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 16, 1988 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1988-09-16

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

4

OPINION

Page 4

Friday, September 16, 1988

The Michigan Daily

4

Edite fmngdb tsa nivstMichigan l
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

When will Safety use guns?

Vol. IC No. 7

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.
Anti*-Semiticstaff

A DARK CLOUD OF DOUBT hangs
over the Bush campaign with the resig-
nation of Frederic Malek. As the
second campaign official in a week to
resign for anti-Semitic actions or pro-
Nazi affiliations, Malek's history raises
serious questions about the nature of
the political coaliton behind Bush and
Reagan.
Malek, a high level adviser to Bush,
resigned this week from the Republican
National Committee after admitting that
he had compiled a list of Jewish offi-
cials employed by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) at the request of Presi-
dent Nixon in 1971. Nixon, whose
y anti-Semitic sentiments are well docu-
mented in the famous Watergate tapes,
was concerned at the time that "a Jew-
ish cabal," as he called it, in the BLS,
was trying to undermine his record on
The economy. Subsequent to Malek's
compilation of the list, two BLS offi-
cials, Harold Goldstein and Peter
Henle, were removed from their jobs.
Malek is not the only member of the
Bush campaign to come under scrutiny
for anti-Semitic activity. Last week, the
campaign fired a member of an advi-
sory panel formed to garner support
from ethnic groups. According to the
New York Times, several members of
this panel had "anti-Semitic in-
volvements or links to fascist groups."
"Perhaps equally disturbing has been
the response, or lack of it, by the B'nai
Brith Anti-Defamation League. Abra-
ham Foxman, the national director of
the B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation
League, defended Malek, saying that he
was merely "carrying out the instruc-
tions" of Nixon. This is a shameful
position for an organization that is
'supposed to be fighting anti-Semitism
and racism, rather than capitulating to
it.
Foxman's excuse for Malek is a
frightening paraphrase of an all too

familiar refrain: Nazi war criminals at
Nuremburg repeatedly asserted that
they were "just following orders."
Foxman has demonstrated that he is
unfit to serve in his present capacity;
local affiliates of the B'nai Brith should
ask him to step down.
This willingness of conservative
leaders of Jewish organizations to as-
sociate with anti-Semitic politicians, so
long as they are uncritical supporters of
Israel, is a disturbing trend. It is not in
the best interests of the Jewish people,
or of the general public. In the case of
the B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation
League, this tendency stands in sharp
contrast to the ADL's unrelenting hos-
tility toward Jesse Jackson, focused on
his use of an ethnic slur to describe
New York City.
Similarly, the media has shown a
terrible double standard in this regard.
It is doubtful whether the high level
participation of anti-Semites in the
Bush campaign will become a major
issue in this Presidential election. Yet
when Jackson was vying for his
party's nomination, his "Hymietown"
remark and his "problems with the
Jewish community" (in actuality certain
conservative Jewish leaders) were
common topics.
Indeed, the media's hypocrisy is
graphically illustrated by how many
people are aware of Jackson's remark
(for which he has apologized and re-
tracted on numerous occasions) as
compared with the few who know
about Nixon's virulent and unrepentant
anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is deeply rooted in
American culture. Efforts to combat
anti-Semitism are hindered when
politicians such as Bush take advantage
of it, or conservative Jewish leaders
like Foxman fail to oppose it. Finally,
the media's willingness to tolerate such
actions by people in power only makes
matters worse.

By Cale Southworth
In the administration's quest to improve
the University's security posture by depu-
tizing two University Public Safety offi-
cers, students have been continually reas-
sured that the deputies will not carry
firearms. Past Interim President Robben
Fleming emphasized his supposed concern
in the proposal "to deal with disruption of
presentations."
&<<
"I want to stress that we should not
permit our deputized officers to carry arms
while dealing with protest activities.
Guns in the hands of University personnel
have no place in campus disputes, as
experience shows. We do not want our
people using guns; we do not want to
tempt others to seize such arms; and we do
not want others carrying arms based upon
the pretext that our Department of Public
Safety employees are armed."
In a memorandum from Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer Farris Wom-
ack to Leo Heatley, now deputized Direc-
tor of Public Safety, the assurance that
University safety officers would not be
carrying guns was repeated.
"The Firearms Policy prevents Depart-
ment employees from carrying any
firearms while on duty, without my spe-
cific authorization to do so. Examples of
when such authorization may be given,
which will not include attendance at stu-
dent demonstration, are provided in the
Policy."
In spite of the calming rhetoric the ad-
ministration and its apologists use, the
Letter of Authorization and Limitation
signed by Womack for the University ad-
ministration and Washtenaw County
Sheriff Ronald Schebil would allow Pub-
lic Safety officers to carry weapons when-
ever they are on duty.
The letter, which is the document writ-
ten by the sheriff's department to define

