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% :