Archives
The Mail
Faculty members violating NY Public Officers Law
To the Editor:
The letter prepared by Professor Hank Bromley and signed by nearly 250 UB faculty voicing their opposition to the war in Iraq contains much with which I am in sympathy, and I applaud their courage. Especially that of Professor Bromley, who appears to have violated the State of New York Public Officers Law in preparing this letter and urging his colleagues to sign it.
As Professor Bromley will understand, personal expressions of opposition to the war are his right—indeed his duty. But when he and his colleagues express those opinions as UB faculty members, they risk over-stepping the bounds to which they agreed when they accepted employment by New York State.
I single out Professor Bromley in this regard as the major conspirator, rather than his colleagues, who in many cases acted more passively. I'm sure that President Greiner, who recently sent all faculty a memo cautioning us about violations of the Public Officers Law, can be counted upon to take the
appropriate action against Professor Bromley, if indeed he violated the law.
Again, let me stress that my personal views of the war are irrelevant to this issue, and I write as someone who has recently returned from participating in public demonstrations in Washington against the war and
against Bush's dangerous policy of preemptive aggression.
But I did so as a private citizen, not as a New York State employee.
Sincerely,
David Taylor,
Adjunct professor of surgery
SEFA stumbles on donor recognition
To the Editor:
Many of us contribute to the SEFA campaign on an annual basis. Donors to this campaign can allocate their pledge to specific agencies. If they do so, they are asked to "Please provide organization(s) with my legal mailing address so they may acknowledge my gift(s)." Donors are free not to provide their address, in which case the agencies of their choice will receive the amount of their pledge anonymously.
Although nothing has changed from past years, this year Albany somehow construed the above quoted sentence to mean that donors who provide their address do not authorize SEFA to disclose the amount of their gift. Per consequence, the agencies now receive the names and addresses of their benefactors, but not the amount they gave. Nonetheless, in the very same letter, the agencies receive the bold-face command: "We request that you acknowledge the donors directly for their gift." Not knowing what their gift is, this is quite impossible.
A much-vaunted SEFA slogan is that it is a local, grass-roots campaign. Yet, when push comes to shove, Albany rules the roost. The local SEFA organization, while by all accounts unhappy about this directive, does not feel empowered to "just say no." Some other local SEFA groups, to their credit, honored the directive only in the breach.
Our proper response is to bypass SEFA. Yes! Do contribute to good causes, and do so generously—but make your contribution directly to the agencies of choice and eliminate the middleman. The agencies will get your gift about half a year sooner, they will receive about 10 percent more (because SEFA skims 10 percent off the top) and they will thank you properly and promptly, well in time for IRS documentation.
To this, there is an important exception. If, or to the extent that you don't, specify recipient agencies, do continue to give to SEFA. For SEFA transfers resources to the truly needy. Educational, medical and cultural institutions also are worthy recipients, but upon reflection, their support includes a fair element of the haves helping the haves.
Sincerely,
John C. G. Boot, professor,
Department of Management Science and Systems
Faculty members support president’s action in Iraq
To the Editor:
We join with more than 70 percent of the American public in declaring our approval of the President's action, undertaken with the explicit approval of the U.S. Congress, to provide for the nation's defense by assembling a multilateral military force to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and to remove from power the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. We do so for the following reasons:
As the President outlined in his State of the Union Address, the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and both U.S. and British intelligence agencies concluded that Iraq's regime has developed vast quantities of biological and chemical weapons (sufficient to produce more than 25,000 liters of anthrax, more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, and 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent) and has made repeated efforts to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. All of these actions violate the cease-fire agreement to the Gulf War to which Saddam Hussein agreed.
Despite a commitment in the cease-fire agreement to the Gulf War, numerous U.N. resolutions and repeated inspection efforts over a 12-year period, Saddam Hussein's regime has failed to provide proof that it has eliminated these vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction and, instead, posed substantial obstacles and evasions to U.N. inspections, including throwing inspectors out of the country and shooting at American reconnaissance aircraft.
There is ample evidence (some of which was displayed by Secretary of State Colin Powell at a meeting of the U.N.'s Security Council) of Saddam Hussein's regime harboring international terrorist organizations, including those having associations with al Qaeda. The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists presents a profound threat to both national and international security.
There is abundant evidence that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen have brutalized and terrorized the citizens of Iraq and that this brutalization has involved the unconscionable use of chemical and biological weapons on the people of Iraq.
