would only cover classified research which is not protected by the First Amendment. Their argument is the most convin- cing. And the opposition's worries should be excused. Under the proposal, a five-member city commission would be formed to review contracts with the Departmen- ts of Defense and Energy within city limits. This will ensure enforcement of the law if it is passed. The commission has a great deal of responsibility in- vested in it, but there is little reason to believe that power will be abused. The judicial process will act as a check on its power and will guarantee a fair system. It is true that city residents in this election are not voting on a nuclear war or an arms race. If they were, the choice would be obvious: city voters and the American public abhor both. What is before the voters is a measure to prevent some people and businesses in this area from bringing more weapons into a world which already has the capability to destroy itself many times over. By Jonathan Ellis Two hard questions underlie much of the current debate about the nuclear free zone proposal in Ann Arbor. First, would the passage of the Ann Arbor Nuclear Free Zone Act contribute significan- tly to its ultimate purpose, making a nuclear war less likely? SECOND, are there potential dangers in the design of the act which outweigh the danger which the proposal seeks to address? If these questions are asked distinctly, the result could be a basis for voting next Tuesday. Realistic thought about how nuclear disarmament can be advanced, and a close examination of the act itself, are required. There is plenty of commentary available, slick and otherwise, but in the end such questions are answered by each voter in- dividually. Here are my answers. YES, A nuclear free Ann Arbor directly supports the movement toward nuclear disarmament. I do not argue that the elimination of nuclear weapons, town by town in this coun- try, could easily be coordinated with disar- mament by other nuclear powers. But neither do I believe that beginning town by town here means our unilateral disar- mament. Rather, a nuclear free zone in Ann Arbor would be an analogue, not merely a symbol. Symbols convey a meaning separate from their substance. An analogue itself represen- ts that which is being communicated. AS AN analogue, a nuclear free zone declares that people want to end theeworld- wide nuclear arms race by declaring that they will end it here. But the first steps toward a goal do not imply that all further steps will be the same. It would not be necessary for every city in the U.S. to follow our example in order to bring about large scale nuclear disar- mament. We only need a critical number because the focus is on our government leaders. Fundamentally, it is their will to disarm which is lacking, the willingness to take that risk to the world balance of power as it now exists. We, the people, can provide the will and the courage. HOW WILL our government leaders hear our will? We have already passed nuclear freeze proposals in cities and states of every size and in every region. I believe government leaders will respond when they see how serious we are. This is what the nuclear free zone in Ann Arbor means. We are willing to do what we are almost never willing to do in a free society-to exercise our freedom by making an outright prohibition within our community. This leads to the second question about Proposal 1 on the Nov. 6th Ann Arbor ballot: just what kind of prohibition is the Nuclear Free Zone Act? THE INTENT of the proposal is clear, to prohibit in Ann Arbor activities' which in- crease the ability to wage nuclear war. The argument has not been about its intent, but about the possible effects of the act. The commission of three Ann Arbor city councilpeople and two private citizens which the act creates has only three powers: it can review public documents; it can make recommendations to the appropriate legal authorities; and it can maintain information about funding for alternative projects to prepare for nuclear war. At the point the commission formed an opinion that the act was being violated, the matter would be taken over by the courts with all their civil liberties protections based on elaborate mechanisms resulting from decades of precedents. THIS LAW, if passed, would not operate in a vacuum, but rather, would function among all the other relevant laws, and the justice system itself. The effects of the act will be determined both by its language and by our larger system of political rights. I believe that the Nuclear Free Zone Act itself is constitutional and will be administere constitutionally. The interpretations of the act made by its opponents may well be uncon- stitutional, but it is their scenarios not the act itself which the constitution forbids, and which the courts will reject. In my mind, this is the only category of danger which has been raised that is worth considering alongside the danger of nuclear war-the impact of the act on civil liberties. After reading the act and considering the con- text of its implementation, I am convinced that fundamental civil liberties are not e dangered. BUT WHY make any prohibition, even a narrowly drawn one? The answer for me is that we are a species which saw, forty years ago, what a nuclear bomb could do, and then proceeded to make 50,000 of these bombs. We need to stop. The Ann Arbor Nuclear Free Zone Act is a good way to stop right here. I am reminded of what the late Sen. Rober Kennedy said at the Univeresity of Witwate srand in Johannesburg, South Africa to students protesting apartheid, and which I later heard him repeat in many speeches across this country: each time we stand up for what we believe, we send forth ripples of hope, and crossing each other from many dif- ferent centers of energy and daring, they build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of resistance or indifference. Passing the Ann Arbor nuclear free zone proposal can be our time to stand up. Before coming to this city in 1969, Ellis worked on the U.S. Senate and campaign staffs of Robert Kennedy. He is now at Canterbury House. Cramer W~jHOI~FUMC FI oRTE NEXT4YEARS: Support county parks , A vote "yes" on Washtenaw County Proposal 1 is a vote to allow area parks and recreation facilities to be properly maintained. It would give a one- quarter mill property tax renewal to the Washtenaw Parks and Recreation Commission which is responsible for managing the area's nature trails and centers, bike paths, fishing and other special programs. Attendence at coun- ty parks in 1983 averaged 71,000 people, those people should not turn their backs on the parks at the voting booth. County Proposal 1 deserves wholehearted support. Residents' approval of this proposal will allow the parks commission to ob- tain matching funds and state grants for recreational areas. And though this millage would cost a family an estimated $6.81 a year, it is well worth the money to provide for an enhanced quality of life in this community. Take a trip to award-winning In- dependence Lake Park or the garden and nature center at County Farm Park, but don't forget to stroll to the polls on Nov. 6 and preserve these special areas. y~t ra I ~ .X\, I \'\\ ,4f I k4aiiak 'I i i-=---- - - $AN)WeflA~~~ETL~F(BOIN ,YS~31 SANDWIN B, :LOots GooD. BUT AT L~A'T IT'S MEAfT). --:rfbu S FULL OF BWNEY - Fm O 0 i'# V 4 } '7 } i i )1 , LETTERS TO THE DAILY Student. To the Daily: On Nov. 6, 1984, the students of the University will play a very important role in the future of this University. On the Michigan state ballot, there will be a proposal intended to reduce the level of taxes in our state and to make all tax increases thereafter subject to approval by the voters of Michigan. Wrongly named Voter's Choice, this proposal will affect all students of this Univer- sity adversely. So let me briefly outline what this proposal will do if passed. First and foremost, this proposal will increase everyone's tuition here at the University by at least 20 percent and possibly as high as 60 per- cent. These figures are from the administration, which is not have to be trimmed, due to lack of state resources. This will only add to the growing population of wealthy students able to attend the University, while leaving those unable to attend due to financial difficulties with less financial assistance. Finally, it will threaten Michigan's credit rating, which happened to be the worst in the nation in 1982, but has recently surged to be one of the best in the nation. If this were to happen, Michigan could once again be in economic distress due to lack of a good credit rating, which is BLOOM COUNTY necessary for economic growth. This proposal also threatens to take away the premise of representative government, which is what our whole gover- nmental structure is based upon. By taking away the legislature's ability to tax, you are removing an essential part of governmental authority. This would only in- troduce chaos into our system, and set up a precedent for minority veto. That is democracy? In conclusion, I would recom- mend to the students of this University, and all others that may read this letter, to v against Proposal C. It is not only the responsible thing to do, but it is also the essential thing to do. Proposal C only sets a precedeni for irresponsibility, reducec governmental effectiveness, anc greatly enhances the power of a minute minority unaffected b3 this proposal. -Mark William; Octobe Williams is chair of t Michigan Student Assembl. legislative relations commil tee. by Berke Breathich Vote against Proposal C 1 I I WAI A 5HARDL4Y 7hE MWS APPK6RWIAM 9fACE .MYG I _ _ , &JAP-L"AM "PMVI.AAAAM II I - iSat* NiCJAIL.N1.7 I