Free speech Fridays

Share some pain, please

While most of us UW employees have been treading water financially these past few years, upper- and mid-level management have been doing quite nicely, thank you very much. The UW is continuing to look more and more like corporate America in its system of priorities and financial rewards.

What is particularly galling to classified staff is the rather duplicitous way this has sometimes been accomplished. A case in point: UW custodial in particular, and facilities in general.

In late 1998 or so, Gene Woodard, director of Physical Plant custodial services, met with upper management to deliver a sobering message: Due to budget problems, and to avoid potential future layoffs, it would be necessary to begin moving custodians to day shift to eliminate the cost of the shift differential, which amounted to about $1,000 per year per custodian. Initially, 30 or so custodians moved to day shift, thereby saving the department some $30,000 per year.

A few months later, Woodard met with us again to announce that two supervisers had been reclassified and given raises totaling -- ironically -- $30,000, a 50 percent salary increase, some $15,000 each.

The trend continues. We are now being told by Woodard and his boss, Jeraldine McCray, head of facilities, that custodians must now convert to "team" cleaning due to budget constraints and in the furtherance of "efficiency." At last count, custodial has lost 14 positions in the past 12-18 months which will not be filled. Since the mid- to late-1980s, the number of custodians has gone from 400 or so to around 250, even though new buildings have come on line.

But from 1998 (when custodians were moved to day shift to save money) to 2001 (and the present call for team cleaning), a look at management salary increases of those calling for these onerous sacrifices is revealing. The rate of a custodian's salary increase is included for comparison:

Jeraldine McCray, associate vice president,

head of facilities services:

1998 ($113,844)

2001 ($161,112)

41 percent increase

Gene Woodard, director of facilities custodial:

1998 ($66,972)

2001 ($82,896)

23 percent increase

The two reclassified positions, operations manager (day shift and swing shift):

1998 ($30,264)

2001 ($46,800)

55 percent increase

Basic custodian pay, UW custodial:

1998 ($23,976)

2001 ($26,376)

10 percent increase

We can only hope that in the future, the UW administration would begin to show the same level of discipline and fiscal restraint regarding its own salaries that are being imposed on the rest of us. It should set an example to let the UW community know that the present economic pain will be shared from top to bottom without exception. In the end, that is what will unite this campus to more willingly make the necessary sacrifices in an uncertain economic future.

Ken Mills

UW staff, lead custodian

Rights and terror, post-Sept. 11

In uncertain times such as these, it is important to remember the spirit of liberty, equality and open democratic debate on which the United States of America was founded.

After an academic quarter spent examining the relationship between rights and the war on terrorism, we believe that the following points must be made:

1: The war on terrorism, in its current form, is not addressing the root causes of terrorism, specifically the growing disparity between the rich and poor.

2: The USA-PATRIOT Act and other security measures limit civil liberties in a potentially unconstitutional way, fail to adequately address security concerns and open the door to abuses of power.

3: Furthermore, the hasty passage of the 342-page USA-PATRIOT Act only one day after its introduction to the House of Representatives runs counter to the spirit of democratic process.

Today, nine months after Sept. 11, we encourage:

1: The opening of a dialogue on the war on terror and a legislative review of anti-terrorist security measures enacted. Specifically, those providing for ethnic profiling, the flouting of the Geneva Conventions, suspension of due process at the justice department's discretion, and the use of guilt by association as a primary investigative tool.

2: That the U.S. government rethink its drift toward unilateralism and participate more fully in international democracy -- i.e., rethink our abstention from the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol, the ABM treaty, etc. Above all, we encourage the Bush administration to rethink its commitment to "preemptive strikes" against suspected terrorists in dozens of nations.

3: That students of the UW engage in informed dialogue on the war on terrorism, the USA-PATRIOT Act and other security measures, and their implications for the world we live in.

composed by a group of students from the spring 2002 Comparative History of Ideas seminar, "Rights and Terror" - Matthias Scheiblehner, instructor.

Tainted celebration

Unlike many of my fellow graduating comrades who will be attending this year's commencement, I will not be sitting among them in the sea of black, the white flashes bouncing off cameras from cheerful family and friends at Husky Stadium. No, instead, I have decided to make it more memorable. I will be among those protesting this year's commencement speaker.

