4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, September 29, 1993 cbe Birbiguuail by Jim Lasser 420 Maynard Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan JOSH Dunow Editor in Chief ANDREW LEVY Editorial Page Editor Ht4MM... T CAN'T J1?4eMSE4 SWHAT I'M Fo12 Q "trI c T-o IrW.J -ro ScI ooL ; ? 1ulthI9.ty 3" ....-.....- S G o TMY" ~KLUNCH. ti }+1 Y 15 OOKS... "t. Pi c [si T N t? s r --r, MyH - Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of the Daily editorial board. All other cartoons, articles and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily. !L~ , 11 > tf r /' ~(oo)) ? -.. FTo "R SF. ZI MC -Sy -31V EN IL S CoN1 I NU) ES Big Brother By FLINT WAINESS Syndicated columnist Clarence Page calls it "checklist love." Proponents call it sound policy. Antioch College calls it 'law.' And if University code enforcer Mary Lou Antieau has her way, I would call it time to skip town. The policy is a simple one: at Antioch (a small liberal arts instituition not more than a 100 miles froni Ann Arbor), a student must ask explicit permission before performing each and every sexual act with his or her partner. For instance, and I'm not making this up, kissing the neck of another individual without specifically asking, "may I please kiss your neck now" and then receiving permission is illegal under this policy. Not only that, it is punishable, by measures as extreme as expulsion. No, there isn't a university administrator staking out bedrooms to find violators of the code (not yet, at least). But there's something even more insiduous going on here. And what scares me the most is no one seems to care. Think about it folks. A jealous woman, a scorned man. They get angry. So they press forward with sexual assault charges. Of course, Wainess is an associate editor of the Daily editorial page. iving in your both individuals know there was no forced penetration, no physical overpowering. But wait, there was a kiss. And remember, a kiss without spoken consent is now the kiss of death. Granted, most claims of sexual assault don't happen like that. Almost always, the victim is telling the truth. But the key word remains almost. It may sound trite, but whatever happened to the great principle that is better to free ten guilty men than to jail one innocent one? And for those of you that doubt an innocent man will be jailed, take a look at the kangaroo court that has been established here to enforce a much less stringent policy. Does this seem as ridiculous to you as it does to me? I know the intentions are good. Sexual roles need clarification. Men and women need to start communicating. Sexual assault is out of control. But assaulting our most basic individual freedoms does nothing to fight sex crimes. And yes, it is a basic freedom for me to be safe from the government or an administration telling me what to say during my private encounters. If a woman says no, whether the man thinks she means it or not, and the man continues, sexual assault has occurred. But to turn private and intimate behavior into strictly regulated guidelines in the name of bedroom? good will is paternalistic, naive and borders on the Orwellian. Of course, Antioch is a private college, founded on different ideals than our federal system. So while their policy is a questionable decision which may or may not violate individual civil liberties at a private school (the right to privacy has been firmly established by the Supreme Court), what should concern us the most is what's happening at our own University. Processes at the University work exponentially. For years, the administration puts together surreptitious committees, quietly consults student groups, watches federal legislation. And then, boom: we have a conduct code, deputization, a racist union policy and much more. So when a powerful University figure, code judical advisor Mary Lou Antieau, states on the record that she thinks Antioch's code is a good idea, that "we're a long way from having that standard accepted, but it ought to be something we're working toward," watch out. It won't be today. It won't be tomorrow. And it won't be sudden. But eventually, and sooner than you think, you'll turn around to find yourself alone. With only one companion. Call him Big Brother. Smashing the claws of society By DAVID ABEL Standing over an empty pool, we are unable to decipher the miraged reflection beneath our inevitable plunge. Awake, the claws of society ravage the pure skin of the surreal dreams intoxicating our present lifestyle. As those ending this grad escape by impending graduation, we are all swayed to subvert our freedom by reaching to coalesce with an identity in order to mask the meaninglessness of our missions. Like a stolid tree with wily branches, society wraps around our senses and foments the waves of an inevitable ocean in which we must swim. Off the podium, we step away from our role as a student seeking ideas to that of one presenting beliefs, which we are forced to identify as being our true self or our true purpose. Deemed as the educated, we are expected to no longer question but to diligently follow and to mindlessly believe. Is Abel is an LSA senior. our freedom as erudite magnets absorbing knowledge lost to that of a role-oriented and fabricated outer- world that functions like disguised children during Halloween? What is even more glaringly blasphemous to our future than that of the Corinthian costumes of the occupationally submersed is that of the gaping insignificance of their various causes. To understand this pervasive force oppressing our outlook on the future, one can merely watch a domesticated pet locked in a comfortable corner of its manufactured home. One can watch it recline and gaze into a barren void for hours upon hours only to then occasionally move to do the same thing in another place over an over again. As the pet attempts to preoccupy its day by defeating the barbed razor of boredom by bathing in the warmest waves of sunlight filtering through any window, one is almost forced to raise questions about the meaninglessness of the pet's existence or any of the methods it uses to occupy its consciousness. These questions then naturally blossom on to the questioner who is then forced to speculate about the meaningfulness of any of the occupations in which he or she is currently or is considering engaging. As the sour spurs of society puncture the halo-like protection of our present university environment, we are confronted with the dilemma of how to avoid or how to live with these surrounding and impending charades that will strike down our developing ideals and reduce our penchant for questions to an inconsequential banality. These words are not meant to inspire cynicism or subversion, but rather to spark discussion about how we, as collective members of a university atmosphere, can reshape our society so that we can live in the future without the inherent constrictions of dogmatic beliefs, consummate identities and meaninglessness in the face of the temporal battle against boredom. 0 0 College Roundup UW paper criticizes Penn decision If there was any doubt that free speech and expression is being trampled at our nation's universities, that doubt was erased last week in- Philadelphia. The interim president of the Uni- versity of Pennsylvaniaannounced that the university was dropping all charges against a group of students who de- stroyedover 14,000copiesof TheDaily Pennsylvanian last spring. These stu- dents, members of the Black Student #League, had felt that this student news- paperwasinsensitive totheBlackcom- nunity because it ran a column by a The university is saying ... that your constitutional right to free spoech Is limited only to 'inoffensive' speech. code, which protects, at least in theory, freedom of speech and the press. Pro- fessor Howard Arnold, a faculty judi- cial officer in charge of investigative the incident, apparently did not see a need to pursue any disciplinary action against the students. "Mistakes by stu- black students "water buffalo," a loose interpretation of a Hebrew word for "fool," and certainly not racist by any stretch of the imagination. A double standard is at work here. The university is saying, in effect, that not only is it acceptable to violate someone's First Amendment rights if you disagree with what they are say- ing, but also that your constitutional right to free speech is limited only to "inoffensive" speech. Should this re- ally be a guiding principle at our uni- versities or in our society? A supporterof the decision claimed 44 v F i 1D 4 -- -- .air . .. ea u. a...us ..-re-.w I!, l 00. Iteinss 2. VOLWMI I. MONDAY, sarrmoss 1 =ROEHM= -430NS. 7 u TEAS. bdw., sod then .will U pa ,aDW Wlthis ,w that to M -0 wr 9yI y0 Tsh im n w oma TUs Cso .h a s"s k lts. tis ork" A MbM fir haws li1.i , th.& sr wis. Isastdsote a t. ashy shis _ 04.I j. *_it4 r Y.i' 0 Wright, Kay & Co Far foe ori. of in O. *"idp54.Eeb~es N M CMS -. -an4m aw #, .I