OPINION Page 4 Thursday, December 7, 1989 The Michigan Daily abE tiditguant of M m Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Open letter to the Chair of the Board for Student Publications: Conflict of interest remains 0 Vol. C, No. 65 420 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. i* Oast Germans speak: Clamor for socialism POPULAR DISSENT is sweeping Eastern Europe at an exhilarating, speed. Faster still comes the rhetoric :Western pundits and politicians use to :dscribe its significance. Cliches like 'the death of socialism" and "the de- Inand for free-market democracy" have become, almost without question, a regular part of news reports. If they are allowed to take the place of news, these cliches threaten to set the West on a ,ourse of policy as contrary to Eastern Europeans' demands as the present regimes. The breach of the Berlin Wall has "released a flood of speculation about I3erman reunification, the threat it may pse, the market and labor pool East Germany offers to the West, and on anid on. Most of the discussion is idle. Recalling the German Reich, oppo- 1ents of reunification address the topic emotionally, forgetting that Churchill, who often said he preferred Nazis to Communists, demanded the division into East and West to build a buffer ggainst the Soviet Union, not to punish Germany. He knew the Allied fire- bombing had already accomplished -that. Nazism is a painful memory for Ocrmans too, and there is little evi- dcnce that it will be reborn in a united Germany. - Reunification finds favor in a West G3crmany eager to grow economically, ,Iot militarily. More than 90 percent of The people, including Chancellor Kohl, approve the plan; it is even part of the their constitution. West Germany, economists say, has been hampered by a shortage of skilled laborers; a far- :right Germany-for-Germans party has established itself with a campaign ,gainst the Turkish and North African Workers who make up ten percent of the West German work force. West Germans want other Germans to come work for them. South Africa's white minority government has similar plans for exploiting East Germany's work- ers. Less than a week after the border was opened, it launched a campaign calling for East Germans to come to work in South Africa, listing the skills and professions most in demand. So the West wants very badly to hear East Germans clamoring for capitalism. They call for no such thing. East Ger- mans recognize that along with some higher-paying jobs, the western model promises an end to free health care and education and guaranteed employment and housing. The scramble to shelter the recent immigrants belies West Germany's long-standing claim to have a housing surplus. A poll conducted by the Wickett In- stitute in Leipzig three weeks ago shows that almost every East German knows someone who has gone west in search of prosperity, but that the vast majority of them are certain they will stay. Why? Fi fty-five percent said they are "committed to renewing socialism." The rest of the answerswere mixed. Most people spoke of an end to one- party rule, and hoped to put an end to government corruption. Since the poll was taken, the consti- tutional clause which mandates a role for the Communist Party in the East German government has been erased, and the Party's leader for more than two decades, Erich Honecker, has been arrested on charges of stealing from the people. With each day, East Germany is taking giant steps towards socialism; . they do not need an acquisitive West to get in their way. To Professor Amnon Rosenthal, Chair of the Board for Student Publi- cations: I am writing to explain publicly the fac- tual inaccuracy printed in the column I wrote with Cale Southworth, "Board Ma- nipulates Daily" (Daily, 11/29/89). When Hillel was contacted a few weeks ago the Hillel secretary indicated that you were still presently a member of the board of that organization. I attempted to contact Hillel again today but no one was avail- able for comment. Since the correctjour- nalistic approach was used to check the facts I stick by the content and integrity of our article. Whether you are presently a Board member is not relevant however, since your prior involvement with Hillel and its effect on your conduct as the Chair of the Board for Student Publications is the is- sue. Conflict of interest is a controversial claim. This article would have come under fire anyway and it is regrettable that an inadvertent factual inaccuracy which in no way alters the serious allegations of the ar- ticle can be used as a strike against us. It is also regrettable that the points raised in the article which were brought to the attention of the board in a letter at the November 15 meeting were not addressed. The student representatives moved to have these allegations discussed several times during the course of the meeting. You have been aware of these allegations for quite some time and yet you have refused every opportunity to refute or defend yourself against these claims. Since you and the other Board members prevented discussion of the serious allegations raised by the student representatives at the Board meeting it is only logical that I should come to the conclusion that you have something to hide. I raised my hand at the beginning of the November 15 meeting to explain to you that I had received a letter from Cale Southworth informing me of the student concerns about the Board - including your conflict of interest - be- fore receiving any information from the Board. (As a newly appointed member this was a very troubling introduction to the Board.) At this time neither you or your my hand was in fact raised I would have expected you to correct what I assumed was a mistake and recognize my right to speak but instead you proceeded with the meeting. In another instance you permitted me to direct questions to a non- Board member but then asked me to retract my questions in mid-sentence. After a Board member referred to me as a child twice for no reason I raised my hand to express how offended I was and there was never any re- 'You have been aware of these allegations for quite some time and yet you have refused every opportunity to refute or defend yourself against these claims. Since you and the other Board members prevented discussion of the serious allegations raised by the student representatives at the Board meeting it is only logical that I should come to the conclusion that you have something to hide. 01 colleagues offered to set the record straight for me. I was very shocked that parliamentary procedure was not followed at the Board meeting. The letter I received challenged the credentials of several Board members, including yourself. According to parlia- mentary procedure, a challenge of creden- tials must be addressed before any other business, since allowing members who are not legitimate to vote makes the meeting and the Board a farce. Yet you refused to even open up discussion on the question of credentials. On one occasion my hand was raised and you chose not to recognize me before moving to a vote - a direct violation of the parliamentary procedure all University committees are supposed to follow. When some of the other members mentioned that quest that she retract her statement. I see these instances as blatant attempts to si- lence my input as a student member of a Board whose membership is already prin- cipally non-students. It appears that you are unwilling to dis- cuss these issues at a Board meeting or any other public forum. It is your respon- sibility to students and to the publications which you supposedly serve in your posi- tion as Chair of the Board to respond these concerns. Since I still believe that the Board is not committed to the students or to a free press I would like to express my willingness to meet outside of the hostile Board environment for discussion. -Elisabeth Wilson, undergraduate student representative to the Board for Student Publications December 3 Board should formulate "thoughtful policy": Chair has no conflict SFruit of exploitation Aa By Alan Woronoff andRoss Jacobs On November 29, 1989, the Daily printed a review of the Student Publica- tions Board (SPB) by Cale Southworth and Elisabeth Wilson. The review reads like an intriguing tale of conspiracy, and was interesting. When examined for fac- tual content, however, the essay revealed a string of falsehoods and irresponsible ac- cusations. Throughout the essay, Southworth and Wilson dispute the legitimacy of the chair of the SPB, Dr. Amnon Rosenthal. The crux of their argument involves Rosen- thal's alleged involvement in a "conflict of interest." They falsely assert that he is a member of Hillel's governing board, as well as SPB. This statement is simply un- true. Dr. Rosenthal has not served on the Hillel board since April 1989. Therefore, there is no "conflict of interest" since he currently serves only on the SPB. formulate policy. While the presence of a variety of personalities and viewpoints may make it difficult to come to agree- ment, it is in fact this variety which can contribute to the most thoughtful policy. We can empathize with the difficult sit- uation in which Southworth and Wilson describe themselves. We find it distress- ing, however, that they have chosen to solve their problem by falsely attacking the committee chair on the Opinion page of the Daily. Attempting to silence an op- posing viewpoint in this manner certainly can not be in the best interests of a free paper, nor is it proper conduct for mem- bers of the BSP. In addition, Southworth and Wilson falsely accuse the Hillel Foundation of try- ing to "pressure the Daily" and of possess- ing "an anti-Daily political agenda." These accusations are most definitely false. On November 9, 1989, the Hillel Founda- tion's only public statement regarding the Daily was published. It states: "The Daily MACH YEAR, imported produce ap- pars in Ann Arbor markets a little car- ler. Vegetables grown in Mexico have peen on sale for more than a month; Chilean soft fruits are due any day. Pesticide-laced and the fruit of barbaric exploitation, they are to be avoided. :Purchasers at supermarkets blame consumers for demanding out-of-sca- son produce, forcing them to look for Imports from warmer regions. One buyer at Farmer Jack says that he tries to avoid Mexican and Chilean sippliers, but that he is forced to buy whatever looks best because that's what the consumers want. At this time of year, California no longer produces seedless grapes, so most grapes (and plums and peaches and nectarines and apricots) are bought from Mexico. Distributors encourage markets to buy Latin American imports year-round. village Corner even boasts that it sells Mexican tomatoes, which are picked green and flushed with ethylene gas to simulate ripeness, when U.S. iltematives are available. The U.S. consumer's need to have $varm-weather produce even in the ead of winter, coupled with first- world economic policy, have a devas- tating effect on Latin American work- ers. In the early 1980's, the Interna- tional Monetary Fund told Chilean dic- tator Pinochet that he would have to boost Chilean exports to get more loans. Since agricultural production re- quires little technology, Pinochet chose to plant ochards, fields of summer fruits, and table-grape vineyards. Since 1983, exports of Chilean fruit to the United States have doubled annually. small farmers have been chased off their own land by the military to make way for the large fruit plantations. Now that the workers have no means by which to grow their own food, they must work for tiny pittances to feed themselves. Huge multinationals, generally the ones with petroleum money, started buying land in northern Mexico ten years ago. The world's largest tomato producer, ABC Farms in Baja Califor- nia, has only been growing vegetables for seven years. And the people of Mexico are hired as laborers for a few dollars or less a day on land that was stolen from them by anonymous for- eign interests. Mexico's new agri-businesses have brought all the latest technology with them - irrigation systems, harvesters, and, most infamously, pesticides. Mexican growers spray defoiliants such as 2,4,5 - T, a close relative of Agent Orange, to clear fields. They dump, on average, five times more chemicals on their produce than American growers do. And it is known that these chemicals are regularly sprayed while the workers are still in the fields, with no more protection than a handkerchief. Dozens of agricultural workers die each year from pesticide poisoning, and reported birth defects are approaching Love Canal levels. For the past three years, Mexican produce coming across the border at Nogales, Arizona has been so tainted that the underfunded normally lax FDA has put it under quarantine for a period. There are alternatives: Peoples Food Coop and Arbor Farms sell a full line of organic produce from California, and local winter crops are available in abundance. Organics may cost a bit more, and squash and potatoes may get boring, but neither has the reek of poi- son or exploiation. however, free to couple its views about the intifadah with anti-Semitism." This statement does not represent an "anti-Daily political agenda." It represents a longing to re-establish a community in which everyone's rights are respected. Southworth and Wilson make an accusa- tion with which we agree. They claim that Hillel is trying to influence the Daily. It seems clear to us that Hillel's aim was to influence the Daily and the University community. After all, is this not the in- tent of any letter to the editor? We hope that the editors of the Daily as well as the members of the Board of Student Publica- tions are individuals who remain open to the opinions of others. This is the key to a free press. Ironically, the free press which the au- thors demand will not be free if their sug- gestions are followed. As the authors ar- gue for a free press, they do so by attempt- ing to silence views which differ from their own. This is irresponsible and dan- gerous. While Southworth and Wilson raise in- teresting points, their message must be questioned. Their argument is held to- gether by a collection of falsehoods, accu- sations, and name-calling. When an opin- ion is put forth in this manner, it must be carefully questioned. The reader must fur- ther question why the two authors would use such methods in their argument. The authors are currently Board members and should confine their remarks to the realm of truth. Alan Woronoff is a member of the lil- lel Foundation's Governing Board. Ross Jacobs is a senior in the Residential College. 'it seems clear to us that Hillel's aim was to influ- ence the Daily and the University community. After all, is this not the intent of any letter to the editor? We hope that the editors of the Daily as well as the members of the Board of Student Publications are individuals who remain open to the opinions of others. It seems that there are many differing opinions on the Board of Student Publica- tions, as well there should be. It is the re- sponsibility of the members of any board to meet, discuss differing opinions, and has taken an editorial position of support for the intifadah and of condemnation for Israel's response. We wholeheartedly en- dorse the Daily's freedom to take such an editorial position... The Daily is not, Board should not influence editorial policy: Board Chair should resign By Cale Southworth It has been brought out that there may be anerror in the article by Elisabeth Wilson and myself. Amnon Rosenthal, the acting chair of the Board for Student Publications may not be currently on the Board of Directors at Hillel, in spite of a confirmation over the phone on November 7 by the secretary at the Hillel foundation to the contrary. For the error to come out now, how- ever, is irrelevant and suspicious. First, Mr. Rosenthal received a letter questioning his conflict of interest on Nnvemher R_ nriinr to he, inc nuhlirRnrd tral on editorial issues - to address the Daily's alleged anti-Semitism. Third, even if Mr. Rosenthal has or does resign, the conflict between his own polit- ical agenda and the Daily's editorial free- dom has been born out in practice. Given this, he, and the other members of the Board he had appointed or appointed him- self because of their antagonistic attitude toward the paper, should resign now. Daily is not in question. It should do so, as it has in the past, by letters to the edi- tor or by encouraging students who want to change editorial policy to join the Daily staff. But to attempt to influence what the Daily publishes by using the power of a Board which has pledged never to exercise editorial control over the paper, is an unacceptable threat to the Daily's editorial freedom. 4 Correction: in yesterday's editorial "Strangling dialogue" the sentence, "Like the Israeli gov- ernment itself, Zionist groups in the U.S. continually preach the need for dialogue vet spend their time and money to intimidate rather than to educate." should have To attempt to influence what the Daily publishes by using the power of a Board which has pledged never to exercise editorial control over the paper is an unacceptable threat to the Daily's editorial freedom.' 0 i