Page 4 --The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, December 4,1990
Ulbe idligant iaiIy
0 EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
/iewpoin
NOAH FINKEL
Editor in Chief
DAVID SCHWARTZ
Opinion Editor
It's NOT ReAILY OCENE!
YOU JUST NVE TO B
IORt OF INp R1GI~'rCUALTURE
ITO AP'PRECIATE It!
w a
C PS
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.
From the Daily
Dude's progaganda
We want to listen and be responsive to your views'
To the uninformed -or perhaps to the
uninvolved - President 'James
Duderstadt's letter to the Daily last week
would seem a logical, well thought-out de-
f nse of the University's decision to cre-
Sie its own police force. Though we're
sine much thought went into the formation
of= he letter, the glaring inaccuracies and
especially the selective omissions war-
rant comment and response.
THOUGH DUDERSTADT SUCCESSFULLY
defused many of the student opposition's
ill-worded slogans, he ignored the larger
arguments against deputation, which
cannot be reduced to sound bites and
placards. Most importantly, the president
failed to explain why deputized University
security officers will more effectively fight
crime, or deter it, than Ann Arbor police
officers.
It's true that "cops" have always pa-
trolled campus, and Duderstadt correctly
asserts that the real issue is "whose po-
lice," the University's or the city's.
Additionally, he also dispenses with the
"no guns" slogan, noting the existing
presence of Ann Arbor police officers who
carry guns. But meticulously dissecting
the popular "no guns, no cops, no code"
sound-off ignores many of the underlying
student fears about a regental-controlled
police force.
The Daily has asked time and again the
same question: Why does the University
need its own police force? The answer is
not economic; even Duderstadt, with his
misleading figures, acknowledges that the
added cost of deputizing University officers
is a "necessary price to pay." The answer
is not sensitivity; the Ann Arbor police
officers also must undergo so-called
"sensitivity training," in many cases more
extensive than University's.
Furthermore, the answer is not safety,
because there is no evidence to show that
University officers will be better able to
ghkt crime than city officers. In cases of
acquaintance rape and dorm theft - the
kinds of crimes most feared by students -
icreased officers of any kind will not help
ward off crime. It's hard to argue that
University police would make the situa-
tion worse, yet it's equally difficult to ar-
gue that they would mitigate the current
problems.
So what was the University's motive?
It can't be safety, or money, or sensitiv-
ity, because these conditions won't be im-
proved by the change. There are two re-
maining possibilities. Less likely is the
assertion that the new officers will crack
down on student dissent, though this is
surely a legitimate fear. The University
will no longer have to contend with a
stubborn Ann Arbor Police Department,
which has for several years been hesitant
to break up student protests, even the an-
nual Hash Bash on the Diag.
More probable was Duderstadt's inten-
-tion of making the new police officers a
public relations coup for the University, a
strategy which has clearly backfired but
may nevertheless have motivated the deci-
sion over the summer. The Duderstadt
regime has been characterized as being
governed by PR - a termed "style over
substance" philosophy - from the outset.
A new police force could easily have been
presented to wealthy alumni (prospective
donors) by Duderstadt: "Look and see what
we're doing to fight crime!"
Student protests probably doomed any
image benefits for the University, and the
current strategy of pursuing deputization
probably amounts to saving face as much
as anything else.
Until these concerns and questions are
addressed, students have every right to con-
tinue protesting and demanding answers. If
anything is clear above all else, it is that
students should be consulted before the re-
gents vote to implement a policy which
directly affects them. If the University had
spent as much time and money surveying
students about a deputized police force as
it did determining that 89 percent of stu-
dents "fear crime," perhaps Duderstadt and
the regents would never have engaged in
such an unnecessary and unpopular
scheme.
In the meantime, there is still little
reason to pursue the deputization of cam-
pus police. We encourage Duderstadt and
the University administration to set public
image aside and do what's best for the
University community; if so many people
are against the new police force, what's
the public relations gain of continuing
blindly with an unneeded policy?
No code?
IN ADDITION TO THE
inconsistencies in President
Duderstadt's letter to the Daily
concerning the issue of deputization,
there were also intriguing statements
about a possible code of non-
academic conduct. In the letter,
Duderstadt attacks the student "no
code" slogan, arguing that any code
of studentanon-academic conduct
must be formulated by the students
themselves, not imposed by the ad-
ministration.
While this statement may appear
to be a positive one, students should
be wary of the inconsistency in ad-
ministrative policy it represents.
Throughout his tenure as president,
Duderstadt has maintained a position
strongly in support of the implemen-
tation of a code. The idea of a stu-
dent-proposed code had never before
been mentioned, and warrants a cer-
tain degree of skepticism.
Duderstadt's digression from the
traditional administration stance on
the code on the surface seems like a
noble gesture, but when the issue is
explored in-depth, this new position
appears as little more than a new spin
on the same old position. If students
have gained anything, it's the ability
to force the president to stick to his
documented "no code" stance.
_ . t t Y I I t .i7MC. cK
Title X violates women'
s reproductive rights
To the Daily:
On Feb. 2, 1988, the United States
Department of Health and Human Services
promulgated regulations that drastically al-
ter the quality care provided to low-income
women in federally subsidized family
planning clinics.
The regulations were issued under Title
X of the Public Health Service Act, the
single largest source of federal support for
family planning in the United States. Title
X funds go to more than 3900 clinics
across the nation, which together serve
more than five million women annually.
Under the new regulations, programs
receiving Title X funds are prohibited from
counseling or referring their pregnant pa-
tients for abortion, but must counsel and
refer them for prenatal care to protect the
health of the "unborn child."
This requirement, which both limits
and distorts information, applies even if
the patient specifically requests
information about or referral for abortion;
even if she is unaware of her range of legal
options; and even if she has AIDS, heart
disease, or another condition that may be
aggravated by continuing the pregnancy.
Moreover, Title X programs are forbid-
den to "encourage, promote, or advocate"
abortion, a restriction that bars even the
provision of neutral, educational materials.
Finally, Title X programs must separate,
both financially and physically, from pro-
grams where speech about abortion con-
tinues. Many small, non-profit clinics
cannot afford to comply with this require-
ment.
On the day the regulations were
adopted, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) Reproductive Freedom
Project and the State of New York filed
suit seeking to overturn them in the
United States District Court for the
Southern District Court of New York.
Although the district court granted a
preliminary injunction against enforce-
ment of the regulations, the judge, a recent
Reagan appointee, subsequently found the
regulations to be constitutional and other-
wise valid.
favored abortion option and by frustrating
women's ability to obtain full information
necessary for reproductive choice.
Unfortunately, however, on Nov. 1,
1989, the Second Circuit issued a cursoiy
and far reaching option affirming the dis-
trict court holding that the regulation*
were consistent with both Title X and the
Constitution.
The ACLU Project then filed a petition
for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to
review the Second Circuit's decision.
Meanwhile, injunctions continuing
funding under Title X that were negotiated
by the ACLU are in place until the
Under the new regulations, programs receiving Title X@
funds are prohibited from counseling or referring
their pregnant patients for abortion, but must counsel
and refer them for prenatal care to protect the health
of the "unborn child."
In 1989, the ACLU Project, together
with the State of New York, appealed the
district court's holding. They argued that
the regulations would create a dual system
of health care for women, with poor
women receiving incomplete and inferior
services, contrary to the intent of
Congress.
In addition, counsel argued that the
regulations violate the constitutional guar-
antees of free speech and privacy by dis-
criminating against speech about the dis-
Supreme Court decides the case of Rust v.
Sullivan in June or July of 1991.
The University of Michigan ACLUO
Reproductive Rights Committee applauds
the Daily editorial, "Free Speech,"
(11/8/90) that encouraged awareness of
this frightening legislation of which, if
the Supreme Court rules in favor, will ef-
fect the lives of five million women.
Katie Sanders
Chair, University ACLU
Reproductive Rights Committee.
1 Adk
I
Misleading or false statements i
letter to the Daily of Nov. 27, 199
"Our decision to (deputize
University police) was not an easy one
nor was it taken lightly." The
University's Board of Regents voted
unanimously over the summer to create a
University police force. The University
community was never given the oppor-
tunity to discuss the proposal before it
was presented to and approved by the re-
gents.
* "The principal argument for in-
creasing deputized University law en-
forcement officers is that campus-based
officers will be more sensitive to the
problems of the University, more re-
sponsive 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." As
Kellie Goodman, a former student em-
ployee, wrote in a letter to the Daily,
University security officers joke about
gasing" students and shooting them
n President James Duderstadt's
0.
Iles.
"The truth is that the incremental
costs of the safety initiatives will be in
the range of $600,000 per year. To put
this in context, let me not that this is
only about one-third of the amount we
now spend to clean up campus graffiti."
This "Duderspeech" is deceiving, but
might mean, by several additions and
subtractions, that a University police
force will cost about $1.7 million a year.
This is a low estimate; figures deter-
mined by the Daily, the University and
the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office
estimate the cost at between $2 million
and $5 million annually. And the
University does not spend $1.8 million a
year to clean up chalk. It spends about
$1.5 million to repair graffiti-covered
buildings, broken windows and signs,
and other results of vandalism.
"And we believe it to be a regret-
table but necessarv nrice to nav fo rim-
What about the contras?
To the Daily:
In the editorial on human rights in
Nicaragua (11/19/90), I believe the Daily
has taken the crimes out of context..It is
too common an occurance to see people
blame the Sandinistas for crimes commit-
ted during a guerilla war which they did
not start.
When the Sandinistas came to power in
1979, they gave amnesty to all the
Somocistas that should have gone on trial
for human rights violations. In turn, a
large group of these people, under CIA
support, crossed the border into Honduras
and began to commit more heinous crimes
in both Nicaragua and Honduras.
Those rightist thugs started an illegal
guerilla war using U.S. weapons against
their own country. The sad, but unmis-
takeable truth is that in guerilla warfare
there are always civilian losses and human
rights violations committed on both sides.
I am unsure as to whether the editorial
was a criticism of the Sandinistas on a po-
litical level or purely legal level, but the
attack was again very biased. You say in
the editorial, "The Sandinistas, to escape
any blame for these crimes, have passed a
law declaring amnesty for any crimes
committed during the war." Well, make no
mistake about this; the contras benefitted
far greater from this amnesty than the
Sandinistas. The amnesty was granted as
part of a compromise to end the war and
allow for re-settlement in Nicaragua of the
Contras.
Furthermore, Daniel Ortega Saavedra
admitted to many of the wrongdoings that
occcured under Sandinista rule and was at-
tempting to compensate for these viola-
tions, but I have yet to hear from one
Contra any remorse for their acts of rane
government that did not have war any-
where on its agenda.
I am by no means trying to ignore the
human rights violations commmitted by
the Sandinistas, but I want to place them
in their proper context. The Sandinistas
had the integrity to admit their crimes in-
stead of following the U.S. lead of trying
to justify them.
Andrew Basoco
Residential College Junior
Keep Op-ed on page 4
To the Daily:
Having both attended Interim Vice
President for Student Services Mary Ann
Swain's forum on the night of Nov. 29
and read the article in the Daily the next
day, I must admit to some confusion of
the operative aims of the Daily.
The article was loaded with quotes
taken out of context, mis-portrayals of
Miss Swain's knowledge, and a severe
misrepresentation of the events.
The article was as one-sided (anti-ad-
ministration) as it could have been and
still resemble the truth. Is the Daily's in-
tent journalistic integrity or to be some
sort of propaganda for whatever causes
support?
My only suggestion is to think more
carefully about what is printed alongside
of real, unbiased journalism (i.e. AP re-
ports) and to keep the editorial interpreta-
tions on their proper page.
Carleen Roberts
LSA first-year student
Legalization won't
heln the drun nrnhlem
vi
partly because of marijuana. It's because
marijuana works in a funny way. The
more you smoke it, the more THC you
build up in your body. The more T1IC
you have, the less you need to get high.
So when people no longer find it a
thrill to get stoned on marijuana, they
start using other drugs, such as crack,
51's, and ice.
It's called cross tolerance. The novelty
of marijuana being legal may wear off, bu*
by then, people will need other drugs, and
people like Andrew Levy will be calling
for the legalization of cocaine.
I also find holes in Levy's argument
about employers regulating marijuana use
in the workplace. This may work, but
when it doesn't, the consequences are
catastrophic.
Two cases in point: Northwest Flight
255 and the Exxon Valdez. Flight 255
crashed at Metro airport in Aug. 1987
right after takeoff due to a mechanical
failure, and whether the pilot was
completely sober is not known.
Since then, several Northwest pilots
have admitted their alcoholism and admit-
ted to being drunk in the cockpit. The
Exxon Valdez was an oil rig that crashed
into an iceberg, spilling millions of gal-
lons of oil into the sea and killing marine
life for miles. The captain of the ship ad
mitted that he was drunk during the cruise.
I do agree with Levy on point: the so-
called "drug war" has been a bust. I don't
have an answer to the drug problem we're
faced with, but I know it doesn't lie in le-
galizing marijuana.
Lee Bowbeer
LSA Junior