The Rev. Jesse Jackson is not anti-semitic

To the Daily:

I am writing in response to Jeffrey Kosseff's Apr. 12 viewpoint criticizing the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and stating that he does not fit the standards necessary to serve as a diversity leader due to an offhand comment that he made in 1983.

Jackson is not an anti-semite. He is a leader who works each and every day at healing divisions within our society. Like many others, he has fallen prey to the media, who are always looking to topple successful people, particularly when those people are black. Like his predecessor and mentor, Martin Luther King Jr., he not only wants to bring people together, but is quick to give credit to those who also further the cause.

Yes, in a private conversation in 1983, Jackson did call Jews "Hymies," and did refer to New York City as "Hymietown." While this is unacceptable, it was a private conversation and he gave a tear-filled apology. He constantly recognizes the large role that Jews played in the Civil Rights Movement.

To this day, he stresses the belief that it is imperative that Jews and blacks work together, citing a common tradition of oppression and social activism. Like most humans have done, Jackson made a negative remark on one occasion in private. I'm sure that we have all said something bad about a friend or relative when under extreme stress or anger, and it was presumably under these circumstances that Jackson made his comment.

That comment has haunted him in the Jewish community for 16 years, even though his words and actions have shown that it was a fluke, and that he truly respects the Jewish people as his friend and his brother.

It is now in our hands to heal the breech. In recent times, black-Jewish relationships have faltered, and it is our responsibility as Jews to accept Jackson's apology. In doing so, individuals and society at large have a great deal to gain and nothing to lose. Jackson is a friend to the Jewish people.

Todd Michaels

LSA senior

An open letter to the Rev. Jesse Jackson

To the Daily:

I attended the speech given by the Rev. Jesse Jackson last Friday at Hill Auditorium in which he spoke in defense of the University's policy of affirmative action in admissions. Jackson made the analogy of football and life, where if white players must run only eight yards for a first down, and blacks 12, there would never be any equality. He went further to say that in any situation where the goal was clearly defined, the rules were open and fair and the playing field was level, there would be few problems with racial inequality.

He presented several excellent examples as to why this was true, which is why I must ask the question: Why does the University insist on hiding the rules, not indicating the true goals of it's admissions policies and, most importantly, slanting the playing field against non-minority applicants? When equally qualified and talented individuals cannot fairly compete for the same spot, but rather are hampered or advanced by their race, we cannot hope for the racial neutrality and equality which was hoped for by the reverend. He has stated that University admissions are not solely about grades.

Neither, however, are admissions solely about race. Until this mindset has been changed, how can we reasonably expect any sort of racial harmony in our University community?

Jason Bourne

LSA junior

'Peace with bombs' in Kosovo is a 'hard sell'

I was shocked and saddened to see many of my fellow classmates recently hold a "Pro-Bombing" rally on the Diag. I know it's not the '60s, but aren't rallies supposed to condemn war? Apparently not in the minds of one group of students.

The events taking place in Yugoslavia are an issue few students know much about. I can't blame them for not taking a greater interest; after all, our generation is isolationist. With no fears of being drafted and with the world's strongest military, we have become desensitized to terms such as "air strikes." In fact, with this president's fascination with force, such actions have become second nature. What worries me, however, is that those who have apparently taken an interest, such as those at the rally, seem so misinformed.

First of all, Kosovo is a province of Yugoslavia, specifically, Serbia. It is commonly considered the cradle of Serb nationhood. Furthermore, most Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries are located in the region for that reason. Thus, the constant reference to Albanians as "Kosovars" is problematic. Anyone familiar with Yugoslavia knows that Kosovo equals Serbian.

The conflict between Serbs and Albanians has been brewing for years. Serbs want to keep their "holy land" while Albanian Muslims seek an independent state through a violent movement spearheaded by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Less than a year ago, the KLA was considered "terrorist-guerrillas." Today, the United States and NATO are basically acting as their air force.

The allegations of genocide and the comparisons to the Nazi-German leader, Adolf Hitler, are unwarranted. Hitler was on the offensive throughout Europe; Serb leader Slobodon Milosevic has lost five provinces in 10 years and has never intended to move beyond his own country's borders, but to maintain them. Furthermore, the grim fact is that if Milosevic wanted to eliminate the Albanian civilian population, he could have done so by now.

Instead, as NATO sources report, Serb soldiers go knocking on doors, forcing people from there homes at gunpoint. Unfortunately for Serb civilians, cruise missiles don't offer such options. The assumptions being made by many, such as those on the Diag, is that the side NATO and the United States have chosen is the correct one. This may not be true.

Ironically, many of the protesters were the same faces demonstrating against U.S. attacks on Iraq. Similar cries are being made by Serbs, yet they're falling upon deaf ears. In fact, these protesters are calling for more bombs. I understand and respect the strong sense of support for their Islamic brethren, but at the expense of other innocent civilians? Does a right to life and protection from unjustified air attacks not apply to Yugoslav civilians? Where's the logic?

NATO has violated both the United Nations' and its own charter by attacking a sovereign nation rather than acting solely as a peacekeeper. It is now campaigning to justify taking sides in a civil war and dropping bombs on a country that was its ally. Clinton, in a futile attempt to "sell" this idea, had the nerve to give a "heart-felt" speech to the Serbian people urging them to take no offense to the ensuing NATO attacks. He then had Secretary of State Madeline Albright read a similar letter to Serbs in their native language. If this isn't pulling out all the stops, I don't know what is.

But then again, we've seen this before. Prior to again attacking Iraq during the Impeachment trials, Clinton claimed to schedule bombing out of respect around the holy month of Ramadan. To my fellow classmates, particularly those that gathered in the Diag, I ask you to be better consumers of the rhetoric that spills from media reports. Why is the President on such a campaign to sell war? Shouldn't truly necessary military action be self-evident? Peace with bombs is a hard sell for anyone. I'm disappointed with how quickly those in the Diag bought it.

Zak Tomovski

LSA sophomore

04-13-99