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


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.

January 27, 1994 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1994-01-27

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

4 - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, January 27, 1994
Gbe £rdh4jrn fladl

by Jim Usser
77=77: .

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

Editor in Chief
Editorial Page Editor

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.

f _


of rights
process doesn't go


SSRR amendment

Today, at 6P.M. in the Pendleton room of the Union,
I the University administration is giving students a
chance to propose amendments to the Statement of
Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR). The
SSRR has been in effect little over a year now, and
only one amendment to this document would make
sense. The Statement of Student Rights and Respon-
sibilities must be amended to not exist.
The SSRR was supposedly set up to deal with
problems such as sexual harassment, sexual assault
and other crimes. These are all serious problems,
which must be dealt with seriously. The SSRR, how-
ever, does nothing to improve students' protection
from these actions. While these are significant prob-
lemson campus, the SSRR is far from an equitable and
effective solution. In fact, it is the opposite.
The SSRR allows the University to suspend or
expel students who commit non-academic offenses. It
allows the University to circumvent the legal system
of this country, which, admittedly, is far from perfect,
but is at least set up to guarantee citizens certain basic
rights. The SSRR has no provisions for similar student
rights; it does not even allow accused students legal
representation and denies that those accused be found
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is, plain and
simple, an attempt by the administration to control
students in the manner that parents control their chil-
The University claims the SSRR is a tool for the
protection of student rights. If this is the case, why are
there so few provisions for the rights of students in the
document? Why are the hearings closed to the public?
Moreover, how can students reasonably be expected
to place their trust in student jurors who, because of

strict anonymity rules, are trained by the adminis-
tration and are, in practice, responsible only to the
administration? The University would respond that
the SSRR was set up not wholly as a punitive
system, but as a means for students to work out their
problems without resorting to litigation. But any
system that allows for the suspension and expul-
sion of students-- without providing solid protec-
tions for the accused -is an affront to the rights
that should be afforded to all University students.
In the SSRR, the University administration in
effect removes the protections granted students -
as citizens of a democracy - and replaces them
with a system in which students are tried by a
Kangaroo Court - without even the benefit of
legal representation. The University, in effect, has
placed itself in locoparentis, through the use of this
mockery of a court system. In this unjust system,
the University itself picks the jurors, trains them,
and supervises them - controlling the cop, the,
judge and the jury.
Students do not forfeit their basic rights along
with their tuition dollars when. they enter this
University, and the SSRR does just that.The SSRR
must be overturedin order for students tohave any
reasonable guarantee of their rights at the Univer-
sity. Tonight in the Pendelton room of the Union,
the student jurors involved with the system will be
waiting to hear what the student body feels about
the SSRR. The message should be clear: students
demand their rights, and will not allow the Univer-
sity administration to hold the powers of in loco
parentisover them. The Statementof Student Rights
and Responsibilities must be abolished.

n r Moil [] lp01:

To write that Brian Kight and I
have been bought by the University
administration is the most offensive
and false thing the Daily has ever
written. Brian and I hold ourselves
to the highest moral and ethical
standards in every aspect of our lives;
to write that anyone could buy us or
affect our decisions for any amount
of money is not only unfair and
unjustified, but untrue. I think if the
Daily asked any of our, or your,
colleagues and peers, the Daily
would be told that its assertion are
false. Brain and I were not only
elected on our political platform, but
also on our character; we have served
the student body by not only
implementing our platform issues,
but by representing our fellow
students with integrity, honesty, and
courage. There is no need to defend
our ethical values through specific
examples; I will simply let Brian and
my record speak for itself.
Additionally, it is wrong to write
that the Administration is providing
the MSA leadership with tuition
waivers to gain leverage over any
MSA administration. The University
already has enough potential
leverage over MSA without spending
an extra dime; ultimately, the
University has total control over our
office space and fee and, therefore,
could reduce MSA's autonomy over
these two resources. However, the
likelihood of the University taking
such action is as unlikely as them
revoking their commitment to
Greenberg is the President of the
Michigan Student Assembly.

providing a tuition waiver to all
future MSA leaders. This was not a
Craig Greenberg/Brian Kight tuition
waiver, but an MSA tuition waiver
enacted to encourage and enable
more students to take a leadership
role in our student government.
Also, compensating student
leaders is not a novel idea, but is the
norm around the entire country. In
fact, the majority of Big Ten and Pac
Ten student governments leaders
receive much than this plan calls for.
Compensating all dedicated and
hard-working student leaders is
important. It is time that the
University recognize its student
leadership and encourage and enable
all of its students to strive towards a
position of leadership. Many
students do not have the opportunity
to work towards and hold a position
of leadership in a student
organization because of their
financial status. I am confident that
many of these hard-working students
could serve our student body very
well; however, they do not have the
chance. Leading a student
organization is not only one of the
most valuable educational
experiences that a student will have
while at the University, but is also
one of the most time consuming. It
is time that the criteria for being a
student leader are one's experience,
knowledge, dedication, and ability-
not one's financial status.
Awarding a tuition waiver to the
MSA President and Vice President
should not be perceived as a bad
thing, but should be accepted as a
first step-the University's first step
in properly acknowledging the

importance of all student leaders.
MSA's leaders were first
compensated because MSA is the
campus-wide student government
and, therefore arguably, the most
important student organization.
Once the details were worked out, a
new plan to compensate more student
leaders would be enacted. If we all
work together, a student leadership
scholarship fund will be a reality in
the near future.
Students who do not hold
positions of leadership should also
support this initiative and all further
initiatives to compensate your
student leaders. The benefits to you
of having the best leadership of the
student body is enormous. Student
leaders on this campus greatly affect
all of our lives; not only do we
confront the administration when
necessary, but we also work with
each other programming and
planning campus-wide events and
implementing policies which affect
us all.
However, the response to this
plan has not been entirely positive .
from our constituents. Therefore,
while I still believe that awarding a
tuition waiver to the MSA leadership
is appropriate, Brian and I will not
accept the tuition waivers at this
time. Instead, we are proposing
ballot questions concerning this issue
to be voted on in the next MSA
Elections on March 22-23. We will
decide whether or not to accept the
waivers based on the results of the
ballot questions. Brian and I believe
that the only appropriate way to deal
with this issue is to let the entire
student body decide.

The Shtte of the Unioan
Clinton must fight for security for all Americans

A fter the recession of 1982, the U.S. economy.
began to grow. President Reagan's approval
ratings started to climb and the general mood in the
country was one of satisfaction. But this boon was as
misleading as Reagan's infamous question to the
American people during his 1984 campaign: "Are
you better off now than you were four years ago?" A
sound economy had been a misleading statistic that
allowed status quo politics to reign. And when the
smoke and mirrors of the 80's blew over, the average
American was cornered by a troubling realization:
simple security was a dream of the past.
Security doesn't seem like too much to ask for.
To be able to take a sick child to the doctor, to have
dinner on the table at night, to able to find asecure job
if one has the desire to do so- these are the bedrocks
of security and they should be basic rights of citi-
President Clinton seems to understand this. Not
since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the Great
Society of Lyndon Johnson has a president under-
taken such an ambitious social agenda. "The Amerb
can dream has been slipping away," he noted in
Tuesday night's State of the Union address, speaking
passionately and at length about -among other
things - health care, crime and welfare reform. For
once, there was a president on the podium that didn't
adapt the rhetoric of exclusion. Even while voicing
his support for tougher welfare restrictions, he cor-
rectly noted the symbiotic relationship between pov-

erty and welfare reform by promoting the expanded
Earned Income Tax Credit from last year's budget:
"It will lift 15,000,000 families out of poverty ..
Now that's real welfare reform."
Ofcurse, Clintonisfar from perfect.Someof his
numbers are inflated and his actions often fall far
short of his preacher-like rhetoric. Moreover, many
of his positions on welfare reform and family values
take a page from the old conservative handbook and
it has yet to be seen if he will stick by his philosophi-
cal guns on health care. But hopefully his State of the
Union address will be a harbinger for a new wave of
hope and security. The 58 million Americans that do
not have health insurance for varying amounts of
time each year must find strength in Clinton's prom-
ise to veto any health-care reform that doesn't prom-
ise universal coverage.;And howcouldtheAmerican
worker not be encouraged by a president that faces
the onerous truth: "For 20 years, the wages of
working people have been stagnant."
The political situation is now ripe to bring a
legacy of security to fruition. Clinton's approval
rating is hovering at about 54 percent - its highest
point since his election a little over one year ago.And
some formof health care reform has wide support on
both sides of the aisle.
But until the evils of poverty and despair are
eradicated, a long political struggle remains ahead.
The blueprintis now inplace. President Clintonmust
not look back.

Charges of r
It seems that discovering racism
where it does not exist is a pastime of
select members of minority groups.
While certainly not as blatant or
prevalent as in the past, racism is still
alive and well in the United States,
and finding and putting an end to it is
an important goal. Existing problems
of racism, prejudice and
discrimination are not enough for
some people though, who feel
compelled to create further problems
where there are none, actually
hurting the mission of equality in the
process. Two articles from 1/13/94
illustrate this point - the Stanley
Slaughter piece, and the piece on the
threatened boycott of NCAA
basketball games by the Black
Coaches Association (BCA).
The BCA is planning a boycott of
games in response to "a vote at the
NCAA convention against restoring
a 14th scholarship in Division I
men's basketball." Members of the
BCA feel this discriminates against
Black student-athletes, when in fact it
is simply a cost-saving move. "There
comes a point where you have to take
a standl," said Washington State
coach Kelvin Sampson.
Take a stand against what?
Scholarships are expensive, that is
the reason why the number was cut
from 15 to 13 in the first place, to
reduce the strain on overstressed

racism unfounded


New condom ads not comprehensive

forms of financial aid.
In addition to the move simply
not being racist as claimed, the BCA
protests send the wrong message. It
reiterates the old idea that sports are
the way to opportunity, when in fact
this is true for a very select few,
whether schools have 13 scholarships
or 23. The best route to college and
opportunity is through academics, an
option which is available to all.
Disadvantaged students should have
hard work and study stressed,
because these are the surest ways to
success, not being the 14th best
basketball player on a given team.
Mr. Slaughter similarly finds
alleged racism where it does not
exist. He goes even further though,
by committing the same sorts of
"attacks" that he despises,
encouraging division instead of
harmony. The examples of "racism"
that Mr. Slaughter finds: "negation of
programs such as the University
Research Opportunity Program,
which were specifically set up to
recognize and combat the
disenfranchisement of
'disadvantaged minority students'
acquire research positions (sic)."
This claim ignores the fact that
any student at this University is
going to have equal opportunities for
research and everything else. The
case can also certainly be made that
no one at the University of Michigan

second example. This policy may be
too restrictive, and it also may affect
Black organizations
disproportionately, but it is not racist.
It was created in response to acts of
violence in the Union by people who
were not students, so the policy was
needed. We cannot have people
getting stabbed in the Union.
Furthermore, the policy may
inconvenience some groups, but
since students can still being in
guests, I do not see how it could
"severely weaken organizations."
Last was the example of "Black
Lounges" becoming "Multicultural
Lounges." This is simply a reduction
of the level of preferential treatment,
not racism. First, what's wrong with
"Student" lounges, and why can't
everybody use them? Second, if
minority lounges are necessary, why
should Blacks have them but not
Hispanics or Native Americans?
Blacks may have initiated the
creation of these lounges, but that is
no reason for them to be exclusive
property. Black-only lounges would
create segregation, something which
already exists too much on this
Mr. Slaughter concludes by
saying that "the University's 'Dream'
is another attack on African students
not only on this campus, but
nationally. Students at the University
must ... combat Euro-American

When Dave and Maddie finally
"did the deed" on "Moonlighting"
back in the '80s, audiences never
saw Dave interrupt sex to put on a
In fact, mentioning or dealing
with safe sex realities on television
was almost non-existent until last
week's unveiling of three new com-
mercials promoting condom use as a
way to fight the spread of AIDS.
The ads, created by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention,
are a major step forward in sparking

Pennsyalvania's Department of
Health hotline, reported AIDS cases
inceased by 1,459 percent during
the Reagan/ Bush years.
Obviously, the Victorin-era
moral tactics went limp during the
fast-living '80s. It's about time the
government talked straight about this
epidemic and how to prevent it.
Although the ads are refreshing
becuase the CDC recognizes
condoms as the more realistic AIDS
prevention, they still fall short in
addressing the realities of modern

- leaves out a majority of Ameri-
And since television is on 24
hours a day, the ads should be shown
all day, the ads should be shown all
day, instead of the selected times
they are no. Only Fox, a network
targeting programming at younger
viewers, had agreed to show the
three spots with no time restrictions.
The restrictions shouldn't end
there. It's too bad the ads only fea-
ture of straight couples. Secretary of
Helath and Human Services Donna

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan