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.

November 01, 1993 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1993-11-01

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

4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, November 1, 1993

Uljz e[difan&tdlg

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

AAL
.. 4mo

.. .r"

: ;

i
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.

...s
A E

e
a
3iGN oc THE TMES,
MEN=
lntMAusions at the La-W.

MONFAM

I

S

.,_..

school'

By JEREMY BOBY
By passing Amendment Two,
the people of Colorado have
displayed a grotesque unwillingness
to protect homosexuals from
discrimination based on their
exercise of a simple human right:
the right to exercise their sexuality.
The Queer Law Students
Alliance has proposed that the
University Law School boycott
Colorado in order to convince the
state to lift the amendment and also
to show other states what can
happen if they pass similar laws.
The idea behind this boycott is just,
and hopefully the law school will
choose to do something.
Although the basic premise of
this proposal makes sense, the
particular boycott proposed is
somewhat problematic.They
propose to boycott Colorado in two
ways: first, the Law school would
refuse to spend money for Law
school employees to travel to
Colorado or to buy educational
supplies from any company based
in Colorado; second, law firms from
Colorado would not be allowed to
interview Michigan law students,
with very few exceptions. QLSA
has gone to great lengths to
convince the Law school that
Amendment Two is unjust and that
the Law school can do something
about it. Currently the Law school
is considering their proposal, and
soon (perhaps before this letter is
published) it will make its decision.
Although the law school will
be able to decide for itself how it
expends it's resources, the students
may not be lucky enough to make
their own decision. If the law
school accepts the second part of
the boycott, Colorado firms, with
very few exceptions, will not be
allowed to interview at the Law
Boby is a first-year Law student.
Letter s
Redskin racism
To the Daily:
This is a response to a letter,
"Criticizing Redskins is simply
ridiculous" (9/21/93.) If you made a
quick check of your vast historical
knowledge, you may find that
Native-American Indians, unlike
your Swedish ancestors, have been
on the receiving end of abuse for
many, many years. A quick check
of your vast socioeconomic
knowledge may reveal to you that
these same Native-American
Indians consistently rank among the
highest in poverty and alcoholism,
and among the lowest in education.
Can the same be said for your
Swedish-American brothers and
sisters? The point is, Mr. Anderson,
that Native-American Indians have
traditionally had little say in how
they are perceived- and even less to
say about how they are treated.
You seem to be convinced that
because you are not offended-by a
widely accepted image of your
ethnicity that no one else should be
offended by the use of their
ethnicity either. Think for a minute,
if possible, about who controls that
image. For you and your ancestral
Vikings, the portrayal is one of a

school, which will make it all but
impossible for law students to get
jobs with Colorado firms.
Although QLSA says students
will still be allowed to interview on
their own (I don't even think the
Law school could legally restrict
that right) the whole point of the
second part of the boycott is to
make it next to impossible for
students to work in Colorado. If the
Law school were to do this, it
would be denying students the right
to make their own moral decisions
by forcing students to support the
boycott.
For an institution to force a
moral decision on individuals is a
violation of all of our rights to
freedom and self determination.
Discrimination against gays is
wrong because it is an attempt to
control a person's private decisions.
But QLSA is advocating the same
thing when they encourage the law
school to force students to support a
boycott..,
The Daily rightly opposes this
questionable second part of the
boycott, and many law students
appreciate this good sense.
Although I firmly support QLSA's
effort to convince the Law school as
an institution to do the right thing,
they ought to be ashamed of
themselves for trying to strong arm
students into joining a boycott they
may not support. It is a
contradiction to protect Colorado
gays' freedom by depriving law
students of their freedom.
We may not like it, but there
are probably at least some Law
students who think Amendment
Two is a good idea. These people
are dead wrong, and there is
nothing wrong with arguing with
them. But to force them to join a
boycott they don't agree with is a
grotesque violation of their rights to

make their own decisions.
What is really frustrating about
the whole boycott movement is that
the QLSA has expended many,
resources trying to explain why
students shouldn't be allowed to
interview with Colorado firms when
they should have been trying to *
explain why students should choose
not to work with Colorado firms.
QLSA would have shown more
respect for individual autonomy if
they made a list of firms in
Colorado that were trying to fight
Amendment Two and suggested
that students work there. The
boycott may have more student
participation if students are forced.
to participate, but such participation
is meaningless, and is likely to
produce a backlash.
A more practical problem with
QLSA's strategy is that it has
unnecessarily made enemies of
traditional allies. Civil libertarians,
who hate Amendment Two, are
rightly offended by the Big Brother
mentality of practically forcing
students to join the boycott. The *
Daily came out against the boycott
for its excessive restrictions, and it
has caused much controversy here
in the Law Quad. And from my
conversations with law students it
seems that at least some of them are
so offended by the tactics QLSA
has used that they want to oppose
the whole boycott. This is the
wrong way to respond.
To oppose the Boycott because
part of it is intrusive would be to
throw the baby out with the
politically correct bath water.There
is a lot to be said for the law school
choosing not to spend money on
Colorado, and it would be perfectly
appropriate for QLSA to convince
students to choose not to interview
with Colorado firms. But to force

them is an unwarranted intrusion.

01

Western civ
By DEANE BAKER
Alleged discrimination is not the
real issue, but rather the establish-
ment in the Bylaw of the concept of
"equivalency" of homosexual/lesbian
sexual practices and lifestyle as equal
to and acceptable as heterosexual
sexual practices and lifestyle.
A recent group effort to include
"equivalency" in the curriculum, in
all grades of the Ann Arbor Public
Schools, included representatives
from the University. Part of the pro-
posed change was to teach children,
including those in early grades. that

and gays do
they are today. The structure of the
family is being crushed by crime,
drugs, sexual permissiveness, abor-
tion, denial of parental authority, por-
nography and destruction of tradi-
tional values. This discussion of the
Bylaw change is only one aspect of
that great decline.
Dennis Prager, a prominent and
respected California commentator,
who writes from the Jewish perspec-
tive, publishes a quarterly journal
titled Ultimate Issues. In his April-
June 1990 issue, he writes thought-

n'tmix
unit so much as it is a value that
must be cultivated and protected.
The Greeks assaulted the family in
the name of beauty and Eros. The
Marxists assaulted the family in the
name of progress. And, today, gay
liberation assaults it in the name of
compassion and equality. I under-
stand why gays would do this. Life
has been miserable for many of
them. What I have not understood
was why Jews or Christians would
join the assault. I do now. They do
not know what is at stake. At stake
.,, -.... Y..:: ..-- U ,s

when Amos and Andy were the
only images of African-Americans
on television. Images and portrayals
of Blacks within the popular media
are now much different in a positive
way. While Amos and Andy opened
the door for such progress, we
would never consider them
representative of African-
Americans today. Changing that
image was slow to come and is still
taking place as African Americans
continue to gain control of how they
are represented in our culture. The
same may now be taking place with
Native-Americans.
It saddens me to think that you
seem to care more about the name
of your football team than about
having respect for a person's
culture. You say, "anyone named
Richard should understand my
plight." I think I do understand your
plight, but it has more to do with
your brain than your name..
JOHN BACOLOR
LSA Sophomore
Morality can indeed
cure AIDS

should also give guns to those who
wish to commit murder. We have
already seen that this logic doesn't
work in the case of free
vaccinations to low income
families. When these families, in
the area where I live, were given
this opportunity,,less than five
percent of them showed up to have
their children vaccinated. This
example shows that government
funded programs are not the key to
solving these issues. If people are
going to use condoms during
intercourse, they will use them
whether they have to purchase
them or the government provides
them. The responsibility does lie
within the individual to make this
decision. It is lack of proper
decision making by individuals that
causes the AIDS epidemic to grow
and not the lack of governmental
legislation as the Daily would like
you to believe. As soon as society
chooses to turn back to morality,
AIDS the social disease can be
cured.
JEANETIE LARNER
LSA Senior

==

I

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan