Newspaper Page Text
4 • The Red and Black • Fnday. June 8, 1990
OPINIONS
■ QUOTABLE
"If there wasn't some kind of zero population growth,
we'd be neck-deep in squirrels right now.”
— Jeff Jackson, wildlife specialist with the University Cooper
ative Extension Service.
The Red & Black
Eetabluhed 1*93—Incorporated 1980
.An independent ttudent neutpaper not affiliated with the L'nuemty of Georgia
Charlene Smith/Editor-in-Chief
Amy Bellew/Managing Editor
Hogai Nassery/Opinions Editor
■ EDITORIALS
Save An’s job
“A major goal of the University...is to foster a
climate on our campus which celebrates cultural
diversity, which emphasizes achievement and which
prohibits discrimination in any form.”
So wrote University President Charles Knapp in a
Tuesday editorial in The Red and Black.
Unfortunately, the treatment of a Vietnamese doctor
who was recently fired from the College of Veterinary
Medicine casts doubt on this sentiment.
The reason An Quoc Nguyen lost his job was a
dubious one — his superiors say he couldn’t speak
English very well. So what? He’s a lab technician. He
spends his workday preparing specimens for lab
students. Even that is a shame considering he has a
doctorate from Cornell University. The University isn’t
that strict with its teaching assistants and this
treatment of An is unjustified.
The circumstances surrounding An’s dismissal are
strange, so it is not surprising he wants to appeal his
termination. What is surprising, not to mention quite
disturbing, is that he will not be allowed under Board
of Regents policy to have a lawyer or adviser represent
him at the grievance proceedings. This is unbelievable.
The people who fired him have accused him of not being
articulate enough to function as a vet school lab
technician, and yet they expect him to articulate an
adequate defense by himself at his hearing. So much
would not be asked of even the lowest criminal in a
court of law, whether he spoke English or not.
An is suing the Board of Regents’ to get their policy
changed and he should win. The policy is blatantly
unfair to people like An, and it seems to operate under
the assumption that only those capable of representing
themselves adequately will ever have fair hearings.
Obviously, such a policy fails to take into account not
only foreigners, but also the physically impaired.
If An does not get justice from the courts, Knapp
should step in and see to it personally that the
Vietnamese faculty member doesn’t get the bum’s rush
from the University. After all, it is to the words of
President Knapp’s editorial that An points when asked
why he thinks everything will come out his way in the
end. Right now he believes in the system, and in the
sincerity of the University’s commitment to all the
member of its community. Let’s hope he’s not soon
disappointed.
Right to know
All hail the U.S. House of Representatives which
has finally done some good. It has seemed, of late, that
some of our reps in Washington, determined to become
art critics and draw tight their pursestrings when they
hear about the homeless, have forgotten the real needs
of their constituents. But for a brief moment, the light
went on in the House chambers and no one ran for the
fuse box.
The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
and Student Right to Know Act will raise awareness of
campus crime and could lead to prevention of theft and
rape among other crimes.
Under the Crime Awareness act, all colleges and
universities receiving federal assistance must report
crime staistics to students, parents, employees and the
Department of Education on an annual basis.
Voters who send sons and daughters off each year
to colleges have the right to know the school’s rape rate
per capita and the frequency of other violent crimes.
The Student Right to Know Act will give students
who have been the victims of campus crime the right to
know the outcome of disciplinary proceedings against
the perpetrators of the crimes. That’s legislation we
need.
STAFF
NEWS: 543-1809
town Editor Jennifer Roropey
Sports Editor Trow Podfett
Ert aria town «nt Editor Margaret Weeton
Aooodoto Now* Editors: Chn* Grim**, Jennifer
Wilkin
*ont Pop* Copy Editor: DomO Jorintlon
bioido Copy Editor* Wolt*« Co*. Jool Groover. Mary
Ratcliffs, Johann* von dor woi
UQA Todoy/Wtf* Editor. AoOort A/ul*
Graph lea Editor: Oavro 0 Mao It*
CMot Ptiotocraphor Rotor Fray
Photo Editor: Mono Clay
Staff Wittor*: Gw inn Bruno. Mono Edward*. Mr*
Man* Fonguy. Lone* Holm*. Oar* Mctood. Mih*
Mctood, Stephanie Smith, Sandra Staphon*. j. 0.
Squill ant* Rob* ft Todd
Sport* Wrltar: Chn* Loncatt*
Spoclat Section*/ Trondo Editor Cora May
Aoototaat Special Section*/Trondo Editor
Glono Aowbotham
Effortal AaoJelant: P*m*i* Warm
Cart eon lot: Mih* Mor*u
ADVERTISING: 543-1791
Student Adverting Manager*
AnW Burnham, Bavarty Taylor
Advertising Aaaietanta:
Jennifer Dev* Scott Donaldson
Senior AdvertMag Raprooowtatlvea Soon Fagan.
KrichONa Haiuaian. Rick Hoggin*. Julio Reynoku
AdiwSotng Aapeoaaatattin: Shannon Greene.
Karon Haynoa. Wooer Handareon. Alan Hotcomb.
