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.

March 21, 1986 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-03-21

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

4

OPINION
Page 4 Friday, March 21, 1986 The Michigan Dily

I

te mfdbetsa nersichigan
Edited andymonaged by students at The University of Michigan

Candidate sums up

code

4

Vol. XCVI, No. 116

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

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

Election expectations

P ecipitating the Tuesday and
Wednesday Michigan Student
Assembly Election, the Daily has
elicited campaign promises and
political stands from the primary
contenders in the campaign. The
Daily asked candidates their views
on the central issues in the hope
that students will be sufficiently
educated to press them for details
and bring thoughtful questions to
the debate Monday evening at 7
p.m.
The Code
The Meadow Party candidates
Kurt Muenchow and Drrell' Thom-
pson, have expressed a firm "No
Code" stance. The only code ac-
ceptable to them is a codification of
th 1973 rules of the University
community, which are already
written up. According to Muen-
chow, codifying would "tighten"
the existing rules for clarification
purposes.
The Student Rights Party can-
didates Jen Faigel and Mark
Weisbrot, take a "Why Code?"
position, supporting the University
ouncil's efforts, but like Meadow,
they reject the current proposal.
Student Rights would consider a
fair code, providing the ad-
ministration proposes a
meaningful purpose for its enac-
tment. In the event that President
Shapiro bypasses the work of the
University Council and imposes his
own code, both parties promised to
continue to educate students on
how the code effects and infringes
their rights and would continue to
work to protect those rights.
Mark Soble and Mark Strecker of
the Indispensable Party want to
impose their own code. Soble would
attempt to influence the student
body into ratifying that code in a
campus election.
Minorty Remiiment and Retenlion
Both Meadow and Student
Rights are in favor of MSA
minority Reasearcher Roderick
Linzie's report on minority issues.
This includes funding a minority
researcher position, supporting
students to detect early warning
signs of drop out, establishing a
campus life adjustment program
and setting up
curriculum/academic advising.
Meadow also demonstrated an
interest on working in conjunction
with Associate Vice President for
Academic Affairs, Niara
Sudarkasa, to meet these goals.
Student Rights expressed concern
in bringing together all minority
groups to appoint the Minority Af-
fairs Committee Chair and also
promised to reach out to different
minority groups.
The Student Rights Party is
working to. develop a mandatory
University course to :educate
students about sexism and racism.
They also promise to support
recommendation of an honorary
degree to Nelson Mandela.
Military Research

The Meadows party supports the
current guidelines, presently under
review forbidding research, the

purpose of which is the destruction
of human life. Meadow. wants to
allow Strategic Defense Initiative
research on campus based on his
reasoning that since SDI is un-
feasible, it is not destructive to
human life and may have some
constructive implications, such as
innovative laser work in medicine.
The Student Rights party wants
to ban classified research and set
up an SDI committee composed of
faculty, students, and ad-
ministrators, modeled after the ad
hoc committee for military resear-
ch, to look into the ap-
propriateness of such projects.
They pointed out that academic
freedom suffers as theUniversi ty
becomes increasingly dependent
on Pentagon funding.
Soble said that while he per-
sonally was in favor of hindering
classified research, he wasn't sure
that his vice-presidential candidate
would share that viewpoint.

By Ed Kraus
The future of the proposed code of
nonacademic conduct depends on the out-
come of next Tuesday's and Wednesday's
MSA election. Fortunately, in this year's
election there is a clear choice among the
Student Rights Party, the Meadow Party
and the Indispensable Party. Although
students should consider those parties'
positions on various issues, the significance
of the code demands voters' special atten-
tion.
A code is a set of rules governing non-
academic conduct and related procedures
used to enforce those rules. All codes the
University administration has proposed
violate student rights to due process, free
speech, privacy, a jury of one's peers, an
impartial hearing officer, and to confront
one's accusers. Since every draft of the code
has failed to respect student rights, the
administration clearly does not want a fair
code.
The Student Rights Party
Student Rights Party members prevented
the University administration from im-
plementing a repressive code this year.
Leading MSA's Student Rights Committee,
they asked the administration "Why
Code?". The administration was and is
unable to offer a legitimate answer. Since
the code's main supporter, the ad-
ministration, cannot justify the code, the
Student Rights Party knows that there is no
reason for students to support the code.
The administration claims that the code is
needed to "protect" members of the
University community, yet the University
refuses to provide adequate lighting, ex-
pand the Nite-Owl bus service and expedite
the installation of emergency phones. In-
Kraus is Chair of MSAI's Student
Rights Committee and a Student Rights
Party LSA candidate.

stead of addressing campus safety
problems through preventative measures,
the University wants to punish alleged per-
petrators using the code. The Student',
Rights Party concludes that the code is un-
necessary because the existing criminal
and civil justice systems can adequately
resolve property offenses and deal with
violent or disruptive behavior.
Besides desiring to conceal from public
view real safety problems to protect the
image of the University, the University
wants to stifle non-violent, non-disruptive
student protest on campus. The code makes
students choose between a college degree
and the First Amendment. The Student
Rights Party believes that students have a
right to an education and free speech.
Indispensable Party
This year's MSA election is noteworthy
because the Indispensable Party has
proposed its own code: the University Code
of Mutual Responsibility, published in
yesterday's edition of the MSA Campus
Report. Indispensable's code is unfor-
turate for two reasons. It is worse than
any code the University administration has
proposed since 1982. Moreover, it endorses
the erroneous idea that a code is both
necessary and desirable. The Indispen-
sable Party does not recognize that a code is
inevitable only if students stop fighting it
and start writing it.
Indispensable's code contains many of the
objectionable provisions the Universiy
removed from its proposed code years ago.
Although called a Code of "Mutual"
Responsibility, Indispensable's code ap-
plies only to students. The administration
now accepts that a code should apply at
least in part to a faculty and administrators
as well as students. Fraternities, sororities
and co-ops and illegal drug users are also
included in Indispensable's code. By
removing off-campus group housing and
drug use from its proposals, the ad-
ministration has tacitly admitted that their
inclusion invades students' privacy.
Lastly, the Indispensable code allows the
University to add any prohibition it wants
whenever it wants and to expel students for

minor offenses.
Indispensable's code also has the same
fundamental problems as the ad-
ministration's most recent proposals. Both
allow academic punishments, including ex-
pulsion, for behavior unrelated to the
academic or educational environment and,4
punishment for conduct in both the code
court and Ann Arbor's courts. Importantly,
both the administration's and Indispen-
sable's code can be used to repress student
dissenters.
The Meadow Party
It is encouraging to see that the Meadow
Party has taken something of a no code,
stance. Yet, it is one thing to declare "nod
code" and another thing entirely to work for r
it. While the Meadow Party position is fur-
ther evidence of the near universal student
opposition to a code, the real leaders in the,
battle against a code this last year are-
either running with or supporting the.
Student Rights Party. One worrisome
aspect of the Meadows Party position is.
their seemingly willingness to cooperate
with the administration. It has been our ex-,
perience in dealing with the administration
in the last couple of years that it frequently.
seeks to veil imposition of a code behind,
irrelevant "compromise". Without ex-
perience and in depth knowledge of the
issue, it is doubtful that the Meadow Party.
would be able to achieve the same degree of,
success in combatting the code as would the
Student Rights Party. And missteps in con-
fronting the administration over the matter
of the code will certainly come to impinge
upon student rights at the University.

Vote Student Rights

.4

Taking

a Political

Stand

Students can trust the Student Rights
Party to protect your student rights.,,
Protecting your civil rights and liberties
requires substantive knowledge of those
rights, proven skill in protecting those.
rights and a commitment to fairness.
Students Rights Party has all three. Studen-
ts from all schools and colleges, should vote
Student Rights in the MSA election March,
25th and 26th.

All parties are concerned that
they act as representatives of the
student body. Soble and Muenchow
would allow any group to recruit on
campus if they met Career Plan-
ning and Placement requirements
while Student Rights would have
controversial organizations
petition 300 signatures to ensure
student support.
Meadow believes that MSA
should focus on student issues
without endorsing protests, leaving
broader political concerns to
special interest groups. Meadow,"
contends that MSA should give
money to these organizations but
should not be a participant in their
lobbying efforts.
Student Rights views MSA as a
lobby for all student concerns, and
would endorse protests or make
political statements to the Ad-
ministration. Student Rights feels
strongly that it is important to take
a stand on issues and make an ef-
fort to educate students, which is a
priority of all parties.
All parties agree that divestiture
of University stocks from com-
panies that do business with South
Africa is an MSA concern.
However, Student Rights would
press the adminstration to divest
its remaining $500,000 and was in-
terested in divesting from the
University's pension plan, which
holds S. African-related invest-
ments.
Both Meadow. and Student
Rights want to expand campus
safety programs such as Nite-Owl,
the escort service and lighting
while Soble believes that MSA
committees are doing an adequate
job on these programs already.
None of the candidates are in favor
of deputising the campus police,
though Soble believes imposition of
his code would help with security.
Students should focus on these
issues as the campaign continues
and vote for the candidates who
best represent their own views.
This election presents a prime op-
portunity for students to com-
municate their concerns and
priorities, and take an active part
in determining the agenda of their
government.

q

Chassy
TOW KNOW, Ed, NoTAKOz P OVN?
. AZOUT SDI FOR T'M EhoZE OCZN 4
GEA EERL
?ON &BRIAN MC EZ ,8&THI MCHGAN DAILY'"

LETTERS:

Evaluation of calendar is inconsistent

To the Daily:
Rebecca Chung's article,
"Calendar enhances stereotype"
(3/4/86), makes a few valid poin-
ts: that people shouldn't be
judged by their looks and that
misunderstandings between men
and women still abound. The ar-
ticle, however, contains
numerous logical flaws.
The first category of flaws is
the sweeping generalization. It
wnrks like this: if Neil Rnsmann

Chung, women at the University
"have enough problems as it is,
worrying about minor things like
grades, career plans, and per-
sonal fulfillment." And men don't
have these identical concerns?
Furthermore, she doesn't men-
tion that there is already a Men of
Michigan calendar. If a Women
of Michigan calendar is sexist for
the reasons she provides, then
why isn't the same true for a Men
of Mirhinn noandar9 Shp enuld

who can't afford to improve their
looks. She claims that University
women have the means to im-
prove their looks (in her attempt
to prove that there are pretty
women on campus); yet later on
says that looks shouldn't be im-
portant. Which is it? What's she
trying to prove anyway?
Even her solution (that women
be asked to submit resumes and
transcripts) is flawed. What does
a reume nv tranerint nrnve? Of-

getting to know the person.
What harm would such a
calendar do? None that I see. We
view sexy men and women on TV,
in magazines, movies. Are we
going to stop showing these
people on all of the media? How
absurd!
The harm, instead, is in the
proliferation of societal
stereotypes, and, unfortunately
Chung advances as many as she's
trying to squelch. Perhans thed

.. . . .: } \'.;"'. .; ,,. ,K . isi lS MYr": :Ci: iiY^'"iiii is hV ii
.:1v: . :. .t .. ..... .. ......:.. ...
::. ...v ". ........... v::. :.:
1" 4 vv}::v:: r v::::::::::. ":::::. :::::. :t:
.. .... . ^. ... ":":1"iS:- :::.{": '".h.V:'.vl:f:::::..":: ".": :': ii::"'J:?i::':::titi :":v .... ................. ...... .. .. ... .. ..
. *A
f .vtv ... v ..} .... ........... v.. ........................... n:". _::..v::: ::::::: .V:::::}ii:": i::4::.Y:{ ..:::::ii::4i: ii::"}}::viii:0i::::::i:ti:<4i:i?1}:ti% :<i:i :iiiii:bi: is i;": iiiiii'r}
..M..4.........tiG::V...........?y.:. ....v1.... ...................................... .........

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan