A

OPINION

Page 4

Monday, March 24, 1986

The Michigan Daily

i I

4

E ditea dmu aUn ai
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Meadow deserves support

Vol. XCVI, No. 117

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board
Fai~gel andWeisbrot

By Jerry Markon
and Christy Riedel
Student Rights Party leaders Jen Faigel
and Mark Weisbrot do not merit the Daily's
endorsement in this week's Michigan
Student Assembly elections, despite
Faigel's strong leadership abilities and her
effective fight for women's safety on cam-
pus.
Electing Meadow Party running mates
Kurt Muenchow and Darrell Thompson
would prevent the assembly from catering
to a small minority of students. Unlike
Faigel and Weisbrot, the Meadow leaders do
not plan to endorse political protests,
discourage"controversial" groups from
recruiting on campus, or attempt to ban
military research at the University.
By focusing on more ordinary student
concerns like financial aid , Meadow hopes
to overcome the assembly's image as an
inefficient special interest lobby group.
Although Muenchow and Thompson support
student activism, they realize that MSA's
Markon is the Daily's News Editor
and Riedel is the Daily's Features
Editor.

J en Faigel and Mark Weisbrot
are the best choices for
president and vice-president of the
Michigan Student Assembly. Run-
ning on the Student Rights ticket,
these candidates know the meaning
of their party name and have
demonstrated the necessary
leadership, energy, and commit-
ment to ensure that student in-
terests are protected.
As a lobbying group for student
concerns, MSA must exhibit a
willingness to make student in-
terests an issue. While there has
been a perpetual debate over the
appropriate political sphere of
MSA, it should be clear that since
students are affected by and vote
on international, national and local
issues, MSA has a responsibility to
represent student views on all of
these levels.
Students across the country have
taken a stand on U.S. policy in
South Africa. The Student Rights
party has demonstrated a deeper
understanding of this issue than
any of its opponents. Student
Rights will continue to press the
University to divest its remaining
funds in companies that do
business with companies operating
in South Africa and will look into
the University pension plan, which
also has money invested in com-
panies in South Africa.
Student Rights has shown stead-
fast dedication to fighting racism
at the University including
segregation and stereotypes.
Weisbrot's continuing struggle to
rasie awareness and improve the
quality of life for third world
peoples cannot be ignored. Faigel
has been working all year to
establish a mandatory University
course which would educate
students about sexism and racism.
The party has supported
Minority Issues Researcher
Roderick Linzie's report, "Focus
on Retention," to centralize
minority student services, allocate
money to the Minority Affairs
Committee, and lobby for more
minority faculty. They have also
promised to meet regularly with
different minority groups to form a
more representative MSA and en-
courage the issuance of an
honorary degree to Nelson Man-
dela.
Student Rights is the only party
which has taken a firm stand on
military and Strategic Defense
Initiative research. Meadow has
stated that it will support the
current guidelines which, as Faigel
has pointed out, are currently un-
der review. Student Rights ad-
vocates establishing a committee
composed of faculty, students, and
administrators, modeled after the
ad-hoc military research commit-
tee, to look into the ap-
propriateness of SDI research on
campus. While the Meadow party
and others point to the hindrance of
free inquiry that restrictions may

cause, Weisbrot and Faigel correc-
tly fear for academic freedom that
is increasingly dependent on the
Pentagon for funding. The Univer-
sity is a humane, respected in-
stitution and as such should be
responsible for promoting con-
structive rather than destructive
activities. Taking a stand also com-
municates to the government that
the educated communities reject
SDI and will devote their best min-
ds to enhancing rather. than
destroying human life.
In fairness, the Meadow party
has called the Code one of its
primary priorities. However, it
was Ed Kraus, a Student Rights
candidate, who lead the Why Code?
movement this pastnyear,creating
an atmosphere conducive to
negotiations with the ad-
ministration.
Both Faigel and Weisbrot stress
educating students about the code.
As Weisbrot explains, if people
know they have certain rights, they
become upset when they're taken
away. In the event that President
Shapiro did bypass U. Council,
violating bylaw 7.02, Student
Rights has the energy and com-
mitment to mobilize students to
protest.
That kind of dedication and far-
sightedness is essential to a strong
assembly. In the words of Faigel,
MSA legitimacy and power come
from the students, not the ad-
ministration. Faigel and Weisbrot
are fighters, and have proved they
can be confrontational when
necessary and still maintain
working relationships with admin-
istrators.
Faigel organized last year's sit-
in at Henry Johnson's office
because he needed to feel a little
pressure. That action gained
Faigel nationwide recognition as a
leading activist for women's safety
and culminated in the creation of
the newly acclaimed assault crisis
center.
Similarly, Weisbrot's managing
and organizing skills as a leading
LASC steering committee member
have led to a plethora of activities
by that group, which has gained in
membership from seven last year
to over 200 this year. Weisbrot is
not a follower. He has been in-
volved since the beginning because
he cared enough to support what
was then a relatively unpopular
cause.
Such vision and dedication are
admirable qualities that should be
considered when casting the ballot.
It is also important to remember
that, in the case of women's safety
and the code, Student Rights
members have instigated the
changes that the Meadow party
wants to support. Their hard work
should be recognized. A vote for
Student Rights will ensure that
student government is working
hard in the best interests of stud-
ents.

political participation is limited to passing
worthless resolutions. As the all-campus
student government, the assembly must
represent a broader base of students than
the demonstrators who drowned out Vice
President Bush's speech commemorating
the Peace Corps last fall.
Emphasizing that MSA must remain ac-
countable to students, Meadow plans to
coordinate its efforts with other student
governments and seems more sincere about
undertaking a campus wide evaluation of
MSA's performance and student priorities.
At the same time, Muenchow and Thom-
pson are determined to improve MSA's
image with the University by confronting
admnistrators when necessary, yet
retaining an ability to compromise. The
assembly's new leaders must avoid the
shrill "us vs. them" mentality charac-
teristic of previous student governments if
they expect administrative respect.
Although we support Faigel's concern for
student rights, we feel that her and
Weisbrot's potentially combative approach
would set back these goals in a period where
quiet negotiations often prove more effec-
tive than demonstrations. W eisbrot, a
Latin American Solidarity Committee
member who has been arrested for
protesting CIA recruitment on campus,
seems far more appropriate in his role with
LASC than as vice president of the student

body. MSA vice presidents can accumulate
enormous influence within the assembly
and Weisbrot, though unquestionably a hard
worker, would lobby for LASC and other
special interest groups that fail to reflect'
overall student sentiment.
Censoring campus recruitment by the CIA
and other selectively determined
organizations exemplifies another Student
Rights stance that ignores a large segment
of the student body. Despite the CIA's
reputed terrorist activites and the Daily's
previous editorial stance on this issue, we.
feel that MSA does not have the right to,
prevent even one student from conducting a
job interview.
Finally, Student Rights calls for an exten-t
sion of guidelinesto non-classified research
fails to take into account the thousands of
engineering students who will depend on
research - some of it military - for their
livelihood. We doubt that most students'
would sanction MSA on prioritizing
University weapons research alongside
financial aid and student housing issues.
Jen Faigel seems to be a potenitally ex-
cellent MSA President caught in a year
where the assembly needs new blood.
While Kurt Muenchow is certainly not a
perfect candidate, his concern for student
issues makes him the best choice in an im-
perfect election.


LETTERS:

MSA

S

lame ducks endorse new crop.

To the Daily:
As the outgoing executive
officers of the Michigan Student
Assembly, we have watched the
assembly's membership of
representatives and volunteers
change and expand this past
year. We feel that this past
year's MSA was successful on a
number of issues, and weathered
a number of internal crises which
might have debilitated the effec-
tiveness of other assemblies. A
number of those people respon-
sible for MSA's stability during
the period are running for elec-
tion, and we wish to endorse them
for the various positions which
students will vote on this Tuesday
and Wednesday. Rather than en-
dorsing an entire party, we feel
that particularly two parties,
Student Rights and Meadow,
have exceptional students on
their slates. We will endorse in-
dividual candidates from both
slates.
Both Meadow and Student
Rights are lead by executive
officers (Jennifer Faigel and
Mark Weisbrot; Kurt Muenchow
and Darell Thompson) whom we
believe can capably and repon-
siblyeserve the studentrbody
running MSA, and in represen-
ting student interests to the
regents and administration. We
would welcome the opportunity to
work with them next year. These
slates have both exhibited fine
leadership qualities in the course
of their work in various facets of
MSA of the University com-
munity, and we urge all students
to vote'for that presidential slate
which best represents their in-
dividual opinions. Please see the
March 20, 1986 MSA Campus
Report for the actual platforms of
the presidential slates.
We do share a concern about
the viability of Kurt Vonnehagen,
the independant presidential
candidate because of his lack of
substantive knowledge on issues
affecting MSA's operations and
credibility as expressed in his
statements in the recent MSA
Campus Report. Similarly, we
have definite reservations about
the Indispenable party, with
Mark Soble as president, which
seeks to implement a code of non-
academic conduct. It is our firm
belief that no code is presently
justified, and that the product of
the University Council
deliberations must be viewed and
analyzed before more alter-
natives are accepted.
This is an odd election in that
we, the incumbent executive of-
ficers, are running for election as
representatives from LS&A.
Both of us have a great commit-
ment to the Assembly, and plan
to attend the University for the
entire 86-87 academic year.
However, in order to fulfill the
purpose of enrolling at U of M
(1 P 0graiduating). w ar fored

our judicial branch, the Central
Student Judiciary, despite stated
goals. We hope our presence on
the Assembly will allow us to
relieve the new EO's of certain
responsibilities and tasks in or-
der to allow MSA to set up our
missing branch.
Onthe basis of their past con-
tributions to MSA and the
University community, we en-
dorse the following candidates, in
no particular order of preferen-
ce:
For LS&A: From the Meadow
Party, Ashish Prasad and Tod
Severansky for their work on
MSA's Student Rights Committee
(SRC), and Vibhay Prasad, vice
chair of Legislative Relations for
his lobbying work in Washington
and Lansing, and Kim
Washington, Budget Priorities
Committee member. From the
Student Rights party, Ed Kraus,
current chair of SRC, Michelle
Fischer, Kathleen O'Connor and
Hillary Farber, members of SRC.
Matt Tucker, current chair of

MSA's Academic Affairs Com-
mitee, Rebecca Felton, for her
work in improving contact with
students, Michael Margolis,
project researcher on the student
regent proposal started by our-
selves, and Lisa Russ, ad-
ministrative assistant. We also
support Deborah Weisman's
candidacy.
For Business: Meadow's John
Gabor, for his contributions to
MSA's Legislative Relations
committee, and Soth Surchin,
MSA's treasurer and appointed
business school representative.
For Art: David Lovinger
current art representative,
graphic artist, and excellent
work in facilitating student
workshops on rape and other
women's issues.
For Engineering: Student
Rights' Rob MacMahon, ad-
ministrative assistant and IBM
whiz kid, and Terry Young, SRC
member.
For Rackham: Bruce Belcher,
Rules Committee chair and

Meadow will do best job fig

To the Daily:
I agree with most of Ed Kraus'
article "Candidate Sums up
Code" (3/21/86). He presents the
Student Rights Party's stance on
the code quite well, and includes a
credible account of The Indispen-
sible Party's beliefs. I disagree
with Mr. Kraus, however, in his
discussion of the Meadow Party's
involvement with the code. The
presidential candidate for the
Meadow Party, Kurt Muenchow,
was one of the first people to acti-
vely oppose the code, both within
the assembly chambers and also
at the first No Code protest at
Michigan Stadium on Saturday
October 13, 1984. (Ed was not
even involved in student gover-
nment at this time, and his asser-
tion that "it has been our ex-

perience in dealing with the ad-
ministration over the last couple
years..." is absurd. Kurt Muen-
chow's experience would be
much more appropriate, as he
was ACTIVE both of those
"couple years" in fighting the
code, while Ed wasn't even in-
volved. (Anti-Code Rally Met by
Apathy, Police Officers," Daily
10/14/84). Indeed, Kurt Muen-
chow has been instrumental in
not only maintaining the "No
Code" movement, but in helping,
begin it. Further, Ed suggests
that "the real leaders in the bat-
tle against a code this last year
are either running with or sup-
porting the Student Rights Par-
ty." It is interesting to note,
however, that Ed overlooks the
fact that two of his own hard-

Student Legal Services board
member.
For Board of Student
Publications: Andrew H. Rosen,
LS&A junior, current board
member and former MSA Cam-
pus Report editor.
It has been an honor to serve
the students of the University as
their official representative for
the past year. We encourage all
students to vote in the upcoming
elections so that MSA will be
unquestionably "representative"
of student concerns. Lack of tur-
nout in past years only debilitates
MSA's bargaining position vis-a-
vis the University. We wish the
successful candidates luck next
year, and offer our support and
advice regardless of the results of
the election.4
-Paul Josephson
MSA President
Phillip Cole
MSA Executive Vice President
March 21
hting code
working committee members, (Ed
is the chair of MSA's Student
Rights Committee) Ted Sevran-
sky and Ashish Prasad, are run-
ning with the Meadow Party. I
would urge Ed to get his facts
straight. I would also contend
that the real opposition to the
code can best be carried out by
the Meadow Party - with Muen-
chow's historical perspective,,
experience, and continuing
leadership, and Sevransky &.
Prasad's past and current in-
volvement and expertise on the
code issue.
-Darrell Thompson:
Vice-Presidential CAndidate
The Meadow Party.
March 21
with code
administrators.
Giving power from the Univer,
sity administration to the studen-
ts and faculty and ensuring due
process and uniform judicial
proceedings seems to trouble Ed
Kraus and the Student Rights.
Party. I don't know .why. Tran-
sferring power from the adi
ministration to students is what
"student rights" is all about.
-Mark Soble
MSA Presidential Candidate
Indispensable Party
March 22
rses Faigel
The same could be said of the op-
position to weapons research on
campus. On these and other
issues, the members of the

Student power can increase

To the Daily:
I would like to correct factual
inaccuracies in Ed Kraus' letter,
"Candidate Sums up Code"
(3/21/86). First, Kraus, a can-
didate with the Student Rights
Party, assert that "illegal drug
users are also included in In-
dispensable's code." Clearly, Ed
Kraus did not take the time to
carefully read the Code of Mutual
Responsibility before writing his
letter. Section (4) (J) of our
proposed code does include under
prohibited conduct the selling
and distributing of narcotics, but it
does not include under prohibited
conduct the mere use of con-
trolled substances. Perhaps
Kraus is worried that the Univer-
sity will no longer shelter drug-
dealers; however, I would tend to
doubt that many students share

duct whatsoever. Moreover,
right now the imposition of
penalties, is a decision made solely
by administrators. Under the
Code of Mutual Responsiblity, as
proposed by the Indispensable
Party, this decision would now be
in the control of a body consisting
of four students, four faculty
members and one administrator.
This body, the University Com-
munity Court, which would be
chaired by a student, would have
the decision-making power that
currently is held exclusively by
RSG endor
To the Daily:
At its last meeting the
Rackham Student Government
voted unanimously to endorse the

Andrew Eriksen

This year, there.is an opening on
the Board for Student Publications

must be sympathetic to the
editorial perspective while main-