Chn* Mun^jta. Toby Myor*. Loo Nottlo*. Leigh Rrffe,
Lori Thurman
AaatatH Edit at at Prod. Manager: Cristm* Famdt
AooMaot AfrartMMg *ed. Maw agar Monona
Martin
PradacMaa Sta* Andy Ard, Laura Frtadncn. Androa
Martov*. Lortn Mar ah. Laura Minor Stacy Stanborg.
Michelle Wagon
0 on oral MaaoM*r Many Montevideo
AdvortMog Director Rotxn Stoner
OMe* Manogor Mery Straub
Produce** Magyar Judy Jordan
ClaaaMoOo/ Wocoptlowiat Beverly Vaughn
Croft Manager Suean Dam*
Clerical: Joanna Horton
The Hod and Black it publithad Tuesday through
Friday dunng the regular school year and each
Thursday dialog summar quarter, with the except or*
of holiday* and ***m panod*. by Th* Rad and Black
Publishing Company Inc. a non-profit campus
nawspapar not affiliated with th* Umv*r*ity of
Georgia. 123 H Jockoon St. Athens. Go. 30601
Third das* pottage pawl at Athens Go Subscription
rots S24 por year.
Opinion* oiprooood In Tfc* Bad and ■ecb other than
unsigned odKonal* or* th* opinion* of the «mtar* of
xgnad column* and not nocassoniy thoaa of The Rod
and Black Publishing Company Inc All rigfts
••served Reprint* by porrmssion of the editor*
American politicians prefer the trivial
In 1920, presidential candidate Warren Har
ding pledged to support “thrift and industry,”
as well as to return to “the sound, the good, the
wholesome." Democrats, who were charged
with not representing “American” values, had
few catch phrases that year, but instead,
pressed the cause of the League of Nations, an
end to child labor, laws to ease discrimination
against women, aid for education and high
ways, and assistance for first-time home
buyers. Against the Republicans’ patriotic ap
peals, however, the party’s loss was over
whelming. Harding later admitted privately, “I
don’t know much about Americanism, but it’s a
damned good word with which to win an elec
tion.”
Unfortunately, the successful tactics em
ployed by Harding typify American politics. In
deed, the 1920 campaign is notable only
because Democrats had the temerity to discuss
real issues. Far more common are party efforts
to convince voters of a choice between normalcy
and deviance, between “American” values and
extremist ideologies. Such is the pernicious ba
nality of American politics. Republicans and
Democrats seldom distinguish how they differ
on specifics; to do so would be an admission
that the other is not un-American, but merely
that it subscribes to different policies. Fearful
of Americans’ conservatism, Democrats are
hesitant to make known their liberalism, while
Republicans are equally risk-adverse, fearful
that most Americans support vigorous govern
mental intervention to eliminate poverty and
protect the environment.
One consequence of this rhetoric is that
Americans are poorly informed on issues, and
hence, are highly susceptible to the claptrap
Brian
Mursky
that substitutes for most political debate. It’s a
sad commentary that Dukakis’ most successful
barb in the last election was his slogan, “I’m on
your side,” (whoever’s side that is). Likewise,
Bush’s claim that he better represented “family
values” was warmly received, though he never
bothered to tell us what those values were. The
most glaring example of this sort of mind-
numbing appeal took place during Bush’s stop
over in Texas to visit the little girl who had
been trapped in a well. Later, Bush impressed a
cheering crown by saying that “only in America
would an entire community unite to help in the
rescue of a child.” One supposes that in Canada
they would have just let her die. Perhaps it is
more accurate to say that only in America
would politicians have the nerve to utter such
nonsense. And only in America would voters
take such drivel seriously.
Secondly, because elected officials view the
public as incompetent, important decisions
often are made without the public’s input. How
many Americans are aware, for example, that
the federal government spends more on farm
price supports, than it does on food for the poor?
Or that foreign aid to Israel, at nearly four bil
lion dollars annually, accounts for nearly half of
U.S. foreign assistance? And what was the
cause of the failure of American banking, and
why must taxpayers bear the $400 billion
burden to clean up the mess? One can be cer
tain only that these issues won’t be discussed in
the next election. Instead, no doubt, Republi
cans will attack Democrats for defending flag
burners, while Democrats will rail Republicans
for not being tough enough on crime.
Finally, though banal rhetoric itself may
seem harmless, its effects are both real and per
nicious, as parties’ attempts to be vague lead
citizens to intolerance. When the discussion of
substantive issues is removed from political
discourse, politics becomes sheer antagonism.
Because both parties uses similar rhetoric,
each party must be careful to extol its sup
porters to ignore the opposition, else they may
be swayed by its vacuous, but emotional ap
peals. Thus, Republicans argue that new Dem
ocratic proposals are just “the same old failed
liberal policies” in disguise, while Democrats
claim that the rhetoric of the GOP does not cor
respond with its actions. In such a world of de
ception, citizens are taught to ignore what
other groups say, as their arguments aren’t to
be believed. One effect of this training is evi
dent from watching what passes for political
debate, where invective substitutes for argu
mentation and vitriol has replaced reason. The
ultimate consequence of such disingenuous pol
itics is a polity in which an "us against them”
mindset is the norm, and where citizens pay no
attention to the needs of others.
Brian Mursky is a visiting assistant professor of
political science.
Legalization of drugs the only answer
Enough is enough. America’s “war on drugs”
is a proven failure, and the time for citizens to
examine other alternatives is at hand. Experts
agree that there are only two realistic solutions
to our problem — militaristic enforcement of
drug laws or legalization of drugs. Because dra
conian methods are inconceivable, especially if
we value civil liberties, legalization is the only
plausible choice.
More than 35 million Americans have used
mind-altering substances and six and a half
million are abusers of these drugs. These num
bers show why some have called drugs the “new
national pastime”.
But the drug crisis is not a mere recreational
concern. The U.S. government has issued $10
billion to fight the “war,” of which 70 percent is
for enforcement of current anti-drug laws. The
remaining 30 percent is left for treatment, edu
cation, etc. Our investment in this “war" is
well-intended but the results of our efforts have
been and will continue to be futile.
We cannot defeat the $150 billion drug ma
chine under the current system. Our financial
commitments are vastly unequal to theirs.
Even worse, our insatiable demand for illegal
drugs further fuels this discrepancy. Even if we
could supply additional funds, the black market
would simply rise to the occasion and stabilize
the drug industry’s financial interest.
Afler we accept the conditions of the “drug
war,” Americans can look to the solution
through legalization. This single alternative is
optimal because it undermines the enormous
profit margin of drugs in the black market.
Currently, that margin is approzimately 5000
percent! Without that huge incentive to sell
drugs, the cartels will expire, their economic
potential dissolved.
Meanwhile, the crimes associated with the il
legal drug trade would disappear, too. Every
day, $48 million worth of newly stolen property
can be directly traced to drugs. In addition,
many innocent lives are lost in the crossfire be
tween the drug lords who struggle for su
premacy. If drugs were legal, this property
would be safe and these people wouldn’t be
killed.
Admittedly, legalization can be a frightening
concept if it’s not addressed properly. Evolu
tionary implementation, beginning with softer
drugs legalized first and harder drugs later, is
the best method because it tempers the social
effects of legaization while still eliminating the
black market. Eventually, however, all drugs
msut be legal for adults; otherwise, the crim
inal incentive remains.
As drugs become legal, individuals must be
educated concerning their effects. Money for
this education can be directly obtained by
taxing the drugs in the same way we levy
against alcohol or tobacco. Beginning in el
ementary school, students would be taught the
truth about drugs and substance abuse. More
over, this awareness wouldn’t be achieved by
propanganda (“...this is your brain on drugs...”),
Dut through straight-forward explanation.
Currently, drug abuse is considered a crim
inal problem instead of a health issue. Legali
zation will enable our society to educate
individuals and implement treatment pro
grams for the unhealthy instead of spending
billions to fight this ineffectual “war.” By chan
ging the focus from the drugs to the user,
America will overcome the devastation wrought
by illegal drugs. Finally, we can list the “war”
against drugs among our national victories.
Scott Kelly is a senior pre-law major.
Schaefer is ethnocentric
■ FORUM
□ The Red and Black welcomes letters to the editor and prints them in the Forum
column as space permits. AJI letters are subject to editing for length, style and li
belous material. Letters should be typed, doublespaced and must include the name,
address and daytime telephone number of the wnter. Please include student dassill
cation, major, and other appropriate identification. Names can be omitted with a valid
reason upon request Letters can be sent by U.S. mail or brought in person to The Red
and Black's offices at 123 N. Jackon St, Athens, Ga.
Dr. Schaefer is amazing. In his
editorial he asks us to consider the
university as a “marketplaceof
ideas” and complains that there is
too much “paranoia...exclusively
directed toward Christians.” In
other words he is asking us to be
open-minded about Christianity.
After this Dr. Schaefer proceeds to
tell us that “paranoia” is justified
when directed towards “Christian
counterfeits” and he labels them
“culte" (pejorative language if it
has ever existed). If I understand
him correctly, we should be open-
minded to Christianity, but not to
whatever he terms as a “cult.”
Having been a witness to Dr.
Schaefer’s manly "Ghandi-
bashing” as well as having read his
editorial, I think the word Dr.
Schaefer should study is ethnocen-
trism.
John Newton
sophomore, political science
Gay history needed
The need for gay history is real,
as modern literature (including
academic texts) tends to white
wash any mention of gay
relationships among historical fig
ures while flaunting and cele
brating more traditional and
“acceptable” heterosexual mar
riages.
As a result of these lies of omis
sion, young gays have no role
models to look up to and feel com
pletely alone and isolated in their
feelings.
Perhaps this is one reason that
the suicide rate among gay teen
agers is two to three times higher
than that of the general population
in that age group.
These omissions also allow de
structive stereotypes to persist in
our culture, as they put gays and
lesbians in a faceless and distant
category.
Until society in general and his
tory in particular recognize and ac
cept the reality and diversity of
human experience, the need for
gay history will continue.
The issue isn’t one of persuasion,
but rather one of honesty and hu
manity.
Jo* Wagner
sophomore, phi ooophy