100%

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

Share

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.

December 12, 1990 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1990-12-12

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

Page 4 --The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, December 12, 1990

.4

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

NOAH FINKEL
Editor in Chief

DAVID SCHWARTZ
Opinion Editor

S 41

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.

The Noriega tapes

~ FAT
GJT v uR tN
, WS 6AT IF'Y5T Z

iii 11
CE !,U ~lh~~
11
S'r

-\> _
M ,0A
1
1S N ~T TN ( 4 T~4'LC- LOSS?

Why don't the accused have a right to privacy?

THE UNITED STATES GOVERN-
ment recently discovered that a long-
time adversary of ousted Panamanian
leader Manuel Noriega was responsible
for leaking audio tapes of Noriega's
prison conversations to the Cable
News Network. Why this was termed
a "discovery" remains mystifying,
since the man responsible for the leak
is a paid witness for the government
who was given the tapes by U.S. pros-
ecutors.
What is not surprising is that the
Bush administration is flailing to locate
someone or something to blame for the
broadcast of the tapes; the government
would like the rest of us to forget that
recording Noriega's conversations with
a member of his defense team violated
his constitutional rights. But a federal
judge permitted CNN to air the tapes,
and the witness' leak cannot deflect at-
tention from the real issue - govern-
ment misconduct.
Rulings of the Supreme Court al-
low prison or government officials to
tape prisoners' conversations, except
those with an attorney. Prisoners are
supposed to inform officials before
making calls to their lawyers. Noriega
did this, yet several conversations with
his attorney were taped anyway.
The disclosure of hours upon hours
of Noriega's conversations - withhis,
family, friends and lawyers - brings
up another question about the rights of
the accused. Why can the government
tape any conversation it wants without
first getting approval from a judge?
Prison officials claim they need to
ainonitor phone calls because many
trimes are planned while prisoners are
MLill in jail. They argue that listening in
"pn conversations helps prevent future
.rimes, and is thus a necessary inva-
dion into prisoners' lives.
' Unfortunately, prisoners are all
;trouped into one category in relation to
)hone tapping; there is no distinction -
,ctween convicted prisoners who are

serving a sentence and prisoners who
are in jail awaiting a trial. People who
can't make bail must remain in custody
until their court appearances, but aren't
they, by constitutional theory, still in-
nocent until proven otherwise?
Shouldn't a prisoner awaiting trial be
afforded the same civil rights as an ac-
cused who can afford bail?
One would think so, but the
Supreme Court has upheld phone tap-
ping of all prisoners, except in the
noted case of lawyer-client conversa-
tions. People in jail awaiting trial, like
Noriega, forfeit their right to privacy
before they have even been convicted
of a crime.
The Supreme Court should consider
a new interpretation that would treat the
accused and the convicted as two dis-
tinct types of prisoners, with distinct
rights. Innocent people are accused of
crimes all the time, but whereas rich
suspects can afford bail and return
home to talk to their families in person,
poorer ones (or suspects for whom
there is no bail at all) can't even talk to
their relatives privately on the phone.
The Court's current stance clearly has
adverse effects, predominantly for
lower-income individuals.
If the government has a compelling
interest to tape a prisoner's conversa-
tions prior to a trial, it should be forced
to convince a judge before monitoring
the phone conversations, just as it
would have to do if the accused were
living outside prison. Otherwise, sus-
pects are treated as guilty without the
benefit of a trial.
Sure, some crimes may be pre-
vented by taping prison conversations;
but crimes would also be prevented by
a government acting as Big Brother that
taped everyone's conversations. The
derived Fourth Amendment right to
privacy is fundamental outside prison,
and should be extended to suspects
who are in prison awaiting trial.

Student leaders respond to Duderstadt

By Mark Buchan,
Corey Dolgon and
Jennifer Van Valey
In a recent letter sent to all Michigan
students, James Duderstadt claims to
"clarify misinformation and confusion"
about deputization and democracy. As with
his recent letter to students' parents, this
letter cost thousands of tuition dollars to
mass mail. And as with the previous letter
to parents, it is Duderstadt who is guilty
of creating "misinformation and confu-
sion."
Instead of addressing the arguments
against deputization and the code, Duder-
stadt only picks at the Students' Rights
Movement's slogans. No group ever in-
tends its chants and slogans to capture
complex arguments and analysis; one only
hopes to catch the general ideas orspirit
behind a movement. Therefore, we don't
just shout "No Guns, No Cops, No
Code," we also sponsor teach-ins;'canvass
in dorms and neighborhoods; write letters
to students, faculty, and parents; partici-
pate in Mary Ann Swain's travelling
medicine shows; and publish the Campus
Democracy Report.
But instead of answering our questions
about the University's continuing efforts
to stifle free speech and protest, to control
students' non-academic behavior, and to
initiate restrictive policies on student func-
tions, Duderstadt engaged in a juvenile at-
tack on our slogans.
Duderstadt begins his letter by framing
the deputization argument as a response to
campus &afety: "First and most impor-
tantly, crimes against people and property
are a serious and growing problem on our
campus..." Later, however, he reminds us
that we have had two deputized campus se-
curity officers since 1988. What Duder-
stadt fails to tell us is that these officers
were never deputized for reasons of campus
safety, but to better enforce the Univer-
sity's policy on free speech and protest.
In 1988, President Fleming's memo on
the "Disruption of University Activities"
explained that without any deputized offi-
cers, the University had "no jurisdiction"
in dealing with protests where police in-
tervention was "necessary." Thus, deputiz-
ing officers would "give them the power
of arrest in cases where this would be ef-
fective in dealing with violations of our
rules." Accordingly, the two officers depu-
tized in 1988 have been conspicuously
present at student demonstrations. Now,
two years later, Duderstadt wants us to be-
lieve that deputization is for reasons of
campus safety, not for the "disruption" of
University activities.

these campuses or the feasibility of stu-
dent-run security patrols. Nor was the
opinion of experts on racial and sexual as-
sault solicited.
Meanwhile, the University community
ranked deputization ninth out of the 10
possible measures that were suggested to
address safety; the only option that rated
lower than deputization was the regulation
of access to University buildings. Despite
their unpopularity, these were the two
safety measures the University chose to
pursue. It decided to spend millions of dol-
lars on cops, and restricted access to the
Union.

Department of Public Safety, our current
campus security officers joke abort
gassing and shooting student protesters
when they are finally given guns. She re-
signed in protest. Meanwhile, the admirtis-
tration, which claims to share concerns
about the "ethical use of force," continu
its plans to deputize these officers. ThIP
administration's only attempt to investi-
gate Goodman's claims has been to allow
the Department of Public Safety to look
into the incident by itself: it is not com-
forting to know that the police officets
who harass, intimidate and shoot students
will be accountable to themselves. a

Whether we call it in loco parentis, paternalism, or
autocracy, we must understand that the
administration wants to control the entire decision-
making process and will only offer students a limited
ability to actually govern themselves.

S ensiti~ve?

Why no diversity in the new 'U' police force?
[HE UNIVERSITY HAS ONCE AGAIN sity has taken officers who alread
proven its lack of commitment to stu- the objects of student criticism
,lent concerns in its selection of the first given them guns.
eight deputized security officers. De- According to the University's p
spite legitimate student fears over relations machine, the officers
abuses of power, the administration emerge from training with a
lidn't bother to look farther than the "sensitivity" to students' needs. T
Fleming Building in search of deputy apprentice agenda includes a token
Anaterial. hours of "sensitivity training," w
The new force, which will suppos- supposedly will compensate for
edly be responsible for protecting stu- actual lack of diversity in the fore
lents, includes only one woman and self.
po people of color. This alone is a Despite promises to provide d
cause for worry. One of the major crit- . Deitepsesetoproedes,
,cisms of the soon-to-be-unleashed se- sity i the selection procedures
curity officers is a perceived insensitiv- same good o' boys are back,
Sty toward various minority groups on leaner and meaner and packing
campus. The appointment of the cur- W
ent force does nothing to assuage women and people of color, feels
genuine fears concerning abuses of with a group of white cops who]
Sower. gained nothing but a public relal
0 The new force, additionally, will make-over?
consist entirely of current University Deputization is an ill-conceivedi
security officers. It seems odd that no matter who staffs the new pc
more recruiting was not undertaken for force. But the initial selection ofc
Such sensitive positions at such a di- cers only proves that sensitivity i
sided university. Instead, the Univer- the University's fort6.

y are
and
ublic
will
new
Their
four
hich
r the
ce it-
iver-
, the
only
heat.
zlarly
safer
have
tions
idea,
olice
offi-
s not

There was much broader support for the
other campus safety measures suggested,
such as increased lighting, safewalk ser-
vices and education. The University ini-
tially ignored these suggestions. It was
only in response to a series of student
protests that they began to give so me
money to some of these programs. How-
ever, no money has been granted for in-
creased education on sexual assault, despite
a 90 percent approval rating in the admin-
istration survey.
Because Duderstadt has never been able
to prove that deputization would actually
increase campus safety, he continues to
claim that the principal argument for it "is
that campus-based officers will be more
sensitive to the problems of the Univer-
sity, more responsive to the unique needs
and values of the community..." Not only
does this statement betray the actual his-
tory of campus deputization (as a response
to the "disruption" of activities in 1988),
but it ignores many recent events.
On Nov. 10, the University had a stu-
dent arrested for chalking an anti-adminis-
tration slogan on a Haven Hall brick pillar
and charged him with "malicious destruc-
tion of property"; he was arraigned last
Tuesday. On Nov. 15, the University
called in Ann Arbor's riot police to arrest
16 people stating a sit-in at Duderstadt's
office. Two weeks ago, a University secu-
rity officer used a video camera to film
demonstrators at Duderstadt's house.
And last week, a University security
guard used a choke hold on an unarmed
person of color in attempting to remove

Duderstadt's section on "No Guns"
contains some blatant contradictions and
very questionable figures. Earlier, he dis-
cussed the importance of having ani;
creased security presence, yet in this s
tion he explained that "under our new sys-
tem, there should be fewer armed persoO-
nel on campus per average shift." In fa4t,
the new police force will be "in accessible
offices around the campus... not on rou-
tine patrol except in special circum-
stances." Somehow, Duderstadt wants as
to feel safe because we have our ovn
armed police, safer because they won't l)e
patrolling with their weapons, and ev4
safer because they will patrol with their
weapons in "special circumstances"
such as demonstrations and protests.
Similarly, Duderstadt claims that tie
"incremental" costs of deputization will
"be in the range of $600,000 per year."
Yet $600,000 wouldn't even cover the
proposed 24-person force's salaries if you
include health and other benefits. When
one adds in the costs of equipment, tigi-
forms, maintenance, six brand new squ-
cars, a new headquarters, furnishings and
support staff, etc., the costS will easily
top $24 million a year. Ron Scheibel, tie
county sheriff, recently confirmed this es-
timate.
Finally, in the "No Code" section,
Duderstadt claims that "the developmentpf
a code is not an issue for the University
administration." But last winter, Duder-
stadt was quoted as saying he wanted
code in place by this fall, and draft cop
of a code were being circulated around 4d-
ministrators' offices this semester. In fact,
he destroyed the University Council be-
cause student representatives opposed the
kind of code the administration desired. :
Duderstadt explains that students 4Oe
appointed to all the most important Urii-
versity bodies that "advise" Executive 0f-
ficers; but these students have no power in
determining final policies. And the admu
istration clings on to its right t appoir
these students; it is obviously not.in the
best interests of the administration to ap-
point students who can eloquently disagree
with their policies.
When Duderstadt concludes by saying
"I welcome your comments and sugg4s-
tions for improving communication4,"
students must understand this ps
"Duderspeak." Duderspeak, coined in a
Daily editorial, is the smiling fagade a&
fancy prose that administrators use to

ww
$1

Instead of answering our questions about the
University's continuing efforts to stifle free speech
and protest, to control students' non-academic
behavior, and to initiate restrictive policies on student
functions, Duderstadt engaged in a juvenile attack on
our slogans.

Agree. Disagree?
What's your opinion? The Daily wants to hear from you. Send or
bring lefters-to the Student Publications Building at 420 Maynard
Street. Or, you can bring in letters on Macintosh disk or send
them via MTS to "Michigan Daily."

Under his "No Cops" section, Duder-
stadt claims that the decision to deputize
officers was "not an easy one nor was it
taken lightly. There have been extensive
discussions, consultations, surveys, and
data collection, much of which is publicly
available at the University Library." Aside
from the lengthy, unreadable survey being
stored on the bottom shelf of the Grad's
Reference Desk (where only a few of the
librarians even know of it), the students'

him from the Michigan Union Grill. Se-
curity called in the Ann Arbor police for
assistance. As the man struggled to
breathe because of the chokehold, a student
intervened, claiming that the man was his
guest. The police then arrested the student.
Are these the "unique needs and values" of
our community?
Meanwhile, university police forces
around the country have been responsible
for a series of terrifying student injuries.

The fun's just beginning, but be careful
mfl flT A rV flTO llr I T A Orr T1 A v f% r. ir' . . t ..I n - r ~A n...a li:. na..P

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan