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


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.

January 20, 1987 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1987-01-20

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

Tuesday, January 20, 1987

The Michigan Doily

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Vol. XCVII, No. 78 420 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.
Just say maybe

- S 0
* . * S
i - -s?:: ... .
j- - -
- -

In October of 1986 President
Ronald Reagan declared a "national
crusade against drugs". White
Mouse budget proposals for 1987
make it apparent that the crusade
was simply a propaganda
The Reagan administration once
again wants cuts in money
appropriated for domestic
initiatives in order to meet the
deficit ceiling in Graham-Rudman-
Hollings. The budget proposal
includes a significant increase in
military spending.
In the new budget Reagan
performs an about face, cutting
money only recently appropriated.
Reagan signed an anti-drug bill last
October funding drug enforcement
and rehabilitation at state and local
levels. Reagan now wants to
eliminate $225 million earmarked
for those initiatives. This would
sharply reduce his administration's
emphasis on drug-related issues
and destroy what should be the
focal point of the war against
The efforts by the Reagan
administration to suppress drug
trafficking from foreign countries
have been superficial and empty.
The administration still gives large
amounts of military and economic
aid,. not to mention poiticalt

support, to governments and
groups that support the narcotics
industry. Pakistan and the Nicara-
guan Contras are striking examples
of this hypocrisy..
The Reagan approach to
alleviating drug-related troubles is
both shallow and unrealistic.
Reagan believes that complex
narcotics problems can be solved
quickly and easily, whether it
involves giving money over a short
period of time or sending U.S.
military personnel to Bolivia to
participate in relatively small-scale
drug busts.
Drug testing of federal officials
is yet another superficial solution.
Reagan ignores education, which
may be the most crucial weapon
against narcotics. Teaching
Americans about the hazards of
drugs and helping those who have
fallen victim to drugs could prove
key to achieving a solution to the
drug issue.
. The Reagan administration is
going to have to learn that a strong
military is not going to solve all of
the problems of the country.
Spending for drug enforcement and
rehabilitation is necessary and
imperative, the issue of narcotics
plagues all levels of U.S. society
and the administration must deal
with it.



Daily should support language study

Student zone

Residents of the North Burns
Park area want to rezone their
neighborhood to prevent an
expansion of student group
housing. Unless students coalesce
in opposition to this proposal, it is
likely to succeed.
Wednesday morning, the city
plannigg commission voted to ban
group housing in 40 houses in
North Burns Park. This leaves 21
existing group houses in the
neighborhood and five houses
which can still be converted to
group housing. Before the
rezoning can take place, however,
the change must be approved by
the city council.
At the planning commission
hearings, the neighbors'
spokesman was University Vice-
Provost for Information Tech -
nology Douglas Van Houweling.
Van Houweling showed poor
judgement in taking a prominent
role in this effort. Van Houweling
has a right to his opinion; there is,
however, a difference between
supporting rezoning and becoming
a spokesman for it. Van
Houweling, as an administrator, is
identified with the University; in
becoming a spokesman, he lends
the University's name and his
connections gained as a public
official to a cause which is
detrimental to students.
The controversy began over
winter break when 42 households
signed petitions requesting
rezoning-a change which would
primarily affect fraternities,
sororities, and co-ops.
At first, opposition to the ban on

group houses was minimal. The
Inter-Fraternity Council (IFC) was
unable to organize opposition to the
change and the Inter-Cooperative
Council (ICC), which has
expanded far less than the Greek
system, supported the rezoning.
Panhellenic, the sororities' repre-
sentative, should be commended,
for organizing a large group of
women to oppose the change.
This opposition should not be
dampened by the loss at the
planning commission. While the
permanent residents of Burns Park
have demonstrated considerable
political muscle, students have
done little to organize against
rezoning. Students, by virtue of
their numbers, have an opportunity
to wield considerable political
Given the University's
unwillingness to expand campus
housing, the only way to alleviate
the housing crunch is to expand
off-campus. The most effective
way to do this is through large-
group housing. The ICC supports
changing zoning laws in student-
dominated areas to encourage more
group housing there while
supporting the maintenance of
North Burns Park as a mixed
neighborhood. Rather than wait for
rezoning in other neighborhoods,
the ICC should defend the right of
students to live in Burns Park
Even more disturbing is the
apathy of the IFC in contrast to the
well organized opposition of
Panhellenic. If the IFC were to join
Panhellenic in effective opposition
at city council perhaps a fair
compromise could be reached.

To the Daily:
I was disappointed to read
"Reconsider requirements,"
(Daily, 1/15/87) which
recommended that the
University eliminate its
language requirement. Such an
outlook is shortsighted,
parochial, and insular. The
writer asks for sympathy for
the "bewildered"and "confused"
students who must deal with an
"unnecessary language
While a business major,
major seems to be the rage for
large number of undergraduates,
there are many strong
arguments that a traditional
liberal arts education is the best
training for confronting our
rapidly changing world. More
and more universities and
colleges are re-establishing core
or distribution requirements
after the more lax, self-defined
education programs of the late
Sixties and early Seventies.
Learning a foreign language is
To The Daily:
A November 7 letter to you
accuses your September 15th
editorial on the forced
relocation of Navajo Indians in
Arizona ("Big Mountain") of
"untruths and innuendos
concerning Peabody Coal."
The letter comes from Ronald
Greenfield, Director of Public
Affairs, Peabody Holding
Company, Inc. I'd like to
offer a response to each of his
four facts [in the letter in this
same issue of the Daily -
1. "Harrison Loesch - who
was instrumental in shaping
the Interior Department's
propartition policy in 1972 and
who worked on the land dispute
legislation in 1974 as minority
counsel for the Senate Interior
Committee - became an
executive for the Peabody Coal
Company in 1976." (The
Second Long Walk, Jerry
Kammer, University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque,
1980) Peabody hired Loesch
after he had successfully lob -
bied the Interior Department
and the Senate Interior Com -
mittee. Also, regarding lob-

certainly a part of a good
liberal arts education.
The editorial itself
recognizes the high degree of
ethnocentrism that Americans
engage in. "Because of
ethnocentrism, which follows
from an inability to
communicate, Americans are
often confused and bewildered
by that which seems foreign."
Therefore, the editorial argues,
the University should eliminate
the language requirement, so as
'not' to add to this
bewilderment:" Perhaps I am
missing the point, but the
logic of such reasoning seems
to be completely backward. If
we are "confused and
bewildered," should we not
study that which is confusing,
so we may better understand it?
The study of a foreign
language, besides being a
practical skill that can be very
valuable when travelling or
doing business abroad, offers
an insight into the culture and

ideas of other people. These
are people with whom we must
share this earth, and from
whom we might even be able
to learn something interesting
or valuable. For those non-
travelers and more selfish
individuals, it is also generally
recognized that the study of a
foreign language adds to the
understanding and use of the
student's native language. I
can personally attest to all of
the above.
On the grand scale,
experience and expertise in
foreing languages and foreign
cultures is something that can
greatly help the United States
and the world. The better we
are able to understand and
communicate with the people.
of other nations, the better we
will be able to deal with
international problems, such as
trade imbalances and world
peace. Confusion and
bewilderment are not qualities
that are likely to help our



attacks Peabody's
bying: "The Bureau of Re- portions of the Joint Use Area (
clamation's power at Interior of its present population of t
was so great that when citizens traditional Navajos; a major 1
wrote to the Department to ask step in making the coal
about Black Mesa, they were reserves available for strip-
sent a brochure prepared and mining.-I
published by the Peabody Coal I believe Peabody denies C
Company." ("Whose Home on intending to mine Big Moun - f
the Range? Coal Fuels Indian tain because Big Mountain is C
Dispute," Mark Panitch, The the most well known section I
Washington Post, July 21, of the Joint Use Area. If they L
1974.) had no intention of mining any P
2. "To carry the chain to its part of the Joint Use Area they C
conclusion, Peabody Coal would say so.r
strip-mines Black Mesa in the Meanwhile, the Navajo and 5
joint use area under a contract the Hopi Tribal Councils,
approved by the Interior which share subsurface rights F
Department." (Mark Panitch, to the Joint Use Area, and 2
The Washington Post.) which could potentially demand
The Peabody strip-mine is 30 higher royalties on their lease
miles north of Big Mountain. to Peabody, are divided by the
Whether this is "in the Big Relocation program. The low
Mountain area" depends on royalty rate Peabody pays for
one's perspective. The mine the Black Mesarmine allows
extends within the Joint Use them excessive profits. T
Area, from which Navajos are 3. "In a 1966 professional I
being relocated. The Black directory, "Hopi Indian Tribe" F
Mesa coal formation extends and "Peabody Coal Co." are o
under most of the Joint Use both listed as clients of John
Area. It is barely under the S. Boyden's law firm of n
surface and contains 20 billion Boyden, Tibbals, Staten and P
tons of accessible coal. Croft of Utah. III
If successful, the Relocation MARTINDALE-HUBBEL
program will evacuate major LAW DICTIONARY 174515

society and world grow and
prosper, but rather help it be
reactionary and tension-filled.
The writers argue that "[a]n
understanding of foreign
cultures and societies can be
gained from history and
sociology classes." However;
it should be pointed out that
history, sociology, writing
kills, and many other valuable
skills insights may be realized
through the study of foreign
The change recommended by
LSA faculty to require a
:ompetency test of all
incoming students is a good
recommendation on both the
local and grand scales. It
;ounds to me the Daily's
writers are simply bemoaning
a requirement that they find
lifficult to fill.
-Jonathan Foot
January 17
1966). Nineteen-sixty six was:
he year the Black Mesa Coal:
ease was negotiated between
he Hopi Tribal Council and
Peabody Coal company:
DOCKET 196. ("A Policy
Review of the Federal
Government's Relocation of
Navajo Indians Under P.L. 93-=
531 and P.L. 96-305, Hollis
A. Whitson, Arizona Law
Review, Volume 27, Number
2 1985.)
4. "According to James
Ridgeway in his book "Power
Play," Kennecott Copper
which own Peabody) "through
ts interlocks with Zions Utah
Bancorporation. . . Panitch,
The Washington Post)
Kennecott divested itself of
Peabody in 1977, by court
I hope this corrects any
misinformation you may have.
eceived on this subject.
-Tim Shinabarger
January 8"

Peabody Coal responds to the Daily

The Opinion page is looking for
investigative researchers to have their own
watchdog columns on particular local
subjects, such as Ann Arbor housing,
police and the court system. Call 747-
2814 and ask for Karen or Henry.

To The Daily:.
Your September 15 editorial
on Big Mountain repeats many
of the untruths and innuendos
concerning Peabody Coal being
disseminated by the Big
Mountain Support Group.
Some pertinent facts are as
1. Peabody Coal Company is
not involved in any way in the
Federal government's
relocation of Navajo and Hopi

tribal members residing in the
Big Mountain area. Our
company never lobbied nor
hired anyone to lobby on our
behalf for the passage of Public
Law 93-531, which established
the relocation program in
2. Peabody Coal has no leases
to mine coal in the Big
Mountain area and has no
intention of ever mining coal


3. Peabody Coal never
employed John Boyden nor his
law firm.
4. The Mormon Church has
no ownership interest in
Peabody Coal.
We trust you will want to
bring these facts to the
attention of your readers to

correct the misinformation
contained in your editorial.
-Ronald H. Greenfield
Director, Public Affairs
Peabody Holding
Company November 7
Editor's note:
While the Daily welcomes
further correspondence on Big
Mountain, it stands by its
September 15th editorial as

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan