100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

January 22, 1982 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1982-01-22

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

4

OPINION
Page Friday, January 22, 1982. The Michigan Daily

a6

l e Iichigttn + ttil

Wasserman

a

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Vol. XCII, No. 92

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board

1'

MSA takes its time
with hazing policy

I'M ?KE~1WWT
OF A M'AJOR
CORoRAT ioN1...
ANDWVN LI6S
NEVR a
BURDEN

0

L1GI4T TAX%
EKOK\ CON(If<ES

%C

N

TAKMO'IERSAE

0

FTER A two-month postponement,
At the Michigan Student Assembly
passed University guidelines against
hazing Tuesday. Although MSA has ac-
ted appropriately by passing these
measures, it has also offered another
example of how easily student gover-
nment can fall into the bureaucratic
trap of doing very little, very late.
MSA is not alone in perpetrating an
unnecessary delay of the hazing policy.
The University policy itself, resulting
from an October 1980 hazing incident
that endangered the life of a hockey
player, was irresponsibly deferred.
The proposals, drawn up by a student
committee in April of 1980, did not
receive University approval until
December, 1981, over a year after it
vas publicly disclosed that the hockey
team brutally initiated one of its mem-
bers.
But the proposal that did reach MSA
in December, although long overdue,
was a commendable one. It condem-
ned not only the most reprehensible
forms of physical hazing, but it also
strongly rejected the more subtle-and
-more prevalent-forms of hazing in-
volving emotional harm and
',degradation. The proposal stated
without equivocation that the Univer-
sity would impose appropriate san-
ctions upon violators.
: Instead of promptly approving this
proposal, MSA delayed action,
claiming that specific sanctions and
stronger wording was needed. MSA
then formed a committee to in-
.Vestigate the guidelines and propose
:pdditions.
Now that MSA has finally approved
the University hazing policy, and
presented its own additions, it is
questionable that the results were wor-

th the wait. MSA, expanding on the
University policy, passed an adden- t
dum demanding that campus
organizations, including the Athletic
Department, draw up individual
hazing sanctions by March 1.
MSA also introduced its own
guidelines for groups recognized or
governed by MSA. These guidelines in-
cluded revoking MSA recognition and
allocations; and notifying national
branches of groups participating in
hazing rituals.
These additions, however, are har-
dly controversial or severe enough to
merit a two-month delay. The MSA
revisions do not even clearly
strengthen the University guidelines.
They may help prod organizations to
take independent action, but they have
not further clarified just what action
the University plans to take the next
time hazing occurs.
Yet a strong University definition of
its sanctions is still necessary. Stan-
ford University recently enforced a
hazing punishment that this University
would do well to follow. Stanford ex-
pelled a fraternity for three years after
it conducted a hazing rite that placed a
legally blind pledge in a horse corral.
The University should emulate Stan-
ford University's response the next
time hazing is uncovered on campus.
Through its procrastinating, MSA
has only contributed to the Univer-
sity's negligence in the crucial issue of
hazing. Its delay has indicated either
MSA's lack of concern toward the
problem or an inability to deal with it.
MSA has finally done the right thing
by passing the guidelines, but not
without dragging the proposal through
the time-consuming labyrinths of
student government.

SURE -I COULL
tDR1K A HEAVY
'TAY -- r

BUTr W~1y BELIKE

l 1

IX

/
IIf

Z

(Zr

l

r\

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Club sports, not Bo, need thecash

To the Daily:
Now that we are done reading
about Bo leaving, I am amazed at
the irony of Dan Canham and
company cleverly luring Bo back
with promises and dollars while
systematically ignoring student
sports clubs.

The Daily's article (Jan. 13) on
the Men's Volleyball Club exem-
plifies the problems faced by the
rowing, lacrosse, sailing, rugby,
and other clubs: denial of varsity
status and lack of funding by the
Athletic Department.
Who serves a greater function

Reagan morality

~~~ HSREOPE WE PON4T LOSE ANY MORE GUYS AROUNP HERE'
.5
w '
is
4

To the Daily:
Your editorial of Jan. 17, en-
titled "Refined Destruction", is a
one-sided and unfair account of
the recent decision by the Reagan
administration to produce the
binary chemical weapon. You
state that the arguments for
producing this weapon are
feeble; your conclusion would be
laughable were its implications
not so grave.
The Soviet Union does not
share what you term "the
traditional repugnance" of the
United States in the use of
chemical weapons. Documen-
tation proves that the Soviets
have used chemicals in Yemen
and Cambodia, and are using
them today in Afghanistan.
Moreover, the Soviets have a
very one-sided superiority in the
number of troops trained and
equipped to use chemical and
biological weapons.
The current U.S. stockpile is
old and dangerously stored, and
the government wishes to destroy_
the stocks and replace them with
the binary weapon. The binary
weapon poses no threat to civilian
populations where it is stored, as
do the current weapons, because
the binary weapon is composed of
two parts, safe by themselves,
that do not become lethal until af-
ter being launched.
Your most alarming claim is
that "U.S. nuclear capability
makes the introduction of any
other weapon superfluous." This
is not a credible threat, because
the introduction of nuclear
weapons breaches a threshold
which invites mutual destruction.
The U.S. would be deterred from
using its nuclear weapons
because of this, as would an ad-
versary.
By placing the U.S. in such a
position of weakness, you bring
us one step closer to the nuclear
Weasel

holocaust warned of in your first
sentence. One can only imagine
how the Daily staff would fume
and be outraged if Alexander
Haig announced a new U.S.
policy of using nuclear weapons
to respond to a Soviet chemical
attack.
Clearly, the only appropriate
U.S. response is a response in
kind. This means using
chemicals if the enemy uses them
first, and convential weapons
if he uses them first. This is a
credible threat, because an
aggressor will then know that he
will be facing retaliation with the
same methods he uses. Then any
aggressor would see that the cost
of attack would be too great for
him to undertake.
Your claim that chemicals are
less humane than other types of
warfare is strange. No type of
warfare is humane; the entire
point of having a defense
establishment is to make sure that
these things are never used.
Still, it is certainly true that it is
no more preferable to die by a
bullet than by inhaling a
chemical agent. Neither of these
is humane. However, something
which prevents both of these
from ever being used, is, indeed,
humane. This being the case,
American stockpiling of these
weapons could in no sense be con-
sidered "superfluous." Anything
which prevents war is not
"shameful"-but is in fact highly
praiseworthy.
The Reagan administration has
shown that it is willing to take the
distasteful, but completely
necessary steps, to ensure that
our nation and way of life will
continue. It has shown its moral
conviction to stand up for what it
believes. Can the Daily make the
same claim?
-Jonathan Tukel
January 18

for our University-the sports
clubs or Bo? Bo is equated with
Michigan football; football is
viewed as symbolizing Michigan
Spirit, and, best of all, it draws
attention and dollars to the
University.
On the other hand, sports clubs
give students exposure to dif-
ferent sports and allow them to
exercise and compete with other
schools. They also allowstudents
to have an outlet from
academics, to meet friends, to be
part of a team, and to enjoy
themselves.
Football allows student par-
ticipation, but only in the stands.
Sports clubs allow active par-
ticipation in organizing and in
fund-raising, as well as on the
field, court, or boat. Which would
be considered more involvement
for more students?
Whatever happened to the.
Puritan work ethic? Football
players-often paid to be
here-probably never had to sell
t-shirts on Saturday morning like
members of the Rugby Club and
they don't have to row for pledges
in the Diag like members of the
Rowing Club, much less pay for
gas and accommodation them-
selves when traveling.
Don Canham's standard reply
to sports clubs is that they come
under Recreation Sports and not
the Athletic Department. And

while Recreation Sports struggle
to keep the CCRB open and IM
Sports alive, Bo gets a new Field
House and payhikes for himself
and his staff.
I am sure both the clubs and
Recreation Sports would not
mind transferring the sports
clubs to the Athletic Department
to share in the wealth. As I un-
derstand itmost of the clubs are
not asking for much more than
money to offset travel expenses,
equipment, and coaches. But
sports clubs will settle for
anything they can get.
Ironically, with this funding,
they would.be not much worse off~
than many of the women's var-
sity sports that manage without
sports scholarships and with
minimal budgets and attention.
Granted, Bo may be a good
coach, and football does play a
large role at the University. But
should the University bend over
backwards to accommodate Bo
while it ignores clubs that might
have greater educational value?
It is not too late for our
bureaucratic university to begin
recognizing the needs of students
and let us see whether President
Shapiro 's "smaller but better"
principles apply only to the ac-
counting books or also to the
welfare of students.
-Anthony Chen
January 20

is ii:: :: _::::::v:::.... . .... ... ......... r..v:;. . .. .,. ........}}:
......................wn :1i ?ii :?:;::{:;.vq"}:.v; :i"rJ::"}}:iii :y:'{'itiv::":: J
:i?":r"?}i:::{{:i.:":}i'v'>it+:::' i: :-:::? i}r:{: ii: i}iii; is ?:"X":"
:.:":.................... .... "r......... : ; ..
r{.sti}:?ai:'t .:"J':iidii R;" ::":C".":}r:
:;:{' iii:;:}{ ..n. ::.vvv' v:'.{4" "iJ
.... ....... , xi:.:;: i iii.:.}.::::::::::......;:,:::" :.:::::.........+..::"}::::.:a>::«{">}:.......: }}!.::..

Letters and columns represent the opine
ions of the individual author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the attitudes or beliefs of
the Daily. e
Names will be withheld only in unusual cir-
cumstances. Letters may be edited for clarity,
length, grammar, and spelling.
.":^:v. ."Jt ":'::;::::: .i::::: : "v:.;{.wv' ..vv.:5:{. . ..r: ' 4

By Robert Lence

r-------- -"'

YURE WATCH lN G
p6TRolfs OFFlCALkt
~SPER kL. STATIONS

i

GME vMjTH~CT YOUR

( E4 5 IS RI ICUL OO.5
M AVNr sg~t( &XA
MEDIA OVERKILL .&NCE
AMLG NN ' -AP I 7vel
flKNOr (,Mrr 6OMMER!

ITS, AI.MQ6T £ND,*4
To MAKE YOU.) ANtT M O

I

I I

I 1

I I.

J

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan