Ujima Newspaper, Volume 1, Issue 6 - April 1977

UJIMA Volume 1, Number 6 LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY April, 1977 Focus On by Jerry B. Williams EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last month our ears have rung with voc¬ iferous cries about “human rights ". These cries have been emanating from Washington. Some cynics argue that this development marks the latest in a string of concepts to be popularized by a U.S. administration. They point to detente , disarmament, rearmament, pacification and so on, and predict that just as how these terms created befuddlement and sycophants, the term “ human rights " will go the same way, creating loud noises and noisier fawners. Others are more biting in their criticism. They contend that it is pro¬ voking and bombastic for a U.S. President to mount a world pulpit and try to bully the international community of declining U.S. con¬ verts, to implement ideological prog¬ rams marked “made in the U.S A." Within this group are Black people who further argue that racism and all its ugly manifestations highlights the crudest and most dangerous form of denial of human rights. These people suggest that the U.S. President should curb his at times acerb pontifi- LATE BLACK GENIUS Do you know this man? He was once voted Man of the Year by Time Magazine. His portrait is a permanent exhibit at the New Museum of Afro-American Cul¬ tural History. See story Page 3. cations because his country does not constitute a worthy example for the rest of the world to follow. After two hundred years of “freedom", that term itself, and the “human rights " it is supposed to guarantee is still a “dream" for the Black Americans. But despite all these arguments President Carter has just told the Un¬ ited Nations that the U.S.'s focus on human rights must be taken serious¬ ly. In his words, “Ours is a commit¬ ment not a political posture. " In this edition, UJIMA presents a philosophical /political analysis of the problem. The views expressed how¬ ever do not necessarily reflect the sentiments of UJIMA. What is the nature and status of human rights? A question of this kind has always been dodged as too abstract to deal with, and yet in our treatment of the problem we tend to give concrete and systematic apprai¬ sal of cases. I suggest that this con¬ ceptual difficulty stems, in part, from our failure to unite theory and prac¬ tice; and partly from our one-sided picture of reality or, alternatively, from our blurred view of the inter¬ connection of phenomena. As a re¬ sult, we tend to lose sight of the meaning of human rights and resort to some kind of introspection. First of all, a human right has (among other things) a specific form, a social form. Its meaning is defined within the limits and context of a so¬ cial practice. Hence, it is not an innate or an intrinsic right but an acquired one analogous to that of the phenomena of language. However, it is governed by certain regulative principles such as rules of justice, law, etc., whatever these juristic forms may happen to be. It follows then that though in essence a human right is free and unconditional, the practice of this right is in and through society, and militates against a blatant form of Smerdyakovian principle: “all is permissible.” And furthermore, since the criteria by which we distinguish a human right from other rights is ‘pub- FEATURES CONTENT Late Black Genius . Page 3 Uniqueness of Haiti . Page 4 Last Leg in India . Page 4 New International Order . Page 5 Asian -American Association . Page 6 Calendar and Crossroads . Page 8 Finer Womanhood . Page 8 EDITORIAL . . РадеЗ Human Bights lie’, a human right cannot be an indi¬ vidual phenomenon. Secondly, history tells us that a struggle between the haves and the have-nots is not only an economic struggle but also a struggle for human rights. It should be noted that these two aspects of struggle are insepara¬ ble. The have-nots at any stage of social development live under economic as well as mental oppres¬ sion. A mental oppression is a con¬ sequence or a symptom of an economic oppression. Now-a-days, it is becoming a growing practice to disunite these two aspects of oppression and to misuse the phrase ‘mental oppres¬ sion’ in the hope of gaining a liberta¬ rian sympathy. The Soviet dissidents, for one, claim to be prisoners of con¬ science, for it would have been a mockery had they claimed to be economically oppressed. We know that most of them are well off; but their only choice to win a libertarian sympathy from so-called liberals is by invoking the intuitive but yet captivat¬ ing notion of ‘mental oppression’, and by systematically exploiting ibe contradiction between the two super powers. What is grotesque about the dissidents is that they attempt to popularize their cause (which is a dis¬ like of communism) under the rubric of a human right. President Carter has made it known that his administration stands for human rights. He recognized the unconditionality of a human right and extends his support to Russian dissidents. I must admit that to stand for a human right or in defense of social justice is a very respectable position and indeed very commend¬ able. However, I am utterly perplexed by this move. In countries like Uganda, Iran, Chile, Spain, etc. people are dying in their struggle for human rights and their prisons are crowded with political prisoners charged for such a cause. In many instances, these people die because they stand for emancipation of their fellow citizens from the chain of op¬ pression. To my knowledge, Mr. Carter did nothing to prevent such atrocities in these countries (except perhaps a token reduction of aid to some economically or politically less viable countries). Moreover, we know that those who stood for the human rights of black people and other minorities have been continuously harassed and in some instances gunned to death. Some leading black political figures in this connection have been murdered in cold blood. And even to this day, those who are fighting for the rights of minorities hardly escape harassment and some of them are in fact living fugitive lives. (Continued on Page 6) Black Employment At LMU by Marsha Smith One can see Loyola Marymount University’s black working force tending their duties in the Lair, as well as the Business Office, the Financial Aid Office, Security, etc. There is clearly at least one black in the cam¬ pus offices and departments. Upon closer scrutizination, though, when one looks at the job functions which these black employees have been hired to perform, the equal opportun¬ ity picture looks less impressive. There are four position levels an individual can enter when he is hired by the University. In order of priority these are: Administration; manage¬ ment and supervisory; clerical; and maintenance. There is one black per¬ son at the top administration level, Lawrence Braxton, Director of Fi¬ nancial Aids. Most of the black employees fall into the two latter categories: clerical and maintenance. It is disillusioning to also note that there are no Chicanos in top adminis¬ trative positions at LMU. Earlier this year, James Kirkley, Chief of Security at LMU, resigned his supervisory post. It was specu¬ lated that racism played a factor in his decision, although Kirkley himself never made that assertion. Instead he attributed his decision to resign to a breakdown in communications bet¬ ween himself and Mr. Clyde V. Myers, the Business Manager. Kirkley said that Myers had no con¬ ceptualization of how security should be run. And Lillian Brown, Assistant Per¬ sonnel Director at LMU for the past seven years, resigned from her posi¬ tion last month, thus making her the second black in a management and supervisory position to resign this school year. She has bluntly stated that she quit her post because she simply was unable to get along with her boss, Mr. John Clewis. Mrs. Brown’s case is interesting to detail. Seven years ago when the personnel department was just de¬ veloped, Mrs. Brown, then an office clerk, and Mr. Clewis, the supervisor, started “from scratch” to build the office into what it is today. Later, job demands grew and more clerks and secretaries were hired to accomodate the work increase. She gained ex¬ perience, and in 1973 was promoted to the Assistant Personnel Director position, thus boosting her standing to the management and supervisory level. Mrs. Brown’s main job function was to interview prospective job applicants for clerical and mainte¬ nance positions. Over the years, according to her, her supervisor, Mr. Clewis, would re¬ primand her for “insignificant, tri¬ vial” matters that wouldn’t actually affect the functions of the office. He eventually placed letters of re¬ primand in her file. Mrs. Brown pointed out that other employees in the office never (to her knowledge) received these letters, even though they may have made similar, small mistakes. As this type of harassment built, so did Mrs. Brown’s tolerance level de¬ crease. Finally, in March, she submit¬ ted her resignation to LMU. “I don’t know if the harassment directed to¬ wards me was racial,” she told UJIMA, “but I do know my boss should understand how to work with his employees.” Though she is disappointed that she resigned, she is rightfully very proud of her accomplishments in re¬ cruiting employees, particularly minorities. She added that there is reason to believe that many of the employment positions at LMU are not filled by Af¬ firmative Action standards. During her involvement with the personnel department, she realized that many good job opportunity listings were advertised by word-of-mouth to the Westchester community — a pre¬ dominantly white community. This practice obviously excluded qualified blacks and other minorities from be¬ coming aware of LMU’s job open¬ ings. Another well placed campus offi¬ cial has pointed out, however, that (Continued on Page 7)