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