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 26, 1986 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-03-26

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

0

OPINION

Page 4

Wednesday, March 26, 1986

The Michigan Daily

Wasserman

ie g ttsatTUnst o ig
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

WE~ CNT PAY YoU "Tr.SAIDASAN
W Tfl COMAPBL- Jogs

"tM1T WOULD TE' \BWN 'T"S
WoRKYNG'S or- *-MS MA2KIET

Vol. XCVI, No. 119

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

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

)

K

!- L-)

---
. .
v

Closed doors

I
4

T HE Detroit Athletic Club
(DAC) recently decided to con-
tinue barring women from mem-
bership. This decision has caused
Michigan Consolidated Gas Com-
pany and Detroit Edison to discon-
tinue company-paid membership
in the DAC for 21 executives. Such
a decision should be commended,
for it has sparked the DAC to
reconsider membership for
women, and has encouraged the
Detroit City Council to review the
legality of sex discriminating clubs
Far too often, however
discriminatory policies of clubs
and organizations are never suc-.
cessfully challenged. Rotary Inter-
national, an all-male service-club
for businessmen and professionals
has recently rejected female
membership for the fifth time. But
Rotary is just one of many all-
male organizations that refuses to
recognize women as deserving of
membership.
A spokesman for Rotary Inter-
national justified the decision to
prohibit women, by claiming a
need to preserve the tradition of the
club's male character, as well as a
desire to be sensitive to those coun-
tries where "things are more
traditional."
Such disregard for the status of
women in the business world is ap-
palling, and can be interpreted as
an attempt by the male members
to undermine women's progress.
According to new statistics, women

now hold a slightly higher number
of professional positions than men,
in various fields-a trend that
should be reflected in business
clubs as well.
Single sex clubs are completely
legitimate if they exist to serve
gender-based interests and needs.
But business and athletics are no
longer solely the interests of men.
A service club such as Rotary
exists to unify business people and
professionals of "good character
and reputation" and can provide
members with valuable social in-
teraction-a possible boon for
business. Female professionals, by
being excluded from such interac-
tion could be handicapped in their
business communities.
These policies, however, are in-
dicative of a larger double stan-
dard. Women are expected and en-
couraged to strive for success and
-equal the performances of their
male counterparts in all fields--but
are at the same time denied equal
pay despite their achievements.
Maintaining all-male business
clubs is only an extension of this
hypocrisy.
Clubs such as Rotary, which still
adhere to politics established at the
club's inception in 1904, need to
recognize their out-dated criteria
for membership. Condemnation of
the DAC's policy was an ap-
propriate response to an old-
fashioned and discriminating at-
titude, and should serve to en-
courage further evaluation of a few
stale traditions.

MAy ?cANT Is Tr T
MA~kET ISN'T R;iAlly

\/s1-NI'
y v

"YOU SOM~E I GN

to4

11-V

4

LETTERS:

Proposition A insures

student voice

Apathy shouldn't pay

P IRGIM is currently conduc-
ting a signature drive on cam-
pus in support of a
"refusable/refundable" funding
system with the University.
Although PIRGIM has organized
projects-such as campus escort
services and local bank
guides-that are beneficial to
students at the University, the
proposed funding system should not
be supported.
PIRGIM would like to assess a
two-dollar fee per student per
semester unless the student checks
a refusal box on the Student
Verification Form. Students would
also have the option of asking for a
refund at a later date under the
PIRGIM funding system.
PIRGIM, the Public Interest
Research Group in Michigan is
part of a nationwide organization
of PIRGs that research and lobby
for consumer and environmental
issues.
In 1972, when PIRGIM was
organized, the Regents established
bylaws that allow any organization
that has the initial support of 50
percent of the student population
and one third support thereafter to
be eligible for a special funding
mechanism on the SVF.
For all but two of the years since
then, PRGIM collected donations
from students through a positive
checkoff system. Students who

wanted to pay the two dollar fee
checked "yes" on the SVF.
Student support of PIRGIM has
declined drastically since 1976. In
1984 only 11 percent of students
donated and during registration for
fall, 1985, only 7.8 percent. The
regents had been waiving the one-
third support requirement, but last
March the board voted to termina-
te its contract with PIRGIM.
PIRGIM has collected about
10,000 signatures this term in sup-
port of reinstating a funding
system. Rather than lobby to rein-
state a positive system, however,
PIRGIM is asking students to sup-
port a negative system, which
historically has proven to be more
successful for PIRGs. Under the
negative system, if the initiative is
not made by students to refuse the
fee, it is collected. Most students do
not bother to read the SVF, so
PIRGIM would collect thanks to
apathy.
This type of system infringes on
the rights of students and takes ad-
vantage of unaware students. If
PIRGIM does indeed have
widespread support on campus, it
should be allowed a university fun-
ding system, but only a positive
one. The initiative should be taken
by those who wish to support
PIRGIM, not by those who don't.
Students should not have to protest
a fee in order for it not to be collec-
ted.

To the Daily:
Students can resist passage of a
repressive code of nonacademic
conduct (whether called an "in-
terim code" or "mini-code") by
voting YES to Proposition A on
the MSA ballot.
Yes on Prop. A is to require
presentation of any code to the
student body for a vote. While
both Student Rights party and
Meadow party literature speak
against the CODE a good number
of Student Rights party members
have a deep history of work and
committment against the CODE,
not found on Meadow party.
It is far more important right
now to have strong resistance to
University administrative
repression than it is to worry
about political labels or other,
smaller issues. The CODE is a
tool of intimidation and control.
It not only impacts on the
nature of the University, but on a
university's role in a vibrant
society.
Another lawyer and I demon-
strated earlier this year by get-
ting an injunction in two hours
against someone threatening
violence against a student, that
we don't need a CODE to protect
safety. (That injunction became
a permanent injunction at a
routine court hearing, and has
been, predictably, completely ef-
fective. In case it were not, the
legal system provides for arrest,
contempt, and a full panoply of
devices from mild to serious as
needed, to protect safety without
dangerously compromising due
process and civil liberties, as in
done by administrative conduct
codes.)
The University administration
is bent of having a device to add
to its ability to control demon-
strations, but the Regents, the
legislators and other funding
sources are tuned to strong
student opinion on critical issues.
University Council consists
mainly of persons with some very
good committment to civil liber-
ties, but limited legislative draf-
ting experience. They are
assisted by a university attorney
Review rebuffs
To the Daily:
The allegation by members of the
Student Rights Party and several
of its supporters that the Meadow
Party is financially supported by
The Michigan Review is groun-
ded in fallacy. It is the policy of
the Review to refrain from en-
dorsing nolitical candidates and

Ward offers absences and apartheid

To the Daily:
I am a Graduate School
representative to MSA, concer-
ned about the choice by the
Meadow Party of Virginia Ward
as MSA Candidate form the
Graduate School. Ms. Ward, who
is a graduate student in
aerospace engineering and
claims to be a lawyer, was elec-
ted to MSA on the ultra-
conservative M.U.M. (Moderates
at the University of Michigan)
party ticker last year. During
her brief stay at MSA, she earned
the dubious distinction of being
the only' vote against resolutions
condemning support for the apar-
theid regime of South Africa.
Thus, Ms. Ward became the only
de facto supporter of apartheid at
MSA in spite of the overwhelming
repudiation by the assembly of
any support for the apartheid
nightmare. As if this was not
enough. Mr. WArd did not con-
tribute to any of the many projec-
ts of MSA and eventually had to
be expelled from the assembly
due to her failure to attend the
meetings. Clearly, the election of
Ms. Ward to any position, at any
lelvel of student government, is
against the best interest of the
student community. Ms. Ward
has shown, by her votes and ac-
tions, that she is undeserving of
the privilege to serve students.
Hence, one wonders how did
Meunchow come in association
with Ms. Ward, especially since
he witnessed her nnwnrthu,
behavior. Who else in the

Meadow likes Ms. Ward? I
strongly urge the Meadow Party
to expel Ms. Ward from that Par-
ty, unless, of course, Mr. Muen-
chow happens to sympathize with

her indefensible ideology and
performance.
Daniel J. Melendez-Alvira
Rackham representative to MSA
March 21

Political affiliation relevant

whose job it has been to help draft
and promote the University
CODE. So far, the U Council's
workproduct falls far short of its
commitment to avoid repression.
There are gaps, loopholes and
amendment procedures that can
make repression in spite of their

To the Daily:
I am deeply offended by the
gross distortion in the Daily
editorial, "The dirty path"
(3/25/86). Jen Faigel, Mark
Weisbrot and three other Student
Rights party supporters signed
the "Marxist Group" student
organization registration form
under a line which stated, "We,
the undersigned members of the
above organization [the Marxist
Group] . . . shall be the persons
responsible for conducting
business for the organization."
Therefore, if as the Daily contends
tends, Faigel and Weisbrot were
not members of the "Marxist
Group," then the pair is guilty of
fraudulent behavior in order to
gain access to University resour-
ces for the group.
When someone runs for
political office, she or he becomes
a public figure. Because the
Student Rights party is the one
party that most strongly believes
that MSA should address
politically-charged issues, it is
especially ironic that the Student
Rights party now denies that
students have a legitimate in-
terest in their candidates'
political views. As an analogy,

no one would argue that when
Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale,
or for that matter even Gus Hall,
ran for president of the United
States, that those candidates
should not be encouraged to ad-
mit their political affiliation.
Clearly, MSA has reached a
ridiculous state of bureaucracy
when someof its members claim
that they must fraudulently sign
forms, and pretend to be mem-
bers of a group of which they are
not, in order so that that group
may be registered with MSA.
-Mark Soble
MSA presidentiall
candidate
Indispensable Party
March 25
Correction
To the Daily:
The last two lines of my article
"Media distort foreign policy" (1-4
15-86) should have read: "The
prevalence of continued sen-
timentality about America's ob-
jectives and the recent upsurge in
infantile macho rhetoric assures
that Reagan's reassertion of
traditional hegemonic drives
should be successful. It remains
to be asked what contributions,
if any, university communities
are making to the understanding
and alteration of these events." 4
-Brian Leiter
January 20
Frat fun
To the Daily:
I would like to congratulate the
brothers of Sigma Alpha Mu
fraternity for being able to raise
$1500.00 and put it to such respon*

mini-code's protections, easy. To
accomplish the serious changes
the U. Council's work still needs,
U. Council will do better in my
opinion, with and MSA vigorously
and independently committed to
do the work to resist oppresion. I
think Student Rights people offer

the best hope among the people
running. (Ken Weine and Ed
Krause, who saw to it that Prop.
A got on your MSA ballot, are
running for rep. on Student
Rights party.)
Jonathan Rose
March 23

Support PIR GIMpetition

To the Daily:
On Wednesday, February 5, a
group of U of M students who
support the Public Interest
Research Group in Michigan will
begin a petition drive seeking
student support for the con-
tinuation and strengthening of
PIRGIM here at U of M.
PIRGIM was established in
1972 as a student run and student
funded organization after a
majority of students signed a
petition supporting it and calling

petition, the fee will preserve the
right of the majority to fund an
effective PIRGIM and the right
of the minority not to pay the fee.
Our reasoning is that the cam-
pus is a community and, like any
community, members have the
right to participate in democratic
decision making.
From 1972 through 1985
thousands of students have
worked on PIRGIM projects in-
cluding womens' safety, voter
registration, toxics cleanup,

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan