Kosovo Coverage Clouded by Apathy and Laziness

To the editors:

I am writing in regard to two pieces that appeared recently in The Crimson. As a student hoping to pursue a career in journalism and as a human being who has long followed the situation in the Balkans, I feel it is necessary to comment upon the manner in which this issue has been treated by The Crimson.

My first comment is in connection with "Students React to Bombings" (News, March 26). The obvious flaw in the piece was that none of the students interviewed were of Serbian descent, although there are several undergraduates at the College who are from Serbia. While I reluctantly support the NATO military action, I am severely distressed to see that the Serbian perspective was not at all represented.

I am even more disturbed, however, by "War Comes to Kosovo" (Opinion, March 26). Never mind that the war in Kosovo started in February of 1998, and thus came to the region over a year ago: I know editors usually compose headlines, so this cannot be field against the author.

But the content of the article itself was truly disturbing. The article seemed to make two main points. First, that for one who lacks any significant knowledge of the situation in Kosovo, a moral judgment of any kind is impossible and second, that the outcome of the war will be the result of an aggregate of the individual decisions of thousands of ordinary people ("It [the war] will be fought and decided, as war has always been fought and decided: town by town, hill by hill and house by house.").

If Simon DeDeo is saying that one should not pass moral judgment on the situation in Kosovo without familiarity with the facts, then I wholeheartedly agree. But instead of urging people to learn about Kosovo so that may make an informed moral choice, he simply throws up his hands and implies that judgment is impossible or irrelevant.

Regarding the point about the war being decided by ordinary people, if he means that ordinary people are the victims of policies inflicted on them from above and that they are deserving of our sympathy, I would again wholeheartedly agree. He adds that the decisions of NATO's military commanders will have no effect on what happens.

And by saying that the outcome of the war will be decided on a house by house basis, he seems to imply that no leader, not even Slobodan Milosevic himself, can have a major effect on what happens.

The piece recites a litany of atrocities committed in Kosovo, quoting them verbatim from a human rights report, without any explanation or interpretation. This does nothing to inform, enrage or sadden readers; it is instead a list of foreign-sounding names and places that would mean nothing to most readers. It merely perpetuates confusion and feeds a sense of helplessness at the apparent complexity of the situation.

This piece betrays a moral apathy and intellectual laziness that has characterized much editorial coverage of civil conflict in this decade. As a piece of journalism, it has little worth: it neither explains the situation to people, nor does it take a well-reasoned moral stand, either for or against the bombing. So what is the point of writing it? To say that the ordinary person isn't in a position to make a moral judgment and shouldn't bother trying? And that the war is entirely in the hands of ordinary people, beyond the influence of leaders, and is therefore anarchy?

This implication is and has been an excuse for those who have committed crimes against humanity; it is the constant refrain of murderers in Bosnia and Rwanda. By painting a picture of chaos and disorder, one obscures the very insidious and well-planned policies of political leaders that lead to the death and suffering of thousands. If no one is calling the shots in Kosovo, then no one is responsible for anything except what one does in his own house. Milosevic is not responsible for massacring Kosovars. NATO generals are not responsible for bombing civilians. No one is right, no one is wrong, therefore no judgment can be passed.

And while we stand by refusing to make moral decisions, basking in our intellectual sophistication or confused helplessness, people die. DARRYL C. LEE '01 05/04/1999 Editorial 10 Higher Minimum Wages Will Lead to Labor Ceiling To the editors:

In response to James Sullivan's piece on Harvard security guard wages (Opinion, March 23), it is important to differentiate between media frenzy and true cause. It is truly heartbreaking to hear the thoughts of the university guards who have given ten years to this place, and felt that they have been treated like garbage. Disturbing words like these can create a biased opinion in people's belief. Nothing beats using Harvard as the scapegoat and invoking its name for emotional stir.

A look at the disastrous social programs in the U.S. however, might be able to provide a more objective view of the subject. Since 1965, anti-poverty programs and other wealth transfers have continued to explode in cost while bringing people out of poverty is critical to human survival, but increasing the "minimum wage" is not the key to help the needy.

The only way to increase real wages on a sustainable basis is to increase productivity. Artificially and arbitrarily increasing the guards' wages is simply a transaction to transfer wealth from Harvard to its employees, thereby taking away the University's power to reinvest in new long-term capital goods, which in turn, could increase the productivity of Harvard in order to increase the real wages on a sustainable basis. Some might find the argument unconvincing simply because the concept of productivity is vague.

What if Harvard begins to reassess the productivity of each guard after an increase of the distorted wages? If Harvard finds that each laborer is not up to par with the competitive going wage, who will stop Harvard from firing these hard-working guards?

According to the author of "Hedge Fund Edge" Mark Boucher and most experts in the field, a higher wage for these guards does not put a floor under wages, as its advocates surmise, but it puts a ceiling on low skilled labor employment levels. These guards who do not possess the skills to justify their wage increase will simply be cut out of the job market entirely.

Would you rather see all these guards work than some getting fired by the university? If the difference is between $8 per hour and $10, as a conscientious student, I would rather see all of them working, which might alleviate the rising rate of security problems on campus. Don't be disgruntled by lower wages, but be content with full-time employment.

If $8 per hour is no longer attractive in the eyes of some, then perhaps it is time to move on by training into a profession which offers higher wages. Instead of shouting for higher wages, concerned students might be able to provide greater help by quietly helping these guards with specific training they need to move on.   BENJI Z. CHEN '00

In response to James Sullivan's piece on Harvard security guard wages (Opinion, March 23), it is important to differentiate between media frenzy and true cause. It is truly heartbreaking to hear the thoughts of the university guards who have given ten years to this place, and felt that they have been treated like garbage. Disturbing words like these can create a biased opinion in people's belief. Nothing beats using Harvard as the scapegoat and invoking its name for emotional stir.

A look at the disastrous social programs in the U.S. however, might be able to provide a more objective view of the subject. Since 1965, anti-poverty programs and other wealth transfers have continued to explode in cost while bringing people out of poverty is critical to human survival, but increasing the "minimum wage" is not the key to help the needy.

The only way to increase real wages on a sustainable basis is to increase productivity. Artificially and arbitrarily increasing the guards' wages is simply a transaction to transfer wealth from Harvard to its employees, thereby taking away the University's power to reinvest in new long-term capital goods, which in turn, could increase the productivity of Harvard in order to increase the real wages on a sustainable basis. Some might find the argument unconvincing simply because the concept of productivity is vague.

What if Harvard begins to reassess the productivity of each guard after an increase of the distorted wages? If Harvard finds that each laborer is not up to par with the competitive going wage, who will stop Harvard from firing these hard-working guards?

According to the author of "Hedge Fund Edge" Mark Boucher and most experts in the field, a higher wage for these guards does not put a floor under wages, as its advocates surmise, but it puts a ceiling on low skilled labor employment levels. These guards who do not possess the skills to justify their wage increase will simply be cut out of the job market entirely.

Would you rather see all these guards work than some getting fired by the university? If the difference is between $8 per hour and $10, as a conscientious student, I would rather see all of them working, which might alleviate the rising rate of security problems on campus. Don't be disgruntled by lower wages, but be content with full-time employment.

If $8 per hour is no longer attractive in the eyes of some, then perhaps it is time to move on by training into a profession which offers higher wages. Instead of shouting for higher wages, concerned students might be able to provide greater help by quietly helping these guards with specific training they need to move on.   BENJI Z. CHEN '00