4 OPINION Page 4 Friday, October 12, 1984 The Michigan -ily Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Vol. XCV, No. 32 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Vote against nuclear free city A SERIES ON THE PROPOSED CODE IV.: The strangling of the student voice By Andrew Hartman Two years ago, the voters of Ann Arbor had the opportunity to send a message to Congress and the president advocating a bi- lateral, mutually verifiable nuclear freeze. Again this year students can vote on a related issue, whether or not to support a nuclear free Ann Arbor. Most people would agree that something should be done about the arms race, but this proposal is not in the best in- terests of the students, the University, the city, or the country. The charter amendment proposal is full of misinformation, will be costly to the city and the University, and violates the Constitution on several points. The proposal has the written purpose of maintaining our security, helping the economy, and preventing an accidental nuclear launch. By passing this amendment, our security will be threatened, the economy worsened, and the risk of an accidental nuclear war will be increased. OUR SECURITY will be threatened by creating a greater potential for a Soviet first strike because of a perceived weakness in our nuclear forces. That is to say, by not developing nuclear weapons that can withstand a Russian attack, the likelihood of such an attack will be much greater. If the Wolverine football team, for example, could not guard against the pass offense, our op- ponents would be more likely to throw the ball than if we had a strong secondary which could intercept their passes. By conducting more research on early war- ning radar systems to detect a Soviet sneak attack, we are lessening the risk of our missiles being fired accidentally. The greater the accuracy of our defense systems, the lesser the chance of an accidental nuclear war. The proposal states that further development of nuclear technology will lead to more accidents. This is like saying the more you study for an exam, the more likely you will be to fail it! The proposal also violates our First Amen- dment rights of free speech by saying, ".. - weapons, components, or systems shall not be transported through the City, nor shall any person or entity engage in any activity direc- ted at planning or prosecuting a nuclear war." This means that you could not talk about a nuclear war in your classes or discuss a hypothetical situation with your friends. The amendment also violates the clause in the Constitution stating that states and localities cannot engage in any diplomatic activities with foreign countries by asserting that, "The Mayor, the Commission, and the City Clerk shall anually inform..: the Premier and the Defense Minister of the Soviet Union and the Secretary General of the United Nations that Ann Arbor is a Nuclear Free Zone.... The most problematic part of thi proposition is that an appointed commission gets to determine what is and is not nuclear related technology. In the strictest inter- pretation, the car you drive, the plane you fly in, and the Walkman you listen to can be associated with nuclear weapons technology and research. The list of things related to the nuclear industry encompasses almost :eery technology that we use. When someone can dictate what Wcan study, what we can talk about, and whit w can produce, then we are no longer liviii n free society. The authors of this prdpasal could just have easily used the same reasoning to ban books, dictate reli'gin, establish a superior race, and create a fascisr state. It is sad that such unconstitutional and- un-American values have been put forth, rk der the guise of peace and security. ' PERHAPS THE most disturbing aspect of the code controversy goes beyond the system's many flaws and the administration's inability to justify its use. In their dealings with the student body, and specifically the Michigan Student Assembly, the regents and administration have made it abundantly clear that the student voice doesn't matter in the formation of University policies. Being ignored is one thing, but a far more serious threat to student input has been proposed - the proposal to amend or revoke regents' bylaw 7.02. Bylaw 7.02 guarantees MSA's right to approve the code before it can be en- forced, a right that is shared with the faculty senate. University President Harold Shapiro's statement that "it may be necessary either to amend regents' bylaw 7.02 to take away MSA's ratification authority or revoke it" came out of a recognition that the student body would never approve the code. Evidence for the almost uniform student disapproval is abundant. The student community has openly voiced its disapproval of the code. Student leaders, including the presidents of the Interfraternity Coun- cil, Panhellenic Association, Inter- Cooperative Council, most school governments, every candidate who ran in last Spring's MSA elections, and every member of the current assem- bly have rejected the code. The regents ignored the results of the MSA election in which 79 percent of the students voting rejected the code and 92 percent said it should not be passed without a student vote. They also ignored the message of a University-sponsored hearing on the code last spring in which 22 of the 24 students who spoke said they would like to see the code thrown out or major revisions to it made. There is little question as to where the student body stands on this issue. Unfortunately, there is little question as to how much the regents and the administration care about that. "No matter what people say" admit- ted Regent Deane Baker last spring, "the regents made the final decision in all of these judgements." That is true. In the summer of 1983 the regents ignored the student body, ignored the faculty senate, and even ignored the administration when they rejected a proposal to extend research guidelines at the University. This was disturbing enough since students, the faculty, and administration possessed the knowledge and were owed the right to make decisions regarding military research. But the code controversy goes beyond that. It is being created for students. It is supposed to protect students, restrain students, and be partially enforced by students. So shouldn't the student body's opinion matter? Apparently not. "The University is not a democracy," said Regent Thomas Roach last month. And as for MSA's ability to approve or reject a conduct code, "It is not a right. . . It is a privilege granted by the regents and I believe, to be taken away by the regents." We disagree. Any policy aimed at the protection of students and any policy that will affect students to such a great degree should not be im- mune to the sentiments of the students themselves. The regents goofed by establishing 7.02. It was a concession awarded to large numbers of protesting students, a concession that the regents have no intention of honoring when they really have something to lose. One of the most frightening scenarios involves the University's current, inoperative code and the ability to establish a judicial system without MSA approval. President Shapiro could say, "OK, don't pass the code, we'll just set up a judicial system and use the code we already have." This is frightening because the regents and administration would have gotten around the 7.02 problem and established a dangerously ambiguous system. MSA would then be forced to negotiate in order to get a code that is more difficult to abuse. Though it might seem a drastic step, the ad- ministrators' and regents' complete lack of regard for student input makes it impossible to discount it as a possibility. The regents and administration see their power as something that should not and will not be challenged. Even in the face of broad student opposition to a policy aimed at the students, the University is unwilling to compromise, and very willing to revoke every last bit of the power the student body possesses to affect University policy. At stake is the right of the student body to influence decisions that affect them in the most fundamental ways. Already lost is the credibility of regen- ts and administrators as officials who are willing to deal with students in a just and honorable way. Hartman is president Democrats. of the Co/ . Wasserman I- T'VE OUTLNDWLLIU U MY~ PAWtTo fGRQW Tp) ZFDUCE TIAE: w~vk'; YoU~s? GRowr- No jTNY-v ' m',cu~ n F - %1 11C _______________IT _ .~ 1~ - 7~LF "Ix ' s, a i AFreudian analsisqy By Brian Leiter The 1984 election is driven by an irrational force. Pollsters repeatedly tell us that the voters do not agree with Ronald Reagan but are going to vote for him anyway. What is going on here? Obviously' a cognitive account - one that appeals to issues and reasons in explaining voter choices - is inadequate to the political reality. This suggests that perhaps there is more at play - perhaps the prevalent reality of this election is, in fact, psychological. Consider for a moment, then, Freud's account of the belief in God in The Future of an Illusion. According to Freud, the belief in God results from the infantile impulse for the protection of the father being carried over into our confrontationcwiththe world. As young children, this impulse is satisfied by our biological father who provides security, comfort, and guidance. As we get older and confront dangers, problems, and choices on an even greater scale, the belief in a God plays the same role: he is the new sour- ce of security, comfort, and guidance. This account, I think, provides the explanation of Reagan's suc- cess. Given the fact that the strong again; and concomitant with this strength is security. The economy is said to be on the up- swing. The future is bright. Everything is going to be fine. 'One should not forget that in the Freudian scheme the inability to repress or sublimate the wishful impulse is a neurotic problem ... If Rea- gan 's success is dependent on a wish- ful impulse, one is lead to wonder: is Ronald Reagan America's neurotic symptom?' Reagan says so. And he says he's going to keep it that way too. The rhetoric, in fact, parallels what a parent might say to an ailing child in the middle of the night. But a portion of the electorate, just like the child, responds favorably to such assertions because that's how it wishes things to be. BLOOM COUNTY IN MORE euphemistic terms, this aspect of Reagan's image goes under the name "leader- ship." But a moment's reflection reveals such a label as an absur- dity. One cannot be possessed of "leadership" when the majority of the population disagrees with one's policies; when one can barely enunciate a coherent or complex idea or get facts straight. What goes by the name "leadership" is Reagan's ability to tap a powerful unconscious wish in the human psyche. It is also a wish clearly prominent in Reagan's own psyche - note his oft-articulated obsession with God. The fact that Reagan's so- called "leadership" and "everything is fine" outlook are illusory is also in keeping with Freud's analysis. As Freud notes, "the illusion itself sets no store by verification." The issue in an illusion is the satisfaction of a wishful impulse, not the satisfac- tion of factual criteria. In order to win many of the voters, all Reagan needs to do is paint a wishful picture. What that pic- ture corresponds to is beside the point. One should not forget that in the Freudian scheme the ( voters inability to repress or sublimate" the wishful impulse is a neurotic'; problem. Thus, as perhaps the- most famous example, one can- not grow up and maintain the' wishful impulse to sleep with, one's mother (one must resolve, the Oedipal complex). This is" similar to the infantile wish fork, the protection of the father. As" Freud says, eventually reason, must be brought to bear (in some' sense, the ultimate goal of psychoanalysis). If Reagan's success is dependent on a wishful impulse, one is lead to wonder: is Ronald Reagan America's neurotic symptom? And, if so, then a Reagan defeat will only' follow from 1) a dramatic in- trusion of reality that. necessitates modification of the wish; or 2) elimination of the wish through psychoanalysis or, maturation (an unrealistic goal for the short term) ; or 3) the: presentation of someone better to, satisfy the wish. a Until the realization of 1 or 2, the prevalence of neurosis may be the determining factor in American elections. Leiter is a graduate studenf in law and philosophy. by Berke Breathed Tomorrow, a call to action I r h In _ . 1/1 i/ i%% If ,/ I 111V'1FM 17) LW MO1_17 /- 1 TA1fW MUSTL