OPINION
Page 4 Thursday, January 26, 1989

The Michigan Daily

Kittrie

should

apologize

By Bruce Belcher
Last semester Student Body President,
Mike Phillips, asked me to prepare a
report on the actions of MSA represen-
tative, Zach Kittrie, with respect to Kit-
trie's treatment of minorities working with
MSA and the way in which Kittrie has
misrepresented himself to various agencies
at the University. Many representatives
were aware of Kittrie's conduct; my task
was to compile the information. I have
found that Kittrie undermined members of
MSA on fourteen occasions.
Of the fourteen people undermined,
eleven were minorities. This is unusual
because only about twenty percent of
MSA members are minorities. In fact, the
probability that atmleast eleven of the
fourteen would be minorities is only four
in one million. Therefore, it seems that
Kittrie was singling out minorities. The
various incidents are described below.
While none of these incidents seems-that
bad when one looks at each of them
individually, it is clear that a pattern exists
and that they should not be treated as
isolated incidents.
; Many members of MSA have tried to
take a strong stand against racism and
other forms of bigotry. For example,
MSA has supported sanctions against
Bruce Belcher is the computer consutant to
Advice magazine.

student organizations which organized an
attack on the diag shanties. This year
MSA has passed resolutions against
Cornerstone Christian Fellowship for their
attack on gays and lesbians and on Tagar
for their attack on Arabs. Within MSA,
there has been an attempt to put
minorities in positions of leadership.
Therefore, it is clear that attacks on mi-
nority members of MSA should not be
tolerated. The actions of Kittrie are de-
scribed below.
Kittrie went to the Senate Advisory
Committee on University Affairs
(SACUA) in September of 1988 and told
them that he was MSA's liaison to
SACUA. He said that he was in charge of
making appointments of SACUA
committees and that any correspondence
about such appointments should be ad-
dressed to him. In fact, the MSA President
is the chief spokesperson of MSA, and the
Chair of Campus Governance is the
liaison to SACUA with respect to
appointments. Kittrie was undermining
the authority of Mike Phillips and Vir-
ginia Chang.
Kittrie went to a meeting of the Civil
Liberties Board (CLB) and stated that he
had been appointed to the Board as a
student representative by MSA and that
any correspondence should be directed to
him. MSA was not informed that CLB
would be discussing MSA because the
Chair of CLB told Kittrie about it rather
than telling Mike Phillips or Virginia

Chang. Again, Kittrie was undermining
the authority of Phillips and Chang.
Kittrie went to the Board of Student
Publications and said that he was ap-
pointed to fill a student seat on the Board.
In fact, Campus Governance had not made
a recommendation for the Board and was
looking for a minority to fill the position.
Kittrie undermined Virginia Chang whose
committee was responsible for making the
recommendation.
When MSA members participated in a
protest against an administrative code,
Henry Park was chosen by the group as

This is clearly an attempt to slander
Phillips and Overdorf.
A memo to MSA's Steering Commit-
tee written by Kittrie in December criti-
cized the Rules and Elections Committee
for not making a report about vacancies on
MSA. Kittrie never criticized Rules and
Elections for not making such a report
while Jeff Gauthier was Chair, but as soon
as Lily Hu became chair, Kittrie criticized
her. Moreover, if Kittrie was really
concerned about the report rather than in
criticizing a person of color, then he
would have asked Hu privately for the

'Within MSA, there has been an attempt to put minorities in
positions of leadership. Therefore, -it is clear that attacks on
minority members of MSA should not be tolerated.'

and Teschke. Kittrie never questioned
whether letters of appointment existed
when Ken Weine was President of MSA,
although Weine once allowed
representatives from Engineering to be
seated before they had given him letters of,
appointment. Kittrie also had no reason to
believe that the appointments made by
Rackham were not in order.
Mike Phillips met privately with Kittrie
after the first series of attacks, and, the
problems stopped for some time. Kittrie
resumed his actions against minorities in
late November with the memo to MSA's
Steering Committee. It became necessary
to confront Kittrie publicly to try to get
him to stop his attacks on minorities.
More importantly, the attacks have had a
real effect on MSA. A coalition has been
formed by MSA members who oppose
minority interests. This group was able to
rescind the resolution which imposed
sanctions on Tagar for its attack on Arabs,
and MSA representative, John Coleman,
has stated that he will try to get MSA to
rescind the resolution which imposed
sanctions on student organizations which
had organized an attack on the free South
Africa shanties.
Kittrie has not denied -that any of the
facts stated here are true. The best solution
is for Kittrie to apologize for his actions
and agree to attend workshops on racism.
This might help to prevent this type of
thing from happening again.

