Page 4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, October 2, 1990 hie IR'0* a a it Rdifan al EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 _ PB2A F AN j> 'QLi vJ> Winer) M- c-.ot1eS 5-1D .)rodent crcv~rS Follow me gLAyS. X t6s*nK jf5 +6is way. N Q, Look out yo'r) NOAH FINKEL Editor in Chief DAVID SCHWARTZ Opinion Editor 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. Alcohol policy. 'U' should not exceed Bush's federal mandate /1 wha~t a.i +, going havc*. $ pictK ( fU? bcau e e re Urv Brsn. tdk i^ ' f? ao r q1 l~ i a e4 d Lb~* Uo ~ 0 YESTERDAY, THE UNIVERSITY IM- plemented a comprehensive policy that will deal with alcohol and illicit drug use on campus. This action is a result of President Bush's National Drug Policy, which ordered publicly funded universities to formulate rules on drug 'and alcohol use. Those public univer- sities not complying with the federal legislation would be in danger of losing all forms of federal funding. Though the new University policy -went into effect yesterday, it has not yet been released for review to students f or the public. Its details are unclear, L since University officials won't discuss the specifics of the policy. According to Vice President for Student Services Mary Ann Swain, the policy will be published sometime later this month. Despite the inability of students to ;aquire specifics about a document which governs their activity, rumors emanating from the Fleming Building .contend that the University policy will "xn much broader than'what is required by Bush's federal directive. k According to the mandate, the Uni- yersity must "impose disciplinary sanctions consistent with local, State, and Federal law, up to and including expulsion, employment termination, and possible referral for criminal pros- cution." Though this policy severely niifringes students' rights by subjecting them to sanctions both by the Univer- sity and the state and federal courts, the University will likely go beyond the bare minimum of the federal mandate. *CP. 44 ThIS 1 YOUR PAIN 0KI M1 r.. Gk Ad The directive suggests that all uni- versities prohibit the "unlawful pos- session, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol by students and em- ployees on its property or as part of its activities." Unfortunately, students should remain concerned that the Uni- versity will extend its policy to cover off-campus events, in keeping with its goal of implementing a comprehensive code of student non-academic conduct. U.. Additionally, it is apparent that the federal government is trying to impose its rules by threatening to withhold money. This blackmail infringes upon the traditional autonomy of most public institutions. Similar heavy-handed tac- tics have long been applied to Pell Grant recipients, who have been forced to promise certain behavior in order to receive their funding. Students should also be wary of how the administration can use this mandate to its own advantage. Its pol- icy amounts to a form of non-academic regulation, which the administration has been trying to implement for along time. Combined with the newly depu- tized campus police force, this will give the University a large amount of power to regulate students' private lives. The administration should publicly explain how they plan to interpret the federal guidelines. They should be codified with no more breadth than is specified, and the University should not be permitted to utilize this policy as a mechanism for inappropriate control. as Mandatory course proposals miss the point By Corey Dolgon, Tracy Ore and Matthew Schultz The LSA faculty is currently consider- ing proposals for a "diversity requirement" and will have an open forum on the matter Oct. 2. As a group committed to both un- dergraduate teaching and social justice, TAs for Social Change (TASC) believes it is important to challenge the assumptions behind these proposals. There are four proposals before the fac- ulty. Though their particulars vary, they all lack the force and commitment requi- site for an effective course on racism and related forms of oppression. The very name of the proposed require- ment denies the full implications of a re- sponsible treatment of oppression. This course was originally part of the student demands during the formation of UCAR (United Coalition Against Racism) in 1987 following serious incidents of racism here on campus. Just as another demand - for the recognition of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday - was watered-down to "Diversity Day," the course on racism has become a course on "diversity." The term diversity masks the history and contemporary reality of oppression and pretends that the struggles of oppressed peoples for justice can be contained and explained by a formless focus on the value of difference. In a similar semantic cop-out, all of the course proposals refer to the problem of "intolerance," a term which hardly Dolgon, Ore and Schultz are members of TAs for Social Change (TASC) and were empowered to write this statement on be- half of the group. TASC is an organization of graduate students at the University. seems to cover the scope of racism in U.S. history. To discuss the slave trade or lynching as manifestations of "intol- erance" is a gross distortion of their meaning and magnitude. The timidity in the wording of these proposals stems from the fact that the col- lege, while paying lip service to the struggle against racism, has yet to make any meaningful commitment to this ef- fort. The college seems untroubled, in fact proud, that the proposed course continues this trend. In a publication for the faculty about the proposed diversity requirement, the dean's office says in no uncertain terms that the course "would not require the hir- ing of new faculty" and "would not require the creation of new courses." The course must be taught by people trained in the study of these subjects or whose background is augmented by university-sponsored faculty workshops prior to teaching the course. The decision about which courses meet the requirement must be made by a board consisting of faculty and students with relevant experience. This board mustl have significant representation by people of color, women, and lesbians, gays and bisexuals. The current proposals do not provide for a serious or intellectually engaged analysis of the courses meeting the "diversity" requirement. They also fail to require or even encourage increased faculty attention to the complexity and subtlety of the problems of racism and oppression. Through the current proposals, the college attempts to jump on the bandwagon of pluralism and multiculturalism without making any real commitment in the bottom-line terms of allocating resources. In other words, nothing is going to change in terms of what is taught or who teaches it; the university will simply call the same curricular offerings by a new name. We believe that any required course which will address racism and oppression in a productive and sophisticated way must include the following three elements, which none of the existing proposals con- tains: N The course must address not only racial oppression but also other forms of oppression including those based on gen- der, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and class. Through the current proposals, the col- lege attempts to jump on the bandwagon of pluralism and multiculturalism without making any real commitment in the both tom-line terms of allocating resources. Yet because the required course will ad- dress, and presumably condemn, "intol- erance," the college hopes to deflect any* criticism of its response to the problem of racism. Because we find this strategy incompat- ible with the original impetus for a course on racism, we as activists and scholars op- pose the diversity requirement and wil continue to work for a substantive curricu- lar treatment of racism and other forms of oppression. e QUE'SIiONS? YEAR, YOU ANA EAT TATEC? %JOHED DID) THE. f&E ' TOy MTE OJR E.A Y ? FS ?OPLE A TOP SATO PCZR Y KtLL.,~-O CmACjcICKM McGlothlin has a history of interfering w 0 -* Ks' 4, ports deficit To the Daily: It is eight years too late, but I am ec- static about the high visibility given the recent front page editorial identifying Nancy McGlothlin as a thorn in the Build- ing for Student Publications. As Daily Librarian when McGlothlin initially walked into 420 Maynard, I real- ized quickly that she had not learned that in order for people to grasp responsibility, they need to be given responsibility. Her dictatorial demeanor, rules and regulations did nothing to raise morale and encouraged discouragement. McGlothlin took responsibility away from hard working, intelligent students who were far more capable and experienced in running the daily activities of the paper. Evidently, this has not changed. The Daily is one of the few places on campus where students can test their wings publicly outside of the Ivory Tower. It is important that all student publications have absolute editorial free- dom as well as maintaining an atmosphere of a vocational training ground, giving students control to the greatest extent pos- sible. I applaud and join Rebecca Cox in her decision to withhold any contributions to the University until Nancy McGlothlin is removed from the Board. I hope that the One Hundredth Year Celebration will col- lectively support this decision as well. Bonnie H. Foley dent Publications, I had many opportuni- ties to interface with McGlothlin. While she was a very efficient, compe- tent person, I am amazed to learn that she. is now so well-organized that she can ac-i complish the extensive, malicious over- sight and aggravation you can charge against her, "though she generally works from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m." Your justifications for slandering Mc- Glothlin and demanding her removal were weak. For example, McGlothlin's pres- ence near the printer for several years threatens article content. I chuckled, be- cause, frankly, the Daily has not even had the printers for very long. As I sorted through the charges, I real- ized that the bottom line for your demands is financial freedom, not editorial freedom. You do not want anyone to exercise over- sight of the Daily's finances. The entire tone of your articles are whiny and pouting. It sounded much like a teenager whose father won't give her the family car so she sulks and tells anyone who will listen how mean he is. Is it re- sponsible journalism to attribute motives to individuals? Last time I checked, re- sponsible journalism meant reporting the facts. Furthermore, Rebecca Cox shared my tenure at the Daily and her interpretation of history is not reliable. I suggest you check with other sources. Gloria Sanak 10001lmn rI i l ,atfia,~tc .Athletic Department faces some tough choices ith Daily editors been brewing for many years, and this is not the first time that the editors of the Daily and the other student publications have unanimously appealed to the Board of Student Publications to remove McGloth- lin from their midst. THE UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC DE-- partment announced last week that it Would record its second-consecutive 4 deficit during the 1990-91 school year. As the department addresses the issue, it should look for ways to solve the problem without University assistance qr cuts in minor programs. : The Athletic Department has enjoyed more financial independence than any other University department. The new Center of Champions, named for for- mer football coach Bo Schembechler, is the latest symbol of the department's v fundraising capabilities. After soliciting sports, and this should not happen. Men's and women's non-revenue sports - all the teams but football and men's basketball - would undoubt- edly be the most vulnerable to fiscal belt-tightening. These teams showcase the same skill, dedication, and determination as the football and basketball teams, and all attempts should be made to retain them. Smaller sports do not generate millions of dollars from TV contracts and gate receipts, yet their financial li- ability does not diminish their impor- tance. In my 10 months as a graduate student representative to the Board (1989-90), I watched McGlothlin and Board Chair Am- non Rosenthal lie, cheat, violate regental by-laws, falsify documents - finally they simply cancelled most of their meetings for the year - all in an effort to deny stu- dent representation on the Board. Then they stacked the supposedly "independent" Board with professors and others who were known for their hostility to the Daily. Now that the Daily has taken its case to the public, I hope it is prepared to per- sist in these efforts. The Board has shown that it does not shame easily, and has few scruples. And Duderstadt can be expected to back these petty tyrants who have served him so well. At its best, the Board is nothing more than a parasitic excrescence (as evidenced by McGlothlin's $44,500 salary). At worst, it is a monster seeking to return to its nefarious and not-to-distant past, when it formally approved or disapproved the Daily's editors. For better or worse, the student press is one of the last refuges of editorial freedom in a society dominated by corporate-con- i I-