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.

September 16, 1992 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1992-09-16

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

0

Page 4--The Michigan Daily- Wednesday, September 16, 1992
MA'T HIEW 1. R ENNI1

1

420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 49109
764 - 0552

Opinion Editors
YAEL CITRO
GEOFFREY EARLE
AMITAVA MAZUMDAR

Edited and Managed
by Students at the
University of Michigan

f~fFR*'c AO-RDIN&-
RH~p~c VFoy 'L lF
IN IWIS CouN7?R>'a
ANY
i ~LAST
- woRD

OU) CAN Fr~L IT
NW -rHEc-?ENEWAL
orF 7THE 5 iFi-Y

4[Fl

, A-

Unsigned editorials represent a inajoritY of the Daily's Editorial Board.
All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.
Sororities: what's the rush?

4 I N THE
&7-(,RN OF 13/1 S /C
V/h/-UES a a

W hen new students arrive at the University,
they are forced to acclimate themselves to
anentirely new life-style within a matter of weeks.
Unfortunately, the sororities on campus prey on
the insecurity that accompanies this adjustment by
scheduling rush before the first day of classes. The
hasty timing of rush pressures women into making
an uninformed - and permanent - decision
about joining the Greek system.
This year, rush began three days before classes
started - and just two days after the residence
halls opened. Before most women even had time to
get fully unpacked or explore campus, they were
spending long hours traipsing from sorority house
to sorority house hoping to meet future sisters.
The rushees are not to blame. Many fear that
they will miss out on the University's social life if
they stay behind when roommates and hallmates
eagerly hit the streets for the first set of parties.
Moreover, people who rush quickly become so
involved in sorority activities that they lose touch
with their non-Greek friends. The system stifles
: friendships between Greek and independent
women.
And since University sororities only offer fall
rush, women only have one chance to make up
their minds. And they don't want to wait until the
w next year, since sophomores have less chance of
getting in to many houses.
Sorority rush is inconvenient for sorority mem-

bers too. Rush chairs force house members to
attend party after party, chatting up new members.
Those who fail to attend are often slapped with
heavy fines. Through this lengthy process sisters
waste hours trying to select the perfect pledge
class.
And rush doesn't end with the beginning of
classes. Women - both sorority members and
rushees -spend the first two-and-a-half weeks of
school scrambling to find time to balance their
studying, their social life, and their sorority sen-
tence.
Sororities can provide social and sisterhood
activities for University women. For many women,
their best college memories stem from sorority
events. Many people's sorority sisters become their
best friends.
But what sororities must realize is that the best
way to foster true sisterhood is make the decision
of whether or not to rush a real choice - not an
exercise in coercion and indecision. To do this,
sororities must at the very least move rush later in
the fall term or offer an additional rush during
winter term.
This way, everyone will have a better chance to
get settled during the hectic first days of the school
year, and sororities will have members who will
really be an asset to the house-because they want
to be there, not because they are afraid of what will
happen if they are not.

=- O F F
P/WHAT A FEA
WHAT A 3E A

.

.r'

,
t
c.

/ 2/

.............

'RQ-CAP'ITAL PUN4IS~tMEN4To
I FLL CHOiCEE-,r

Code: students' rights, responsibilites
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: Part II
T his is the second of t/wee installments of the University of Michigan's Statement of Students' Rights and Responsibilities
-affectionately referred to as the code. Due to the fact that this code, 4f ad opted, will directly affect the life of every student here
on campus, the Daily thinks it is important that every student be able to read the code in its entirety. Yesterday, we left you
wondering what happens, barring any unusual circumstances, if a student is found guilty of violating the standards of the code.
Friday, the Daily will be holding its first ever Issues Forum, where the issue will be. .. the code.

Bury the draft issue

W hen Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton spoke be-
fore the American Legion last month, he
thought he had put the Vietnam draft behind him
once and for all. But recent accusations that Clinton
concealed information about his efforts to stay out
of Vietnam have raised the draft-dodging spectre
once again. The question of integrity brought up
by the draft issue could make or break the candi-
date in November. For this reason, Clinton must
rebut with a stern response to the attacks this week
and prove that - after thoughtful consideration
and unlike his Republican counterparts - he had
the courage of his own convictions.
Sparring over Clinton's draft record may have
come to a head when Clinton addressed the Na-
tional Guard yesterday in Salt Lake City. Clinton
told his audience that he wouldn't be afraid to fight
a war. But painting himself as a hawk isn't a
solution. He must address integrity.
First, he must explain the incongruities in his
statements, and present a detailed account of his
actions. The American electorate is a forgiving one
-Kennedy's admission of failure in the Bay of
Pigs incident and the spiraling comeback of Wash-
ington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry despite his drug
conviction are two examples of this.
Then, Clinton must explain candidly why he
did what he did. Why not explain that he did
everything he could to stay out of a war he did not
support, as evidenced by his writings at Oxford?
Why not remind the electorate that the Vietnam
war was not World War II, and it was as much an
honor to dodge the draft in 1968 as it was to sign
up in 1942?
Next, Clinton has to break the monopoly the
Bush Campaign has on the draft issue. While it is
true that Bush acted heroically in single-handedly
crashing his plane into the Pacific and killing his
entire crew while flying his first mission, it is
unlikely that this act helped turn the tide of the war
(at least not for the benefit of the allies). If Clinton
deems it best to lay off this issue, that's his deci-
sion. But there is no excuse for dropping the ball on
the Quayle issue.

He has to remind the electorate of the issue it
was so obsessed with in 1988 - that Quayle too
was using political chits to stay out of Vietnam. But
Quayle, unlike Clinton, was not actively opposing
the war, but publicly supporting it. This measure of
hypocrisy should make clear who really lacks
integrity between these two.
And the ammunition doesn't stop with Quayle.
The long list of other top GOPofficials who avoided
serving in Vietnam includes Secretary of Defense
Dick Cheney, House Republican Whip Newt
Gingrich, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and Repub-
lican National Committee Chair Rich Bond. To sit
on this information while he is repeatedly labeled
a draft-dodger sounds like the punching bag tactics
of Michael Dukakis, and they may yield the same
results of his failed election.
Rather than being apunching bag, Clinton needs
to stop pulling punches. It is only with an aggres-
sive - and honest - response to these accusations
that he can emerge from this glut.

I'M
I5AAAC K 0
DFl
FLINT /y+

V. Formal Mechanisms
When informal resolution is
impractical or unsuccessful, individu-
als are urged to employ the formal
mechanisms available. The broad
principles of the formal mechanisms
are described below.
A. Filing a formal complaint
Students, faculty and staff may
file a formal complaint under these
standards against a student at the
Office of the Vice President for
Student Affairs. The judicial advisor
will consult the Office of the General
Counsel regarding such complaints.
The judicial advisor will conduct a
preliminary investigation to deter-
mine whether there is sufficient
evidence of a violation to initiate a
formal hearing process. Such a
review ordinarily will involve
interviewing any complaining
witnesses and the accused, as well as
other necessary witnesses. If the
judicial advisor determines that a
hearing panel might find a violation
of the policy, and the complaint has
not been satisfactorily resolved, either
informally or by the judicial advisor,
a formal hearing process may be
initiated.
B. Notice of complaint, hearing and
actions
The judicial advisor will notify
the accused within 10 working days
after the filing of the complaint, as
well as provide the accused with a
complete copy of the complaint. All
records and documents taken in
pursuit of the complaint must be
made available to both the accused
and complainant.
C. Composition of hearing panel
The hearing panel will consist of
six students. At the beginning of each
academic year, students will be
randomly selected from the student
body to serve as potential hearing
panelists until a pool of 50 eligible
students is selected. Those who
indicate a willingness to serve as
panel members will be included on
the list of eligible students. The
hearing will be chaired by a faculty or
staff member drawn from a panel
selected by the Student Relations
Committee of SACUA. The chairper-
son conducts the hearing and is a non-
voting member of the committee.
This chairperson selects a hearing
committee from the eligible pool of
panelists. The chairperson shall
ensure that panelists are both
dedicated to their duty as well as
unbiased. The chairperson's selec-
tions may be reviewed by both the
complainant and the accused. The
complainant or the accused may
challenge a committee member based
on bias or other cause. The committee
member shall be disqualified if the
chairperson determines that the
challenge is justified. The panel may
be waived at the request of the
accused, in which situation the
chairperson will hear the case and
will cast the only vote.
D. The hearing procedure
The chairperson may consult with
the General Counsel's office before,
during, and after the hearing
regarding procedural matters. The
judicial advisor is responsible for
presenting the charges against the
accused. The accused retains the

compelled to be a witness against
himself or herself. The hearing itself
is closed to protect the privacy rights
of those involved in the hearing.
Panel deliberations will be in private.
The chairperson will communicate
the results of the hearing to the
accused and to the complainant.
E. The decision of the hearing
panel
If four members of the panel
determine that the action(s) of the
accused students is more likely than
not a violation of the policy, it will
impose an appropriate sanction. If
the accused accepts the finding and
sanction, the result will be communi-
cated to the Vice President for
Student Affairs who will enforce the
sanctions. If the accused disputes the
finding or recommended sanction, he
or she may appeal to the Vice
President for Student Affairs. Such
an appeal must be submitted in
writing to the Vice President for
Student Affairs within 10 working
days after the notice of the decision
of the hearing panel. The appeal
statement should contain the grounds
for the appeal. The Vice President
will review the appeal statement and
the evidence and determine if proper
procedures were followed, the
decision was supported by the
evidence, and the sanction was
appropriate. The Vice President may
not levy an increased sanction.
F. Records
Detailed records will be main-
tained by the judicial advisor about
any actions undertaken under the
policy. Accordingly, records will be
maintained by the judicial officer of
informal or formal complaints,
hearings, mediations, resolutions,
findings and sanctions. Confidential-
ity of the records will be maintained
to the extent required by law,
including the Family Education
Rights and Privacy Act. The judicial
advisor will annually compile and
release detailed statistics and
examples of the administration and
enforcement of the policy. However,
some data may not be releasable if
the identity of individuals involved
would be revealed.
G. Threats and intimidation
Threats or other forms of
intimidation or retaliation against a
complaining witness, any other
witness or any member of the hearing
panel constitute a separate violation
of these standards.
H. False accusations
A student who knowingly and
intentionally files a false complaint
under this policy is subject to
discipline by the judicial officer.
VI. Sanctions
Hearing panels should fashion
sanctions commensurate with the
offending conduct. Because educa-
tion may be the most effective and
appropriate means of addressing
behavior that violates these standards
in a University community, the
University encourages hearing panels
to design sanctions which include an
educational element. One purpose of
the sanctions is to help students
understand their behavior in the
context of this academic community.
It may be inappropriate for the

Hearing panels should impose such
sanctions where appropriate.
Certain factors should be
considered in fashioning the sanc-
tions. These include the intent of the
accused, the effect of the conduct on
the victim and the University
community, the degree of remorse of
the accused, whether the student has
violated the standards in the past, and
whether sanctions such as education
and community service are likely to
change the student's conduct. The
most severe sanctions, suspension
from specific courses or activities,
suspension from the University and
expulsion, should be imposed only in
very serious cases, including the
willful failure to comply with a lesser
sanction. The range of potential
sanctions is as follows:
A. Formal Reprimand: The
individual receives a formal repri-
mand for violating the standards of
behavior and a warning that future
violations will be dealt with more
harshly.
B. Community Service: The
individual performs an appropriate
amount of public service that is both
beneficial to the community and likely
to assist the individual in understand-
ing the harm caused by his or her
conduct.
C Class Attendance: The individual
enrolls in and completes a class that
helps the person understand why the
standards prohibit the conduct
involved.
D. Restitution: The individual makes
restitution to the victim.
E. University Housing Transfer or
Remnoval: The individual is trans-
ferred to a another room or housing
unit, or is removed from University
housing entirely. Additional policies
identifying responsibilities of students
living in University Housing are
available in the document Guidelines
for Community Living. The disciplin-
ary process and sanctions described in
that document may be applied as
appropriate.
F. Suspension from Specific
Courses or Activities: The indi-
vidual is removed from a course or
activity; or the individual is moved to
a different section of a course.
G. Suspension: The individual is
suspended from the University for a
defined period of time. When a
student is suspended in the middle of
a term, his or her tuition is forfeited.
The Vice-President for Student
Affairs shall consult with the dean,
chair or director in the unit in which
the student is enrolled before
suspension is imposed.
H. Expulsion: The individual is
expelled from the University. When a
student is expelled in the middle of a
term, his or her tuition is forfeited.
The Vice-President for Student
Affairs shall consult with the dean,
chair or director in the unit in which
the student is enrolled before
expulsion is imposed.
I. Combined Sanctions: A combina-
tion of the sanctions described above
may be imposed.

Cu
0
U
U
cr.

.
:~Wh o yo u trust
> .. "Unfortunately, the Bush campaign's misuse of
the integrity issue extends well beyond the
i aft. "Who do you trust to run this country?" the
president asks on the campaign trail. Naturally,
what the president refers to, however covertly, is
Gov. Bill Clinton's reputation for being an adul-
terer. Questioning the Arkansas governor's moral
integrity and trustworthiness is an effective tactic
- one the president would be a fool not to use.
Unfortunately, Clinton has yet to introduce the
tactic into his own campaign. Integrity is annimpor-
tant qualification- and George Bush has demon-
strated that he has far less than Bill Clinton.
Clinton needs to revive the spectre of Iran-
Contra. Then Vice President Bush told the Amer-

unequivocal support of them. Would a man with
integrity have lied about his involvement in a
criminal activity, time and time again?
The Bush Administration's pre-war policies
toward Iraq offer anotherexampleofthepresident's
duplicity. President Bush used Saddam Hussein's
attempt to construct nuclear weapons as a partial
justification of the Gulf War.
Hearings in Congress have revealed, however,
that the Bush Administration illegally provided
Hussein with foreign aid, disguised as grain cred-
its, that they may have used to expand military
programs. Again, the man campaigning on integ-
rity broke the law.
And let's not forget Panama. As CIA director

0

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan