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.