0 OPINION Page 6 Thursday, September 6, 1984 The Michigan Daily 461 . . Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board A word to freshpersons: A rotten idea goes national Fight th CONGRATULATIONS. You've made it through high school. You've become an adult. You moved away from home and you're about to attend one of the finest universities in the world. You think you're footloose and fancy free, right? Well, maybe for the time being. But if the University administration has its way, you may soon be subject to stringent laws and penalties over which you have no say, to rules con- trolling your personal behavior which have very little to do with your new status as a University student. You may not have left your parents at home after all. Last year, the administration proposed a Student Code of Non- academic conduct. If passed, it would create an internal court system that gives the University the powers of judge, jury, and executioner of studen- ts and their constitutional rights and freedoms. The code would outlaw a host of ac- tions already illegal in the "outside world." That list includes arson, possession of firearms, stealing, falsely reporting a fire or explosion, selling illegal drugs, and vandalism. Although outlawing the commission of felonies on campus may not sound like such a bad idea, the proposed code will apply to far more than arsonists and rapists. It will, for example, give the University a significant oppor- tunity to interfere in student's con- stitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of assembly and speech. The University code would, in effect, create a private judicial system, a system which would allow ad- ministrators to keep an unruly student under wraps or kick him out of the University altogether - all while avoiding nasty inconveniences like publicity and due process. The code has already elicited strong disapproval from a wide variety of student groups. The Michigan Student Assembly has rejected it over- whelmingly. But the administration, apparently undeterred, has begun the process of overrulling the MSA position. This fall, the administration code will ask the regents to approve the code on their own authority. A completely adequate judicial system already exists in the com- munity at large. The administration campaign, if successful, will mean that the University is willing to say, "When we don't like society's rules, we will make our own." The regents would be siezing the best - or for students, the worst-of both worlds. Students could be tried for a crime twice; the Univer- sity would always have the option of choosing the most favorable forum. The regents need to remind them- selves of a few things before they vote: " The University is part of the com- munity that surrounds it. There is and should be an exchange of services bet- ween the community and the Univer- sity - a very special part of the whole. That larger community includes not only Ann Arbor, but the state and the nation as well. The University benefits from the community, so should be sub- ject to its rules. " The University's various services for the community all fall under the category of education. The University exists to teach, not to play sheriff. As such, it should concern itself with governing academics. The proposed code would govern non-academic ac- tivity. By its very title, the code is not within the realm of academics. " That other student conduct codes exist does not justify the imposition of a code here. And while a very vague student conduct code already exists here, the level of regulation of student life and the punishments the Univer- sity would have at its disposal under the proposed code present a challenge to individual student autonomy several magnitudes greater than any current rules. The proposed code is an insult both to students and to the principles under which the University was founded. By proposing it, the University ad- ministration has°attempted to circum- vent the legitimate protections affor- ded defendants under American law. Its potential benefit to the University community is insignificant, while the potential for abuse of students' rights is enormous. By Charley Thomson The scenario must have been repeated countless times on local TV talk shows across the nation this summer. The weeping mother, her child the victim of an accident involving a drunk driver, sobs about how strict laws could have saved Johnny's life. Oh please, mister, you just gotta understand. This carnage can't go on. We have to do something NOW-no matter what the cost. Professor Harold Hill couldn't have made the pitch any better. It's the hook, the flim-flam-call it what you will-but the Mothers Against Drunk Driving have raised this time-honored political art form to new heights. They have managed, either by careful design or by sheer orgiastic fer- vor, to separate all reason from the debate about drunk driving laws. The results may prove catastrophic for all of us. I DON'T MEAN to disparage the gravity of the loss many of the MADD mothers have endured, their sincerity" in crusading against drunk driving, or the need for safer highways. On the contrary, I'm outraged by the number of drivers who have the audacity to drink and then play Russian roulette with my life on the highways. I agree with them wholeheartedly that those who commit the crime of drunk driving- should be punished-severely. But there are limits to what government can and should be able to do in the name of "safety," and MADD has tried to pushsthe staterfar beyond those limits. The prime example, of course, is MADD's biggest legislative victory so far: the nationwide drinking age. Rushed through Congress this summer, the national drinking age mangles both the Con- stitution and the civil liberties of 17 million Americans. The damage done may be irreparable. BECAUSE CONGRESS and the president have no authority to engage in a wholesale rewrite of 27 states' criminal codes, the bill made a sinister end run: It cut off from the federal highway dole any state which dares to keep its drinking age below 21. At one time-before a series of similar bills which have vastly expanded federal authority-nearly everyone agreed that the federal gover- nment did not have a general police power. Just as the framers of the Constitution had planned, letting the states take care of myriad intricacies like drinking ages had helped to encourage in- novation and competition. The system had allowed states to deal with their own peculiar problems without a brooding cen- tral government scrutinizing their every move. And, perhaps most importantly, the con- stitutional framework had made sure that the federal government would never use a general body of federal criminal law as a means to oppress the national citizenry. It was, in short, good gover- nment. Now, the very term "good government" has been stood on its head by MADD and the so- called safety lobby. Good gover- nment-or soaCongress and the president are now convin- ced-involves actively destroying states' control of their own laws, overturning the con- sidered judgment of a majority of states, and subtly changing the crime from "driving while drunk" to "drinking while young." ONCE THE PROPOSAL for a national drinking age set at 21 made it out of committee in the House, the Congress fell all over itself praising the idea. When the shouting was over, only 16 mem- bers of the Senate, where the toughest, most principled op- position to MADD was expected, voted against the bill. "How," asked one bewildered Senate staffer afterward, "can you vote in favor of drunk driving?" The MADD flim-flam had worked like a charm. The irony is that a number of those 16 senators were strongly committed as state legislators to tougher laws to combat drunk- driving. They vehemently believe that those tougher laws will do the most good if they come from the state legislatures, just as they are supposed to under the Con- stitution. There are, in fact, a number of very good reasons why most states, when addressing the drunk driving problem, have consciously rejected the policy now being forced on them by the federal government. ,.:: ter ways of dealing with the problem. Outlawing alcohol,- as the nation learned during Prohibition, does not end drinking or drunk driving. Outlawing alcohol to teenagers has been successful mostly it driving alcohol use underground, away from familial and sociAl environments where young people can learn to use alcihol responsibly. Keeping the drink from those under 21 may even encourage alcohol use among rebellious elements, and undoub- Just because one class, whether it is defined by age, race, sex, or religion is statistically more likely to commit a certain crime, should all the class members be legislated against? FIRST, STATE legislators have expressed grave concerns about creating a large number of second class citizens who have all the responsibilities of adulthood without having the consequent liberties. Just because one class, whether it is defined by age, race, sex, or religion, is statistically more likely to commit a certain crime, should all the class mem- bers be legislated against? Many state legislatures have answered emphatically "No." Such legislatioi against any group-be they teens for higher levels of drunk driving arrests or blacks for higher levels of rape arrests-is morally reprehen- sible and a violation of the spirit (if not the letter) of the Con- stitution. Second and more pragmatically, state legislatures have decided that there are bet- tedly disparages the authority, of the law in the eyes of the young. Instead, state legislatures have been engaged in exactly the sort of innovative lawmaking contem= plated in the Constitution. States have tried various combinations of provisional drivers licenses, increaseddenforcement e :of existing drinking laws, severe drunk driving penalties, and - at long last - genuinely effective preemptive education about the hazards of drunk driving. But such niceties of federaliin@ didn't seem to bother MADD this summer, as it whipped its aiti- drunk driving campaign into' a frenzy. Such is the nature of safety at any cost. Thomson, a University gradulate and former Daily editor; is a student at the University of Iowa College of Afti Law. .U Advice for incoming students By David Spak This being the beginning of another year at The Great University, each student is ab- sorbing a great deal of vital in- formation necessary for survival in an academic jungle. Fresh- man particularly are hacking through that leafy brush, unable to see the path on which they travel. They may be blazing the trail leading to law school; they may be on the path toward chemical engineering - it does not make much difference. What should make a difference is that studen- ts seek and obtain an education. BUT A successful education is not the pursuit of a degree. It is not the pursuit of the top grades. It is not the pursuit of distribution requirements. Figuring out exactly what a successful education includes is a might more difficult. An education must involve strenuous intellectual exercise, preferablly over a wide spectrum of disciplines. Such a variance of disciplines is precisely the idea behind distribution requiremen- ts. Somehow, though, fulfilling distribution requirements has become an exercise in discovering the easiest way to pad a grade point average. Many, if not most, students have lost sight of the challenge derived from taking a chance on a subject about which they know little or nothing. Students now choose classes based on a cost- benefit analysis: what good it will do, particularly for their finan- cial future. WITH THAT in mind, I'd like to tell you about a recent (1982) graduate ofbthis institution. He is, in my estimation, the finest writer to pass through the doors of this newspaper in quite some time. He did, however, have an unparalled talent forupsetting people, including those of us at the Daily. In fact, some of you older students may have used his weekly column as a dart board. For all his faults and talents, Howard Witt always had something to say worth saying. And he said it well. Howard also was a marvelous teacher for those who could stand to listen to him. He gave some great advice in a column just before he graduated, advice I'd like to pass along. "TAKE AT least one course for yourself every semester," Howard wrote, "not for law school, not for your major, but just for fun, as an adventure. You may not get an A, but you might learn something." He then gave his suggestions for a few courses and professors he believed virtually indispen- sible. The courses included Art History 102 and Shakespeare's Principal Plays. The professors included Gerald Linderman, with his "incredibly sensitive under- standing of American history" and Douglas Dickson, "a math professor who really cares about his students and whose office door is always open." Howard ended with one more piece of advice; Use the people around you, professors and students, to discover these challenging courses and professors - "but do something before blindly marching off to CRISP to take yet another term of boring prerequisites or easy-A blow-offs." IN THAT spirit, I would like to suggest a few of the courses and professors I found particularly challenging. American Constitutional Inter- pretation as taught by Will Harris offers tremendous insight into perhaps the most fascinating political document since the Magna Carta. Harris's moot court exercise forces students t critically scrutinize their basic beliefs about the American polity. Sidney Fine is the finest lecturer I heard, winding his way through the last half-century of U.S. history, a period when U.S. history was almost synonymous with world history. Finally, Philosophers of the 17th and 18th Centuries takes you from the bir- th of modernphilosphy and the rationalist Descartes, throughb the empiricists, to the ,- scrutable Immanuel Kant. If I have one regret about Howard'sadvice, it would be that he did not offer it until I had finished two years of college: So repeating and adding to it would be of most benefit to those of you just starting out. But remember, a successful education is not straight A's. I can thank Howard Witt- helping me learn that. The Daily's editorial policy Spak is a University graduate and former Daily editor. ,,; THE DAILY'S Opinion Page fills an important role in the exchange of ideas both at this newspaper and in the University community. But the Opinion Page, though it carries our of- ficial policy, is not limited to those views with which we agree. Editorials appearing on the left side of this page represent the majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board. Unlike many other newspapers, our board is made up of all current Daily Because the Daily is financially in- dependent and managed entirely by students, no outside publisher dictates its thoughts or philosophies. Not even the editor-in-chief may veto a vote or overrule the editorial board's decisions. Yet this 'independence carries with it an added responsibility which Daily staff members take very seriously. The right side of the page is open to any of our readers of staff members for comment on topics of general in- =OLDS- DONT MISS M LAT:-T " OLO CAVST SOVOU CAME 74--Th LM\T LkU&Aj 11'S NOME W\N Jo ~1 \JST Brow YOU BUT Yiou MUST A\CT trtk-I I D2.ArKlf- )VCe5 WT \WILL S^ i -