4 - The Michigan Daily -- Thursday,_March 31, 1994 be Lirb igan &ig 'You got it, Virginians, there is a Santa Claus. It's you - and millions of other taxpayers who ... subsidize Californians ... rich enough, lucky enough, or foolish enough to live at water's edge or in the picturesque path of fire." -Columnist Richard Reeves, on emergency federal relief for the rich. 420 Maynard Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan JESSIEHALLADAY Editor in Chief SAM GOODSTEIN 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. I 1:1 1011160d:1:9ITIM I r ravr:r I ra- vs11 1 i Paying to assemble 'U' involves itself in another losing Hash Bash battle - li ~~nNVi *-Ic ./ r i , ;_: U ndaunted by legal concerns, the Univer sity continues to employ petty bureau- cratic requirements in order to impede the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws' (NORML) annual rally for the legalization of marijuana. In the University's perfect world, Hash Bash would no longer exist. Over the past five years, the University's attack on Hash Bash has involved charging user fees and institut- ing the infamous Diag Policy. In addition, NORML's use of the Diag presents such an extreme aggravation to University adminis- trators that they actually take them to court to bar their access. Not once. Or even twice. Four times, and in each case, the same judge has ruled in favor of letting NORML on the Diag. And the battle resumes again this year. One must question the resources and money spent in order to suppress a group that con- venes once a year to air their opinions, and peacefully demonstrate against the criminalization of marijuana. Furthermore, the University has employed outside legal counsel the last two years, spending an outra- geous $65,617 to keep hearing the same ver- dict over and over. The University will argue that they must go to court because it is still an open issue whether or not NORML has to pay clean-up fees. But the fact is, the University's clean-up fee defense is no less spurious than the shady legal claims that have spurred four straight years of courtroom embarrassments. If this was another group with a different political focus, one wonders if the University would put up this much fuss. The University cites the extra costs they must burden as a result of the event as their bone of contention. But when the University decides, as it did last year, to saddle an organization with an unre- alistic $9,400 cover charge to supply services that weren't even asked for, it becomes obvi- ous that the University really has no intention to allow NORML to demonstrate at all. Admittedly, Hash Bash brings people in from all different locales that bring their trash with them, giving the University some basis for their assessment of clean-up charges. Yet the arbitrariness of the assessment causes some concern, echoing last year's fee inclu- sion of police officers that NORML did not request, and were not needed. NORML, like most student groups, has little financial capi- tal - and is now being forced to turn to MSA for support. Thus when the time comes for applying to assemble, or in this case, paying to assemble, the University only needs to bring out the old tab from last year and present it as the preventive roadblock, providing an easy excuse for officials to deny a permit. And don't forget that a group must apply to assemble here on campus, thanks to the Diag Policy. The recent demand that NORML pay its old debts and a deposit before being allowed the demonstration time and space sets a dan- gerous precedent. A group that gathers to rally should not be held responsible for un- provoked damage that is done by individual members of the community. To emphasize and require the payment of past unfaircharges is just another way for the University to place bureaucratic blockades to the freedom of the speech. For a group to demonstrate on the Diag, it shouldn't have to be financially sol- vent. It should merely have the will to exer- cise its constitutional right to peacefully dem- onstrate. Despite these efforts, Hash Bash will go on as it always has - bills paid or not. The University should give up their pointless le- gal fight and devote their attention to more important matters. When the Diag Policy was instituted, administrators argued that it was necessary because demonstrations tend to disturb classes; we wonder which classes will be interrupted on Hash Bash Saturday. - --------------- War column 'suffers In the case of Dr. Pratt... from historical Trials of a tenants' union Michigan Party sacrifices student needs in AATU battle flast night, for the second straight time, an EMSA meeting ended with tempers flar- ing. It was perhaps the last round of the year- long fight between the Michigan Party and the Ann Arbor Tenants' Union (AATU), and the scorecard is in: $11,000 in AATU entitle- ment money is to be moved to MSA's Budget Priorities Committee, where AATU's fund- ing is likely to be slashed. And while AATU Director Pattrice Maurer has filed a suit with the Central Student Judiciary, which can over- turn MSA decisions, and is threatening to file a lawsuit in local courts, the immediate rami- fications of the latest development are clear: one of the most invaluable resources avail- able to students is in jeopardy. The Michigan Party's desire to rid AATU of its entitlement status -and many argue, its desire to eliminate AATU altogether -- has been explicit for a long while. The school year began with much political infighting on the Assembly over the future of AATU. A com- promise seemed to have been reached in late September, when the Assembly passed Pub- lic Health Rep. Meg Whittaker's amendment to put half, or $11,000, of the money it doles out annually to the tenants' union on a contin- gency basis. The amendment gave AATU 180 days to submit a detailed report that would "quantitatively track students' use of AATU" and propose reforms for the future. If the tenants' union turned in the report before the deadline, it would be assured its funding. But, as seems to happen so often at MSA, a simple compromise got mired in bureau- cratic miscommunication. According to the Michigan Party leadership, Maurer turned in the report after the 180-day deadline. There- fore, consistentwith September's amendment, be allotted to any of a number of student groups. If the Committee so desired, the. money could go back to the AATU - most likely, the tenants' union will end up losing around $3,000, but will retain some of the lost money. However, the Michigan Party leadership, in its quest to push AATU and its funding slowly out the back door, misses one major point: Maurer never attempted to stall putting together a report. She turned the report in several days ago, which was ahead of the March 31 deadline she was told existed. She could have easily had the report prepared a week earlier, but she was told by an MSA employee of a March 31 deadline. The reason for all the confusion is simple: after Whittaker's amendment passed, Maurer was never informed by MSA when the 180- day countdown would begin. Whittaker her- self assumed that the countdown would begin at the end of the month, which would mean Maurer had the report in on time. There was miscommunication on both sides, as the amendment never stipulated when the 180- day period would end. For the Michigan Party to seize on this miscommunication to effectively slash AATU's funding, and then claim that it was only following the rules (when MSA rules are relaxed all the time), reveals dubious motives. The Central Student Judiciary must rem- edy this gross violation of power that the Michigan Party exercised. 885 students have had counseling appoints at the tenants' union in the past six months, and many more have benefited from the many other services AATU provides. If the Michigan Party is truly a party that represents students, it will reverse its 'Michigan Review' coverage faulty To the Daily: I am currently embroiled in a major conflict in my department (Pharmacology! Medical School) regarding racism charges. Although this is a most critical issue not only within my Department and the School but also the University, this letter is not to address that issue directly but rather the "coverage" of the issue by two student newspapers, The Michigan Review (Feb. 16) and the Daily (March 15). The article in the Review contained numerous errors and inaccuracies, and more importantly, information that was both confidential and privileged. The inaccuracies could likely be attributed to poor journalism as I would expect the reporters who obtained the information to confirm that information. Personally, I can cite at least two places where the information that the reporter "obtained" from me was not reported accurately. As for the breach of confidentiality, I would place the blame for that not on the reporter, but rather on the source (whomever that might be!). For example, the information regarding my promotion was most certainly not provided by me and whoever did provide it did so without the permission or even consideration that this was confidential. Curiously, this is information that should only be available to selected personnel within the School, particularly the Pharmacology Department. As for the article in the Daily, I found it to be very well done, not only containing correct and appropriate quotes (at least from myself), but also in providing accurate and relevant information regarding the issue. An issue such as this should not be debated, argued or certainly resolved via the media, but rather by the involved individuals through proper procedures. At the same time, the importance of this issue almost "demands" its exposure in the media (e.g. newspaper reporting). However, the nature of this issue also "demands" that this reporting must respect and protect the sensitivities and confidential privileges of the individuals involved. In my opinion, the article in the Daily did this in a most professionaland responsible manner, whereas the Michigan Review article was inaccurate, unprofessional and irresponsible. I hope that this letter will at least let readers of those articles know the perspective of one of the individuals involved. THOMAS D. LANDEFELD Associate Professor of Pharmacology Editorial is unfair To the Daily: Your editorial of March 28, "Provost Interference," suggests that I am involved with a grievance that was made by a research scientist in the Department of Pharmacology. I am not. I want to also point out that the grievance procedures were designed to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. Violating this privacy by discussing these issues outside the grievance proceedings compromises the integrity of the process. I wrote the letter that you referenced in your editorial in response to the concerns of a number of faculty members who had told me that they felt that unsupported allegations of racism had been made against one of their colleagues. As Provost, I felt it important to say that I view accusations of racism against any faculty member, or any individual for that matter, as very serious charges. Charges of racism should either be documented or withdrawn. As SACUA members George Brewer and Thomas Moore wrote in the January 31, 1994 Faculty Perspectives page in the University Record, "If there is evidence of racism ... let's hear the evidence." Personal and reputational harm can result from the mere utterance of such accusations. It is unfair to the individual accused and to our entire academic community not to require substantiation of such accusations. As Provost, it is my responsibility to reaffirm the principles of academic freedom. All faculty, students and staff at this University have the right to carry on their work in an environment where respectful discourse takes place. Civility and respect for human dignity are fundamental values that must be practiced as well as celebrated. As long as I am Provost, I will urge my colleagues to embrace these values whenever I have the opportunity to do so. GILBERT R. WHITAKER, JR Provost for Academic Affairs ignorance' To the Daily: For someone who purports to 'teach', Mr. Bowen reveals how little he has learned. "Since 1975," the U.S. has not been in the Vietnam War. It did not occur in the early '80s nor did it start in 1975 - that is when it ended! Perhaps this does not exhibit a lack of knowledge, just sloppy writing. Unfortunately, the rest of his column, "War: what it is a good for?," suffers from historical ignorance. While war sometimes results from leaders playing power politics, it is not "simply the brainchild of those who love money and power more than they do humanity." War is not simple. Often, it arises because of complex, intractable passions. Various Middle Eastern wars have stemmed from ancient, irreconcilable differences. Moreover, people should not be excused as victims of corrupt leadership as they may consciously elect belligerency. Hitler was not solely responsible for World War I - he was supported and assisted by an entire German nation. Mr. Bowen has not considered the public support that has accompanied many wars; rather he summarily dismissed war as unnecessary. A government's belligerency is unrepresentative because "governments are never by, of, or for the people?" How do you explain the Russian armed resistance to Napoleanic France or the U.S. response to Pearl Harbor? Such ethnocentric actors probably would not qualify for Mr. Bowen's allowance of war by "the oppressed." As barbaric as war is, even whites may reasonably resort to it for self- preservation. Future generations would be protected from suffering the aftermath of defeat by those enduring the hardships of war. This is called humanitarianism. Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Bowen, I forgot - "There has never been anything humanitarian about war." Mr. Bowen does make some valid points. Disproportionate socioeconomic burden, political propaganda, and catastrophic consequences should deter people from accepting wars. When he implies that these are all the results of a conspiracy between big business and the government to oppress minorities, his points go from wise to absurd. Rather than Pollution of evolution We are killing ourworld. Plant and animal species are either endangered or extinct. Pollution is everywhere. Destruction ofthe world's natural landmarks continues at an ever increasing rate. We live on a beautiful planet graced with a variety of natural landscapes and a host of different speciesof life. To destroy themis idiotic at the very least. We've all heard cutesy sayings about stopping to smell the roses, listening to the insects and feeling the morning dew - you know, communing with nature and all. Personally, I'm not too keen on the idea of becoming one with rodents and ferns. Needless to say, I don't want this column to sound cutesy. Regardless, even cutesy sayings have their points. The simple beauty of a lightning bug, a baby's smile or a leaf in the fall attest to the vast beauty within our world,a beauty which must bepreserved. (I really hope this doesn't sound cutesy.) What little interest I've ever had in nature and forests and all that Mother Earth stuff was rekindled when I attended the Ann Arbor Pow Wow festival last weekend. (And I am sure many of you will gain an interest in nature and natural things this weekend at the Hash Bash.) To see the traditional garb worn by the Native American dancers, to learn how the attire represents a oneness with nature and to see and hear Native Americans making bird sounds that were so realistic that I thought I was listening to a CD entitled something like "The Birds and You," is to understand fully the idea of "natural beauty." The crippling of our world is saddening, but from the mindless destruction of what God created (orwhat atoms collided and made or whatever you believe brought the world into existence-except for you philosophy majors who think that existence is a figment of our imagination and that we are all just "brains in a vat," but I digress) also sprouts perhaps the greatest beauty of the human species: we care. Of course, some of us don't. They either actively participate in the erosion of our world and it's denizens or simply ignore the blatant harmful results of such devastation. But, many do care. From such love and concern comes everything from an additional recycling bin on a college campus to the establishment of major environmental organizations. When I see people volunteer their time on behalf of the issues which concern them, I am reminded that for all the apathy and cruelty out there, goodness still lies within the heart of mankind. Best of all, in seeing people who work towards the goal of giving our handicapped land a fighting chance for survival, I am able to feel that perhaps one day such hard work will pay off. In honorofthose who dedicate themselves to the preservation of our world in all its natural splendor, I would like to present the following Native American prayer. I needn't describe it; it speaks for itself, Mother, Father, God, Universal Power. Remind us daily of the sanctity of all life. Touch our hearts with the glorious oneness of all creation, As we strive to respect all the living beings on this planet. 01 0 101 I