4 OPINION Page 4 r ..3111auI 41aI c mt tgan tng Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Vol. XCVI, No. 59 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Tuesday, November 26, 1985 The Michigan Daily The University's Turnout upswing STUDENT ELECTIONS held thus far this school year have shown a slight, but noticeable im- provement in voter turnout over previous years. Last week 2400 students voted in the LSA Student Government elec- tion, 700 more than turned out at the polls last year, while over 2300 students voiced their opinions on MSA's special referendum. In last month's Rackham Student Gover- nment election, 91 students voted, exceeding by 31 the number who voted in 1984. Although these numbers are not impressive considering that over 34,000 students attend the Univer- sity, including 17,056 LSA students and 5,958 in Rackham, they do show a slight improvement in student participation. Turnout for LSA-SG increased from 10 percent to 14 percent while RSG turnout went from 1 percent to 1.5 percent. Part of the reason for the in- creased voter turnout was the large number of candidates who ran for positions on LSA-SG. 40 students for 17 positions and for the first time in many years, three parties competed for the presiden- tial and vice presidential spots. The students who took the time to cast ballots should be applauded for their involvement, but the elec- tions must strive to be more than a popularity contest. Student participation can be in- creased even more if students are made aware of the issues they are voting on and not just the can- didates. A forum or debate on elec- tion issues such as teaching assistant proficiency and campus safety could produce a more in- formed student vote. As the number of students par- ticipating in elections increases along with voter turnout, student government can gain the legitimacy it needs to better serve the student body and confront the administration. By Robert D. Honigman Second in a series The institution is never wrong. The most corrosive part of the modern university is not in the harsh conditions of student life - the high costs, overcrowding, poor housing, boring courses, or distant faculty - but in the hopelessness of changing anything. It's the lack of hope that in the end penetrates students and makes them docile. An older student usually understands that all large scale institutions are more or less self-serving bureaucracies full of phoney promises and exploitive techniques that use the individual in the interests of the in- stitution. But the younger student believes that a world famous university must be a great educational experience and that their elders and betters are always right. This is usually their first time away from home. Anxious parents want them to adjust and succeed. They are academically dependent on faculty for grades and credentials. They have not yet proven or tested themselves. Hence they believe that the institutional authority is always right and are ready to accept its promises and reassurances. Them something happens. They discover that the university is indifferent to them and they go into a state of shock. They are too young and naive to question authority, so they assume that they are in the wrong. The great poison has taken hold. Most students react to this unresponsive environment with apathy. No one's to blame. It's like the weather, a cold climate over which nothing can be done. Everyone is in their own little world, chasing their own little dreams. The manipulators and the manipulated, the weak and the strong. There's no one to help, and there's nothing anyone can do. You build a shell around yourself and live within and let the great Honigman is an attorney is Sterling Heights. world go by. But some students let unhappiness lead to self-destruction. If the institution is never wrong, then it must be their own fault that they are unhappy. Everyone else is happy or well-adjusted. Anxious parents want them to succeed. But they have no close friends, no interest in their classes, and no real desire to be wealthy. They are all alone, and somehow the best thing to do is to exist as quietly as possible. Other students, especially males, respond like adolescents. Since the institutional parent is never wrong, maybe the univer- sity is just like a boot camp or pledge week, a place to separate the winners from the losers. So adjusting to the university means becoming "a real man." A real man doesn't feel pain or feel sorry for weaklings. After all, the university doesn't like whiners and complainers who buck the system. If you cooperate with the university, you'll be on the winning team, and the winning team is always right. This type of student is uncon- sciously masochist and angry and is likely to join a fraternity, commit date rape or drink to excess. A fourth response to institutional coldness is the Watergate effect. These students are impressed by the power and success of the university. The university is successful, they perceive, because it controls people through legal authority and public relations. These students want to become like the people in power. They are the moral sharks who cruise among the apathetic student community. You've met them, and you know who they are. Most of them are caught in middle life in some monstrous crime and become born again Christians. Lastly, there are students who in a pathetic and naive way want to reverse the indifference and coldness of the system by being perfect. If they are perfect, then the university will finally recognize and love them. Anything less than perfect will be discarded into the rubbish heap. These students become a specialist and try to firid some skill or discipline so that the in- stitution will always need them. If they can big chill win a Nobel prize then all of their childish hopes and dreams will come true. But the faculty too suffer from the chilling effects of institutional omnipotence. They are encouraged to bury themselves in their specialties, not to concern themselves with university-wide problems or the larger social problems beyond the university. There is an illusion that wise leaders are in control. But if you study the leadership of any in- stitution you discover that control is an illusion. The institution is like an amoeba trying to feed itself. It moves towards nutrients and away from pain or unrewar- ding experiences. It selects its own leaders to serve its needs based on their loyalty and ability to serve it, and it measures their leadership by success, not by any social ideal or moral philosophy. I've never minded that regents and university officials have a strong self- interest in the university reputation, or en- joy enormous psychic income from its prestige. Sometimes they're right and students screaming in the streets are wrong. But sometimes they're wrong and even students passing silently in the streets are right. Maybe because I'm an attorney what bothers me is something else. I make my arguments, I present my case, and then my opponents make their's. They sound reasonable and plausible, and they surely believe in their case - and I appreciate the fact that an adversary proceeding makes me sharper and more attentive to good reasoning and solid facts. But when the arguments are done, and the parties in in- terest rest their case, I see my fine and distinguished opponents in interest don judicial robes, assemble on the bench and pronounce judgment. This offends me, as it should anyone who cares for human values. The institution is never wrong. What a great poison that is. In the end it corrupts everything. Tomorrow: "The administrative machine. " Getting together I. L 1I I Twould... be so bold as to say that the world has become a more secure place." This statement by Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev af- ter two days of discussions with Ronald Reagan ennunciates perhaps the most hopeful con- clusion possible from the recent summit. While it is important that the leaders of the world's two super- powers know each other as in- dividuals, the demands for meaningful arms control agreements should continue. The leaders were able to agree on the relatively minor issues of cultural exchanges, North Pacific air safety, and air transportation. These mark the first accords of any kind reached between the two superpowers in the last six years and should be applauded on those grounds. The development of greater cultural ties can only in- crease understanding, a necessary element in a lasting peace. The fact that the two leaders have met face to face is important. One of the reasons the Cuban missile crisis was resolved without resorting to war was the fact that Kennedy felt he could anticipate Khruschev's behavior based upon their last meetings. One less heartening result of the meeting is Reagan's continued in- transigence on the Strategic Defense Initiative. Reagan, in his radio ad- dress following the summit, stated that he considered it a victory that the Soviets know we are going to stand firm on the issue of "Star Wars." It should be seen, instead, as a lost opportunity to trade on the Soviet's Fear of U.S. technological superiority to encourage significant arms reduction. Reagan seems to be squandering an opportunity to avoid the militarization of space and to pull back from a weapon that would bankrupt the United States if its realization was ever to be procured. There are other areas in which arms reductions seem plausible. Serious negotiations have to con- tinue on such multiple warhead missiles at the MX. These are first strike weapons not suitable for a retaliatory action and therefore not deterrents. This is not to say that human rights, Jewish emigration, and Afghanistan should not be discussed as well. These issues must be a part of the negotiations between the superpowers. There is a great deal to be discussed when Gorbachev comes to Washington next year and Reagan goes to Moscow the following year. And a great deal more than friendship is going to have to come out. I' OH, DOHIT MIND HHIM -lf . Illlnl I. p WEME J/ = aflh r . I V. 9 .. .... F 0 6 , Hai 'I LETTERS: Daily anachronistic on ROTC credit To the Daily: Once more the Daily has seen. fit to send down one of its pronouncements from on high to us mere mortals, spreading the gospel of its anti-ROTC drivel, this time decrying the merest possibility of nasty military types getting any vestige of academic credit for ROTC courses ("Ar- med Courses?", Daily, Novem- ber 13). This position is a relic of the 1960s, when anti-Vietanm protests caused the revokation of credit for ROTC courses. Well, I've got news for you, folks: the Vietnam war ended ten years ago. Your peers in the College of Engineering figured that one out a long time ago, so it's time for might think is good for the rest of us, but allknowledge. A man who accumulates a vast store of all kinds of knowledge can make the most rational decisions on how to use it. By your logic, we should abolish credit for lower level chemistry courses because some student might take what he lear- ns and make a bomb with it. In my case, the situation is already ridiculous. The one cour- se I take that really deals with weapons, Naval Science 201,Prin- ciples of Naval Weapons Systems, is already cross-listed BLOOM COUNTY as EECS 250. Therefore, the only class I take that you would find offensive under your logic is one I already receive credit for. So why shouldn't I receive credit for other courses I take that have nothing to do with any kind of "violence" whatever? I know it's trendy these days to complain about a lot of things, but pick on some other bunch for a change. We work hard for our classes, and we deserve credit for all of them, despite the anachronistic views of the Daily. -C.T. Gould November 14 Letters to the Daily should be typed, triple-spaced, and signed by the individual authors. Names will be withheld only in unusual circumstances. Letters may be edited for clarity, grammar, and spelling. by Berke Breathed min .r .. i - - --- - I