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