OPINION
Page 4 Tuesday, January21, 1986 The Michigan Daily
i ;
ieg 3gdeahnichigani
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Chassy
Vol. XCVI, No. 78
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Ax
ETTON'W'E WERE
ON6~rFLOWZMG~.
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
i#
Code fight continues
R ECENTLY, the proposed code
of non-academic conduct
been the topic of lengthy Daily
news stories and forums with
President Shapiro. Despite wide
coverage of the code, the No Code
movement which began three and
a half years ago in opposition to the
original draft has practically
disappeared in lieu of the of the
work of the University Council, a
committee composed of three
faculty, three administrators, and
three students who have been
commissioned under Regent By-
Law 7.02 to propose an acceptable
Code. Working under constant
threat that Shapiro will by-pass
their authority and propose his own
code, the council has been pushed
into a no-win situation. Though their
most recent effort, the "Emergen-
cy Procedures" seems less
repressive than Shapiro's draft,
fundamentally, it presents the
same problems.
The University Council has been
forced to work within a framework
that mandates a parallel Univer-
sity court system. Apparently, the
University Administrators believe
they are better judges of guilt and
innocence than the established
courts. Clearly, the real court
system is flawed; setting up
another, supposedly superior court
will not alleviate this problem but
compound it.
The University court system
would not require the collection of
evidence that the established court
system requires for prosecution,
and students suspected of commit-
ting violent or threatening acts
could be tried without being
charged. Under the established
legal system, police must establish
"probable cause" before they file
charges and a prosecutor must find
sufficient evidence to press
charges. Under the University
court system, the prosecutor and
judge (an administrator called the
Central Coordinator) are the same
person.
The University Council
recognizes and questions these
potential problems, and has made
some real improvements to safe-
guard student rights within the
boundary lines that Shapiro has
drawn for them. However, studen-
ts are still subject to 'double-
jeopardy.' In other words, they
may be tried twice for the same
crime in the University and in the
established court system, and the
University may submit in-house
trial findings as evidence in the
real court trial.
No matter how many safeguards
the University Council pushes for,
and it has proposed many - such
as a more representative hearing
board and guaranteed appeal -
the University's proposed
procedure of taking the law into its
own hands and further subjecting
what may be an innocent suspect to
court proceedings is inherently
flawed.
Further, the Administration has
diverted resources away from
solving campus safety problems by
directing the University Council to
create a Code that will not protect
the University from criminals.
One of the repeated arguments
the University makes to justify a
code is that rapists may return to
campus through loopholes in the
legal system. But under current
law, the University can request, as
a condition of bail, an injunction
against anyone charged with
violent crime. If the University
was sufficiently concerned with
rape, it would ensure the proper
maintenance of lighting, expand
Nite-Owl, and increase campus
security. The Code will not protect
women. Rather, the University
wants a Code to protect itself by
placating concerned alumni,
prospective students, and others,
with an image of a controlled,
stable, and safe campus environ-
ment.
One of the ways the University
demonstrated this concern was by
roping off the Diag when the Today
Show broadcast here in October to
publicize only a selected segment
of the Campus community. This
type of control is something the
University would like to expand to
similar circumstances, to
discourage potential dissent with
the threat of academic punishment
(being banned from campus for 14
weeks with the possibility of exten-
sion after a hearing) for
challenging University authority.
The University has not yet begun
to discuss the controversial area of
student protest and non-violent
crimes. The Administration may
offer to compromise with Univer-
sity Council or choose to overstep
them completely. In either case,
students must realize that if any
form of the currently proposed
Code passes, their rights are in
danger.
Though the Council has the best
interest of students in mind, it is
caught in a power struggle with the
Administration. This inner
politicking should not distract
students who should continue to
pressure the Administration to
reassess its priorities concerning
campus safety and student rights.
Perhaps in these quiet times of
1986, under the current ad-
ministration, the Code of Non-
Academic Conduct seems tame,
but it sets a dangerous precedent
for abuse by administrations in an
unpredictable future.
LETTERS:
United States has the luxury of choice
To the Daily:
Since the time I have arrived in
this country, I have become
aware of the fact that there is a
considerable degree of in-
congruence between American
public opinion and the American
government on matters of foreign
policy. This is a matter of serious
consideration, since this tends to
distort the image of an average
American in countries which suf-
fer the brunt of American foreign
policy. In this context, I would
like to elaborate on the case of
Pakistan. Since the time of its in-
ception Pakistan has been more
or less under the brutal and
degenerating rule of the army
and the civil service
bureaucracy. It has been the ten-
dency of successive American
governments to strengthen the
arms of ruthless military dic-
tators, in order to allay their
chronic paranoia of a communist
takeover. The results of such a
policy toward Pakistan have
caused the stunting and disin-
tegration of all kinds of
democratic institutions in the
country, the deterioration of
relations with neighbouring India
and alienation from the rest of
the third world nations.
The army in Pakistan, which
enjoys extremely cordial
relations with the United States
government, is a reincarnation of
the Colonial British army of Oc-
cupied India. Carefully nurturing
and fostering the decadent
traditions and inherent
prejudices in a ridiculous parody
of its former Imperial masters.
This army keeps peace in the
country by brute force and by
courting the industrialists and
businessmen in the cities and the
landlords and tribal leaders in
the countryside. The feudal
nature of the countryside of
Pakistan, which has essentially
remained unchanged since an-
tiquity, further contributes to the
continuation of army rule. Any
move towards political
awareness or the struggle for
basic human rights is swiftly and
brutally suppressed. Further-
more, the Pakistan army has lost
whatever dignity it had possessed
by selling itself to countries like
Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. etc. to
protect the ruling families there;
all this with the tacit approval of
the United States government.
