4
OPINION
Page 4
Tuesday, February 9, 1988
The Michigan Doily
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Vol. XCVIII, No. 90 420 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.
Don't let one state determine America's next president:
Downplay Iowa caucuses
4
P.L.O. not
representative
TODAY'S HEADLINES are full of
results and analysis of the Iowa
presidential caucuses. In response,
newspapers and magazines will
surely plaster their covers with pic-
tures of the candidates who emerge
victorious from this first step on the
path to the White House.
The bright media spotlight shone
on Iowa is too selective, and places
too much emphasis on the success-
ful candidates while shadowing the
campaigns of others.
For the "winner," the results are a
glut of media attention, with its free
advertising benefits, and designa-
tion as the front-runner, with its
beneficial impact on fundraising.
"Losers" and those who performed
unexpectedly poorly in the state,
receive less attention and the candi-
date's bid for the presidency often.
wanes.
* True, Iowa is the first official
measure of candidate strength and
observers excitedly watch this first
real contest in the 1988 presidential
series. Nonetheless, the Iowa cau-
cuses, with their narrow represen-
tative cross-section, should not hold
such an influential position i n
choosing the president.
The Iowa caucuses should not get
such power because Iowans' views
of the issues differ widely from
those of the rest of the nation.
Iowa is a rural state and therefore
a candidate often pushes for farm
subsidies even if the candidate does
not necessarily support them. Two
candidates, Senator Al Gore (D-
Tennessee) and former Gov. Pierre
"Pete" duPont (R-Delaware), have
said they will not push for agricul-
tural subsidies. Not surprisingly,
both ceased campaigning in the state
weeks before the caucuses.
The nature of the caucus system
makes the Iowa caucuses a poor
indicator of the nation's voting
mood. In each district caucus, the
voters assemble in a hall. Support-
ers of each candidate stand in des-
ignated areas. If a candidate's area
contains less than 15 percent of the
total participants in the district, then
the candidate's supporters are told
to go to the area of their second
choice candidate.
Theoretically, a candidate could
receive 14 percent of the votes in
each district in Iowa (a fairly strong
showing), but would come out of
the caucuses with no delegates. As
such, the caucus system may fatally
hinder the prospects of legitimate
contenders in the state.
Caucuses are little more than the
vestigial remnants of backroom
machine politics. Primaries, already
used in most states (as next week in
New Hampshire), are much fairer
rulers of candidate support as they
allow voters to express their prefer-
ences within the party. Primaries,
since they better represent the voter,
should replace the few remaining
caucuses as selectors of convention
delegates.
Today's headlines should thus be
taken with at least a few grains of
salt. Iowa is only the official start-
ing point of the presidential cam-
paign, not the whole race. Many
months, many handshakes,' and
many delegates still separate the
candidates from victory.
By Jack Nahmod
I am writing to you concerning your
opinion in Monday's paper entitled "Free
Palestine" (Daily; 1/18/88), which dis-
cusses the present situation in Israel. Al-
though in your superscript you mention
"the return of the territories," your head-
line exclaims "Free Palestine." By refer-
ring to Israel as Palestine, the issue of the
territories becomes secondary; you are
denying the right of the Jewish people to
the homeland that we initially settled
some 4000 years ago. For the sake of the
rest of the world, this right has been con-
firmed in modern times by the United Na-
tions - the same U.N. that you have ap-
plauded for condemning Israel's recent ac-
tions. Please make up your mind - do
you consider the U.N. legitimate or not?
You mention that the Israeli troops have
used "live ammunition," while the
demonstrators are "armed with little more
than rocks." I assume that the "little
more" you are referring to is the firebombs
that groups of thousands of Arabs bom-
bard handfuls of soldiers with. Although
you say Israel has no justification for
shooting, I have a feeling that you would
try to defend yourself if your life was be-
ing threatened.
Also on the subject of physical con-
frontations, you say that "Palestinian
youth might have been less destructive and
violent. "Might?!" I guess you "might"
also say that their violence was justified
- in direct contrast to Israeli use of force,
which can never be justified.
"It is not surprising," you state, "that
Palestinian youth who have grown up un-
der Israel's iron fist are expressing their
opposition to Israel's hostile rule." It is
not surprising because these youth do not
know what it was like under Jordanian and
Egyptian occupation. The parents of the
youth do. The parents know that the
treatment they now receive from Israel is
far superior to what they had been sub-
jected to in the past. The-youth are igno-
rant.
It is not a "racist concept" to expect
Jordan to absorb the Palestinians. In fact,
more than 50% of Jordanian citizens are
Palestinians. Therefore, Jordan would not
be absorbing "ethnically and culturally
different Palestinians." Not only are both
Arabs; both are Palestinians.
