Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (April 29, 1982)
M p » F ra n ce s S ch o -jn -’ e m U n i v e r s i t y o f O r e -n n L ì Im pact of plant closures Male prostitution in Portland Page 3 pafle6 Assessing the Blazers Ebony Fashion Fair Page 10 Section II, Pages 4 & 5 $ UJ z 1X1 z PORTLAND OBSERVER A p ril 29, 1982 Volum e X II, Num ber 29 25C Per Copy T w o Sections USPS 959-680-855 RONNIE HERNDON FREDDYE PETTET JOHN GARLINGTON CHARLOTTE BEEMAN JOE RIEKE M A T T H E W PR O P H ET Tubman site negotiations begin Superintendent Matthew Prophet announced that "discussions arc progressing" after concluding the first meeting o f the mediation teams representing the black community and the school district Wednesday night. Bob Hughes, m ediator fo r the U.S. Department o f Justice, Community Relations Service, said the meeting marked a beginning. " I t initia ted a d ia lo g u e ." An agenda was set fo r a Thursday evening meeting and the decision was made to target May 10th for completing diliberations. " I t is a good sound beginning." Hughes said. “ I am very optimistic. It is very complex; the issues go far back and there are deep feelings in the community.” Representing the community arc Ronnie Herndon, co-chairman o f the Black United F ro n t; Freddye Pettet, executive d ire ctor o f the Urban League o f P ortland; and Reverend John G arlin gto n , President o f the Albina Ministerial Alliance. Reverend John Jackson is substituting fo r Reverend John Garlington until he returns to town later in the week. Also present was Bill McC'lertdon. who will serve as a resource person. Representing the school board are Dr. Matthew Prophet and board members Charlotte Beeman and Joe Rieke. At the Monday night meeting Dr. Prophet recommended that the Board re-examine the decision to place Tubman at Boise to allow for greater participation in the decision by parents and students; that the re examination take place under the auspices o f the U.S. Justice Depart ment mediation team; and that the conditions set down by black com munity leaders be accepted. These are that: the Board state willingness to reconsider the site; that the Board agree not to pursue an in ju nctio n during the period o f mediation; that mediation begin by A p ril 26th and that it result in a Board decision by May 10th. He recommended that the follow ing actions take place p rior to the decision of May 10th: 1. Communicate to parents facts relevant to the decision. 2. Develop and implement plans that will permit parents o f students who would be impacted by the final decision to express their opinions on each optional site considered. (P a r ents and students o f H um boldt, E l iot, King, Boise and Tubman others would be included.) 3. Specific determination o f what happens to the Eliot program in case Eliot is finally chosen as the site. 4. Expression o f opinions by parents o f Boise’ s students as to whether they want their children to become a part o f the Tubm an pro gram, and the extent to which their choice depends on the site selected. 3. Reassignment plans for Boise’s K-5 students in case Boise is finally chosen as the site. 6. Program im provem ent plans for Boise’s Pre-K-5 a n d /o r 6-8 stu dents in case Boise is not chosen as the site. 7. Student reassignments to other schools pursuant to the decision on a specific site. 8. The manner in which selection o f the Tubman site supports or fails to support desegregation. The School D istrict’s negotiating team w ill be app o in ted by D r. Prophet and report to him; he will (Please turn to page 2 col. I ) Crisis shakes pillars Reagan pushes chemical weapons o f U. S. foreign policy by Jon Steward and Nelson Valdez Pacific News Service ALBUQUERQUE. NEW M E X I C O —The future may show that what is at stake in (he Falklands Is lands conflict has more to do with U.S. security interests than those of cither Argentina or England. What is at stake, from Washing to n ’ s view point, are the hitherto separate pillars o f the geopolitical system that the United States had painstakingly constructed since 1945. That system, the heart o f Western defenses, centers on Wash ington and operates through the N A TO pact and the Rio Treaty. Now Washington is caught in a deli cate balance between those two principle arms of foreign policy. The N A TO pad obligates the United States to come to the defense o f any member nation threatened by an outside force. It is the primary past binding the United States to Western Europe in the powerful alli ance o f developed, democratic na lions. The Rio Treaty is similarly a mu tual and collective m ilita ry assist ance instrument, binding the United Stales Io its I atin American hemi sphcrica neighbors. An extra con tinental attack against one is an at tack against all. Now these two obligations arc contending against one another, f he danger is not merely that one nation will lose and its pro-American gov ernment w ill fall; it is rather that a victory by either side might critically damage the alliance o f the other side. The salvaging o f inter-Amer ican relations could mean the near- severing o f U.S. European rela- lions, and vice versa. Either way, the United States stands to lose m oic than a single friend; it could lose a whole alliance. So far, neither side has chosen to invoke the treaty obligations, leav ing the United States room to play the role of mediator. But cither side could make a strong case to its fel low treaty members that its territory has been invaded. Western Europe has already sprung io the support of Great Britain with economic sanc tions against Argentina that are the most severe imposed by Europe on any country in decades. The Euro pean Economic Community is act ing as a unified and powerful bloc in support o f B ritain, if only tempo rarily. Similarly, Latin America has co alesced behind Argentina. Panama and Venezuela have appealed at the U .N . Security C ouncil fo r Latin unity in demanding that the British fleet should not enter Latin Ameri can waters. They would like to test whether the spirit of the Rio Treaty and the Monroe Doctrine applies (Please turn to page S column I > The Reagan A dm inistration has embarked on a course o f development and manufacture o f chemical weapons. In the next five years between four and ten billion dollars will be invested to update the armed forces’ chemical warfare capability. Art Kanegis, spokesperson for the Ccntc for Defense In fo rm a tio n , reports that the US currently has 3 million nerve gas artillery shells and many more chemical weapons. There are at least 150,000 tons o f various chemical substances available for military use. The chemical potential now in the hands o f the United States could wipe out life on earth. S till the Reagan Administration budget for 1983 calls fo r $703 m illio n to produce new binary nerve gas shells, a Bigeyc bomb, and a 155 mm artillery shell. Reportedly there arc plans to build a chcmcial warhead lor cruise missies. Binary weapons arc those in which tow slightly toxic agents placed separately in a bomb or shell arc brought together by an explosion lo give o ff an extraordinarily toxic emission. They arc reported to he more deadly than the chemical warfare agent sarin, one quart of which can kill a million people. The gas attacks the central nervous system. First there is sweating, then impaired vision, vom iting and defecation, convul stons and paralysis. Death comes in fifteen minutes. I he binaries are reported lo be capable o f killing all life within 12 miles, sicken all humans in the next 12 miles and contaminate areas for weeks. The Pentagon wants an arsenal o f 5,000 unites o f chemical ammunition. Chemical weapons have been banned by the Geneva Protocal since 1925, but the US refused to sign any ban on chemical weapons until 1975. In addition, the US was the only country among the 157 nations belonging to the United Nations that voted againt the General Assembly resolution calling on all nations to abstain from manufacturing and deploying new types o f chemical weapons in countries where there are none at present. The vote was 156 to 1. The United States interupted production in 1962 and in 1976 began talkes with the Soviet Union lo pave the way fo r a collective proposal on chemical weapons but the talks were called o f by the US delegation in 1980 on the grounds that the Soviets were not in favor o f "effectivecontrol measures." The US was the only nation to abstain when the UN General Assembly attempted to restore the talks. Reagan announced on I ebruary 8lli that production would resume because the weapons are ‘ ‘essential to the national interest." While manufacture o f chemical weapons resumes, there is growing opposition to their deployment in I urope. Because West Germany is reluctant lo store any additional chemical weapons the Pentagon is interested in basing them in Great Britian. In a Reuters News Service interview , US Assistant Deputy Secretary o f the A rm y A m uretta Hocker said the reason fo r deployment in west Europe was for possible use in an air attack to reach deep into Soviet territory. Already opposition is growing in Britian, with a petition demanding that the British government oppose US plans to produce more nerve gas. Stephen Rose, professor at the Open University in Britian. said the gases could produce irreversible biochemical and biological processes that could jeopardize life on earth. T h e s e a re MS s o ld ie rs in g as m a s k * . In s p ita o f h a v in g a la rg e arsen al o f b io lo g ic a l w e a p o n s , th e U S has d ec id e d to in v es t h u g e sum s in m a n u fa ctu rin g n ew types of these deadly w eap o n s
