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.

February 06, 1986 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-02-06

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

4

OPINION
Page 4 Thursday, February 6, 1986 The Michigan Daily

- J

I

Eie rndmaagdst ganiversity
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Wasserman

FM Tt* " wotc

Vol. XCVI, No. 90

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

AS 'TAG NEW SECRETARQY 0f
A6P1CUCTVRE, YoUp FIRST J+
\NitL 'TRYIN6 TO SAVE TN
RLLUmCROP

-"".. .
F

Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board

...

/_

Rule Inadequate

VAST JUNE the annual NCAA
convention passed Proposal 16,
a new rule concerning requiremen-
ts for recruited athletes. While this
new rule is an improvement on the
former one, Proposal 48, it still
ignores the major problems facing
student athletes in major-college
programs.
The new proposal modifies 48,
which set minimum standards of a
2.0 high school grade-point average
and a 700 SAT score in order to par-
ticipate in college athletics.
Prospective student athletes who
failed to meet these requirements
could still be admitted to a college,
but would be ineligible for their fir-
st year, until they proved an ability
to perform academically at a
university level.
Proposal 16 attaches a sliding
scale to the scores. A student with
slightly lower scores but a better
grade point would not be eligible
under the old rule, but would be
under the new one.
The new law is remarkable not
for its flexibility but rather for its
shortcomings. Many high-school
athletes have been lead to believe
in a fantasy where a professional
career and millions of dollars help
them to attain success. Academics
seem worthless, and they have
neither the grades nor the scores
that this proposal requires.
Society's routine glorification of
sports celebrities must be held at
least partially accountable for
these athletes, who would not be
allowed into college under the new
rule.
The proposal also fails to address
a major problem - what to do with
these student-athletes after they
have matriculated. At many foot-
ball and basketball powerhouses,
students are exploited for their
physical talents, then tossed away

when their eligibility is gone.
Rarely do these athletes make the
pros. More often they are left to
jobs which do not help them realize
their potential if they are lucky
enough to secure employment at
all.
At schools like the University
which maintain pride in their
academics, these problems are at
least partially dealt with. Students
recruited at the university are in-
formed that their degree is impor-
tant, and coaches are hired
knowing that they will have to find
athletes who will be able to survive
the University and obtain a degree.
In addition, the Athletic Depar-
tment runs an Academic Support
Program with a tutorial program
and a skills development program
to help its athletes.
But many schools do not support
and help their athletes; even the
University's program, though ad-
mirable, is not enough. The NCAA
should pass a law which would
compel every school to establish a
system similar to John Thom-
pson's basketball program at
Georgetown. All incoming fresh-
men map out an academic
schedule with the team advisor and
report their progress to her each
Monday night. If they don't per-
form well, they are suspended
from play for the week. Thompson
also runs an intensive career
placement center for his
graduating seniors to prepare
them for the job market.
The current athletic system
places a great burden on individual
coaches to prepare their athletes
for the transition from college
athletics fantasy to the reality of
graduation. The NCAA must ac-
cept this responsibility to provide
athletes with real choices in a har-
sh world.

f1

7
/

°B
-
\fw
\~uaer

4

LETTERS:

Review column found inaccurate

To the Daily:
I am writing to correct a
serious error that appeared in the
last issue of the Michigan Review
(Jan'86, vol.4 no. 5).
TheReview, in its "Serpent's
Tooth" column, stated that "The
local chapter of the Voice of
Reason has been disseminating
information about Accuracy in
Academia. Members have been
telling students thatramong the
organizations supporting AIA is
the Michigan Review." This
assertion is completely untrue.
As reported in the UM/A2 Voice
of Reason (vol. 2 no. 1) released
several days before this issue of
the Review: "Among the
organizations speaking out
against AIA is...the Michigan
Review."
Upon reading this error in the
Review I called David Vogel,
Production Manager of the
Michigan Review, and Seth
Klukoff, Editor-in-Chief of the
Review, and it has become clear
that what happened was this:
Last December a student
working on an article on AIA for
her Journalism class spoke to
Dean Baird, president of U-M
Voice of Reason, and asked him if
he knew anyone on campus who
had been contacted by AIA. Dean
said that he did not, but
suggested that she speak to
someone at the Review, as AIA
usually seeks support among
conservative groups. Dean made
it clear to her that Mr. Klukoff
had already publicly spoken
against AIA. This student, a
freshman majoring in com-
munications, later contacted Mr.
Klukoff to solicit his opinions
concerning AIA. It was from this
call that the editors of the Review
mistakenly drew the conclusions

which led them
Voice of
"disseminating"
tioned lies.

to accuse the
Reason of
the aforemen-

For the sake of fairness I must
admit that Mr. Klukoff contacted
Dean Baird before the release of
the Review to apologize in ad-
vance for the error, which they
had discovered upon reading the

UM/A' Voice of Reason. Unfor-
tunately, that issue of the Review
was already at the publishers and
the mistake could not be correc-
ted.
Nonetheless, I am somewhat
disturbed that the editors of the
Review did not see fit to confirm
the information before printing
it. The accusatory piece goes on,

to suggest the need for "Ac-
curacy in Organizations," and i4
is with the utmost respect for the
Review that I suggest that the
staff of the Review heed their
own advice. Physician, heal
thyself.
-Paul Carmouche
U-M voice of Reason
January 31

Abortion activists ignored

4

Apartheid Cop-out

THE DECISION by the Ann
Arbor pension board not to
divest its holdings in South Africa
is a blow against the fight for
justice in that embattled country.
The board passed instead a
relatively meaningless resolution
supporting peaceful change in
South Africa.
A more effective way of sending
a message that Ann Arbor stands
against apartheid would have been
to unload the $18 million worth of
stock holdings the pension fund
holds in South Africa. Divestment
would have put teeth into the
resolution against apartheid by
alerting companies doing business
in South Africa that Ann Arbor will
no longer put its money behind the
racist regime there.
Among the arguments of those
voting against divestment was that
board members could be in-
dividually liable in suits filed by
employees for violating state law
regulating pension fund invest-
ments. Though Public Act 55 states
that pension fund investments
should be made for the purpose of
providing benefits to participants

To the Daily:
We are writing to protest the
Daily's coverage of the January
22 abortion rights rally. Although
the Daily accurately reported
that abortion supporters greatly
outnumbered right-to-lifers, the
Daily appeared more sym-
pathetic to the reactionary right-
to-lifers than to the people who
came out to defend women's
rights. The Daily article on the
rally devoted one-half of its space
to the right-to-lifers and then in-
cluded another article
specifically focusing on that
group.
Although the spirited pro-
choice rally was organized by the
Ann Arbor Coalition for Women's
Rights, the Daily article ignored
the Coalition. The article doesn't
even mention what the Coalition
stands for:
" Women's right to choose
" Safe and accessible abortion
on request
" Reliable and safe contracep-
tives readily available to all
" An end to forced sterilization
" Medicaid funding for abor-
tions
" Ending right wing attacks on
abortion clinics and clients
" Expanding social services for
those women and men who
choose to have children
9 Quality educational and coun-

seling programs on contracep-
tion, abortion and sexuality
" Including contraceptive
education in University orien-
tation sessions for all incoming
students
The right-to-life movement
ignores the rights of women. To
them a fetus is a human life with
full rights but a woman is not.
According to them, once a
woman becomes pregnant, she
ceases to have control over her
own body; indeed, it seems that
at that point they deny her
existence other than as a carrier
of an unborn child. Abortion is not
murder but rather the exercise of
a women's democratic right to
terminate pregnancy.
The organized and well-

financea right-wing movement
daily attacks women's rights:
abortion rights, sex education in
schools, child care, working
women's rights, black and other
minority women. We need an
organized movement to defend
women's rights. The Daily ap-
pears to be more interested in
quoting and re-quoting right-to-
lifers than in emphasizing the4
importance of organizing to
defend ,women's rights. We en-
courage the Daily to support
women's rights and improve
their coverage of women's
organizing.
-Dawn Chalker and the
Ann Arbor Coalition
for Women's Rights
February 5

it also enables board members to
consider the "character,'
reputation and stability" of its
stock investments.
Another argument raised again-
st divestment is that companies
can act more forcefully for change
by remaining in South Africa.
Companies argue that by following
the Sullivan guidelines they exert
pressure for gradual change. This
argument ignores the fact that the
number of black workers em-
ployed under the relatively liberal
companies is minimal in com-
parision to those working for com-
panies which employ apartheid
strictures within the workplace.
The argument that divestment will
hurt blacks is less persuasive in
light of Bishop Tutu's support for
divestment as the best way to force
change in the apartheid system.
The system of apartheid will only
be changed when a chorus of inter-
national condemnation and
economic quarantine presents the
leaders of South Africa with no
alternative. Ann Arbor should act
to speed the movement toward
justice in South Africa.

Daily needs consistency

Give Goetz a chance

To the Daily:
I was angered to see the Daily
run an advertisement for Philip
Morris Companie's job interview
(1/29/86). The ad was innocent
enough - "Philip Morris,
America's largest consumer
products company, is looking for
outstanding MBAs... (who will)
work in planning and
marketing." A simple, neat,
elegant type of advertisement on
their part.
But it was still an offensive ad,
despite their best intentions.
"America's largest consumer
products company" indeed!
Philip Morris is in the business of
making cigarettes. We have been
hearing a great deal in the media
lately about the effects of
smoking on health, even on the
health of non-smokers. If ever
there was a group that very well
might be called "merchants of
death," it is the tobacco industry.
MBA's beware! Philip Morris
needs you to aid in their already
successful marketing efforts.
Maybe you too could help in-
crease the profits of the company
by convincing another im-
nressionable nerson that

No, I am not a member of an
anti-smoking lobby, and yes, I do
support the right for people to
make well informed choices
about how to live their lives. The
key, however, is the idea about
making well informed choices -
not ones based on the propaganda
of the tobacco industry. That i
why I was surprised to see th
Daily compromise its standards
and values by printing the ad. If
the editorial board can set such
high moral and ethical standards
about the CIA and other
organizations, and support the
plight of those who choose to
protest CIA recruiters on cam-
pus, thenawhy support an in-
dustry that contributes to more
deaths each year than the num
ber of casualties from arms iu
Central America?
If the reason is "because we
feel that people have a right to
decide for themselves," then you
have the obligation to print ads
from any company that pays the
bills - be it military, "consumer
products" or whatever. And if
people have the "right" to see
these ads and go to job interviews
without having to worry abou

To the Daily:
I found your editorial in the
January 22nd issue of the Daily
("Put Goetz Away") to be an un-
just and naive evaluation of the
Subway Vigilante case.
In response to a New York
Supreme Court's dismissal of
eight attempted murder and
assault charges against Ber-
nhard Goetz, you described Goetz
as a "lunatic vigilante, who
should go to prison". You further
redefined the jury's role as to
"determine if he (Goetz)

weapon to avert a situation where
one's life or well-being are in
jeopardy is justified in the eyes of
the law.
You argued that the shot Goetz
allegedly fires at an already
wounded youth was "not aimed in
self defense." I agree that this
may be interpreted as aggression
on Goetz's part. However, it must
be remembered that Goetz was
provoked. He did not act on im-
pulse. Rather, he reacted to the
intentional and direct belligeren-

vri "ti"????:{"?:+":{{"? is ii?:i:??: JJ: i:::ti:..
. .v .: ...: .. ..... ..t ...n ..................::::C:i:^?;._:.?:"::::::....:".:.::::{:}: i'+:i:i>.i :vi i i;::iii i?:(-$is :v: :v{:v:::iii>. i:i:;:;:;:ji$y:ii::: ii.
t "... .. t .... ..._u.kv},.k'4::.h:?nv:n:."...\'+........r....._ +'}k4.:.:::v;.,:.?n.:::::::4::.:":.?{v. ':5::::G?::?::?::..i:"::::":":::......:" :::..........:. ::::::::::. ::::::::.:::::. :::::::::::::::::::::. :::::::. ::::::.:.

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan