t
8Tha Dally Tcr Hec! Wednesday, November 20, 1C35
93rd year of editorial freedom
Arne Riocert and David Schmidt
Editor Editor
Catherine Cowan Associate Editor
Loretta Grantham aty Editor
Anjetta McQueen
Janet Olson
Jami White
Andy Trincia
Production Editor
University Editor
Ntws Editor
Ststt and National Editor
Lorry Williams
Lee Roberts
' Elizabeth Ellen
Sharon Sheridan
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
Larry Childress photography Editor
Frank and open discussion
board
opinion
Talk is cheap;
silence is deadly.
Tuesday may
have marked the
beginning of the
end for the Campus Y. Vice Chancellor
for Student Affairs Donald Boulton met
with Campus Y co-presidents, Roger
Orstad and Kim Reynolds, and Advi
sory Board Chairman Les Garner,
climaxing the monthlong fight against
the firing of Campus Y Assistant
Director George Gamble. Or perhaps it
was an anti-climax, for the trio emerged
that evening with nothing substantial to
say to anxious Campus Y members. At
the request of Boulton, they had taken
a vow of silence.
So they offered a gathering of Campus
Y members vague words of hope
saying that channels of communication
had opened that had never been opened
before. Still that hope, however nebu
lous, has a price. The price is silence.
Garner has requested that students cease
protesting for a few days at least.
"I am convinced that my personal
course of action is to stand back,"
Garner said. "The situation is extremely,
delicate."
Delicate for whom? Gamble has
already been fired, and the time for
observing the "delicate situation" is long
past. Student Affairs should have seen
before Gamble's firing that things would
get delicate. It was inconsiderate to
sanction the move without consulting
Campus Y leaders; Campus Y has been
far from inconsiderate in protesting and
asking for a reason. Yet Garner thinks
that further protests would be in bad
faith. Better to have bad faith than to
have none at all.
Is it incumbent upon concerned
students to forgo protesting arid demand
ing answers just because the possibility
exists that they may bruise the psyches
and consciences of those who decided
to put a man on the street?
Garner indicated a somewhat unequal
partnership that was formulated at the
meeting with Boulton. "We pledged not
to (talk) so we could have a frank, open
discussion," he said.
Say what? The power of the students'
position thus far has been their demand
for a frank and open discussion. Now,
when discussion can finally take place,
the "frank and open" aspect gets
chucked.
Although Garner, Reynolds and
Orstad urged Campus Y members to be
silent in the coming days, they offered
no concrete reasons for their confidence
that Student Affairs would act. They had
set no second meeting with Boulton and
could offer no assurance that he would
respond to student demands at all
either favorably or unfavorably
before the end of the semester. So time
is running out and even a few days
of silence will run " into Thanksgiving
Break, and that into exams, and then
Christmas and then a new semester.
Gamble must vacate his office by Jan.
6.
Those few but crucial days of silence
require a sense of trust on the part of
Campus Y members that Student Affairs
has not earned. Whether with definite
intentions or not, Student Affairs
worked behind students' backs in firing
Gamble, and there's no reason to believe
that they wouldn't do so again, given
the chance. Indeed, Boulton's stipulation
that the trio remain silent even to the
800 Campus Y members follows Student
Affairs' predominate pattern of manip
ulating rather than conferring. The
bureaucracy acts in the interest of the
University's "image," not in the interest
of what administrators often blithely
term "transient students."
Garner, Orstad and Reynolds want
what is best for the Campus Y, yet their
vow of silence may be borne out as
lacking sound judgment. They have
become party to just what Campus Y
members have been protesting all along
the lack of broad student input. Not
only are students being denied informa
tion by their own leaders but their
right to protest is being undercut.
Symbolically and actually, Orstad,
Reynolds and Garner have cut them
selves off from the students they repres
ent. They have agreed to the precon
dition that their dealings with
administrators will be isolated and
unreported. Members of the Campus Y
are thus cornered. If they are silent, the
clock could easily tick away and the New
Year will find them duped. However,
if they renew protests, Boulton can call
that action lack of cooperation and cite
it as the very reason he chooses not to
act.
Despite the hopeful assurances of
Garner, Orstad and Reynolds, there
seems to be little hope left for the
Campus Y and George Gamble.
Although members of the Campus Y are
among the best and brightest of this
university, although they have fought the
firing through all the proper channels
and have shown admirable restraint in
the expression of their anger, they are
now being asked to blindly lend their
confidence to the very office that has
been the cause of their anger.