s

spokesperson. Kittrie presented himself to
the media as the spokesperson for the
protestors. This was an attempt to un-
dermine the authority of Henry Park.
Kittrie told MSA representatives Rob
Bell and Gretchen Walter that Mike
Phillips and MSA Vice President Susan
Overdorf had established an account from
which they have embezzled $70,000.
MSA is audited annually and the MSA
Treasurer monitors MSA expenditures so
there is no way that this could be true.

report instead of publicly criticizing her.
Again in the same memo, Kittrie asked
to see the letter of appointment from
Rackham for George Liu, Tim Scarneccia,
and Gus Teschke. If Kittrie was really
concerned whether they had been
appointed, he could have asked Mike
Phillips privately to show him the letter
or he could have called Rackham Presi-
dent, Tracy Ore. Instead, Kittrie chose to
publicly question the integrity of Phillips
as well as the integrity of Liu, Scarneccia,

0i


4bz £irb wu &dlg
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Focus: Black

F
'.M
I~

Vol. IC, No. 83

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.


Stop Club Fed

THE FEDERAL Reserve Board is on a
power quest. Its recent decision to
amend the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933
by allowing banks to enter the corpo-
tate bond market shows its desire to
simultaneously take on Congressional
;duties andderegulate an extremely
:volatile market.
Bonds, usually issued to raise funds
for corporate and government use, pay
a higher rate of interest than a savings
account. Banks were previously al-
lowed to sell government bonds which
are as safe as a savings account
because the government is the backer.
Corporate bonds, on the other hand,
are a gamble because they are backed
by corporations which can go bankrupt
and renege on the bonds.
The Glass-Steagall Act, a response to
the overwhelming number of banks
that failed during the Depression, was
designed to regulate an industry filled
with an unethical practice: the selling of
corporate bonds at artificially high
prices to offset bad loans. -
The Fed had no right to make this
decision because Congress failed a bill
last year which also amended the
Glass-Steagall Act. The Fed's recent
decision contradicts that of Congress
and even surpasses the Presidential
veto as a power move because it is not
only rejecting a Congressional deci-
sion, it is enacting its own decision.
The Fed's main duty is to set interest
rates, which determine whether people
save or spend their money. Spending
strengthens the economy while saving
.makes it stagnant. Spending also de-
creases unemployment while saving
increases it. While there are other fac-
tors that affect the economy, interest
rates are the main determinant.
The Fed is already empowered with
the autonomy to control the economy
by determining interest rates. It should
not be allowed to create major legisla-
tion. The members of the triad com-
posing the U.S. government power
structure are the executive branch, the

legislative branch and the judicial
branch +- the Federal Reserve Board is
not included. Supposedly, the three
main branches serve as checks and bal-
ances for each other, ultimately con-
trolled by the U.S. electorate. The Fed,
however, operates without even the
pretense of a check.
The Federal Reserve Board's inter-
ests are with the banking industry. It is
not qualified to make impartial deci-
sions that will also affect U.S. citizens,
who currently face the threat of an
overwhelming number of bank failures
similar to those during the Depression.
Savings and loan banks are currently
plagued by bad loans, as were banks
before the Depression. Despite the
parallels between then and now, the
Fed is allowing banks to drown in the
quagmire of bad loans.
By allowing banks to work at offset-
ting these loans through the selling of
corporate bonds, the Fed is merely
creating a superficial solution. The
corporate bond market is not large
enough to save the troubled banks.
Eventually, the banks will fail, and
federal insurance will lack the funds to
reimburse the people who lose their
savings. A depression similar to that of
the 1930s could result.
The Fed's decision favors major
U.S. banks, which want to become
more competitive with larger foreign
banks. Big banks, however, are not in
the interest of the United States - a
stable economy is.
The Fed is also endangering the
economy by adding more competition
to an extremely competitive market.
Currently, only a handful of securities
firms can afford to sell corporate bonds
because of a small profit-margin. The
introduction of more competition will
drive prices lower and could result in a
monopoly.
The Fed has enough power as it is.
This elite little club of economic experts
is operating as if it is beyond reproach
and must be stopped immediately by
Congress.

By The Black Student Union,
Linda Stafford,
The Diamond Club,
Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority,
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority,
Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity
This article is a rebuttal to the editorial
"Exploitative Pageant" (Daily, 1/10/89).
The Daily has a very misinformed opinion
of the 'Ms. Black University of Michigan
Pageant,' and wrote a piece that is full of
inaccuracies and misconceptions.
First and foremost The Ms. Black U.
of M. Pageant' IS NOT A BEAUTY
CONTEST! This, in itself, disproves any
and all accusations that this pageant is
sexist, exploitative, and will be an event
where women will be judged by their faces
and bodies. The insinuation is offensive,
and shows the ignorance of the Daily edi-
torial board. The purpose of this program
is to exhibit and exemplify the talent and
accomplishments of Black women on this
campus, and in so doing highlight the
achievements of Black women throughout
history. This is not an event sponsored so
that Black women can compete in the
same types of competitions as white
women as mentioned by the Daily. It is a
cultural event designed specifically for
Black women to accentuate Black heritage
and pride.
This Pageant is full of tradition and was
an annual event sponsored by Kappa Al-
pha Psi Fraternity. The last winner of this
competition was Ms. Angela Deaver, who
won in 1980 and is currently a recruiter for
Harvard University. The Pageant has not
been produced in the last several years, but

dedicated individuals are bringing it back
to its former prominence with the ex-
pressed intention of bringing the achieve-
ments of Black women to the forefront.
This is an opportunity for the University
populace as well as the community at
large to learn about Black history and cul-
ture.
The contestants will be judged in five
areas of competition: talent, question and
answer, formal wear, athletic/sportswear,
and how well that present historical in-
formation about a famous Black woman
by- five judges, three of whom will be
women from the community. We are ap-
palled at the statement by the Daily that

ulture
another whether we are of the same sex or
not.
There was an informational meeting
held on January 17, 1989 where many of
the Daily's misinterpretations could have
been corrected. There was not a Daily
staffer present, nor did the Daily approach
anyone involved in the Pageant's produc-
tion with questions about its purpose and
orientation. The opinions of Black women
* on this campus were ignored completely,
except for a quote from a friend of the per-
son assigned to write the editorial who is,
biased against pageants in general. There
was no interviewing of -Black women to
get a consensus of their feeling towards

'This is not an event sponsored so that Black women can com-
pete in the same types of competitions as white women as men-
tioned by the Daily.'

we will impose some Eurocentric value of
beauty upon the young women in the
Pageant, and -that Black men should not
celebrate Black women. We are proud of
our African heritage, of the perserverance
of our people in our never ending struggle
for equality. It is a reflection of society as
a whole and its stereotypical treatment of
Black issues in which the media blames
the problems of victims (Blacks) on the
victims when society (whites) themselves
are the perpetraters of the crime. We accept
and respect our women for the traits and
attributes they possess and not some fan-
tasy that white people try to impress upon
us. In this day more so than ever it is
necessary for Black people to support one

the Pageant.
This letter states the facts which the
Daily refused to cover and the research
needed to expound a fact based opinion.
The sheer fact that the Daily has the
audacity to dare to print such an asinine,
biased and uninformed opinion shows their
lack of professionalism and morality. If
the Daily staff can not ' cover a story or
event and give an accurate portrayal then
they have no business covering it, or for
that matter publishing a paper PERIOD!
We demand not only a public apology
from The Daily, but also an improvement
in their coverage of Black stories and
events.

0
0

"Ito
.'" " -:::----:::---: - -
- -.----":--.-:.--.-":::.v.:.":: -vr.-
Lettes tothe'edito HE~--------

Daily
shows its
bias
To the Daily: .
For months, a debate has
been waged on the opinion
page of your newspaper.
Editorial and letter after edito-
rial and letter argued whether
the avowedly anti-zionism of
your staff and others sharing
such views can be equated with
anti-semitism. Professor
Mazrui defended himself.
Members of the Palestine
Solidarity Committee asked,
"How can we be anti-Semitic
when the Palestinian people are
a Semitic neonle?"

truly seem to be: anti-Jewish.
Your editorial entitled
"Ethiopians Exploited" (Daily,
1/23/89) was a racist piece of
journalism, plain and simple.
Your staff tries to stand at the
forefront of the struggle to end
all bigotry and racism; editori-
als daily explain that fact to us.
While you recognize the
plight of the Ethiopian people
as "a situation of virtually un-
paralleled suffering," you claim
that any attempt to lead thou-
sands of those sufferers out of
their dire situation is a ruse: "a
ruse disguised as
humanitarianism." That these
Ethiopians are Jewish is your
only justification for prevent-
ing their departure from that
civil war-torn nation. This

ity that thousands of sufferers
may no longer suffer, that the
lives of individuals and fami-
lies may move on to a better,
easier situation, where health
care, food, and shelter are
available.
Are there any other people
anywhere in the world that
your opinion page staff would
tell to stay put and endure suf-
fering, despite the opportunity
to flee to a better life? Please
tell us if there are. Until then, I
shall continue to believe that it
is only because these Ethiopian
people are Jewish that you will
not allow them to escape their
suffering.
-Ted Deutch
January 25

harass anyone, but we now
realize that what we did was
offensive.
We are sorry that we may
have angered or embarrassed
two fellow students, and the
University as a whole. We
regret that we embarrassed our
teammates and our coach. Our
only explanation is that we are
young and acted impulsively. It
was an isolated incident and
will not be repeated.
We know that we may be
held to a higher standard than
other students because we
represent the University in
intercollegiate athletics. It is a
privilege to represent this
University, and along with that
privilege, we accept greater
- --;nn mi rm. y . n . nihic±

al

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -->«";:

I-I 1T^


I