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.

October 05, 1992 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1992-10-05

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

Page 4-The Michigan Daily- Monday, October 5, 1992

iw M~irbtgan&alltJ
Editor in Chief
MATTHEW D. RENNIE

NO~W, IT /4 (MINUTE. .. t'II)

C~1
-I '

.-_.. k),

(.1 //

420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
764-0552

OpinionEditors
YAEL CITRO
GEOFFREY EARLE
AMITAVA MAZUMDAR

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 necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.
F T D

Y/ou W/1P4-r M"E 1To AMAKE-~TTO II
L...OVE Th -HE fvlV)(mm,/ - T - ACoU.S-ric
ANDVrHE RH-IN~O rToUR YOU ID
SMLL1ANECL5LIN"7 ~a
YOU T HINK 2
Y --
0- 0,7

01

Regents' bylaws si
A ithe discussion about civil liberties and stu-
dent rights regarding the new code should
prompt students and faculty to question another
long-standing policy of the University Board of
Regents: its disregard for homosexual rights. Al-
though Regental Bylaw 14.06 prohibits discrimi- I
nation on the basis of race, sex, national origin and1
marital status, it does not prohibit discriminationI
on the basis of sexual orientation. The regents
managed to fight off a movement to correct its
policies a year ago, but it would be a poor decision
to continue such intransigence this year. The Uni-
versity has ignored homosexual rights far too long.
The new "Statement on Student Rights and
Responsibilities" does attempt to protect homo-
sexuals from discrimination. Yet, two major ex-
amples of University policy continue to relegate
ho'mosexual community members to second-class
status. The Reserve Officer Training Corps
(ROTC), which offers scholarships and career
opportunities, continues to exclude homosexuals
from its program. Additionally, the University
housing policy that covers North Campus contin-
ues to allow only heterosexual families, and bars
honosexuals who have made similar, if not legally
recognized, commitments. This is an example of
flagrant hypocrisy by the University administra-
tion. How can the University punish students for
discriminating against homosexuals through its
code of conduct, while the administration itself
discriminates against homosexuals through Uni-

ill exclude gays
versity policy?
The preamble of the University's code states as
a goal the establishment of a "scholarly commu-
nity" that "respects individual integrity and dig-
nity." If that is the case, the University should
respect the individual integrity of homosexuals by
banning discrimination, allowing them to chose
their own life-styles free of harassment and provid-
ing equal access to University housing. Moreover,
why does the University continue to house the
ROTC, when the Pentagon continues to ban homo-
sexuals from its ranks?
Forging a safe community free from discrimi-
nation is a noble goal, and one that would benefit
students. But it is unlikely that the University can
come close to achieving these ends in the face of
administrative hypocrisy.
RUN AWAY
RUN AWA
REENTS
T

MICi&56D~-y 9'Z

MAo< qA A-&5
A-,~-.f

l- J 4
1 r"
fv 1, c

f- t / /

,Vi r /

~t ) H v

LE +A:+ . . };?::}j:;:;:'r:i >: ':v::}(>:j{:: 7?}:2 '7i}{'?>: }}h?>:?:;::a 5?> T?: 'is l' i 'i$? i'?:< >'??': : >a ??: :i ; :: ':;:y;:;;;{. ;:JCS{:j: : :L;'j:?;: :};{'",{>:",:;' ;:;:j;:;{:;:;:;a}}j: {:;{::{;ii: }?}: ' ;': >'{G': '?:: ;:};:;:};:}}: :i

Don't let MSU pull a Duderstadt

L ast week, administration officials at Michigan
State University (MSU) asked the state legis-
lature to pass a bill that would exempt it from the
Michigan Open Meetings Act in the school's search
for a new president. This is a blatant attempt to shut
the public and MSU students out of the most
important hiring decision a university can make.
Inlight of our own University's attempt to hire
University President James Duderstadt behind
closed doors, the legislature should make sure this
reckless request is never granted.
The 17-year-old Michigan Open Meetings Act
islesigned to force public institutions to make
delisions in the public eye, rather than behind
closed doors. The Act holds elected officials ac-
countable by ensuring that the public is informed.
,There is no question that the law should apply
topublic universities. State taxpayers spend nearly
$1 billion a year on Michigan's universities, which
are, public institutions, governed by popularly
elected officials. The public has every right to
know where its money goes, and what its elected
officials are doing.
"Five years ago, the University conducted its
oWn presidential search while keeping the public
in the dark. After Harold Shapiro resigned as
University president, the University Board of Re-
gents held secret meetings, made clandestine con-
ference calls, and then selected University Presi-
Perot: populist or
L ast week, one-time presidential candidate Ross
Perot announced that he represents the only
vtble solution to the nation's economic woes. In
the latest surprise in an already-bizarre election
year, Perot declared his return to the presidential
raee, supposedly because his volunteers and the
good American people aren't satisfied with the
campaign rhetoric of Gov. Bill Clinton and Presi-
dent Bush.
^- Judging from his behavior, it is clear that he has
neither the temperament, nor is he fit, to hold high
office. When he announced his re-entry into the
race on Oct. 1, he said he would refuse to answer
any questions dealing with the character issue.
This could be a smart move on his part, consider-
ing the serious flaws in his personality. In the end,
hdwever, most American people will probably be
aware of his paranoid investigations of employ-
ees, staff members and the president of the United
State.
Ed Rollins, Perot's campaign manager for his
first 1992 presidential bid, agreed that Perot lacked
focus and direction. The Perot election campaign,
according to Rollins and others who worked with
the candidate, was in disarray - primarily be-
cause Perot tried to micro-manage the effort and
paid no heed to his advisors. These are dangerous
traits for a man who would run the largest bureau-
cracy in the world.
Furthermore, Perot has little experience in

dent James Duderstadt without releasing the name
of any other applicant.
Last year, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled
that Duderstadt's appointment was illegal and vio-
lated the Open Meetings Act. The Michigan Su-
preme Court is expected to decide within the next
month whether to hear the appeal.
Despite the obvious court precedent, MS U's
Board of Trustees is asking the state to bend the law
to expedite its own hiring procedure.
Legislation has been introduced in the state
legislature that would give the trustees the right to
hold private meetings to conduct the presidential
search.
Fortunately, Rep. Perry Bullard (D-AnnArbor),
chair of the House Judiciary Committee and author
of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, has promised
to kill the bill.
At least MSU's selection committee is attempt-
ing to work within the law, unlike the our own
University regents, who tried to subvert it. More-
over, MSU's trustees have agreed to work within
the law if the state does not grant an exemption.
The state must reinforce its commitment to the
Open Meetings Act - a critical law that is under
constant attack by Michigan universities. The law
keeps universities accountable to the public. Michi-
gan State University - and the University of
Michigan - should be no exception.
S
ego manac?
and Bush's support for the North American Free
Trade Agreement and a capital-gains tax cut. The
Texas zillionaire seems to be confused. His cam-
paign has spoken only about his economic plan and
how the Americans are "good people." Certainly,
debating economics is a plus. But despite Perot's
alleged honesty and frankness, he forgot to tell the
good American people that his plan would shrink
the job market and kill the economy. Non-partisan
panels of economists have declared his plan sui-
cidal.
The most absurd part of Perot's three-ring cam-
paign circus is his demagogic attempt to paint his
bid as a populist movement. Perot re-entered the
race only because his ego was bruised after his
initial departure. Furthermore, during the two
months since Perot dropped out, he has actually
paid his "volunteers." Perot wants nothing more
than his ego stroked.
To give his return to the race respectability,
Perot had volunteers call an 800 number to register
a "yes" vote if they wanted him to run. Considering
those who wanted to tell Perot to take a hike didn't
have a number to call, it would be a safe guess that
100 percent of the callers supported Ross Perot's
return.
The only benefit to a Perot candidacy for Ameri-
can voters is that he may spur the other candidates
to give more attention to the deficit, an issue to
which neither Bush nor Clinton has given a suffi-

ICC misrepresented
To the Daily:
Your paper printed an opinion
("Does the ICC have your
money," 9/24/92) regarding the
return of members' "shares" in
the Inter-Cooperative Council
(ICC). In your opinion, the ICC
was not acting in the best interests
of its members by not re-purchas-
ing their shares until October,
several months after they move
out. Throughout the opinion we
were continuously compared with
landlords and we were accused of
being "lethargic."
I do not feel the ICC should
justify itself to a newspaper which
does not accurately research the
issues it chooses to write about.
However, on behalf of your
readers I will attempt to clear up
the misconceptions you printed in
your paper.
The ICC is an organization
owned by the members who live
in the houses. As the owners, we
decide how our organization is
operated including the re-
purchasing of members' shares. In
addition, each new member who
joins our organization is made
aware of the share return policy
before they sign a contract.
Should the new members feel
they want to change the current
system, they can do so.
If the Daily feels that this type
of membership empowerment is
undesirable, they should say this
in the editorials. Furthermore, if
the Daily does not understand the
principles of cooperative living
and membership control, they
should take the time to learn more
about the ICC before they print
their editorials.
We have provided, and will
continue to provide, low cost
housing which is open to all
students. These same students
who make up the ICC, will
continue to decide how our
organization is operated.
Bill Woelkers
ICC President

To the Daily:
In your attempt to portray
sororities as dangerous organiza-
tions that prey on innocent
newcomers to this school ("So-
rorities: What's the rush?" 9/16/
92) you put forth many untrue
statements.
You state that the timing of
rush pressures women into
making an uninformed and
permanent decision. This year the
Panhellenic Association decided
to begin rush before classes to
minimize the conflict between
academics and rush. No woman is
forced into the rush process, it is a
choice they make themselves.
This decision is not made
blindly. All incoming women
receive a summer mailing
informing them about the rush
process and the sorority system,
and in the fall have the option to
attend mass meetings that explain
the Greek system further. At no
point during rush is a woman
committed to either continue
rushing or even to accepting a bid.
You state the system stifles
friendships between women in the
Greek system and women you
title as "independents." This is a
flat out lie perpetrated by people
like you who judge an entire
group of people with little or
possibly no information, knowl-

Sororities extremely beneficial

Sports, politics do not mix

To the Daily:
This letter is in reference to
Michael Rosenberg's article
"Egos overrun the American
pastime," (9/23/92). Egos are also
a big problem at the Daily. Let's
start with Mr. Rosenberg's ego.
In his alleged "sports" article,
Rosenberg states, "...the owners
want a do-nothing figurehead as
leader of an American institution,
which is a good thing, because it
looks like George Bush will soon
be looking for a job."
So, Mr. Rosenberg thinks he's

a sportswriter and a comedian?
Now that's truly funny. I know he
won't be appearing on the MTV
Comedy Hour anytime soon with
recycled political jokes like the
one. Rosenberg, if you're going to
write a sports article, stick to
sports. If you want to debate
politics, I'll accept an invitation to
debate at any time. But don't use
your position as a sportswriter to
push your one-sided political
humor.
Nelson Peralta
second-year Law student

SOMIINITY iNSIGvHT.shod.shwdesppr
Student vote should show code support

edge or evidence on the subject.
You state that house members
are forced to attend rush parties.
Rush is an obligation for house
members, however most sorority
women want to be a part of the
process because they realize the
importance of new membership.
They do not feel they are serving
a "sentence." They are merely
fulfilling a duty, similar to any
student organization that requires
duties from its members.
Finally, your statement that
rushees are cowering in fear at
the thought of not participating in
rush is ludicrous. Rushees are
well-informed, intelligent women
that have made a personal
decision to get involved in an
organization that can provide
sisterhood, an opportunity for
many leadership positions, a
chance to give back to the
community through various
philanthropies, and support that is
often needed at a large university.
Meghan Cleary
Publicity Chair, Panhellenic
Association
Laura Hansen
President, Panhellenic
Association
This letter was co-signed by
the other eight members of the
Panhellenic Association Board.

by Dr. Harvey Bertcher
In youreditorial "U' should heed
code input," (9/25/92) you wrote,
"The most striking feature of the
hearings (on the Statement of Stu-
dents Rights and Responsibilities)
is that not a single person spoke in
favor of the proposed code. This is
understandable - people who ap-
prove are less likely to be stirred to
action." That's only part of the story.
Actually, the people who criti-
cized the code - some very articu-
lately, and some who had really
done their homework well - were
almost all white males.
Not speaking out (on the code)
were those who I suspect are the
very victims the Statement is de-
signed to protect: women, and stu-
dents of color.
These are people who are often
intimidated by those who victimize
them, as in the case of victims of
sexual harassment. My guess is that
they did not see these public forums
- poorly attended by the way - as a
safe place to speak out.
I write as a faculty member who
has served for two different three-
year terms on SACUA's Student
Relations Commi.,.,, a group that
serves in an advisory capacity to the

scrapped, and a new one, written
from day one with student involve-
ment, be drafted.
The current version, written
under the leadership of Vice Presi-
dent for Student Services Maureen
Hartford, has tried to do just that.
Student involvement has been key
to this version of the code, which is
why it is now heading for its elev-
enth draft, in an attempt to be re-

to the courts - ignore the fact that
people on our campus continue to
be victimized, in spite of the avail-
ability of those crowded-sometimes-
costly-to-use-and-very-public-for-
publicity-shy-victims courts. That
system is insufficient for student
victims.
One wonders if the critics who
showed up assume that if there were
a referendum on the parts of the

0
0

Not speaking out (on the code) were those who
I suspect are the very victims the Statement is
designed to protect: women, and students of
color.

sponsive to student inputs and con-
cerns. I think Dr. Hartford deserves
our appreciation and support for
her continued efforts to involve stu-
dents in their own governance.
Indeed, I think she might have
preferred it if the Michigan Student
Assembly or some other student
group had created a code, as the
Engineering students had done, in
their honor code regarding aca-
demic conduct.
B ut since there has been no such
student initiative, and with her staff
continuing to receive complaints
from victims' parents, Hartford had

Statement that are not federally
mandated, it would lose, and equally,
if the administrators who must deal
with student victims and their fami-
lies are afraid that a code might lose
in such an election.
What astonishes me is the lack
of respect that those students who
,showed up have, for the objectivity,
compassion and common sense of
the student body. They don't want
to be judged by a jury of their peers,
they say, because they don't trust
their peers to be capable of objec-
tive fairness. I have more faith in our
students than they do, and I say -

0

I

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan