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.

September 25, 1987 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1987-09-25

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

4

OPINION

,..age 4

Friday, September 25, 1987

The Michigan Daily

i

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Vol. XCVIII, No. 12

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.

Boycott Herman's

PEOPLE SHOULD AVOID SHOPPING
at Herman's Sporting Goods
stores. The United Auto Workers
union has been striking against
Herman's stores all summer.
Although some of their reasons
might not compel people to join the
picket lines, the charges of racial
discrimination are damning enough
to call for a general boycott o f
Herman's products.
Protesters admit that the UAW's
main interest in striking Herman's
4 is money. The union was originally
chosen to represent employees, but
was voted out after the strike started
.in July. Union leaders are
continuing their strike in part
because they want their dues.
There are allegations of insincere
r negotiating of a union contract on
fthe part of Herman's, proposed
changes in health and educational
benefits, and pay cuts. Also,
charges of sexual harassment have
' been made, though they no longer
seem to be mentioned as often by
the picketers.
w The most substantial and disturb-
ing complaints against Herman's
involve pay and hiring inequities
against minorities. According to
C union statistics, 313 out of the 314
managers hired in the last ten years
in Michigan were white. This is a
trend nationwide. Even in cities like
Washington, D.C., which is two-
thirds Black, whites occupy 29 out
a of the 30 management positions.

Blacks are getting ridiculously
few hiring and promotion opport-
unites in management. In addition,
pay inequities at Herman's dis-
criminate against Blacks across the
board. At one point, Herman's
management admitted to a 37
cent/hour difference in wages be-
tween Blacks and whites. Accord-
ing to union figures, the gap in
wages between the lily-white
Briarwood store and the Northland
store, which is 91 percent Black, is
51 cents/hour. This means that full-
time Black employees have to work
almost an entire day extra to make
the same amount weekly as their
white counterparts.
These numbers, if accurate, are
disgusting. Unfortunately, the na-
tional strike is making little if any
impact on sales at Herman's.
People seem to be viewing the
protest as solely a union issue, and
professional cities like Ann Arbor
tend to be unsympathetic. Only
recently has the UAW expanded the
focus of their strike to the racism
issue.
Public interest is small, and
Michigan UAW locals are now
asking students to help protest the
stores. Whether people will take
interest in the strike has yet to be
seen. However, racist hiring prac-
tices should be of interest to
everybody, and tolerated by none.
Please, do not shop at Herman's.

Daily.
By Kurt Heyman
I have regularly read the Daily during.
my three years at the University. I can
honestly say that I have never witnessed
anything so completely tasteless in your
pages as last Monday's Op-Ed article
('Typo Snaps Olive Branch," Daily
9/21/87).
I happen to be an Editorial Board
member of the Michigan Review (MR),
the brunt of your attacks in this article. It
may come as no suprise, therefore, that I
believe that you inconsiderately maligned
our good intentions and misrepresented us
in the process.
I am not writing to you as a
representative of MR, however, and your
characterization of MR is not what
particularly disgusted me about this
article. Such confrontation between
ideologically opposed media forms is
perhaps inevitable. Savage personal
attacks, on the other hand, are definitely
unconscionable.
If you have not surmised by now, I am
referring to your cruel treatment of another
Board member of MR, Rebecca Chung. I
will refer to her as "Rebecca" in this letter
because she is a friend of mine. You
should have refrained from this first-name
tactic in your article, as you have shown
that despite her years of service to the
Daily, you are no friends of hers.
I would point out that for all your self-
righteousness about inclusive language,
Kurt Heyman is Associate Publisher of
The Michigan Review.

displays
your insinuations about Rebecca were
wholeheartedly sexist. In referring to "Seth
and the boys--Sorry Rebecca," you imply
that she is the token female on the Board.
While she happens to currently be the
only woman on the Board, there is
nothing token about her.
Rebecca's position as an Executive
Editor of MR was offered to her after she
had considerable journalistic experience,
culminating in serving as an Arts Editor
for a certain daily newspaper on this
campus. Someone at your paper
obviously felt she was capable of doing
the job.
You also call Rebecca's move to MR a
case of "girlfriend swapping," making a
juvenile reference to MR's self-description
as a Student "Affairs" Magazine. Is this
how you view women at the Daily? As
token dues to the laws of Affirmative
Action who should serve at your sexual
pleasures? These are issues that women
who currently work at the Daily may want
to bring up with whoever is responsible
for this trash.
To say that I sense some bitterness
about Rebecca's move from the Daily to
MR would be a gross understatement.
While bitterness may explain your
actions, it does not excuse them.
Conceptions of institutional loyalty do
not permit character defamation.
You may perhaps be wondering why
Rebecca is not addressing your slanderous
remarks herself. Am I some knight in
shining armor coming to the rescue of a
maiden in distress? Hardly. That would be
sexist. Like you.

sexism
You really left Rebecca no room to
respond. While I am quite sure that she is
confident of her own abilities, she could
not possibly write you a letter touting her
qualifications as a journalist and editor.
She would look asinine and arrogant.
I, however, can afford to say as many
good things about Rebecca as I want
without similar costs. No, I'm not a
knight in shining armor. I'm someone
whose friend has been unfailry treated by
others' vindictive abuses.
Furthermore, your hiding behind a
pseudonym to deliver personal attacks was
highly timid and unprofessional. It is true
that you parodied MR's regular feature
which appears under the pen-name of "Joe
Typho." As I said, I am not representing
MR in this letter, but I will address this
issue. First of all, I am not "Joe Typho,"
and do not take responsibility for his
articles. However, anyone who regularly
reads MR should know who "Joe" is, and
he at least has the decency to attack people
for their views, not for their sex. Neither
of these things can be said about "Joy
Typo."
Someone is responsible and he (this is
not an inclusive language slip-up; I'm sure
it was a "he") should personally and
publicly apologize to Rebecca for this
outrage.
Editor's Note
The line "girlfriend Rebecca
swapping" was not in the author's
original. The Daily sincerely regrets
its inclusion.

Zi,

in
1 V V ALJ. ' ls Y ltNQWyON SEVEA$
A M60PHANT 4F SA7AN; WANNA WY
VESSEL? A ovV NR 'E.sU
Gut-F ?A1'oo%0IGHT?

Gulf anyone?

cZ:Zjt

%&I

-_.. _
' , -.

UNLESS CONGRESS BEGINS
exercising more control, Tuesday's
Persian Gulf incident may lead to
events similar those which followed
the Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin
dispute.
The Defense Department says the
U.S. military acted in self-defense'
when a Army helicopter attacked an
Iranian ship. The Pentagon pointed
out that 10 mines were captured and
six had already been dropped by
that Iranian ship. These mines were
being laid in an anchorage used by
American warships and commercial
ships.
More important than whether the
attack was justified, however, is the
Reagan administration's
unwillingness to consult Congress
in the aftermath of an armed attack
on a sovereign nation. The War
Powers Act requires the president to
inform congress within 48 hours of
subjecting U.S. forces to imminent
hostilities. Reagan should have

invoked the Act when the fleet was
deployed to the Gulf. The
president's refusal runs counter to
the intent of the act. If the president
refuses to invoke the act, congress
should direct him to do so.
In addition to forcing the
president to inform congress, the
Act requires congressional approval
for U.S. forces to remain over sixty
days.
The administration argues that
invoking the act would indicate that
a timetable has been placed on the
U.S. presence and undermines the
fleet's effectiveness. More likely,
notifying Congress would force the
administration to justify the policy.
The U.S. should strive to bring
an end to the long and bloody Iran-
Iraq war. U.S. support for a
ceasefire resolution in the U.N. is
admirable, but the effect is severely
diluted when American actions
seem more likely to prolong the
conflict.

,
- Mai W'Sf.

E

Il4-.

LETTERS:
Who's
To the Daily:
I am writing in response to
two article which appeared in
The Michigan Daily. Both
articles ("Sexual Assault Trial
Begins," Daily, 9/22/87 and
"Conflicting Testimonies
Muddle Assault Trial," Daily,
9/23/87) deal with the trial of
Griffth Neal, a University
student accused of raping
another student. Although I
feel that the Daily could have
been more sensitive in its
presentation, I would like to
say that I am glad the story is
being covered. Sexual assault
is a very real problem, and too
often, it is swept beneath the
rug.
Reading about the trial has
made me furious. Perhaps it is
because I can identify so much
with the woman who was
"allegedly" raped. It frightens
me to think how easy it would

on trial for sexual assault?

woman sustained bruises,
internal bleeding, and tears in
her vaginal wall. What more
needs to be said?
Calling witnesses to the
stand to set the scenario for the
assault was needless. First of
all, it would be very difficult
for a sorority sister or a
fraternity brother to testify
against a close friend in a
situation where the stakes are
so high. But more importantly,
since they did not witness the
assault, their testimonies are
completely inconsequential to
the case. The defense called
Neal's fraternity brother's to
the stand in order to prove that
the alleged victim actually
intended to "pick up" Neal and
that she consented to have
intercourse with him. Neal's
fraternity brothers maintain
that she was drunk and that she
expressed a desire to "go to his

intercourse." For God's sake,
even the defense admits that the
alleged victim was bleeding on
Neal's bed! How the alledged
victim got there, why she was
there in the first place is
unimportant.
The question of consent is
Cover both
To the Daily:
I was shocked by the fact
that your obviously
anti-Greek periodical did not
publish a story concerning the
recent rape accusatioi )y a U
of M female. Of course front
page headlines were printed
,while the prosecution stated its
case. Though when the
prosecution rested and the
defense began its case,
including the testimony of the
alleged victim's own sorority
sister.vn find it more

absolutely ludicrous. After all,
if a man were drunk and asked a
woman to suck his. . . er.. .
finger, and she bit it off, would
it be his fault for asking for it?
-Jeana Lee
September 23
sides of trial
a situation such as this. What
ever happened to unbiased
reporting? Leave your editorial
descriptions of the case in the
opinion section and print both
sides of the story for the
benefit of the reader. Today, the
defense is calling five sorority
sisters of the girl to the
witness stand and I assume that
tomorrow you will print a
story entitled "'M students
watch grass grow." Give both
sides of the story unbiased *

I7, .

I .u

i

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan