Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

November 27, 1990 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1990-11-27

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page 4-The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, November 27, 1990
J1bE £rrdbrgau 1uatin
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

Duderstadt responds to anti-deputization protests

Editor in Chief

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.
... ..th e :a il
Open parties
IFC limits opportunities for under-21 students

of Michigan revelers.
Gone will be those magic first few
weeks of school when Greek organiza-
tions subsidize student partying. From
now on, we'll have to buy our own
The Interfraternity Council (IFC)
will ban open fraternity parties, effec-
tive Jan. 1. Any fraternity throwing a
party must have a written guest list, or
printed invitations. Violators will be
This is an especially harsh blow for
the under-21 crowd. Most bars in town
have recently raised their general ad-
mission age to 21, meaning the list of
feasible weekend party projects has
dwindled down to almost nothing. This
should put an enormous strain on the
dorms for a festivity outlet.
Though it's terrible news for hap-
less party-goers, it is a tremendous
public relations coup for the IFC. The
Greek system gets good press for a
policy that will basically accomplish
nothing beyond depriving students of a
good time. The major stated aim of the
ban was to reduce legal liability and
risks of damage to fraternity property.
But liability exists whether one issues

invitations or not. And fraternities con-
cerned about damage to their property
were never forced to have open parties
in the first place.
But the IFC is not to blame; the
Greek system must look out for itself.
With the new University drug and al-
cohol polices, the IFC recognizes that it
is in eminent danger of an administra-
tive crackdown.
The IFC wisely foresaw the
inevitable confrontation between them-
selves and the University's policy.
They then decided to forego an
"important rush marketing tool" in the
interest of public relations. The new
policy attempts to prove that Greek or-
ganizations can police themselves -
before the administration gets around to
Of course, there are a myriad of
ways to get around the new IFC pol-
icy. The fraternity can issue as many
invitations as Kinkos can print, or they
can use the phone book as a guest list.
If implemented properly, the new rule
accomplishes nothing.
But if fraternities decide to end open
parties, gone are the days of free
Milwaukee's Best.

Labour opposition now faces a tougher challenge

pressure from her own party, stepped
down last week as Prime Minister of
Great Britain. With her departure, an
era of British politics comes to an end
after Thatcher served more than 11
years as prime minister and 15 years as
head of the Conservative Party.
The British, other Europeans and
Americans should all lament the prema-
ture resignation of Thatcher, but for
different reasons than most die-hard
Tories. Recent decisions and rifts in
her government made the Conser-
vatives ripe for defeat in the next
general election, which must be called
by mid-1992. The head of the Labour
Party, Neil Kinnock, expressed the
feelings of the opposition when he
declared last week that Thatcher would
have been easier to defeat than her
Because the Conservative govern-
ment has shown a lack of concern for
the genuine needs of the English popu-
lace, a Labour government would be
preferable to the continuation of Con-
servative rule. In the end, it was a com-
bination of Thatcher's internal policies
and her attitude toward the European
Economic Community (EC) that ul-
timately caused her downfall.
This spring, she spearheaded an un-
popular poll tax, which caused a wave
of protest and rioting across Britain.
This regressive tax would force both
poor and lower middle class citizens to
pay the same fee as the rich. Michael
Heseltine, the principal challenger to
succeed Thatcher as head of the
Conservative Party, has proclaimed
that he would force a review of the un-
popular policy.
Thatcher has been a stubborn oppo-
nent of Britain's full integration into the
FC, in the process costing her the sup-
port of much of her party. Her Deputy

Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey Howe,
resigned after having criticized his
former political ally for her recalci-
trance. Now, when Western Europe
seems headed for an unprecedented
merger which will provide vast bene-
fits, Thatcher seems like a voice from
the past.
At this point, a Labour government
would be the best for Britain. Unem-
ployment stands at 11 percent with a
large increase in homelessness and a
decline in the quality of health care.
Britain has been overtaken by Italy and
Spain in terms of rates of growth. The
Labour party has overhauled its image
under the able direction of Kinnock,
abandoning many of its outdated
socialist cliches.
There is no longer a silly obsession
regarding the nationalization of indus-
tries or on unilateral disarmament.
Labour has ideas for revamping
Britain's welfare state, showing more
concern for the fate of the hard-hit
British poor. There is a clear commit-
ment to civil liberties and free speech,
which have suffered in England during
the Thatcher reign, particularly with the
terrible repression of Catholics in
Northern Ireland.
Thatcher has been a staunch sup-
porter of the United States leadership,
and helped her country in many ways.
But many of her gains are overshad-
owed by actions that have proved a
detriment to the British people.
Furthermore, Kinnock is an enthu-
siastic proponent of European unity,
from which Britain would surely bene-
fit. Unfortunately, the Labour Party
would have had an easier road to vic-
tory with Thatcher at the helm of the
Conservative Party; still, there is hope
that British voters will welcome a long-
needed change in the head of

By James J. Duderstadt
In recent weeks a number of questions
and concerns have been raised by students
and others about campus safety and secu-
rity at the University of Michigan. There
continues to be some misinformation and
confusion about these issues, and it is
clear that we need to do a better job of
keeping members of the campus informed
about University safety and security plan-
ning. I want to begin by clarifying some
of these matters.
First and most importantly, crimes
against people and property are a serious
and growing problem on our campus and
on campuses across the nation.
Unfortunately, here at Michigan, we expe-
rience more crimes than our peers in*the
Big Ten and many other universities of
our size. This is not a record we can be
proud of nor one we can accept. It is dam-
aging to our quality of life and learning.
We know that faculty, students, and
staff are concerned about safety and with
good reason. In just the last few weeks,
there were three different incidents on the
central campus involving interception of
suspects found to be armed with dangerous
weapons. You will be able judge the crime
situation for yourselves when we provide
you with regular crime reports beginning
next term.
I think we all understand that crime on
campus and elsewhere is a complex prob-
lem that will not be solved simply or
easily. Many of its causes are deeply
rooted in social inequity and must be ad-
dressed as a priority by our entire society.
But in the meantime, the leadership of the
University has the obligation to do every-
thing we can to make this campus a safer
We believe that ultimately the most ef-
fective deterrent to crime on campus will
be you and your fellow students. As you
become better informed and involved in
crime prevention efforts, you will be able
to protect yourselves, your friends, and
your property more effectively. But the
University must provide adequate support
for you, and we must take into account the
needs of the total University community.
Some immediate steps we are taking
include improving lighting and transporta-
tion services, adding more emergency
phones, and initiating widespread educa-
tional programs that will be gearing up
next term. We will also be expanding the
presence of deputized University officers
on campus.
These are among many actions recom-
mended to the University by the Task
Force on Campus Safety, headed by Dean
Paul Boylan of the Music School, which
included students, faculty and staff. This
Task Force studied the crime problem care-
fully and consulted widely before making
their report on which we are basing our
security planning.
Now let me turn to the slogans we
have been hearing and seeing this past few
week: "No cops, no guns, no code."
"No Cops"
The "no cops" slogan is actually quite
misleading. Obviously, we have always
had police on the campus - but they have
been Ann Arbor Police or Washtenaw
County Sheriff's Deputies. We have also
had two deputized University officers for
the past two years. The issue before us is
not really no police, but whose police.
One of the recommendations of the
Safety Task Force was to expand the use
of deputized University officers in our ef-
forts to deter crime. Our decision to do so
was not an easy one nor was it taken
lightly. There have been extensive discus-
sions, consultations, surveys, and data col-
lection, much of which is publicly avail-
able at the University Library. We have

listened carefully to arguments both pro
and con over many months and in many
arenas. In the end, the Board of Regents
and the leadership of the University had to
do what we believed was right and in the
best interest of the University.
The principal argument for increasing
deputized University law enforcement offi-
cers is that campus-based officers will be
more sensitive to the problems of the
University, more responsive to the unique
needs and values of our community, more
familiar with the campus and its people,
and will have the University as their only
priority. These are the reasons that all of
Michigan's public universities and the
great majority of America's universities
across the country long ago formed their
own campus police units.
Students will have a voice in planning
and oversight of security programs includ-
ing law enforcement. One mechanism for
interaction with and accountability to the
broad campus community will be an over-
sight committee on campus safety, which
will include four students, four faculty,
and three staff now being appointed by the
Provost. It will be chaired by a faculty
I can also assure you that the Board of

'Campus-based officers
will be more sensitive to
the problems of the
University, more
responsive to the unique
needs and values of our
community, more familiar
with the campus and its
people, and will have the
University as their only
campus closely and can be depended upon
to investigate and report problems.
Let me be absolutely clear on one
score. There is no intent to use police or
other safety personnel to interfere with
the private lives of students, nor will they
be involved in policing off-campus hous-
ing or other student events off the cam-
pus. The only job for the campus police is
to try to prevent serious crime and protect
campus people and property.
There is another misleading rumor that
I would like to lay to rest. This is that the
University is creating a campus police
force in order to curb dissent. This fear is
groundless; and, frankly, it makes no
sense. I have stated for the record on many
occasions that our security plans are aimed
at deterring crime and that is all.
We have well-established guidelines
developed by the University Civil
Liberties Board that protect free speech,
free assembly, and dissent that we value,
respect, and enforce. I think we demon-
strated this commitment last week. If there
should be cases of violent or illegal dis-
ruption - and I sincerely hope there will
not be - the University will continue to
have to rely on the Ann Arbor police for
protection as in the past. We do not have
enough officers to deal with violent dis-
ruptions nor are we foolish enough to try.
Let me now clarify our overall plan.
The University will be adding approxi-
mately 24 of our own deputized officers
over the next three years - enough to
provide roughly two deputized officers per
shift per day by 1992. Eight highly-quali-
fied recruits are currently undergoing a rig-
orous training program and will be ready
for active duty in January.
Some of the policies governing cam-
pus police behavior include prohibitions
of racial or sexual discriminatory harass-
ment, discrimination based on sexual ori-
entation, and Civil Liberties Board guide-
lines protecting free speech. Our new po-
lice officers and other security personnel
receive continuing education and training
including instruction by staff of the Office
of Minority Affairs, LGMPO, Affirmative
Action, SAPAC, and extensive training in
all aspects of human relations.
Complaints about violations of University
policies and values will be investigated
"No Guns"
The "no guns" slogan, while dramatic,
is also misleading. Actually, we can ex-
pect to have no more armed police on
campus after we have our own force than
now when we rely on Ann Arbor police
- all of whom are armed and a number of
whom may be on campus at a given time.
Under our new system, there should be
fewer armed personnel on campus per av-
erage shift.
I certainly understand and sympathize
with those of you who have ethical con-
cerns about guns and the use of force. I
share this concern and am dismayed by the
rising tide of violence in our society,
especially that involves deadly weapons.
But we cannot ignore the increasing num-
ber of incidents involving weapons on

campus that pose a risk to lives. At least
some of our officers must be reliably close
at hand and able to defend others and them-
selves when absolutely necessary. There
will be no authority to use weapons ex-
cept in defense of human life.
Our current security plan differs from
the more common practice of other cam-
puses where all officers are routinely
armed. We have heard and sympathize with
community concerns about excessive force
and want to try a more conservative exper-
iment that we believe reflects the special
values and traditions of Michigan. Thus,
our safety officers on routine patrol and in
other ordinary interactions will not be
deputized or armed.
The regular security personnel will
continue to carry out their duties just as
they do now, and you will notice no dif-
ference except that more staff should be
available when you need them. The newly-
deputized police officers will be housed in
accessible offices around the campus to re-
spond to requests for assistance in dealing
with potential felonious assaults and sus-

table but necessary price to pay for im-
proving campus safety.
"No Code"
Finally, another slogan we have been
hearing says "no code." I must confess
that this strikes me as political oppor-
tunism. The development of a code of stu-
dent conduct really is not an issue for the
University administration. Rather it is, or
should be, a student issue - and a student
Student governments on most other
college campuses in America have stepped
up to their responsibility for their own cit-
izenship as members of the campus com-
munity by working with faculty and ad-
ministrators to develop a set of guidelines
for student behavior (e.g., prohibiting as-
saults, rape, drug sales, arson, etc.) cou
pled with appropriate sanctions for violat-
ing these guidelines (e.g., probation, edu-
cation, suspension, expulsion). These
range from entirely student-enforced honor
codes (North Carolina, Virginia, Stanford
and our own College of Engineering) to
rather detailed policies with student-faculty
judiciary bodies (Michigan State, UC-
Be'rkeley, Harvard).
For the past decade or more the
Michigan student government has rejected
any attempts to develop such policies, and
hence we now have a "no rules of any
kind" situation on this campus that un'
dermines the quality and safety of student
life. Our situation is nearly unique, and we
believe it allows the criminal and/or sick
behavior of a few people to infringe on the*
rights of the majority of you.
In any event, I do not believe it is my
role, nor the role of the University admin-
istration, to develop such a code. Rather, I
believe the students themselves should
step up to their responsibility to help de-
velop a set of such guidelines for student
behavior as one of their duties as citizens
of the University community. Faculty
have such policies. Staff have such poli*
cies. The Interfraternity Council system,
has made important strides in self-gover-
nance in the past year or so. And our
Michigan students need to develop general
policies to govern themselves. We have
repeatedly challenged students to propose a
workable mechanism for student policy,
development, but so far none have been
In the absence of a "code," th
University has put in place an interim pol-
icy concerning discriminatory harassment
because incidents of bigotry were infring-
ing on the right of minorities, women,
and other students to learn. We also put in
place a temporary policy on alcohol and;
substance abuse as required of all colleges
and universities by federal law. These are
responses to specific needs and are not,
steps towards a "code."
Let me say it plainly again so there
will be no possibility of misunderstand-
ing. We have no comprehensive code now,
and the University has none planned. This
is not a priority for me or members of my
administration. At some point, like all
communities, I believe that students will
take the initiative to work on this issue.
Some Final Comments
Our University is a large, complex, and
diverse place. There are many avenues for
formal and informal interaction that give'
students a voice in policy. Students are
appointed to all the most important
University bodies that advise Executive
Officers, and they have the opportunity to
contribute to policy formulation, over-
sight, and evaluation.
Normally there are regular meetings
with MSA leaders; and, while this year the
leadership has chosen to avoid them, I cer-
tainly hope the meetings will soon be re-
sumed. We include representatives of stu-
dent governments of schools and colleges

in retreats -with regents, officers, faculty,
and staff at the beginning of each academic
term to discuss strategic issues. In addi-
tion, I meet regularly with student organi-
zation leaders, Daily editors and reporters,
and I have a lively exchange with at least
200 students each week on electronic mail.
As many of you know first hand, I do try
to get out to meet with you in classes,
residence halls, Greek houses, and count-


U' official seeks meetings with students

To the Daily:
I have been thinking a great deal
about the events of the past days and
weeks. One fact stands out; I have not
done a good job of finding ways to enter
constructive discussions with students,
especially about issues of concern to
them, including campus safety, the new
alcohol and drug policy, and the student-
sponsored social events policy.
To begin to rectify this situation, I
will hold a series of open forums for stu-

held in the North Campus Commons
tonight from 6:30 to 8 p.m.
The dates and places for the others
will be announced on that same day as all
the arrangement have not yet been final-
ized. The locations for the other forums
will be on central campus.
I look forward to meeting and talking
with students on these occasions.
Mary Ann Swain
Interim Vice President

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan