4 - TheMichiganDaily --Wednesday,_October_20,_1993
URe £irbicgan ?uiI
420 Maynard
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Edited and managed
by students at the
University of Michigan
JOSH DuBOw
Editor in Chief
SAM GOODSTEIN
FLINT J. WAINESS
Acting Editorial Page Editors
7 ' 4
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.
VON i WA 1..t S T'IOUA AN
OVI '' 00tIf'4 NoT,101 W HAV C-A
(0,5E RI1mWW
t i MRN i -~T,i /'tO6F~ J
i-M f4?~s
boyot Cload
will lose benefits if the Clinton plan passes
By ALEXANDRO NAVARRO
and MICHAEL SILVERMAN
The Queer Law Students
Alliance would like to address the
criticisms of our Boycott Colorado
campaign voiced by the Daily and
to challenge its position against Law
School support of the boycott.
The Daily's analysis of the
social, legal and political
implications of Amendment 2 and
the boycott organized in response to
it was shallow and ultimately
offensive. While the Daily
recognized that Amendment 2 "is a
gross violation of the civil rights of
Colorado" lesbians, gay men and
bisexuals, if we are to defeat this
invidious and dangerous pattern of
legalized hatred, we must stop it
now in Colorado.
Historically, when oppression
has been ignored, the results have
been tragic. In Nazi Germany, Jews,
gay people and others were
incrementally deprived of their
rights: legally codified
discrimination, escalating violence,
loss of livelihood, imprisonment,
death. The world watched for years
without taking action, thus
conspiring in this oppression.
Today, Colorado has implemented
similar systematic oppression:
legally codified discrimination has
already led to a 275% increase in
documented violence against
lesbians and gay men, and to a loss
of livelihood.
A boycott of Colorado is the
most effective means of pressuring
the voters of Colorado to overturn
Amendment 2. Your editorial failed
to recognize the scope of the boycott
we have proposed. We have asked
the Law School to join the boycott
Navarro and Silverman are third
year Law students writing for the
Queer Law Students Alliance.
by: 1) prohibiting the expenditure of
Law School funds directly into the
Colorado economy, including travel
by Law School employees,
recruitment efforts, conventions, and
meetings; 2) prohibiting the purchase
of goods and services from
Colorado-based companies; and 3)
prohibiting the use of Law School
facilities for recruitment by Colorado
based employers. To suggest that this
would have "no significant effect on
the Colorado economy" ignores the
cumulative effect of a nationwide
boycott that has already cost
Colorado tens of millions of dollars.
And while the Daily may discount
the effect of this, others do not. Gov.
Engler, responding to a question
about Michigan's upcoming anti-gay
amendment, has recognized that
"[s]uch an amendment could lead to
tourists and convention planners
boycotting our state ... Michigan
does not need an amendment of this
nature [Letter from the Governor, 2/
16/931." Thus, not only is the boycott
a powerful sanction against
Colorado, it is a powerful warning to
other states considering such
amendments.
The Daily argues that "Law
School students, not the school itself,
should be allowed to choose where
they will work and who they will
work for." This, of course, ignores
the Law School's long standing
practice of screening potential
employers and excluding those who
do not meet the Law School's quality
standards or who discriminate on the
basis of race, religion, or sex, among
other things. One cannot argue
against the boycott in order to protect
a freedom of choice that simply
doesn't exist.
We also fail to understand how
the Daily can characterize this
boycott as a "political litmus test."
The exception that we have included
in our proposed policy which would
allow those Colorado firms that
devote a substantial amount of their
resources toward overturning or
invalidating Amendment 2 to
interview at Michigan is not a
political litmus test. Rather, it is an
effective part of our boycott strategy.
It is designed to shield economically
those firms working on the front lines
of the legal battle to overturn
Amendment 2. It is in no one's
interest for their heroic efforts to be
thwarted.
Lastly, the Daily argues that "the
boycott will simply serve to limit the
employment opportunities of
University students." Shockingly, the
Daily has failed to recognize that the
preservation of freedom has always
outweighed economic self-interest. In
the 1980's, corporations, individuals,
universities, and governments
banded together to boycott South
Africa. In order to disassociate
themselves from legalized
oppression, universities divested their
investment portfolios, incurring
significant losses. Economics were
unimportant. The moral imperative to
show universal disapproval of state-
sanctioned dehumanization was
absolute. The bestselling author,
Armistead Maupin, has labeled
Colorado "the South Africa of the
U.S., for gays and lesbians." Just as a
boycott was essential for the real
South Africa, it is also necessary for
America's South Africa.
We refuse to accept the Daily's
conclusion that the economic self-
interest of a few students outweighs
the civil and human rights of an
entire class of people. Such an
assertion shocks the conscience of
anyone who believes in liberty and
equality for all people. The Daily
should be ashamed of itself.
*I
President Clinton has repeatedly stated that the
transition to his new health care plan, if passed,
will not reduce the health care benefits of any Ameri-
can. According to the administration, most Ameri-
cans will see little change in their benefits, and
millions more will receive previously-unattainble
coverage. But as the details of the plan gradually
emerge, it appears that Clinton will not be able to
hold true to this promise. Under the plan in its present
form, many Americans, especially those individuals
in urban areas that already receive Medicaid but
don't receive Aid to Families with Dependent Chil-
dren (AFDC), will indeed lose benefits that are
crucial to successful health care.
Medicaid as it exists today, while far from ideal,
offers several services that the Clinton plan will not
guarantee. Many patients, especially in urban areas,
simply do not own cars or have access to a ride.
Instead of driving to a clinic or doctor's office for a
treatment, they are forced to go without proper
medical care. This results in a range of calamities,
such as babies born without prenatal care. The cur-
rent system provides such transportation, but the
Clinton plan does not include any transportation
service. Without this, patients will be forced to take
ambulances to emergency rooms, thus obtaining
expensive tax-payer supported care when a simple
ride to a clinic would have sufficed.
Moreover, Michigan Medicaid patients currently
receive free immunizations at county health clinics.
Under the Clinton plan, a $10 co-payment fee would
be charged for each office visit. While this price
seems minimal, consider a family with four young
children living under the poverty line. Immunizing
all four children at one time would cost the family
$40, an amount of money significant enough to keep
the children from receiving their proper iununiza-
tions.
These benefits that will be lost will adversely
affect a portion of the population that desperately
needs adequate care. While the middle class struggles
to achieve coverage under the current system, the
lower class struggles to survive. Taking away ben-
efits from this group is not only unfair, it is poten-
tially life-threatening. Immunizations and regular
office visits constitute preventive care. When pre-
ventive care is sacrificed, disease and death are
common results. Taking away access to immuniza-
tions and transportation will be a gross mistake for
Clinton to make.
These problems don't exist in urban areas alone,
however, and will hit home here in the Ann Arbor
community. Washtenaw County health officials re-
cite countless stories of families with children whom
rely on the free immunizations and cannot afford a
$10 fee; under the Clinton's plan, these children
would remain without immunizations. County health
experts also worry about patients who rely on the
county's transportations services to such facilities as
the Washtenaw Health Screening Clinic, where they
receive medical care. Under the plan, they will not be
able to offer transportation, and these patients may
simply fall through the cracks.
Clearly, there is a health care crisis in this country.
And the administration's plan will go a long way in
fixing the nation's woes. But, the plan, which still
hasn't been drafted in its final form, must be re-
worked to include these basic benefits that as of now
will be lost. While these benefits may increase the
cost of the health care reform package, they will
without doubt save both money and lives in the long
run. It is estimated that 7 million children alone will
be affected by the cut in Medicaid benefits; that's 7
million broken promises.
0i
On the issues,
The 'U' sees, but does it hear?
'Morality' posters
reflect ignorance
To the Daily:
We are writing to condemn the
College Republicans' contribution to
AIDS Awareness Week. Their latest
posters are simply packed with
helpful advice and information.
"Family Values" the reader learns,
"cures AIDS." Another poster is
more specific: "Want to CURE
AIDS[?] Try Morality. Change your
lifestyle. Abstain. Don't use drugs.
Be monogamous. Avoid
homosexuality. Trust God." These
posters demonstrate how badly the
university needs an AIDS Awareness
week.
The College Republicans
themselves admit "We've tried
everything else!" From such a
wordly group, we expected a more
knowledgeable view of HIV
transmission. As the group would
know if they had done any research
before composing their flyers, the
incidence of HIV infection is rising
most rapidly among heterosexuals
and is a leading cause of death -
nationwide for men and women
between the ages of 18 and 25.
Furthermore, although AIDS has had
transfusion, as were Ryan White and
Arthur Ashe. Clearly, the College
Republicans' morality is no panacea.
Rather thanhatsubjective definition
of morality, what will cure AIDS is
social and governmental support for
medical research, education, and
services for people with AIDS. We
wish the College Republicans would
direct their energies in these
directions rather than in divisive
political maneuvering.
JAMES BLENKO
MICHELLE TEPPER
Rackham Graduate Students
Tax dollars shouldn't
fund abortions
To the Daily:
This letter is in response to your
Oct. 5th editorial "No choice at All".
I very strongly support providing
adequate health care to all
Americans, regardless of their
income level, employment status, or
any other factor. It's about time that
we are finally addressing this serious
need in our society. But I cannot
support tax funding of abortions.
Your editorial made an attempt to
equate abortion to other medical
procedures. The fact is, that is clearly
that just because something is legal,
it's not necessarily morally right. I
find it ironic that in the other editorial
that day, the Daily was decrying the
injustice of Holocaust revisionism
(and I agree with you). The death of
six million Jews and other people
was "legal" in Germany at that time.
In contrast, and with no disrespect
for Holocaust victims,-there have
been 30 million "safe and legal"
abortions in America since 1973.
To fund abortion is to endorse it
as morally acceptable. To include
abortion in the new health plan is to
say that destroying human life is
somehow compatible with restoring,
promoting, and giving life. I strongly
support President Clinton's health
care proposal, but I cannot support
coverage of abortion for this reason.
I agree it may seem unfair that the
rich would still have access to
abortions if we choose not to fund
this procedure. But in this case,
something far more important is at
stake - the value of life. This is the
same value that moves us to provide
health care to all in the first place.
Finally, your position may be
politically correct, but it certainly
does not reflect majority opinion in
this country. A recent CBS/New
York Times poll (March, 1993)
By DONNA ROSE
It has been approximately one year
since I last wrote about services I needed
here at the University in order to suc-
ceed as a doctoral student who is blind.
I have patiently waited while requests
I put into writing, and which my
Congressman's office said seemed fair,
have gone ignored. I have described
and redescribed in writing as well as
face to face - to people ranging from
my advisors to Vice President for Stu-
dent Affairs Maureen Hartford to indi-
viduals as high up as President
Duderstadt - what I need and why I
A former University
student, who is blind, tells
the story of her withdrawal
from school after
attemtping, in vain, to
solicit help from University
administrators.
modate the extensive reading needs of
a doctoral student, why a National
Institute on Aging Fellowship is not a
good funding source for a person who
is blind because it must be payed back
i..:. ti .-n-mn -v W O/ nA nnim wh
People might wonder why I am
so angry, especially if they aren't
really aware of the effort it took to
just get my Masters Degree from a
place that really seems to treat so
many of its diverse student body as
valueless. It was my dream to get my
Ph.D. But I cannot negotiate so many
additional obstacles without feeling
as though someone here can accept
what I say I need and provide it
without redefining my requests to fit
their needs. I was finally left with no
alternative but to withdraw from
cohnl en'te n n mrmh nm,
0