Page 4-The Michigan Daily- Friday, October 4, 1991 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Edited and Managed by Students at the University of Michigan ANDREW K. GOTTESMAN Editor in Chief STEPHEN HENDERSON Opinion Editor TEEK_______ Hi Teek. Hello? It's me, Dad... \9,114 ~~ ...-t 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. 14.. it ;};" :%{. vi .. .......... ....................'y ,.Y.................................... ................ ..... A ....... .. A ..... ... by Thomas Keenan Son, I want you to know mother and I are very proud of you... You've matured into a responsible adult. b Good. Because we're cutting you off financially as of midnight tonight, E.S.T. a 7 Week of awareness 'Investing In Ability Week' gives students a new perspective N ext week is "Investing In Ability Week," during which the University will be holding work- shops and activities allowing students to realize what it is like to be handicapped. The exercises conducted in the workshops will allow others to recognize what handicapped people experience, and will teach them to not take their health for granted. Butone must rememberthathandicapped people are not just some nameless and faceless minority in the world. They are fellow students, friends, family and loved ones. They are people who, as a result of nature, are faced with greater difficulties than others, but should by no means be treated as lesser people. A particularly interactive exercise will take ploce on Tuesday, Oct. 8, between noon to 4 p.m., when students can try out a wheelchair at locations all over campus. While the University's actions are commend- atle, its attention to the handicapped community, shpuld not be limited to five days. Workshops may draw some attention to this concern, but temporary events can only do so much. There are changes that the University can make thit would permanently improve the environment on campus for the handicapped. Many buildings on campus are not accessible for people with handicaps. They have entrances with stairs, or simply are multi-story buildings without elevators. It is inexcusable that some community members are only able to enter a fraction of the number buildings others can. Furthermore, the University - in its aim to diversify its community and boast a campus of equal representation - should try to get more handicapped people - students, staff and faculty -in the classroom and traveling along the campus halls and walkways. The increased visibility of people with physical disabilites will help dispel any myths or prejudices about them, considering the disabled are as equally competent in performing everyday tasks at the University as the non- handicapped. A simple week of workshops, however well- meaning, will not offer the necessary attention needed to face the daily challenges the handicapped community confronts. The University would set a laudable example to other public institutions by making permanent changes necessary to make our university community more integrated in every way. An environment friendly to the handicapped will produce a community equally friendly and tolerant. We have faith in you, and from now on we want you to enjoy all the privileges and rights of a full-fledged adult. How does that make you feel, son? Privileges? Rights? Gosh, dad, I'm flattered... - - C ht P M i" - A rk ' x r sY a{ r y~p: 1t, r,."i: '+v+*f * r}"}? "p.t *"X'<*. MSA reps. respond to Daily Animal testing GM crosses the line of environmental responsibility uoponents of animal research defend such ex- 1 perinentation as a necessary method to protect human lives from disease or hazardous products. Bt when lives are mercilessly slaughtered for non- medical reasons - when computer-gener- ated models orother methods of data-gathering are equally accurate - researchers clearly cross the line dividing environmental responsibility and mhral irresponsibility. During the past decade, the General Motors Corporation killed 19,000 animals to gather data on their automobiles' safety. This is not justifiable and should not be allowed to continue. Stirred by the recent surge of protest at GM dealerships arbund the country, the corporation issued a stotement defending its actions. A spokesperson argued that the animals used were mostly mice and rats who were never in pain thanks to effective anesthesia. The notion that this approach is humanitarian is insulting. While animal testing may have been necessary years ago, modem technology has ad- vanced to the point where animal research need orily be used for the most extreme and delicate cases. The accuracy of modem computer engi-! noering and programming makes animal testing in this situation unnecessary. Aside from mice and rats, GM also uses former pet-dogs from pounds. Apes have been strapped into seats and sent careening into planned and observed accidents. The corporation claims dum- mies would not yield the same statistical results as live specimen for their chest injury tests and tests on pollutants' effects on lungs. While no other American car company experi- ments on animals, they suffer the guilt of accom- plices. GM has made their research data available to Ford and Chrysler, both of whom use the data liberally. While GM needs to stop this line of research, the other two corporations should agree notto use information derived from animal research. We, as the planet's most intelligent species, tend to believe that our domination of the food chain entitles us to dictate the fate of all creatures of smaller intellect. When considering animal ex- -perimentation as a method of scientific inquiry, we need to consider the level of terror and pain animals suffer when placed in the strange and dangerous environments. Humans can rationalize; animals cannot. In some circumstances, we can certainly justify ani- mal testing. The quests to find cures to cancer or AIDS, or to improve the care of medical patients are pressing enough to allow animal experimen- tation. General Motors' cruel and out-dated methods, however, do not fall into this category. To the Daily: I would like to thank the, Daily for condemning my alleged inaction on the Student Rights Commission (SRC), since such criticism is an infallible indicator of rational behavior ("SRC: MSA Com- mission should lead students," ; Daily, Oct. 1, 1991). As usual, however, the Daily has gotten its facts wrong. The SRC's sub- commission on the tear-gassing incident is anything but inactive. In fact, the sub-commission has met three times, talked to and is gathering information from the police, spoken to the University Administration, spoken to City Council members, met the the Civil Liberties Board, discussed the incident with the head of the Michigan ACLU and held a general meeting to interview witnesses of the incident. The Daily, of course, is not ignorant of these activities. Indeed, the subcommission has written two previous letters to the editor of this fine paper, as well as advertised the general meeting in it. Furthermore, I requested that the Daily reporters appear at the first subcommission meeting and was assured one would appear - but to my dismay, the press never appeared. Daily reporters and members of the editorial staff have also been constantly informed of the subcommission's progress by their presence at MSA meet- ings (where the subcommission weekly reports to the assembly) and at two subcommission meetings. Yet, the Daily falsley accused the subcommission of never even meeting. Such knowingly false reporting verges on the edge of libel. Michael Warren SRC Chair Daily acted irresponsibly To the Daily: I am outraged that the Daily would publish an editorial so filled with absolute falsehoods and untruths, as it did in its SRC editorial on Oct. 1. The Daily claims that Michael Warren, the SRC Chair, has "demonstrated no less than political ineptitude" in handling the response to the South University incident, waiting weeks to do anything of substance. It further claims that Michael Warren has done absolutely nothing except organize "an investigative. subcommittee which has yet to meet." Nothing could be further from the truth. Michael Warren announced at the meeting on Sept. 17th, that he was forming sub-commissions on the issues of the S. University riot, the noisy party ordinance, and the speech code. This fact cannot be disputed. It was publicly stated at the meeting and is in subse- quent copies of the minutes. Mike Warren's announcement of the sub-commission was also made in his Commission report, which was attached to the Sept. 17th agenda. The agenda is always given to a Daily reporter, when he or she asks for it. For the Daily to suggest, as it did, that Mike Warren waited weeks to take action is , indeed, remarkable. Furthermore, for the Daily to say that the riot subcommission has not met is even more unbelievable. On the 19th, the investigative sub-commission met. I know this because I was there, and I have a copy of the minutes of the meeting to prove that it took place. The second meeting took place on the 26th. I was not present, but several of my acquaintances were. Daily reporters were there, too, and asked quite a few questions. How in good conscience could the Daily editors say the sub- commission had not met when its new reporters were at the meeting? Brian Kight MSA Representative from Engineering t' . : ' S (}' r .a y {Y I T A3 1 . ,' fit!, yK t-ii New Valdez settlement not harsh enough t he Exxon Valdez accident, which resulted in 10 million gallons of crude oil pouring into Pfince William Sound in Alaska, killing thousands of sea otters, birds, and other animals, and forever d4maging one ofthe last pristine places in America, h4s finally been settled out of court - again. The Federal Government has agreed to accept Exxon's guilty pleas and a settlement for $1.025 Billion. This figure is only $25 million more than last spring's settlement, which was rejected by Federal Judge H. Russel Holland. Holland said the initial fipe was inadequate and might lead other oil companies to view the fine as an acceptable cost of doing business. The government and Exxon worked for more than six months to redraft the agreement, returning with a settlement that many still see to be grossly iradequate. The increase of $25 million amounts to only two days' profit for Exxon, a company that made $5.01 billion in 1990. The profit was made, ir large part, due to the dramatic increase in oil piices during the war in the Persian Gulf. The same oil company that insisted it was not gouging cus- tomers is certainly gouging the environment and the inhabitants of Prince William Sound, instead. Furthermore, the fines and criminal penalties of the settlement will be paid out over 10 years. Considering the great wealth generated by the Exxon Company, this penalty is little more than a slap on the wrist. If Exxon is to be truly held responsible for its actions, this settlement must be rejected by Judge Holland. It is necessary to ensure that justice is served, even if it means dragging out the incident for longer than Exxon would like. Without a re- settlement that severely punishes Exxon, other oil companies will see oil spills as a necessary evil in business, and will not take steps to prevent them. One way that oil spills like that of the Exxon Valdez could be avoided is with Federal legislation that requires double-hulled tankers. While double- hulled tankers cost more money to build, the re- enforcement reduces the chances of similarly devastating oil spills. This legislation, which has been languishing in committee for years, has been blocked by the powerful shipping and oil industry. Preventable oil spills have occurred in places ranging from from Texas and California to Central Park in New York City. Perhaps the lesson to be learned from the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill is that Congress places a higher priority on ensuring that all Ameri- cans enjoy cheap gas, rather than focussing on a cleaner environment. Speaker misquoted To the Daily: This letter is in response to an article appearing in the Monday, Sept. 30 issue of the Daily ("Speaker calls Spike Lee the 'wrong thing,"'). To prevent misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the concept of "racism," the speaker, Itabira Njeri, did provide a definition of racism which is prescribed by the attainment of power, political, economic and social, and the use of that power to oppress others. Evidently, African Americans do not have that power, and thus, cannot be racist. The author of the article, however, omitted this necessary clause from the article, where theauthor quotes Njeri as follows: "The worst thing a Black person could become is a racist..." The effect of this omission is to ignore and misrepresent the context in which the statement was made, and to effectively place all the responsibility of oppression on those being oppressed. Njeri did also attempt to clarify the concept of internalized oppression, and the idea again that African Americans cannot be racist; they can however, be bigots. There is a significant differ- ence. The article in question, however, does not even attempt to make the distinction, and thus, becomes mildly suggestive of misconceptions borne of misun- derstanding and ignorance. Mieri.:nraftr. al.. not-. and students over parties. Ann Arbor needs some real crime (gang wars, drive-bys, crack, prostitution, murder, etc) so that the cops have something to do besides harass harmless students trying to have a good time. Perhaps we could offer the bloods, crips, or latin kings some kind of tax abatement to set up shop in Ann Arbor. Or maybe a more palatable alternative would be to open a 24-hour donut shop on campus so that cops could hang out somewhere and not spend all of their valuable time handing out noise violations. I bet students would be happy to make a donation to the bagel factory if they would stay open 24 hours for this purpose and have "Show your police I.D., get a free fragel" promotions. Bob Juneja LSA senior Don't slam the president! To the Daily: I am writing in response to the editorial by Joan Lowenstein, "PC isn't just a sign of the 90 s" (Daily, Oct. 1, 1991). I think Lowenstein unfairly attacked President George Bush. Did Bush's "politically correct background of wealthy relatives, all-male schools and discrimina- tory clubs" REALLY get him "where he is today?" I feel Lowenstein fails to consider that "those in politically powerful positions" are there because of their diligent work, very fortunate to have the freedoms of speech and expres- sion. However, I believe changes in society are more likely through constructive, not destructive means. Thus, destructively criticizing Bush prevents us from noticing anything positive done by our leaders. Perhaps this is why Lowenstein saw Bush's talk about the denial of free speech as "ironic." Perhaps I should also mention that if Lowenstein is so unhappy with our president, why doesn't she take action? Action speaks louder than words, I think is the old cliche. Lisa Rigg LSA sophomore 0 N~uts and Bolts 1LVM U 5HI , DANE;" ~Jfllp77I\ RIGH.T? YEP MTO~rr.K WERE '~TXATr146 eAR MCGT OFcv -'" UH NUN. by Judd Winick MKSE TOS