Graduation day is distinct in that it is a ceremony to honor the graduating class, but the UW has failed to show any respect to the graduating class when choosing this year's speaker. The hierarchy of this school (the administration) chose to invite Madeleine Albright without consent from the graduating class, the ASUW or GPSS. What hidden agenda the school has in making such a move -- and going as far as presenting her with an honorary degree -- I may never know.

The main controversy over the former secretary of state has been her role in U.S. foreign policy. Many individuals are either unaware or uncomfortable hearing about the reality of U.S. power and foreign policy. It is not something you would hear or witness in the media or mainstream press. It eventually dawned on me that certain policies that we have facilitated and financially supported, and that were designed to fight "evil" authority and leadership, were indeed ineffective and disturbing. Let's be honest and sensible about the existing U.S. foreign policy and militarism overseas. Let us not lose the ability to distinguish and discriminate between right and wrong.

No, Albright, 500,000-plus dead children, regardless of where they come from, are not worth any price! Your statement is a glimpse into the practice of corrupt and atrocious foreign policy. The major I chose -- public health -- addresses the most important health issues affecting communities locally and internationally and works to preserve and improve the health of all people. It attempts to confront and overturn damage caused by your policies. I could teach you a few things about health. I refuse to accept your presence at our school, knowing the lives of innocent people are being taken away as you make your speech come commencement day. I will instead wage war against your "cause" and look for ways to start talking about solutions to life. This is the first step in what I fear will be a long journey to fight against inequality and injustice in a country known to uphold these traits.

I do apologize if I will be offending some students and their parents at the ceremony, but this is bound to happen. In any case, if everyone agreed with what I had to say, it might just mean that I wasn't standing up for anything.

Shahed Samadi

senior, public health

Fairy tale

In response to professor Mosqueda ("Honoring 'our' war criminal," June 6) and numerous others in the UW community who excel at engaging their word processors before their brains are in gear, consider the following:

A ship, piloted by a Captain Albright, sails a stormy sea. Captain Albright, from her vantage point in the pilothouse, observes in the distance another ship sinking, and its sole occupant drowning. Beyond that, Albright observes yet another ship, also sinking, but this ship has 10 drowning crewmembers.

Captain Albright speeds toward the first sinking ship and calls her crew to action, mindful that the safety of her own ship and crew is her first priority. Albright's compassionate crew prepares to rescue the lone crew member but is horrified and watches helplessly as Captain Albright drives her ship at full speed right over him. Our "heartless" captain continues on to the second sinking ship and rescues the 10 remaining victims.

The "rescue" is over now and the storm has subsided, but Captain Albright's first mate, a Mr. Mosqueda, is distraught. He confronts his captain and charges her with brutality and criminality in the killing of the sailor. Captain Albright calmly explains that if efforts were made to save the first sailor or even time spent to avoid hitting him, the other 10 would likely not have survived. But First Mate Mosqueda has no ears for this explanation. Images of the dead sailor, chopped to bits by the ship's propeller, have taken over his mind. Captain Albright goes on to explain that very often in her job, decisions are made, not between a good outcome and a bad outcome, but between two bad outcomes, one slightly less bad than the other. Captains, more so than first mates, must make these decisions.

Epilogue: Captain Albright retired shortly after the inquiry with both her critics and supporters, but was content in the belief that, given human imperfection and a cruel sea, she made the best decision possible.

First Mate Mosqueda, on the other hand, grew increasingly bitter and was never promoted to captain. It is interesting to note that at the inquiry, Mosqueda was relentless in his criticism of Captain Albright but was never able to provide a scenario in which all 11 sailors could have been saved.

Glenn Unruh

UW staff

Look who's protesting

For the past couple of weeks, Daily columnists, campus groups and letter writers have expressed that Albright is a war criminal, based on her enforcement of foreign policies under Clinton, specifically in Iraq. Yesterday, a full-page ad ran, listing campus and community groups specifying reasons why they denounce Albright's visit and her honorary law degree. Of course, all students, not just campus activists, should be included in selecting the commencement speaker and awarding honorary degrees.

Notice, though, that the ad is silent on Saddam Hussein's human-rights violations. Also notice the ad's silence on Israeli lives lost in Palestinian suicide-bombings. Apparently, only some lives count.

While I believe the ad's supporters are politically and morally justified in their right to protest on commencement day and in their beliefs that economic sanctions do incredibly more harm than good, they, however, are not entitled to ruin graduation day for the rest of us.

Note that not all of the activists you'll see at the protest on commencement day have to borrow huge amounts of money and work up to 30 hours a week to attend school full-time. They have the luxury to protest on our day of celebration of what is to many of us a personal milestone -- earning a college degree. The fact of the matter is, the planned protest is too little, too late at an event where it will have little impact, if any. Rhetorically, the UW stadium is an easy, safe place for these groups to protest foreign policy.

Rachel Leigh

Daily columnist

graduating senior

Deliberate misrepresentation?

I rarely find opinions published in The Daily outright disturbing, but a May 31 article was unusual. Professor Edward Alexander from the Department of English claims (I paraphrase) that Noam Chomsky has made common cause with a neo-Nazi like the Frenchman Robert Faurisson. I find it alarming that a professor who is paid by the University should propagate such vulgar distortions of the facts.

In the interest of truth, I will explain these facts to some length. In the late 1970s, Faurisson published a book which tried to prove that the Holocaust had never occurred -- a thesis which, I should make clear, I believe to be doomed to failure in the face of the inescapable reality of the Holocaust's history and its monstrosity. Following the publication of his book, Faurisson was expelled from the University and subjected to a significant amount of harassment.

Following these events, some French intellectuals circulated a petition asking that Faurisson's right to free expression be defended, which Chomsky, among others, signed. I would think it hardly worth mentioning that in the United States, the country which is rightly held as an example to the world for its defense of such a right, saying "I defend your right to say this" does not automatically imply "I agree with or support what you say."

This seems such an elementary distinction that anyone who denies it must be pursuing some other agenda. It follows naturally from elementary civil-libertarian ideas that one must defend primarily the right to express ideas which one disagrees with -- one cannot have read J.S. Mill's On Liberty without agreeing to this fundamental principle -- even if those ideas are detestable and wrong. Yet, Chomsky's defense of freedom of speech has been used as a tool to slander him and vilify him. Here is part of what Chomsky himself had to say about this diatribe:

"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the Holocaust as 'the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history'). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy."

As anyone even marginally acquainted with Chomsky's work (and not blinded by some further ideological end) will testify, the accusations that Alexander launches against Chomsky are either the product of a gross misunderstanding of the situation to which they refer, or they are purposefully slanderous. In either case, they should be dismissed as irrelevant.

Matteo Tamburini

junior, mathematics,

international studies

Reform ASUW senate before granting new powers

After serving in the ASUW student senate since 1997 and finally leaving after graduation last March, I have witnessed first hand the growth of a student senate from only 30 to 40 members, of whom over half were often absent, to a senate of more than 100 members and increasing in politicization. Based on my tenure in the senate, I must disagree with your staff editorial of June 6, "Toward a real senate."

I completely understand the sentiments of many senators who feel frustrated due to the lack of power as the Board of Directors often ignores or overturns the voice of the senate. The senate's power is limited to being the "official opinion of the ASUW." I myself have been frustrated by the board, which on occasion overturns resolutions and senate bills I have authored and sponsored.

However, a fundamental difference exists between the senate and the board: The senate is appointed while the board is elected. Granted, less than 10 percent of students participate in the election of board members, but that is still more democratic than appointing senators.

If the senate were to gain more power, such as power to override the vote of the board, the amount of politicization in the senate would explode. The vice president, who makes a number of appointments, would be forced to identify the politics and ideologies of individuals who apply for senate seats. The senate would scrutinize every single student organization that applied for a senate seat. And depending on what faction or clique controls senate that year, we may see stacking of the deck.

Furthermore, the organization of student senate is inherently undemocratic. Commuter students, who make up the vast majority of students, are but a small minority in the senate. On the other side, students affiliated with the Greek system are a small minority of the total student population, yet hold a large voting bloc in the senate. Graduate students make up a sizable portion of the student body as a whole, yet on any given year, they make up somewhere around 1 percent to 5 percent of the senate. I can continue ad nauseum, but I hope the point I am trying to make is understood.

Before any more power is delegated to the student senate, a massive reformation of its structure needs to take place. Although I do not claim to have the prescription to cure the senate's shortcomings, I do know the senate, at the very least, must be more descriptive of the student populace as a whole. Another method of selecting senators needs to be made that would allow the senate to become more democratic.

If these changes are not made before granting more power to the student senate, then the cure will be worse than the disease of the Board of Directors' hegemony.

Chad Savaikie

former ASUW senator

2002, political science