On Oct. 1, Ann Arbor Anti-Racist Action and the Free Mumia Coalition held a public forum on campus dealing with issues of strategy in the fight against the Ku Klux Klan and other fascists. The story on the forum that appeared the next day in the Daily ("NWROC offshoots holds first meeting," 10/2/96) completely distorted and falsified the histories of the sponsoring organizations and the political discussion that took place at the forum.
Your headline inaccurately describes Anti-Racist Action as an "NWROC offshoot." Ann Arbor ARA is a newly formed local chapter that is part of the 40-plus chapter-strong Anti-Racist Action Network, a federation of militant, anti-fascist chapters and affiliated groups that operates nationwide. Neither the local chapter of ARA, nor ARA-Net as a whole, has ever been affiliated with the Detroit-based National Women's Rights Organizing Coalition, an organization long associated with the sectarian politics of the Revolutionary Workers League. To describe us as either an NWROC - "offshoot" or "spinoff" - as your article does is completely false.
The local chapter of Anti-Racist Action did come from the core of activists who formed the broad-based anti-fascist coalition, Ann Arbor Organizing Against the Klan. A2 OAK was a united front of more than a dozen campus and community groups that organized a same-time/same-place demonstration against the Klan in Ann Arbor on June 22. NWROC organized against the Klan separately.
While political differences exist between different anti-fascist groups like ARA and NWROC, ARA does, as a matter of principle, oppose the city's attempt to bill NWROC and target them or any other anti-racist for repression. In fact, that may have been the only mention of NWROC at the forum. How that could have gotten twisted into a false description of us as an NWROC "spin-off" is anyone's guess.
In addition to those errors, it appears that summaries or paraphrasing of various statements of mine concerning ARA's tactics were haphazardly strung together, made into an ideological and verbal gobbledygook, and attributed to me as direct quotes.
I never said one of ARA's main "goals" is to "provide support for all minority groups," whatever that means.
I hope I'd never say anything as patronizing or saccharin as that! What would not be clear to the reader is that it is ARA's intent to work with existing organizations of the oppressed in common struggles against the far-right, racism or police brutality.
While it could be argued that inaccurate coverage is perhaps preferable to no coverage at all, I would hope that the Daily would exercise more wisdom and higher professional practices in future articles of a political nature.
Paul Lefrak
Rackham Member, ARA and Free Mumia Coalition
In response to the Daily editorial, "Safety First," (10/15/96) I must say that I am concerned with the haste that it pushes for. RHA task force a waste of time? While I am indeed very concerned for the safety of my friends and others in the dorms, I also believe in doing something right the first time. While it means well, it seems that with almost everything this University does, there turns out to be significant flaws or deficiencies. That's both money and time down the drain. While the editorial does have its points, there are several things I do not agree with. First, though it doesn't say this explicitly, the editorial seems to imply that this ambush of sexual assaults is something new to campus. I cannot believe that. The deal is that more people are reporting them. Also, let's not forget that only one of these sexual assaults occurred inside a residence hall. Lock the doors and add all the electronic gizmos you want, but what will that do to help a victim outside the building?
Second, the article pushes for some immediate changes to be made that add to the inconvenience more than they add to safety. Twenty-four hour lock-downs and electric card readers only provide for hassle (and in the case of the card readers, a waste of money). Anyone who wants to get into the building will get in, regardless of the time of day. Try it if you already haven't - just go wait outside South Quad and see if someone who lives there actually refuses to open the door for you, if it's not already propped open.
Why does the RHA task force need time to approve what can be done now? The limited funds that we get to take care of such problems do not need to be wasted on tactics that will not aid the situation. The task force will look at how security is being handled, and more importantly, take the time to thoroughly explore how it can be done more effectively.
Matt Healy
SNRE sophomore
Nicholas Kirk's recent letter to the editor ("The rich are the reason why America is great," 10/15/96) has left me dumbfounded. Kirk's letter made inaccurate claims and assertions that demand a response.
First, Kirk writes that the rich "grow the economy" by purchasing "stocks, bonds and other instruments." Economics 102 states otherwise - economic growth is a lot more complicated. The economy grows when any factor that contributes to GDP expands. Investment, in the economic sense, refers to new money spent on equipment, not financial vehicles. While "investing" in the common usage does wonders for a private portfolio, it is not the primary factor in economic growth. Technology, education and increased productivity cause economic growth.
Second, the 1993 tax cut was not the largest in history, no matter what Kirk claims. Kirk believes that adjusting the dollar amount of the increase "for inflation is nonsense." What? The annual rate of inflation in America is not enormous, but at 2 to 4 percent, it does make an impact over a period of three years, especially when discussing numbers in the millions of dollars.
Third, Kirk's letter alleges that "tax cuts help everyone, not just the wealthiest." This poorly-articulated expression of blind faith in trickle-down economics only serves to prove its author's ignorance of economic reality. In theory, an across-the-board tax cut will help everyone over time. Our tax structure is uneven; the Dole tax plan will benefit the richest parts of our society.
Deloitte and Touche recently analyzed what would happen to Dole's own taxes under his plan. Dole's $650,000 income for 1995 would have been taxed $29,000 less. President Clinton would have benefited from a $15,000 tax reduction, too. But the poorest 20 percent of American families would face a $25 tax increase, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.
Fourth, and this is a small quibble, Kirk says that most wealthy people get there through hard work. Disregarding the distinction between "wealth" and "income" for a moment, allow me to correct his assumption. While there are many individuals who amass fortunes through work and perseverance, most of today's wealthy people inherited their money. True, many of these rich people spend their time running their parents' companies or managing their parents' fortunes, but they had an advantage. It is a lot easier to earn interest from an existing fortune than to generate the fortune in the first place.
Finally, Kirk implies that those who are not rich have an "utter hate for those who are wealthy," and this jealous rage is why people do not support tax reductions, which favor the rich more than the "lazy" middle class or the "not hardworking" poor. I hardly believe this is so. For most Americans who work very hard every day, a tax cut that is actually fair might sound like a good idea. A capital gains tax cut will not help anyone who is too poor to have capital gains, and the American people are smart enough to know it.
BeLinda Mathie
LSA junior