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.

February 28, 1994 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1994-02-28

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

4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, February 28, 1994

Ulbe Eirti g n tuti

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

JESsm HALLADAY
Editor in Chief
SAM GOODSTE N
FLINT WAINESS
Editorial Page Editors

Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of a majority of the Daily's editorial board.
All other articles, letters, and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
The code remains interim
The Regents wisely vote against making the code final

"From the very beginning, I have been against the code."
-Regent Deane Baker at the last Regent's meeting.
TO'TH}IN THAT THOU&HT,.
CoOLD TRUST YoU!
'' X1 A.OoKS sa~r......
- ~

F ortunately, the Statement of Student
Rights and Responsibilities will remain
as an interim policy for the next year -
allowing students and administrators the
chance to modify the badly flawed six page
document.
Confronted by emotional pleas from
members of the Michigan Student Assem-
bly to keep the code as an interim policy
until next April, the University Board of
Regents agreed to do so - by a 7-1 vote.
Student leaders urged the regents to take a
conservative approach -- to let the policy
remain as an interim policy to allow amend-
ments and modification to be made before
making it a permanent policy - and the
regents agreed.
The University has tried for more than 20
years to impose a code of non-academic
conduct. The current code, pernicious at
best, lists a series of actions punishable by
the University including hazing, sexual ha-
rassment and criminal misconduct. Enforce-
ment proceedings allow the accused to have
the case heard by a mediator, a University
official or a panel of six student jurors.
Friday's action was precipitated by the
flawed amendment process. Under the code,
amendments cannot be considered by the
regents until they are first reviewed by a
majority of the pool of 50 students serving
as the code's judiciary. This would protect
students against the administration making
changes without a public debate. But the
administration couldn't get a quorum of
jurors to show up and no amendments were
considered.
The fundamentally flawed reasoning be-
hind this statement, that the administration

should act in loco parentis - in place of
parents - has led to many unjust policies.
The code lacks adequate due process mea-
sures to protect the accused. Students brought
up under the code do not even have the
luxury of having an attorney represent them
during the hearing process - a process that
can result in anything from a reprimand to
expulsion.
Furthermore, the code goes against the
very fabric of the American legal process.
The United States already has a system of
civil and criminal laws designed to protect
society. While the justice system is not
perfect, implementation of the code aggra-
vates rather than ameliorates the inherent
flaws. The code places students in double
jeopardy - those accused of a felony or
misdemeanor can face both academic and
criminal punishment. The code of non-aca-
demic student conduct is not necessary, as
civil and criminal law provide sufficient
protection.
Regent Deane Baker (R-Ann Arbor),
who withstood pressure by his colleagues
and voted against the code, is worthy of
praise. Baker, a long-time opponent of the
statement, was the lone regent who op-
posed the measure - this opposition was
against the code, not in favor of making it
a permanent policy.
While it is unlikely that administrators
and regents will relinquish their adamant
support for this unfair code - a policy that
University administrators could use to
strangle student conduct it deems "inappro-
priate" - the extension of the interim policy
does provide students with the chance to
salvage what little rights we have left.

'Capitalism is not a
political system'
To the Daily
Jared Levin's February 10
impassioned letter to the
Daily asserts: "The only
political system in history
which puts individual rights
and freedoms first is
capitalism." I thought Jared
might like to know that
capitalism is not a political
system. It is an economic
system. When people
mistakenly interchange
"capitalism" with
"democracy," it certainly
makes their arguments less
credible.
USA STENMAN
Third year law student
'Certainly no Sugiura'
To the Daily:
I am writing in response
to Ken Sugiuras' Feb. 14
column "Some Winter
Olympic sports for lugers
only." First, I would like to
know who gave you the
authority to say what
qualifies as a sport and what
does not. The fact that you
consider bobsledders
Olympic caliber athletes, but
not figure skaters, blows my
mind.
Real sports, you say,
require times, distances and
scores. You say there "is no
'sport' to figure skating."~
What happened to physical
ability, endurance,
competitiveness and
incredible skill, Ken? I
would love to know where
exactly you derived your
definition of sport.
Obviously, you spend more
time writing your wacked
articles than participating in
sports, or else I think your
views on sports and figure
skating would definitely
change.
By the way, the last time I
checked, dancing was a
sport. Frankly, I think your

column was not even close
and certainly no Sugiura.
JENNIFER STARMAN
Kinesiology sophomore
An apology from UAC
To the Daily:
The University Activities
Center extends its sincerest
apologies to everyone who
attended the screening of
Blue Chips on Monday, Feb.
14. We regret any
inconveniences our patrons
experienced during the
event, and in particular, we
sympathize with those who
were unable to see the show.
UAC would also like to
thank Mr. Jeremy Liles for
his recent letter to the Daily.
We are committed to
providing entertainment
programs that serve the
entire University community,
and we welcome the
opportunity to learn how we
can better serve you as our
customers. The information
that Mr. Liles and others
have given us will prove
helpful in examining how
well our programs meet your
needs. Thank you.
CHRIS CURTIS
UAC President
Business school senior
Lasser doesn't deserve
criticism
To the Daily:
I am writing to you with
regards to your cartoonist
Mr. Jim Lasser. I cannot help
but say that I am somewhat
surprised and appalled at all
the criticism he has received.
in recent months. Worst of
all, his public chastisement
does not even seem to be
deserved. I find his cartoons
extremely humorous, as do
most of my friends. I feel
sorry for the few ignorant
readers of the Daily who are
unable to fully appreciate
Mr. Lasser's work simply
because they are unaware of

current events.
As far as all these letters
of protest are concerned, I
doubt the Daily, or anyone
else for that matter, is
deceived by this thinly veiled
effort to oust Mr. Lasser
from his position. If this is
being done by a group that
feels they have been slighted
by one of his cartoons,
perhaps it would be better to
write a letter defending their
party, rather than insult the
work of this talented young
man.
RAVI MADAN
LSA first-year student
Goldberg is a
sociology professor
To the Daily:
This letter is prompted by
a column written by Mr.
Geoff Earle in the Weekend
section on Feb. 17,
concerning student
complaints about Professor
David Goldberg in his course
in Winter term, 1993. I
would like to correct matters
of fact. In his column, Mr.
Earle referred to the course
in question as Statistics 510
and, in this publication and
others, Professor Goldberg
has been identified as a
professor of statistics.
Neither of these is correct.
Professor Goldberg is a
professor of sociology and
the course in question is
Sociology 510. The faculty
in the Department of
Statistics cannot be
accountable for courses
taught in other departments,
which are beyond our
control. I'm sure our
colleagues in the Sociology
Department would agree with
our position - especially if,
for some unfathomable
reason, we were to begin
offering courses in sociology.
ROBB MUIRHEAD
Chair
Department of Statistics

Hello? Is
anybody
out there?
Anybody?
I remember an interview with a
newspaper columnist I saw years
ago. He said that writing an editorial
is like "urinating in a blue serge
suit" because it gives you a warm
feeling all over but nobody notices
it. This analogy is bothimpressively
disgusting and very true. This is my
fourth column, and I am willing to
bet one SnappleĀ® Mango Madness
Cocktail that nobody out there has
read the other three in their
entirety. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's
awfully quiet out there.
I know that this is partly my
fault. My recurring theme has been
'things that have been overlooked'
(note the catchy title). I should have
realized that things are generally
overlooked when people don't give
a damn about them. I also don't
have the spiciest writing style in the
world, though I used the word
"ganked" once, and this week I'm
using lots of contractions.
There are lots of different
directions I can take with this
column. I could stay with the old
highbrow, political theme ("Russia
has taken over Georgia and Belarus
while you were watching Beavis
and Butthead"), but that won't do.
I could try the vaguely droll stuff ("I
think the most beautiful word in
the English language is 'pancreas"'),
but that's not my style. I might start
fishing for controversy ("Abortion
blah blah blah homosexuals blah
blah blah"), but there are enough
letters to the Daily about that stuff
already. Self-indulgent, rambling
criticism is always fun ("The
following things suck: people who
smoke, the MLB stairs, that puddle
in front of the UGLi..."), but I have
a strict word limit.
Then there are the 'humor
columns.' I'm not very funny, but
that never stopped anyone before,
did it? There's 'witty observation'
("Why don't the Lockhorns just get
a divorce? Hee hee bee."),
'classification' ("There are seven
types of roommates...") and the
ever-popular 'absurdity of life'
("Why do all those people trudge to
class, through the snow, just so they
can do the Daily crossword?").
Unfortunately, none of this
works for me. I still have seven
more columns to do, and I would
like to write at least one that spurs
a response. OK, I'll admit it, I'm
jealous of Ken Suguira and Jean
Twenge. Ken makes an off-hand
reference to "Saved by the Bell,"
and a week-long debate about "The
Tori Episodes" ensues. Jean just
does her thing, and people write in
saying they won't read the Daily on
Tuesdays anymore. Now THAT is

cool! But I know I won't get a
response from writing about my
kind of stuff, like Kazakhstan, or
the Olympics, or why we staple on
the left. I know how you people
operate. You see the word
'geopolitics' in the first paragraph
and you turn to page five.
I may get a reply from this week's
column, though. Someone will e-
mail me or write to the Daily and
say "If Kalt wants a response he
should write something that doesn't
SUCK," or some such razor-sharp
witticism. Then someone will reply,
with more unconscious irony,
arguing "Hey, he may suck, but it
isn't worth writing a letter to the
Daily about it."
Oh, who am I fooling. I know
the only one still reading at this
point is my Dad. Hi Pop! He would
write a letter saying I'm OK, but we
have the same last name, so the
more alert letter readers might get
suspicious.
There is really only one thing for
me to do. I'm going to forget about
being popular and just write about

S
S

Health care crisis
Single-payer system is the only panacea

hile President Bill Clinton continues
SVWhis two week barnstorming of the
country -- expressly targeted toward the
elderly - to round up support for his "man-
aged competition" health care reform pack-
age, the developments in Washington are
,disturbing. While the administration did
mnanage to get the endorsement of organized
labor, and a promise that the AFL-CIO will
spend $10 million in supporting the Clinton
proposal (five times more than it spent to
fight the North American Free Trade Agree-
ment), business leaders have resoundingly
rejected the president's plan and the re-
sponse from groups representing the elderly
has been lukewarm.
Worse, a debate has surfaced as to whether
or not a health care crisis even exists in a
country where two million people lose medi-
cal coverage each month and 39 million
people are uninsured at any particular time.
With the debate getting sidetracked, Presi-
dent Clinton must lucidly restate his pro-
posal and focus the nation on the crisis at
hand -- unfortunately, his version of man-
aged competition falls far short of the pana-
cea of health care: a single-payer system.
A single-payer system is the only way to
ensure that "universal coverage" is actually
attained, and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-
Wash.) along with Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-
Minn.) have introduced legislation that
would set up this system. Simplified, a single-
payer system automatically enrolls all legal
residents and citizens in a national health
insurance program established by the fed-
eral government. Financing, under the pro-
posed legislation, would come from in-
creased payroll taxes on employers, a minor
income-tax hike and increases in tobacco,
handgun and ammunition taxes. Tragically,
both the president and most members of
Congress are unwilling to take the political
risk of backing tax increases in order to save
a fledgling health-care system.
Not only would a single-payer plan en-
sure coverage for all, it would dramatically

fact that Medicare and Medicaid, two pro-
grams currently growing out of control and
taking up money that could be used for
discretionary spending, would be elimi-
nated and preventative care would increase,
eliminating the burgeoning cost of emer-
gency treatment on the uninsured. Fur-
thermore, if the government were the sole
insurer administrative costs would signifi-
cantly decrease - consider the fact that
Blue Cross in the state of Massachusetts
employs more health insurance workers than
does the entire single-payer system in
Canada.
Unfortunately, the proposals that have
the most backing on Capital Hill fall far
short of providing universal coverage at an
affordable cost. The president's is the most
comprehensive, as it would force everyone
to acquire a health care plan, however it
places the unfair burden on small busi-
nesses of having to pay at least 80 percent of
their employees' premiums. The notori-
ous Cooper plan, proposed by Rep. Jim
Cooper (D-Tenn.), does not even ensure
coverage for all and proposes to administer
the program through funds taken away
from Medicare and Medicaid - a manner
which may not provide adequate dollars.
Finally, a plan put together by Sen. John
Chafee (R.-R.I.) is almost laughably sim-
plistic - it would require all resident to
buy their own health care plans with subsi-
dies granted to the poor,to be funded by
cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
In short, neither the Cooper or Chafee
plan guarantee universal coverage or pro-
vide realistic revenue raising proposals.
While President Clinton's plan will make
this vital guarantee, its mode of funding
alienates small business and its implemen-
tation calls for more bureaucracy than the
single-payer alternative.- the nation's larg-
est type of employer. Only a single-payer
system, funded by bold and needed tax
increases, will guarantee coverage for all
- reversing the morally abhorrent fact

iTTENTION STUDENTS
"This is your opportunity to
voice your opinions. Are you
upset with the administration?
Do you disagree with us? Are
you happy about anything? If
you have any opinions about
anything whatsoever, write the
Daily. We'll be happy to hear
from you"
-Randy Hardin, Daily Letters Editor
AM 6A

ii

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan