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 11, 1993 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1993-10-11

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

4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, Ocotober 11, 1993

U7bE ,£id~iguu flg

Shr as Toas

420 Maynard
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Edited and managed
- by students at the
University of Michigan

JOSH DUBOW
Editor in Chief
ANDREw LEVY
Editorial Page Editor

A ON
s WA Sro YouNGTo 0063N ODL*K1URNth ...AM Too o t.v rO k
FISHY IN rE KOWN AN W... T ~'V'ITV WAR-**I!NvesER. srorw...

F

"

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.

Sit this one out

0 The Law School shouldn't join in the Colorado boycott

T he Queer Law Students Association (QLSA)
recently called for the Law School to join the
increasingly popular boycott of Colorado by ban-
ning Colorado law firms from using University
facilities to recruit. The boycott is an effort to force
Colorado to overturn its anti-gay-rights Amendment
2. Although Colorado's Amendment 2 is deplorable
and the general boycott commendable, the Univer-
sity has no place joining it.
Colorado's Amendment 2 prohibits any legisla-
tion that would protect the rights of homosexuals,
lesbians and bisexuals from being passed anywhere
in Colorado. This legislation is a gross violation of
the civil rights of Colorado homosexual, lesbian and
bisexual citizens. And while the boycott of Colorado
is completely justified, the Law School has no busi-
ness participating.
The purpose of the boycott is to force the over-
turning of this amendment through economic pres-
sure. Prohibiting Colorado law firms from recruiting
at the Law School would have no significant effect
on the Colorado economy; those firmhs will simply
recruit elsewhere. True, these law firms will no
longer have access to recruiting some ofthe country's
best new lawyers..But Michigan's Law School is far
from being the only law school to produce fine
attorneys. Joining the boycott will simply serve to
limit the employment opportunities of University
students.
The Law School, or any other part of the Univer-
sity, should not subject potential employers to a
political litmus test before allowing them to recruit
on campus. QLSA has asked that Colorado firms that

....THLI , XrAKe VAur iN MyFrr1sr-
AMERICAN WAR~:

can demonstrate they are actively working to over-
turn the amendment be exempted from the ban. But
this is an ambiguous position that would be difficult,
if not impossible, to define. The Law School has no
right to determine the politics of students' employ-
ers, yet this is exactly what instituting this ban would
accomplish.
Without the availability of University facilities,
firms will simply recruit elsewhere. Law School
students, not the school itself, should be allowed to
choose where they will work andwho they willwork
for. The Law School has no right to limit that choice.
Amendment 2 is a dangerous step backward in
the fight for civil rights for all citizens of this
country. It would allow open discrimination against
many Colorado citizens, something that is abso-
lutely unacceptable and probably unconstitutional.
No citizen should ever have to face discrimination
on the basis of any factor - whether it's race,
gender, ethnic background, sexual orientation, etc.
Amendment 2 must be overturned, and Colorado
firms should work toward that. However, it is inap-
propriate for the Law School to sit injudgement in
the meantime, demanding proof from prospective
employers that the politics of their firms are accept-
able.
Colorado's Amendment 2 is disastrous. It opens
the door for Colorado to deprive American citizens
of their basic civil rights. Still, the Law School must
recognize that its students must decide for them-
selves whether they wish to work in that state. The
Law School must reject the arguments of QLSA and
not join in the boycott.

_

U Men are also victims of sexual assault

elly was raped. A knife wielding rapist stripped
WSKelly of all traces of human decency and self,
teem Klly, experienced the same feelings. as
many female rape victims - helplessness, anger,
shock and guilt. And, just like many women, Kelly
was wary of calling the police and reporting the rape.
However, Kelly's feelings and fears were com-
pounded.
Kelly was a man.
We use the term "was" because Kelly's feelings
of self-worth as both a man and a human being have
been brutally shred. But, sadly, Kelly's attacker isn't
the only one at fault. A societal paradigm that teaches
men to be strong and to never display emotion must
also bear some of the blame for the damage done to
Kelly and to all male victims of sexual assault.
Rape is a crime of violence. Anyone -anyone
- can be a victim. According to Dr. Andre
Modigliani, associate professor of sociology, rape
victims fit no particular genre. A person's race,
socioeconomic background, religion, etc., doesn't
exclude them from possible victimization.
Unfortunately, the idea of male rape victims tends
to be more of a joke to many. Granted, many more
females are raped than males. Furthermore, date rape
of women is a widespread and growing problem on
college campuses that needs to be dealt with. Never-
theless, men are victims also. And, as such, men are
subject to the same stresses that many female rape
victims must cope with.
For instance, according to Kristi Breen, a counse-

for at Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness
Center (SAPAC), men tend to be more afraid of
reporting being raped thanwomen. Although both
male and female rape survivors are often scrutinized
or even ostracized (many times unfairly) by society,
men tend to bear a crueler scrutiny because, unlike
many women, "their sexual orientation is ques-
tioned and questions about their masculinity may
arise," according to Ms. Breen.
In short, the idea of a male rape victim is consid-
ered an absurdity by many in this country. Only
wimps and gay men can be raped, some say. But this
attitude only fosters old fallacies and stereotypes.
Just like women, mentend to be afraid of reporting
rape, not so much because of the rape itself, but
because of their fear of the public's reaction to them
for having the "audacity" to be "victims."
Rape is no joke, and it doesn't become a joke
simply because a victim just so happens to be male.
We as a society must do more to combat this serious
ill plaguing America. We must also become more
sensitive to the feelings of male rape victims.
Men are not gods. Men are humans with the same
emotions as women. Rape strips women and men of
much of their dignity. Let us not compound men's
hurt and confusion with ridicule, scorn and lies. Let
us love them and support them through their suffer-
ing. Let us remember that male rape victims are just
that - victims.
Let us not add to their torture due to our unwill-
ingness to believe them.

Pornimage
By CAROL JACOBSON
Why is the University of
MIchigan so afraid to deal with
censorship on its own campus?
One year ago, the art exhibit,
"Porn'im'age'ry: Picturing
Prostitutes" was censored, sight
unseen, at an anti-porn conference
sponsored by the law school and The
Michigan Journal of Gender and
Law. Called "pornographic" and
ordered down, the exhibit had
presented a point of view that
favored the decriminalization of
prostitution. This clashed with the
view dominating the conference,
which reflected the anti-pornography
position of University law professor
Catharine MacKinnon and Keynote
speaker, Andrea Dworkin.
Unfortunately, the pervasive silence
among university faculty on the
incident has served the forces of
censorship on campus considerably.
During the past year the seven
artists - with help from the
American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), the Feminist Anti-
Censorship Task Force (FACT) and
others - have waged an uphill battle
against the Michigan Law School to
reinstall the exhibit and to hold a
feminist anti-censorship forum to
address the banning of the exhibit
and the rights of sex workers to
speak for themselves. While the
campus turned its back on
censorship, a national coalition of
supporters from the broader arts',
feminist, sex workers', academic,
legal and anti-censorship
communities rallied and registered
their protests in a variety of public
ways. "The Village Voice" called for
a "fax attack" on Dean Lee
Bollinger, who was stalling on
negotiations. The New School for
Social Research and The City
University of New York sponsored
conferences which discussed the
Jacobson is the artist who created
Porn'im'age'ry
The earth is clearly
not round
To the Daily:
In 1519, Ferdinand Magellan, the
first supposed circumnavigator of the
earth, departed from Spain and began
a myth that has sailed on into today.
This explorer, who supposedly
brought proof to bare that the earth
was round, in fact never even
completed hisvoyage. Arriving in
the Philippines several years later,
Magellan was apprehended and
brutally slaughtered by natives; a sad
end to the life of a courageous man.
What was then assumed by European
cartographers, in their attempts to
bring enlightenment to the citizens of
the Dark Ages, was that if only
Magellan had been able to complete
his voyage he would have returned
home safely to Spain. Oh, how we
have been misled! In fact, there is no
"proof" and has never been any proof
that the earth is round.-The TRUTH,
as recently uncovered by our diligent
revisionist staff, is that the earth is in

reality shaped like a large bowl,
somewhat like the glass that
descends over a pheasant at your

' yreturns tc
case. Prostitutes of New York
(PONY), the National Coalition
Against Censorship (NCAC) and
other feminist and sex workers'
groups issued press releases.
Women's Action Coalition (WAC)
led petition drives. Newspapers on
both coasts as well as art, legal and
academic journals, public radio and
television news covered it.
By last spring, the ACLU had
negotiated an agreement on behalf of
the artists. The law school had agreed
to:
* Reinstall the exhibit at law
school expense.
" Pay the artists $3,000 in
settlement of all claims.
* Invite the artists to speak at the
opening of the exhibit.
- A proposal to hold a public
forum to address issues arising out of
the controversy in conjunction with
the reinstallation.
Despite its commitments, the law
school made no concrete progress on
arranging or scheduling the events
throughout the remainder of the
spring or summer. Instead:
* Promises to invite specific
speakers, including Carole Vance, a
professor of Anthropology from
Columbia University who is a
specialist on both the sex debates and
the culture wars, Holly Hughes, a
performance artist who was one of,
the NEA Four, and Deborah Willis, a
curator from the Smithsonian, were
revoked.
" Commitments to panels and
subjects relating to the feminist, race
and class dimensions of censorship
were withdrawn or recast to support a
conservative position.
* All honoraria and expenses of
the artists were denied.
* Legitimate expenses to reinstall
the exhibit were rejected.
Finally, in late August the ACLU
wrote to President Duderstadt,
threatening to sue for breach of
contract if the University did not

F

01

I eamnlic

honor its agreement to reinstall and
hold the forum. In response, Dean
Bollinger set a definite date to
reinstall the exhibit and hold a forum
in the law school October 15-16.
The artists have remained
determined throughout the past year
to see the exhibit reinstalled despite
the law school's constant -and for
the artists, costly -stonewalling, a
television news report that opponents
might disrupt the exhibit if it's
reinstalled, and Catharine
MacKinnon's threat to sue our
lawyers for libel. We believe there
are many students and faculty on
campus who want to see it, and who
oppose tactics that employ bullying .
and abuses of power to suppress
dissenting views that are based on
sex, race,class and other differences:.
Through this fight we have resolved
to challenge both the laws that
criminalize women for sex work and-:
the censorship that continues to
assault the arts community.
Censorship can only be defeated
when it is seen for the instrument of
social control that it is. Historically, it
has been used against women and
others to systematically erase whole
cultures. We must now begin to use
it for open, public discussion and an
opportunity for education.
Unfortunately, that will not
happen at the law school this fall.
Having won the right to reinstall, the
artists are being forced to bear much
of the cost of reinstallation, and to
pay our own way to attend and speak
at the opening. The accompanying
forum does not honor the original
commitments: it is a substitute for the
forum that should have been held.
We wonder why the law school is so
afraid to address the central questions
involved in this controversy: points
that would seriously challenge the
ongoing censorship of feminist
sexual imagery and raise within the
legal community the important issue
of prostitutes' rights.

issenting opinions
Cod b
C0oradoboct is Premature

truth, your flying time and fare
should be cut in half due to fact that
you merely have to shoot across the
flat underbelly of the earth, resting
comfortably in a Shanghai hotel
within 10 hours.
"How has this gone unchallenged
for so long?" you might ask. With
printing presses rolling, annually
shooting out textbooks, posters, and
bumper stickers that say "think
globally,"scientists, journalists, and
government officials have cowered
before the task of re-educating the
populace.
Consider for a moment how long
Native Americans were called
Indians despite the absence of any
connection between residents of
Topeka and those of New Delhi. You
cannot recall an idea like you can a
faulty Saturn automobile or Perrier
water.
We at the Magellan Revisionist
Society will not accept such lies!
Though major institutions such as
NASA may oppose the unearthing of
this information we cannot allow our
fellow man to suffer the sad
misrepresentation of the very ground
he walks on Though there may be.

By Eugene Bowen
In framing the various articles
and laws of the U.S. Constitution,
our founding fathers made one of
their smartest moves when describ-
ing the judicial system of this infant
country. Judges, they declared, will
be appointed, not elected. A very
simple move, but not without pro-
found implications.
Since judges are appointed to their
posts and, in general, can not be
removed from their offices by a popu-
lar vote, those of the iudicial branch.

issue are expressed can outgreat
country honestly be termed
egalitarian.
NOAH SIEGEL.
DAN SELIGMANN
Magellan Revisionist Committee

w -

or determining the constitutionality of
a law, were put in a position where
public pressure shouldn't be of much,
if any, influence.
In short, ourjudges have the right to
do their work free of any and all public
pressure.
However, for all their intense study
and knowledge in the field of law,
members of the Queer Law Students
Alliance (QLSA) and some Law school
faculty seem to have forgotten about
this right of judges.
Currently the OSA isnronosin a

that Amendment 2 is no longer in the
hands of the people; it's in the hands
of the judicial branch ofgovernment.
This also means that if the Law school
supports a boycott now, it wouldn't
put pressure on the people of Colo-
rado to rescind Amendment 2 (the
measure is no longer in the hands of
the people). It wouldput publicpres-
sure on the judges.
But judges have the right to do
their work free of any and all public
pressure, right? Right. So, a boycott
at this time wouldhe nremature. The

Bylaw amendment
doesn't protect
Christian groups
To the Daily:
In your editorial of 9/29, you
state "Including homosexuals in
the Regents' Bylaw is not meant
to be a means for censoring
student groups." I agree.
But the intent of the bylaw
may not correspond with its
enforcement.
Consider these examples:
MSA has a rule which
prohibits discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation. Five
years ago, that rule was used to
ban a Christian organization from
campus because it would
hypothetically deny a position of
leadership to apracticing
bnmnenual _

-

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan