4 OPINION Page 6 Wednesday, January 27, 1988 The Michigan Daily I R1w 3idigan Bailjj Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Institutionalized racial bias Vol. XCVIII, No. 81 420 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. Unpardonable Pardons THE PERJURY conviction of former White House aide Michael Deaver is the most prominent conviction of a former Reagan administration of- ficial, and hopefully will not be the last. But investigations of Poindex- ter and North currently led by in- dependent counsel (special pros- ecutor) Lawrence Walsh may be in vain. Deaver currently faces a jail sen- tence for lying to Congress about his lobbying activities after he left the government payroll. More con- victions may follow. There is a line of past and present administration officials who are un- der the eye of independent prose- cutors because of possible criminal conduct. The list includes Lt. Colonel Oliver North, former Ad- miral John Poindexter, former White House aide Lyn Nofziger and Attorney General Edwin Meese II. Nonetheless President Reagan has been urged to pardon both North and Poindexter by advisors who claim the men acted from "principal" and not criminal intent. The President has also received counsel to that affect from his Cali- fornia buddy and former National Security Advisor, William Clark. The Iran-contra scandal revealed the extent to which some ad- ministration officials consider lying to Congress as acceptable practice. Neither North, nor Assistant Sec- retary of State Elliott Abrams felt obligated to tell Congress the truth about their actions and those they conducted in the name of the United States. During the Iran-contra hearings, North explained that his previous lies to Congress regarding the arms deal were necessary due to congressional inability to keep se- crets. Evidently the Lieutenant Colonel trusted the Iranians more than he trusted elected American officials. According to North it was a matter of "lies or lives" - referring to American hostages held in Lebanon. Abrams lied to congressional committees regarding attempts by Tell Purse. NEXT WEEK CARL PURSELL will once again have to choose between voting for aid to the terrorist contras and representing his constituents. In the past he has chosen to vote for terrorism. Tomorrow at 4 p.m., concerned students and citizens will converge on Pursell's Ann Arbor office, at 361 W. Eisenhower, to persuade him to vote against any aid to the contras. Cars will leave from the Michigan Union at 3:45 p.m. The vote will be close, and Ann Arbor's U.S. Representative Carl Pursell has once again said he is undecided. In a meeting with representatives of Ann Arbor peace groups on Friday, Pursell said he was waiting to see "if Ortega was really sincere" about his recent decision to negotiate a cease fire with the contras. Pursell is looking for an excuse to vote for the aid, as he has on every major vote in the past four years. Indeed, the Reagan administration's latest plan to place all or part of the contra aid in an escrow account is nothing more than an attempt to provide such a pretext for Pursell the State Department to finance the contras via funds from other states (notably Brunei). Abrams' mis- leading statements were made when such activities by U.S. officials were specifically prohibited by Congress. Readers may draw their own conclusions as to why those statements were made. Abrams was not under oath when he lied, it probably never occurred to the legislators that such action would be necessary. This technicality may be all that stands between him and a perjury indict- ment. Further, during the congressional hearings themselves, false testi- mony was surely given by either North or Poindexter. While under oath, North asserted that Poindexter assured him that the President had approved the diversion of arms-sale profits to the contras. However, Poindexter testified he did no such thing. Ironically, the spectacle of ad- ministration officials coming under the scrutiny of the law for unethical and perhaps illegal actions has never been substantively addressed by Reagan. Not once has the presi- dent come forward and clearly stated his opposition to this type of behavior. The progress of independent investigators should not be undermined by the threat of pardons or partisan politics. If it is proved that those under investigation are guilty of lying, obstruction of justice, or violations of the Neu- trality Act and Boland Amendment, they should be prosecuted and convicted as was Michael Deaver. Talk of presidential pardons for North and Poindexter is outrageous and indicative of how little the cur- rent administration regards the constitutional processes and responsibilities of Congress when they conflict with administration desires. It is troubling that such suggestions are even considered. Let the investigation proceed and the chips fall where they may. l1: Vote No When the talks fail, the aid money is released. Pursell's intent to collaborate with this scenario was indicated by some disturbing answers he gave to ac- tivists' questions on Friday. Pursell was asked, if he were convinced that the government of Nicaragua had a better record on human rights and democracy than the governments of El Salvador, Honduras, and.Guatemala, would he then vote against the aid to the contras? His answer was an evasive no. The very fact the Congress is debating whether or not to fund a mercenary army to overthrow a sovereign, democratically elected government, shows how little respect the U.S. government has for international law. In his State of the Union address last night, Reagan talked about other nations "looking up to America." But no one looks up to a country that uses its military and economic power to brutalize smaller nations and attempts to rob them of their independence. This is how the debate on Contra aid is seen by the By Mark Williams The response of the University ad- ministration to overt racial incidents and charges of racial bias on campus under- score what Blacks and concerned whites have been saying for years - that discrimination and racism has become in- stitutionalized, and is now deeply rooted in everyday attitudes and operations of so- ciety. The spectacle presented by LSA Dean Peter Steiner exemplifies this phe- nomenon and demonstrates that discrimi- nation and racism are built-in, integral components of University policy and op- erating procedure. Steiner's views on minorities and education are now a matter of general knowledge. He lays the blame for Black educational and economic disadvantages squarely in the lap of Blacks themselves. A list of Steiner's insights include such well-known "facts" as his contention that "many scientists are not prepared to con- sider evidence that there may be differences in intelligence among races because as good liberals they feel that all races ought to be equal," that "mental and physical handicaps (and) ... low motivation" cause poverty, that Blacks do not choose "to take advantage of the expanded educational opportunities that are available to them," that they are inhibited by the "absence of a supportive value structure," that "something in the environment leads Blacks ... to be less willing to invest the time in college," and that there must be a "revolution in Blacks' attitudes towards higher education" before the problem of. underrepresentation of Blacks at universi- ties will be solved. As provocative as these statements are, the response of the University administra- tion is even more revealing. Last week, five faculty members of Steiner's all-white LSA executive committee expressed their "complete confidence" in Steiner's com- mitment to affirmative action while others felt that calls for Steiner to apologize were unwarranted. LSA Assistant Dean for Fa- cilities and Administration James Cather went so far as to label the outcry against Steiner "ridiculous," and assert that the United Coalition Against Racism (UCAR) was "looking for confrontations." Ac- Mark Williams is an Opinion Page staff member cording to Vice President for Academic Affairs James Duderstadt, LSA faculty are "overwhelmingly" supportive of Steiner. Other than describing Steiner's remarks as poorly worded, interim President Robben Fleming's virtual silence in the affair has been deafening. To demonstrate just how inadequate the administration's response has been, con- sider two incidents which occurred outside the University. Last year on ABC's Nightline, Al.Campanis, a vice-president with the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball organization repeatedly told a national television audience that there were no Blacks in baseball managerial positions because Blacks "lacked some of the neces- sities" to be a team manager or general manager. The Dodger response was swift. In less than 7 days Campanis was fired. More recently, CBS terminated the con- tract of sports commentator Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder for explaining how Blacks were "bred" to be better athletes than whites. After Snyder spurned CBS' request to resign, he was fired within 72 hours. Gene Jankowski, president of the CBS Broadcast Group, called the comments "patently racist" and said CBS took action "to categorically dissociate itself from these remarks." Although the philosophies of Campa- nis, Snyder and Steiner were all racially (and erroneously) motivated, how different have been the responses of the institutions they represented. Campanis and Snyder were fired while Steiner has been defended. Campanis and Snyder were fired because officials at CBS and the Dodgers felt their comments and philosophies did not repre- sent those of their respective organiza- tions. This was not a matter of free speech versus censorship, but rather a clear case of decency and managerial prerogatives. While individuals are free to hold any opinions they wish, the employers whom they represent are not obligated to pay them to spread these opinions ih the name of the firm. Steiner's case is no different. Many of Dean Steiner's most offensive remarks were made in his capacity as an official representative of the University, yet by its quiescence and defense of those remarks, the administration signals that it feels they accurately reflect University philosophy. Indeed they do. Steiner asserts that he has not seen "any evidence" that institutional racism plays a major role in keeping Blacks out of higher education, yet his actions and stated policy procedures for minority hiring and enroll- ment clearly demonstrate the opposite.. While Steiner blames Blacks for their poor educational "attitudes" and laments the dearth of minorities at Michigan, he warns against making institutional changes which would cause minorities to "flock (to Michigan) in much-greater numbers" and conveniently finds excuses to denigrate and not hire Black Ph.Ds from institutions which succeed in producing them - Howard and Wayne State Universities. Although Steiner's remarks are couched in academic jargon they are nonetheless racist, and when used as a basis for Uni- versity policies, the result is institutional racism. The administration continues to vacil- late on racism and minority representation, offering rhetoric and duplicity in place of constructive efforts to reform. Rather than acting out the University's mission to ed- ucation by requiring a mandatory course on racism, Fleming seeks to punish stu- dent behavior via a Code of conduct. Rather than implementing the demands and goals presented by UCAR (designed to increase minority representation), the University, through individuals such as Steiner excludes minorities from Michi- gan and blames that exclusion on minori- ties themselves. Some recoil when student activists demonstrate and feel they are "overreacting". "Why do they always have to demonstrate rather than engage in posi- tive activities" ask critics? It is precisely due to administrative inactivity and institutional discrimination, that groups such as UCAR are forced to react to inci- dents of racism. These groups have a growing basis of support, for the attitudes expressed by Steiner and his administrative backers do not represent those of many, many members of the University commu- nity - students and faculty. Indeed, Blacks and many whites are no longer willing to tolerate such ignorant, mis- guided, anti-Black sentiments as a repre- sentation of their institution. This is a fact worth pondering. Institutional change will come one way or the other, and the challenge to the administration is to be a part of that change, not an obstacle to it. LETTERS. Daily has foreign policy double standard To the Daily: I understand that the Dai considers itself to be publication with a left wi editorial slant and, as "liberal," I do appreciate views on many issues. TI appreciation, however, w, brought to its limit when I re, the Daily's December editorial about the Soy invasion of Afghanistan. N that I disagree with the editor - I agree with the baE premise completely: the Sovy invasion of Afghanistan morally reprehensible and t Soviets should withdraw soon as possible - it was 1 way this opinion was present that disgusted me. Yes, the United States America has very dirty har when it comes to foreign pc icy. To this there is no dou But, was it necessary to ca logue American foreign poli offences in order to criticize 1 Soviet Union? To promote Soviet withdrawal fro Afghanistan , was it essent to mention American atrociti in Chile, Vietnam, Nicaragi Indonesia and El Salvadc And when the Daily writ editorials condemning Ame: Fleming: To the Daily: An unfortunate shadow w cast over the brilliant and su cessful march when Preside Fleming and his entourage d cided to show up at the mare What happened to the treme can atrocities, why is there rarely (if ever) a similar cata- logue of Soviet atrocities in places like Eastern Europe and Afghanistan? A double standard is clear. Someone on the editorial staff obviously feels that when the Daily does criticize the Soviet Stop attacki To the Daily: Walking through the Diag today I was disappointed to see that AGAIN the shanties had been destroyed. I must admit to being bewildered at the purpose of this stupid and much repeated act. Who are you people that keep attacking the shanties ?! And why do you persist in destroying two of the few truly righteous symbols we have on this campus? My point is simply this: millions of people in South Africa are going through hell while we live lives of comfort and security in the arms of a free society. Despite the shanties' role as an "eyesore" they serve as a much needed symbol of our solidarity with a people who are struggling for Union, it must also criticize the United States to give its editorials a better perspective. It is in this way that the Daily insults its reader's intelligence. People do not forget the sins of the United States when the sins of the adversary superpower are being condemned. And one is not disloyal to the cause of opposing bad American foreign policy by writing a Soviet condemnation that is not, also, a condemnation of the United States. -Steven Susswein December 11 4 anti-apartheid shanties long-overdue freedom similar to that which we in America have enjoyed for over 200 years. Such symbols are espe- cially powerful standing here on our campus, a bastion of mostly white, affluent, em- powered, upwardly mobile youth. You are succeeding in mak- ing a statement, but it is nei- ther a politically constructive one, nor a "cool" one about which you can later brag to your friends. It is a thought- less, narrow-minded, ignorant, and insensitive attack on sym- bols which strongly support sympathy for those very values that have made- our country a great place for you to grow up, live and go to school in. So please divert your creative en- ergies elsewhere and leave the shanties alone. 4 -Scott Fedewa January 10 Zinn Why march? P Zr s auk On 1 v r Yes, like King, we chose to sacrifice; to sacrifice for a bet- ter cause-for freedom, for justice and equality for all of us. What did Fleming sacrifice for? A front page photo in the Daily? Live T.V. coverage? It r I