By selfishly guarding its own
presumed interests in the region
the American government is
committing a great injustice to
the people of Pakistan and
depriving them of the basic
human freedoms by supporting a
..:r s '1a vr...i:- 1: - -
It has been the policy of the
United States government in
recent years to denigrate populist
movements in the third world as
communist or Soviet intrigue, in-
stead of working to improve
relations with popular leaders in
these countries and working to
win the people over to their side,
the United States government
relies on the easier path of enfor-
cing and protecting its interests
by the indirect use of force
through its puppets. There is still
time to promote democratic
processes in these countries that
would guarantee basic freedoms
and a proliferation of literacy;
the United States has the
necessary influence and resour-
ces to bring about this change.
Otherwise, the situation in any
one of these countries can result
in a conflagration that will en-
velop the entire region, and the
luxury of choice would be no
longer in the hands of the United
States.
s
-Kyrash Spitama
January 15
Reviewer overanalyzes Townshend
To the Daily:
When we read Mr. Tutak's
review of the newest Pete Town-
shend solo album, namely White
City, we were very surprised at
some of the conclusions that Mr.
Tutak had drawn. To cite a
specific example, he writes
regarding the song "I am
Secure" that "The song
disassembles the social construc-
tions surrounding apartheid to
exploit socioeconomic benefits
derived from apartheid's main-
tenance." Right. . As another
example, he says, " 'Crashing By
Design' documents the evil of
apartheid's structure in an
argument to defeat it on the in-
stitutional level. Yet, 'Give
Blood,' a steel curtain of
vehemence, excortiates the in-
consequential effects of a violent
solution to South Africa."
Once again, right. I think what
we have here is an example of
someone with a large column to
fill. Perhaps a good question to
ask would be "Who cares?" Most
of the people I know bought the
album for the music. Pete Town-
shend is an excellent
musician/composer/arranger/
etc. I personally bought the
album for the music. We think
it's great that Mr. Tutak can get
so much from the lyrics, but give
us a break. I am a
songwriter/composer, and my
roommate is a good lyricist.
When we are working in those
fields, neither one of us is con-
sidering the socioeconomic facets
of apartheid or the traditional
roles of society. No offense in-
tended, but do you really think
that Mr. Townshend was trying to
convey that deep a meaning?
Even if he was, most people
reading a record review want to
know if the music on an album is
any good, and prefer to make
their own judgements on what the
songwriter is trying to say.
-John Williston
Charles Skarsaune
January 20,1986
Zionism
ship? The problem lies not with
Israel, but with the Arab nations,
who should take a lead in helping
their people. The law of return,
to which Dawud objects with such
violence, simply insuresthatsthe
Jewish people will always have
access to their homeland. Jor-
dan, the Palestinian homeland,
should take similar measures.
-Aaron Krauss
January 10
Dawud misunderstands
To the Daily: i was a public outcry. The uproar
Ibrahim Dawud's letter Zionismthat apuic outcry. The uproar
that would occur if Israel were to
is racist as Apartheid" (1/10/86)
reflects a profound misunder-
standing of the entire situation.
Zionism is in no way a system of
segregation. Zionism refers only
to the feeling that the Jewish
people should have a homeland,
like any other people on this ear-
th. Inpresume that Dawud is
criticizing Israel's treatment of
Palestinians. Here, too, facts
have been omitted. After World
War II, Israel was created to be a
Jewish homeland. Jordan was
created to be a Palestinian homeland.
That King Hussein of Jordan has
chosen to expel certain
Palestinians from his nation is no
fault of Israel (these Palestinians
under Arafat sought to destroy
the state of Israel through
terrorism). Palestinian refugees
have been kept in camps by oil
rich Arab nations instead of being
settled on new land. They are
used as political dynamite to
justify wars against Israel.
Dawud charges that Israel
denies Palestinians "the essen-
tials of human dignity". This is
simply not so. Israel is a
democracy and every citizen has
an equal vote. When TIral was
611a6 W VUIU VGGUl 11 IDI UVI W VI C 6V
annex the West Bank would be
deafening.
It is true that Arabs who live in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip are
not citizens. How can people,
living outside the borders of
Israel, who have not been born in
Israel, some of whom proclaim
their intent to destroy Israel,
claim to merit Israeli citizen-
Leiter deser
To the Daily:
I have followed the Daily faith-
fully for three-and-one-half
years. I have read both leftist
and rightist publications from
across this country and Western
Europe. Never have I seen such
a concentrated display of
hypocrisy as Brian Leiter's
series on American foreign policy
and media. After three days of
sheer astonishment at the bread-
th of Mr. Leiter's excesses I
almost expected him to conclude
the effort with,'...these mock ar-
ticles, purportedly written to
dispel the unproven myths
surrounding U.S. activity abroad
vet reDlete with their own un-
ves response
taken for granted, one of the jobs
of academics should be the
questioning of these 'facts'. Un-
fortunately, in a series which
violently denounces the blind ac-
ceptance of ill-founded myths
regarding the actions of the
United States, Leiter makes so
many totally unsubstantiated
declarations of his own that there
is not even close to enough space
here to properly respond to them.
Two things can be done,
however. First, the interested
reader, recalling that Mr. Leiter
had three full articles to include
some form of proof for his
allegations, should review his
pieces for any shred of sustaining
:te a.. ; ,....z _._
r