the powers granted to the new deputies,
leaves the when and where of firearms up
to the discretion of the University: "The
status of UMDPS employees as deputy
sheriffs empowers those named in the ap-
pendix of this policy, to carry a firearm
while on duty or traveling to and from as-
signments.... Authority to carry a firearm.
shall be derived solely from U-M policies
and appropriate Michigan law."
The text of the University's "Firearms
Policy" lists three specific instances for
which permission would be granted for the
use of guns:
1. Escorting large sums of money from
one point to another.
2. Assisting the U.S. Secret Service on an

personnel in Meese's entourage was hit
with an egg. Adding armed campus police
to these events as specified in the Univer-
sity policy will only increase the risk of a
shooting.
"Assisting an outside law enforcement
agency with a felony arrest on campus"
also has implications for student protests.
The annual demonstration against the Nazi
SS Action group typically involves sev-
eral felony arrests. Last year, three stu-
dents were arrested on felony charges.
At this protest, the Nazis surfaced at the
Federal Building, but in past years they
(and the Ku Klux Klan) have demon-
strated on the Diag and on the steps of
Angell Hall. As these groups have re-

'The status of UMDPS employees as deputy sheriffs empowers
those named in the appendix of this policy, to carry a firearm
while on duty.... Authority to carry a firearm shall be derived
solely from U-M policies and appropriate Michigan law.'
-Letter of Authorization from the Washtenaw County Sheriff

"executive protection" assignment.
3. Assisting an outside law enforcement
agency with a felony arrest on campus.
If the administration were acknowledg-
ing the reality of student protests, it would
have to admit that these three guidelines
completely contradict Fleming's reassur-
ance that Public Safety will not be armed
at student demonstrations. Appearances by
U.S. executive officers on campus in-
evitably elicit campus protests. And these
appearances are inevitably accompanied by
the U.S. Secret Service.
There were lively student protests
around campus visits by both U.S. Attor-
ney General Edwin Meese and Vice Presi-
dent George Bush. In fact, the Bush
protest is one of the examples used by
Fleming and Regent Deane Baker (R-Ann
Arbor) to justify the need for the protest
policy and deputizing Public Safety with
the powers of arrest.
When Meese came to speak at the law
school there was much shoving and push-
ing and at least one of the Secret Service

ceived extensive protection from the Ann
Arbor Police, state police and even the
sheriff's department, University deputies
could now be called on to assist in arrest-
ing students protesting their appearance.
In short, there are no guarantees that
firearms will not be used. The University
is free to redefine its position or make ex-
ception to the policy whenever it wants.
Even under the existing restrictions, a
Public Safety officer could encounter a
student demonstration and become in-
volved while carrying a weapon for an-
other assignment.
Guns do not have multiple purposes.
Guns are intended to kill things and guns
in the hands of police are attended to kill
people. Guns in the hands of campus
deputies are to kill students, faculty and
staff. Guns in the hands of University of
Michigan Public Safety officers are to kill
University of Michigan students.
What does the University hope to gain
from the use of firearms?

Cale Southworth is
Daily Opinion Page.

a Co-Editor of the

6'U,

ignores

students

'A,

ITANo)I
T IS A DISTORTED for
which prosecutes protest
tects the right of armed Na
the community. At the
month, two student prote
tried for charges of assau
from an anti-Nazi demon
spring.
"Beware Niggers; D
Semites" are two of the ma
slogans which the Nazi
group were chanting and ac
they gathered in front of
Building in downtown A]
March 19, 1988.
The Nazis, armed with
protected by shields and fi
were allowed to assembl
aegis of the Ann Arbor Po
six Nazis had i8 poli
shielding them from some
anti-fascist demonstrators.
were paid overtime to proi
of an armed white suprem
rorize Ann Arbor.
Citizens opposed to th
ence did not have the recoi
.lowing the Nazis to ma
Further, there was no int
part of the police to protect
nity from racist attacks. T]
tion of the Nazis' presence

Mazi 'rights'
m of justice trusive manner in which the police
ers and pro- handled themselves made violence the
azis to attack only possible outcome.-
end of this Rocks and bottles were hurled at the
sters will be Nazis by a number of the many anti
ilt stemming racist demonstrators. As a result, the
lstration last police arbitrarily and unfairly singled
out anti-Nazi protesters and arrested
eath to all five, two of whom are students.
ay pulsiThe result of the police actions was
ny rep sive a show of solidarity with the Nazis; no
dvocating as one was allowed to obstruct the cam-
theatederal paign of white supremacy. The police
mn Arbor oa brutalized protestors who were com-
mitted to ending the show of fascist
power. Moreover, the Nazis were
h clubs and openly permitted to hit the protestors
ull riot gear with their shields and clubs while the
e under the police busied themselves with rounding
dice. Thirty up the anti-fascist "agitators".
ce officers The Nazis and other groups who
200 hundred perpetuate violence against minorities
The police should not be allowed to assemble in
tect the right Ann Arbor. The mere presence of these
acists to ter- groups incites violence and hatred for
which the community is not responsi-
e Nazi pres- ble. Incitement to violence is not a right
urse of disal- protected by the First Amendment. The
rch armed. outrageous charges still pending
erest on the against those arrested must be dropped.
the commu- The community can not tolerate a sys-
he combina- tem which maintains and defends the
and the ob- spread of fascism and racism.
rj *Si

By Kery Murakami
When the University decided to roll back
tuition increases for in-state students last
month, then Interim President Robben
Fleming said it was no big deal.
Even with the the revenue lost, Fleming
told the Free Press (9/19/88), the Univer-
sity could still "substantially satisfy our
immediate revenue needs."
With the cost of education rising
steadily beyond the reach of more and
more students, why would the University,
in the first place, raise tuition more than it
needed to "substantially" satisfy its needs?
Such a decision is irresponsible. and re-
flective of the wrongs that can arise out of
a political structure on campus that ex-
cludes students from any real power.
Benevolent administrators and regents
may dislike to raise tuition, but little de-
ters them from seeing students as a blank
check solution to the University's bud-
getary woes. In fact, students can do little
to ensure that administrators do not run
rampant over student interests.
In the past, students had only two ways
of trying to affect policy - through serv-
ing on advisory committees and through
protests. Neither, though, represents real
authority. Only the ability to ask. The
only real authority students had, albeit a
Murakami is an LSA senior. As the
Daily's administration reporter in 1985
and 1986, he followed the University
Council's deliberations.

limited one, was bylaw 7.02, which said
the University could not impose rules on
students without the consent of MSA.
The bylaw's dissolution last month not
only means the loss of real power, which
in turn clears the way for an anti-protest
code that further limits the levers students
can pull to have an effect.
The rejection of bylaw 7.02 is
ultimately a slap in the face to the entire
idea that students - whose tuition makes
up more than half of the University's
budget - should have a say in the
decisions their University makes.
It is the flashing of the finger to an ad
hoc committee's recommendation in 1968
that students should be partners of the
University community, not just resources
for the administration to use.
The committee said in a 1968 report to
then-President Fleming, "Student partici-
pation in decision-making processes can
contribute both to the excellence of the
University and the development of its stu-
dents. The quality and maturity of present-
day Michigan students make it desirable to
extend such participation."
Apparently, in denying students the self-
determination promised in 7.02, the re-
gents believe that the quality and maturity
of University students has declined these
past 20 years.
Regents and administrators say that un-
compromising students who served on the
board fortified that right of self-determi-
nation by stalling the progress of the

council towards forming a code. That is a
lie.
Students opposed the code of conduct
the administration wanted - one that
would impose academic sanctions for such
non-academic actions as protest. They did
not blindly oppose a code for cases where
the administration was able, even weakly,
to show a need.
Students on the council worked vigor-
ously in forming recommendations the
council released in April 1986 outlining
actions the University could take in cases
on violent crimes. The University never
said what it thought about these
"emergency procedures." Apparently, ad-
ministrators did not think it was impor-
tant.
Indeed the council went to bat in the fall
of 1984 already with two strikes. When
former University President Harold
Shapiro wrote in a February 1984 memo
to the regents that "it may be necessary to
amend Regents by-law 7.02 to take away
the Michigan Student Assembly's
ratification authority," the council had not
even begun meeting.
The council failed not because of stub-
born students, but simply because of poor
attendance among the faculty and adminis-
tration members.
The terms of many who had been on the
council ran out at the end of Winter Term
1986 and inexplicably, the administration
shuffled its feet in appointing replace-
ments. Not having quorum tends to hinder
the work of any body.
Even if students had stalled the council
by refusing to rubber stamp the adminis-
tration's "proposals," what kind of
democracy grants students rights only as
long as they stay in line?
Part of the blame must lie with student
leaders who, distracted by power games
within and among organizations, let down
their vigilance and stopped pushing for the
changes advocated by MSA President Paul
Josephson's administration of 1985 and
1986. Josephson's student regent idea has
been forgotten.
The nlition of severa1 stuident ornnns

R
t: g
' 1

i . : ". ?

NEWS f a". A -M

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan