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!