OPINION Page 4 Wednesday, March 25, 1987 The Michigan Daily Soviet Jewry debate Jews not oppressed Jews are oppressed By Michael Edwards It is necessary to explain the facts about Soviet Jews and emigration, and that it be shown whose interests the various anti-Soviet Zionist organizations for ."saving Soviet Jews" really serve. The "issue" of an alleged "plight of Soviet Jews" is a phony issue. Soviet Jews enjoy the right to a job, housing, free education and health care, and all the other rights that all Soviet citizens enjoy. Soviet Jews have the right to practice their religion. There are about two million Jews in the USSR, thus constitutiong about 0.8 percent of the total population. The number of devout Jews in the USSR as a whole is around 60,000, most of whom are old-age pensioners. There are few believers among young and even middle-aged people. There are ninety-two synagogues functioning in the USSR today, eighty of which are in premises which the state has made available to believers free of charge for an indefinite term, the others occupying rented buildings. One of the favorite charges of the Zionists is that Soviet Jews are discriminated against in education. But what are the facts? Jews constitute less than one percent of the Soviet population, yet they constitute two percent of the total student population in the USSR. There dw'rids is7ihe Chairman of the Ann Arbor Club, Communist Party USA are about 350 students per 10,000 Jewish inhabitants in the USSR. In this respect Soviet Jews are ahead of the Russians, Ukranians, and Byelorussians. The average for the USSR is about 210 students per 10,000 inhabitants. Also, the proportion of the Jewish population in the USSR with a college education (over twenty- five percent) is higher than in any country in the world, including the U.S. and Israel. Why, then, do some Soviet Jews choose to emigrate from the USSR? Many emigrate because they receive letters from "relatives" abroad who want to "reunite their family." From 1945 to present, only three percent of all Soviet Jews who have applied to emigrate have had their applications denied, because their occupations had given them knowledge of military or other security matters, they had not settled their financial or other legal obligations, or were indicted or serving sentences for criminal activity. This is in complete accord with Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship of the USSR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1966 by the United Nations General Assembly. In the last few years Jewish emigration from the USSR has decreased markedly, down to a few hundred a year. The is mostly due to the fact that most Jews who wanted to leave have done so. Moreverover, those who were influenced in the past by the Voice of America broadcasts- have had the opportunity to hear from emigre Jews who have returned to the USSR after experiencing life in the "free world" (like the forty-five Jews who returned last December). They heard about the unemployment, lack of affordable health care, high rents, etc., in the U.S. - conditions not discussed by the Voice of America and which Soviet citizens do not experience. In a Daily article, a member of the "Chicago Action for Soviet Jewry" said that there about 500,000 "refuseniks" in the USSR, "most"' of whom are jews. The figure most often cited by the Zionist groups is 400,000 Jewish "refuseniks." When asked how they came up with this fantastic figure, the Zionist "plight" groups usually change the subject. However, one Zionist spokesman let the cat out of the bag recently by responding, "That's how many invitations were sent abroad." He was referring to the practice of Israeli government agencies of sending letters fron nonexisting "relatives" to Soviet Jews to encourage them to emigrate, on the pretext of "reuniting families." The truth about Soviet Jews raises questions about other anti-Soviet lies, particularly concerning alleged Soviet "violations of human rights." These lies are pushed hard by the U.S. and Israeli governments in order to divert atttention from their violations of the human rights of their own and other peoples - from the slums and ghettos in the U.S. to Lebanon to Nicaragua. By Jerold S. Wish Currently, 300,000 Jewish "refuseniks" live in the Soviet Union. A refusenik is a person who has applied for an exit visa to leave the Soviet Union and has been denied. In addition, there are approximately 8000 Jewish "prisoners of conscience" jailed for "crimes against the government. In the past few months, the Soviet Jewry movement has received considerable Ittention, mainly as a result of government reforms announced by General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. In addition to instituting policies intended to allow Soviet citizens more individual freedom and participation in the governmental process, Secretary Gorbachev claims that he intends to liberalize laws currently applied to suppress "anti-government action." The Soviet government has utilized these laws to jail hundreds of Soviet Jews for "crimes" such as demonstrating against religious persecution, teaching Hebrew School, and attending places of worship. Secretary Gorbachev has claimed that the Soviet Union will do everything in its power to comply with the requests of Jews that have been separated from their families a (as a result of Soviet emigration policies) for reunification with Wish is Co-chairman of the U of M Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry relatives outside the Soviet Union. This and other reforms are supposedly intended to improve the quality of life in the Soviet Union and to grant more rights and privileges to all citizens regardless of religious beliefs. While Secretary Gorbachev's intention to reform the Soviet system merits recognition, his newly instituted policies fail to act on the central problem of the Soviet Jews: the denial of the right to emigrate. Even with the adoption of these policies, Jewish emigration remains at a pitifully low level of approximately one thousand per year. 1.8 million Jews live in the Soviet Union under a system of oppression and discrimination. In addition, they are not accorded the freedom and privileges of Soviet citizens. For example, unlike other ethnic and religious groups, Jews are compelled to designate their religion on their required identification card. This leads to considerable discrimination from a government conditioned anti-Jewish population. At the Soviet Union's universities there are quotas on Jewish matriculation. Refuseniks' children are restricted from universities by discriminatory actions such as falsification of their required examination scores and imposition of higher entrance standards. Jews are not free to practice their religion, a natural right to which all peoples are entitled. Most importantly, they are not free to emigrate and are forced to live in a society from which they are ostracized. In order to gain even a minimal chance of emigration, the Soviet Jew must risk his job and the safety of both himself and his family. Very frequently, those who apply for visas lose their jobs and are harassed by Soviet authorities. Even if the Soviet Jew is granted permission to emigrate, he risks endangering remaining family members as a result of the threat of further government oppression. This coercive system dissuades many Jews discontent with the Soviet System from even applying for visas. Although the Soviet Union has claimed that they intend to release over 140 political prisoners, only 59 have been released to date. Also, the number of Jews allowed to emigrate has plummeted from an acceptable high of over, 51,000 in 1958 to a deplorable low of approximately one thousand in each of the past few years. Even with Secretary Gorbachev's new reforms supposedly directed at improving the condition of Soviet Jewry, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of Jews allowed to emigrate. How can the Soviet Union contend that they grant human rights and individual freedom to all citizens while Jews are still persecuted for taking pride in their religious identity and desiring to emigrate to their homeland? No, government reforms can be regarded as substantive while at least 380,000 Jews are held against their will in a society in which they are not accepted. W it 14 I LETTERS Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Students should take responsibility Vol. XCVII, No. 119 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily. A first step forwar-d FROM THE ANNOUNCEMENT of an Honorary Degree for Mandela to the six major resolutions to bring more Black students and faculty to the University, President Shapiro has taken commendable first steps toward reducing racial inequalities at theUniversity. Yet, as Barbara Ransby stated at Hill Auditorium Monday, "Please don't see this as a culmination; this is only the beginning." President Shapiro deserves praise for his action. Blacks and other concerned students deserve credit for pressuring him to act. Shapiro will recommend to the University Board of Regents the establishment of a vice provost for an Office of Minority Affairs, an annual, autonomous $35,000 budget for the Black Student Union, budgetary incentives to attract and retain minority faculty and administrators, an anti-racist harass-ment policy, a grievance mechanism for documenting racial incidents on campus, and a Black senior administrator in the Office of Affirmative Action. But, the University has made promises before. The original continue. Shapiro has neglected, for example, to implement a plan for mandatory University courses or workshops addressing racism and bigotry in all its forms. Based on placards opposing reforms held near the stage at Hill, Auditorium and recent letters submitted to the Daily, it's obvious students' are sorely in need of such courses. By teaching students about the importance of diversity and by helping them accept the differences among students at this University, these courses could do much to advance understanding and reduce racism on this campus. Particularly in need of this kind of education are those students who oppose the activities of any group that designates itself as "Black" or "minority." The expression of a minority culture should not be supressed by those in the mainstream culture demanding "integration. Students, recently empowered and mobilized, have translated grassroots anger into positive To the Daily: I expect my wake-up call from the U-M Classics department any day now. Econ majors, brace yourselves; my largest class this semester of twenty students seems gargantuan. High quality personal attention is alive and well at this swollen university. Unfortunately, it is reclusive and demands a meticulous search. Our inflated tuition guarantees us neither a thorough education nor the meaning of life. In a column of Feb. 11 ("Focus on Teaching"), the Daily editorial staff insisted that the University administration decrease class sizes and hire more professors with better qualifications. After too many years of strife with "the vengeful TA," far be it from me to disagree with such a plea. Yet is is unrealistic to passively await the advent of an infallible educational system. The Daily editorial failed to look one step further and question what produced this current state at the University. The problem is not particular to Michigan. A mass produced education is undeniably the norm of the American university. Much of our generation toddles off to college in order to gain a degree, not an education. One Error: "Lest we forget" (Daily 3/24/87) named Friday March need not look any further than a nation of plethoric business schools to visualize this trend. We can bleat at an amorphous administration relentlessly, but we can't run from our generation. The empowering energy of campus activism here proves that passive acceptance is not the only option. Although I support the Daily's statement against overcrowding (special commiserations to econ majors), I believe that students must take the initiative and aggressively pursue the best academic direction for themselyes. If our very government refuses to accept liability for its actions, how can we expect this version of red tape bureaucracy; diminutive is size, to do so? At some point the individual has to stop blaming a faceless institution and accept responsibility her or himself. I can offer no remedies for the society that produced our current university system. However, individual students can and must actively attain the best education possible. W ought never to stop protesting our acquiescent generation, at any level. This entails collectively insisting upon that which is obliged to us. In addition we have to belligerently demand nothing short of the best from the University of Michigan. -Kaywin Feldman. February 1 y I t I m m ~ '-u--u u ix -