Although several members of the U.N. Security Council had previously and repeatedly acknowledged through their votes on past U.N. resolutions the severity of problems posed by the Hussein regime, these nations shamefully abrogated their responsibilities and threatened to use their veto when it came to enforcing these resolutions, thereby rendering diplomatic solutions to the problem impossible.
For these reasons, our government's policy to intervene militarily to disarm and remove Iraq's dangerous and brutal regime is in the United States' interest in providing for the security of our citizens, in civilization's interest in preventing the dissemination of weapons of mass destruction that may fall into the hands of terrorists, and in Iraq's interests of being rid of a vicious, murdering dictator and restoring basic human rights to its citizens. It is our fervent hope that these interests may be served with the minimum amount of harm to our multilateral armed forces and to the innocent citizens of Iraq. We also express our gratitude and confidence in the men and women of the coalition forces who are putting themselves in great jeopardy by undertaking this mission to make the world a safer place.
Finally, we denounce the irresponsible misrepresentations of American policies regarding the war to disarm Iraq and the shameful efforts to blame America for Iraq's reckless flouting of U.N. resolutions that made this military action necessary. While hopes to resolve this terrible situation peacefully are understandable (even if unrealistic), characterizations of American policy as being motivated by less-than-noble purposes are baseless and reprehensible. We urge those with anti-war sentiments to dissociate themselves from those who would use the peace movement as a vehicle for a radical leftist agenda and a pulpit for spewing anti-American venom.
Sincerely,
Michael Anbar, Medicine
William H. Baumer, Philosophy
James E. Campbell, Political Science
Randall Dipert, Philosophy
Isaac Ehrlich, Finance and Managerial Economics
Richard E. Ellis, History
Leon E. Farhi, Physiology and Biophysics
Howard Foster, Management
Gerald M. Goldhaber, Communication
Michael Gort, Economics
William A. Hamlen, Jr., Finance and Managerial Economics
Winston Lin, Management
D.P. Malone, Electrical Engineering
Albert L. Michaels, History
Gary W. Ozanich, Communications
Floreal R. Prieto, Engineering and Applied Sciences
Carol J. Romanowski, Industrial Engineering
Gershon Sageev, Mathematics
Pneena Sageev, Engineering and Applied Sciences
Barry Smith, Philosophy
Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Finance and Managerial Economics
Deployed student airman supports war in Iraq
To the Editor:
I would like to begin with a quote on the back of a t-shirt I wear frequently because it makes the point: "I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." On the front, it simply states: "U.S. Armed Forces."
Allow me to introduce myself. I am a student who began taking courses at the University at Buffalo in the Fall of 2000. Most times you probably walked by me without a second thought; other days you might have noticed that I wear the uniform of an airman in the United States Air Force. You do not see me now because I am serving in support of Operations Enduring Freedom overseas.
Let me cut to the chase. In response to the letter some faculty posted, I am disappointed at the lack of education and research this letter illustrates.
I realize the letter posted in the online version of the Reporter is now almost a month old, but much of the information listed in the letter has been available for years. The letter cites bombings that will cause the "death of numerous innocent Iraqi men, women and children." As of Day 11 of Operation Iraqi Freedom, very few civilians have lost their lives and none have been intentionally targeted. Recently, in President Bush's radio address, the President told a grim tale of "…An Iraqi woman was hanged for waving at coalition troops…" This woman was not hanged by coalition troops, but by her own country.
The letter submitted by the faculty and staff members also mentions the "lack of evidence" of weapons of mass destruction. At the end of February through the beginning of March, Saddam Hussein mysteriously "turned up" weapons he had been asked to produce for the past 11 years. He produced weapons and documentation on a "one-two" basis—weapons he had throughout the entire inspection, but refused to turnover in full disclosure. Producing such small amounts after so many years of requests by the United Nations was a feeble attempt to try to show honesty after years of lies.
On Oct. 16, 2002, President Bush signed the Iraq War Resolution. According to CNN, "The congressional measure authorizes Bush to commit U.S. troops to enforce U.N. resolutions mandating Iraq give up its efforts to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." The resolution goes on to state: "The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
I would like to add two more points without extending this too much further. One, the war is not about oil—plain and simple. I'm not sure how this mindset started, but it is quite skewed. Second, Saddam Hussein has been known to be both a terrorist and to have killed his own people. This was seen as unacceptable during the Nazi reign, so why is it so easy to turn our backs these days? No one wants war, but sometimes there is no other option.
Finally, we are not alone. As of March 31, the CENTCOM briefing states 49 countries are in support of the coalition.
Sincerely,
A deployed airman, USAF
Name withheld upon request