OPINION
July 18, 1984 Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kansan (USP$ 605-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuart Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60042, daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and fourth period. Second class summer session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays, and final periods. Second class student addresses by mail are $13 for six months or $2 a year in Douglas County and $14 for six months. Third class student addresses are $3 a semester paid through the student activity fee. Student subscriptions are $3 a semester paid through the student activity fee. Address changes to the University Daily Kansan 118 Stuart Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60042.
JAMES BOLE KAREN DAVIS
Editor Business Manager
SHARON BODIN JILL GOLDBLATT
Managing Editor Retail Sales Manager
JILL CASEY ROB LEONARD
Campus Editor National Sales Manager
CHARLES HIMMELBERG KRISTINE MATT
Editorial Editor Classified and Campus Sales Manager
MIKE KAUTSCH JOHN OBERZAN
News Advisor General Manager and
Sales and Marketing Advisor
Public rape raises difficult questions
After the shocking rape of a Milwaukee woman this week, has our spectator society withdrawn from reality? Are our senses so numbed that we can no longer respond to reality?
Evidently we live in a world where people are not capable of intervening on behalf of victims brutalized in broad daylight.
Who would guess that in a town such as Milwaukee, or any town for that matter, people could stand by and watch as two men sexually assaulted a women in front of apparently unaffected bystanders. In New Bedford Connecticut it happened in drunken barroom; now it can happen public in front of sober spectators?
The mentality of people who can stand by watching — worse yet laughing - at the spectacle of two men who have just spent an hour raping a woman is inconceivable.
The mental image of such a spectacle is incomprehensible. Is there some alter ego that lurks within us that, given free reign, would control our rational selves?
Would we stand idly by and watch such a spectacle?
Would we stand fully by and watch such a spectacle?
In our conscious minds we are appalled by the thought of not coming to the aid of someone being brutalized — but would we?
How many times have we heard the screams of people and dismissed it as people playing pranks?
Or how many times have we watched people walking down the street crying — obviously in mental anquish — and ignored it because we didn't have the time to stop and try to help?
What makes us think that if a "life" was a stake we would put our own lives on the line to help? These are all questions we must ask ourselves — then answer before the situation might arise.
It is easier to rant and rave at such tragedies as of the woman in Milwaukee, than it is to respond to the daily tragedies of life around us.
Yet, what would it take for us to intervene in such most brutal situations?
What has happened to the "good samaritan?"
These are questions that must be answered in our own hearts and minds.
Barbaric justice
"We ignore the clearest lesson of history," wrote Bruce Hutchison of the Victoria Times, "that in a free society nothing is ever black and white. Grey is the free man's color."
In the wake of two death row executions in Georgia and Ohio last week, these words linger hauntingly on the conscience of an American society which continues to implement the death penalty with disturbing regularity.
It is dismaying that a society so dedicated to the progress of civilization has regressed to such a barbaric administration of "justice."
There are no sensible arguments for the death penalty; there are alternative — and generally superior — means of achieving every end which execution attains, save death. It is this ultimate end which puts the death penalty at odds with the ideals of a democratic society.
One fundamental principal on which democracies are based is the fallibility of man. Man's imperfection extends to his institutions, and no institution is it so important to bear this in mind than in the judicial system.
The administration of justice in a free and democratic society is a grey process at best. By denying the existence of absolutes we provide ourselves with a hedge against fallibility.
The administration of the death penalty, by contrast, is a black and white process. Death is an absolute judgement. No retrials. No parole. New evidence means nothing. An imperfect society leaves itself no recourse when it arbitrarily puts one of its members to death.
LETTERS POLICY
The death penalty should banned forever from the American judicial system. There are more civilized ways of dealing with society's criminals than strapping them to a chair and throwing a switch.
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten on two sheets of paper, double-spaced and should not exceed 100 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include his class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan also invites individuals and groups to submit guest columns. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansan office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
South African apartheid thrives
I did not invent the boycott of South Africa. Organized resistance to brutally racist policies in South Africa dates from at least 1893 when Mohandas Gandhi began to fight for the desegregation of South Africa's railway system.
Nor is the fight against apartheid new to the University of Kansas. At commencement in 1979 a man was arrested for displaying a banner asking the KU Endowment Association to divest from South Africa. In a related incident the next year, this man had his wrist broken by KU police. Twelve others were arrested.
So why are people so upset about South Africa? Perhaps some background information will be helpful:
- All political power in South Africa is in the hands of the white minority, who comprise only 16 percent of the population. The other 14 percent — Africans, Indians and "coloureds" or persons of mixed ancestry — are subject to the system of racial discrimination known as apartheid. Apartheid demands strict racial segregation. There are separate schools for blacks and whites, separate beaches, separate buses and trains, separate ambulances. There are even separate countries; by law black people are denied citizenship in white South Africa and are given citizenship in "bantustans," tribal "homelands" which most of their citizens have never seen. The batastans comprise only 13 percent of the land in South Africa and are the most barren areas of the country.
