LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Monday, June 3, 2002 - The Michigan Daily- An interview with one of the "White Faces" 5 0 Incoming University president will be strongly pro-student To THE DAILY: I was a little surprised at the article on the Iowa response to Mary Sue Coleman's departure, "Iowans say Coleman had challenging presidency" (05/30/02). I find it incomplete and cast negatively. While I amnot familiar with Students Organizing for Labor and Economic Equality in Ann Arbor, Students Against Sweatshops did get their way. The Daily article did not give the whole story. Coleman did agree to the policies that SAS inquired about in the end. SAS demanded that a delega- tion he sent to the Worker Rights Consortium founding meeting. Coleman and Iowa named Ned Bertz, a member of SAS and the Rights Committee, Laraine Nelson, the Nursing School Student Services director and the chairwoman of the Rights committee, and Marcella David, a Ut professor of law, would represent Ut. SAS found this unsatisfactory, claiming that the UI needed to join. Iowa would like to find out about the consortium before making a decision Furthermore, the Daily Iowan reported on May 2, 2000, UI officials agreed with the Rights Committee's recommendation in that they will establish a code for companies licensed to make UI apparel. Coleman will appoint members of an advisory com- mittee to draft the code. Dean Rhodes maid the cede would force the compa- nies to disclose information ahout the conditions under which the apparel is manufartured hefore the Ut would license its logo. SAS protested anyway. I am not claiming that SAS's claimss were not legitimate. Conversely, I think they informed the public and were mildly successful in their efforts. However, I think the argument that Coleman was naive and non-respon- sive to SAS's needs is a misperception that needs to be cleared up. Coleman is a great leader, politi- cian and someone that will be missed by Iowa. I want to let those at the University know that she does work well with student groups. JASON GARDNER Student, University ofIowa Civil liberties are central to a robust democratic society To THE DAILY: Thank you to Daily staffer Megan Hayes for covering the heartbreaking presentation given by Japanese- American internment camp survivor, David Yamamoto, "Interment camp survivor speaks on past experiences, addresses current concerns," (05/20/02). One fact not mentioned in the article, however, is worthy of comment. Of the over 120,000 Japanese-Americans forced into internment camps during World War IH, not a single one was connected with the attack on Pearl Harbor or charged with espionage. Our current administration should recall this fact in light of law enforcement's contin- ued detentions of Middle Easterners since Sept. 11. Ethnic profiling is an ineffective means of solving and preventing cme, not to mention discriminatory and traumatic to those caught up in such dragnets. Let's encourage the Attorney General and intelligence agencies to get their own house in orderby examining where communi- cation broke down prior to Sept. 11 and by shifting their focus from the national origin of individuals to that of suspicious behavior exhibited by any individual, regardless of that per- son's citizenship or country of origin. MARY A. BEJIAN Secretary, Washtenaw County American Civil Liberties Union Affirmative action embarrasses the 'U' To THE DAILY: The University looked stupid, again, on "60 Minutes" re-run, just as it did the first time around. The segment dealt with the University's use of reverse discrimination in its admissions practices. I take particu- lar issue with the televised com- ments of Law School Dean Jeffrey Lehman, who said a diverse cultural mix in a law school classroom enhances learning, such as when both blacks and whites learn together about injustice by studying racial profiling by police. I think what Lehman means to say, simply, is that the classroom environment becomes more electric when lacks and wihites get tgether to discuss racial- ly sensitive issues. Well, duh! That's hardly news. But classroom electrici- ty is a side benefit to learning, not the reason for it. Establishment of an enhanced learng environment is no excuse for and does not justify the existence of a slanted playing field for students seeking admission "60 Minutes" reported that the University awards a racial minority 20 points toward admission, while giving only 12 points for a perfect SAT score. The program went on to report that, in a recent year, qualified individual white students stood only a 2 percent chance of being admitted to the Law School while minorities had a near 100 percent chance of admission. To my mind, affirmative action outlived its reason and its usefulness long ago. Continuing such inequities -- particularly in a university setting where individual diligence, hard work, a sharp mind, a sense of fair play and adherence to rules of com- mon sense and justice are all sup- posed to be engendered - just makes the University, its administra- tion and the surly Lehman look just plain stupid. Again! Maybe it's time for the debate to be re-opened at the University once more. Perhaps continuing to shed light on this subject will help some people to find their way. JIM MARINO Reader KEVIN MCNEIL ANN AR artmouth Col- lege senior David Trouillie recently presented his sociology thesis, "The White Faces of Dart- mouth College: A study of racial identity among white males." Trouillie surveyed 50 white males on the small Ivy League campus and conducted extensive interviews with 15. I conducted the following interview at the University based on his premises. Kevin McNeil: Excuse me. White Face:Yes? KM: I'd like to ask you a few questions for my thesis. It shouldn't take very long. WF: Okay. KM: What do you think about your whiteness? WF: Huh? My what? KM: Your whiteness, you know, that racial privilege that provides you every advantage in life - that which has provided for your achievements, successes and accomplishments. WF: I'm sorry? KM:You should be. WF: I don't think that I'm following you. KM: Let me put it another way. Do you believe that what you have accomplished in life has everything to do with your individual effort and hard work? WF: Well yes, of course. KM: I thought you would say so. WF: Whydo you say that? KM: Because of your whiteness! You're BOR'S RIG T rSI:E perceptions are completely skewed by your place in society as a white male and the inherent advantages that you are given because of your whiteness. You tragically believe that who you are has anything to do with your parents or your effort. WF: But... KM: I'm asking the questions here! Now, moving right along. Tell me, do you have any friends that are racial minorities? WF: Well, I guess that my roommate is, but we don't really have friends in common. KM: I see! What your saying is that the racial minorities are the ones guilty of self- segregation on campus. WF: I don't know if that is ... KM: Just as I expected! Such a denial is often associated with whiteness. WF: You didn't let me finish ... KM: Have you ever dated interracially? WF: Well, I guess that I ... KM: Exactly as I expected, your refusal to date outside of the sphere of whiteness is emblematic of a social structure that is dic- tated by a white-centered world. WF: That isn't exactly what ... KM: Continuing right along, what is your concentration? WF: Political science and History. KM: Exactly as I would expect, your skewed perceptions of a white male domi- nated world are the product of the Eurocen- tric curriculum that pervades this university. WF: That is not a fair assessment of the situation ... KM: Next question, tell me, what is the basis of racism in contemporary America? WF: I don't know if I can answer that - it is such a difficult question. KM: Precisely the response I would expect out of someone plagued by white- ness! What you're saying is that racism is a phenomenon limited to "rather minor, insignificant" incidents carried out by "extremists." WF: That's not what I ... KM: And furthermore, that these "inci- dents are limited to areas like the South. WF: I'mnot ... KM: Next question. Do you concede the effects of your whiteness? WF: The effects of my what... KM: What you are saying is that you do not significantly acknowledge systemic, cul- tural, environmental or institutional racism. WF: That's not what you asked ... KM: Now, what is your role in construct- ing social inequalities along lines of race? WF: I don't think that it can be resolved to one individual such as ... KM: Unbelievable! You are actually insinuating that racial minorities do not hold the right values or that it is simply "part of their culture." WF: I insinuated no such ... KM: That should about do it for the interview. I would like to thank you for par- ticipating in this important and groundbreak- ing study. WF: But ... KM: This surely will help open up the lines of discussion and dialogue on this white-centered campus. Good day. Kevin McNeil can be reached at kIneneil@umich.edu. VIEWPOINT The dangers of Christian Zionism BY AMER ZAHR Recently, I attended the wedding of a college friend, Huwaida Arraf. She has been working for some time now in the Interna- tional Solidarity Movement protecting the rights of Palestinians living under brutal Israeli military occupation. She wed Adam Shapiro, a man whose courage as a member of the ISM has caused him much heartache, as his family had to endure him being called a "Jewish John Walker." Huwaida and Adam achieved something at their wedding that has been so elusive for so long: A peaceful coexistence of Jews and Palestinians, in the union of their children nonetheless! For one night, we were all able to escape the realities of horror injustice, war and humiliation. And after a brief honeymoon, Huwaida and Adam will return to Palestine and continue their work. One of the new influences they will have to face upon their return is the visible increase of conservativenAmerican Christians traveling to Israel in support of the Jewish state. It is a curious alliance and begs many questions about the motives of the Christian Right. I would implore Americans, and American Jews in particular, not to forget the now infamous words of the Rev. Billy Gra- ham, who told Richard Nixon that Jews in America had a "stranglehold on the media ... They swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this coun- try." A political alliance between mostly see- ular neo-conservative Jews and evangelical Christians is driving U.S. policy toward Israel and is behind the unconditional sup- port for hard-liner Ariel Sharon, prompting our president to call him "a man of peace." This remark is most absurd because Sharon has a long history of war crimes and using violence as a political tool (otherwise known as "terrorism"). Further, he ran for prime minster on a platform of militarism, as a man of war. Ariel Sharon doesn't even think Ariel Sharon is a man of peace! But while the alliance between the American Christian Right and the Israeli Right may seem natural, its deeper layers are quite disturbing. During the most recent Israeli offensive which left tens of thousands of Palestinians homeless, maimed and dead, House Republicans urged President Bush to stop pressuring Sharon to ease up. This sup- port lies in a sharedbelief that the West Bank and Gaza are part of a "Greater Israel." In other words, these lands are not to be exchanged for any kind of peace with Pales- tinians. Sharon's own Likud Party made this belief known in its most recent convention, declaring that it will not support any Pales- tinian state west of the Jordan River. Conser- vative leaders in the Republican Party have made this conviction known as well. In a recent appearance on "Hardball with Chris Matthews," House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) expressed his support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. "I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank ... I happen to believe that the Pales- tinians should leave." A stunned Matthews tried to get clarification, "Well, just to repeat, you believe that the Palestinians who are now living on the West Bank should get out of there?" Armey replied firmly, "Yes." The real support for Israel among con- servative Christians lies in a sort of religious extremism. After the 1967 Six-Day War in which Israel grabbed all of Jerusalem, con- servative Christian groups celebrated the fulfillment of their biblical prophecies. That's what this is all about. The religious beliefs of the Christian Right push their sup- port for Israel, which would not be so bad except for that their religious beliefs are highly anti-Semitic. The hope is that Jews will regain control of the entire Holy Land and restore their kingdom, prompting the Messiah to return. Jews will then either be converted to Christianity or eternally damned. So what lies behind the Christian Right's support for Israeli actions is not a belief in the existence of a Jewish state, but rather a faith in the eventual destruction of the Jewish people. All the while, the Israeli military dese- crates Christian sites, including occupied Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, depop- ulates Christian villages and strips Palestin- ian Christians of their rights. The highest flight rate from Israeli occupied lands, espe- cially Arab East Jerusalem, has been among the Palestinian Christian community. One would hope that mainstream American Christians would not be duped by the Chris- tian Right and instead announce their sup- port for the Palestinians in the face of injustice and oppression. Zahr is a Rackham student.