You argue that the PLO should "be rec-
ognized by Israel and the U.S. as a repre-
sentative of the people." Then later you
say that the PLO will not necessarily run
the territories; "rather, this question should
be decided by the Palestinians them-
selves." Once again, please make up your
mind - does the PLO represent the peo-
ple, or have the people not yet decided?
The idea that Israel should negotiate
with the PLO is inherently paradoxical.
On one side, you would have Israel dis-
cussing peace with a terrorist group that
wishes to push the Jewish people into the
sea. And on the other side of the negotiat-
ing table, the PLO would be bargaining
with a country which they feel has no
right to exist. I don't understand - how
would they negotiate with a country they
do not even recognize?
The PLO cannot be considered the sole
representative of the Palestinians due to a
severe lack of political unity. And because
no responsible leader has come forward,
Israel cannot simply cease its occupation
of the territories. Israel does not need an
anarchic haven for terrorists on her
doorstep. Until someone else is willing to
take responsibility for the territories, Israel
has a legal obligation to keep them under
control.
Finally, in reference to the PLO, you
say that "some factions have brutally
killed civilians." But not all the factions,
so the PLO isn't all that bad, right? On
the other hand, Israel "employs indiscrim-
inate bombings of highly populated ar-
eas." "Indiscriminate?!" The bombings are
always directed at bases of terrorist activ-
ity, and occur because Israel will not
tolerate terrorism. Even if the terrorists
have commanded the public's sympathy.
Jack Nahmod is a junior in LSA
Wasserman
4
mI 1988
DMIOCPAXs,
CAMDIDPRTE. 1
Sleeps anvd.
Talks ini ks Sleef'.
CMD'VAX 3
Puts you to steep.
CMDIDPTe4
Sleeys in his clothes,
CANItALTC5
Sleef s aoy irnbeds
Stjl A eeds kissieef.
CANDIfDATE 7
t1A
Z.S asleep.
4
Despite recent decisions, women must persist in court:
Let the jury decide
LETTERS
UCAR could
To the Daily:
Please address the following
letter to UCAR. It's time
enough someone told you that
you are too radical. For a group
claiming to be the modern-day
successors of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., you disgrace
his name. Have you ever
thought how he would respond
to the recent problems we have
had on campus? Certainly not
the way you have been doing.
He preached and utilized a
concept called passive
resistance and his successful
irpplementation of this concept
allowed him to make great
strides in racial equality for our
nation. Why don't you study
the ways of the -great Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. to find
out what made him successful,
and when confronted with an
issue considered racist, ask
yourselves beforehand. How
would he have acted? My
criticism is constructive. Yes, I
be more effective through
less
am criticizing y o u r
organization but not your
cause.
Your cause is valid and
deserves the utmost attention; .
however, calling those who
challenge your actions "racists"
is not the proper way and only
impedes your goals. ft was
necessary for he to go to one
class on Martin Luther King
day which happened to be in
Angell Hall. For violating the
"line of unity," as you called
it, I was labeled a racist by a
man on a megaphone. He is
the racist, not me! Had I not
had a test in that class, I would
not have gone. I did boycott
the rest of my classes that day,
but it was not for UCAR, it
was for Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. I would not roll out
of bed for today's radical
UCAR. You claim to be an
organization that upholds and
implements the ideals of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Bull!
If this were true, your
organization would not have
called me a racist on the day we
were honoring his greatness
and the greatness of his ideals.
Don't. just believe in him,
follow him. Heed my advice,
and your organization will not
only be more effective in
combatting racism, but equally
respected.
-Nick Mavrick
January 28
I
More student input on code
radicalism
LAST WEEK, Washtenaw County
Circuit Court Judge Ross Campbell
decided to dismiss a sexual assault
case involving a woman and a
visiting University professor.
The woman was attempting to get
into her house at 3 a.m. last
September when the visiting
professor, Thomas Rosenboom,
allegedly grabbed her arm, touched
her breast and attempted to kiss her.
Campbell ruled that there was
insufficient evidence to determine
whether the attack was motivated by
desire for sexual gratification.
Whether or not this woman was
attacked with such intent should
clearly have been decided by a jury
in court, and not unilaterally by
Judge Campbell. Justice is not
served when a case is kept out of
court because of one person's deci-
sion.
Judge Campbell admitted that one
of his reasons for making his deci-
sion was that he did not want to see
an adverse jury verdict due to the
"passions or the causes of the day."
Perhaps Campbell meant that juries
tend to be biased in favor of a
woman who claims to be assaulted
and that Professor Rosenboom
needed to be protected from such
juries.
In the Griffith Neal case last
September, however, an accused
doubt" as to whether there w a s
force or coercion involved in the
act. In other words, despite the fact
that she was severely bruised, had
serious vaginal injuries, and had
lost blood, the court did not
conclude that "malicious" force was
used against her. Neal is now filing
a defamation of character suit.
Judge Campbell's dismissal of the
case clearly has adverse conse-
quences for the plaintiff, as well as
for women everywhere who are
afraid to speak out when they are
sexually assaulted.
Only one out of every ten women
who is sexually assaulted end up
bringing her case to court, and it is
small wonder - FBI statistics
indicate that only two percent of
such cases reported result in
conviction. The inequality of power
that exists between men and women
in our society creates a judicial
system in which a woman goes
through the pain and humiliation of
bringing her case to the authorities,
only to find out that "she really
wanted it," or to have the charges
dismissed.
Don't blame women for bringing
their cases to court: the risks and the
pain involved are overwhelmingly
great, and the chances of receiving
justice are questionable. Neverthe-
less, they must keep trying, and the
To the Daily:
"Students, if they want and
know how [to improve Uni-
versity life], can help choose
the new University president,
work on plans for the imp-
rovement of life for minorities,
and help draft a code."(Daily,
1/20/88). However, the recent
actions of MSA in response to
President Fleming's 'code'
proposal endanger the current
privilege of student involve-
ment in making such deci-
sions. "I put this out as a
proposal to .be discussed," said
Fleming. "I had hoped that,
there would be a rational dis-
course." (Daily, 1/12/88).
MSA President Ken Weine
feels that a better way to deal
with this is through "unified
opposition," which includes
boycotting any attempts at
discussing the proposal. "If he
wants a war, he's got one,"
said one MSA representative
(Daily, 1/13/88).
Mike Phillips, chair of the
Student's Rights Committee,
felt dramatic and used a sym-
bolic kangaroo to imitate the
proposed code's 'jury' system,
while stating, "There's a lot of
people who respect (Fleming).
and respect this body(Regents).
I'm not one of them."(Daily,
1/15/88).
When issued, Fleming sent
the code proposal to MSA and
other groups for consideration,
and without even conferring
with other MSA members,
Weine decided to slap Fleming
and the Administration in the
face by releasing it to the Daily
and the public. Both Fleming,
and Shapiro before him, have
repeatedly tried to involve stu-
dent participation in drafting a
code, but have met MSA op-
position to even considering a
proposal.
Fleming's latest action, at-
tempting to sidestep the bylaw
requiring MSA concurrence on
a code, is his warning that not
only is it his rightful power as
President tp go around a group
obviously determined to avoid
"rational discourse", but that he
is willing to do so. Unless
MSA, the Student's Rights
Committee and Mike Phillips
stop their useless rhetoric and
start co-operating with efforts
to include student input, the
University of Michigan may
not only end up with a code,
but one with which none of us
had anything to do
-Daniel D. Quick
Tobin L. Smith
January 28
Boring subject, boring papers
To the Daily:
I am responding to the article
"Report criticizes writing on
LSA" (.Daily, 1/29/88), espe-
cially the assertion by a politi-
cal science professor that "The
poor ability to write is quite
discouraging. Mostly student
writing is lifeless and
mechanical, with no source of
animating, ideas." (A rather
melodic phrase in itself, don't
you agree?) The problem lies
not in the students' ability to
write, but in the field o f.
political science itself and the
examples of political science
itself and the examples of po-
litical writing presented to us.
Political Science is not a
pretty field. International anar-
chy, nation-state integration,
bureaucratic hegemonic mili-
tary doctrine - I hate to throw
these terms out into the family
read, meant to be understood,
and interesting to the reader.
Pretentious jargon and an
undying affinity for the comma
give political writing the
"outside is bigger than the in-
side" effect. My contention is
that political scientists write
simply to fill the ominous
white page, with little or no
'consideration for how people
will perceive their ideas. When
articles can be understood, they
are usually so mundane as to
extinguish the sparks of ani-
mated imagination.
A few words to our political
masters: read George Orwell's
essay "Politics in the English
Language." Assign it to your
students. If we know it's okay
to write in basic English in-
stead of the "politicalese" we
read. we mayL et our ias
Address institutional racism
To the Daily:
Rather than attributing low
Black enrollment levels to the
absence of a supportive value
structure among Blacks, we
should shift our focus to the
white structures and attitudes
predominate academically. If
the university is really
committed to confronting
racism, it will remove LSA
Dean Peter Steiner, whose bla-
tantly racist remarks have been
well-bnhicied. and nav more