- Black Africans make up 17 percent of South Africa's work force, but receive only 29 percent of all wages paid. Organizing a black trade
- Sixty percent of black households in urban areas are living — if you can call it living — on below subsistence level incomes. An estimated 2.9 million black children under the age of 15 suffer from malnutrition. Per capita expenditures on education are eight times higher for whites than for blacks.
union can legally be punished by death. Written or verbal criticism of aparthief also constitutes a capital offense.
This litany of suffering and despair could go on and on, but it all boils down to this: Black South Africans are being brutally oppressed and the government of South Africa has expressed its intention to continue that oppression indefinitely.
So how does that affect you and me?
U. S. investment and the presence of U.S. corporations are crucial to the economic survival of the Republic of South Africa. The University Daily Kansan editorial of July 13 stated that "It is South Africa's economic growth that is breaking the back of anaphard." This is absolutely false
— apartheid's back is not being broken. The wage gap between black and white workers is increasing, and real wages for blacks are decreasing South Africa's economic growth is
serving merely to increase the strength of the white South African regime. This will only lengthen the long struggle that is coming. Any thing you and I can do to decrease U.S. involvement in South Africa will be beneficial to the people there who are fighting for their freedom.
All black South Africans must carry an identity pass in order to travel outside of their bantustans Enforcement of these pass laws is made possible by the use of computers supplied by IBM. American companies sell 70 percent of the computers purchased in South Africa.
South Africa must import nearly all of its oil — U.S. companies supply 40 percent of it. U.S. corporations and educational institutions have almost single-handedly provided South Africa with its nuclear power capability. Two billion dollars in loans from U.S. institutions bailed South Africa out of a debt crisis in 1974.
In an interview before his death at the hands of South African police, black freedom fighter Steve Bike said this: "The argument is often made that the loss of foreign investments would wilt hurt blacks the most. It would undoubtedly hurt blacks in the short run because many of them would stand to lose their jobs. But it should be understood in Europe and North America that foreign investment supports the present economic system of political injustice. If Washington is really interested in contributing to the development of a just society in South Africa, it would discourage investment in South Africa. We blacks are perfectly willing to suffer
the consequences! We are accus tomed to suffering."
But U.S. corporations aren't interested in social justice — they're interested in profits. According to Milton Friedman, the guru of capitalism, "Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than making as much money for their stockholders as possible." Let's not kid ourselves with any nonsense about free market economies — exploitation in South Africa is maintained not by an invisible hand but with an iron fist. And U.S. corporations help make it all possible.
It seems clear to me that the only way to justice in South Africa is through the immediate end to white minority rule. The Kansan editorial board recommends "evolutionary, rather than revolutionary change." Things have been "evolving" in South Africa for almost a hundred years — are you asking the people of South Africa to wait another hundred years for their freedom? The Student Senate cannot end the suffering of the oppressed people of South Africa, but we can help. Thousands and thousands of South Africans have shown their willingness to suffer and die for their freedom. All they ask of us is that we refuse to share in the "blood" money, the profits wring from their bodies, hearts and souls by their oppressors. All they ask is that we no longer support the people that keep them enslaved. Is that really too high a price for us to pay?
Coming to terms with world injustice
Trying to make a political statement with money is not an easy thing to do. Sometimes it does more harm than good.
Many people support moves to boycott U.S firms with financial ties to the Republic of South Africa as a way of protesting its unjust and repressive form of racism — apartheid.
What would happen if these efforts were a total success? What if every U.S. company divested their interests in South Africa?
No one knows for sure. Some argue that if U.S. corporations withdrew, the white power structure would collapse, forcing them to come to terms with black South Africans. Others argue that U.S. corporations are a favorable influence, and pulling them out would amount to abandoning efforts to restore equality.
Some argue that if U.S. corporations withdrew, the white power structure would collapse, forcing them to come to terms with black South Africans. Others argue that U.S. corporations are a favorable influence, and that pulling them out would amount to abandoning efforts to establish equality.
Percy Quooba, a prominent black South African journalist, said that disinvestment by U.S. corporations would hasten "the day when a black-white confrontation becomes a reality."
A complete economic boycott might bring about a swift and dramatic turn toward equality. It also might plunge the country into internal strife and poverty.
Everyone who supports a total
economic boycott. They want to force U.S. corporations and government to take a more active role in combating apartheid by hitting South Africa where it counts — in the wallet.
But how many dollars does it take to make an effective political statement?
economic boycott as a symbol of support to black South Africans should be aware that the results of such boycotts may not succeed, may have the wrong effect.
Some boycott proponents, however, are not hoping for a total
A partially successful economic boycott runs the risk of not being strong enough.
First, it is a symbolic gesture that may aggravate the situation its supporters are fighting against. Second, on a practical level, Student Senate actions will go wholly unnoticed by U.S. corporations with ties to South Africa.
