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


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.

September 15, 1992 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1992-09-15

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


Page 4-The Michigan Daily- Tuesday, September 15,1992

Iillor ill (Chief

tL/iTH Ti-i& FukS2T HME Fo-0d/ALL &AMEI.. us-r AROUwND THE--

420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
764 - 0552

Opi1ion Editors

Edited and Managed
by Students at the
University of Michigan

Unsigned editorials represent a miajority of the Daily's Editorial Board.
All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.
Teachers union fighting innovation

HANb $',GNAL :
/VEVF A' Fa R G-E7
THAT Uf'-1!s
IFVEF>' iSPEc7-r c
7-OuCH OF CJ1-A%(
140 S-vE(RI,.4ES RE-
ORAL SEx (F(~op

lTmss Tr'?E T7c) L-OOK AT THE

l- FOR f Rb&TEC T tON FR'om'
CoN Su' '. i Ct1Lt.KEL> EENT
- T4N ?HiY 90MaE FANSJ

19 1?,?



D etroit and Inkster teachers have been on strike
for more thhn two weeks, and 170,000 chil-
dren are still unable to start school. The major
stumbling blocks to renegotiating the contract are
the Detroit Federation of Teachers' (DFT) insis-
tence on an unreasonable salary increase and its
opposition to the liberalized "empowerment" pro-
gram, supported by the board of education.
Originally, the union asked for a 24-percent
salary increase - a hefty sum considering the
state's budget woes. Sunday the union balked at the
board's offer of a 3-percent increase. Almost as
deplorable as the union's abandonment of Detroit-
area students is its implacable opposition to em-
powerment, a progressive school reform that de-
serves a chance.
Empowerment allows a team including par-
ents, teachers, administrators and students to make
broad decisions about school curriculum, person-
nel and resource distribution - all on a localized
School systems across the country have been
experimenting with empowerment, often called
site-based management. The idea is to improve
education by allowing each school to custom-fit its
curriculum to the community. Moreover, empow-
ered schools can improve the physical plant of the
school, create new incentive programs for student
achievement, and even change the length of the
school day or week. Furthermore, they can replace.

incompetent teachers and bring in outside groups
to run seminars and assemblies. Such important
policy decisions are now made by the school
district or Central Distribution, a highly central-
ized bureaucracy that cannot adequately address
the particular needs of each school.
Although empowerment appears to be an inno-
vative and potentially successful tool, the DFT
opposes its implementation. The union sees the
authority empowered schools have over personnel
as a threat to union contracts and job security.
Actually, dismissed teachers would not be laid off,
but transferred to other school districts. And it is
unlikely that empowerment teams (made up of
teachers, in part) would use the prerogative to hire
outside contractors, except for special programs
and skills regular teachers could not provide.
Moreover, if a large majority of teachers in a
particular school reject empowerment, it cannot
take effect. Right now 75 percent of a school's
faculty must vote "yes" to empower a school.
Originally, the school board wanted to change this
to 51 percent, thus streamlining the empowerment
Since the board conceded this point, it will
remain exceedingly difficult to empower a school.
Currently there are only 12 empowered schools in
the entire school system. Considering the board's
decision and the behavior of the DFT, that is not
likely to change.

RR 6



/// .

r_-nrm m rsr+ _ _ _ ____

I -,

".Yiii l L::: li:::. liilii :.":.':.. tt:"t::,1;t;v;"

Vote for America
To the Daily:
Another election of the same
old same old. Once again, after a
lot of complaint about the deficit,
the campaign comes down to
costly pandering. Bill Clinton's
deficit reduction plan uses the
same smoke and mirrors as
Reagan and Bush have used for
12 years. There is, quite simply,
no way for us to pay for Bill
Clinton's promises. George
Bush's plan on entitlements is a
little more direct and realistic, but
he's spending it all on his tax cut.

Maybe we could just elect him to
be our National Grandpa.
The central conflict in
economic politics for the last 50
years has been whether to
increase incomes or re-distribute
them. As of late, we cannot do
either, and it isn't because we
have bad politicians. America is
so far gone now that if a candi-
date tells you he will improve
your standard of living in the next
four years he is lying.1992 is a
hopeless case, but not 1996. Eight
more years of short termism and
myopia will destroy our economy
for a generation. University

voters, get off your asses and start
casting your vote for America and
its future, not for yourself and
your own selfish present desires.
Brian Kalt
LSA junior
The Daily encourages its read-
ers to voice their opinions. All let-
ters should be150words orless.All
op-ed pieces should not exceed
3,000 characters. Submissions
should be typed and mailed to the
Michigan Daily, 420Maynard,Ann
Arbor, MI48109. Or via MTS: The
Michigan Daily, Letters to the Edi-

'U' abandons MCC for politics

VI W O N .1: f:1:f fs"V W: 1 t.. . f" . ~. ...:
Code: students' rights, responsibilities
Lately there has been a lot of talk over the new code which the university administration wishes to adopt. Since
this code, and for that matter any code, directly affects the life of every student on campus, we thought it important
that every student have the opportunity to read the code in full. The code will appear in its entirety over the next few
days. Friday, the Daily will be holding its first Issues Forum, where the issue will be... the code. Read it, know it
and join the debate. These are your rights.

This year, students won't be sending 35 cents
each to the Michigan Collegiate Coalition
(MCC). At their June meeting, the University
Board of Regents eliminated funding for this im-
portant organization that lobbies for student inter-
ests in Lansing.
The reason for the cut: MCC has supported a
state constitutional ammendment limiting tuition
increases. Although support for the proposed
amendment was misguided, basing this decision
on politics represents misuse of the regents' au-
The campaign began in May when the admin-
istration decided it wanted to cut MCC's funding.
Only two days before the June regents' meeting,
Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hart-
ford informed MSA President Ede Fox of the
administration's plans, despite the fact that just
two years ago students overwhelming voted to.
continue student funding of MCC in a campus-
wide referendum.
Regent Paul Brown (D-Petosky) called MCC's
support of the proposed tuition amendment"a fatal
mistake." Brown's statement suggests that the
regents' decision was a politically motivated one
- aimed at punishing MCC'-rather than assess-
ing the true value of MCC to students.
Students need an independent voice to lobby o
the state for friendly legislation, if for no other
reason than to balance the heavy lobbying on z
behalf of the administration. -
In light of the circumstances, here are some

possible solutions, some of which MSA is already
considering: call for voluntary student donations,
to fund MCC; give modestly from MSA's general
fund or the $70,000 "rainy-day fund;" or, like most
colleges of comoproble size, create a separate
student-run organization to lobby on behalf of
students in Lansing.


The University of Michigan is dedi-
cated to creating a scholarly commu-
nity that promotes intellectual inquiry,
encourages vigorous discourse, and re-
spects individual freedom and dignity.
Civility, diversity of opinion and free-
dom of expression are all valued as the
necessary foundation for ahealthylearn-
ing community.
All students,regardless of theirrace,
ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual ori-
entation, creed, national origin, ances-
try, age or marital status, are welcome
members of this community and are
expected to participate in sustaining its
These basic principles were ex-
pressed by the faculty in the statement
of the Fundamental Tenets of Member-
ship in the University Community,
adopted by the Senate Assembly on
June 18, 1990. This documentstates: "11
who join the University community gain
important rights and privileges and ac-
cept equally important responsibilities."
It also identifies basic principles under-
lying these rights and responsibilities,
including free expression, free inquiry,
intellectual honesty, and respect for the
rights of others. These same principles
support students' rights and responsi-
bilities at the University.
In an era when the development of
community is becoming both more dif-
ficult and more important to create and
sustain, the University of Michigan and
its students are committed to maintain-
ing an inclusive, academically centered
The goals of this community in-
clude creating an environment that sup-
ports learning, protects the freedoms
guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution,
and assures members of the University
community an environment free from
violence, intimidation, discrimination
and harassment.
The responsibility for reaching these
goals lies with each member of this
academic community.
The purposes of this statement are
to define the University's expectation
of its student members, to identify the
standard of student behavior and to ex-
plain the actions to be taken if a student,
disregards this standard.
Section I: Expectation of Students
Students accept the rights and re-
sponsibilities of membership in the
University of Michigan's academic and
social community when they matricu-
As members, each st'udent is ex-
pected to respect the rights of others and
to work to create an open, intellectually

as other citizens.
These rights include freedom of
expression, press, religion and assem-
bly. Freedom of expression, including
reasoned dissent and voicing unpopu-
lar views, is a valued tradition at the
University where students have a long
tradition of activism.
As members of this community,
students have the right to express their
own views, but must also take respon-
sibility for according the same right to
Students also have the right to be
treated fairly by the University and to
be informed of University policies that
affect them.
Any student who is involved in a
behavior resulting in a campusjudicial
hearing is entitled to appropriate pro-
cedural due process proteetions.
Section III: Standards of Behavior
Students at the University of Michi-
gan are expected to show both within
and without the University respect for
order, law, personal integrity, and the
rights of others.
Behavior or situations that may be
found in violation of these standards
include but are not limited to:
- physical assault
- stalking
- threats of injury or harm
sexual harassment
- discriminating against an indi-
vidual or group in any
activity,opportunity, or organi-
zation on the basis of race,
ethnicity,gender, religion, sexual
orientation, creed, national ori-
gin ancestry, age or marital sta-
- harassment that unreasonably in-
terferes with an individual's
work, educational performance,
or living environment
- arson
- theft
- hazing
- property damage
Section IV: Other Regulations
A. The knowing possessionof fire-
arms or dangerous weapons by stu-
dents on campus or at University spon-
sored activities is prohibited, except
for authorized academic purposes.
B. Unlawful possession, use, or
distribution of alcohol or drugs is pro-
Section V: Regents' Bylaw 2.01
The Board of Regents of the Uni-
versity of Michigan in R.B. 2.01 has
given the President of the University
the authority without limitation for "the

I. Purposes of the Procedures
The University has established these
standards and these procedures to pro-
tect its educational purpose, to provide
for the orderly conduct of its activities,
and to safeguard the interests of the
University community. These disciplin-
ary procedures used by the University
are considered part of its educational
process and reflect the philosophy of
peer education and evaluation. Hear-
ings or appeals conducted as a part of
this process are not courts of law and
they are not subject to many of the rules
of civil or criminal hearings. Because
some of the violations of these stan-
dards are also violations of law, students
may be accountable to both civil au-
thorities and to the University for their
actions. Disciplinary action at the Uni-
versity will normally proceed not with-
standing any civil or criminal proceed-
II. Filing Complaints
Those filing complaints under these
standards may bring either informal or
formal complaints to the Office of the
Vice President for Student Affairs, in
the Fleming Building. A judicial advi-
sor, located within theOfficeof the Vice
President for Student Affairs, adminis-
ters the procedures and guidelines of
these standards.
III. Informal Mechanisms
The University believes that a strong
system of informal mediation of dis-
putes will encourage reporting andreso-
lution of complaints. To ensure that
these standards are applied with a proper
regard to their goals and purposes, such
mediation should occur solely through
or at the direction of the office of the
judicial advisor. Other academic and
administrative offices may provide coun-
seling and support for students. These
offices include Counseling Services,
Multicultural Student Center, the Om-
budsman, the Center for the Education
of Women, Sexual Assault Prevention
and Awareness Center, the Department
of Public Safety, the Lesbian and Gay
Male Programs Office, and faculty and
staff within the schools and colleges.
IV. Emergency Suspension
If a student's actions indicate that
his or her continued presence on cam-
pus orparticipation in University activi-
ties poses an imminent danger to per-
sons or property, the University may
take emergency action through an im-
mediate suspension. Before, or within

More leadershi, less double-talk

D uringPresidentBush's visittodevastated South
Miami, he promised to deliver $480 million
needed to rebuild Homestead Air Force Base in
Miami - a pledge he knew the nation couldn't
afford to keep. The Senate Appropriations Com-
mittee rejected the president's request for the funds,
and should be commended for its actions. Unfortu-
nately, the president's attempt to use the base's
destruction to his advantage is symptomatic of the
reluctance of the U.S. government to convert the
nation from a Cold War economy to a peacetime.
Since the Pentagon's pledge to close down
major installations around the world that were no
longer needed for American security, the govern-
ment has done so only in two instances-Clark Air
Force Base in the Philippines and Homestead in
Florida. Actually, Mt. Pinatubo closed Clark and
Andrew razed Homestead.,
Maybe the job of down-sizing defense would
be more easily completed if natural disasters struck
unneeded military installations more often. (Home-
stead was to protect Florida from an invasion from
Cuba.) Naturally, thatwon'thappen, so the nation's

pared New England residents for a different and
demilitarized future.
The president's own secretary of defense, Dick
Cheney, has stated that his department would not
be a "social welfare agency," producing unneeded
weapons for the sake of jobs. Yet, Bush has already
announced the saleof F-16s to Taiwan andF-15s to
Saudi Arabia. In both cases, intense lobbying ef-
forts on behalf of defense contractors suckered
members of Congress into choosing temporary
work for their constituents over the long-term
problem of the deficit.
There is certainly plenty of blame to go around.
Traditional supporters of arms reductions, such as
Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Richard Gephardt
(D-Mo.), and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) have all sacri-
ficed fiscal responsibility for votes. Maybe that's
the nature of the game. If so, the rules need to
The only way to successfully rescue needed
revenue from the black hole of defense spending is'
leadership. Congress by its very nature represents
local interests, and therefore will not lead the way
in making tough sacrifices for the collective ben-

Back to Top

© 2022 Regents of the University of Michigan