I

OPINION

Page 4

Wednesday, November 19, 1986

i

The Michigan Daily

Eit mgdtatt e nv atoMh
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Vol. XCVII, No. 55

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board
All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.

Lucas
,q/1OU//7S afzAl-w AE~
4IP0 5-7U IR

4AE dLLCASE GF
5MALL CASES OF SM4Lx
ONE S/Wt ROJ OGP
OE5'l oo GREIUDES FOR...

Check power


col25 0?.

S

IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT THE
University Board of Regents will
vote against a refusable fee funding
system for the Public Interest
Research- Group in Michigan
(PIRGIM).
Founded at the University in
1972, PIRGIM has had a long
history of problems with the
regents. Initially operating on the
Student Verification Form (SVF)
with a positive check off, PIRGIM
fared fine because registration was
not yet computerized, and students
in line had the opportunity to speak
with PIRGIM members about the
organization. Then in 1975, the
University switched to CRISP,
decentralizing the process of
registration and making it difficult
for PIRGIM to communicate with
students. PIRGIM donations
plummeted under this system, so
the regents agreed to give PIRGIM
a mandatory refundable fee similar
to the one students sign for
Michigan Student Assembly. But
support dropped for PIRGIM
during this time period and a
positive fee was reinstated.
PIRGIM was actually in violation
of University policy for a semester
when student support dropped
below the necessary 33 percent,
then 25 percent, 20 percent, and
finally 5 percent in February of
1985.
That the regents are hesitant
about accepting PIRGIM onto the
Student Verification Form again is
not suprising. The regents don't
want to face an embarassing
situation by putting PIRGIM on the
SVF with a refusable fee, and
opening itself up to the attack of
irate students and alumni. PIR-
GIM has acknowledged its past
problems and has made a serious
commitment to eradicate them. The
group has promised the regents that
without at least 25 percent student
participation on a referendum every
two years, it will remove itself
from the SVF. PIRGIM has said
that as a prerequisite for its
existence on campus, it must gain
support of the majority of students;

if that support is lacking, PIRGIM
will disband.
The regents should recognize
that PIRGIM leadership changes
with new students, and that each
group can be judged on its own
merit. PIRGIM has demonstrated
that the majority of students on
campus want to assess themselves
a refusable fee on the SVF.
PIRGIM is not a confrontational
organization and should not be
forced into the position of
demonstrating opposition to the
regents. If the regents decide to
ignore the 16,800 student sig-
natures endorsing PIRGIM's
request for a refusable fee, it will
be appropriate for the Michigan
Student Assembly, as the lobbying
organization for students, to assert
authority.
MSA President Kurt Muenchow
has voiced concern about MSA
working with PIRGIM. He points
out that if PIRGIM, as an
environmental advocate, was to
protest DOW Chemical, engin-
eering students might complain,
thus making MSA non-
representative of engineering
students. If fair representation is
the issue, then PIRGIM has more
of a mandate from students than
Muenchow, since PIRGIM man-
aged to drum up a majority of
student signatures, whereas
Muenchow was voted in through
an election which only 15 percent
of the student population
participated in.
- The primary consideration here,
in any case, is beyond the specifics
of PIRGIM. The issue is student
rights to recognition as independ-
ent, responsible adults.
MSA should point out that the
regents may abuse power by
ignoring what students have
overwhelmingly shown they want;
but such action will not go
unchallenged. Taking up the
student cause, MSA should work
together with PIRGIM toward
reinstating the refusable fee or
some equally acceptable funding
system.

.'

p -

f----]

I


rfx1rPN OA

-
.. - A

0: IAN?
FRO4A: RON

f

i

LETTERS:
Daily was right t0 bash forum~

To the Daily:
I would like to commend
the Michigan Daily for the
position taken by the editorial
board concerning the MSA
sponsored political forum
which was held a week and a
half, prior to the election to
honor the State Senator and
State Representative. As
mentioned in the editorial
("Reform MSA's Forum",
11/12/86), I wholeheartedly
agree that though the Forum's
purported purpose may have
been honorable, the event was
clearly in poor taste,
representing both a lack of
careful planning and
responsible thought on the part
of MSA. By holding the
forum, not only did MSA
clearly violate its own
Constitution, but,eby partaking
in partisan politics and
endorsing candidates, they also
jeopardized their non-profit
organization status granted by
the IRS. On these counts, I am
in full agreement with the
Daily's editorial. I would,
however, appreeit- the oppor -
tunity to clar - few other
- points made in t ..cle.
First of all, neither myself
nor the Colege Republicans
have attempted to remove
MSA's tax exempt status. We
do not seek to personally
damage MSA, as the resulting
loss of money would certainly
cripple both their influence and
effectiveness in the campus
community. We do,
nevertheless, believe that such
acton will eventually be
imposed by the IRS. MSA was
clearly in the wrong, and their
actions will undoubtebly be
dealt with accordingly.
Second, as stated by the
Daily, I do not view MSA as
an apolitical organization. In
contrast, I feel that practically
every group is in fact political
and often partisan in nature,
and that each of us is
-inherently biased in some way
or another. That is not the
problem. The problem arises
when members of MSA deviate
from working on projects for
which they were placed into
office to dealing with other
nonrelated issues. I don't recall
either party advocating such
policies or projects (as the
partisan forum) when they were
running for MSA. During the
MSA elections, campaigning
focused on such issues as the

remember a ll of its "changed" (as the Daily states
constituents when dealing with that I believe) than maybe
such sensitive political issues Buchholtz will run for a seat
during campaign time. If this on it.
means that MSA must be

-Debbie Buchholtz
Chairman, College
Republicans
November 14

New feminists attack men too much

To the Daily:
Yvonne Bloch's article
"Witnessing rape culture,"
(Daily, 11/7/86) angered and
disgusted me. The attitudes
and beliefs that she propounds
in the article seem,
unfortunately, to be all too
typical of most contemporary
feminist ideology. Before I
begin, I feel that I have to
clarify the differences between
"old-feminism" and "new-
feminism" that Ms. Bloch
stands for.
Old-feminism is an ideology
simply stated that a woman is
just as good as a man. It
justly defended her right to
equal pay for equal work, and
stood for the belief that women
should have access to all the
same opportunities as men.
New-feminism is an
ideology that seems to promote
the belief that all men are evil
and all women are good,
definitely not my conception
of equality. I went to the local
"Take Back the Night" rally
this past year, and was
appallled at what I saw and
heard. For the most part, it
seemed to be composed of one
anti-man speech after another.
New-feminists claim that
they are fighting against what
they perceive to be the male'
chauvinist culture (rape culture)
of our society. In reality, these
new-feminists are just as bad as
the chauvinists they rail
against. Let's compare the
two:
Male-chauvinist view of
women: "You just want sex.
You all want it. You know
you all want it.
New-feminist view of men:
"You just want to rape us.
You all just want to rape us.
You know you all just want to
rape us.
Each statement is as foolish
as the other. In each case, the
one attributes stereotypical and
false motives to the other sex.
When a woman dresses up
really nicely, does this mean
she wants to be raped? Of
course not! (The old-feminists
rightly fought against this

betweeen these two) references
in television ads, billboards, or
football game activities into
assaults against all
womankind.
As to the incident which
provoked Ms. Bloch's rabid
response - I was at the.
Illinois football game, and
witnessed the act she describes.
Let's clear a few things up
about this incident, shall we?
First of all, what Ms. Bloch
calls a "mannequin" was in fact
a blow-up sex doll for men.
(Nothing inherently wrong
with this, I hope? Simply a
male version of a vibrator.)
Secondly, this doll was
wearing an orange Illini shirt,
and the Illiniwere our enemies
at the game that Saturday -
why does Ms. Bloch have
trouble with this concept? ("..
. a supposed Illini woman -
the enemy!?!?") Ms. Bloch
was appalled that people
laughed at seeing the doll
passed around.
The incident, however, was
funny, for several reasons.
First of all, it's always fun to
pass objects around the
stadium1 be they beachballs or
dolls - especially if the object
is wearing the clothes of the
opposing team. Secondly, the
fact that a doll whose sole
purpose is to aid in the very
private act of masturbation was
exposed to a large public
audience was hilarious. (Ob-
viously, I was not the only
person who thought so, as Ms.
Bloch points out in her article
that two women down on the
field were looking up and
laughing.) I'm sure that if a
similarily realistic looking
vibrator, outfitted in a mini-
ature Illini shirt, were tossed
around and destroyed, it would
have elicited the same number
of laughs and cheers; and I, as a.
man, would not have interpret-
ed such an action as the release
of subliminal desires to castrate
all mankind. One problem
with many new-feminists is
that they seem to lack a sense
of humor. They take life so
seriously , interpreting nearly

further abuse - (perhaps
women are to be "kept" in
boxes, secure from abuses ...
or is that an abuse in itself,
hmmm?!?!)" Wow! Talk
about no-win situations!
You're a rapist if you pass the
doll, but -you're a member of
the 'ol "keep 'em barefoot and
pregnant" clique if you try to
hold the doll up to prevent
further abuse. What kind of
crap is this? Unfortunately, it
is all too typical of the new-
feminist view of men.
New-feminists are every bit
as extreme and stupid as the
chauvinists they oppose. If
they would only take a long
look at themselves, they might
realize this. I could go on and'
on, but I won't. Why am I so
vehement in my opposition to
new-feminists? Women should
especially sympathize with the
plight of us men. I'm sure
women don't like being told:
"You are inferior to men. You:
are inferior." Well, I don't
enjoy being told: "You are a 
rapist. Yoar evl"
-Mark Kulkis
--November 12
Capitalists"_.,
To the Daily:
I find it distressingly
necessary to comment on
Michael Edwards' article "DSAI
takes Reagan's cues" (Daily,.
11/12/86). The article made:
worthy comments as I believe:
the DSA letter to the editor.
also did. The article accuses
DSA of following the Reagan.
administration in their anti-
Soviet views, I accuse the:
article of not only following
Reagan's cues but the cues ofO
all capitalists'. The CPUSA.-"
does this by attacking potential
allies (DSA) rather than trying
to work together to reach their
shared ultimate goals.
Since its founding in 1905
the Industrial Workers of the
World (IWW) has recognized
capitalists' manipulation of
leftist factionalism. IWW
members historically and

~1 ELI