And that's what is wrong with Student Senate Executive Committee's proposal to boycott goods from companies with subsidairies in South Africa.
But apartheid is still wrong. Very wrong.
Human injustice is one of the great dilemmas affluent societies must come to terms with. A perfect answer is seldom found.
The United States, more than any other country in the world today, stands as a symbol of freedom and justice for all people. Each U.S. citizen must continue this noble tradition by standing up not only for their rights, but also for the rights of all humanity.
The news is full of people who suffer plights that are hard to understand as we sit comfortably in front of our television sets.
We see a world totally different from our hometowns. We live in a country with more food than it needs.
with enough space to welcome almost anyone and where individuals have more freedom than anyone else.
Then we see the faces of people from other countries who have lost their zeal for life to the harsh realities of malnutrition, overcrowding, prejudice and totalitarian regimes.
Some people, in greater numbers than anyone cares to believe, choose to resolve this paradox by ignoring the staggering imbalance between their tiny corner of the world and the rest of the world they see and hear about. They shut their eyes and ears to the cries of fellow human beings
Others justify it by attributing injustice in the world to a higher cause - human nature and religious doctrine, for example. But when pressed, they frequently resort to logical and rational arguments to excuse themselves from "getting involved."
And then are those who will not accept it. They attempt to right those things that they believe to be wrong. What should the faculty, students and staff at the University of Kansas do to end apartheid in South Africa?
As a symbolic gesture, each of us should support the oppressed by staying informed and discussing injustice — not only in South Africa, but in every part of the world.
We, as individuals, must unite as a society and defeat racism in South Africa. We must demand that our government exert more pressure. We must never give up the fight.
Ferraro: Thanks Fritz, but no thanks
The Minnesota State Legislature had never seen such a to-do. In a mini-convention atmosphere replete with whirring cameras and frenzied supporters, Walter Mondale adopted Geraldine Ferraro, a congresswoman from New York, as his vice-presidential sidekick.
Such a choice, as we are all well aware, is a political precedent in the United States, yet no more impressive or laudable than Ronald Reagan's appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. Yet this must be an anomaly, for we all know that Reagan is an anti-feminist. Ah, but I digress.
As this generic campaign euphoria subsides, it becomes time to analyze and discuss this nomination. The prospect of a woman president should not be frightening to Americans. Margaret Thatcher has proved that gender is no consideration in her successful rule over Great Britain.
sas was the probable choice, but Bumpers quickly removed his name from the list as had other qualified people with political futures, such as Mario Cuomo.
Indeed, there are scores of women in our midst qualified to sit in the Oval Office in terms of their experience and understanding of international politics, women such as Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Shirley Chisholm (who, by the way, roundly denounced Ferraro's selection).
Elizabeth Dole and Nancy Landon Kassbaum, to name but a few.
Ferraro, however, is not one of them.
Dianne Feinstein, a ticket contender herself, remarked on "Nightline" the night of the selection that Ferraro's lack of credentials for the job is nothing new for vicepresidential candidates, and she
DAVID
ROGERS
Guest Columnist
deftly fingered Spiro Agnew as the clearest and most recent manifestation of such underqualification. This observation is alarming on two counts.
First, she has violated the the oldest and truest of adages: two, four, six, or even eight wrongs do not make a right. Undoubtedly, Agnew was an abysmal choice, but this does not justify another abysmal choice.
Second, that an obvious Mondale-Ferraro supporter would admit Ferraro's shortcomings so quickly only tells us, without our looking at the record, that she is darned unqualified.
The answer is really rather simple. Walter Mondale is a special-interest junkie, and appeasing the feminist clamor for a female running mate was just another fix. Democratic women were calling for affirmative action of the highest order and Fritz obliged.
Simultaneously it was surmised that Sen. Dale Bumpers from Arkan-
Later, Feinstein conceded Ted Koppel's observation that Congresswoman Ferraro is not nearly as qualified as George Bush, a fact that proves that underqualified vice-presidential candidates are not necessary and goes on to raise the question of why Monday chose her in the first place.
Yet there is speculation that only a week before the announcement, Mondale had dropped Ferraro from his mile-long scroll of possibilities, which included everybody from Fred Flintstone to Woody Allen.
Therefore, as the list pared itself,
Mondale's special-interest itch became red and inflamed, waxing insufferable when a group of feminists threatened to walk out of the convention if he did not accede to their wishes; so he scratched it.
But Americans, Democrat or Republican, are not so shallow; after all, they threw Spiro out on his pocketbook. Even in the midst of this historical occasion, leading feminists such as Chisholm are denouncing Ferraro as Mondale's choice, a trend that will probably culminate on Nov 4.
However, we must thank Walter Mondale for breaking the barrier. Now we can begin to implement a selection process devoid of special interest pressures, pooling Americans of every race, gender and religious persuasion, so that we can wisely choose those who are most qualified to lead the Western World.
Meanwhile, someone should tell Ronald Reagan to wipe that smile off of his face.