Page 4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, March 12, 1990
(betidrigan ailI
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
ARTS
NEWS
OPINION
763 0379
764 0552
747 2814
PHOTO
SPORTS
WEEKEND
764 0552
747 3336
747 4630
R AON FOR(.c T /vi~j,
tOBE& ?']E M6
!WT wF 17-
Q)(LT+
TF45RTRcw GER,
A OT-N C MctON DIDl
-114c0SE Vr' vne
,
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.
I
Copeland's reprieve
Lifting the suspension shows an ugly desire to win
AS STUDENTS LEFT ANN ARBOR A
week and a half ago for Spring Break,
Michigan hockey player Todd Cope-
land was offered a reprieve by Uni-
versity President James Duderstadt.
Copeland had been suspended indefi-
nitely from the team after harassing
members of Kappa Kappa Gamma
sorority and destroying sorority prop-
erty. Duderstadt, hockey coach Red
Berenson, and Interim Athletic Director
Jack Weidenbach have all behaved
shamefully throughout this ordeal.
Copeland's violent behavior in two
separate incidents warrant his removal
from the team, a decision which should
have been made by Berenson. Cope-
land's pattern of harassment, illustrated
vividly in last month's attack, indicate
the need for Berenson to take strong
action. His refusal to bar Copeland
from the team indicates an unwilling-
ness to take serious action against his
own players.
AD Weidenbach also neglected to
take action, so Duderstadt stepped in
and issued a directive saying Copeland
would be suspended indefinitely from
the team. After an "investigation,"
Duderstadt lifted the suspension,
permitting Copeland to play in time for
the CCHA playoffs, in which Michigan
finished third.
It seems a winning-at-all-costs men-
tality has taken a strong hold at the
University of Michigan. Terrorizing a
sorority apparently isn't serious
enough to keep a star player from par-
ticipating in a big game; last week,
Copeland scored a go-ahead goal in an
important win over Western Michigan.
The fact that winning takes precedence
over off-ice activity indicates mis-
guided priorities on the part of the
coach, the athletic department, and the
University as a whole.
In addition, Duderstadt's interfer-
ence has larger implications. With ath-
letic departments around the nation call-
ing for more autonomy from college
presidents, one would expect coaches
and athletic administrators to demon-
strate their ability to make the tough
decisions. But when it came down to
making a hard choice, Coach Berenson
and AD Weidenbach were blinded by a
desire to win at all costs. If athletic de-
partments want autonomy, they'll have
to do a better job of demonstrating their
ability to control players and focus less
on a relentless drive to win.
Copeland's actions were serious, a
fact presumably recognized by Beren-
son and the athletic department. But
expecting the situation to disappear by
offering free hockey tickets to
Copeland's victims doesn't address the
real problem - Copeland. Making
half-hearted retribution only masks a
desire to cover up the real issue so the
hockey team can notch another victory.
The fact that Copeland is back on
the roster in no way ends the respon-
sibility of Coach Berenson and AD
Weidenbach. If the athletic department
wants respect and autonomy, it will
have to do a better job of disciplining
players, both now and in the future.
Anything else only shows an overrid-
ing desire to win - even at the ex-
pense of academics or off-ice behavior.
ZOLWT TTO
Y, ,;, 't
~
1
13
A/k
0J
" r
_.--
.
Concerned Faculty should change name
To the Daily:
It seems as though the "Concerned
Faculty" have presumptuously mislabeled
themselves in "Concerned faculty to dis-
cuss the wider role of universities"
(2/27/90). I think a more apt title for their
organization would be "the zealous Left of
the U of M" or at least "concerned left-
ists." You see, I find their title disturbing
because I hope to one day become an aca-
demic myself and yet Iam not on the left.
I am, moreover, (and hope to be in the fu-
ture) "concerned"; that is, concerned about
world events, American foreign policy,
justice and liberty.
Perhaps these faculty members do not
believe it possible to be truly concerned
and not be on the left. As a concerned
member of the faculty I would favor over-
throwing the Sandinista government, and I
would favor fighting left-wing rebels in El
Salvador. I would think it an honorable act
to assist the President and his cabinet in
fighting communism and insuring liberty
for people all over the world. I would also
be concerned about Socialism and its pro-
ponents, too, because I find Socialism to
be an essentially unjust system, both in
theory and practice.
Yet these views would be no doubt ab-
horred by the truly "concerned faculty" at
the U of M. It is no wonder that in their
piece they fail to acknowledge the many
crimes committed in Central America on
the part of the Left which earn the tacit
support of American academic apologists.
criticism.
Unfortunately, President Duderstadt
showed us all once again that he is a
spineless man lacking in any true in-
tegrity. These faculty members not only
see a present lack of "free inquiry" at the
University, they wish to keep it that way
so that everyone can be taught to preach
according to the prevailing leftist ortho-
Perhaps these faculty members do not believe it
possible to be truly concerned and not be on the
left.
- Ian Beilin,
LSA senior
Forcing President Duderstadt to make a
political gesture is a fine revelation of the
concerned faculty's tactics. They do not
care whether he agrees with their point of
view or not, just as long as he toes the
correct line. They do not care for civilized
debate, nor do they respect human beings
as independent and free thinkers. Perhaps
they are afraid to open themselves up to
doxy. The more concerned this zealous
part of the faculty and its enthusiastic stu-
dent followers become, the more the U of
M will resemble a police state of the
mind.
Ian Beilin
LSA senior
* Don't move shanties
To the Daily:
The Daily printed a letter, "Shanties
stifle debate" (2/28/90), by Regent
Thomas A. Roach, who asked whether the
shanties on the Diag promote discussion
or, rather, stifle it. He was wondering
whether the shanties might actually min-
imize open discourse by serving as substi-
tutes for real debate. As a student who has
spent nearly four years on this campus, I
feel qualified to respond by offering my
impression.
I first noticed the shanties while walk-
ing to class early in my freshman year,
and upon noticing them I began to ask
people why they were there. This initial
curiosity gave rise to some productive dis-
cussions which spawned a real interest in
the issues of political oppression. What
captured my attention was the fact that
students had made the effort to build
shanties. I felt obligated to take the time
to think seriously about the issues because
people obviously cared enough about them
to go to quite a bit of trouble. At article
in the Daily or a poster on a bulletin board
wouldn't have given me the same impres-
sion.
Moreover, articles and posters don't
have any permanence. The shanties stand
in the center of the campus as a constant
reminder of urgent problems which really
peed to be addressed. Every time I walk
through the Diag, I am reminded not to
get so caught up in my own sheltered
lifestyle that I forget about oppressed peo-
ple in other parts of the world.
No, the shanties do not stifle discus-
sion. They promote social consciousness
and public dialogue. Were we to move
them to the Student Publications Building
as Roach suggests, we would be removing
them from a main thoroughfare and plac-
ing them in a less central location where
fewer people would see them.
:I hope that the Regents will always
recognize and respect the importance of the
Diag as a public forum, and I pray that the
Ingalls Mall improvement will not inter-
fere with it.
Illise M. Schulman
LSA Senior
comments which make it sound almost
apologetic."
I am concerned that the quote, taken
out of context, may be interpreted to mean
that an apology should not be made to
these faculty. My statement referred to the
wording of the resolution; that apologies
were being made for presenting the resolu-
tion and that the resolution incorporated
excuses for the earlier University action.
Since I believe that we should accept that
a wrong was done and openly apologize, I
hope that this clarification will be pub-
lished.
Roy Penchansky
Professor of Health Services
Name stadium for Bo
To the Daily:
Everyone knows that Michigan sta-
dium has a long streak of consecutive sell-
out crowds, and who do we owe this suc-
cess to? Bo Schembechler. We have named
buildings on this campus after great hero's
in Michigan history, like Yost and Crisler
arenas, so why not give back to Bo what
he gave to all of us - Michigan stadium.
It should be renamed in honor of him,
since he practically built it. Let's not
wait 20 years until he dies; let him know
how much this university appreciates his
work now.
Rob Allaer
LSA sophomore
Fight state parental
consent abortion bill
To the Daily:
In response to Governor Blanchard's
promised veto of legislation, passed by
both the Michigan House and the Senate,
which would require young women under
the age of 17 to have parental consent to
get an abortion, anti-choice forces have
organized a citizen's initiative.
A citizen's initiative requires the Right
to Life to gather about 192,000 signatures
in 180 days. If completed by the deadline,
the proposal is voted on by the House and
Senate and becomes law by a simple ma-
jority. A citizen's initiative is not subject
reality, many young women find it im-
possible to talk to their parents about sex.
Parental consent legislation would not
make families communicate any better or
improve family life. Absent parents, abu-
sive parents, and parents who simply can-
not communicate with their children
would still exist. Parental consent laws
will make it more difficult, often impos-
sible, for young women to decide what
will happen to their own bodies.
I am not supposing that the decision to
terminate a pregnancy should be one made
by oneself alone. Parental consent laws,
however, make a fundamental assumption
about who should aid in the woman's de-
cision making. In reality, many other
people may be more important to the
woman than her parents. Some women
may want to involve their sexual partner,
friends or teachers in the decision. Legis-
lation should not limit a women's right to
choose who has an influence in her life.
It is essential that the pro-choice voice
be heard over the Right to Life's citizens'
initiative. We must let Governor Blan-
chard and Rep. Bullard know that we sup-
port all women's right to choose.
Julie K. Stapel
LSA sophomore
Member, Feminist Women's Union
Don't ignore bigotry
To the Daily:
The Lesbian/Gay Law Students' bul-
letin board was vandalized last weekend.
The Jewish Law Students condemn this
most recent act of violence against the gay
community. It would be easy, indeed
expedient, to say nothing. But we cannot
ignore acts of bigotry and intolerance in
our own community.
A German Pastor made the following
comment after World War II:
They came for the Jews, and I did not
protest,for I was not a Jew;
Then they came for the Gypsies, and I
did not speak out, for I was not a Gypsy;
Then they came for the homosexuals,
and I did not object, for I was not a homo-
sexual;
Then they came for me. And there was
no one left to protest.
on us all. Because at one time, all Ameri-
cans were minorities. This country was
founded by outcasts from Europe, who in
turn made outcasts of Native Americans
and Africans.
The placing of Japanese-Americans in
prison camps during World War II and the
police'murder of civil rights workers in
the early 1960s suggest that the 20th
Century American hatred can go much
farther than ripping down posters. Don't
let it.
David Nacht, chair
David Glaser
Michael Weisberg,
co-presidents
Jewish Law Students
Moving shanties is
simply censorship
To the Daily: -
A few points in Thomas A. Roach's
letter on Wednesday ("Shanties stifle de-
bate" 2/28/90) contain flaws which ought
to be pointed out. Roach claims that "... it
can be argued that if erecting a shanty is a
form of political expression, so is tearing
it down." While it may be true that some
see this as a proper form of expression, I
am sure that others of us see this for what
it is - censorship.
Censorship, however, is no way to
stem political debate. Rather, destroying
something which expresses the opposing
viewpoint signifies that one has no facts
with which to refute that viewpoint, and
thus tries to cover up that which proves
his view to be false. Furthermore, sug-
gesting to move the shanties to the front
of the Student Publications Building is
just as bad as destroying them. I have se-
rious doubts that more than a handful of
students have walked past that building
since their tour during orientation. True,
the shanties are ugly, but so are the issues
for which they stand for.
If the University chooses to ban the
shanties from the Diag, so be it; but in
doing so, we must voluntarily give up our
outward appearance as a diverse university
at which full freedom to express political
beliefs is encouraged.
Forbes took, not gave*
To the Daily:
Malcolm Forbes didn't give to our so-
ciety, he took. If "gave so much... "as the
article in the Daily noted (2/26/90), how
did he end up with between 400 million
and 1 billion dollars?
He inherited a good deal of money and
parlayed it into an empire by exploiting
the inherently unequal system of our coun-
try. Let us not forget that basically he was
a selfish, avaricious man, who gave "a
lot" only when he had enough to live an
imperial lifestyle.
He was quoted as saying, "It's not how
much money you have, but what you do
with it." With 53 motorcycles, many
yachts, hot-air balloons, mansions, and a
2 million dollar birthday he was able to
enjoy himself. His life was an orgy of
conspicuous consumption and over-indul-
gence. Yes Malcolm, it is clear you knew
how to spend your money and suck the
very marrow out of life.
When the Soviets accused Forbes of
being a Capitalist Tool, a label he flaunted
proudly from many of his possessions,
they were wrong. He just used our system
very effectively as a tool to get his own
pot of gold. He was a Capitalist Fool, ex-
emplifying many of the hypocritical val-
ues of the American dream.
His final accolade might be that he was
one of the most celebrated businessmen of
the 80s. In fact, Forbes was a great role
model. Three people who probably best
emulated his "dream" are Ivan Boesky,
Micheal Milken and Donald Trump.
I believe Forbes deserved to have a
happy and successful life, more successful
than most because of his innate talents.
But when human beings are denied the
essentials of life - for instance food,
housing, a certain level of education and
health care - by an economic elite, of
which Forbes was a leader, then the values
of the system, and each individual who
participates in the inequality, must be
questioned.
The answer is clear. We need to provide
a certain level of living conditions for all
people, regardless of their race, religion,
gender, interests, or abilities. Forbes failed
this test.