News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
WHEN President-Elect George Bush announced his choice of Edwin J. Derwinski as Secretary of Veterans Affairs two weeks ago, hardly anyone noticed. But in light of Derwinski's past association with fascists and anti Semites, It's about time we pay closer attention.
Derwinski, a former Illinois congressman and a staunch anti-communist, led the Coalition of American Nationalities for the bush campaign. Several members of this group resigned after their anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi backgrounds were publicly revealed.
This was not the first time Derwinski has associated with men whose public careers were later undermined by revelations of their anti-Semitic backgrounds. In 1972 Derwinski headed the executive board of the Heritage Groups for Re-election of the President.
Also on that board was Frederic Malek, the deputy chairman of the Bush campaign who resigned after reporters learned that under President Nixon in 1971 he targeted Jews in the Bureau of Labor Statistics for investigation. Another board member, Lev Dobrianski, founded the World Anti-Communist League, a group later described by the head of its British chapter as a "collection of Nazis, fascists, [and] anti-Semites."
Several of Derwinski's subordinates in the Heritage Groups also had questionable backgrounds. One has been implicated in the murder of 7000 Jews in 1941. And the U.S. government has accused three other Latvian-American members of wartime atrocities against Jews.
JUDGING from his service as an infantryman in the Pacific theater during World War II, Derwinski himself is probably not a Nazi sympathizer. There is no reason to believe Derwinski is anti-Semetic or pro-fascist.
But the fact that Derwinski led groups with such people in them should give us pause. Derwinski owes the American people, specifically the Senate, an explanation before he officially becomes Secretary.
Derwinski ought to tell us whether he knew about his associates' backgrounds. If he says he didn't, he ought to explain how he remained ignorant in the face of abundant evidence. Otherwise, we must know why he didn't denounce these people and seek to distance himself from them.
If Derwinski can't give satisfactory answers, he should be disqualified from service in Bush's cabinet. Even if he isn't anti-Semitic, an inability to explain his silence would signify that he condones others' anti-Semitism. This is almost as reprehensible.
A person who publicly condones anti-Semitism has no place in government. Those in government should not be willing to single out anybody for mistreatment because of their race or their religious background. Such practices deny citizens the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The Bush administration cannot have someone with the potential to discriminate in the government, especially in a department which so directly touches individual lives.
CRITICS have suggested that Derwinski is so staunchly anti-communist that he willingly ignores anti-Semitic and fascist, as well as racist, tendencies in other anti-communists. Such a practice, if continued in the Veterans Affairs Department, could leave World War II veterans wondering whose side he really takes.
And these veterans, along with the rest of America, will have to wonder what Bush was thinking when he made the appointment. Is he, too, so anti-communist that he is willing to brush over anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi pasts? Or does he condone such thinking in his Administration as long as it remains buried in the obscure new Department of Veterans Affairs, safely out of public view?
Bush can't afford to mess this up. He did a good job of distancing himself and his campaign from those with anti-Semitic backgrounds. But his refusal to do the same now would imply that his former actions were politically, not ethically, motivated.
If he hasn't already, Bush should reconsider and confront Derwinski privately before the Senate confirmation hearings. If the nominee responds with hems and haws and, as seems likely, can give no good reason for why he ignored his colleagues' pasts, Bush will have a moral obligation to dump Derwinski.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.