O.J. Simpson
Thanks to your writer for a decent commentary (at last!)
on the acquittal of OJ Simpson. Unfortunately, too many
people are guilty of the sentiments you attribute to one
subscriber - i.e., that OJ was guilty of domestic abuse and
therefore he should be found guilty of murder, regardless
of whether or not it is proven to a certainty or not.
This was the not-too-veiled message I picked up at the very beginning from Gloria Allred, and now it is the message that is being shouted relentlessly on the mass media by NOW-Los Angeles (not NOW national).
It seems explicitly racist to me. These white feminists pick a case involving a man of African descent who was in an abusive relationship with a white woman, and turn him into a sort of "poster boy" (using the words of a talk show guest heard recently) for the battle against domestic violence.
Consider the scenario they want to convey; the woman is beaten, gets a divorce, and is killed (allegedly) by her ex- spouse anyway. What is needed is not proof of the futility of fighting back, but rather to make it possible for all women in every kind of relationship to have the economic independence and the access to (non-humiliating) social services that allow us to quickly and completely remove ourselves from dangerous situations.
We need to know that we can free ourselves from these relationships. We also need to be working to change laws that hold the woman equally guilty (or even more so) if she uses a deadly weapon to defend herself from a bare-fisted attacker against whom she otherwise would not have a chance. And we should also take a history of violent abuse into consideration when child custody and visitation arrangements are decided, so that access to the children does not become a means by which the abusive male can continue his campaign of terror, threats, and harassment against a former spouse. Last of all, if single mothers had sufficient earning capacity to support a family without help, many of us could forgo suits for child support and be none the worse off for it.
Thanks.
Mufeedah Liagin
Aurora, Colorado
Cuba embargo
For any who doubt the ferocity of the U.S. government's
enforcement of the trade embargo against Cuba - the recent
fine levied against Merck & Co. should make this clear.
Merck is one of the largest pharmaceutical manufacturers in the world with approximately $15 billion in revenue. According to the "Star Ledger" published in Newark, New Jersey, Merck "has over 800 drugs on the market for consumers and physicians." In the factory in which I work, we are currently producing drugs to lower cholesterol levels in humans, to prevent and treat glaucoma, and a new drug to be used in the fight against the Aids virus, among others.
Quoting the "Star Ledger" article "the U.S. Treasury said Merck ...was fined for contracting with a Cuban laboratory to perform testing work and engaging in unlicensed business activities on the island." The fine of $127,000 became public, by no coincidence, during Fidel Castro's recent visit to the New York City area where he addressed the U.N., attended a public rally in Harlem, etc.
The difficulty this embargo poses for some U.S. capitalists was shown by Merck's fine since, "The Merck employees were in Cuba as representatives of the Pan American Health Organization" according to a company spokes- woman.
Of those who offered an opinion, coworkers all opposed the U.S. embargo of Cuba. The opinions varied from being in solidarity with Cuba and the revolution to those who were motivated by their immediate job concerns and the effect the fine (along with a larger fine around Medco) would have on their savings plans through the fall of the company's stock prices, etc. The workforce at Merck is very international in composition, so Cuba's acts of international solidarity are known by a layer of coworkers particularly by those from Africa and the Caribbean.
Robert Robertson
Rahway, New Jersey
Manitoba strike
Over seventy-five percent of the members of the
University of Manitoba Faculty Association (UMFA) voted to
strike to protest the efforts by the university
Administration and Board of Governors to gain the power to
lay off individual faculty members and because of financial
difficulties. The Board has refused to allow the University
Senate or an independent commission access to the
university financial records. UMFA members have taken
regular pay cuts since 1991. Since that year 45 percent of
the total teaching staff (UMFA and teaching assistants)
have been laid off. UMFA has proposed pay cuts totaling
between $9 and $12 million over the next three years.
If the Board gains the ability to "cherry pick" individuals to lose their jobs it will mean those professors who speak out or publish ideas objectionable to the Board or politicians, or whose research leads them to conclusions contrary to "accepted wisdom," or even those with irascible or irritating personalities will be fired.
Rallying cries are "Academic Decisions by Academics, not Administrators" and "Public Institution = Public Accountability." Picket lines have been up since October. Messages of support for UMFA will be welcomed. Send to: Mr. Keith Findlay, Chair, Board of Governors, Scarrow and Donald, Inc., S. Donald St., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3R 3T3; Dr. Arnold Naimark, President, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 Copies to Dr. W.O. Pruitt, Department of Zoology; as well as to UMFA, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2N2.
W.O. Pruitt
Winnipeg, Manitoba
The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.