Page 4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, October 16, 1990

it t tdtn B s
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

Viewpoint
C91L-ouf s To
LEo2IJST
4FM1~*

)LuUT6Ly

SCU:

YOc}

To

Y1

OUR ON/

WNAbE

r'

NOAH FINKEL
Editor in Chief

DAVID SCHWARTZ
Opinion Editor

t

ST U? A!
WE, TrULI</oG!

4 --

15

Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board. A ll other cartoons,
signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.
From the Daily
Fighting 'U' cops
More students need to get involved in movement

I

- TWTHE
F&5,A
I K -p-c
WIFE OC)

LAST MONTH, MORE THAN 250
students packed Regents' Plaza in
protest of the implementation of a
University police force. While the
demonstration was successful in
bringing public attention to the situation
at hand, the input of a far greater
number of students will be necessary in
order for the campaign against
deputization to be successful.
Although more than 100 students
are already involved in the movement,
many more need to take an active role.
While gathering 250 students for a
protest against the University is a be-
ginning, the fight against a campus po-
lice force has to be broad-based and
must include a more substantial number
of people.
The Michigan Student Assembly
Students' Rights Commission meets
every Tuesday at 6 pm in the MSA
chambers - on the third floor of the
Union - to organize the opposition to
University deputization. Educational
campaigns on campus are already in
operation, speakers are being brought
to address the question of student
rights, and further plans for direct ac-
tion, such as last Friday's "chalk-in"
on the Diag, are being planned.
The involvement of existing student
organizations is also crucial to the suc-
cess of the movement. Leaders of stu-
dent groups should call MSA to find
...Deputization is only one
THE UNIVERSITY'S HURRIED EF-
fort to implement its own police force
is one in a series of moves that doesn't
bode well for students. The new
campus cops are merely an
enforcement mechanism for an
undoubtedly soon-to-be-released code
of student non-academic conduct.
Since President James Duderstadt
was selected to take over the reins as
head of the University in 1988, there
has been a steady push by the adminis-
tration to gain ever-increasing control
of students' out-of-the-classroom be-
havior.
First, the University attempted to
implement a so-called "anti-discrimina-
tion" policy, which subjected students
to sanctions for uttering remarks which
could be deemed racist, sexist, homo-
phobic, or in some other way offen-
sive. Though this policy covered
classroom conduct, it also extended to
non-academic settings.
The affront to free speech inherent
in the policy was clear, and a federal
judge ruled it unconstitutional follow-
ing a suit brought by the American
Civil Liberties Union. The University
has since written an "interim" policy
that has been in place for more than a
year. The new policy, like the old one,
provides sanctions for students based
on what they say outside the class-
room, clearly an infringement of stu-
dents' legitimate First Amendment
rights.
As this saga was transpiring, the
University was also busy at work on a
policy governing student protest. Now,
students can protest on the Diag using
loud-speaker equipment only between
noon and 1 pm, and the University can
punish students academically if a
demonstration exceeds the administra-
tion-imposed limitations. The Univer-
sity is also working on a bylaw that
would make some forms of expres-
sion, like shanties on the Diag, a viola-
tion of University policy.
Earlier this month, the University
implemented a policy on drug and al-
cohol use, which again subjects stu-

dents to University sanctions for non-
adademic behavior. The policy is
broader than the federally-imposed
mandate, and could be used to disci-
pline students for drinking or smoking
pot at a fraternity party or on the Diag.
These policies - governing dis-
criminatory speech, protests, and drugs
- are merely pieces of a larger Uni-

out how they can get involved.
Last Thursday, at a small, poorly
publicized forum on campus safety or-
ganized by the American Association of
University Professors, students voiced
their opposition to deputized officers
and demanded that the administration
set up public forums to discuss student
concerns. University Director of Busi-
ness Operations William Krumm stated
during the forum that there could be no
discussion of an issue that the regents
have already decided.
The University's attitude shows
they have little more concern for stu-
dent safety than they have for students'
input. Administrators avoid public dis-
cussion of the issue with good reason
- any open discussion is likely to
show that an armed police force, ac-
countable to the regents alone, will not
make students safer, but merely in-
crease the likelihood of their harass-
ment and intimidation.
Whether it is through the suppres-
sion of campus activism and free
speech or through the high cost of the
project which will certainly end up on
students' tuition bills, deputization is
an issue that affects all students. Thus,
all students must heed the call to get in-
volved, because without more student
opposition, armed campus cops will
soon be roaming the campus.
r piece of the puzzle
an all-encompassing code of conduct
from the outset.
Instead, he has implemented one
piece at a time, in the process pitting
students against one another and mak-
ing them lose sight of the University's
ultimate purpose. The anti-discrimina-
tion rules divided students, some of
whom were willing to accept any at-
tempt to curb racial tensions on cam-
pus, even if such attempts resulted in
the loss of First Amendment freedoms.
Some students reacted positively to
the protest policy, hoping it could re-
strict unruly student protesters; the free
expression implications again became a
point of debate. Finally, with the drug
and alcohol policy, many students
think the University should be able to
control illegal student behavior, even to
the point of letting the University de-
cide just what is and is not legal.
This debate has resulted in a student
body with its guard down. Rather than
opposing the concept of University in-
terference into students' out-of-the-
classroom conduct, students are help-
ing the University solidify its own
stand.
Obviously, all students, as citizens,
are subjected to certain rules; among
them are rules about types of permitted
expression and the use of drugs or al-
cohol. These rules are made by city,
state and federal officials, and are in-
terpreted by the court system.
In extending these rules and limiting
students' rights, the University is
claiming that it, instead of existing laws
and courts, can determine what kinds


r , It . I- I '

Join the fight for the Clean Air Act

0

By Carolyn Becking
If you think we have a Clean Air Act,
you're wrong. The 1970 Clean Air Act is
currently being re-approved by Congress.
When Congress goes home on Oct. 20, all
bills yet to be approved will die, including
the Clean Air Act.
Both the House and Senate have ap-
proved separate versions of the bill and
have passed it on to Conference where dif-
ferences between the Senate and House
must be worked out.
The latest update from U.S. PIRG is
that agreement has been reached on sec-
tions concerning air toxins, acid rain, and
auto emissions, although no specific de-
tails have been released. The resulting bill
may not have the teeth we hope it will,
but any Clean Air Act is better than no
Act at all.
Without a Clean Air Act, polluters
would have an unlimited license to pump
Becking is a senior in the School of
Natural Resources. The MSA Environ-
mental Coalition is made up of ENACT-
UM, PIRGIM, Rainforest Action Move-
ment and Recycle U-M.

toxins into our atmosphere, contributing
to global warming, smog, acid rain and
health hazards.
Once through Conference, both House
and Senate must approve the bill before it
reaches President Bush's desk. To vote on
the bill, Thomas Foley, Speaker of the

are organizing demonstrations to impress
upon Foley the importance of the Clean
Air Act and the urgency of scheduling the
bill for Congressional decision on
Wednesday.
The Michigan Student Assembly En-
vironmental Coalition has organized a

The latest update from U.S. PIRG is that agreement
has been reached on sections concerning air toxins,
acid rain, and auto emissions, although no specific
details have been released. The resulting bill may not
have the teeth we hope it will, but any Clean Air Act
is better than no Act at all.

House, must schedule it on the floor cal-
endar in both House and Senate.
The bill would be presented on
Wednesday, but there are many other is-
sues competing for Congress' attention.
Foley must feel public pressure to sway
his decision.
Student activists throughout the nation

"Die-in" on the Diag for Tuesday, October
16 at noon. The media will be present to
communicate our message to Washington.
Come join us as we let our voice be heard!
The combined efforts of students across
the U.S. will be a powerful influence on
Foley's decision.

Don't attack police Headline skews facts

To the Daily:
It was with a great deal of outrage that
I read your alleged "cartoon" of 9/25/90
which stated that beatings (of students)
were under the jurisdiction of the Ann
Arbor Police. I'm tired of the disrespectful
attitude the Daily has repeatedly fostered
toward the field of law enforcement.
Police officers in general are over-
worked, under-paid dedicated individuals
who put themselves in danger repeatedly
Qrder to protect their communities.
My father was a Detroit Police Officer
for 25 years. In that time he was almost
killed during the Detroit riots, cited for
bravery during a shootout with dangerous
felons, and called upon to control the 1984
World Series riot.
Other family friends have been stabbed
(luckily, a bulletproof vest saved his life),
shot at (luckily, they missed on all four
occasions), and, tragically, killed in the
line of duty.
Perhaps your cartoonist would like to
explain how evil police officers are to the
young man down the street who has only
an American flag by which to remember
his father - the flag that draped his fa-
ther's coffin.
Darren Schumacher
University Medical Student
Article misrepresents
recent clash in Israel
To the Daily:
I found the article titled "Students hold
vigil for Palestinians" (10/11/90) very
misleading. The article quotes Zeid
Zalatimo, a member of the General Union
of Palestinian Students, as saying, "The
massacre has not been reported accurately
in the American media." It then says, "The
clash occurred after Palestinians threw
stones at an Israeli military post above the
Wailing Wall, Jerusalem's holiest site for
Jews."
How inaccurate can one be? The
Palestinians were not throwing stones at
an Israeli military post. No, they were

To the Daily:
The headline "Jews try to assert control
of Mount" (10/12/90) demonstrates either
gross ignorance by the Daily or deliberate
and false propaganda.
The Mount refers to the area in which
the Second Temple stood in ancient times.
Today, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa
Mosque both stand in this area. The West-
ern Wall, in which your article asserts the
government issued a call to assert control
over, is the last remnant of the Temple's
outer wall, and is the holiest site in Ju-
daism.
However, because of religious law, the
gathering area for worship is to the west
of the Western Wall, that is, outside the
area known as the Temple Mount. Any
other alternative would invite the possibil-
ity of Jewish worshippers treading on the
ancient site of the Tabernacles, a possibil-
ity that the Israeli rabbinical authorities
would not allow.
Second, the government does station
police forces in the Mount area for the
purposes of crowd control. However, it is
Muslim authorities who can be seen polic-
ing the area and who regulate entrance to
he Islamic holy sites.
For Jews to "try to assert control of
Mount" would unleash a response which
mocks the seasonal calls by Arab leaders
for a jihad against Israel. In such a sce-
nario, you would see Arab differences dis-
solve as Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian soldiers
march side-by side, Saudi Arabians with
Libyans, Sunnis with Shiites.
David Saperstein
Daily was insensitive
to German people
To the Daily:
Regarding "Reunification II" (10/4/90),
can it really be true that the Daily is so
full of anti-German resentment and popu-
lar clich6s?
The editorial completely mishandled
the complex question of xenophobia and
its connection to the celebrated German

racist in its implications against the
German people:We are not racists, and the
overwhelming majority of Germans are
well aware of the past and its special role
in the future.
Still, especially young Germans will
resist the ever-present demands to dwell on
a certain period of the past.
Wolfgang Schube"r,
Engineering sophomore
Student reps. ignore
First Amendment
To the Daily:
The articles covering the racist flyers at
the law school upset me greatly. I found
the comments made by Angela Burks and
Corey Dolgon to be inappropriate and out
of touch with the reality of the United
States Constitution, more specifically the
First Amendment.
It is not that I agree with the state-
ments made on the flier; however, the
constitution grants everyone the right to
freedom of speech, regardless of their po-
litical viewpoints.
Freedom of speech is the cornerstone
on which our government is based and
must be allowed for all people, even those*
who hold viewpoints not popular with the
majority.
Perhaps Burks and Dolgon should read
the Constitution and then think about how
they would feel if someone suggested tak-
ing away their right to free expression.
Keith Edwards
Residential College sophomore
Levin is hypocritical
To the Daily:
Recent events in the Persian Gulf re-
gion have garnered a great deal of media at-
tention. This spotlight has provided yet
another opportunity for one of our state's
elected officials to demonstrate his blatabt
hypocrisy.
How can U.S. Sen. Carl Levin in good
conscience travel to the Middle East for
taxnaver-financed nolitical nhoto onnortu-

of behavior are appropriate. Though
the University has no mechanism to in-
vestigate violations of its policy, prose-
cute (or defend) the accused, reach a
verdict, and provide punishment of the
convicted, it is proceeding with its