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.

November 05, 1987 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1987-11-05

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

al

OPINION
Thursday, November 5, 1987

Page 4

The Michigan Daily

SIje £idhiqan iBatin
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
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.

Persue alternative security

IF THE MICHIGAN HOUSE of
Representatives passes a bill
allowing Universities to deputize
and arm campus safety officials, the
University's Board of Regents will
determine the number and funding
of the officers here. As additional.
police only increase the dangers to
students, the Regents should pursue
campus safety by means other than
creating another police force.
Currently, universities could
deputize safety officers by an
agreement with the local sheriff,
even though the University
contracts Ann Arbor police to patrol
the campus. No evidence has been
presented that University police
would be any more effective than
the existing city patrols which the
University pays for.
While there is an unacceptably
high amount of crime on campus, a
deputized police force with the
power to arrest and kill is not the
answer. At Brown University,
deputization of the campus security
officers resulted in an increased
crime rate. Likewise, at Michigan
State University which has a
campus police force the crime rate is
higher than the University which
does not.
The anti-apartheid protest at
University of California at Berkeley
is indicative of the results of police
presence on a university campus.
Non-students threw bricks at the
campus police which were
attempting to remove protesters
from the front of a campus
building. The police then beat up
numerous students and arrested
many people without probable
cause and under false charges.
There have been numerous
complaints about security official's
insensitivity to the feelings of
victims involved in sexual assualt or
racist attacks. A more appropriate
allocation of the University's time
and energy would be to mandate an
educational program for security
officials about dealing with victims
feelings.
The zealous desire of Leo Heatly
and some of the Regents to deputize
police force is an isolated instance
of concern for the security of
students on campus. Proposals
such as more lighting, expansion of
the Night Owl, and more phones
have been pushed aside on the way
to arming campus security officers.
University security's harassment
of students with the trespass act
shows a conflict of priorities
between fighting crime and
repression of students. The

persecution of students selling
literature or after protests makes the
intended use of a campus police
force highly suspect.
The most fearful result would be
the misuse of police power on
campus. Under the status quo, the
city is responsible for the police and
can review their activity, but
University policy would not have to
answer to the community for their
actions, only to the Regents. The
plan would provide state funded
training for officers which would
hopefully minimize wrongful use of
authority. However, the potential
for student-University conflicts is
greater when students feel they are
being dominated by powerful
officers.
Under the worst scenarios, these
officers could be deployed to quell
future protests without being
publicly accountable for their
actions. Under existing rules,
University security decides when to
call the police in on a protest, but
the police are not directly
accountable to the Regents.
This proposal may also be a step
towards more University control
over students non-academic
conduct. With unique police
apparatus to arrest students, it will
be easier to monitor and control
students opposing University
guidelines. As Jeff Epton (D-Third
Ward) said, "Proliferation of police
forces is one way to trample on civil
and personal rights."
Giving some officers on campus
guns will not decrease our most
problematic crimes of rape and
assault. Reorganizing of the patrols
which the University currently pays
to check for open containers and
improved lighting of dangerous
areas, might deter more attacks than
giving the 20 or so officials police
powers. In a positive move, the
University has recently installed
four more emergency phones which
makes it easier for victims to call
police for help.
The priority of the University and
the City of Ann Arbor must be to
promote safety through more
effective and extensive use of their
resources such as additional lighting
and crime prevention programs. At
the same time, campus police can
protect the students from crime
without the use of handguns and
police powers. While any amount
of crime is too much, the cost of
deputizing campus police outweighs
the meager benefits they may
provide.

Daily,
By Andre V. Harris
In the 11/3/87 edition of the
Michigan Daily, two articles
struck me with a very cold and
callous feeling about the
concerns of the students on this
campus and the staff members
of this paper. The page one
article concerning the vile
racist attack on a member of
this collegiate community, in
my opinion, was treated as a
trivial matter. In the last
week, we have seen attitudinal
racist behavior emerge from the
Mary Clark incident, the UAC-
employed "Homecoming
Three's" attempt to single out
a black finalist from the
Homecoming C o u r t
competition, and now this
most blatant, bold and idiotic
attempt to physically and
psychologically degrade
someone on the basis of race.
Think about it, Daily staffers;
this is a pure case of racial
harassment, and I go so far as
to say the action borders sexual
harassment. To the average
person, being GRABBED by
one's clothing and TOLD that
Blacks have "BIG ASSES"
because we "HAVE OUR
Andre V. Harris is an LSA
junior and a Minority Peer
Advisor for South Quad
Residence Hall.

Campus are

TAILS WRAPPED UP AND
STUFFED IN OUR PANTS"
is hard to imagine in "liberal-
minded" Ann Arbor.
Also, in talking with the'
victim, she made mention of
the fact that she discussed the
rather impersonal and brisk
questioning she suffered 'at the
hands of one of Leo Heatley's
"professional" Public Safety
Officers WITH the Daily
reporter who took her story.
THE MAN TRIED TO MAKE
HER CHANGE HER STORY,
EVEN WHILE SOMEONE
ELSE WAS IN THE ROOM
OBSERVING HIS TACTICS.
(Do we really want
"gentlemen" like this "Dirty
Harry-type" to also handle a
gun?) What's so ironic about
this is that the victim of this
racist attack called security
HERSELF! And yet, the
Daily does not mention the
questioning of the victim in
the story and even BURIED the
story under an article dealing
with Community High
School. I hate to tell you this
folks, but we have got another
crisis on our hand, despite what
the complacent "majority"
believes. And the Daily, all
the way from the editor, who
determined the importance and
placement of the article, to the
reporter who trivialized the

story to read as "just another
RACISM article," ALONG
WITH the University rent-a-
cops have to be held
accountable for another botched
attempt at newswriting and
investigating. No act which
violates the human rights of a
person should be
TRIVIALIZED!! Needless to
say, the victim feels even more
unsupported by another
University organization.
The page four letter by yet
another "supposedly"
intelligent student was the
straw that broke the camel's
back. Mr. Lawrence Hamann,
did you leave your common
sense at home with Mommy
and Daddy? Where the hell do
you come up with the
ridiculous logic that, and I
quote, "There is
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
RACIST about the phrase,
'FUNKY BLACK BITCH'?!"
I bet you consider the word
"nigger" when addressed to a,
black person a compliment,
based on your very faulty
logic! Man, use the brains
that God gave you! Who else
was this derogatory phrase
aimed at but Mrs. Clark? If
you had used your analytical
skills properly, you would
have realized that in taking the
whole phrase in context, a
concept taught in GRADE

racist
SCHOOL, the racist intent of
the phrase slaps you in the
face; that is how one conveys
ideas.
If people like yourself are
being admitted into this
University based on your
intellect, this school might as
well allow high school
dropouts in the student body.
You, my friend (and I use the
term "friend" very loosely), are
a prime example of being
"book smart" but ignorant in
applying your "intelligence;"
i.e. no damn COMMON
SENSE! Here, again, is
another example of the
violation of a person's human
rights being TRIVIALIZED!!
What will it take to open
people's eyes that what we
have here racism escalating to a
level of crisis, a lynching?
The Ku Klux Klan burning
crosses in the Diag?
And, finally, back to the Daily
staff, if I were to grab one of
you and make a bigoted
remark, I'm sure I'd make front
page, top headline news:
"IRATE BLACK MAN
ATTACKS DAILY
STAFFER." 'And you folks
wonder why so few Blacks
write for you. WE BLACKS
ARE TIRED OF SUCH
RACIST TIRADES! THE
MADNESS MUST STOP!!!

LETTERS
Letter vindicates U CAR struggle

To the Daily:
In light of the recent letter to
the Daily entitled "'Funky
Black Bitch' isn't racist," it is
apparent that the struggle
continues and UCAR has its
work cut out. In the letter
Lawrence Hamann states that
"calling someone funky is not
racist, calling someone a bitch
is not racist, likewise calling
someone Black is not racist
either." The problem with this
strictly semantic and likewise
simplistic analysis of the issue
is that it ignores the reality of
the incident. Someone did not
on three different occasions go
into Ms. Clark's assigned
territory and scrawl three
"indifferent," unrelated
adjectives on the mirror. The
message is clear, the intended
victim is clear and the
flagrantly racist motivations of
the perpetrators of the incident
is crystal clear to UCAR as
well as other progressive
thinkers on this campus: Ms.
Clark, as one of the examples
of the rapacity . of
institutionalized racism on this
campus and elsewhere, is a
Black woman holding a low-
paying job reserved for people
of color, with the highest
paying jobs going to white
men; she is also a diligent
union representative, who has
on many occasions been
targeted for harrassment (with
the most recent incident being
the East Engineering
bathroom), not only because
she has attempted to improve
the miserable conditions under
which campus employees in
general must work, but because
she is a Black woman trying
to make those improvements.
The words "funky Black bitch"
were not scrawled on the mirror
in an effort to merely single
out Ms. Clark from a crowd of,
say, "funky assholes" or
"funky dogs." To even suggest
that the manner in which the
attack was carried out serves as
some type of "identification
device for a non-racist incident"
(my quotes) is in itself racist
because it maintains: a) that

as the struggles of people of
color on the UM campus and
in the Ann Arbor community
are inextricably linked and
should be viewed as such.
This incident is but one more
indication of the blatantly
racist behavior which has
become all too acceptable in
Ronald Reagan's America. It
is a visible manifestation of
the systemic racism which
pervades our society and which
seeks to oppress the people of

color and the poor in this
country. We must not accept
the "business as usual" attitude
of our University
administration, nor the
administration that sits in the
white house. The time has
come for students, workers and
members of the community to
realize the links in their
struggles and make the positive
steps necessary to unite and
work together. On
Thursday, November 5,

in the Michigan Union at
12:00 Noon, the United
Coalition Against
Racism will sponsor a
forum between workers,
students and the Ann
Arbor community in
order to begin to bridge
some . of the gaps.
Students, workers, community:
Unite and Fight!!!!!
-Lillien Waller,
UCAR
November 4

6

Don't attack 'U' hirin

To the Daily:
This letter is in response to
the 10/28/87 Daily letter enti-
tled "U racism contributes to
status quo." It appears as if
some of the members of The
United Coalition Against
Racism (UCAR) have once
again misinterpreted an isolated
act of racism.
I simply do not understand
how this act of obvious gross
unnecessary racism was twisted
into an attack on the Univer-
sity's hiring policies. For
those who did not read the arti-
cle which I am speaking about,
I will simply quote a portion
which I found to be unfair as
well as unrealistic. The article
stated, "For it is the racist hir-
ing practices and policies of the
University which maintain the
status quo with Black women
in the lowest-paying, least
prestigious job positions and
white men in the decision-
making positions."
This incident involving Ms.

Clark is sad and unjustifiable;
However, I regret to say that it
is not a result of the University
of Michigan and/or its policies
and practices. This, along with
many other racist acts are due
to the condition of our society,
not the University or its ad-
ministrators.
I wish that some of the
members of UCAR would
begin with the root of the
problem instead of using
scapegoats as a method of
solving the problem of racism
in the world. I particularly find
it offensive when hypothetical
and irrelevant situations are
posed to serve as examples of
racism. The article stated, "If
someone placed a pile of shit
on Harry's desk and called him
a '!@#$%*,' administration
and faculty would be up i n
arms...." This simplywould
never happen because of the
pure fact that Harold Shapiro
(to whom I think you were re-

g policies
ferring) is not a custodian.
Let's have some dignity and
respect people; Harold Shapiro
did not commit this act. Most
of us want to work together to
combat racism. Please don't
constantly insinuate that ev-
eryone is basically a racist.
Educating the University
community about racial differ-
ences is a start, but let's not
continue to attack the policies
and practices of the administra-
tion and University itself.
Pointing. the finger at
individuals will not solve this
problem. When UCAR finally
realizes that these absurd out-
lashes at other institutions and
organizations only create ten-
sion and resentment between
the Black and White com-
munities, progress toward
making the world a better place
will proceed!
-Jon Zitzman
October 28

rsTCS A WAY tDowd\
~~NO W PNOW TPKE COUN~TY
1AS CONOW\CO ITROUSLES

Zinn

6

9 '1M MAX! u'r

. ,

1

c-

m

A

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan