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.

December 01, 1986 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-12-01

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

OPINION
Monday, December 1, 1986

Page 4

The Michigan Daily

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Vol. XCVII, No. 61 420 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.
No sabe lo que quiere

Lucas

,rl-

00001 -

--~1

/

/

ACCORDING TO THIS
COlPUTER ,YOUR ENTI
DURING THE NEXT TER/

/.7
,,I i.
'. ;

CRISP
It's f
rtAND 'y
A1N DATORY.1

m

,Wft - mm

OWN

A

I/

rp%

ON NOVEMBER 4, CALIFORNIA'S
English-Only movement succeeded
in passing Proposition 61, a bill
requiring all business, schooling,
and public services to take place in
English and abolishing bilingual
education or public services, such
as a drivers test given in Spanish.
Restricting foreign languages is an
overt form of racism which tells
non-English speaking people-
immigrants or otherwise-that they
are second class citizens.
The English-Only movement is
now hoping the California bill will
set a precedent and has launched a
national campaign. Its proponents
claim that allowing people to apply
for a job, open a bank account, eat
in a restaurant, take a drivers test,
and go to school, all in a foreign
language, gives the wrong impres -
sion to non-English speaking
immigrants. They believe em
phasis must be placed on mastery
of English first and all essential
services must be conducted in
English to provide an incentive to
learn the language.
English proficiency is already a
requirement for U.S. citizenship.
Restricting use of other languages
not only makes life more difficult
for incoming immigrants, but it is a
check on freedom of expression.
First amendment rights are violated
in the law's provisions for legal
action against people or business
which continue to provide bilingual
services such as public signs and
job.applications.
Obviously, it is easier for the
individual to survive in the United
States if she or he can speak
English, but this does not mean
other languages are less legitimate

forms of expression. Bilingual
education should continue as a
means of proceeding with the
schooling of non-English speaking
students while emphasizing the
usefulness of English. Aiding
foreign minorities in retaining their
native language is also a mechan -
ism to retain other cultures which
enrich the United States and the
American version of the English
language.
Though some essential services
such as bilingual police officers
and some health care would remain
under the legislation, the curtailing
of social services, education, and
private sector expression is
culturally intolerable and economic -
ally ignorant. If foreign language
speakers are unable to apply for a
job (even while gaining English
facility) because they cannot read
the application and, at the same
time, are unable to apply for
subsistence welfare to support their
families because bilingual
councilors have been removed
from public service agencies, they
will have nowhere to turn except
crime or self-exile to a country with
a better understanding of
democracy.
Foreign languages and cultures
have a tremendous amount to offer.
Preventing the assimilation of non-
English speakers into American
society is a move away from
diversity. The English-Only move -
ment is a racist organization intent
on founding the sort of nationalistic
supremacy found in Nazi
Germany. Their victory in
California must be overturned; their
national campaign, stopped.

IilL
GM6iCHIGN DALY
Letters:
Analogy doesn' t work, women do

4

I

Don't purge PIRGIM

THE PUBLIC INTEREST Research
Group in Michigan (PIRGIM)
must obtain funding through the
Student Verification Form (SVF) to
survive. Because the regents
probably will not accept
PIRGIM's request for a refusable
fee box on the SVF, it is incumbent
upon the Michigan Student
Assembly (MSA) to aid PIRGIM's
attempts to receive funding.
MSA President Kurt Muenchow
used the last regents meeting,
however, as a forum to criticize
PIRGIM. Muenchow opined that
PIRGIM had violated MSA's
autonomy by sending a letter to the
regents describing a plan to fund
student groups through MSA.
Muenchow is right that MSA
should be involved in providing
funding; the issue has been brought
up repeatedly at their meetings. The
regents will make the real
decision-whether or not PIRGIM
will appear of the SVF-not MSA.
The funding proposal PIRGIM
submitted to the regents was
reasonable. It asked that organizat -
ions which receive petition
signatures from a majority of
students, get majority support in
MSA elections, and comply with
regental policies regarding student
organizations get funding. If
adopted, these requirements would

seventies by University law
students, the group has taken
important stands on local and
statewide issues. PIRGIM has
worked on a myriad of environ -
mental issues with a recent focus
on toxic waste. It has fought for
consumers rights. It opposed
increases in utility rates and
surveyed local bank fees and bar
prices, distributing the results
among students. This month,
PIRGIM put out an election flyer
informing students where to vote
and what the candidates' positions
were.
Despite PIRGIM's advocacy of
the public interest, it faces an
uncertain future. Regent James
Waters (D-Muskegon) has
indicated that a funding proposal
involving PIRGIM is unlikely to
win support unless it is through
MSA. Without Muenchow's active
support it seems unlikely that
PIRGIM will gain needed funding.
As the student body's highest
representative Muenchow should
support PIRGIM because its
funding petition was signed by a
majority of students. Muenchow's
alligation that PIRGIM is working
behind MSA's back is false: it has
worked with both the regents and
the MSA. A strong PIRGIM
enhances the political power of

To the Daily:
Mark Kulkis' letter ("New
feminists attack men too
much," Daily, 11/19/86)
undermines the real
exploitation that women are
fighting against. He shows no
sympathy toward these deeply
ingrained problems faced by
women in our society. He
generalizes feminism, discredits
the problems with our rape
culture, and equates women's
images with dildos. These are
incorrect analogies of the
enormous inequalities we are
all facing.
Basically, most people have
realized that equality is the
right ideal for all, (U.S.
Constitution), but Mr. Kulkis
seems to believe this will
occursovernight without action.
In his argument, Mr. Kulkis
creates some interesting, yet
imaginary, terms; "New
Feminism" and "Old
Feminism." He defines the
latter, "that a-woman is just as
good as a man," and the
former, "men just want to rape
women" with u-g's 2ific and
untrue generali itirns. He
does not explain wihy these
agreeable "old feminists" were
not able to prevent women
from earning 59 cents to every
dollar a man earns. Old
feminists and new feminists are
the same people, they are just
fed up with oppression.
Mr. Kulkis ridicules the idea
of our "supposed" rape culture.
The fact that one out of every
four women is raped makes one
question whether this is an
imaginary problem. Perhaps
the term "rape culture" is
offensive to Mr. Kulkis but if
something does not have a
name it does not exist. We
must call attention to the
problems in our societal
attitudes. All men are not
being punished for a few sex
criminals as Mr. Kulkis
implies. The Malamuth
survey done in 1981 found that
60 percent of the male college
students interviewed, in the
United States and Canada, said
they might rape or "force sex"
under the right circumstances.
Thirty-five percent said they
would indeed try to rape a
woman who had rejected them.
(Carol Tarvis and Carol Wade,
The Longest War: Sex
Differences in Perspective)
This rape culture is definitely
a product of TV advertising,

Administrators must speak against rape

These myths devalue women's
integrity in society.
Neither Mr. Kulkis'
discussion of using a woman's
image as a beach ball, nor his
preposterous equation of a
female "sex" doll with a
vibrator, is amusing. A doll is
a parody of a woman's body,
face and mind. A vibrator is
representative of a man's
sexual organ which has no
human being behind it. It is
just an object. He implies that
men are separated from their
sexuality but a woman's
sexuality is her entire being.
Therefore, a woman's whole
self is being exploited by using
the doll for humor. Does Mr.
Kulkis feel that penises are
completely, representative of
men?

To the Daily:*
Rape is a major problem
in Ann Arbor, as I am sure
everyone is aware of by now.
Incoming freshmen at orientat -
ion are exposed to this problem
through various movies,
pamphlets and speakers. The
Sexual Assault Awareness
Center has installed numerous
emergency phones in an effort
to combat rape. The Michigan
Daily has printed numerous
articles on the awareness of
rape. The administrators of
Michigan, however, have not
followed up on other students'
efforts to help prevent rape.
There has been a systematic
suppression of the topic of rape
from the administrators which
may lead to damaging side
effects on rape victims.
Rape victims must realize
rape is a serious crime that
unfortunately happens to many
people. By not speaking out
against rape, the administrators
are indirectly approving it,
thereby encouraging the rapist,
and making victims more
vulnerable to being raped
again. The reassurance a
victim so desperately needs
from the administrators, sort of
"father figures" to many
students, is not given, leading
to two major consequences: the
rapist will not be caught, but,
more importantly, the victim
will not be inclined to seek
help.

Under group pressure, or
pressure from a higher
-authority, people tend to be
obedient and conform to
pressure. Are these adminis -
trators receiving pressure from
an outside or inside source to
not print rape articles? Are
they afraid to tarnish the "good
image" of Ann Arbor? Believe
me, many students at Michigan
are at least somewhat aware of
the problems of Ann Arbor,
rape being one of them.
Students will think worse of
administrators who do not
speak out against rape and it
will only hurt these
administrators in the long run.
Many students will not respect
these administrators and respect
is an essential component of an
administrator's job. I realize
that printing rape cases may
offend some people; however,

admnistrators, being in
position of high authority, are
not in position to not speak
out against rape. This is one
issue that administrators can
not afford to avoid: people's
lives are at stake.
Clearly, rape should not be
hidden. Only by continuing to
speak out against rape and by
emphasizing again and again
that rape is wrong can the
victims of rape feel confident
enough to turn the rapist in and
also get the necessary help for
him/herself. The adminis
trators have not to date helped
the victims of rape. Adminis -
trators are supposed to be here
for the students: why don't
they start by helping them? 4
-Jeff Seifman
November 20

If he also argues that a male
doll passed around would have-
been just as amusing as a
female doll, he misses the
threat involved in the activity
of "passing up." Women are
grabbed and put in dangerous
situations against their wills
and many real women have
suffered real injuries (broken
bones, bruises, etc.). The
torture and humiliation of a
life-sized female doll is not
humorous.
Mr. Kulkis' final quote,
"Women should sympathize
with us men," draws attention
away from the real problem.
In a world where women
control one-hundreth of the
world's property, earn one-
tenth of the world's income,
and perform two-thirds of the

world's working hours, it
becomes quite' apparent that
men need to change their
attitudes toward the treatment,
of women.(Leslie Adams,
Christian Feminists) Women,
are not beachballs or sexual
victims.
We should sympathize with.
the socialization of males, but,
this does not excuse them from
their actions. Mr. Kulkis, I
am not one to say whether or
not you are an evil rapist, but 1
can state that your letter shows
a great lack of knowledge about
the problems women face
living in our society. You
demand sympathy without
giving any.
-Carol Wyman
-November 21

Feminists must open their minds

To the Daily:
In response to Mark Kulkis'
letter ("New feminists attack
men too much," Daily,
11/19/86), I praise him on his
stance. Also, viewing this
movement, provokes me to
label those feminists as very
"hypocritical, insecure people."
I don't want to appear as if I
don't respect the plight of
females in our society, but I
strongly support, on moral
grounds, the "old feminist"

Movement. Females aligned
themselves with intellectuals
- MALES and FEMALES - 4
of their society and have gained,
their rightful place in Japanese
Society. What revolts me
about the "new feminists" is
their "close-mindedness" in not
being able to take constructive
criticisms. If they can do thi
and adapt to the society, instead
of separation from it, they will
get their supposedly "lost"
resnect back again. 4

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan