Page 4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, April 2, 1990


CJIJE Bidigan ?Oai1lj
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

State shouldn't allow 'U' police force

ARTS
NEWS
OPINION

763 0379
764 0552
747 2814

PHOTO
SPORTS
WEEKEND

764 0552
747 3336
747 4630

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.

4

I

City.elections

THE UNIVERSITY HAS WANTED TO
establish its own police force for years.
With the help of the Michigan legisla-
ture and proposed bill HB 5165, that
dream (or nightmare) may soon be-
come a reality.
The bill - supported by the Uni-
versity administration - would allow
Michigan's four-year schools to create
their own police forces, free from such
inconvenient restrictions as local con-
trol or accountability. Universities are
currently permitted to establish police
forces only under the auspices of the
local police or sheriff departments.
Presently, the University contracts with
the Ann Arbor Police Department for
campus protection.
The University deputized two of its
officers under the Washtenaw County
sheriff in 1988, which allowed the of-
ficers to carry guns. But campus secu-
rity officers had a poor record of vio-
lence against students even before they
were deputized - so-called Public
Safety officers seriously injured one
student at a peaceful protest of CIA re-
cruitment on campus in 1987.
The administration claims an armed
police force is necessary to protect stu-
dents from crime. But the first person

ever arrested by a deputized University
cop was a student protesting the inau-
guration of President James Duder-
stadt. Since then, deputized officers as-
saulted a number of students who were
protesting at Duderstadt's office after
the release of a falsified report on
Latino students on campus.
The administration wants private
armed cops in part because the Ann
Arbor police department has been
reluctant to crack down on this type of
student behavior.
The University police force would
be accountable only to the University's
Board of Regents - there would be no
local control over its actions, and no
local accountability. The regents are
elected in state-wide votes - usually
by uninformed voters following party
lines - with no effective student influ-
ence. There is no student representation
on the Board of Regents.
Just in time for the legislature's
consideration of HB 5165, the admin-
istration released a definitive treatise on
campus security, as perceived by stu-
dents. The report accurately reflects
student concerns about campus safety
- rape and other violent crimes con-

tinue to be serious problems on and
near campus. But how many times
have campus security officers been on
the verge of stopping a violent crime,
only to be defeated for lack of arms?
Further, the University's endeavors
to create a private police force serve to
exploit the legitimate concerns of
women. Most of the rapes on campus
are acquaintance rapes; giving guns to
University cops will do nothing to
solve this very real problem.
The administration misleadingly
uses its findings to justify the creation
of a private police force, without ex-
plaining how this will improve the
crime problem. More weapons is not
the answer. But even if a shortage of
armed cops were the problem, the pro-
posed police force would not necessar-
ily increase that number, because the
new University cops would only re-
place Ann Arbor police officers. The
change would only release the police
from local, democratic control.
The University is not a democracy.
The University does not have the right
to police constituents who have no
voice in the selection of the bureaucrats
who run it.

Above all else, students
TODAY, VOTERS WILL HEAD TO
the polls to elect five candidates to the
r Ann Arbor City Council; they will also
vote on a number of referenda that
directly affect students.
Above all else, it is important that
students exercise their right to vote and
cast their ballots in today's election.
Though the city is divided into wards
which dilute student power, students
can affect the outcome of the council
races; last year, one council seat was
decided by only five votes.
When voting, students should con-
sider the council's poor record on af-
fordable housing, development, and
solid waste issues. In the past year, the
Republican-dominated council ignored
the plight of Ann Arbor's homeless,
yet voted to allocate money to a multi-
million dollar parking structure. Ann
Arbor's greenspace has continued to
dwindle, and the city has refused to
take necessary measures designed to
reduce the solid waste produced by
Ann Arbor citizens.
These issues, along with a new plan
of civilian oversight of the Ann Arbor
Police Department, are the most press-
ing issues likely to be faced by the
council in upcoming months. Ann Ar-
bor voters should consider these issues
before heading to the polls.
What follows are the Daily's en-
dorsements for today's election:
First Ward
/ Elect LARRY HUNTER
Hunter, a four-term incumbent of
the strongly-Democratic First Ward,
has been one of the few council mem-
bers to consistently voice support for
student causes. And though he hasn't
done enough to fight the Republican
majority's opposition to low-income
housing, Hunter would be a better
choice than Republican challenger
Isaac-Jacobein Campbell.
Hunter has also supported recycling
reforms, affirmative action, and a re-
duction of Ann Arbor development.
His criticism of police excesses is also
well-documented. Hunter is a clear
choice for the First Ward.
Second Ward
/ Elect VALERIE ACKERMAN
The Daily has already endorsed
Democrat/Green Party candidate Va-
lerie Ackerman over the incumbent,
Republican Ingrid Sheldon. Ackerman
has a strong environmental agenda, in-
cluding support for Proposal A and in-
creased recycling, and staunchly sup-
ports a civilian oversight board of the
police department. She also supports
Proposal C, which would institute a
zone of reproductive freedom in Ann
Arbor.
Sheldon is running for her second
term and has not served students' con-
cerns while on the council. She has fa-
vored parking structures and a more
commerce-centered focus for Ann Ar-
bor. Ackerman, a social worker, un-
derstands the problems of the people of
Ann Arbor and would serve the city
well.
Third Ward
/ Elect LIZ BRATER
One-term incumbent Liz Brater has
served Ann Arbor admirably during her
first term and deserves to be re-elected
to the council. Brater's stance on low-
income housing could be strengthened
and the Daily frowns on her support of
putting the pot law up for a referen-

dum, but Brater should certainly be
supported over her opponent.
Republican challenger David Copi is
a local landlord. His biggest draw to
students is that in 1968 he helped se-
cure the right for University students to
vote in Ann Arbor elections. Copi,
however, is a well-known landlord
whose negative practices were high-
lighted in the Daily's Weekend
Magazine on Feb. 23; Copi has
strongly opposed any type of rent con-
trol or low-income housing, and has a

should be sure to vote
Fourth Ward
/ Elect JAMES MARSH
Marsh, a third-year University Law
student, is the only student running for
a council seat. Marsh's strong stand on
the environment and solid waste issues
has earned him the endorsement of the
Green Party, and as a student, Marsh
would logically stand up for student
concerns on the council.
Marsh has also voiced his opposi-
tion to a referendum which would in-
crease the city's $5 marijuana law,
which the council voted to place on to-
day's ballot.
Marsh, a Democrat, is running
against Republican incumbent and Dan
Quayle look-alike Mark Ouimet, who
has shown no desire to improve Ann
Arbor's housing or waste problems.
Studentshshould clearly vote for
James Marsh.
Fifth Ward
Do NOT elect Tom Richardson
Richardson, the Republican incum-
bent, has consistently shown insensi-
tivity to Ann Arbor's homeless comu-
nity. His votes against affordable hous-
ing and in favor of parking structures
are made worse by his continued belit-
tling of the plight of the homeless.
In addition, Richardson has refused
to support implementation of policies
designed to reduce the amount of solid
waste in Ann Arbor. Voters should not
elect Richardson to another term.
/ Vote YES on Proposal A
Proposal A is a ballot referendum
that would issue a $28 million bond to
help control Ann Arbor's waste prob-
lems and to increase recycling.
Proposal A has three main pur-
poses. First, it would provide for the
weekly collection of recyclables. Each
residence would be given two plastic
containers in which to place recyclable
materials for city pick-up. Second, re-
cycling would allow the city more time
to use the Ann Arbor landfill before
being forced to close the landfill and
contract a private one. Third, the city
would be able to start cleaning up the
Ann Arbor landfill.
The bond issue would only cost
Ann Arbor homeowners $67 per year
in 1990 and would decrease each year
until it bottoms out at half that cost.
The best news for students is that they
are usually not homeowners and would
not have to pay for the bond directly,
while still voting to help Ann Arbor
environmentally.
/ Vote NO on Proposal B
Proposal B would raise the fine for
marijuana possession from $5 to $25
for a first offense. It would provide
still higher fines for subsequent of-
fenses. The referendum, if approved,
would also change the classification of
a pot possession crime from a civil in-
fraction to a misdemeanor.
Ann Arbor has long been known for
its $5 pot law, which says the city can-
not severely punish people for the vic-
timless crime of smoking a little weed.
Past attempts to raise the fine have all
been defeated, and this attempt should
be voted down as well.
/ Vote YES on Proposal C
Proposal C would designate Ann
Arbor as a Zone of Reproductive Free-
dom, and would provide a $5 fine for

obtaining an abortion in Ann Arbor
should abortion every be banned in
Michigan. The measure is largely sym-
bolic, and would show legislators in
Lansing that Ann Arbor voters strongly
oppose restrictive abortion legislation.
While voting yes on Proposal C
doesn't end the fight for women's
choice, it sends an appropriate mes-
sage. Voters should, of course, to con-
tinue to support the pro-choice move-
ment.
/ Vote YES on Proposal F
Proposal F would require the the


Concerned Faculty urges postponing vote until Fall

By Buzz Alexander, Elizabeth
Anderson, Cecilia Green-Gosa,
Pat Gurin, Beverley Rathcke,
John Vandermeer, and Tom
Weisskopf
Last year,'Concerned Faculty, the
United Coalition Against Racism, and
other organizations advocated a course re-
quirement that focused on "Racism in the
United States." We urged that the adminis-
tration of this requirement be delegated to
a board of academic specialists that also
included students active in the anti-racism
movement.
The persistent and increasing racism in
the U.S. and on campus require the urgent
attention of the university community,
especially since it threatens our ability to
carry out our educational mission. We
must take dramatic steps that will result in
a significant change in the educational
climate on campus.
A required course of study devoted to
exploring the causes and consequences of
racism, and that also enables students to
understand the perspectives of people of
color, is indispensable to creating an at-
mosphere of genuinely free and open in-
quiry on campus, and would be an impor-
The authors are members of Concerned
Faculty.

tant spur to creating a climate that would
reduce and eventually end racism in the
wider society.
Racism is such a complex topic that
the supervision of such a requirement
should not be left exclusively to the LSA
Curriculum Committee, whose members
rarely have academic qualifications in this
field. Just as the composition requirement
is supervised by academic experts in the
ECB, so should the requirement in the
study of racism be supervised by a board
of scholars with demonstrated expertise in
the field.
The study of racism and other forms of
discrimination is a scholarly enterprise,
not a "pop" subject about which any gen-
eralist can make judgements. A board for
the new requirement should also include
student representatives with experience in
the anti-racist movement; the history of
racism on campus has provided ample evi-
dence that such students are often the most
alert to subtle institutional as well as
overt forms of racism.
We are disappointed that the current
proposal for a "diversity requirement" by
the LSA Curriculum Committee includes
neither an analysis of the problem it is
supposed to address, nor an argument for
the need to address it through a require-
ment, nor a defense of the proposal show-

ing how it could meet the problem at
hand. We do not believe that the proposal
is adequate to meet the educational and cul-
tural problems of racism which we have
identified.
Proposal A, the strongest of the Cur-
riculum Committee's proposals, appears
to leave open the possibility that a course
could satisfy the requirement even if its
principal focus lay outside of issues di-
rectly concerning race, ethnicity, and
racism. The proposal would therefore do
little to significantly change the education
on campus.
We urge the faculty to postpone the
vote on the Curriculum Committee's pro-
posal until the fall term, because it has
been presented to the faculty without sup-
porting arguments, because few faculty are
adequately informed of the impending
vote, and because there is little time to
discuss its merits and defects before the
end of the term.
We also urge the faculty when a vote
does arise, to support amendments to the
following effects: that the principal orien-
tation of qualifying courses be on issues
directly concerning race, racism, and eth-
nicity, and that the supervision of the re-
quirement be delegated to individuals with
appropriate expertise in these fields.

Don't be fooled by a weak attempt to combat racism

By Michael Wilson
Students of color have historically
played important roles in the struggle for
racial equality in this country and around
the world. Once again the University of
Michigan is trying co-opt this struggle
and maximize their public image while
minimizing the institutional change nec-
essary to bring about racial equality on
this campus.
It was in the tradition of struggle that
in the spring of 1987 students from
UCAR demanded that the University adopt
a graduation requirement on race and
racism. Students from UCAR, members
of Concerned Faculty, as well as faculty
from around the University worked for
over a year to create a proposal for such a
requirement.
Now, in reaction to our efforts, the cur-
riculum committee of the College of LSA
has put forth a proposal that would effec-
tively sidestep the issue of racism. Their
proposal will be voted on today by the
LSA faculty.
Wilson is a member of the United Coali-
tion Against Racism.

In the original proposal, any course
that could meet such a requirement would
have to contain the following elements: a
critical analysis of the concept of race; a
description of historical and contemporary
forms of racism, including institutional
forms; exposure to the experiences of peo-
ple of color through literature or other
means; discussions of some of the com-
peting explanations of the origins and per-
sistence of racism; an analysis of parallels
and contrasts between racism and other
forms of oppression, especially sexism;
and the application of this knowledge to
an analysis of present forms of racism
with a discussion of the methods to make
change.
Most importantly, UCAR believes that
it is essential for such a course to have the
interdisciplinary focus few existing
courses have. The proposal from the Cur-
riculum Committee has no guidelines to
speak of except that a course deal with
"race and ethnicity" and states that this
element doesn't even have to be the major
focus of such a course.
One goal of the original proposal was
not only to challenge the University's

racist structure and practices, but to revise
the way in which courses and requirements
are administered. The original proposal
calls for a seven faculty-two student com-
mittee to oversee this requirement, includ-
ing a faculty member from the Center for
Afro-American and African Studies, the
Latino Studies Program, and the Women's
Studies program.
Rather than employing the institu-
tional structure which perpetuates racism,
UCAR feels that the course must be
rooted in the faculty and student communi-
ties most affected by racism, and should be
informed by the collective experiences and
insights of those communities as well.
The almost exclusively white curriculum
committee would root such a requirement,
not surprisingly, in their own committee.
Any attempt to deal with racism
through their proposal would be futile and
would only serve to confuse the issue by
glossing over the surface without ever
challenging the foundations that support
and perpetuate racism. We must force this
university to become a place where stu-
dents can become enlightened and learn to
be critical thinkers, not simply apologists
for the status quo.

.


Support Proposal A
To the Daily:
Start off Earth Week on a provocative
note. In the spirit of thinking globally and
acting locally, take a few minutes on
April 2 to vote for the Environmental
bonding proposition, known as Proposal
A. The bond is a positive step towards
more responsible management of Ann Ar-
bor waste steam.
Of the revenue generated by the bond,
32 percent would expand recycling efforts.
A Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) is
planned which separates recyclables from

from multi-family dwellings, and supports
a composting facility.
Thirty-six percent of Proposal A is re-
sponsible for cleaning up Phase I and
Phase II of the landfill to protect our
groundwater. Phase III would be developed
to handle non-recyclables and absorb the
remaining 32 percent of the bond money.
Passage of the bond would be a com-
mitment to action. What a victory for
Earth Week, the community, and the stu-
dents! The few minutes you take to vote
"yes" on Proposal A could mean more
convenient and pervasive recycling!
Carolyn Becking

Assault Prevention and Awareness Center
has reconsidered the use of the term PMS,
for Progressive Male Syndrome and has
decided that it belittles the real problem of 9
Premenstrual syndrome experienced by
many women. Pre-menstrual syndrome is
a disease that affects 80% of all women. It
is a serious condition that needs to be
treated as one. Thus, we do not think that
it is appropriate to use it to describe pro-
gressive men.
We still believe that progressive men
often do not truly integrate their new be-
liefs into their lifestyles. For example, a
man might be anti-sexist in his beliefs,