Page 4 -The Michigan Daily- Thursday, October 24, 1991
3be Mt4t ijau 1aiIQ
I WOtrLcDLIKE TO IPPaESMY oP'r, tM oQTHE NAntI..A CE.SSION. I
FIE-L. THAT TH'. S LUMP WitL S0nN ~TAE T VD LOOK ECEMELY
PostT~vE AND I'M VERY PRov-co or1THE AMER~ICAN PEOPLE' F K STAYING
STRONG Th~ov&H THIS RojGN PE "D-1 RPEN~'T, THE R.EED Is $oIEl
M
10
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
747-2814
Edited and Managed
by Students at the
University of Michigan
R. ~...
jp ;8.' ,'.
i 5
D
.. ii .,
:. Y f
I
ANDREW GOTTESMAN
Editor in Chief
STEPHEN HENDERSON
Opinion Editor
7I 7o
__.. ___ .
.._ .
_r_
1J
__.-
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.
.....::.ter. ............. ..... ..... ......,
r::}'r'.:::::':'r::::: ::.i}:r": }:{" ":"i :: ii:' '{ i: ::% "'rr." ":::":::"r.:" ::"::: r.",::": -:.":: r .:...................... r. ii5+."'r:":{r :
'.tiff :":: :'.ti"}:":.. ' f:: JJy;::Y::"i::"}:: i:-:"::':":''':' :':"::
..........
x:::: x ::.:. . :..: ..: :......:....... ......., :::::::: " v. ......, ...:. ti :r;{,,. "{.;{,:... rJ." .. ....... , ..
r:
{i
fi
{:
--_..
S
-___
.
\ "
Minority faculty
Engler discounts diversity with
It's always unfortunate when state budget con-
straints demand that constructive, necessary
programs-be scrapped. But Gov. John Engler's
recent veto of the King/Chavez/Parks minority
faculty program from the state's higher education
budget is more than just unfortunate - it's an
affront to this University's stated commitment to
diversity. Engler has proven that he favors pinch-
ing pennies over protecting efforts to make higher
education more ethnically balanced.
The program was instituted four years ago to
increase the number of minority professors at the
University. Since that time, 200 professors have
visited the University to teach in a number of
different departments.
The state picked up half the bill for the program,
and the University covered the other half. The
state's end of the deal amounted to a mere $90,000.
However, Engler's press secretary, John
Truscott, said the program was "worthwhile, but
not necessary to the University." Engler used his
line-item veto power to prevent state spending for
this year. The University is not yet sure whether it.
will be able to continue the program alone..
Already, the extent to which the University has
King/Chavez/Parks veto
committed itself to increasing minority presence
on campus is minimal. People of color are still not
represented in the faculty, administration or stu-
dent. body to accurately reflect their presence in
society. But the King/Chavez/Parks minority fac-
ulty program was one important step the Univer-
sityhad taken toward diversifying this community.
Ultimately, this campus needs to develop a
working faculty that is as ethnically diverse as our
nation's population. But until such a faculty exists,
the University must reach outside Ann Arbor to
recruit minority faculty members.
The King/Chavez/Parks program did just that.
It brought in not only professors of di fferent colors,
but professors with different voices.
More and more, Gov. Engler flaunts his pledge
of not cutting higher education funding. But axing
this useful program further proves that Engler's
pledge lacks substance.
For the mere savings of $90,000, Engler is
willing to help ensure that this University does not
achieve its goals of diversity. His thoughtlessness
places a strain on the University administration,
and denies students the balanced education they
deserve.
r'
7
/
7
71,
A
- -' '.e. t,
'KY - (1 ;
40'
/
a - -
"::4" :':i} :{{RR:"i: :'}l:'i' ii : i:": is i: i:fi}:::":. :{::ri:':i:' :1 "w "''L:":"".. ".4'w " " w
"..,....".."...."......,.n.....,"..r ... .. ...........n......".."..".....,.......rrrrr...:1,",""""",y';:411":,4"f:n".':.Y:.".":" :"Y":: J:"..""""1Y".,,,.r1 ..1.. :y"r" :. .R1" yJlhY"Y'J.1f ,;K ,1:1y. ".!' : rr:t": . .1 }'"i":t:"::""" tJ
, =:4......1": r::. h,.hY :".i .i."1 "'y.. 1.14. 4..11..1.", " .".t.h... e 1: Y.4":.L":
" 1. }r. ...J "
'h1Y
. h'1" v1 1 .
..1;r "; r.: ."v."
"".. 1 ""111{"":Jl: "L ":4:
J ah. 1 h.
Jn4 ." v "}' .
114 Jr:.....1...... .
t:
rr ".h'J.
{"}J V:f",14 ..h"
.".1 {{""111, ",1{{11".
" f ,1
..1. h"""4.1 J"
"":411,1. "
""44'11". " " "1::::: J:: Yr L""1 h' ",1 1r Yh'1.
".1
".1 .h ..y
"41",11.1" ,4~ "4
. 1:...1'441.. . .
Sexual. harassment
New language may make new policy ineffective, prohibitive
T he University's Board of Regents recently
passed a revised version of a sexual harass-
ment policy for faculty and staff. In the wake of
Anita Hill's accusations of sexual harassment
against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
it is necessary for the University to constructively-
address the issue. However, several of the regents'
concerns about potential problems with the policy
demonstrate a lack of understanding about the
issue of sexual harassment and could actually
discourage people from filing a complaint.
At the regents' request, the policy was presented
at their June meeting. Because they had serious
questions concerning the rights of those accused of
sexual harassment, some regents voiced concerns
that the policy favored the complainant over the
accused. In response to these concerns, the new
policy now reads:"A person who knowingly and
intentionally files a false complaint is subject to
University discipline."
The regents have failed to realize that the real
problem regarding sexual harassment is how often
it goes unreported. From the start, odds are stacked
against a victim coming forward. Especially since
less blatant forms of sexual harassment are hard to
define, the complainant needs to be assured that a
receptive environment exists in which to voice,
their concerns. Victims may feel offended or em-
barrassed and may also be afraid others may think
they are simply overreacting or being overly sen-
sitive. This added statement in the policy only
sends an intimidating message to victims: If you
lodge a complaint and no one believes it, you may
suffer further disciplinary action.
Not only do the effects of this statement counter
the policy's objectives, but they are also not nec-
essary. Susan Kaufman, associate director of the
Center for the Education of Women, has dealt with
approximately 100 cases of sexual harassment in
the last 10 years. In only two of the cases were the
accusations unfounded, and information about the
accused faculty member in those cases never left
Kaufman's office. Neither the accused or the
plaintiff need be reprimanded in cases such as
these.
The added statement, initiated to protect the
accused against false allegations, simply amounts
to a scare tactic aimed at victims of sexual ha-
rassment.
The regents' concerns imply that it would be
better to let sexual harassment go unreported than
to have someone falsely accused.
Unfairly charged
To the Daily:
I want the University to know
that I have already made a
$23,000 contribution to the Law
School. That is the amount I
believe I have been forced to pay
as a result of being unfairly
classified as an "out-of-state"
resident.
I am near completion of a
second University graduate-
degree, having earned the first
one here in 1981, as a Michigan
resident. I have been continuously
"present" in Michigan (for-
residency purposes) except for
three of my 37 years, when I was
working to pay off loans from my
1981 graduate degree in prepara-
tion to attend law school. When I.
was accepted to the Law school in
1988, the Dean of Admissions
told me I was being counted as an
in-state resident for law school
purposes but as an out-of-state
resident for tuition purposes. As a
result, I have paid $23,000 more
in tuition than if I had been.
considered a Michigan resident..
I have always thought myself
-and indeed for "law school
purposes" I was - a Michigan
resident: I was born and reared in
Michigan.-Both my parents and
all three brothers are domiciled
here. I rely on Michigan sources
for financial support..I have been
professionally licensed in
Michigan since 1981. I have
worked for the University for six
years; my fatherjis in his 28th
year as a faculty member. Despite
all these factors, I was charged
out-of-state tuition!
The University residency rules
are unreasonably stringent as
applied to me and to other (even
somewhat) similarly situated
students. Reasonable rules are not,
impossible to devise: some state
universities authorize in-state
resident status after one year of ;
full-time graduate study.
I am not bitter about my
overpayment of $23,000; I have
achieved inner peace through
rationalization. I am encumbered
with enough debt that I expect to
have no disposable income until .
2001. Assuming that the Univer-
sity doesn't squander my $23,000.
excess payment on Christmaf tree
ornaments, but instead wisely
invests it as (let's assume) 5
percent interest per year for the
next 10 years, Michigan will have
my "endowment" of $37, 465 in
2001.
That amount, may be more.
than I ever would have planned to
give the University during my -
lifetime. But in case I am wrong,
the University would be prudent
to defer at least by a decade its
efforts to evoke any contribution
from me.
Mark Rose
third-year Law student
Discrimination
is always wrong
To the Daily:
Although neither gay nor
democratic, I find myself enraged
by Engineering senior Jeff
Luther's letter in the Oct. 7 issue
of the Daily ("Gays not normal").
Luther posits that gays are not
normal and he is disgusted by the
publicity they have been receiving
lately. He also says that the gay
community is the minority for a
reason.
Although this reason is never
given explicitly, his argument
seems to draw its conclusions
through circular logic. In other
words, gays are a minority
because they hold a minority
opinion. This type of logic in the
hands .of a future engineer should
cause everyone to besomewhat
uneasy.
Luther draws his conclusions
from the concept of normality.
The norm is the part of a distribu-
tion with the greatest number of
representatives. Thus, heterosexu-
als are the norm for society's
sexual preference. But clearly,
norms can be drawn for other
traits.
People with an IQ of 100
represent the norm for measurable
intelligence. Therefore, a person
with an IQ of 170 is not normal.
The normal for human locomo-
tion is the use of the legs.
Therefore, a person confined
to a wheelchair represents the
minority and, according to
reasoning parallel to Luther's,
they also represent something
"not normal."
Clearly, discriminating against
someone because of these traits is
a ludicrous notion.
I maintain that discriminating
against a person based upon their
sexual orientation is an equally
ludicrous idea, and I hope that our
society comes to a similar
conclusion in the near future.
Konstantin
Hennighausen
Engineennig senior
The Daily encourages
reader responses. Letters
should be 150 words or
less and include the
.author's name, year in
school and phone num-
ber. They should be
mailed to: 420 Maynard,
Ann Arbor MI 48109.
Or they can be sent via
MTS to.- The Michigan
Daily Letters to the
Editor. The Daily does
not alter the content of
but reserves the right to
edit for style and space
considerations. If you
have questions or com-
ments, you should call
Stephen Henderson at
764-0552.
0
0
0
Second Amendment
Our 'right to bear arms' should
L ast week's mass killing at a diner in Killeen,
Texas, and Tuesday's approval of a new anti-
crime bill by the House of Representatives, have
brought the gun control debate into the public
focus this week. The popular argument against gun
control claims that the right to bear arms is guar-
anteed by the Second Amendment to the Consti-
tution. A close examination of the Second
Amendment clearly illustrates the fallacious rea-
soning in the pro-gun argument.
The amendment states that "A well-regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
Literature from the National Rifle Association
(NRA) condenses the quote so that it reads: "the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed." When this quotation is taken out of
context, it does seem to suggest that the Constitu-
tion entitles us all to own Saturday Night Specials
and sawed-off shotguns.
Unfortunately for the NRA, the Second
Amendment, properly read, merely ensures us a
militia. At the time that the Bill of Rights was
written, the term "militia" referred to all the men in
a given community who kept rifles in their base-
ments. In times of emergency, these men grabbed
their guns and defended their towns.
For the information of NRA members, modem
he re-interpreted for today
efficiency has transformed the eighteenth century
militia into what we now call the National Guard.
NRA members, or anyone for that matter, who
wishes to carry a rifle, and defend their local
community, should join the National Guard.
By no logical interpretation does the Constitu-
tion give anyone the right to own a handgun.
Handguns have one purpose, and one purpose
only: to kill people. They are used in approximately
69 percent of the homicides in this country.
There is no rational reason for anyone to own a
handgun. The argument some people use about
protecting their homes is nonsense. Most of these
guns, intended for protection, tragically wind up
being used by one of the gun owners children to
shoot themselves or kill a sibling.
The Second Amendment was written to ensure
citizens' protection, not their deaths. The NRA and
other opponents of handgun legislation ignore this
fact.
In most Western European countries, handguns
are simply unavailable, allowing for a far lower
murder rate.
The president and every member of Congress
are aware of these facts. Moreover, they have all
read the Constitution. It is time that our elected
officials gather the courage to stand up to the well
organized minority which is the NRA, and ban
ownership of handguns.
.": rr..w.v."..".".1Yr: r " s".": "h".".".".".".".".".v."x v "."r . v a 4 " v s . v ? " v f ."+'
.4N:::.:"}}:"::"'"}:?:":?":y.'":":?{?"yv}:{"}:"}5:: :":"}::}::+}}:?":":?":":?"}}Y.ti":"}Y"}:{":::C?":":?"}:"}}':;.".:".".",".}:":"Y.... .. Y. r F Y 4}YJ}..:fJ"A Y "Y. FF {+r" .rY f17YrY.
..f .......................................................................: r.vsY.Y.........:.Yx.Y.": h:":.YANKv::ov.:os11.}+.."$.:C'::r"}!eF,4Y,{ i:F,;..hS.{:?,lr:$;Y+$$:: rF.s......{... 4f{1.?s R.vrYtiv' '" f' .{ . .11 r.r.. rf.
".Y " M4r"441.r~
.Y, :N: h::':.1 "1':,,.::Y:{?'yY" J?":?':"}YFJ}}:{":?"}:?":r .. }:':.......:".:.J".1Y n. . Y h !
nn "{"~." "h :":: Y:: rJ:."J:".YJr .. JFJ}. Ni "r ":." .Y . t. r J.
h+" J.. J. 5... Jhl J" FJ:Y "J.
s?. rJ r
L Y'- }:?":" 1Jf J, r:Y: .hJ:. 1"},1 "hrYr{": " J~
,J J ""r
." " J ~: NtJ
:.:.: r:^r J: h":: ": fJ}:": JJJi """tJ}h"!r, "! , f "r
"" v " yr T.sh" " ". "Jr r 1.+ . r ..{
,:1 'f' :. J::: J:: r Y'.":"} Al '} A": f:': rtr 'r a .{' . Fr r.. ..
f {v . s . s.,"... . n J:. l.:. h" ".1".".Y:.Yh":.Nf .Yr. a.... ?" r:.... { a
44 h .. rl" rJ:".
.. J. " JJ:":":" ": f:W r"JJrf J . ..J .
{ti .
" " ." JY J.. ':!
" J . Jr.
"'" , f . rv."."mA"." ."." f ofiY ".f r r.. hF......
.v .h.n r.. .A.
. . ........ J F J J.. J..
. . .. ri " ' Y r r' "rr .{fJF
..........................w . .... ..Y . " "Ff : . f , . "''f.1Y .. , JJ N f. .... r.{. ,".{
lnnoce* nt'U 11 ty
gu .
Amidst the three ring circus of
the Thomas nomination, the prob-
lem of sexual harassment has.been
brought to the forefront of concern
and may be the most fortunate out-
come of the
proceed-
ings. Al-B
though the Brad
Thomas- Bernatek
Hilldebacle
was not a-
criminal
case, it
showed just
how diffi-
cult it is to
prosecutes
such a case.
Opponents
of Thomas seemed sure that the
burden of proof was on Clarence
Thomas. He was a political ap-
pointment and must prove his inno-
cence. But how?
Sexual harassment cases tend to
During the hearings, Thomas'
supporters were chastised for their
attempts to discredit not only the
accusations but more importantly
and crucially the accuser and her'
character. For obvious reasons such
.;attempts -at character assassination
strike us as brutal and offensive.
However, in lieu of corroborating
witnesses the only way to prove the
innocence of Thomas was to dis-.
prove Anita Hill..
As more women come forward
about sexual harassment, the prob-
lem of prosecuting such cases will
become more acute. For more than
two centuries, the- foundation of
American law has been that a per-
son is innocent until proven guilt
and therefore, the' burden of proof
rests not with the accused but with
the accuser.
In a case in which it is the word
of one against the word of another,
the burden of proof rests on the
accuser and as we have seen with
that very few women come forward
about sexual harassment and those
that do must be telling the truth
because the legal system is so te-
dious. No one would subject them-
selves to such a situation unless
they are telling the truth.
However, close to the truth it
may be, such an approach is inher-
ently dangerous and undercuts the
very foundation of the. American
judicial system-innocent until
proven guilty.
Although it may be discomfort-
ing to approach sexual harassment
cases in this way, to do otherwise
would be a step in the wrong direc-
tion.Justice George Sutherlandonce
said that there is a first step to-a
forbidden end and to subvert our
fundamental judicial doctrine is
unwise and can only open the way
to further usurpations in the name
of good intentions.
Certainly, wemustbecome more
aware of the existing problem and
Nuts and Bolts
AN AcCAR1-EN&Na,ONFE
1'E-Mrl. . ..
by Judd Winick
"~~~r.If I
HE OUFS. IV
/ //
/a":
D~ADDY LSJOuijLN'r LET
MEJH4ELP!