4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, April 4, 1994
1w Sidigtn &ilg
420 Maynard
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Edited and managed
by students at the
University of Michigan
JESSIE HALLADAY
Editor in Chief
SAM GOODSEIN
FLINTWAINESS
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 campus Cold War
The administration must reconcile with SACUA, faculty
'(University officials) have a policy that says, "Keep off the
grass." We have a policy that says, "Smoke the grass."'
-Adam Brook, spokesperson for the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws (NORML), at the Hash Bash on Saturday.
M~1
' W~\E 'LA L GEET Tro TI
1 8OT TorA OF - I'.,
y I
When the new Senate Advisory Commit-
tee on University Affairs (SACUA)
members begin their terms on May 1, they
will walk into the middle of a "Cold War"
with the administration.
This breakdown of communication between
the two major camps in the University threat-
ens to severely undermine the quality of stu-
dents' education. The administration must
work to reopen lines of communication with
the faculty and to promote mutual respect
between the two groups. Failure to do this
may result in the loss of many talented faculty
members.
Recently, expediency and profit have be-
come prime motivators for the administration's
decision-making, and quality education often
gets lost in the shuffle. The administration's
corporate attitude may bring large amounts of
money into the University, but that money
will be useless if the best faculty members are
lost - a wholly real possibility if current
policies continue. In the past, the administra-
tion has made unilateral decisions on issues
such as flexible benefits- a proposed change
in the health care plan and other benefits for
University faculty and staff-without regard
for valid faculty concerns. This type of top-
down attitude must end.
SACUA, next term, will face many diffi-
cult issues relating to the administration and
the quality of the education at the University.
One of the most important of these is a push
for reform of the grievance process. The cur-
rent grievance process has received criticism
from many faculty members. The current
situation in the Pharmacology department
highlights the problem-- accusers often feel
as if their complaints are being brushed over,
while the accused often are denied fair hear-
ings. In order to prevent such problems, mem-
bers of the faculty deserve a grievance pro-
cess that they can expect to fairly address
their concerns. This includes allowing the
appeals of grievance proceedings to be heard
not by an administrator, but by a jury of the
complainant's peers.
There are also concerns about the role of
professors. Growing numbers of faculty mem-
bers have been herded into positions such as
lecturers that do not put them on the track to
tenure. Furthermore, studies have shown that
the number of women and minorities is grow-
ing faster in these unsecured positions than in
those providing tenure. Although these posi-
tions cost the University less than tenured
professors, they discourage faculty from com-
ing to the University, and provide little incen-
tive for people already in these positions to
stay.
Communication and respect are essential
to a good relationship between the University
administration and its faculty. If neither of
these are present, the University becomes a
very unattractive place for faculty, and both
retention and recruitment of good faculty will
suffer. In the end, this can only hurt the
quality of research - and, even more impor-
tant, the education of students - at the Uni-
versity.
A welfare reform proposal
W ith President Clinton's emphasis on the
"reform of welfare as we know it"
receiving more and more attention in the
media, a recently released study by the Cen-
sus Bureau lends even more urgency to the
issue. Statistics from the study reveal a 50
percent increase over the last 13 years in the
number of Americans working full time, but
still earning less than the poverty level for a
family of four-about $13,000 a year. These
disturbing conclusions emphasize the need
for major change in the government's social
agenda - a need for a program akin to
Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" of the
1960s. It is necessary to make the eventual
goal of any welfare reform package that of
enabling all wage earners in the United States
to earn enough to support themselves and
their families.
The problem with the current situation is
that real wage income (the amount of money
left after basic expenses such as food and
taxes have been met) has been falling. As this
country turns from an industrial economy to a
service economy, the days of successfully
sustaining oneself with a simple factory job
are slowly fading away. Today's employers
are looking for applicants that have advanced
skills, most notably computer literacy. Many
workers simply don't have the tools that the
new economy is looking for. And while the
Reagan/Bush administrations made much of
the overall growth in jobs during their tenure,
most of that growth was in minimum wage
jobs - whose wages are insufficient for,
supporting oneself in today's economy.
Welfare, in its current state, is not equipped
to deal with this problem. One of the biggest
pitfalls of welfare is that a person is either
"on" or "off" - there is no middle ground.
Once a person takes a job -- no matter how
little that job pays - his or her benefits stop.
Since welfare pays more than many jobs,
there is little incentive to earn a paycheck that
pays less than welfare benefits. Furthermore,
many people on welfare don't have the skills
necessary to land a job that pays more than
method of dependency, must become a
method of empowerment. First, full benefits
should continue to be extended to those who
cannot find work or are between jobs. Sec-
ond, job training programs to help those with-
out necessary skills are absolutely necessary.
Finally, those that do find work which does
not meet basic income standards should still
be covered by some welfare subsidies. One
way to do this is to significantly expand the
scope of the Earned Income Tax Credit many
low wage earners already receive. As the
recipient earns more, the amount of the sub-
sidy would proportionally decrease, until that
person is capable of sustaining himself or
herself at a reasonable standard of living.
Incentives for making people take advan-
tage of these programs and not becoming
chronically dependent are also an important
part of any new policy. Time limits on ben-
efits, which the Clinton administration is
proposing, are one way of dealing with the
problem, but this alternative raises grave con-
cerns. Dependent individuals should beforced
to look for a job, but if one is not available, it
is crucial that either benefits not be taken
away or that a public sector job be provided.
The question now remains how these re-
forms will be funded. Raising taxes is not a
politically viable way to fund this new policy.
Moreover, new tax increases would likely hit
the middle class hardest, lowering the pre-
carious line between self-sufficiency and
poverty on which many families already bal-
ance. Instead, Medicare and Social Security
should be means tested, and the deluge of
money that ensued could be used to provide
a minimum standard of living for all people.
As of now, income is not a determinant in
who receives these benefits. If an income cap
is put on these services - the rich obviously
don't need no-questions-asked help paying
their bills - and that money is funneled
toward this social awakening, much of the
cost would be covered.
Granted, these programs are never as
simple as we would like. However, the status
Cathy's negative
portrayal of women is
offensive
To the Daly:
I would like to elaborate
on Gavin Barbor's letter
printed in the March 30
edition of the Daily. As a
fellow graduating senior, I too
am disappointed with the
decision to have Cathy
Guisewite as our
commencement speaker.
However, I must argue that
Cathy's work does indeed
offer something to students.
Here we have a prime
example of someone who
makes her living by
perpetuating female and male
stereotypes. Cathy portrays
women as compulsive,
chocolate-craving, make-up
wearing, dieting, obsessing
neurotics. As a woman of the
class of '94,I am offended by
the choice of Cathy as our
commencement speaker. If
women are to be taken
seriously, then most certainly
we must not look to Cathy as
a role model.
KATHRYN MILLER
LSA senior
'New Diag flag is a
spinetigling addition'
To the Daily:
If John Phillip Sousa were
still around, he would have
cause this week to strike up
the band on the Diag. A few
days ago, a U.S. flag was
unfurled from our 120-foot
staff there, replacing a
bleached, tattered banner that
looked as if it had seen action
in the Battle of Bunker Hill.
The old rag couldn't even
keep it up, sagging several
yards away from full mast.
The new Old Glory is every
inch a proud thing. Its stars
and stripes shimmer, and
command skyward glances
even from bleary-eyed
zombies off to an 8 a.m. class.
On a campus where
Lincoln's and Washington's
birthdays pass without notice;
where patriotism is not only
un-P.C. but uncool, and
divisiveness has reached an
art form, it is peculiar comfort
that above the fray ripples a
Simonized tapestry of
nationhood.
Meanwhile, flagpoles
elsewhere on campus are
neglected. In front of the
League and inside the Law
Quad no one is designated to
consistently hoist any flag.
More often than not, the masts
stand naked, in need of new
paint and halyards. Could
they not follow the example
of North hall, at which the
appointment of a Color Guard
Abortion legislation has
'patient's best interest
at heart'
To the Daily:
Regarding your editorial
on the new legislation in
Pennsylvania, "Abortion
Legislation" (3/23/94), I have
several points to bring up
supporting the laws recently
enacted.
Your editorial complains
about the three new aspects of
the law unfairly requiring
women to be given a 10-
minute consultation on
abortion, wait 24 hours before
going through with the
abortion and have parental
consent for those under 18.
Let me start by saying this has
little to do with one's stance
on the abortion issue as a
whole - that is another topic.
What is being debated here is
the topic of the procedure
itself. Whatever you may
want the public to believe,
abortion is a major medical
procedure. Yes, many women
know the advantages and
dangers of an abortion, but
many do not. It is of utmost
importance that the clinician
be sure the patient knows the
risks of the procedure, which
do exist. Depending on how
you view it, there could be a
human life at stake - many
women don't even consider
that possibility until
consultation. Therefore, a 24-
hour waiting period would
give a chance for the woman
to think about it; if she
decides it's not a human life
and she still doesn't want it,
fine, she has the abortion. But,
if in her mind she decides that
she wants to keep the baby
after hearing an unbiased
Kudos to the movie
commentators
To the Daily:
I'd like to commend
Michael Thompson and Jason
Carroll for their humorous,
yet informative descriptions
of each event in the Daily's
Weekend List. Their pithy
commentaries contain some
of the best one-liners I've
seen in print. Keep up the
good work.
MARK SCHLUT
Rackham Graduate Student
A warm thanks to our
fans ,,,
To the Daily:
On behalf of the Women's
Basketball team I would like
to express our sincere thanks
to those few diehard
supporters that have helped us
through a very rough season.
This includes our outrageous
pep band and devoted
view, she still has that option;
abortions aren't reversible and
if she decides she wanted the
baby after the procedure,it's
too late for her to make that
educated choice. Many
women can, in fact, become
extremely distressed after
hearing the news of an
unwanted pregnancy and will
make a hasty decision to
terminate pregnancy before
calmly considering the
options; this isn't to say that
these women are stupid, just
very frightened and shook-up,
conditions which can impair
anyone's judgement. What's
the harm in waiting a few
hours to think about it (besides
the trivial excuses your
editorial mentions)?
As far as minors having
abortions without parental
consent, in most cases not
telling the parents would most
likely cause more distress later
down the line from all those
years of hiding a "secret".
Regardless of that, a minor
can't even get stitches without
a parent's consent. Abortion is
by far a much more dangerous
procedure, and in this day and
age, doctors get sued for doing
even the most minor things
not consented to by a parent.
Though even at 16 it is her
body, she still isn't at the
maturity level that is
necessary when making such
a major decision; she can't
even get her ears pierced
without her parent's
permission. The point is,
whether you agree with
abortion or not, these laws are
in place for a reason and are,
at the least, merely an attempt
to have the patient's best
interest at heart.,
BILL MALONE
LSA sophomore
your sunglasses. This season
was very hard to endure and
the team does not look
forward to having a repeat of
this year. Another great
recruiting class and a year's
experience coupled with the
same hard work and intensity
shown this year will make for
a promising 1994-95 season.
Although not all the press
we received from the Daily
sports staff was positive, we
were adequately covered. We
realize that there were a lot of
people pulling for us and we
would like to acknowledge
them. Hopefully, next year
there will be better things to
write about.
We never asked for
anyone's sympathy -just
support. We hope we have
gained new fans to go along
with our established following
as we start our climb to the top
of the Big 10.
Once again, we thank you
for helping to make our
season more pleasant.
and 'U'
At the University of Michigan,
learning takes place in grand
buildings like Angell Hall and the
Law school. Administration is done
in places like the LS&A Building,
the ugliest structure on campus.
I'm not suggesting that the
administration would be perfect if
it worked in a Gothic cathedral, but
ever since orientation the
hideousness of the LS&A Building
has stuck in my mind as a symbol
of the administration.
I don't want to get to carried
away here. Nothing the
administration has ever done
compares to the ugliness of the
LS&A Building. Running a large
university is no picnic, and for the
most part the University is run
effectively (if not efficiently). But
I get the feeling that the
administration would be much
happier if there were no students
here. Then it wouldn't have to
release the presidential search
papers or worry about asbestos in
classrooms or pretend not to notice
when students publicly object to
the firing of the Housing director.
The bureaucracy, like many of its
kind, is a self-perpetuating, self-
interested amorphous mass that
cares not one whit about the people
it is supposed to be serving. It needs
to be reformed.
The central fact of life at the
University is that we have to fight
to get the resources and attention
that is lavished upon students at
smaller universities. Personally, I
like that kind of environment,
because it gets us prepared for the
real world, but it is not as if some
administrator said one day, "Hey! I
have an idea: let's make it really
inconvenient to CRISP and get
Entree Plus! Then our students will
have realistic expectations of
modern society!" Quite simply,
there are no incentives for anyone
in the bureaucracy to go out of their
way to be helpful to students, so
they rarely do.
To take just one example, I was
caught in an administrative Catch-
22 a few weeks ago. I called the
relevant person in the University
bureaucracy and explained my
situation. "The rules are clear," she
told me, "there's nothing I can do
for you." Her first statement was
true, but while the rules were clear,
they were also clearly wrong. Her
second statement was false: she
had the power and the authority to
help me, but she didn't have the Z_
will. She was just cheerlessly
fulfilling her minimum
requirements, and she didn't care
any more about my problem than
the guy at McDonald's cares
whether or not you "want fries with
that." I don't give up that easily, so
I decided to e-mail President
Duderstadt with my complaint. The
Dude (or whoever answers his e-
mail) delegated my case to a
subordinate, and in a couple of days,
the situation was resolved.
While I was happy that I got my
problem settled, it bothered me that
I had to make a federal case out of
it to do so. Like all bureaucrats, the
ones here tend to hide behind the
security of rules and regulations. It
is easier to follow a rule literally
than it is to care about the people it
affects. If I may digress, I think that
this one of the biggest problems
facing the world today. Every great
crime or social problem in the
twentieth century, has had a
bureaucracy either executing it with
silent detachment (like the
Holocaust) or pretending not to see
it because "the rules" don't address
the issue (like homelessness).
Duderstadt concentrates mostly
on fundraising and his "Mandates,"
which are, to be sure, important
things. But it is crucial for the Dude
to take a look at "re-inventing" the
University bureaucracy, making it
more responsive to student needs.
Sadly, the best we can hope for is
for the President to hire some more
bureaucrats to sit around and make
useless recommendations ("make