Page 4-The Michigan Daily- Friday, September 18,1992
ANIw Stpjau a1
F~dllrIII hlt
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 4810)
764 - 0552
MA'1'1IiIEi\ 1). RL:NNI1:
( piiniou dIchrs
AMIT1AVA MAZIJMIJAR
Edited and Managed
by Students at the
University of Michigan
Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board.
All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessari/y represent the opinion of the Daily.
Cash can't solve all problems
r'AKES CARE tF A -L L
~ ThE V~COS7
tllH1&,IM DAfLY ' 12.
ISSUES FORU
PO
Naot since President Bush spoke at graduation
have so many blue suits been spotted in Ann
Arbor. The reason: today the University kicks off
the Campaign for Michigan, a $1 billion fund-
raising drive - the largest ever attempted by a
public university. Students have reason to be
pleased with the campaign. After all, it is better to
have wealthy alumni pay to fund the University
than already financially-strapped students. But the
black-tie hoopla that will undoubtedly manifest
itself this weekend may leave many students with
an unsettling aftertaste - unsettling, because the
place where the University puts most of its energy,
and the goal that best unites and drives the admin-
istration is not education, but money.
There is no doubt that the campaign is expertly
run. For more than two years, campaign director
Joe Roberson and his staff have been preparing for
this colossal endeavor. In fact, the campaign has
already raised a "nucleus fund" of more than $280
million. With a steering committee that hosts big
names like Mike Wallace and Bo Schembechler,
campaign organizers hope to lull University alum-
ni into making hefty donations.
And the campaign goals are noble as well.
Funds will go to increase the endowment, renovate
buildings, and even start a Center for Undergradu-
ate Education, a worthwhile attempt to focus on
undergraduates (though this sketchy proposal is
anything but focused). The idea is to build a
facility that will serve as a physical and cultural
center for undergraduates, and bring in faculty
members to work closer with students. The plan
has potential, but the administration should be sure
that it is not just throwing students - and pledge
donors - a bone.
The campaign even reveals an encouraging sign
- that the University is beginning to think long-
term when dealing with budget matters. Often, the
administration and the regents act like the
University's budget gaps just slap them in the face
with no warning every July. Their habitual re-
sponse is almost always a tuition increase. But with
long-range fund-raising drives and long-view bud-
get "consolidations," the University may be able to
stave off steep tuition increases in the future.
But while the campaign organizers have done a
commendable job, we question why the adminis-
tration cannot attack educational goals with the
same fervor.
The problems approaching the administration
are many, but they are not as tangible as billion-
dollar campaigns.
They include: enfranchising students into the
policy and curriculum-making process at the Uni-
versity; discovering new ways to trim the budget to
save scarce tuition dollars; refocusing professors'
attention from research to teaching; and creating a
good campus environment without threatening stu-
dents' rights with codes of conduct. When
Duderstadt can tackle these problems with similar
zeal, he will be an effective president.
Read it, know it, join the debate
Code: Students' rights vs.'U' responsibilities
Ede Fox
Protecting jobs, environment
L ast summer, after a campaign where George
Bush promised to be the "Environmental Presi-
dent," he approved a proposal that would open half
the nation's wetlands to development, allowed the
Justice Department to relax its enforcement of
strip-mining laws, and removed restrictions on
logging in the country's national forests. Last
week, Bush compounded his environmental neg-
ligence when he promised loggers in Washington
never to sign an extension of the Endangered
Species Act. The president has cleverly turned the
environmental issue into jobs v. owls campaign
rhetoric. But Bush is interested neither in jobs, nor
in the environment. His real interest lies in saving
his presidency.
The 19 year-old Endangered Species Act, one
of the strongest environmental laws ever estab-
lished, has protected more than 500 animals and
plants, including some Bush added to the list
himself. Yet the president declares "It is time to
make people more important than owls (in refer-
ence to the spotted-owl controversy). It's time to
put the mills back to work."
What Bush is cynically doing is creating a false
choice between jobs and the environment. Actu-
ally, with creative leadership like that offered by
vice presidential candidate Sen. Al Gore, indus-
tries can develop and produce environmentally
friendly technology, which is already in demand
world-wide.
The gasoline-burning internal-combustion en-
gine is a popular example. An electric (or some
other non-polluting) engine will emerge eventu-
ally. The question is whether the United States will
lead the world in such technology. Technological
innovation will create far more - and higher
paying - jobs in the long run than allowing the
destruction of ancient forests or the exhaustion of
any other natural resource.
The president misrepresents the issue in still
another manner. The logging jobs Bush insists on
saving will be gone within three years, in any case.
The president is only postponing unemployment
among loggers - not eliminating it. If the presi-
dent were truly concerned with helping loggers, he
would begin job training programs to offer dis-
placed workers new skills to compete in the labor
market.
To Bush, it's a matter of saving jobs -the very
same jobs lost because uncut logs have been ex-
ported to foreign countries to be made into finished
products; the very same jobs lost because increased
automation has decreased the number of workers
needed. There is far more to the issue than jobs v.
the environment.
Actually, Congress has not sought to re-autho-
rize the Endangered Species Act, because the jobs
issue has made it a political can of worms. But the
spectacle of President Bush standing in a lumber
yard vowing not to extend the Act in the name of
employment certainly sounds good to the loggers
and their families.
The issue is whether the abuse of the environ-
ment is a necessary prerequisite to employment.
An effective president could create a compromise
that would protect both jobs and the land, but that
would take a little more vision than the president
has displayed.
Over the past few months I have
gone from being supportive of this code
to being ambivalent. The speech code is
not the issue here but racism on cam-
pus. Prejudice is learned through soci-
ety and takes time to unlearn. A speech
code won't do that.
After the Black Action Movement
(BAM) strikes of the 1970s, the Univer-
sity administration made a commitment
to students of color to do various things
to improve the quality of life for these
students. Among those improvements
... what it [the code]
really does is blow a
smoke screen over the
real problem of racism.
were, increasing the proportion of mi-
nority students and faculty on campus
and expanding the curriculum to ad-
dress the issue of racism. The Univer-
sity has still not done those things to the
extent that BAM strikers envisioned.
Many talk about the preservation of
free speech, but too often these people
do not realize that everyone does not
have free speech.
Everyone in this country has the
right to free speech, but not everyone
has equal access to the media. All those
who don't have equal access are left
voiceless.
This is what happens to students of
color on this campus. The media is not
always devoted to representing the is-
sues and concerns of people of color.
One justification for the code is to
protect minority students, but what it
really does is blow a smoke screen over
the real problem of racism. A code will
not get rid of racism on this campus or
in the country, only education will.
One way to educate students on this
campus would be for the University to
endow a newspaper for these issues.
Another idea would be for University
radio stations to devote air time for
various groups to talk about the issue.
The University cannot mandate the
way people think on campus, but it does
have a responsibility to promote diver-
sity in the student body and educate the
University community.
Fox is president of the Michigan
Student Assembly.
Maureen Hartford
I'm grateful to the Daily editors for
inviting me to discuss the proposed
policy on "Student Rights and Respon-
sibilities at the University of Michi-
gan."Whyhaveweproposed this policy:
We believe it will help improve the
quality of life for Michigan students.
The increase in dangerous, destructive
and discriminatory behavior by some
students has seriously undermined the
quality of life on this campus. The pro-
posed policy asks students to take direct
responsibility for setting reasonable
standards of behavior and for helping to
ensure that these standards are upheld.
Another reason for proposing the
policy is that federal law requires that
we have policies dealing with substance
abuse, sexual assault and rape in force
along with a hearing process. This is
non-negotiable because, if we fail to
enact required policies and procedures,
we would risk forfeiting all federal sup-
port, including federal financial aid for
students.
example, under the Drug Free
Schools and Communities Act, the
David Schwartz
The University is on the brink of
culminating a decades-long crusade to
control how students behave outside of
the classroom. All that remains is imple-
mentation of the proposed Statement
of Student Rights and Responsibilities,
which will give the University broad
power to suspend and expel students
for largely undefined "destructive" con-
duct, even if the actions in question
take place outside of Ann Arbor.
As is typical, the University admin-
istration has responded to a serious
problem by creating a policy that will
constrain and punish students, not help
or educate them. Vice President for
Student Services MaureendHartford has
told students that a conduct code is
necessary to protect victims of harmful
behavior; but not only will the pro-
posed rules fail to provide this protec-
tion, they will also unnecessarily de-
prive students of many of the rights
they now enjoy.
The code will not do a number of
important things. It will not send rap-
ists, murderers or arsonists to prison. It
will not keep sexual or racial harassers
off campus; indeed, it will not keep
anyone off campus. It will have abso-
lutely no effect on non-students or pre-
viously expelled students, who will be
outside the University's sphere of au-
thority. And perhaps most importantly,
the code will not educate the Univer-
sity community as a whole about how
drastically one person's behavior can
affect another person's well-being.
What will the policy do? It will
empower the University to punish stu-
dents academically for their non-aca-
demic behavior, such as illegally drink-
ing alcohol at a fraternity party. It also
may sanction students for"hate speech,"
even though the Supreme Court de-
cided this summer that such expression
is protected by the First Amendment.
A common misconception is that
the code will apply exclusively to be-
havioral misconductthatoccursoncam-
pus. This is not so, for the policy con-
tains no boundaries limiting how far it
will extend. For example, a student
accused of committing a sexual assault
or murder while visiting Cancun or
vide students with a high-quality educa-
tion; our ever-increasing tuition pay-
ments should not be spent to perform'
jobs already undertaken by the police
and the courts.
Finally, the policy is arguably most
dangerous because it strips students of
the legal protections that are available to
all other members of organized commu-
nities. In a state or federal court, only a
unanimous jury that is convinced of
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can;
convict a defendant. Under the,
University's proposal, a student can be
expelled if a simple majority of a six-
memberjury concludes that the accused
has "more likely than not" violated the
policy. So much for due process.
The proposed code is flawed in
countless other ways, and it would be
impossible to discuss each problem in
this forum. But students should ask them-
selves why a university needs a policy
as far-reaching and as restrictive as the
one now being debated.
If the University wants to rid itself
of murderers and rapists, or even thieves
and harassers, it can do so by imple-
menting a policy that will allow the
expulsion of students convicted of these
crimes. In drastic situations, President
Duderstadt may even use his regentally
granted powers - openly and with suf-
ficient justification - to deal with a
student harmful to the campus commu-
nity.
What the University should not do,
and cannot do, is supersede the existing
court system by making its own deter-
minations of who is and is not a crimi-
nal. The justice system may not be per-
fect, but it has built-in safeguards to
ensure that all of us - including stu-
dents - are not unjustly punished.
Schwartz is president of the campus
chapter of the ACLU.
Aspen can be expelled, even though the,
University will have no way to ad-
equately judge the merits of the accusa-,
tion.
No one has suggested that the ad-,
ministration mustcondone illegal or anti-,
social conduct. But the primary func-
tion of the University should be to pro-
Students should ask themselves why a university needs'
a policy as far-reaching and as restrictive as the one
now being debated.
.
0
U
0
U
Robert Van Houweling
Over the summer the University
administration created a student con-
duct code deceptively named the "State-
ment of Student Rights and Responsi-
bilities." The "Statement" is extraordi-
narily broad and vague, does not pro-
vide adequate procedural protection for
students, and will not, in practice, be
student administered.
The standard in the "Statement" for
judging students is extraordinarily
broad. It reads, "Students at the Univer-
sity of Michigan are expected to show
both within and without the University
respect for order, law, personal integ-
rity, and therights of others." The "State-
ment"extends the University's arm into
the off-campus life of students, allow-
ing the University to sanction students
any time and anywhere.
In contrast, the Stanford University
code (supposedly used as a model) and
most other codes are strictly limited in
their off campus application. The words
der, law, personal integrity and the rights
of others."
Thus, a student could unfairly be
sanctioned for an act that she did not
think violated the standard. A more
concise standard that indicated which
in the "Statement." University students
should demand the same.
Contrary to Administration claims,
the "Statement" will rarely be student
administered. The statement expresses
a preference for informal resolution of
In its current form the proposed Statement of Student
Rights and Responsibilities saddles students with
many unclear responsibilities and takes away many
expected rights.
quire universities to have a complaint
and hearing procedure to deal with
sexual harassment by peers. (Copies of
relevant laws and related materials are
available at the reference desk of the
UGLI.)
Michigan is the only university I
know of without such a policy. There
are times when being a minority of one
out of some 3,000 colleges and univer-
sities in America might make sense.
ButI don't think this is one of them. All
other institutions have such policies
because they are necessary to protect
student safety and the quality of life.
Students do have significantchoices
to make. Do you want the policy to
include behavior that threatens the com-
munity such as physical violence, de-
struction of property, stalking, arson,
etc.? Do you want students to decide on
acceptable community standards? Do
you prefer that faculty or administra-
tors to do it? Should the hearing panels
be run by student as the policy proposes
or do you want another approach led by
faculty or administrators?
responsibility for setting norms. Stu-
dents have rightly been asking for more
voice in campus affairs. What better
place to start than with a student run
judiciary.
Another strength of the policy is that
it is fair. Faculty and staff are expected
to uphold high standards of professional
conduct and can be disciplined if they
fail to do so with sanctions up to and
including dismissal from the Univer-
sity. Students, too, should be willing to
accept the responsibilities of citizen-
ship in this community just as they ac-
cept its special privileges.
Of course, the draft "Statement" is
far from perfect. Students have already
proposed significant improvements in
the draft and I have been impressed with
the thoughtfulness of responses to our
student survey. The most important
change recommended is that we add an
explicit statement acknowledging the
primacy of student First Amendment
rights. Perhaps we should also include a
Student Bill of Rights. As a University
community we can never state too
specific acts were forbidden would help
a victim know when a student has vio-
lated his rights and more effectively
deter potential perpetrators. It is not
clear that a standard this broad and
vague is legal.
So many procedural protections are
absent from the "Statement" that it is
on the edge of legality. Students are not
allowed to representation by counsel,
-,,. t..n - _ ..a - .F_
complaints by the policy administrator.
In past codes, this has meant that com-
plaints never went to trial and student
juries never heard a case. An accused
student is likely to accept any adminis-
trator-offered resolution, short of ex-
pulsion or suspension, instead of risking
trial under a vague law with few proce-
dural protections.
Furthermore, if a student chooses a
0