Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
COMMENTARY
EDITORIAL
LETTERS
"mmmnmmmtmam^maMUHmmmmiiummmmmmSS^
"The unapathetic
among us"
The Wednesday before Spring Break, the newly-elected
Student Activities Committee (SAC) was formally seated.
David Burns, a representative from the College of Public
and Community Services (CPCS) was elected chairperson of that body, becoming the first chair in several
years who was not an incumbent. Very few incumbents
were re-elected, ensuring that this year's new and diverse
committee will be viewing its various functions and
duties with a fresh eye, not necessarily a bad thing.
However, even if critical, it is hoped that the new
committee will take a kindly view of its predecessor.
Soon enough, the new members will discover how tough
a job they have and how frustrating it can be.
The purpose of this editorial is not to caution or warn
off the new committee members, however. Rather, it is
to congratulate them. Because, irr spite of another discouraging display of apathy towards the student electoral process, these people made a decision to participate,
and committed themselves. Regardless of how many
people ran for office, how few voted, and how many of
these elected are new to the game, they are in it. now.
They are the unapathetic among us.
Unfortunately, they already face a tough year in that
a lower projected enrollment for 1983-84 means a
smaller budget for the SAC. That, in turn, could well
mean the SAC will be spending the first quarter of its
term in office cutting budgets, not a pleasing prospect
under any circumstances. Less so, considering that the
budgets to be cut will also belong to that minority of
students at UMass/Boston who have chosen to participate in the life of the campus.
Let us hope that the enrollment drive the university
has under way will begin to pay off, and though enrollment may be down next year, it will begin to rise the
next. Let us also hope that the overall participation and
activity of students in campus-related events is at the
low point of a cycle and will begin to rise, despite the
effects of the UMB-Boston State merger, the economy,
' a n d the lack of a free period.
Aside from the gloomy predictions and faint hopes,
: let us finally hope that if the new committee must spend
time in discouraging work, that it doesn't last long and
from there they can move on to the more positive aspects
of the job. Good or bad, these people will be spending
the next year, unpaid and for no scholastic credit,
working for the rest of us. In that time, The Mass
Media, one of the SAC's largest organizations, will
surely have differences with them, but for now, we wish
them well.
Ben Hughes
"Distressing reversal"
The Mass Media welcomes letters to the edit or from all
members of the campus community. Letters must be
typed, double-spaced, and limited to two pages. Writers
should include their name and telephone number (for
verification purposes only). The deadline for submissions
to the letters column is the Thursday before each
Tuesday publication. The Mass Media is located at
080/4/003 (Harbor Campus) 929-8294/5.
To the editor:
Last fall 1 responded rather strongly to an editorial
("Ad Standards") which appeared in the October 19
issue of The Mass Media. At that tim* I expressed both
my appreciation for the integrity of your struggle to
come up with a judicious advertising policy and my disappointment with the results of that struggle. Now, because of what appears to be a distressing reversal of a
previous editorial statement, I find myself expressing
further disappointment.
Last fall, in the editorial cited above, The Mass
Media stated that it would not advertise pre-written
"Conscientious
objection"
To the editor,
Certainly racist statements should be silenced. But
legitimate protest of Israeli military adventurism should
not be silenced by labeling it "anti-Semitic racism" (as
was done by Nick Aksionczyk in Wavelength) or
"biased criticism."
One might consider the racist innuendo used against
Arabs in all facets of the media. For instance, in the
movie "First Family" there is a scene in which an Arab
at an international political conference swears, burps
and throws a knife. In the movie "Black Sunday,"
Arab terrorists attempt to blow up the Super Bowl.
Arabs are generally portrayed as barbarians, greedy oil
sheiks, or terrorists.
It is naive not to question the assumption that the
P.L.O. were a terrorist threat to Israel and a major cause
for the invasion. There are economic and political
reasons for Israel to want to redraw the map of the
Middle East and occupy other areas besides which
they now do.
As far as Israeli soldiers are concerned, Palestinian
refugee camps are diseased terrorist nests whether they
contain armed guerrilas or not, so why should they interfere with the work of the Phalangists? By giving a
"mortal blow" to the P.L.O., Israel issued an invitation
for another slaughter of defenseless refugees.
Certainly one can cite several examples in which
Moslems have slaughtered Christians, Christians have
slaughtered Moslems, Hindus have slaughtered Moslems, etc., etc. But to isolate one example isn't really a
valid justification for Israeli aggression.
/The bottom line is that Israel has nuclear weapons,
and territory in which they consider their sphere of influence is ever increasing. Conscientious objection of
how they use their newly found power is not biased or
racist.
Leila Saba
English '86