You may have noticed that they're
whitewashing the Campus Y building.
It looks real nice now, with a fresh coat
of paint, and you can't make out all the
old "frank and open" scars but that
doesn't mean that they've healed.
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Writers: Louis Corrigan, Sally Pont and James Toner
Design: Julie Braswell, Randy Farmer, Donna Leinwand, Stuart Tonkinson and Laura
Zeligman
News: Jenny Albright, Lisa Allen, Crystal Baity, Thomas Beam, Lisa Brantley, Loch Carnes,
Helene Cooper, Kerstin Coyle, Vicki Daughtry, Randy Farmer, Charles Fernandez, Jo Fleischer,
Jill Gerber, Todd Gossett, Wayne Grimsley, Mike Gunzenhauser, Kenneth Harris, Elizabeth
Holler, Denise Johnson, Robert Keefe, Laura Lance, Scott Larsen, Alicia Lassiter, Donna
Leinwand, Mitra Lotfi, Dora McAlpin, Yvette Denise Moultrie, Linda Montanari, Kathy
Nanney, Beth Ownley, Rachel Orr, Grant Parsons, Gordon Rankin, Kelli Slaughter, Rachel
Stiffler, Rachel Stroud, Jennifer Trotter, Elisa Turner, Kim Weaver, Laurie Willis, Bruce Wood,
Katherine Wood and Karen Youngblood. Guy Lucas, assistant University editor, Rhesa Versola,
assistant business editor.
Sports: Scott Fowler and Tim Crothers, assistant sports editors. Mike Berardino, Greg Cook,
Phyllis Fair, Paris Goodnight, Tom Morris, James Suroweicki, Buffie Velliquette and Bob
Young.
Features: Marymelda Hall, assistant features editor. Kara V. Donaldson, Matthew Fury, Jane
Mintz, Mary Mulvihill, Tara Reinhart, Laurie Rodgers, Liz Saylor, Denise Smitherman and
Martha Wallace.
Arts: Mark Davis, Aniket Majumdar, Alexandra Mann, Alan Mason, Sally Pont, Deanna
Ruddock, Garret Weyr and Ian Williams. ,
Photography: Charlotte Cannon, Dan Charlson, Jamie Cobb, Janet Jarman and Charles
. Ledford.
Copy Editors: Lisa Fratturo, Bryan Gates, Tracey Hill, Gina Little, Cindy Parker, Grant Parsons
and Kelli Slaughter.
Artists: Adam Cohen, Bill Cokas and David Sumner.
, Business and Advertising: Anne Fulcher, general manager; Paula Brewer, advertising director;
Angela Booze, student business manager; Angela Ostwalt, accounts receivable clerk; Doug
Robinson, student advertising manager; Alicia Brady, Keith Childers, Alicia Susan D'Anna,
Staci Ferguson, Kellie McElhancy, Melanie Parlier, Stacey Ramirez and Scott Whitaker,
advertising representatives; Staci Ferguson and Kelly Johnson, classified assistants; Johnnie
Parker, advertising coordinator, David Leff, office manager and Cathy Davis, secretary.
Distributioncirculation: William Austin, manager; Tucker Stevens, circulation assistant.
Production: Brenda Moore and Stacy Wynn. Rita Galloway and Rose Let, production assistants.
Printing: Hinton Press Inc. of Mebane
READER FORUM
Human ri
To the editors:
Thinking globally ... Today
Human Rights Week focuses on
international issues, studying cases
abroad that many automatically
think of when they hear the term
"human rights.' In many cases,
these human rights abuses are so
flagrant and so publicized that they
cannot escape our notice; in other
cases, they are at the heart of U.S.
foreign policy.
This day is meant to appeal to
both those who are knowledgeable
about international issues and those
whose curiosity is just developing.
Our hope in sponsoring this day is
to encourage everyone to recognize
that we are part of a global com
munity and that we should all be
aware of the various responsibilities
that entails.
First, we believe that being
knowledgeable about other nations'
problems can only aid world peace.
Secondly, we hope to encourage
people to see themselves as part of
a worldwide movement to better
humanity: We should remember
that whatever we do in our home
town to help those less fortunate is
part of a global effort to achieve
peace, love and harmony.
Finally, on a national level it is
important that citizens of the United
his
States understandwhat their for
eign policy is and how it affects the
world. Without doubt, the United
States is one of the world's greatest
military and economic powers; in
addition, some might argue that this
country is a leading moral force
among nations. For these reasons,
the impact that U.S. foreign policy
has on others is often immense. We
realize that views vary as to what
correct policy should be, and there
fore we endorse no particular
ideological stand. However, we
maintain that everyone should
attempt to become aware of and
concerned about what American
foreign policy is whether it be
guided by a Jimmy Carter or a
Ronald Reagan.
Human Rights Week has tried to
draw attention to a number of areas
in which human rights abuses have
been reported and in which the
United States has shown some
foreign policy, concern. There are
several programs centering around
Latin America. At 1:30 p.m. in
Room 206 of the Student Union,
Father Walsh of St. Thomas More
Catholic Church talks about the
Sanctuary movement in the United
States in which various religious
groups, as a historic right, are
harboring aliens from Central
oh a global scale
America who claim they are fleeing
certain death. The Reagan admin
istration has declared this act illegal.
Church vs. State? Life vs. Death?
Come hear this program, or see the
documentary Sanctuary at 7:30
p.m. in Room 205. In Room 212,
programs at 3:00 p.m. with Dr.
Joseph Tulchin and at 3:30 p.m.
with Salvadorans Pable Matue and
Juan Valiente discuss human rights
abuses in South America and
Central America, respectively.
The human rights situation of
South Africa is being explained at
4:30 p.m. in Room 205 by Duke
professor Sheridan Johns. Then at
8 p.m. in Carroll 106 there will be
a panel discussion on U.S. policy
toward South Africa, featuring
jimmy Ellis, a UNC graduate
student from South Africa; Stephen
Weissman, director of the House
Subcommittee on African Affairs;
Victor Mashabela from the African
National Congress of South Africa;
- and Margaret Calhoun from Sen.
Steven Symm's office.
Other interesting programs will
discuss the United Nations with Dr.
Jack Donnelly (12:30 p.m. Union!
Room 211), the Israel or Palestine
question with Dr. Herbert Bodman
(2 p.m. Room 206), the arms race
on the day of the summit meeting
with Dr. Michael Hunt (2:30 p.m.
Room 205) and the Philipines, an
area of current turmoil and trouble
to the United States (7 p.m. Room
206). At 4 p.m. in Union Room 226,
John Sylvester from N.C. State, a
retired diplomat and former State
Department employee in Vietnam
and Japan, will discuss whether
covert operations inevitably cause
human rights abuses, no doubt
touching upon U.S. ventures in
Vietnam and Nicaragua.
Finally, for those who truly are
concerned about their world, there
will be a short candle-lit march and
five-minute silent vigil following the
panel discussion on South Africa.
This will be a time for silent
reflection about the status of human
rights in the world, a time when a
person's mere presence signifies his
care for others and celebrates
humanity. Irrespective of ideology,
we hope that everyone cares for
others and that everyone will par
ticipate in the vigil.
Thinking globally . . . Human
Rights Week: "For the Love of
People" be there!
David Schnorrenberg
Addison Sweeney
Human Rights Week Committee
The iwtme vmte house tM$) .
; CAMRMSN TO LOWER SUMMIT N , m&flr JtI -
E)(PKWI0N&"ID0KAHASTV I VL, lllllll IHk
Vast majority of Zionists
seek peace in Mid-East
Inflammatory rhetoric
To the editors:
The ignorance of someone who
considers "Zionism," "Israel," and
the "Jewish Defense League" syn
onymous would not deserve a
response, except that some people
actually use the DTH as a source
of information. It is necessary,
therefore, to set the record straight
for Pont and her readers.
Zionism has historically been a
nationalist movement analogous to
the more recent movement of
Palestinians seeking an independent
homeland. Nationalism may at
times be a divisive force in this
world, but to call it "racist" is to
miss the point of its focus on the
pursuit of sovereignty for people
sharing a similar ethnicity. In the
case of Zionism, the urgency of this
pursuit in the last 50 years has been
fueled by the oppression of Jewish
people by the Nazis, the Soviet
Union, and many Islamic countries.
The state established by Zionism,
Israel, while a haven for oppressed
Jews, is a multi-ethnic nation which
is constitutionally committed to
equal rights for all its citizens. There
are indeed segments of the Jewish
majority (most notably the follow
ers of Meir Kahane) which do not
share this commitment. When they
seek discrimination against or the
expulsion of Arabs from Israel, they
may loosely be considered "racist."
But they do not speak for the Israeli
government or for most Israeli
citizens or for most Zionists around
the world.
The continuing tragedy of the
Middle East is the product of
incompatible nationalistic aspira
tions. That one group's aspirations
are being realized and the other's
are not is reason to be sympathetic
to the plight of the Palestinians. But
it serves no purpose to use inaccu
rate and inflammatory rhetoric of
one's goal is to find a path to
rapprochement between the parties.
M. Richard Cramer
dept. of sociology
To the editors:
As an American Jew and a
Zionist, I am outraged by Sally
Pont's signed editorial ("Zionism
lives in infamy") in the Nov. 13
DTH. It is noteworthy that nowhere
in her editorial does Pont define
Zionism. As a Zionist, 1 do it for
her: Zionism is the belief that Jews
have a right to a homeland in Israel.
Although the establishment and
preservation of that homeland has
involved tragic conflict between
Jews and Arabs in the 20th century,
that conflict is not an inherent
feature of Zionism. Zionism does
not include a belief in oppression
of Arabs or in prevention of the
establishment of a Palestinian
homeland.
Israel might not be blameless in
causing and perpetuating the con
flict between Arabs and Jews
through some of its particular
policies and actions in support of
Zionism. For example, I believe that
the Israeli government's West Bank
settlement policies have exacerbated
the conflict in recent years. But Pont
chooses to ignore entirely the Arab
role in causing and continuing the
conflict Surely it is not racist for
Israel to defend itself against nations
and an organization (the PLO) that
have vowed and tried repeatedly to
obliterate Israel since its creation in
1948. Many times Israel has held
out the olive branch of peace to
Arabs generally and to Palestinians
specifically, only to be answered by
war, terrorism, and threats.
As a Zionist, I strongly favor
peace between Israel and the Pales
tinians, a peace that would include
recognition of the right of Palesti
nians to a homeland. But Pont has
not and cannot cite a' shred
of evidence that the PLO is willing
to settle for a peace that includes
Israel's right to exist too. Pont also
chooses to ignore the plain fact that
from 1948 to 1967 it was Jordan,
an Arab nation, that controlled the
West Bank without permitting the
Palestinians to establish a homeland
there.
Perhaps the mpst outrageous part
of Pont's editorial is her tactic of
branding Zionism as racism by -highlighting
the activities of the
Jewish Defense League, an extrem
ist terrorist group. She might as well
brand all white Southerners who
love their region as racists by citing
the activities of the Ku Klux Klan,
or all patriotic Americans as right
wing radicals by pointing to the
beliefs of the John Birch Society.
And, of course, she might as well
label all Palestinians who believe in
their right to a homeland as anti
Semitic because of the worldwide
terrorist acts carried out against
Jews by the PLO and other terrorist
Arab organizations.
The truth is that the vast majority
of Zionists find the JDL's ideology
and actions abhorrent. Zionism
calls for preservation of Israel's right
to exist, not for oppression of
Palestinians. You see we are not all
maniacal, imperialistic, and milita
ristic, as you claim. We seek a just
peace in the Middle East.
Benjamin Sendor
Assistant Professor
Institute of Government
Invest to end apartheid in South Africa
By ALLEN TA YLOR
Consider the following radio broadcast:
Ambushes must be prepared for
policemen and soldiers. Our people
must manufacture homemade bombs
and petrol bombs. In addition, our
people must also buy weapons where
. possible. After arming themselves in this
manner, our people must begin to
identify collaborators and enemy agents
and deal with them. Informers, police
men, special branch police and army
personnel living and working among
our people must be eliminated . . .
Police and soldiers must be killed even
when they are in their homes. Forward
to the people's war, forward to battle.
Is this Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978 giving his
prescription for the overthrow of the shah of
Iran? Is this Fidel Castro speaking to his fellow
comrades as they rise up against Batista in the
late 1950s? No, this is a May 1985 radio message
of the African National Congress transmitted
from communist Ethiopia to South Africa. The
ANC calls this part of their "Radio Freedom"
program.
When considering the question of disinvest
ment from industries in South Africa, you must
first define your goals for South Africa.
Obviously the abolishment of apartheid is
desired, but how is that to be achieved and what
is to replace it? If you favor chaos and violence,
leading to bloody revolution, you probably also
support disinvestment. Because this is exactly
what disinvestment would help to bring about.
Surely this is where the ANC stands. After all,
with its terrorist messages over "Radio Free
dom," it certainly desires anything that would
help promote such barbaric acts.
On the other hand, if you favor a smooth,
peaceful evolution to democracy, you probably
not only oppose disinvestmint, but indeed
support increased investment in American firms
in South Africa. It is South Africa's growing
economy, says TheWashington Post, that is the
country's "most effective engine of social
transformation, compelling whites to grant
blacks precisely the training and education, the
livelihood and personal rewards the choices of
where to live and work, the sense of power and
community that apartheid would deny them."
And you build a stronger economy with more
investment, not less.
Disinvestment means ending American bus
iness activity in South Africa. Yet these arc the
firms that have contributed to the creation of
the greatest middle class (by far) for blacks of
the entire African continent; that have spent more
than $100 million in just the last four years on
education, housing, and health facilities for black
employees and their families; that have paid
blacks much higher wages than they might have
otherwise received under non-American busi
nesses. Granted, America's economic presence
is small in South Africa, but we would lose even
this marginal influence by disinvesting.
Just by looking at the blacks' economic
progress, you can see a shadow or lag effect of
improvements in their political situation. Real
wages for blacks have doubled in the past three
years and tripled in the past decade. Half of all
skilled positions are now held by blacks, and
the figure is projected to be 70 percent by the
end of the decade. More and more American
firms have adopted the Sullivan principles of
employment practice, which, according to their
author, Philadelphia minister Leon Sullivan, "are
working. As a result of them, U.S. plants are
desegregated, equal pay for equal work is being
paid to black worders, blacks are being elevated
to administrative and supervisory positions,
blacks are being trained with new technical skills,
and young blacks by the tens of thousands are .
being assisted with better education." And the
word has gotten around.
With all these improvements for blacks, it is
not surprising that 1.5 million blacks from
neighboring countries such as Zimbabwe,
Mozambique, Swaziland, Lesotho, Namibia,
Angola, Malawi and Botswana come to South
Africa every year seeking employment. South
Africa has a problem with its borders, but it's
not keeping the people from leaving, as in the
Soviet Union. Rather, it is controlling the mass
movement of population into the country.
As I previously noted, the increase in economic
power for the non-whites has brought about
growing political power for the non-whites. Just
a few examples of this tremendous progress away
from apartheid include
legalization of black trade unions along with
full bargaining rights. Since this change occurred
six years ago, the number of multi-racial and
black trade unions has multiplied by 200 times.
enfranchisement rights extended to the
Indian and colored communities. This reform
come forth with the new constitution of
November 1983, approved by the then all-white
parliament. It also included political participa
tion for these groups and has resulted in the
inclusion of an Indian and colored each into
President Botha's cabinet, as well as the election
of Indians and coloreds to the multi-racial,
tricameral parliament.
accepting blacks' right to political partic
ipation and property ownership, of the commit
tment to voting rights to all people regardless
of race, of blacks as common citizens and of
the permanence of urban blacks. This may
explain why despite the Group Areas Act (which
mandates the separation of black and white
communities), 10 million blacks live and work
in officially white areas.
. accepting the commitmint to overhaul the
urban influx and pass laws. President Botha's
own executive council described these as
"degrading of human dignity" and said they can
"not be justified."
abolishing the political interference act that
barred multiracial parties and the immorality and
mixed marriages acts that prevented interracial
sex and marriages.
desegregating work places, universities,
hotels, post offices, libraries, parks, restaurants,
theaters and sporting facilities.
If the people advodcating disinvestment truly
wished to represent the peace-loving black man,
and if they also had just a bit of economic sense,
they would support investment to make the
economy greater in size. They should know that
black discrimination could not exist in a fully
industrialized nation with such a large percentage
of blacks in its population. This socialist policy
of South Africa's government to regulate the
private economy so heavily will end only if
pressure to do so exists. And this is how to "take
the profit out of apartheid," as Jesse Jackson
has repeatedly stated: exploit apartheid's
constraints on the economy, such as the shortage
of skilled white labor, by promoting accelerated
output.
Disinvestment would do the opposite, and thus
it's no wonder why so many members of the
extremist Conservative Party of Andries Treu
nicht favor the flight of foreign capital away from
South Africa they want economic progress
to be minimal (which puts these pro-apartheid
forces in the same boat as the misnamed UNC
"anti-apartheid" support group).
All I'm asking from the protestors of construc
tive engagement is a little consistency in policy.
How can these "anti-apartheid" groups even
think of disinvestment, knowing that it will
exacerbate the horrible segregation and make
blacks worse off.' The protestors who seek to
make a moral statement against apartheid with
disinvestment truly arc acting with complete
irresponsibility and hypocrisy. But as liberal
columnist Richard Cohen has written, "morality
is cheap when someone else pays the cost."
A lien Taylor is a senior economics andpohtU al
science major from Wilmington.